The reports of the existence of Jesus come from one original source. One. One single source was created by man. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. The Roman historian <a href="http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/home.htm"; target="_blank">Josephus</a> referred to Jesus at one point in his writings. Also, we not only have one source but just one voice to verify the existence of Socrates - Plato. The Bible at least has many voices chiming in, telling us about Jesus. And given that Caesar was a military hero for an empire that once ruled a good chunk of the world and Jesus was just a carpenter from Nazareth, it's surprising we know anything about Jesus at all.
[quote]<strong>And that source has been hugely corrupted over time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Not true. The Roman historian Josephus referred to Jesus at one point in his writings. Also, we not only have one source but just one voice to verify the existence of Socrates - Plato. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Josephus' writings are generally agreed to be dated sometime in the late first century, round about the same time most agree the first texts upon which the modern bible is based were written. Neither are contemporary.
There also seems to be a huge amount of skepticism about the authenticity of Josephus' account, specifically that it's based on other writings, and not an independent account of events.
[quote]<strong>... in your opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't this all about opinions? Would you like to argue the case that the modern bible is what it was 500 years ago? 1000? 2000?
As for the existence of Socrates, who knows? Perhaps he didn't exist, and the words attributed to him were in fact written by others, intended to offer some guidance. And we now hold those words in high regard. And the name Socrates. But maybe he never lived?
Substitute "Socrates" with "Jesus". It's not an argument that you should not have your faith, just that you've shown why we would perhaps be gullible to simply assume that Jesus was a real person, and that the words of the modern bible are maybe merely a collection of allegories.
[quote]<strong>The Bible at least has many voices chiming in, telling us about Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You said it. "The Bible". Many voices, in one source.
[quote]<strong>And given that Caesar was a military hero for an empire that once ruled a good chunk of the world and Jesus was just a carpenter from Nazareth, it's surprising we know anything about Jesus at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But Jesus was the Son of God! Our savior! If you're one of around 2 billion Christians in this world, the events that took place a couple of millennia ago were the most monumental that ever did, and ever will! Who is Caesar compared to that?!
[quote]Interesting. So you believe in Aliens, have you met one? Anyone seen one that can be corroborated? Seen any on other planets? No.<hr></blockquote>
There was a (casual and nonscientific) survey (The Hope Report was it?) some years ago and out of their sampling, 3% of Americans felt that they may have had an "alien abduction". That is many millions of people. I have no clue as to what these people may have experienced in cold hard reality but if you examine the files of MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) you will find hundreds, if not thousands of cases which have been exhaustively examined, in which the victims/subjects were not hallucinating, or lying, or faking it.
Whether any have actually had an "alien encounter" is unknown as far as any third party is concerned, but personally, whatever these people went through was often harrowing and life-changing, and seems to have commonalities re. strange looking lifeforms and metallic vehicles, many of which have been captured on film, video, still photos, and civilian and military radarscopes. Most MUFON examinations have found that 95% of cases turn out to have mundane, or 'everyday' explanations. But there remains 5% that are still classified as 'unknown'. Similarly with USAF sponsored programs like BlueBook, Sign and Grudge, but in those programs there was a preset agenda and the resulting reports were changed for public consumption, or if deemed too strange for general release, were reclassified.
I have been fascinated in the "life elsewhere" question from when I was really little, and have read most of the popular literature on the subject. I also have a couple of family members in the military and intelligence community; as a teen I bugged them nonstop with questions, I am sure nobody ever violated their security clearances but when it came to questions about the UFO/alien issue, the response was never 'ridicule' but always a particular look that implied "were just not going there" always followed by a subtle change of subject.
Like Belle, I am one of those pesky people that requires nuts'n'bolts "proof" before I can commit myself. I have never seen a 'flying saucer' or a little grayskinned character with big black wrap-around eyes. Many people claim to have, but thats not good enough for me. If the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA/NSA etc personnel appeared on national network TV and announced that "aliens have been visiting this planet", would you believe it then? Would I? My answer, no, that wouldn't cut it either. {actually it would probably reinforce my skepticism } Mere belief doesn't work for me. I cannot place faith in something in which I have no personal proof or firsthand evidence; I require at least the 2nd hand evidence produced by some 3rd party's rigorous science.
