Atheistforums.com

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Topic started by: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM

Title: A Few Questions
Post by: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
Hello all,

My name is Zach, or SB Leader as my gaming name goes. This is not my first time on this forum as I interacted for a short stint during a research project for my undergraduate work in 2014. Now, in my graduate studies, I have returned with a few non-threatening questions for a project I am compiling for an Apologetics course (They are actually much the same questions as before!). My goal is, as Francis of Assisi once said, "not so much to be understood as to understand." I will interact as much as possible, but please forgive me for inevitably missing a few things.

Short bio: I am what you may call a "Christian" though that means quite a variety of things these days. A Christ follower may be a clearer signifier. I live in the very cold state of Minnesota and have worked in the financial industry for the past few years. But now, seeking a return to ministry, I am continuing my education seeking an M.Div. Please ask me anything else you'd like to know; I am excited to hear your stories!

Answer in as much or as little detail as you'd like. Here are my questions (Forgive the sometimes awkward wording! I understand that I may find members of this community who are not completely atheist and they are meant to be worded as generally as possible):

1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God. Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?

3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.

4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?

5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?

Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: hrdlr110 on January 04, 2018, 07:52:03 PM
#4 seriously dude?
#5 that they don't pay taxes. If they paid taxes I might see some benefit.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Unbeliever on January 04, 2018, 08:16:35 PM
Hello, I will answer, but keep in mind that my answers are very concise and not meant to be taken as the whole story of my feelings on these questions.


Quote1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

In a nut-shell:

Accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior when I was about 14, was on fire for God for some years, had many questions that were never answered by those who should've been able to answer them, read the whole Bible cover to cover, and studied it, and realized it couldn't possibly have been written by any God such as was described therein, and that the God of the Bible was a monstrous, horrific thing. Stopped believing in the Christian world-view and began searching for God in other religions - did not find any. Became an atheist when I realized that the whole concept of a theistic God is illogical and inconsistent.

Quote2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God. Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?
I don't believe in God, so, what is important in life is the creation of personal meaning and purpose - not accepting any such imposed on me from outside myself.


Quote3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.
Jesus is the fictional continuation of sun-worship as described by astro-theology (http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/astrotheology.html).

Quote4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?
We each define good and bad for ourselves, usually based on how we were raised by our parents/community. One person's good can be another person's evil, just as the killing and eating of a deer by a wolf is good for the wolf but bad for the deer. My own notion of good is that which leads to long-term survival of Earth's biosphere and it's human elements.

Quote5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?
The most significant issue? It's a false belief which can, and often does, lead to harm for individuals and society.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Hydra009 on January 04, 2018, 08:27:02 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?
Methodist, nearly weekly church attendance as a child that declined significantly in my teens to seldom as a young adult.

Quote2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God.
I couldn't say.  It seems to be a strangely nebulous concept.  Fervent religious people have difficulty with that question, let alone people who don't often dwell on religious matters.

QuoteOr if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?
It depends on the person.  There's no single right answer, imo.  But if you ask people what sort of society they'd like to live in, you get a lot of similar answers: peaceful, prosperous, happy, egalitarian, and as free as possible without damaging that peace and happiness.  It's simply a matter of taking enough baby steps in right direction to get there or a close approximation of it.

Quote3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.
From what I've heard and read, he's a great many things and many of them are contradictory.  If I had to go with something, it'd be a charismatic preacher who tried to rework jewish religious tradition into a passionate, personal religious way of life.  Like most new religious movements, it didn't work out so well in the short term.  Unlike most new religious movements, it had strong long-term staying power.

Quote4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?
Bad = malicious harm.

And it's usually decided by societies reaching a tentative consensus about what behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable (ostensibly based on harm) which of course changes over time.  And despite claims that their morality descended from the heavens, religious morality ultimately stems from collective human judgments as well.

Quote5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?
N/A
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: GSOgymrat on January 04, 2018, 08:51:01 PM
1)   I attended a Methodist church until I was sixteen when my parents gave me permission not to attend. My family attended church to conform to social norms and because my mother insisted. She was the only one who believed.

2)   People define God differently but I don’t believe in God as described in the Bible. What is important in life is probably a little different for each person. Everyone has their own story although there are common themes.

3)   Jesus Christ is a person whose followers believe was the son of God. To me, he is some combination of man and myth. He is considered sacred to the majority of people in my community so I tend not to talk about him.

4)   Good and bad are assessments people give to actions based on the suffering of oneself and others. We predict which actions will be good or bad based on experience and we determine the degree to how good or bad an action was after the fact. Even after the fact, people don't always come to the same conclusion.

5)   I think the biggest problem with Christianity is it is dogmatic. The most significant benefit of Christianity is it psychologically and socially encourages believers to be pro-social-- most of the time.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2018, 08:51:12 PM
 
1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

As a child went to Christ of Christ and Baptist church while living in Alabama.  Never really bought into either church nor really understood much of either.

2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God. Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?

God is a fable/myth/fiction invented by man to control his fellow man. Organized religion is the bane of civilization and we, as a species, would be better off without it.
What is important in life is subjective on the individual level.  It is usually determined by whatever society one lives in.  Our rules of conduct are determined by our society and evolves as a mechanism for our society and species.  Individuals chose what to think/believe according to what works for them. 

3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.

Jesus Christ is a fiction--Jesus, the man, never existed (Many Jesus' existed then and now; a very popular name); Jesus and Joshua are both the same name and translate to something like 'savior'.  This Jesus Christ you asked about most likely came from the Jewish yearning for a Joshua (Joshua at the battle of Jericho--Moses led the 'people' out of Egypt and into the desert toward the promised land, but never got there--Joshua lead them into that land) savior; to save them from the Romans.  Christ is simply a name of a title bestowed upon many leader and kings of the Jewish people.  So, you see, Jesus Christ was crafted out of myth, legend and stories of the Jewish past to help some religious leaders control the masses.  There is no evidence outside the bible that he existed.  And the bible has so many versions that it is suspect at best; the bible was crafted to reflect the political/religious views of the people writing whatever part of the bible you are referring to.

4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?

Society defines what is good and bad.  We know because whatever society we live in tells us.  In the US, the law of the land is what tells us what is good and bad.  On an individual level, it is a subjective decision on that individuals part.

5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?

The issue with the Christian church are many and varied.  What is the church?  Methodist; Catholic; Baptist (and its 10,000 sects), Mormon; Jehovah Witness--well, you get the picture.  There is no 'the Christian Church'--they argue and disagree with everything.  The Christian Religion has no agreed upon set of morals, ethics, values or code of conduct.  For example, 80% of Christian Fundamentalists in Alabama, voted for Moore, who was highly suspected of being a child molester of long standing.  What morals does that reflect?  What ethic?



Those answers are short and very, very incomplete.  I will remark that I think your work in the world of business will make you very prepared for the ministry.  Why?  Because you know how to lie, cheat and steal all in the name of a legal entity; now you will learn how to do it in the world of religion.  You should be very successful, for most of your flock will be basically brainwashed and more than willing to follow whatever you tell them; you can continue what organized religion has done since the very beginning; deceive, and drain the talent, treasures and time (what Unity calls the 4T's)  from your followers.  Despite what I just wrote, I am willing to discuss with you any and all that I stated. 
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2018, 09:02:39 PM
To add to #1.
From high school on, I became a seeker of the truth of christianity and Jesus.  I was curious and wanted to figure out if god was real or not.  I went to various churches in spurts, but not for long in any one in particular.  I read books on the subject of god and took a couple of religious courses in college.  When I reached my mid 40's I decided to make a concerted effort to figure this out.  I settled on joining the Unity Church in my town.  I liked the people and the philosophy of both the founders, Charles and Myrtle Fillmore.  I was a member for about 10 yrs, was board president for a year and on the board for about 4 yrs.  I ran the sound system during services and was the head greater, as well.  I taught several classes while I was a member as well.  In other words, I was involved and was actively seeking to come to some sort of relationship with the 'christian' god.  I prayed, lived as well as I could the basic tenets of Unity. I gave it a real shot--at least, I think I did.  I read the bible from cover to cover and a myriad of texts and books dealing with the bible (both liberal and conservative in view; both for and against the existence of god), Jesus and what Unity considered the christian way of living. 

My conclusions?  There is no god and it is all a fiction, as I stated before.  That is what I think and it is based on what I consider sound fundamental empirical evidence.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Luther Martini on January 04, 2018, 09:09:11 PM
1.  I was born into a family consisting of people who were Southern Baptist.  As a child I was forced to attend sunday school and church services.  The concepts of deity, original sin, virgin birth, resurrection, in-errancy of the scriptures, etc, were too illogical to me to believe, therefore I never bought into the religion.  Although I was not a believer, I pretended to be converted when I was a teen so that my parents would no longer be embarrassed by my presence, and would stop bothering me with their Christian bullshit.  After I grew a little older, and moved out of their house, I confirmed their suspicion to them that my conversion had been merely an act for their benefit.  ( I suppose that it was a milder form of the same mindset of Muslims or Jews during the inquisition who affected an outward conversion to christianity in order to avoid being killed.)

2.  I do not believe in a god(s).  I value good health, happiness, and safety for my family and myself.  I strive to treat others with honesty, dignity, and respect in order to promote harmony in my community. 

3.  In that Christian mythology is imbedded in the cultural psyche of western civilization, and that Jesus of Nazareth is the main protagonist in the Christian myth, his character is a cultural icon in our society.

4.  In order to get a sense of my basic values, you can re-read my answer to question 2.

5.  The Christian church has throughout history been an organization of oppression, and continues to be used an excuse for people to band together in order to try to impose their beliefs on others and to intimidate, subjugate, castigate or in some way punish those who do not share in their beliefs. 
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 09:46:04 PM
Thank you all!

Quote from: Unbeliever on January 04, 2018, 08:16:35 PM
Hello, I will answer, but keep in mind that my answers are very concise and not meant to be taken as the whole story of my feelings on these questions.
Unbeliever, I completely understand. Even if we had the space of a full book we couldn't fit even a quarter of the entirety of one story from anyone on this thread. Thanks for doing your best. I enjoyed reading your answers. May I ask when you stopped believing in the Christian worldview? What was a question that you struggled with, if you do not mind me asking?

QuoteWe each define good and bad for ourselves, usually based on how we were raised by our parents/community. One person's good can be another person's evil, just as the killing and eating of a deer by a wolf is good for the wolf but bad for the deer. My own notion of good is that which leads to long-term survival of Earth's biosphere and it's human elements.
I think that's a pretty sensible description, particularly in regards to your own notion. I would agree that of those objectives are noble efforts!

Quote from: Hydra009 on January 04, 2018, 08:27:02 PM
I couldn't say.  It seems to be a strangely nebulous concept.  Fervent religious people have difficulty with that question, let alone people who don't often dwell on religious matters.
Hydra, thank you. I think your answer here is pretty accurate. My first time interacting with this group, a member asked me "what is a god?" and it was a question that I needed to take some time to develop an answer for--and it was just a sketch, really. For the God I believe in, I would list attributes and aspects of his nature, but a general question is challenging.
You mention that people would generally give pretty similar answers to what qualities they consider good: I agree and don't find it to be a coincidence! One clarifying question, if I may:
QuoteAnd despite claims that their morality descended from the heavens, religious morality ultimately stems from collective human judgments as well.
Is there an example or two that you would think of in regards to this?

GSOgymrat, thanks for your answers. You mention that people have common themes in what they determine to be important. I completely agree!
Quote
5)   I think the biggest problem with Christianity is it is dogmatic. The most significant benefit of Christianity is it psychologically and socially encourages believers to be pro-social-- most of the time.
These hit deep for me. I think dogma is so often how the American church is portrayed (And portrays itself!). That doesn't really mesh with the message of Christ (Though there are definite lines drawn in his teaching as well). Your benefit is a really unique one that I haven't heard in this context before. I have really found that to be the case at my church, that is does encourage meaningful outreach, and I am glad that it is not wholly missed nationally.

Mike, I appreciate your in depth story of your belief journey. It sounds like you reviewed a lot of material in your search and that you didn't make your decision blindly. I do, however, question where you say that Jesus Christ is fiction. It seems that the general consensus in the academic community is that a man named Jesus did exist (based off of secular, sacred, and syncretic literary sources). Josephus and Tacitus refer to him explicitly in their histories. Could you possibly expand on your comments?

Quote
Those answers are short and very, very incomplete.  I will remark that I think your work in the world of business will make you very prepared for the ministry.  Why?  Because you know how to lie, cheat and steal all in the name of a legal entity; now you will learn how to do it in the world of religion.  You should be very successful, for most of your flock will be basically brainwashed and more than willing to follow whatever you tell them; you can continue what organized religion has done since the very beginning; deceive, and drain the talent, treasures and time (what Unity calls the 4T's)  from your followers.  Despite what I just wrote, I am willing to discuss with you any and all that I stated. 
Man, I endeavor to make sure that is not the case. There is nothing more evil then to twist the truth when you know it (Or perhaps even when you claim to know it!). At my future church, it is my goal to help answer the tough questions--the questions that a few of you have mentioned that your church was not willing to answer. I want to include secular literature in my church's library: I want to look for truth wherever it may be found. And I want to wrestle with the tough questions. If my church does not serve others physically, emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually, then we are not fulfilling our role. I apologize that your experience has been so different from that!

Luther, thank you. I find it a somewhat recurring theme that teenage into young adult stage is where there seems to be a disconnect of sorts. Maybe it is the time when parental influence lessens, but I find it curious to hear it a few times.

This may be the only time I am able to respond so in depth, but I will endeavor to continue to interact as much as I am able.


Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 09:49:41 PM
Quote from: hrdlr110 on January 04, 2018, 07:52:03 PM
#4 seriously dude?
#5 that they don't pay taxes. If they paid taxes I might see some benefit.
Sorry I couldn't get that question to jibe with you. I'd love to hear your considerations on it though--even if you wish to avoid the others!

The church pays in some nations--just not in America. Are those churches doing it right? :)
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2018, 10:58:37 PM
SB, you said:
"Man, I endeavor to make sure that is not the case. There is nothing more evil then to twist the truth when you know it (Or perhaps even when you claim to know it!). At my future church, it is my goal to help answer the tough questions--the questions that a few of you have mentioned that your church was not willing to answer. I want to include secular literature in my church's library: I want to look for truth wherever it may be found. And I want to wrestle with the tough questions. If my church does not serve others physically, emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually, then we are not fulfilling our role. I apologize that your experience has been so different from that!"

Why are you apologizing?  You had nothing to do with it.  I did not rely on any one person or source to make my own decisions.  I sought in all ways that I could.  And I came to realize that there is no 'truth'  to find; not in the empirical sense.  Be careful with the intellectual part of your service.  If you are honest with that, you may find that you come to the same conclusions as I and others have.   
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2018, 11:14:12 PM
SB, I'd like to refer you to a thread "Jesus--Fact or Fiction?" where that question is addressed.  Richard Carrier has written a book that deals with that question.  Here is the first entry of that thread:

"Richard Carrier published a book a couple of years ago titled: On the Historicity of Jesus (Why we Might Have Reason for Doubt).  I read it when it was published and found it fascinating.  However, it is a long book (almost 700 pages) and very heavily footnoted--which I like.  Early on he established what is factually known about Christianity and Jesus broken down into units or elements of data.  There are 48 elements and each one is a statement of fact or knowledge that has been established and accepted as fact.  These may be disputed, but he indicates only by the most fanatical, but is generally accepted as established among most scholars.  So, I thought I'd list all these elements, one at a time and see if anyone has feedback about these elements. 

So, without much surprise, I'll start the listing with Element 1:

The earliest form of Christianity definitely known to us originated as a Jewish sect in the region of Syria-Palestine in the early first century CE. "

I fear that the vast majority of the experts and scholars you refer to have a vested interest in maintaining the Christian fraud.  The Quest for the Historical Jesus, is fairly new only gaining steam within the last 200 years.  Atheists and their views have not been tolerated until only recently; and even now, atheism is seen in a very negative way.  So, to intimate that history is on your side is a bit disingenuous. Your side have over 2000 years of arguments--my side only a couple of hundred or so.  Carrier, Daugherty and Robert M. Price would like to  differ with your take on the subject.    Read Carrier--it will be a very, very hard thing for you to do, for he does offer documented (with footnotes galore for you to follow up on) arguments for his point of view.  And google "The Quest for the Historical Jesus' and it will give you a brief history of that type of research. 

I will cover Josephus and Tacitus later.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2018, 11:28:25 PM
SB--Tacitus--this is from one site:

Tacitus (ca. 56 â€" ca. 117)

Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as Rome's greatest historian. His two surviving works: Annals and The Histories form a near continuous narrative from the death of Augustus in 14 CE to the death of Domitian in 96.

Interestingly, I cannot report on the silence of Tacitus concerning Jesus, because the very years of the purported existence of Jesus 30, 31, are suspiciously missing from his work(!)

Richard Carrier writes:

"...we are enormously lucky to have Tacitus--only two unrelated Christian monasteries had any interest in preserving his Annals, for example, and neither of them preserved the whole thing, but each less than half of it, and by shear luck alone, they each preserved a different half. And yet we still have large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31), which is probably the deliberate excision of Christian scribes who were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus or Gospel events in those years (the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred). There is otherwise no known explanation for why those three years were removed. The other large gap is the material between the two halves that neither institution preserved. And yet another is the end of the second half, which scribes also chose not to preserve (or lost through negligent care of the manuscript, etc.)."

Ironically, Christians often cite Tacitus as historical evidence for Jesus.

This is the passage cited:

But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)

However, there are serious problems with using this passage as independent corroboration of Jesus:

Jeffery Jay Lowder states:

"There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices..."

It is not just 'Christ-mythicists' who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 "cannot carry alone the weight of the role of 'independent testimony' with which it has often been invested." E.P. Sanders notes, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."
- Jeffery Jay Lowder, "Evidence" for Jesus, Is It Reliable?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

So it may simply be that Tacitus was relying on oral tradition, and not on any historical research for his reference to Jesus. Tacitus himself tells us about the vlaue of such traditions:

"...everything gets exaggerated is typical for any story" and "all the greatest events are obscure--while some people accept whatever they hear as beyond doubt, others twist the truth into its opposite, and both errors grow over subsequent generations" (Annals 3.44 & 3.19). (Cited via Carrier's article)

As weak as the Tacitus claim is, it remains a possibility that even this weak bit of apparent corroboration is a later interpolation. The problems with this claim are examined here:

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?p=38864&sid=eae887916e8679c9cd9fd7af5fc065e5#38864

Some of these problems are summarized by Gordon Stein:

"While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing."

Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2018, 11:30:17 PM
SB, another challenge for you, added to the reading of Carrier's book.  Give me a list of ANY contemporary (of your Jesus) historian who wrote about him or his deeds.   
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on January 04, 2018, 11:35:21 PM
SB--here is Josephus:  Sorry this is a long post, but the nature of studying Josephus makes this almost impossible not to get to this length:

The Josephus Testimonium: Let’s Just Admit It’s Fake Already

BY RICHARD CARRIER ON MAY 4, 201529 COMMENTS

Stylized and modern iconographic drawing of a bust of Joephus, essentially imaginary.A new article just beats this dead horse deader still. Hat tip to Vridar and Peter Kirby. Honestly. The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get. Short of uncovering a pre-Eusebian manuscript, which is not going to happen. All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost.

The new article is by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob, eds., Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers (2014: de Gruyter), pp. 147-169 (available at academia.edu).

So in addition to all the evidence I and other scholars have amassed (summarized, with bibliography, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.9), including the fact that what was once thought to be an Arabic testimony to a pre-Eusebian version of the text actually derives from Eusebius (as proved by Alice Whealey), and the peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels) and my own peer reviewed article (now reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, ch. 19) that added even more evidence, including proving the other brief mention of Jesus  in Josephus was also fake (an accidental insertion made centuries after Josephus wrote), and the literary evidence produced by Ken Olson that the TF is far closer to Eusebian style than Josephan style, now Paul Hopper shows that grammatical and structural analysis verifies all of this.

For those who want to understand how this new evidence from Hopper works to produce that conclusion, here is a quick summary:

(1) Hopper shows the author of the TF consistently used finite verbs differently than Josephus does.
We have seen that aorist verbs [in Josephus] typically report single prominent actions associated with the protagonist of the story. They play a crucial role in the event structure of the narrative, and while they cannot alone support the story line, they work to anchor clusters of other kinds of verbs to create episodes. This could hardly be said of the aorists in the Testimonium, however. The aorists here seem to belong in a different genre altogether, one which argues and defends rather than reports.

In other words, the TF is written as apologetics, not history. And Josephus wasn’t a Christian apologist. Indeed, as Hopper points out:

There is an element of protest in the voice of the author of the Testimonium that is impossible to attribute to Josephus, the sober historian: “There must be some truth in all this, because his followers haven’t gone away, in fact they haven’t stopped worshipping him.”

Grammatical analysis and content thus converge to support the same conclusion.

(2) Hopper shows the author of the TF consistently used oblique and passive language to insert Pontius Pilate into its story, contrary to what Josephus had been doing in the whole Pontius Pilate sequence before that.
As Hopper says,

Pilate, the decisive Roman boss of the other three Pilate episodes, ruthless scourge of the Jews and despiser of their laws, now appears as the compliant puppet of the Jewish hierarchy. … [and a]gain, the grammatical structure of the Testimonium is at odds with that of the sequence of Pontius Pilate, in which the chief protagonist is Pilate himself.

In other words, through a stark and bizarre switch in verb forms, the distinctively Christian apologetic that tried to downplay Pilate’s role in murdering Jesusâ€"characteristic of all the Gospelsâ€"suddenly is voiced by Josephus, out of joint with Josephus’s remaining treatment of Pilate, and the whole purpose of Josephus’s Pilate sequence (to portray Pilate as a self-motivated, and thus solely-to-blame, callous agitator against the Jews), as if he were a puppet of a distinctly Christian voice, and forgot why he was narrating these events about Pilate in the first place? Not likely.

(3) “The time organization in the Testimonium is strikingly different from that of the surrounding text.”
By which Hopper means:

For example, the narrative of [Pilate’s stealing temple money to fund an aqueduct] is filled with particular detailsâ€"the rioters shouting insults, the Roman soldiers going among the crowd in Jewish dress, the order to the demonstrators to disperse, the overreaction of the soldiers, and the bloody suppression of the riot. At each point we know not only what the actors did, but why they did it, and what the causes and effects of their actions were. [This] episode, like the other episodes involving Pontius Pilate, has an event structure. Time in these episodes is …qualitative time…experienced by individual actors.

Whereas:

By contrast, the temporality of the Testimonium is chronic…that is, it is part of the general temporality of human history. It takes place in a more remote perspective of slow changes and general truths; it is…the time of social movements and social reorganization. It has a bird’s-eye view of its subject, scanning the entire life of Jesus and his influence in no particular order, anachronistically … . In the Testimonium there are happenings but no events, because events in order to qualify as such must be integrated into an eventive frame, that is, a story, and must have sequence and causal interconnections … . So the Testimonium belongs to a different kind of time from the rest of the Jewish Antiquities. The temporality of the Testimonium derives from its presumed familiarity to its audience, which in turn is more compatible with a third century or later Christian setting than a first century Roman one.

Yep. In fact, it makes no sense for Josephus to use that kind of temporal narrative style, when he doesn’t anywhere else here, or pretty much anywhere else in the Antiquities at all. This is exactly, however, how Christians would write it.

(4) Indeed, not just its organization of time, but the absence of plot indicates the same conclusion.
As Hopper explains:

The [aqueduct] story is a narration in which a situation is established and the characters interact, and there is a resolution. It has a plot in the way that recent narrative theorists have stipulated … . The same is true of the other two Pilate episodes, that is, the [legionary standards] episode and the Samaritan Uprising. The careful crafting of emplotment is an essential part of Josephus’s skill as a historian. The Testimonium has no such plot. From the point of view of its place in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, it does not qualify as a narrative at all. The Testimonium could not be understood as a story except by someone who could already place it in its “intelligible whole”, the context of early Christianity. The Testimonium gains its intelligibility not through its reporting of novel events but by virtue of being a “repetition of the familiar” … [as in] familiarity to a third century Christian readership, not to a first century Roman one. It is not just that the Christian origin of the Testimonium is betrayed by its allegiance to the Gospels, as that without the Gospels the passage is incomprehensible.

Yep. This confirms points I made to the same effect in OHJ (pp. 332-37).

(5) The TF makes no sense to Josephus’s intended narrative; it only makes sense to Christians who needed it there.
In particular:

The Testimonium is anchored in a radically different discourse community from that of the rest of the Jewish Antiquities. The Testimonium reads more like a position paper, a party manifesto, than a narrative. Unlike the rest of the Jewish Antiquities, it has the same generic ambiguity between myth and history that [has been] noted in the Gospels as a whole. … [And as such i]t serves to validate the Christian claim of the crucifixion of the sect’s founder during Pilate’s administration, and, by positioning its text within that of the genre “history”, with its ethos of truth, to warrant the historical authenticity of the Gospels. But told as a series of new events to a first century Roman audience unfamiliar with it, the Testimonium would have been a bizarre addition and probably quite unintelligible.

He’s right. Again, see my detailed analysis of this very point in OHJ. Hopper finds the TF does not fit the genre of history at all (unlike the rest of Josephus), but rather fits fairly well the genre of Christian creeds. Which is a dead giveaway as to who actually wrote it. Hopper demonstrates this with grammatical commonalities as well as its obvious content similarity.

As Hopper concludes:

[In the TF, both grammatically and thematically, the] responsibility for the death of Jesus lies with Josephus’s fellow-countrymen, the Jews, not with the Romans, and in this too the Testimonium is hard to reconcile with Josephus’s denunciation of Pilate’s crimes against the Jews. The Josephus of the Testimonium is represented as aligning himself with the Christians (versus the Jews) and admitting that the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah lies with the Jews; it need hardly be said that such an admission on Josephus’s part is inconceivable.

Thus, grammatical and narrative analysis establish the TF as entirely a Christian production.

-:-

Altogether, I find Hopper’s analysis conclusive. His own summary is spot on:

The narrative grammar of the Testimonium Flavianum sets it sharply apart from Josephus’s other stories of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. The most likely explanation is that the entire passage is interpolated, presumably by Christians embarrassed at Josephus’s manifest ignorance of the life and death of Jesus.