[quote]Not anymore than have, in your opinion, seen Jesus. Yet you choose to believe in them. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Aliens exist. You Choose to put more weight on the Alien evidence. It is a choice, not an inability to be convinced.<hr></blockquote>
I know people also who claimed to have seen Jesus. I have read accounts of Indian yogis, Tibetan lamas Catholic nuns and others (Sri Yukteswar etc) who claim to have seen and even conversed with Jesus. I haven't seen him, so thats all irrelevant to me. I haven't seen an alien either, to my knowledge.
Looking back at the biblical story of Jesus' birth, what with the tales of the Star of Bethlehem, the "angel" at the crib, the "virgin birth", etc; this could just also be explained away as as a flying saucer hanging over the area, with an alien in a space-suit examining the newborn baby of an artificially induced pregnancy in a pre-selected mother. This interpretation is no more far-fetched than what the Christian Church expects its followers to believe. And, Jesus in his later life apparently was able to perform some really bizarre and mindboggling feats which turn some of the classic laws of physics upside down, re. human capabilities.
Most Christians I have met would readily concur that Jesus was definitely no ordinary human being. Perhaps he was an alien? I just don't know, and neither does anyone else, so I cannot believe or but faith in that possibility. Similarly, I cannot place faith in what Church officials (ordinary human beings) have decided to be the interpretation of the story that surrounds that teacher/shaman/yogi/alien/spiritual master/etc etc, whoever he was who lived 2000 years ago in the middle east. However I can accept that there is enough evidence that he existed as a historical figure, just as I can with, for example Plato, or Caesar, or Henry VIII etc etc.
Interesting. So you believe in Aliens, have you met one?
I beleive that the logic goes:
There is a 1 in 1,000,000,000 (or some odd number) chance of life forming around a star. There are Hundreds of trillions of stars (probably more, Im just pulling numbers out of my ass) out there. There is a good chance that one has life
Religion now is just pure faith.
I just like being argumentative.
If you didnt you wouldnt be in the AO forums
This John Edward geezer has a show on the Sci-Fi channel?? Hmm, that says a lot, doesn't it?
This Christ character has shows on the religious channel?? Hmm, that says a lot, doesn't it?
I was beginning to wonder if The Blue Meanie was related to Bob Dole for a while there
I was just waiting for him to refer to the peoples eyebrow
b) an excuse to switch off your brain and stop thinking for yourself
Isnt that the point of religion? Wasnt Abelard castrated, prossecuted, and exiled because he tried to use reason to explain christianity?
Not that this is a bad thing, I personally would like to see the country united under one religion, but... I just dont think that you could find the right one.
Think Mercerism from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (The book that Blade Runner was bastardized from for those not in the know).
Entropy... entropy... poetic... entropy... So the worms won´t be eating me but something that have become "not me"
You obviously believe wholeheartedly in your faith. Without having to rephrase the question a hunderd times to make it comfortable to you, why do you honestly believe in your faith and why.
Im trying to understand the reasons why you truly believe in something unsubstantiated (from my point of view). There must be a reason right?
I thought I'd bring us back to the original question, and try to add a new thing or two:
(A) No.
I believe that our experience of the period after we die is like our experience of the period before we are born: none.
(B) As for religion, and the worth of living a good life, I'm with THT.
That is, we as a sepcies have evolved (along with the roses and the worms) to perpetuate our genes. Things have gotten pretty fancy in our brains in the last few million years, though, and now we have such innovations as:
altruism (which many other critters have had)
a sense of our own mortality
an emotional bond to our kinsmen (also invented by other species, too)
a sophisticated system for making sense of the world, which has invented ever-more beautiful and complex explanations, including animistic religion, monotheistics religion, and science.
a built-in set of morals, evolved to guide us to actions broadly favorable to our genes (and the genes we share with kinsmen)
We should and do strive to make our lives good ones according to (1) our built-in emotional system, and (2) the conclusions we draw from (1) plus our intellectual abilities.
Some popular humans, like Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, etc., have had great inspirations to help us make sense of and come to terms with the emotional and intellectual apparatus we are all born with.
Incidentally, do a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mithras"; target="_blank">Google search on my username</a> for some interesting reading on another popular fellow that was around when that Jesus was.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Like Belle, I am one of those pesky people that requires nuts'n'bolts "proof" before I can commit myself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm happy to be open to possibilities without irrefutable proof, but I cannot understand people who are willing to put so much belief into something that has so little proof.
Not only that, but by "choosing" a faith, you automatically preclude yourself from the possibility that your faith is misplaced - that there may be an alternative.
I currently don't believe Jesus existed. In the future, perhaps evidence will be found that will persuade me that he did. It's one eventuality that I will admit could happen.
It's not possible for a Christian to be open to the possibility that he didn't exist because that would negate the faith required of a Christian theist.
To me, that's an incredibly dangerous way to live your life.
<strong>I currently don't believe Jesus existed.</strong><hr></blockquote>Wait a sec. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right? (Who is it that said that?) Or do you know of some evidence that he didn't exist?
Surely you have to beleive that there was a man, perhaps not named Jesus, who all this was based off of dont you? Its hard to have a martyr based religion without a martyr.
Im sure that he existed, as did Mohammed, and Napteshemu (or whatever his name was, the older version of Noah), and Buddah, and all of them.I just dont beleive that they turned water into wine, or got a book passed odwn from Gabriel, or survived a flood that wiped out all life, or didnt eat for 2 months, or whatever.
I'm happy to be open to possibilities without irrefutable proof, but I cannot understand people who are willing to put so much belief into something that has so little proof.
Not only that, but by "choosing" a faith, you automatically preclude yourself from the possibility that your faith is misplaced - that there may be an alternative.
I currently don't believe Jesus existed. In the future, perhaps evidence will be found that will persuade me that he did. It's one eventuality that I will admit could happen.
It's not possible for a Christian to be open to the possibility that he didn't exist because that would negate the faith required of a Christian theist.
To me, that's an incredibly dangerous way to live your life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are not applying the same standard across the board. For Aliens you believe they exist because no one has proved they don't. For Jesus, you don't because no once can give you his address and drivers license. You have other reasons for not believing or wanting to believe in Jesus. It has very little to do with fact finding as the facts and clues and stories and the very existence of Christianity and its pervasiveness attests to his existence as a man.
To me, that's an incredibly dangerous way to live your life.<hr></blockquote>
Dangerous how? Will I die thinking I am going to heaven and be disappointed somehow such that it just kills me?
Maybe I will become the victim of a religious hate crime and be horribly maimed...
How dangerous? Are you only speaking metaphorically or do you believe the somehow that way of thinking will eventually lead all Christians to be come fundamentalist wackos that fly planes into buildings? Muslims are not the only ones that take things too far, but believing that Jesus existed will not cause anything bad to happen. Neither will believing in God or that Jesus was the Son of God.
<strong>Wait a sec. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right? (Who is it that said that?) Or do you know of some evidence that he didn't exist?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read my other posts.
A complete absence of evidence gives infinite scope for possibilities.
An abundance of evidence gives proof within our knowledge.
A tiny amount of evidence from a single source without corroboration (contemporary or historical) is worthless.
Within our current knowledge, Jesus is a character in a single text. Why should we put so much faith into his existence?
[quote]Originally posted by Toolboi:
<strong>Surely you have to beleive that there was a man, perhaps not named Jesus, who all this was based off of dont you? Its hard to have a martyr based religion without a martyr.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope. Not one bit. I believe the writings upon which the modern bible is based were similar to Aesop's fables, allegories for people to live by.
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>You are not applying the same standard across the board. For Aliens you believe they exist because no one has proved they don't. For Jesus, you don't because no once can give you his address and drivers license. You have other reasons for not believing or wanting to believe in Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand I'm not applying the same standard across the board. Read my response to BRussell.