Already both Olson and Goldberg, with their own independent analyses, demonstrated the TF isn’t Josephan from an analysis of its vocabulary (which is more Eusebian and Lukan than Josephan). Goldberg allows the possibility that it isn’t Josephan because Josephus may have copied his source slavishly, but since Josephus never did that with any other source he used, we can dismiss that as so much special pleading; at best, Josephus’s practice elsewhere gives this excuse a very low prior probability. Now Hopper has demonstrated the TF isn’t Josephan from an analysis of its grammar. He shows not only that the TF is a unified passage (and not some layered passage, something that Christians only tinkered with), also demonstrated by Goldberg with completely different yet convergent evidence (that as a unity it too conspicuously aligns with the Emmaus narrative in Luke to have been ginned up that way later), but that it is also unified by grammatical practices too unusual for Josephus to have been written by him. Thus, it definitely wasn’t.

Especially with all the other evidence stacked on: its uncharacteristic narrative style (including its bizarre brevity and naive simplicity); the narrative illogic of its position in the text; its not being known to Origen or anyone else before Eusebius a century later; its containing patently ridiculous and fawning remarks only a Christian would make.

So just get over it already.

It’s fake."
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Blackleaf on January 04, 2018, 11:43:17 PM
Umm... Isn't this basically the same thread from nearly four years ago?

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4435.msg1010372#msg1010372
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Blackleaf on January 05, 2018, 12:42:53 AM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PMHello all,

My name is Zach, or SB Leader as my gaming name goes. This is not my first time on this forum as I interacted for a short stint during a research project for my undergraduate work in 2014. Now, in my graduate studies, I have returned with a few non-threatening questions for a project I am compiling for an Apologetics course (They are actually much the same questions as before!). My goal is, as Francis of Assisi once said, "not so much to be understood as to understand." I will interact as much as possible, but please forgive me for inevitably missing a few things.

Are you repeating the same project for your graduate class that you did in an undergraduate class? That tells me you either didn't learn much or you're not very creative.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PMShort bio: I am what you may call a "Christian" though that means quite a variety of things these days.

Yes. You could be Catholic, Baptist, Non-Denominational...

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PMA Christ follower may be a clearer signifier.

Oh... So you just meant that you're a "real Christian," while the ones you don't approve of are just Christian by name. Classic.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PMAnswer in as much or as little detail as you'd like. Here are my questions (Forgive the sometimes awkward wording! I understand that I may find members of this community who are not completely atheist and they are meant to be worded as generally as possible):

1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

Raised in a Christian home, most of my extended family are Pentecostals. In my early life, my parents took me to a technically non-denominational church, in that they were not affiliated with any denominational organizations. But they were basically Pentecostal, speaking in tongues and all. I didn't like it there. When I was about twelve, my dad was hired to play bass for a Lutheran church, and so I and the rest of my family followed him there when he would play. My parents decided they liked the Lutheran church better and decided to stay. I liked it there. People acted civil, it wasn't obnoxiously noisy with repetitive music and babbling people. It was calmer, which I very much appreciated. It was at this church that I made my faith personal. I got involved in several ministries and voluntarily spent three days or more at church: one for small group studies, one for practice for the following service, and then Sunday morning. I fit in there and made a lot of friends, but my parents decided they didn't like it there any more and uprooted me from that church to go back to the Pentecostal church. I was miserable. I went from feeling more at home at church than in my parents' house to hating every minute in church. People looked down on me for being quiet, like there was something wrong with me for not shouting random syllables while praying. Soon, my parents went church hopping again and we settled into a Baptist church. While I didn't feel quite at home at this Baptist church, it was a massive improvement over the Pentecostal church. I got involved in ministries and started making friends again. Then the youth pastor left, and the leader of the band left, and the leader of the entire college ministry left. Despite going to the same church, nothing felt the same. I prayed to God for guidance, for relief, and his persistent silence spoke volumes. I determined that God either didn't give a rat's ass about me or he didn't exist. Either way, he wasn't worth worshiping. My parents tried to force me to continue going to church, despite hating every minute being there, so I moved out. Since then, I've stopped going to church, and I've privately identified myself as an atheist.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God. Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?

Which one? I assume you mean Yahweh of the Bible, but the Bible does not paint a consistent picture of him. His standards and behaviors change from book to book. In one book, he's a war mongering asshole, who destroys entire cities unprovoked. In the next, he's "merciful" and wants to save every wicked man and animal...from himself. The only consistent thing about the fictional character of Yahweh is that he's an asshole. I do not believe that any god exists in the real world.

What's important in life? That's up for each person to decide for himself or herself. Life has no meaning other than what we give it. For me, it's just trying to make the best of things. I want to create video games and write books. I want to get married and have children. I don't want to look back and think that my one shot at life was wasted.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.

He's a legend who may or may not have been based on a real person. But whether the legends started with a man or not, the legend does not resemble the real person any more at all. Over time, he's gone from being a prophet to being God himself. According to Christians, he died for our sins, which makes absolutely no sense. He died so God can overlook the fact that we're not perfect? But apparently, God wasn't completely satisfied by his sacrifice to himself, so he still expects us to kiss his ass or else he'll throw us into Hell to be pointlessly tortured for eternity. To put it simply, I'm not a fan.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?

There are no moral absolutes. Even you do not believe that murder and rape are wrong because you read it in the Bible. The reason you consider "thou shalt not murder" relevant, but "thou shalt not cook a calf in it's mother's milk" irrelevant is because you're bringing your own standards into the Bible. Murder is wrong because it harms another human being, not because God said so. And there are exceptions to every rule. Morality should always be approached on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to the circumstances. "Do not lie" may be a generally good rule, but when the Nazis come knocking on your door looking for Jews, it would not be good to tell them that you have a Jew hiding in your basement.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?

The most significant issue is the way they try to take over everything. They're trying to make America a Christian nation, rather than a nation based on secular principles, where everyone is free to practice whatever religion (if any) they choose. They want to put Christian prayer in government funded public schools. They want to claim marriage, an institution which was invented long before Christianity. They want to claim family values and morality, despite being devoid of either. In the past, they've claimed ancient holidays and rebranded them to be about Jesus. Christmas, for example, is not a Christian holiday, and never was one. Jesus was not born in December, and people care more about Santa Clause than they do about Jesus. Christians try to put their grubby hands on everything they can touch.

As for the biggest benefit of the church? When they occasionally do charitable work for their communities, that's good. But I wouldn't trust a church to make good use of my money. I'll give it to a nonprofit organization that won't turn people away for being gay.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: pr126 on January 05, 2018, 02:04:49 AM
Jesus as a personal assistant. Downloadable now.

Instead of OK Google say OK Jesus. Android or IOS.

Better than Siri, Alexa, Cortana or Google.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SGOS on January 05, 2018, 08:49:33 AM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
-To you, what is God like? Describe God.
God is a concept invented by man to meet an assortment of objectives ranging from crowd control to reassuring individuals that they are not ignorant and crazy.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?
I don't want to lose my hair.  I don't think I would look good without my hair.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: pr126 on January 05, 2018, 09:26:17 AM
I've lost my hair.
I am saving money on hair care products and barbers. ;)
At 74 I don't care much how I look.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SGOS on January 05, 2018, 11:39:53 AM
Quote from: pr126 on January 05, 2018, 09:26:17 AM
I've lost my hair.
I am saving money on hair care products and barbers. ;)
At 74 I don't care much how I look.
I always felt sorry for guys that would do the Rogaine or plugs thing.  It always seemed like an inability to accept one's fate.  My cousin was so worried about losing his hair during chemo treatments that he bought a wig.  When they buried him, the undertaker put the wig on him, which upset his daughter so much they she grabbed it off his head and threw it away.  No one seemed to object, least of all my cousin, and I thought to myself, "You go, Girl.  Rock on."
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2018, 12:52:20 PM
Quote from: SGOS on January 05, 2018, 08:49:33 AM
God is a concept invented by man to meet an assortment of objectives ranging from crowd control to reassuring individuals that they are not ignorant and crazy.
I don't want to lose my hair.  I don't think I would look good without my hair.

Tonsure ... the Christian donut kind, or the Buddhist all-over kind ;-)  What is the "atheist" tonsure?
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Luther Martini on January 05, 2018, 01:08:40 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2018, 12:52:20 PM
What is the "atheist" tonsure?

A bare spot on my rear end that I can point to when telling religious proselytizers to kiss my ass.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2018, 01:15:52 PM
All regular members here are abnormal, some more abnormal than others, I am a heretical Jewish theist:

1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?
Barely religious as a child, but definitely a secondary interest growing up.  A little Methodist, a little Buddhist, a little Freemasonry.  Worked in several churches with my ex, who was a former Sister of the Catholic Church and Protestant pastor.  Later I came to Messianic Judaism, but I differ on many things from my rabbi, at the synagogue that I support.

2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God. Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?
G-d is Life itself (L'chaim), and Life is more than biology or psychology or sociology.  The most easily understood aspect of G-d, is G-d as expressed in our common humanity.  G-d can be found in scripture, in so far as that scripture explores our common humanity (warts and all).  The writings of Shakespeare or Cervantes are scripture.  The Bible is just an anthology of old Jewish religious literature.

3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.
This has evolved for me a lot.  I now understand "Jesus Christ" as referring to a Platonic/Jungian Archetype.  I see things from a humanistic perspective, not a materialistic perspective.  The gospels are different fictional explorations of this particular archetype.  This archetype originally was BuJew ... Buddhist/Jewish.  Later it became central to Western man, to his self definition.  Non-Christians opposed this, beginning with Pagans, but including Jews and Muslims.  But what Christianity became, was influenced by Judaism from inside and Islam from outside.  As an example of an avatar ... I relate back to Greco-Roman hero mythology.  I now consider all humans to be demigods, because I am more democratic than Augustus Caesar or Paul the Apostle.  I am not anti-humanist like Rabbinic-Judaism or Islam (who metaphysically separate G-d and Man too far apart).  One can easily idealize G-d as Saint or Sinner.

4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?
That is the most important question.  The most Jewish book of the NT, is the Epistle of James ... that answers those questions.  It is a paradoxical dialectic.

5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?
The people are the biggest issue, really the only issue, both pro and con.  Having to build up anything, using broken humanity, is almost impossible.  People may intend good, but fail to carry it out (this is covered by a Jesus quotation).  In that quote, Jesus implies that the person who says they won't do something, but goes ahead an does it anyway, is better than the opposite.  So in that sense, it is better to be moral than to be religious.  Good people take benefit from whatever reinforces that, and bad people take benefit from whatever reinforces that.  We deconstruct (per Derrida).
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2018, 01:16:46 PM
Quote from: Luther Martini on January 05, 2018, 01:08:40 PM
A bare spot on my rear end that I can point to when telling religious proselytizers to kiss my ass.

Probably most relevant (tonsure) to Shiranu.  If anyone starts an atheist monastery, it will be him.  Can you Zen that?
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SB Leader on January 05, 2018, 01:37:05 PM
Quote
Why are you apologizing?  You had nothing to do with it.  I did not rely on any one person or source to make my own decisions.  I sought in all ways that I could.  And I came to realize that there is no 'truth'  to find; not in the empirical sense.  Be careful with the intellectual part of your service.  If you are honest with that, you may find that you come to the same conclusions as I and others have.   
But you did seek truth, in the sense that you wanted to find out what was real and what was not. In that case, we are in the same business! I continue to seek, but also believe I have found the most compelling evidence in the God of the Bible.

I think it is important to keep an open mind, but as the old saying goes: an open mind is like an open mouth, only useful if it can close upon something substantive. We both have sought extensively, by the sound of it, what truth actually is and have come to separate conclusions based off the body of proof. I respect your search!

I also really appreciate your in depth reply and research. I will endeavor to do it as much justice as I am able with a humble response:
Quote
I fear that the vast majority of the experts and scholars you refer to have a vested interest in maintaining the Christian fraud.  The Quest for the Historical Jesus, is fairly new only gaining steam within the last 200 years.  Atheists and their views have not been tolerated until only recently; and even now, atheism is seen in a very negative way.  So, to intimate that history is on your side is a bit disingenuous. Your side have over 2000 years of arguments--my side only a couple of hundred or so.  Carrier, Daugherty and Robert M. Price would like to  differ with your take on the subject.    Read Carrier--it will be a very, very hard thing for you to do, for he does offer documented (with footnotes galore for you to follow up on) arguments for his point of view.  And google "The Quest for the Historical Jesus' and it will give you a brief history of that type of research.
I will check my local library for a copy. In my experience with Carrier, however, I have had a difficult time respecting his academic prowess--he is much more the advocate scholar then a respected historical mind. Bart Ehrmann, who I tend to find much more achieved, has devoted an academic lifetime to the study and error of Scriptural texts; and he has said quite forcefully: “There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds â€" thousands? â€" of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world.

And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology. Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed."

You have mentioned that he does not write in a vacuum, however, and for that I will look for a copy.

You also asked for a contemporary scholar (Historian) who writes about the historical Jesus. I will give three examples that have been important to my own endeavor for truth:
-Jesus Outside the New Testament by Robert Van Voorst (https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689)
-Reinventing Jesus (https://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus-J-Ed-Komoszewski/dp/082542982X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515174709&sr=8-1&keywords=reinventing+jesus). This is a personal favorite that I discovered while reading some of Ehrmann's work in undergrad. They focus primarily on Scriptural and Gnostic literature to determine a historical view of Jesus. It completely transformed my way of thinking about textual evidence.
-Jesus: The Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Teachings-Relevance-Religious-Revolutionary/dp/0061434345). This is by Marcus Borg, an agnostic, who does not believe in Scripture, but does believe the evidence strongly favors a historical Jesus. This being a text not written by a religious scholar may interest you the most.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2018, 02:07:46 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 05, 2018, 01:37:05 PM
But you did seek truth, in the sense that you wanted to find out what was real and what was not. In that case, we are in the same business! I continue to seek, but also believe I have found the most compelling evidence in the God of the Bible.