What are my other reasons, out of interest? I'm not aware of any.
[quote]<strong>It has very little to do with fact finding as the facts and clues and stories and the very existence of Christianity and its pervasiveness attests to his existence as a man.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A bit like werewolves and ghosts, then? Sorry, that's mean.
How about the Roman gods, or Greek gods? Egyptian? Mayan? They existed for a long, long time, supported only by clues and stories and the pervasiveness of the religion within it's civilization.
Do you believe these gods exist, or existed?
[quote]<strong>Dangerous how? Will I die thinking I am going to heaven and be disappointed somehow such that it just kills me?
Maybe I will become the victim of a religious hate crime and be horribly maimed...
How dangerous? Are you only speaking metaphorically or do you believe the somehow that way of thinking will eventually lead all Christians to be come fundamentalist wackos that fly planes into buildings? Muslims are not the only ones that take things too far, but believing that Jesus existed will not cause anything bad to happen. Neither will believing in God or that Jesus was the Son of God.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, no. I don't believe that organized religion drives people to such acts, just that individuals will use religion as a defense for their actions.
It's dangerous because to rule out the possibility of every other eventuality because you have complete faith in one is closing your mind. You lose a part of your free thinking. You "choose" God, but in doing so refuse all others.
How will you feel if your children choose an alternative?
<strong>Josephus' writings are generally agreed to be dated sometime in the late first century, round about the same time most agree the first texts upon which the modern bible is based were written. Neither are contemporary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, he was a historian. That's what historians usually do - write about events that happened before they were born. We don't discount the other things he wrote about just because they didn't happen during his lifetime, why make a special exception for this?
[quote]<strong>There also seems to be a huge amount of skepticism about the authenticity of Josephus' account, specifically that it's based on other writings, and not an independent account of events.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that controversy is addressed in the link I provided.
[quote]<strong>... A tiny amount of evidence from a single source without corroboration (contemporary or historical) is worthless.
Within our current knowledge, Jesus is a character in a single text. Why should we put so much faith into his existence?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's back up here a minute. The New Testament is a single text today but in truth it is a compliation of texts by a number of different authors.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
For me, that was a fascinating read, specially as I was raised Christian with the standard simplistic 'sunday-school' drivel being forced down my throat. The extraordinary story of Rennes-le-Chateau, the Cathars and and the possibility/probability that Jesus may have even survived the crucifixion and had offspring may seem "blasphemous" to some but makes no less sense than the 'official' version. I attended a lecture by Henry Lincoln a few years back, some years after the "Grail" book was published where he expanded on some of the theories raised in the book. There are also legends that Jesus, who, after surviving the crucifixion escaped and travelled throughout Western Europe.
An area totally overlooked by official Christianity is the period, some 20 years or so, from when Jesus was about 12 years old to when he reappeared in his early 30s and started his ministry. There is nothing in the gospels to indicate what he was doing for two-thirds of his life. There are many stories from the Indian subcontinent from that same time period about a person (name "Issa" and similar) from the West who spent years studying spiritual disciplines in Buddhist monasteries. Original Christianity embraced eastern philosphical concepts such as karma and reincarnation, and despite being deliberately erased from the Bible, quite a number of subtle references escaped the censors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, the Blue Meanie has also heard the stories about Jesus travelling in the East and the Bible originally containing references to reincarnation which were ruthlessly censored by the early Church ? with, as you say, only a few subtle references surviving. (Jesus tells his followers at one point that they will have to be born again. Hmmm, wonder what he meant by that? ) Samantha Joanne Ollendale is also officially broadcasting on The Blue Meanie's wavelength :cool:
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
You should have looked and verified what was said in the post before praising it as a "fascinating read" that was abviously more truthful than the Bible itself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
And Jesus survuving the Crucifixion and raising a family would be blasphemous. If that were indeed the case then man has no chance of redemption when they die. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
So Noah's true colours are showing again. Anything he doesn't agree with "blasphemous" Is this 2002 or 1502?