"What is Truth? - Pontius Pilatus
Truth isn't some verbal expression, it is a living being.  For Christians, a particular historical human being.  For me, my cats are living beings, they are the Cat Truth ... and don't you forget it!  Well of course I have a great, love/hate relationship with the Bible, though it is much larger (even see Ethiopian Church) than the Western Bible.  Like I said, anything that honestly deals with (and fiction can be more honest than fact) our common humanity, is scripture.  I would include the story of Gilgamesh for instance.

I think it is important to keep an open mind, but as the old saying goes: an open mind is like an open mouth, only useful if it can close upon something substantive. We both have sought extensively, by the sound of it, what truth actually is and have come to separate conclusions based off the body of proof. I respect your search!

I have been open, and skeptical and still am, but that doesn't preclude coming to some pretty definitive conclusions (as to who and what I am, or you are ... which has direct bearing on the whole G-d question).  My problem at my age is avoiding cynicism and nihilism.  I have been trying to find my own Truth, which is my own self, for over 60 years now.  G-d is a verb, not a noun ... it is what you do, not who you are, and how you relate to others, not how you egotistically relate to yourself.  And yes, a lot of that realization comes from the Bible ... but of course selective reading, and an ever greater perception of what it is actually talking about, to me.  Authors speak to me, thru writing.  It is respectful for me to take the time and effort to more than hear them, but to listen to them.

I also really appreciate your in depth reply and research. I will endeavor to do it as much justice as I am able with a humble response:I will check my local library for a copy. In my experience with Carrier, however, I have had a difficult time respecting his academic prowess--he is much more the advocate scholar then a respected historical mind. Bart Ehrmann, who I tend to find much more achieved, has devoted an academic lifetime to the study and error of Scriptural texts; and he has said quite forcefully: “There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds â€" thousands? â€" of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world.

Yes .. as covered in my extensive commentary to MikeCL last year, Carrier does have an agenda.  He is a capable scholar, but not very self aware as a philosopher.  Of course this isn't a problem for me, I do put both of my pants legs on at the same time! ;-)  There are problems in academia, both secular and religious.  Be careful not to be led too astray by the agendas of the academy ... Plato wants to have his way with you ;-)

In my scholarly understanding (and there is no end to reading and study), history isn't about facts, it is about using facts to express self image, to oneself and to others.  Athenian drama was the use of fiction to accomplish the same goal.  That is what Herodotus was up to, he was "the other dramatist".  Herodotus read his history, in the Odeon (roofed lecture hall) next to the Theater of Dionysius (where drama was first staged) ... the building was constructed from the timbers of the sunk Persian warships from the Battle of Salamis.  He had veterans of that naval battle in his audience.  It was all about "we are Athenians, hear us roar".  In the theater, was performed "The Persians" by Aeschylus.  Aeschylus fought in the battle of Marathon!

Spartans would never have been such "drama queens" ;-)  Plato would have you believe that there is a World of Forms ... and we might imagine that applies to some objective view of past events, but history is Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, all the way down.  Ehrmann is good, but captive of his own academic agenda, same as Carrier.  Plato tried to set himself off against the myth makers like Homer ... but he as just a jealous has-been in his own time.  Like Confucius was in China.  Plato became useful to the Hellenistic kingdoms, and so his legacy got posthumous promotion ... as the Han Dynasty did with Confucius.

And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology. Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed."

Sorry, I don't think academia exists, except as a figment of their own over-worked minds ;-))  I would deny, if I chose to take a Buddhist perspective, that anything at all exists.

You have mentioned that he does not write in a vacuum, however, and for that I will look for a copy.

You also asked for a contemporary scholar (Historian) who writes about the historical Jesus. I will give three examples that have been important to my own endeavor for truth:
-Jesus Outside the New Testament by Robert Van Voorst (https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689)
-Reinventing Jesus (https://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus-J-Ed-Komoszewski/dp/082542982X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1515174709&sr=8-1&keywords=reinventing+jesus). This is a personal favorite that I discovered while reading some of Ehrmann's work in undergrad. They focus primarily on Scriptural and Gnostic literature to determine a historical view of Jesus. It completely transformed my way of thinking about textual evidence.
-Jesus: The Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Teachings-Relevance-Religious-Revolutionary/dp/0061434345). This is by Marcus Borg, an agnostic, who does not believe in Scripture, but does believe the evidence strongly favors a historical Jesus. This being a text not written by a religious scholar may interest you the most.

I hope you appreciate my "red letter" edition of my commentary.  I am a version of Jesus, and so are you.  I love Marcus Borg, from my study with my ex, when she was in seminary.  A very nice man, but of the 1960s "death of god" period of theology, after Bultmann's deconstruction.  We got to attend a lecture by Bishop Spong.

For your entertainment, as per the Theater of Dionysius ... let no facts get in the way of a good story!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE

I teach Hebrew, and have studied many languages, and many histories.  And I learn something new every week.  Of course any conclusions I draw, have nothing to do with Platonic Forms, but with my self expression to myself and others.  It is Ars, not Scientia.  Though I am not saying that style conquers content.  What is the content of my ad lib life performance?  Judeo-Christian in deep ways.  But also Greco-Roman in deep ways.  In substance, not just in form.

A synopsis of The Persians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v03XFs9_GUU

This was the Persian version of the Vietnam War.  Athens was to suffer a similar disaster from hubris, at Syracuse, 65 years later.  Here is an Athenian dreadnought underway ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INGl8LB9Zxo

Athens had 200 of these, and employed cleverly (and who is more clever than a Greek?), they can defeat forces much larger than themselves.  The Athenians invented the first European navy, and for them, their Navy (volunteer citizens) was their democracy.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: trdsf on January 05, 2018, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
Answer in as much or as little detail as you'd like. Here are my questions (Forgive the sometimes awkward wording! I understand that I may find members of this community who are not completely atheist and they are meant to be worded as generally as possible):

1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?
Raised Roman Catholic, altar boy, Catholic grade- and high school, lector in my church.  By the time I was 18, the contradictions had begun to pile up and I drifted into a semi-Christian Deism.  Had a profound meditative experience in 1984 that I took to be a religious one and became Wiccan for the next twenty years.  By 2004, I had defined myself down to an odd sort of Discordian on the basis of quantum mechanics, and finally became heartily sick of always looking for holes to squeeze some sort of deity into because those holes had an annoying tendency to rapidly fill up with simpler, real-world explanations.  And I finally brushed off the last vestiges of supernaturalism.

And here I am.  Tadah.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God. Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?
What's important in life generally, or to me specifically?

To me personally, it's important to avoid doing things that require reparations be made, and if I slip and hurt someone tangibly or intangibly, whether or not I meant to, I make it right.  It's important to lose weight and exercise more.  It's important to pet my cat.  It's important to finish my book(s).  It's important to be able to crack the right joke to bring a smile to someone's face.  It's important that my co-workers know they can rely on me.  It's important to always be learning.  It's important to live in the real world because this is the only world we ever will live in.

As for what god/s is/are like: fictional.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.
It has become, to me, a name behind which many Christians hide in order to go on being racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic in a world that thankfully is becoming less and less those thingsâ€"however slowly and clumsily.  I hold no opinion on whether there was a real, historical Jeshua bar-Joseph or not, and I'm not convinced it even matters since almost all modern Christian sects are built far more on Paul's writing (and attributed writing) than on the words attributed to Jesus.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?
We as a culture define what's good and what's bad.  Over time, we hone in on better and better societal solutions to that question.  I expect the world a century from nowâ€"barring the onset of a new Dark Agesâ€"will be a better, more free, less phobic world than it is now, in much the same way that the world now is better than it was in 1918, even if the steps are only marginal.  In 1918, very few of us would think twice about racial and gender stereotypingâ€"but again 1918 was a better world than 1818.

That said, I do not think there's any such thing as a perfect world.  Perfection is an abstraction that may help researchers do calculations, but humans are not perfect, and societies are made up of humans.  Striving for perfection is striving for the impossible, and distracts from a more attainable goal of merely better.

This, by the way, is a major fault with religions that preach the existence of an afterlife.  Why bother taking care of this world if there's a "better" one waiting, one you don't even need to lift a finger to help createâ€"even if there's not one single solid shred of evidence that it exists in the first place?  It brings about utter indifference to the real world that we really live in, since cosmically speaking, this one is only temporary and doesn't really matter.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?
Which church?  The issues with Catholicism are not the same as those with, say, Pentecostalism.  And for that matter, why should it be limited to just Christianity?  There are issues with all religions, the most fundamental of which is that every single one preaches either the existence of that which cannot be demonstrated, or that the goal of life is to completely detach one's self from physical reality.  Neither belief is healthy for the long term survival of either our species, or our planet.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SB Leader on January 05, 2018, 02:21:46 PM
Blackleaf, thank you for the response! I figured that my past interaction may be mentioned, so that's why I made it known in my original post that I would be asking much the same questions. My first project wound up being very successful, I was examining three groups of different religious backgrounds to find commonalities in stories and oppositions. It was originally intended to refute a scale proposed by a Christian scholar that gauged how far a non-believer was from accepting Christian beliefs, but it became something so much more: something I was unable to fit within the confines of the project. And that is partly why I have returned: to look at these stories from a different angle (and to see how a community like this has progressed in four years). And also, from a personal standpoint, to hear stories of intellectual and personal development. Because they matter! So I really appreciate your honesty and help.

I don't pretend to be any accomplished scholar, just an interested party in your community and the truly incredible stories found here.

Quote
Oh... So you just meant that you're a "real Christian," while the ones you don't approve of are just Christian by name. Classic.
Nah. Just that I think that sums it up most easily. If I can expand, I was raised a fundamentalist Baptist (In the traditional sense, not the Westboro image of today. It just meant I ascribed to the fundamentals: the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, etc.), but progressively moved away from it as I got older. Denominations are a very secondary issue and point more toward the diversity of the Church then separation of it--in my experience anyways.

It sounds like we have a few similarities in our church stories denominationally (and that we are both gamers! ha). I too found great joy and comfort in the community offered, and was fortunate to stay in those communities for a very long time.

Quote
There are no moral absolutes. Even you do not believe that murder and rape are wrong because you read it in the Bible. The reason you consider "thou shalt not murder" relevant, but "thou shalt not cook a calf in it's mother's milk" irrelevant is because you're bringing your own standards into the Bible. Murder is wrong because it harms another human being, not because God said so. And there are exceptions to every rule. Morality should always be approached on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to the circumstances. "Do not lie" may be a generally good rule, but when the Nazis come knocking on your door looking for Jews, it would not be good to tell them that you have a Jew hiding in your basement.
I agree that certain actions may be situationally ethical! You mention that there are no moral absolutes, but also that murder is wrong because of harm. I would assume this is just a phrasing issue, but are certain actions objectively wrong while some are more pliable? I don't mean to put words in your mouth or do a "gotcha!" I am just trying to get a clearer picture of your ethic.

Thank you for your honesty!

Quote
I don't want to lose my hair.  I don't think I would look good without my hair.
Oh man, this hits me on a personal level! I don't either! The whole Martin Luther style isn't in vogue...

Baruch, thank you and what a unique story you tell; that is quite the diverse background. I understand the dropping of the vowel in the deity terminology comes from Jewish tradition? May I ask what an item or two that you disagree with your rabbi might be?
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SB Leader on January 05, 2018, 02:28:25 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2018, 02:07:46 PM
I hope you appreciate my "red letter" edition of my commentary.  I am a version of Jesus, and so are you.  I love Marcus Borg, from my study with my ex, when she was in seminary.  A very nice man, but of the 1960s "death of god" period of theology, after Bultmann's deconstruction.  We got to attend a lecture by Bishop Spong.

For your entertainment, as per the Theater of Dionysius ... let no facts get in the way of a good story!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE

I teach Hebrew, and have studied many languages, and many histories.  And I learn something new every week.  Of course any conclusions I draw, have nothing to do with Platonic Forms, but with my self expression to myself and others.  It is Ars, not Scientia.  Though I am not saying that style conquers content.  What is the content of my ad lib life performance?  Judeo-Christian in deep ways.  But also Greco-Roman in deep ways.  In substance, not just in form.

Hahah, this was wonderful, thank you! The Biblical Philogist piece is one of the greatest things I've seen in a while. :P

I do agree that acadmia is a bit overdone and difficult to interject in issues of faith--it is impossible to approach the subjects without some kind of agenda. I appreciate extensive research but find that belief most often comes not from reason but from personal experience. I don't speak for everyone, of course. I really appreciate your perspective!
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2018, 02:32:20 PM
I edited my second response to you.  More to come?
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Blackleaf on January 05, 2018, 07:21:40 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 05, 2018, 02:21:46 PMBlackleaf, thank you for the response! I figured that my past interaction may be mentioned, so that's why I made it known in my original post that I would be asking much the same questions. My first project wound up being very successful, I was examining three groups of different religious backgrounds to find commonalities in stories and oppositions. It was originally intended to refute a scale proposed by a Christian scholar that gauged how far a non-believer was from accepting Christian beliefs, but it became something so much more: something I was unable to fit within the confines of the project. And that is partly why I have returned: to look at these stories from a different angle (and to see how a community like this has progressed in four years). And also, from a personal standpoint, to hear stories of intellectual and personal development. Because they matter! So I really appreciate your honesty and help.

I don't pretend to be any accomplished scholar, just an interested party in your community and the truly incredible stories found here.

Well, you're certainly better mannered than most theists who come here to preach to us. If your goal is to really just to understand, then I can appreciate that. Empathy is the enemy of ignorance.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 05, 2018, 02:21:46 PMNah. Just that I think that sums it up most easily. If I can expand, I was raised a fundamentalist Baptist (In the traditional sense, not the Westboro image of today. It just meant I ascribed to the fundamentals: the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, etc.), but progressively moved away from it as I got older. Denominations are a very secondary issue and point more toward the diversity of the Church then separation of it--in my experience anyways.

It sounds like we have a few similarities in our church stories denominationally (and that we are both gamers! ha). I too found great joy and comfort in the community offered, and was fortunate to stay in those communities for a very long time.

"Christ Follower" is a more meaningless term than the word Christian. But I figured you were a Protestant, since I've never heard anyone else use the term. As for whether denominations are expressions of diversity or separation, I would remind you that the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants had a very bloody history. While some share a sense of solidarity with those of other denominations (and they certainly prefer other types of Christians over those of any other religion, and especially atheists), they are very much in competition with each other. I was baptized three times because each church didn't think my previous baptisms counted.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 05, 2018, 02:21:46 PMI agree that certain actions may be situationally ethical! You mention that there are no moral absolutes, but also that murder is wrong because of harm. I would assume this is just a phrasing issue, but are certain actions objectively wrong while some are more pliable? I don't mean to put words in your mouth or do a "gotcha!" I am just trying to get a clearer picture of your ethic.

Thank you for your honesty!

A fair question. "Murder" is a more complex word than it initially seems. Is it murder to kill in war? Is it murder if killing the other person was an accident? Is it murder if you were defending yourself? Killing other human beings is never really "good," but there are situations where it becomes acceptable, or at least a gray area. "Murder" by definition is unjustifiable. When there is justification, it isn't called murder, but something else such as self-defense. So there cannot logically be justifiable reasons for doing it.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Unbeliever on January 05, 2018, 08:19:45 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 09:46:04 PM
May I ask when you stopped believing in the Christian worldview?
Reading the Bible made me realize that it couldn't be true. I just couldn't believe a God could do no better than that if it wanted to communicate with those it created. I didn't immediately become an atheist, though, since I thought perhaps one of the world's other religions might still be true. But I came to realize that the whole concept of God is fraught with flaws, and is simply not logical. If a thing cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
QuoteWhat was a question that you struggled with, if you do not mind me asking?
Well, that was a long time ago, so I don't remember anything specific at this point. I was told that all the answers were in "God's Word" so I read it all, the whole thing, three times, and simply could not believe it was either written or inspired by God. It contains too many contradictions - here is my list of many of those those contradictions (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=5.0) (not an exhaustive list - there are more that I haven't listed), in case you'd like to see what I mean. I know that believers claim all those contradictions can be shown to not be contradictory, by saying that "they're taken out of context" or by using verbal gymnastics to put words and meaning there that just aren't there, but I think they're full of BS.

Also, I couldn't accept that an all-good God was being described by the Bible: here is a page concerning the Bible's God and his character (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=164.0). The God of the Bible is a horrible monster, and even if it did exist it would not be worthy of my praise or worship.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: sdelsolray on January 05, 2018, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 05, 2018, 01:37:05 PM
...
ut also believe I have found the most compelling evidence in the God of the Bible.
...
I suspect you have a different definition and different tolerances for the term "evidence".  To test my suspicion, please provide 10 discrete items of the "compelling evidence" upon with you rely to support your belief(s).
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Hydra009 on January 05, 2018, 10:16:50 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 05, 2018, 07:21:40 PM"Murder" is a more complex word than it initially seems. Is it murder to kill in war? Is it murder if killing the other person was an accident? Is it murder if you were defending yourself? Killing other human beings is never really "good," but there are situations where it becomes acceptable, or at least a gray area. "Murder" by definition is unjustifiable. When there is justification, it isn't called murder, but something else such as self-defense. So there cannot logically be justifiable reasons for doing it.
True.  Murder is intentional unlawful killing, as opposed to lawful killings in war, capital punishment, self-defense, and euthanasia.  (Accidental death may or may not be unlawful, depending on the circumstances of the death and the court verdict)
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2018, 01:22:00 AM
I think it is perfectly all right to violate the Ten Commandments ... provided you do if for the right reasons.  But then I am a heretic ;-)  The whole courtroom/throne room model of religion is way overdone.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Shiranu on January 06, 2018, 01:51:58 AM
1. Fundamentalist Lutheran for the first 10 years or so... basically Roman Catholic without all the ceremony, but all the guilt and judgement. Then progressive Lutheran until I was about 16, 17 when we changed churches. Attended a private school for 3 years inbetween that was Young Earth Creationist Baptist. Until I was about 14, very fundamental; hated gays, hated minorities, hated "sinners", sex was the worst thing in the world, being happy was the worst thing in the world because it meant you weren't godly. All church at least twice a week, and also things like confirmation, church plays, etc. .

After I became an atheist, I really looked into Buddhism. Still appreciate it, but I much prefer Daoism or Zen. If I had to "choose" a religion, I would say Shinto is probably the most appealing to me; not necessarily because I believe the theology of it, just the discipline and structure... and the reverence for nature and simplicity. I think the West would benefit immensely if we were to incorporate Daoist, Buddhist/Zen and Shinto principles and structure to our life.

2. "God" is imo just a respect and reverence for nature.

3. Cool guy, had alot of great things to say. It's a shame Christians don't live up to his teachings, and alot of that has to do with the shame of failure and the fear of hell attached with Christianity, particularly the more fundamental branches. Being a good person cant be forced on someone, and failing cant be treated as the greatest offense you can do to your god. It's a system that is built to fail.

4. Society. Ultimately the universe has no opinion one way or another, but "good" generally involves caring for the well-being of those around you and the environment, while "bad" damages and harms those things. Ultimately good does alot more... good... in that more people benefit from it and it is less likely to bite you in the ass down the road.

5. The church is an amazing tool, but it's biggest flaw is that it is allowed to be use to spread hatred and fear rather than peace and love. And Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, et. al. can talk about how they aren't like that, but the problem is that it's not just about their congregation, it's about the bigger picture; you have to condemn those who are using your platform for hatred, not share the stage with them.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SGOS on January 06, 2018, 09:55:31 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2018, 08:19:45 PM
Reading the Bible made me realize that it couldn't be true. I just couldn't believe a God could do no better than that if it wanted to communicate with those it created. I didn't immediately become an atheist, though, since I thought perhaps one of the world's other religions might still be true. But I came to realize that the whole concept of God is fraught with flaws, and is simply not logical. If a thing cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
Rather than write out my "loss of religion" bio once again.  I'll just claim the above as something I wrote. Actually, I have written that several times over the years.  But SB can just enter it into his data base twice.

SB Leader:   Did you read that?  What he said.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2018, 10:28:42 AM
Quote from: SGOS on January 06, 2018, 09:55:31 AM
Rather than write out my "loss of religion" bio once again.  I'll just claim the above as something I wrote. Actually, I have written that several times over the years.  But SB can just enter it into his data base twice.

SB Leader:   Did you read that?  What he said.

1. Luther thought everyone reading the Bible in their vernacular, would lead to more conversion, stronger belief, better practice.  This didn't always work out.  But he and others did create modern German in the process of making their translation.  Modern English was partly created by the King James Bible.

2. If one is logical, one is a Vulcan, not a human.  Philosophy is fraught with flaws, not just theology.  Materialism and physicalism have lots of problems too, but usually unknown the general public, but know to specialists.  Theologians and Bible scholars in modern times, know all these problems in scripture.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SB Leader on January 06, 2018, 02:28:42 PM
QuoteEmpathy is the enemy of ignorance.
I just wanted to highlight this because I think it is an excellent insight.


Quote
"Christ Follower" is a more meaningless term than the word Christian. But I figured you were a Protestant, since I've never heard anyone else use the term. As for whether denominations are expressions of diversity or separation, I would remind you that the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants had a very bloody history. While some share a sense of solidarity with those of other denominations (and they certainly prefer other types of Christians over those of any other religion, and especially atheists), they are very much in competition with each other. I was baptized three times because each church didn't think my previous baptisms counted.
In case you have heard otherwise from believers, the Crusades were a true travesty motivated by political gain with spirituality used as the cudgel (I dare not say Christianity as it did not adhere to the teachings of Christ). There are distinctions that I do believe are necessary between Christians "sects" especially when it comes to fundamental issues. That's why I may put Catholic belief separate from my own--but also acknowledge that there are Catholics who are saved: followers of Christ and not just the church (not to sound too "squishy" but there are Baptists who would need this distinction as well). A Christian should be a Christ follower first and a member of their denomination second.

Quote
A fair question. "Murder" is a more complex word than it initially seems. Is it murder to kill in war? Is it murder if killing the other person was an accident? Is it murder if you were defending yourself? Killing other human beings is never really "good," but there are situations where it becomes acceptable, or at least a gray area. "Murder" by definition is unjustifiable. When there is justification, it isn't called murder, but something else such as self-defense. So there cannot logically be justifiable reasons for doing it.
Understood! There are ideals, but also possibly, a hierarchy of ideals. I would acknowledge much the same!


Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2018, 08:19:45 PM
Reading the Bible made me realize that it couldn't be true. I just couldn't believe a God could do no better than that if it wanted to communicate with those it created. I didn't immediately become an atheist, though, since I thought perhaps one of the world's other religions might still be true. But I came to realize that the whole concept of God is fraught with flaws, and is simply not logical. If a thing cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.Well, that was a long time ago, so I don't remember anything specific at this point. I was told that all the answers were in "God's Word" so I read it all, the whole thing, three times, and simply could not believe it was either written or inspired by God. It contains too many contradictions - here is my list of many of those those contradictions (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=5.0) (not an exhaustive list - there are more that I haven't listed), in case you'd like to see what I mean. I know that believers claim all those contradictions can be shown to not be contradictory, by saying that "they're taken out of context" or by using verbal gymnastics to put words and meaning there that just aren't there, but I think they're full of BS.

Also, I couldn't accept that an all-good God was being described by the Bible: here is a page concerning the Bible's God and his character (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=164.0). The God of the Bible is a horrible monster, and even if it did exist it would not be worthy of my praise or worship.

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification!

Quote
I suspect you have a different definition and different tolerances for the term "evidence".  To test my suspicion, please provide 10 discrete items of the "compelling evidence" upon with you rely to support your belief(s).
This is a good question and one I would like to dive deeper into with you. However, being extremely pinched for time I'll tell the shorter story: I started my search with the large body of evidence pointing toward a historical Jesus. With that assumed, I then asked: "Could the Gospel writers be telling the truth in what they wrote about him?" Two pieces led me to an affirmative: 1. The style of literature they wrote was truly unique: being an eyewitness take and a spiritual story (With miracles and great works... told about people who were possibly still alive to verify). How could fisherman and shepherds write this? Perhaps, because they did see what they wrote about. 2. If what they wrote was a lie, would they really be willing to die for it? Would someone not try to verify the story to see if this was something worth giving your life to? Would a former persecutor of Christians convert without some kind of legitimate reason?

Of course, this can only be verified as being true if the manuscripts can be tracked reasonably back to the 1st or 2nd century. This is where the more in depth analysis needs to be done and this is where Reinventing Jesus (The book linked in my previous post) really helped analyze the evidence and probabilities. Ehrmann, who speaks quite forcefully against textual accuracy, is quoted and addressed at incredible length throughout the text and I believe he is treated quite fairly.

This combined material (And a bit more) led me to believe that there was a historical Jesus and what is says about him in the Gospels is reliable. Thank you for asking me to clarify.

Quote1. Fundamentalist Lutheran for the first 10 years or so... basically Roman Catholic without all the ceremony, but all the guilt and judgement. Then progressive Lutheran until I was about 16, 17 when we changed churches. Attended a private school for 3 years inbetween that was Young Earth Creationist Baptist. Until I was about 14, very fundamental; hated gays, hated minorities, hated "sinners", sex was the worst thing in the world, being happy was the worst thing in the world because it meant you weren't godly. All church at least twice a week, and also things like confirmation, church plays, etc. .

After I became an atheist, I really looked into Buddhism. Still appreciate it, but I much prefer Daoism or Zen. If I had to "choose" a religion, I would say Shinto is probably the most appealing to me; not necessarily because I believe the theology of it, just the discipline and structure... and the reverence for nature and simplicity. I think the West would benefit immensely if we were to incorporate Daoist, Buddhist/Zen and Shinto principles and structure to our life.

2. "God" is imo just a respect and reverence for nature.

3. Cool guy, had alot of great things to say. It's a shame Christians don't live up to his teachings, and alot of that has to do with the shame of failure and the fear of hell attached with Christianity, particularly the more fundamental branches. Being a good person cant be forced on someone, and failing cant be treated as the greatest offense you can do to your god. It's a system that is built to fail.

4. Society. Ultimately the universe has no opinion one way or another, but "good" generally involves caring for the well-being of those around you and the environment, while "bad" damages and harms those things. Ultimately good does alot more... good... in that more people benefit from it and it is less likely to bite you in the ass down the road.

5. The church is an amazing tool, but it's biggest flaw is that it is allowed to be use to spread hatred and fear rather than peace and love. And Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, et. al. can talk about how they aren't like that, but the problem is that it's not just about their congregation, it's about the bigger picture; you have to condemn those who are using your platform for hatred, not share the stage with them.
Thank you for the detail! I can see where churches like what you describe would push you away from belief! What would be one or two Shinto beliefs you think would help the West?