Until you have actually read the book in question, you have no legitimate right to dismiss it out of hand. I'm not saying "The Holy Blood" is necessarily true in its entirety, but it does at least present some evidence.
Allow me to quote you a news item in the latest edition of one of The Blue Meanie's favourite magazines <a href="http://www.forteantimes.com"; target="_blank">The Fortean Times</a>:
[quote] "Behind that innocent face is the power of Satanic darkness. Harry Potter is the devil and he is destroying people," pastor Jack Brock, of the Christ Community Church, told reporters as the works of JK Rowling burned alongside those of Stephen King, AC/DC, Eminem and even Walt Disney. These books teach children how they can get into witchcraft and become a witch, wizard or warlock." Brock later admitted that he hadn't actually read any of the books. <hr></blockquote>
Sez it all really, doesn't it?
[quote] If that were indeed the case then man has no chance of redemption when they die. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <hr></blockquote>
Maybe Man has no need of redemption when we die? If the whole concept of Jesus "saving" humankind is bogus, then we don't have a problem.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
[quote] In Luke and John the last words were "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and "It Is Finished." The Two phrases are very similar in what they are saying. Not sure, maybe they wrote them in different languages and over they years they were interpreted differently? Same meaning, different words. Point 3 is really shaky.
The last points made have to do with historical thoughts on whether the Bible is complete and if things have been left out or not that compromises the integrity of the scriptures. I am not well enough studied in bilical history to make a good go at the truth of the matter but with this guy seemingly batting 0 I put no faith that his assertions are fully truthful, he seems to have an agenda that the facts are not backing. <hr></blockquote>
The New Testament was written entirely in Greek - the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean at the time.
[quote] I put no faith that his assertions are fully truthful, <hr></blockquote>
So, like, he must have been making it all up? Come on, Noah, that's not an answer. This is an internationally published book - ten years' research, one author a PHD. You can't just make stuff up.
If you don't have an answer to these allegations, but choose to continue believing that the Bible is the literally inspired word of God anyway, then of course, that's fine. I wouldn't want to knock you for that. But at least be big enough to admit it.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
I know people also who claimed to have seen Jesus. I have read accounts of Indian yogis, Tibetan lamas Catholic nuns and others (Sri Yukteswar etc) who claim to have seen and even conversed with Jesus. I haven't seen him, so thats all irrelevant to me. I haven't seen an alien either, to my knowledge.
Looking back at the biblical story of Jesus' birth, what with the tales of the Star of Bethlehem, the "angel" at the crib, the "virgin birth", etc; this could just also be explained away as as a flying saucer hanging over the area, with an alien in a space-suit examining the newborn baby of an artificially induced pregnancy in a pre-selected mother. This interpretation is no more far-fetched than what the Christian Church expects its followers to believe. And, Jesus in his later life apparently was able to perform some really bizarre and mindboggling feats which turn some of the classic laws of physics upside down, re. human capabilities.
Most Christians I have met would readily concur that Jesus was definitely no ordinary human being. Perhaps he was an alien? I just don't know, and neither does anyone else, so I cannot believe or but faith in that possibility. Similarly, I cannot place faith in what Church officials (ordinary human beings) have decided to be the interpretation of the story that surrounds that teacher/shaman/yogi/alien/spiritual master/etc etc, whoever he was who lived 2000 years ago in the middle east. However I can accept that there is enough evidence that he existed as a historical figure, just as I can with, for example Plato, or Caesar, or Henry VIII etc etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Where do you find time to write these essays?
[quote] Incidentally, do a Google search on my username for some interesting reading on another popular fellow that was around when that Jesus was. <hr></blockquote>
Yes, indeed. Noah and Fluffy might find Mithraism strangely familiar...
[quote] Does this mean he thinks The Blue Meanie is crazy?