Today is the day before our end of semester (Bizarre, right?) and I am additionally down with what feels like the flu, my fever has risen significantly since I began writing this, ha! Unfortunate, to be sure, but I wanted to return to summarize a few high level take ways from what has been posted here so far. Feel free to critique these or adjust them if you think I've misinterpreted them.

1. So many of you mentioned a Christian background of significant length. Moreover, questions caused you to search even more passionately for the truth--something your church wasn't always willing to accommodate. I think its especially interesting to see how much Scripture you have read. In my experience, it is a surprisingly compact segment of the church that has read every passage (I have read the large majority, but still have some blindspots in the Old Testament prophets. Perhaps Baruch can fill me in on what I am missing? :P).

2. It seems that for a significant group, what is important is some kind of objective morality. It is tied closely to question 4. Cries that atheists have no morals fall flat hearing you all.

3. Jesus may or may not have been a real historical figure, but the accounts have been hijacked to make him something he was not. The teachings that have survived seem to be good, but his followers don't listen to them well.

4. See 2.

5. The church, at its best, loves. It takes care of the needy and gives rest to the weary. At its worst it holds onto exclusive dogma and is anti-intellectual. Un loving.

Of course, I do not intend to "summarize" the mosaic of the stories presented here, but these are a few themes I found to be personally interesting. I would love to have provided more detail but between 1 and 2 I had to pause to throw up. Thank you for forgiving my depth once again! You all are a group that I believe I would love to get a drink with. :)
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Unbeliever on January 06, 2018, 03:17:16 PM
Sorry to hear about you're illness! I've just been reading a book called The Last Town on Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Town_on_Earth), about a town that tries to quarantine itself against the Spanish flu epidemic of the early part of the 20th century. I hope your flu doesn't get anywhere near that bad! I also wish you better health very soon.


Quote from: SB Leader on January 06, 2018, 02:28:42 PM
I started my search with the large body of evidence pointing toward a historical Jesus. With that assumed, I then asked: "Could the Gospel writers be telling the truth in what they wrote about him?" Two pieces led me to an affirmative: 1. The style of literature they wrote was truly unique: being an eyewitness take and a spiritual story (With miracles and great works... told about people who were possibly still alive to verify). How could fisherman and shepherds write this? Perhaps, because they did see what they wrote about. 2. If what they wrote was a lie, would they really be willing to die for it? Would someone not try to verify the story to see if this was something worth giving your life to? Would a former persecutor of Christians convert without some kind of legitimate reason?

Of course, this can only be verified as being true if the manuscripts can be tracked reasonably back to the 1st or 2nd century. This is where the more in depth analysis needs to be done and this is where Reinventing Jesus (The book linked in my previous post) really helped analyze the evidence and probabilities. Ehrmann, who speaks quite forcefully against textual accuracy, is quoted and addressed at incredible length throughout the text and I believe he is treated quite fairly.

This combined material (And a bit more) led me to believe that there was a historical Jesus and what is says about him in the Gospels is reliable.

I'm just wondering what evidence there is that the gospels were actually written by eyewitnesses? I don't think anyone really knows just who wrote them, since they were all written at least many decades after the events they claim to portray.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: fencerider on January 06, 2018, 05:24:03 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God. Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?

3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.

4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?

5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?

1. I was born into and spent my whole life in a Baptist church. I started working with the sound system in 1989 and kept at it until just a couple years ago. There were always a few questions at the back of my mind and a few things that just didn’t make sense. I got a different perspective around 1994 when I was invited to meet with a group from the Church of the Recovery. (they certainly were more lively than Baptists). I spent some time trying to learn the things that I didnt know; had some improvement. No matter how much I learned or improved, I couldnt help but notice that none of my prayers were ever answered. When I was young I just put it out of my mind. Later I started rationalizing why my prayers didnt get answered. Then I went to thinking that I was praying in the wrong way. As I said in another post with Drich I took things to an extreme. I thought what I was doing was ridiculous but I tried it anyway. I came to the well- founded conclusion that the Christian god doesnt give a rat’s-ass about me. About 6 months after that is when I found this website.

2. I would say that “God” is some vague mythical creature. Some people are born into this life wanting the existence of a higher power. They go looking for it and they find it. Some people; like me; are born into this life without any desire for a higher power. I was forced into it by my parents, but it would neither give me any satisfaction for some one to prove god exists, nor would it make me afraid if someone proves that god doesn’t exist. I would compare it to going to another country. They have all these things that are important to them but you as an outsider look on and say “ That’s important? Ok. If you say so”.

3. The description of Jesus in the Bible is very limited. I always questioned why anything that Paul wrote was in it because the words of Paul are clearly not the words of Jesus. I always found it offensive that in the gospels one of the authors made the ridiculous statement that if someone wrote down everything that Jesus said there would not be enough space in all the world for the books you would have to write. Whatever Foolio. If you’re running out of paper borrow some. Its not every day that the son of a god talks to you....
The short answer is that what the Bible says about Jesus is so short that its difficult to know who he is.

4. What we think of as good, bad, or acceptable is defined by the society we live in. (I was thinking about making a thread on this particular subject) in the US we do things that other nations find offensible. and they also do things that we find offensive. Just to name a few: hunting whales, 14 year old girl married to 40 year old man, selling daughters to brothels for cash, killing elephants for ivory, eating the brain of a monkey while it is still alive, deep frying the body of a fish while keeping its head alive, etc.

5. The most significant issue of the current Christian church in U.S. is their constant whining about suppression of religion freedom. Anyone who studies the issue honestly must come to the conclusion that not only are Christians the people that complain the most about suppression of religious freedom, but they are also the ones that have historically and presently doing the most suppression of religious freedom
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2018, 06:25:53 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 06, 2018, 03:17:16 PM
Sorry to hear about you're illness! I've just been reading a book called The Last Town on Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Town_on_Earth), about a town that tries to quarantine itself against the Spanish flu epidemic of the early part of the 20th century. I hope your flu doesn't get anywhere near that bad! I also wish you better health very soon.

I'm just wondering what evidence there is that the gospels were actually written by eyewitnesses? I don't think anyone really knows just who wrote them, since they were all written at least many decades after the events they claim to portray.

My grandmother's oldest sister may have died from the Spanish flu.  Currently Spanish flu is being weaponized in a new biological cold war between China, Russia and the US.  SARS and Bird flu are also being investigated, particularly by China.  This is quite clear if you read between the lines of recent news over the last 10 years.

Both theist and atheist commit the fallacy of historicism.  Historicism is an extension of Platonism; that people of the past, exist in a timeless present, which we can partially examine, in the past, relative to us here in the present, and others exist in the timeless future, which we can partly project, relative to us here in the present.  In a psychological way, no person of the past exists today, not even yourself (it is impossible to dispel the potential for false memories), but more easily to imagine, a person who was once alive, and now has died is clearer example, since we can ignore The Self, and restrict ourselves to The Other.  Atheism understands this, within its particular framework.  Similarly a future person not born yet.  Are future people actual or potential?  Psychology is not reducible to materialism/physicalism, that is the fallacy of reductionism.

As far as history goes, history isn't objective, unless you have two or more witnesses who can cross-examine.  In this case, not an aspect of nature (measuring the weight of something) but examining another person.  Persons, not things, are the basis of psychology.  So basically Jesus doesn't exist as a historical person, nobody of the past does.  And claims that we can Platonically examine these dead people, thru our Platonic genius (Latin for guardian angel), are false.  History isn't a science, it is a form of art, most commonly used for political propaganda.  The influence of Herodotus and Plato are immense, and it is impossible for a Western person to escape their cultural influence, anymore than a mono-lingual person can escape their own language.

In an immaterial way, just space and time, we say that space and time exist as a continuum, everywhere and every-when, and we or a particle makes up a world-line.  This is regular Special Relativity theory.  But per General Relativity, from which we deduce two things, it isn't true, first the Big Bang ... space/time has a beginning at the initial singularity, and secondly many endings, at the final singularity (inside black holes).  And General Relativity isn't even correct, because it doesn't include Quantum Mechanics, or what lies beyond (string theory etc).

In Buddhism, these two concepts (personalism and im-personalism) are compared, and the conclusion is drawn that no person exists, including yourself.  Of course the atheism of Buddhism, was based on meditation, not physics.  And some Hindus are atheist for the same reason.  But somewhat like wave-particular duality, in Buddhism personhood both exists and doesn't exist, it depends on how you examine reality.  So Hinduism is theism leading to atheism, and Buddhism is atheism leading to theism ... and that is why Hindus regard Buddhism as a Hindu heresy.  Applying this to history, we can perhaps say that historical people both exist and don't exist, it depends on how you examine the question.

It would appear that reality isn't any definite thing, nor just anything, but a spectrum of somethings, that have an ambiguous existence ... like quarks do in quantum chromodynamics (modern nuclear theory).  The spectrum isn't arbitrary, but follows certain rules, we call physical laws, when we are examining things from a materialistic perspective.  Like in Quantum Mechanics, a thing is more wave or more particle, due to the experimental setup.  So a historical person or your living self, is relative, not absolute ... relative to how you examine the question, and therefore not objective.  But then objective/subjective can be deconstructed the same way.  In my experience, Jesus exists as a historical person, when Jesus as a Platonic archetype exists, as a relationship between two people in the Christian community (originally Jewish, not Gentile).  But it is we who choose consciously or unconsciously to manifest that archetype.  There are no Platonic forms, except as ephemerally created by self- and inter-human relationship.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2018, 06:55:01 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 06, 2018, 02:28:42 PM
I just wanted to highlight this because I think it is an excellent insight.

In case you have heard otherwise from believers, the Crusades were a true travesty motivated by political gain with spirituality used as the cudgel (I dare not say Christianity as it did not adhere to the teachings of Christ). There are distinctions that I do believe are necessary between Christians "sects" especially when it comes to fundamental issues. That's why I may put Catholic belief separate from my own--but also acknowledge that there are Catholics who are saved: followers of Christ and not just the church (not to sound too "squishy" but there are Baptists who would need this distinction as well). A Christian should be a Christ follower first and a member of their denomination second.

The Crusades and the Jihad aren't travesties.  Unless you are a pacifist.  You are simply anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim.  And Protestants engaged in Crusades also, during the Reformation.  Orthodox and Catholic Christians have also engaged each other, in E Europe.  Your theological prejudices are clear (but that is OK, prejudice is the normal human condition).  Violence is well justified, throughout history.  And excellent example of how the Ten Commandments can and should be transcended, if you do it for the right reasons ;-)

Understood! There are ideals, but also possibly, a hierarchy of ideals. I would acknowledge much the same!

Ideals are self and group delusion.  They psychologically identify both self identity and group identity.  Compare the gay question between D and R.

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification!

This is a good question and one I would like to dive deeper into with you. However, being extremely pinched for time I'll tell the shorter story: I started my search with the large body of evidence pointing toward a historical Jesus. With that assumed, I then asked: "Could the Gospel writers be telling the truth in what they wrote about him?" Two pieces led me to an affirmative: 1. The style of literature they wrote was truly unique: being an eyewitness take and a spiritual story (With miracles and great works... told about people who were possibly still alive to verify). How could fisherman and shepherds write this? Perhaps, because they did see what they wrote about. 2. If what they wrote was a lie, would they really be willing to die for it? Would someone not try to verify the story to see if this was something worth giving your life to? Would a former persecutor of Christians convert without some kind of legitimate reason?

Human beings are irrational.  Some of the so-called martyrs were clearly psychologically disturbed.  Suicide by Roman cop.  I will rhetorically deny all of history (I love the subject).  Unless Dr Who can kidnap George Washington, bring him here and now, where his identity can be confirmed and he can be cross-examined ... I deny you or I can say anything objective about him.  Evidences of the past are corrupt, and beyond use.  I am not saying you are irrational, nor that your conventional reasoning is without merit.  But it is what it is.  A subjective opinion.

Of course, this can only be verified as being true if the manuscripts can be tracked reasonably back to the 1st or 2nd century. This is where the more in depth analysis needs to be done and this is where Reinventing Jesus (The book linked in my previous post) really helped analyze the evidence and probabilities. Ehrmann, who speaks quite forcefully against textual accuracy, is quoted and addressed at incredible length throughout the text and I believe he is treated quite fairly.

Sorry, if you had the alpha manuscripts, signed by Jesus, Paul or had a group selfie of the Disciples ... it has no merit as evidence.  Ever hear of forgery or Photoshop?  You admit you have a belief.  I have a belief too, that humans are irrational, particularly the geeks who most claim to be rational (they are autistic males usually).  The fictional portrayal of a Jesus type person in "Last Temptation of Christ" is much more realistic than the Gospels can hope to be.

This combined material (And a bit more) led me to believe that there was a historical Jesus and what is says about him in the Gospels is reliable. Thank you for asking me to clarify.

Thank you for the detail! I can see where churches like what you describe would push you away from belief! What would be one or two Shinto beliefs you think would help the West?

Technically, to be Shinto at all, you have to be racially Japanese, born in Japan, and live there your whole life.  Shinto can't exist outside of that ... as at one time (before the Babylonian Exile) could Judaism exist outside of Judah.

Today is the day before our end of semester (Bizarre, right?) and I am additionally down with what feels like the flu, my fever has risen significantly since I began writing this, ha! Unfortunate, to be sure, but I wanted to return to summarize a few high level take ways from what has been posted here so far. Feel free to critique these or adjust them if you think I've misinterpreted them.

Please take care and get well.  Empathy is the basis for all good things, antipathy the basis for all bad things.  But indifference is the betrayal of both.

1. So many of you mentioned a Christian background of significant length. Moreover, questions caused you to search even more passionately for the truth--something your church wasn't always willing to accommodate. I think its especially interesting to see how much Scripture you have read. In my experience, it is a surprisingly compact segment of the church that has read every passage (I have read the large majority, but still have some blindspots in the Old Testament prophets. Perhaps Baruch can fill me in on what I am missing? :P).

All human organization is group think of like minded people.  You can only be publicly skeptical within the confines of the culture of that group.  And even skeptics can't escape their own selves, though Buddhist may try.  Please ask specific questions about specific scriptures (prophets).  And no, they don't presage Christianity, that is retrojection ... a fallacy, and supercession, a primary violence toward Jewish people

2. It seems that for a significant group, what is important is some kind of objective morality. It is tied closely to question 4. Cries that atheists have no morals fall flat hearing you all.

Morality is begging the question, a fallacy.  All human thought can be broken down into a spectrum of fallacies, with different personalities and groups showing prejudice for their particular fallacies.  Morality is subjective for the individual.  For the group it is politics.  So goes the gay question for R vs D.

3. Jesus may or may not have been a real historical figure, but the accounts have been hijacked to make him something he was not. The teachings that have survived seem to be good, but his followers don't listen to them well.

All historical people are partly fictional, were created for political reasons, and modified to suit changes in politics.  Please see Emperor Constantine.  Yes, there is much to be admired in ancient Jewish writings ;-)  And even Jews tend to ignore them.

4. See 2.

5. The church, at its best, loves. It takes care of the needy and gives rest to the weary. At its worst it holds onto exclusive dogma and is anti-intellectual. Un loving.

I would agree, but I don't see intellectualism as other than mental corruption, and elitist.

Of course, I do not intend to "summarize" the mosaic of the stories presented here, but these are a few themes I found to be personally interesting. I would love to have provided more detail but between 1 and 2 I had to pause to throw up. Thank you for forgiving my depth once again! You all are a group that I believe I would love to get a drink with. :)

We are the best group of non-theists around.  We even allow theists, if you are heretical enough ;-)

Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Blackleaf on January 06, 2018, 09:41:35 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 06, 2018, 02:28:42 PM
I just wanted to highlight this because I think it is an excellent insight.

In case you have heard otherwise from believers, the Crusades were a true travesty motivated by political gain with spirituality used as the cudgel (I dare not say Christianity as it did not adhere to the teachings of Christ). There are distinctions that I do believe are necessary between Christians "sects" especially when it comes to fundamental issues. That's why I may put Catholic belief separate from my own--but also acknowledge that there are Catholics who are saved: followers of Christ and not just the church (not to sound too "squishy" but there are Baptists who would need this distinction as well). A Christian should be a Christ follower first and a member of their denomination second.

Actually, I had in mind the British crown, who flipflopped from being in support of Catholics and Protestants. When the leadership changed sides, there was always bloodshed. Christians haven't been getting along with themselves until recent history, when law prevented them from killing each other. Even now, they're still in competition, and often describe those of other denominations as fake Christians. I can appreciate the sentiment, that people of different beliefs should find solidarity, but I see the friendly relations between those of different denominations as being very fragile.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 06, 2018, 02:28:42 PMUnderstood! There are ideals, but also possibly, a hierarchy of ideals. I would acknowledge much the same!

I don't know if it's a hierarchy of ideals. If I had to think of one measure of goodness, it would be the maximization of happiness and the minimization of harm, and "evil" would be the opposite. There are a million shades of gray, however, which is why I think every situation has to be considered individually.

Also, just a friendly suggestion. It gets confusing when you reply to multiple people in the same post. I think most would prefer that you reply to one person at a time. It's fine to double post when you're replying to more than one person.

Quote from: SB Leader on January 06, 2018, 02:28:42 PMYou all are a group that I believe I would love to get a drink with. :)

Just as long as the wine stays wine and not blood, I'm cool with that.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Hydra009 on January 07, 2018, 12:43:18 AM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 06, 2018, 02:28:42 PMIn case you have heard otherwise from believers, the Crusades were a true travesty motivated by political gain with spirituality used as the cudgel (I dare not say Christianity as it did not adhere to the teachings of Christ).
Without a doubt, Byzantium cleverly recruited european Christians as their catspaws - the crusaders reclaim lost territory, hand it over (as the crusader states attest, that part was kinda iffy), and in return the crusaders get their sins redeemed and whatever other invisible, unverifiable rewards they desire.  It was a brillaint con.  Well, right up until the sack of Constantinople.  It turns out that zealots can't really be trusted.  Who'd have thought.

QuoteThere are distinctions that I do believe are necessary between Christians "sects" especially when it comes to fundamental issues.
And the great schism was coincidentally between the Christians of the capitals of the Western and Eastern halves of the Roman Empire.  Arguably, there was a political element here as well.

QuoteThat's why I may put Catholic belief separate from my own--but also acknowledge that there are Catholics who are saved: followers of Christ and not just the church (not to sound too "squishy" but there are Baptists who would need this distinction as well). A Christian should be a Christ follower first and a member of their denomination second.
Understood! There are ideals, but also possibly, a hierarchy of ideals. I would acknowledge much the same!
This sort of pan-Christianity is certainly in vogue at the moment.  From the inside, it looks like Christians recognizing their shared values and unifying.  From the outside, it looks like a consolidation of dwindling congregations, a move more practical than spiritual.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Shiranu on January 07, 2018, 02:17:00 AM
QuoteThank you for the detail! I can see where churches like what you describe would push you away from belief!

Actually, tbh, it wasn't so much that which made me stop believing as much as... well, I just stopped believing.

Unlike many atheists, particularly self-identifying atheists... I really have very little against religion, or any active dislike of it as a theology (I do share the dislike for organized religions bigotry though). If it was a choice for me, I would be religious rather than not.

QuoteWhat would be one or two Shinto beliefs you think would help the West?

First, the idea of kami... not as theological, divine beings but rather it's more primal definition; nature that inspires awe and reverence in someone, to the point that the object becomes divine. Modern society has become so far removed from nature through technology that this reverence for kami has been lost to so much of my generation, as well as the older and younger ones. And I think older generations that were closer to nature didn't show adequate respect to it either; we have always viewed nature as something to be exploited rather than something to be revered and appreciative of.

This is a broad generalization of course, and I don't mean to imply that the West is exclusively unappreciative of nature and that the Japanese are all nature lovers, but the tradition of finding such beauty in nature is certainly historically more rare in the West (the people who do have always had labels like "the Romantics", "Hippies", etc.) and more common in Japan (as well as some trains of Chinese and Eastern Asian philosophy, or even the animists of Africa or the Americas).

Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2018, 07:20:36 AM
The proto-renaissance began with Petrarch hiking up Mt Ventoux.  Not the only one, but the one who got the credit, for reviving European interest in nature.

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

Petrarch was a classicist who revived the works of Cicero, and followed Dante, in inventing Italian poetry.

And example of how history is always a contemporary construct, the contemporary always receding into the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascent_of_Mont_Ventoux

So what did or didn't happen?  And did it matter, since the propaganda of Petrarch was effective for centuries?  And how did others deconstruct his works, to illustrate their own ideas from 1860 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilization_of_the_Renaissance_in_Italy until 1969 ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6qYjisp51M

But others more recently have chosen to deny there was a Dark Ages at all ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7CanyzhZg

And then there is the myth of progress, the myth of the Enlightenment, the myth of modernity ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea_of_progress#Myth_of_progress

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4Hvxmw0Nto

... every generation, re-deconstructing the past via teen rebellion.

The current cycle of cyclical history, deluded by seemingly unlimited cheap hydrocarbons, and free lunch via fiat money.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Unbeliever on January 07, 2018, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2018, 10:28:42 AM
2. If one is logical, one is a Vulcan, not a human.

People aren't logical or illogical, people are human - concepts are logical of illogical.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: aitm on January 07, 2018, 07:40:51 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.

odd that you refer to JC as a "term".  None-the-less....JC .....if he actually existed was a better con man than most, but not that good. His followers were far better con men than he ever was. The spread of Christianity was not because of JC but in spite of "him".

Here is the thing most missed about JC and his "teaching" and his immediate followers.

IF, the immediate followers of JC ACTUALLY believed in his words as TRUTH, there would be no christians alive. They all would have been dead within 70 years of the death of JC. This is proven by the babble itself.

How odd eh? If christians truly believed in the words of JC there would actually be no christians left.

And before you ask me to show you the verse that proves this, understand that NOT knowing this verse, proves you never actually read the babble. And secondly, no, I will not give you the verse. Either read the babble or stfu.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on January 07, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 07, 2018, 05:35:11 PM
People aren't logical or illogical, people are human - concepts are logical of illogical.

Sets of concepts are consistent or contingent or inconsistent.  Doesn't make them right or wrong.  And a single concept by itself isn't logical or illogical, right or wrong.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SB Leader on February 12, 2018, 12:35:02 PM
Hello again friends! I wanted to pop back in to affirm that I am indeed alive. It was certainly the worst flu of my life and I wound up lying in bed for almost two weeks straight. I like to think I'm a strapping young man, so it certainly took me by surprise...

I wanted to let you know that I read each of your responses and took some time to consider them as well. You all have taught me and for that I am grateful. My graduate work presses onward and as I have continued, I have made a point to move away from "churched" language (Which can sometimes be self-evidential--I have made a point to notice and correct this in my own work!) and to address issues with an appreciation for opposing study (As suggested by Mike CL, Richard Carrier has found a way into my studies and while find much of his work to be lacking, I believe his perspective *has* to be addressed. And addressed well).

I appreciate your perspective, but I especially appreciate your stories. Evidence, reason, and sourcing matter, but what I believe matters immeasurably more is a person: their complexities, their richness of personality, and their background. The Bible says that man is made in the image of God and that means that each person bears value and significance and a vibrancy in life beyond anything we can fathom. One more thing, this community values truth so highly! I am impressed and inspired by that!

I humbly apologize again for not doing justice to your questions and responses--I feel as though at this point addressing some and not others would do a disservice to all and my lack of time would compel me to do just that. Considering the distance and coldness of the internet, you all have been pleasant hosts. I hope to cross paths with you in the future!
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2018, 12:39:04 PM
Get well.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: trdsf on February 12, 2018, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on February 12, 2018, 12:35:02 PM
Hello again friends! I wanted to pop back in to affirm that I am indeed alive. It was certainly the worst flu of my life and I wound up lying in bed for almost two weeks straight. I like to think I'm a strapping young man, so it certainly took me by surprise...
This year's flu(s) was/were awful; I had two rounds, one around xmas and another one about three weeks later; the cough still hasn't entirely gone away.  I went to one of those clinic things in the local pharmacy, and their diagnosis was "Yeah, this year's flu really sucks."

The irony being, this was the first year in I don't know how long that I actually got the annual flu shot.  For whatever reason, it wasn't especially effective against this year's bug...
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on February 12, 2018, 05:49:01 PM
Quote from: trdsf on February 12, 2018, 03:20:12 PM
This year's flu(s) was/were awful; I had two rounds, one around xmas and another one about three weeks later; the cough still hasn't entirely gone away.  I went to one of those clinic things in the local pharmacy, and their diagnosis was "Yeah, this year's flu really sucks."

The irony being, this was the first year in I don't know how long that I actually got the annual flu shot.  For whatever reason, it wasn't especially effective against this year's bug...
I heard or read that it was about 10% effective this year; and was led to think that that was much lower than usual.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on February 12, 2018, 07:00:40 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2018, 05:49:01 PM
I heard or read that it was about 10% effective this year; and was led to think that that was much lower than usual.

Coworker out with Influenza A Wed-Sun.  He was back today.  Yikes!  Being medical personnel, I take the immunization every year.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on February 12, 2018, 08:09:51 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2018, 07:00:40 PM
Coworker out with Influenza A Wed-Sun.  He was back today.  Yikes!  Being medical personnel, I take the immunization every year.
I get them every year.  In fact, I get the super duper senior citizen type. :))
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 02:17:36 AM
While others have answered in great detail, it still amuses me to reply to your original questions.

1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

Atheist from childhood.  Though I did enjoy earning money as a teen by shoveling the snow off the church sidewalks at a nice fee.

2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God. Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?

There is no diety of any sort, from any evidence.  But human society works for itself.  Honesty, trust, ethics all exist without a deity.  Why?  Because they work for us.

3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.

Myth in the sense that such a person ever existed.  Dreams, in the sense that ideas are good and sometimes assigning ideals to a dream make us think about them in reality.

4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?

What makes interpersonal relations work is good.  The opposite, bad.  Why is this such a hard question?  I know good and bad without a deity telling me what it is.

5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?

They are obsessed lunatics who force their closest followers to warp their lives attempting to follow the contradictions of the faith.  I don't see any benefits.    And the same to all theisms...
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on February 13, 2018, 05:17:44 AM
But if humanity is the deity ... then your answer matches mine ... minus optional metaphysics.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Blackleaf on February 13, 2018, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on February 12, 2018, 12:35:02 PM
Hello again friends! I wanted to pop back in to affirm that I am indeed alive. It was certainly the worst flu of my life and I wound up lying in bed for almost two weeks straight. I like to think I'm a strapping young man, so it certainly took me by surprise...