I dunno, I think that the Ble Meanie is crazy and I agree with him <hr></blockquote>
Why, thank you, sir :cool:
[quote] as soon as I start mentioning things like reincarnation you start throwing words like "arse" around
Just to be irritating, didnt I mention reincarnation? <hr></blockquote>
Yes, you did - and somewhat disappointingly, you've been the only one, so far. Other than you and me, all we've had in this thread so far are variations on "no way, dude!" and earnest Christian sermons - the kind of response you might expect from a random sampling of people on the street. Where are all the Zen Buddhists, the Jainists, devotees of the White Goddess, the Neopagans, the Sufists, the Qabbalists? I thought Mac users were supposed to be creative, artistic free thinkers...
Comments
<strong>
The reports of the existence of Jesus come from one original source. One. One single source was created by man. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. The Roman historian <a href="http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/home.htm"; target="_blank">Josephus</a> referred to Jesus at one point in his writings. Also, we not only have one source but just one voice to verify the existence of Socrates - Plato. The Bible at least has many voices chiming in, telling us about Jesus. And given that Caesar was a military hero for an empire that once ruled a good chunk of the world and Jesus was just a carpenter from Nazareth, it's surprising we know anything about Jesus at all.
[quote]<strong>And that source has been hugely corrupted over time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
... in your opinion.
[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>Not true. The Roman historian Josephus referred to Jesus at one point in his writings. Also, we not only have one source but just one voice to verify the existence of Socrates - Plato. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Josephus' writings are generally agreed to be dated sometime in the late first century, round about the same time most agree the first texts upon which the modern bible is based were written. Neither are contemporary.
There also seems to be a huge amount of skepticism about the authenticity of Josephus' account, specifically that it's based on other writings, and not an independent account of events.
[quote]<strong>... in your opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't this all about opinions?
As for the existence of Socrates, who knows? Perhaps he didn't exist, and the words attributed to him were in fact written by others, intended to offer some guidance. And we now hold those words in high regard. And the name Socrates. But maybe he never lived?
Substitute "Socrates" with "Jesus". It's not an argument that you should not have your faith, just that you've shown why we would perhaps be gullible to simply assume that Jesus was a real person, and that the words of the modern bible are maybe merely a collection of allegories.
[quote]<strong>The Bible at least has many voices chiming in, telling us about Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You said it. "The Bible". Many voices, in one source.
[quote]<strong>And given that Caesar was a military hero for an empire that once ruled a good chunk of the world and Jesus was just a carpenter from Nazareth, it's surprising we know anything about Jesus at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But Jesus was the Son of God! Our savior! If you're one of around 2 billion Christians in this world, the events that took place a couple of millennia ago were the most monumental that ever did, and ever will! Who is Caesar compared to that?!
[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
There was a (casual and nonscientific) survey (The Hope Report was it?) some years ago and out of their sampling, 3% of Americans felt that they may have had an "alien abduction". That is many millions of people. I have no clue as to what these people may have experienced in cold hard reality but if you examine the files of MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) you will find hundreds, if not thousands of cases which have been exhaustively examined, in which the victims/subjects were not hallucinating, or lying, or faking it.
Whether any have actually had an "alien encounter" is unknown as far as any third party is concerned, but personally, whatever these people went through was often harrowing and life-changing, and seems to have commonalities re. strange looking lifeforms and metallic vehicles, many of which have been captured on film, video, still photos, and civilian and military radarscopes. Most MUFON examinations have found that 95% of cases turn out to have mundane, or 'everyday' explanations. But there remains 5% that are still classified as 'unknown'. Similarly with USAF sponsored programs like BlueBook, Sign and Grudge, but in those programs there was a preset agenda and the resulting reports were changed for public consumption, or if deemed too strange for general release, were reclassified.
I have been fascinated in the "life elsewhere" question from when I was really little, and have read most of the popular literature on the subject. I also have a couple of family members in the military and intelligence community; as a teen I bugged them nonstop with questions, I am sure nobody ever violated their security clearances but when it came to questions about the UFO/alien issue, the response was never 'ridicule' but always a particular look that implied "were just not going there" always followed by a subtle change of subject.