I wanted to let you know that I read each of your responses and took some time to consider them as well. You all have taught me and for that I am grateful. My graduate work presses onward and as I have continued, I have made a point to move away from "churched" language (Which can sometimes be self-evidential--I have made a point to notice and correct this in my own work!) and to address issues with an appreciation for opposing study (As suggested by Mike CL, Richard Carrier has found a way into my studies and while find much of his work to be lacking, I believe his perspective *has* to be addressed. And addressed well).

I appreciate your perspective, but I especially appreciate your stories. Evidence, reason, and sourcing matter, but what I believe matters immeasurably more is a person: their complexities, their richness of personality, and their background. The Bible says that man is made in the image of God and that means that each person bears value and significance and a vibrancy in life beyond anything we can fathom. One more thing, this community values truth so highly! I am impressed and inspired by that!

I humbly apologize again for not doing justice to your questions and responses--I feel as though at this point addressing some and not others would do a disservice to all and my lack of time would compel me to do just that. Considering the distance and coldness of the internet, you all have been pleasant hosts. I hope to cross paths with you in the future!

Feel free to stick around, if you like. You've been very reasonable in your time here. We could always use a few more opposing viewpoints, and you don't seem like the usual brain dead theists who come here looking to preach at us.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: aitm on February 13, 2018, 04:10:06 PM
joy of joy
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Munch on February 13, 2018, 08:16:30 PM
Quote from: aitm on February 13, 2018, 04:10:06 PM
joy of joy

(https://i.imgur.com/Ejouzz6.jpg)
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Blackleaf on February 13, 2018, 11:25:15 PM
Quote from: Munch on February 13, 2018, 08:16:30 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Ejouzz6.jpg)

If emotions are little people inside of your head, then are those emotions' emotions also little people in their heads? And what about their emotions' emotions' emotions? Where does it end!? How--

[Blackleaf.exe has stopped working]

[Check online for a solution to the problem (warning: this never works)]                             [Close program]                                                       
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on February 15, 2018, 02:30:21 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 13, 2018, 11:25:15 PM
If emotions are little people inside of your head, then are those emotions' emotions also little people in their heads? And what about their emotions' emotions' emotions? Where does it end!? How--

[Blackleaf.exe has stopped working]

[Check online for a solution to the problem (warning: this never works)]                             [Close program]                                                       

And our universe is just another atom in a bigger one and the reverse,,,
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Simon Moon on February 26, 2018, 08:12:07 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on January 04, 2018, 07:46:42 PM
Hello all,

My name is Zach, or SB Leader as my gaming name goes. This is not my first time on this forum as I interacted for a short stint during a research project for my undergraduate work in 2014. Now, in my graduate studies, I have returned with a few non-threatening questions for a project I am compiling for an Apologetics course (They are actually much the same questions as before!). My goal is, as Francis of Assisi once said, "not so much to be understood as to understand." I will interact as much as possible, but please forgive me for inevitably missing a few things.

Not sure why you include the phrase "a few non-threatening questions". There is no question I have ever gotten from a theist, that is threatening.

One of my theist relatives usually includes similar phrases when they discuss god beliefs with me. After digging a bit on why they use that phrase, I found it comes from their pastor (or Bible), and his claim that atheists already know god exists. As if my relative's questions are going to threaten my atheism.

Is this the source of your use?

QuoteAnswer in as much or as little detail as you'd like. Here are my questions (Forgive the sometimes awkward wording! I understand that I may find members of this community who are not completely atheist and they are meant to be worded as generally as possible):

1. -How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

Basic religious background, services once a week, other religious study a couple times a month.

I have nothing but good memories from my religious background, and still have several good friends from that time. I surf with several of them quite regularly.

Quote2. -To you, what is God like? Describe God. Or if you do not believe in God, then: what is important in life?

It is not up to me to define a god that I don't believe exists. If I am getting into a discussion with a theist on the subject, I will always ask them to define the god they believe exists, and to provide me with the reasons they believe.

I don't want to be accused of arguing against a strawman.

There many things important to me. Family, friends, health, freedom, music, surfing, travel, good food, etc, etc. Probably most of the same things that are important to you.

Quote3.-Describe what the term Jesus Christ means to you.

A Latin form of the name Yeshua. Possibly a historical figure, that had his life mythicized into that of a god-man. 

The original person that the Biblical stories are based on, would almost assuredly not recognise himself in the character in the Bible.

Quote4.-What defines what is good and bad? How are we able to know?

Good is defined by actions made by a moral agent, that positively effect the well being of other humans. Bad is defined by actions made by a moral agent, that negatively effect the well being of others.

There is quite a bit more to it than that.

If you are interested, google "the superiority of secular morality" for a great talk by Matt Dillahunty.

Quote5.-What to you is the most significant issue with the Christian church? The most significant benefit from the same church?

Issues:

Indoctrination of children too young to make their own choices, and to understand what they are being told.
Tax free status.
Persecution of certain people, based on "Biblical morality".
The ability to get otherwise moral people, to make excuses for the (condoned) slavery, genocide, rape, misogyny in the Bible.

Benefits:

The only benefit I can think of, is comfort and help for the "ingroup".

There is not a single other benefit I can think of, that is something that can not be achieved by secular means.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: SGOS on February 27, 2018, 07:25:54 AM
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 13, 2018, 11:25:15 PM
If emotions are little people inside of your head, then are those emotions' emotions also little people in their heads? And what about their emotions' emotions' emotions? Where does it end!? How--
I don't know, but I think that movie was the most creative animation I have ever seen.  It should be given an Academy Award every year, as the best animated film ever made.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on February 27, 2018, 11:54:20 PM
Quote from: SB Leader on February 12, 2018, 12:35:02 PM
Hello again friends! I wanted to pop back in to affirm that I am indeed alive. It was certainly the worst flu of my life and I wound up lying in bed for almost two weeks straight. I like to think I'm a strapping young man, so it certainly took me by surprise...

I wanted to let you know that I read each of your responses and took some time to consider them as well. You all have taught me and for that I am grateful. My graduate work presses onward and as I have continued, I have made a point to move away from "churched" language (Which can sometimes be self-evidential--I have made a point to notice and correct this in my own work!) and to address issues with an appreciation for opposing study (As suggested by Mike CL, Richard Carrier has found a way into my studies and while find much of his work to be lacking, I believe his perspective *has* to be addressed. And addressed well).

I appreciate your perspective, but I especially appreciate your stories. Evidence, reason, and sourcing matter, but what I believe matters immeasurably more is a person: their complexities, their richness of personality, and their background. The Bible says that man is made in the image of God and that means that each person bears value and significance and a vibrancy in life beyond anything we can fathom. One more thing, this community values truth so highly! I am impressed and inspired by that!

I humbly apologize again for not doing justice to your questions and responses--I feel as though at this point addressing some and not others would do a disservice to all and my lack of time would compel me to do just that. Considering the distance and coldness of the internet, you all have been pleasant hosts. I hope to cross paths with you in the future!

Get the vaccine next year.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Unbeliever on February 28, 2018, 02:05:40 PM
Would having been sick with the flu this year be similar to being vaccinated?
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on February 28, 2018, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 28, 2018, 02:05:40 PM
Would having been sick with the flu this year be similar to being vaccinated?

The hard way to be vaccinated.  Unfortunately the damn bug mutates every year.  Like a politician.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 28, 2018, 02:05:40 PM
Would having been sick with the flu this year be similar to being vaccinated?

Nope.  To put it most easily, there are dozens of varieties of what are called Hs and Ns in the flu (H2N3, H6N2, etc), and even those change slightly every year.  Though you can have a partial immunity to some for a while.  And some people may interestingly be immune to most.  I haven't had any variety of flu since I was about 12, and I was up ad around while my brother lay in bed in misery for a week.

My friends who catch the flu HATE me.  LOL!
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on February 28, 2018, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 02:39:39 PM
Nope.  To put it most easily, there are dozens of varieties of what are called Hs and Ns in the flu (H2N3, H6N2, etc), and even those change slightly every year.  Though you can have a partial immunity to some for a while.  And some people may interestingly be immune to most.  I haven't had any variety of flu since I was about 12, and I was up ad around while my brother lay in bed in misery for a week.

My friends who catch the flu HATE me.  LOL!

Or are you a carrier? ;-)
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on March 03, 2018, 01:40:53 AM
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2018, 08:16:32 PM
Or are you a carrier? ;-)

Probably not.  My friends don't get it from me either.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2018, 01:55:48 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 03, 2018, 01:40:53 AM
Probably not.  My friends don't get it from me either.

Well that is good.  Typhoid Cave Bear would be too long a handle.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on March 03, 2018, 03:32:20 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 03, 2018, 01:55:48 AM
Well that is good.  Typhoid Cave Bear would be too long a handle.

Well, we should get this straight.  You suggested I was carrying the flu to others and I pointed out that I wasn't.  And now you vaguely suggest I was Typhoid Cave Bear.  Never mind it is "Cavebear" not "Cave Bear", (as you so repeatedly and stupidly like to say),  I also have never infected another. 

Or would you prefer Ba Ru Ch...

To you get tired of being wrong, or does it just roll off your back?
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on March 03, 2018, 08:20:20 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 03, 2018, 03:32:20 AM
Well, we should get this straight.  You suggested I was carrying the flu to others and I pointed out that I wasn't.  And now you vaguely suggest I was Typhoid Cave Bear.  Never mind it is "Cavebear" not "Cave Bear", (as you so repeatedly and stupidly like to say),  I also have never infected another. 

Or would you prefer Ba Ru Ch...

To you get tired of being wrong, or does it just roll off your back?

You misread ... being a carrier usually means ... has disease but shows no symptoms, so acts to unconsciously spread disease being carried,  I didn't claim TCB (Typhoid CaveBear) I disclaimed it, a joke (and happy you aren't with a disease but minus the symptoms).  The original Typhoid Mary had to be locked up by public health.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on March 05, 2018, 05:01:10 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 03, 2018, 08:20:20 AM
You misread ... being a carrier usually means ... has disease but shows no symptoms, so acts to unconsciously spread disease being carried,  I didn't claim TCB (Typhoid CaveBear) I disclaimed it, a joke (and happy you aren't with a disease but minus the symptoms).  The original Typhoid Mary had to be locked up by public health.

Nice back-tracking Baruch, but I did NOT misread; you mis-thought.  You reversed your embarassing position weakly.  And I know quite a lot about Typhoid Mary.  Now let's get to the details. 

I am not a carrier.  In my carpool, the ladies caught the flu from their children.  They admitted it and it was obvious from the timing.  Their kids came home sick from school, they caught it and gave it to their husbands.  And they traded the various flu viruses among themselves so they were sick for months spreading it around their offices because they didn't want to use sick days saving it for maternity leave.

*I* just sat there in the car resenting the possible exposure but never getting it myself.

*I* was the one in the carpool who never actually caught it.  No one close to me in MY office got the flu.so  wasn't a carrier.

Wise up dude, I told you I wasn't a carrier, I know why I'm not, and you don't pay any attention to what other people say.  Stop being ignorant.

Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 05:44:18 AM
Mighty sensitive there ... but I understood you the first time.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Munch on March 05, 2018, 07:48:16 AM
This is the problem with forum debates, its hard to get across tone and sarcasm in subtle ways.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: aitm on March 05, 2018, 12:38:45 PM
Quote from: Munch on March 05, 2018, 07:48:16 AM
This is the problem with forum debates, its hard to get across tone and sarcasm in subtle ways.
Fuck you. Sarcasm.... is easy to spot fucktard.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 12:52:20 PM
Quote from: Munch on March 05, 2018, 07:48:16 AM
This is the problem with forum debates, its hard to get across tone and sarcasm in subtle ways.

Use emoticons ... they melt Snowflakes.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Unbeliever on March 05, 2018, 01:13:40 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 12:52:20 PM
Use emoticons ... they melt Snowflakes.
But the forum's emoticons are almost all gone.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Mike Cl on March 05, 2018, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 05, 2018, 01:13:40 PM
But the forum's emoticons are almost all gone.
Yep.  Mostly, anyway.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on March 05, 2018, 04:20:01 PM
Direct statements beat emoticons, right?  ;)
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 07:26:47 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 05, 2018, 01:13:40 PM
But the forum's emoticons are almost all gone.

In primitive times, when dinosaurs still trolled the internet ... emoticons weren't graphic, just made up of ASCII ... (Z(:-{ aka Napoleon met his Waterloo.
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Unbeliever on March 05, 2018, 07:40:23 PM
Is that where he got his watermelons?
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 08:11:06 AM
Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2018, 07:26:47 PM
In primitive times, when dinosaurs still trolled the internet ... emoticons weren't graphic, just made up of ASCII ... (Z(:-{ aka Napoleon met his Waterloo.

0011101001001101001101
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 01:48:27 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 08:11:06 AM
0011101001001101001101

Your binary didn't translate to proper ascii ... here is proper binary ...

01011001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110011 01110100 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101100 01100110 01101111 01110010 01101101 01100101 01100100
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 01:48:27 PM
Your binary didn't translate to proper ascii ... here is proper binary ...

01011001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110011 01110100 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101100 01100110 01101111 01110010 01101101 01100101 01100100

I gave you Bender's shorthand version. 

And my binary string was NOT malformed!  It is just a Futurama version!  So THERE!
Title: Re: A Few Questions
Post by: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: Cavebear on March 08, 2018, 04:53:03 PM
I gave you Bender's shorthand version. 

And my binary string was NOT malformed!  It is just a Futurama version!  So THERE!

Just admit you are lazy during Winter ...

https://www.binaryhexconverter.com/binary-to-ascii-text-converter