Like Belle, I am one of those pesky people that requires nuts'n'bolts "proof" before I can commit myself. I have never seen a 'flying saucer' or a little grayskinned character with big black wrap-around eyes. Many people claim to have, but thats not good enough for me. If the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA/NSA etc personnel appeared on national network TV and announced that "aliens have been visiting this planet", would you believe it then? Would I? My answer, no, that wouldn't cut it either. {actually it would probably reinforce my skepticism
[quote]Not anymore than have, in your opinion, seen Jesus. Yet you choose to believe in them. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Aliens exist. You Choose to put more weight on the Alien evidence. It is a choice, not an inability to be convinced.<hr></blockquote>
I know people also who claimed to have seen Jesus. I have read accounts of Indian yogis, Tibetan lamas Catholic nuns and others (Sri Yukteswar etc) who claim to have seen and even conversed with Jesus. I haven't seen him, so thats all irrelevant to me. I haven't seen an alien either, to my knowledge.
Looking back at the biblical story of Jesus' birth, what with the tales of the Star of Bethlehem, the "angel" at the crib, the "virgin birth", etc; this could just also be explained away as as a flying saucer hanging over the area, with an alien in a space-suit examining the newborn baby of an artificially induced pregnancy in a pre-selected mother. This interpretation is no more far-fetched than what the Christian Church expects its followers to believe. And, Jesus in his later life apparently was able to perform some really bizarre and mindboggling feats which turn some of the classic laws of physics upside down, re. human capabilities.
Most Christians I have met would readily concur that Jesus was definitely no ordinary human being. Perhaps he was an alien? I just don't know, and neither does anyone else, so I cannot believe or but faith in that possibility. Similarly, I cannot place faith in what Church officials (ordinary human beings) have decided to be the interpretation of the story that surrounds that teacher/shaman/yogi/alien/spiritual master/etc etc, whoever he was who lived 2000 years ago in the middle east. However I can accept that there is enough evidence that he existed as a historical figure, just as I can with, for example Plato, or Caesar, or Henry VIII etc etc.
I beleive that the logic goes:
There is a 1 in 1,000,000,000 (or some odd number) chance of life forming around a star. There are Hundreds of trillions of stars (probably more, Im just pulling numbers out of my ass) out there. There is a good chance that one has life
Religion now is just pure faith.
I just like being argumentative.
If you didnt you wouldnt be in the AO forums
This John Edward geezer has a show on the Sci-Fi channel?? Hmm, that says a lot, doesn't it?
This Christ character has shows on the religious channel?? Hmm, that says a lot, doesn't it?
I was beginning to wonder if The Blue Meanie was related to Bob Dole for a while there
I was just waiting for him to refer to the peoples eyebrow
b) an excuse to switch off your brain and stop thinking for yourself
Isnt that the point of religion? Wasnt Abelard castrated, prossecuted, and exiled because he tried to use reason to explain christianity?
Not that this is a bad thing, I personally would like to see the country united under one religion, but... I just dont think that you could find the right one.
Think Mercerism from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (The book that Blade Runner was bastardized from for those not in the know).
Entropy... entropy... poetic... entropy... So the worms won´t be eating me but something that have become "not me"
Excellent way to put it
For those who have no clue what entropy is, <a href="http://play.mp3.com/cgi-bin/play/play.cgi/AAIBQqI7FQDABG5vcm1QBAAAAFLjhgIAUQEAAAALAUN79Y48AQ DxgHLZaCq5X_kD4x8_9Q--/Entropy.m3u" target="_blank">Here</a>
Does this mean he thinks The Blue Meanie is crazy?
I dunno, I think that the Ble Meanie is crazy and I agree with him
as soon as I start mentioning things like reincarnation you start throwing words like "arse" around
Just to be irritating, didnt I mention reincarnation?
Of course me and NohaJ are used too arguing by now
Oh, and just so I have my quote of Smilies:
[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
You obviously believe wholeheartedly in your faith. Without having to rephrase the question a hunderd times to make it comfortable to you, why do you honestly believe in your faith and why.
Im trying to understand the reasons why you truly believe in something unsubstantiated (from my point of view). There must be a reason right?
I thought I'd bring us back to the original question, and try to add a new thing or two:
(A) No.
I believe that our experience of the period after we die is like our experience of the period before we are born: none.
(B) As for religion, and the worth of living a good life, I'm with THT.
That is, we as a sepcies have evolved (along with the roses and the worms) to perpetuate our genes. Things have gotten pretty fancy in our brains in the last few million years, though, and now we have such innovations as:
- altruism (which many other critters have had)
- a sense of our own mortality
- an emotional bond to our kinsmen (also invented by other species, too)
- a sophisticated system for making sense of the world, which has invented ever-more beautiful and complex explanations, including animistic religion, monotheistics religion, and science.
- a built-in set of morals, evolved to guide us to actions broadly favorable to our genes (and the genes we share with kinsmen)
We should and do strive to make our lives good ones according to (1) our built-in emotional system, and (2) the conclusions we draw from (1) plus our intellectual abilities.Some popular humans, like Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, etc., have had great inspirations to help us make sense of and come to terms with the emotional and intellectual apparatus we are all born with.
Incidentally, do a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mithras"; target="_blank">Google search on my username</a> for some interesting reading on another popular fellow that was around when that Jesus was.
<strong>Like Belle, I am one of those pesky people that requires nuts'n'bolts "proof" before I can commit myself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm happy to be open to possibilities without irrefutable proof, but I cannot understand people who are willing to put so much belief into something that has so little proof.
Not only that, but by "choosing" a faith, you automatically preclude yourself from the possibility that your faith is misplaced - that there may be an alternative.
I currently don't believe Jesus existed. In the future, perhaps evidence will be found that will persuade me that he did. It's one eventuality that I will admit could happen.
It's not possible for a Christian to be open to the possibility that he didn't exist because that would negate the faith required of a Christian theist.
To me, that's an incredibly dangerous way to live your life.
<strong>I currently don't believe Jesus existed.</strong><hr></blockquote>Wait a sec. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right? (Who is it that said that?) Or do you know of some evidence that he didn't exist?
Surely you have to beleive that there was a man, perhaps not named Jesus, who all this was based off of dont you? Its hard to have a martyr based religion without a martyr.
Im sure that he existed, as did Mohammed, and Napteshemu (or whatever his name was, the older version of Noah), and Buddah, and all of them.I just dont beleive that they turned water into wine, or got a book passed odwn from Gabriel, or survived a flood that wiped out all life, or didnt eat for 2 months, or whatever.
<strong>
I'm happy to be open to possibilities without irrefutable proof, but I cannot understand people who are willing to put so much belief into something that has so little proof.
Not only that, but by "choosing" a faith, you automatically preclude yourself from the possibility that your faith is misplaced - that there may be an alternative.
I currently don't believe Jesus existed. In the future, perhaps evidence will be found that will persuade me that he did. It's one eventuality that I will admit could happen.
It's not possible for a Christian to be open to the possibility that he didn't exist because that would negate the faith required of a Christian theist.
To me, that's an incredibly dangerous way to live your life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are not applying the same standard across the board. For Aliens you believe they exist because no one has proved they don't. For Jesus, you don't because no once can give you his address and drivers license. You have other reasons for not believing or wanting to believe in Jesus. It has very little to do with fact finding as the facts and clues and stories and the very existence of Christianity and its pervasiveness attests to his existence as a man.
To me, that's an incredibly dangerous way to live your life.<hr></blockquote>
Dangerous how? Will I die thinking I am going to heaven and be disappointed somehow such that it just kills me?
Maybe I will become the victim of a religious hate crime and be horribly maimed...
How dangerous? Are you only speaking metaphorically or do you believe the somehow that way of thinking will eventually lead all Christians to be come fundamentalist wackos that fly planes into buildings? Muslims are not the only ones that take things too far, but believing that Jesus existed will not cause anything bad to happen. Neither will believing in God or that Jesus was the Son of God.
<strong>Wait a sec. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right? (Who is it that said that?) Or do you know of some evidence that he didn't exist?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read my other posts.
A complete absence of evidence gives infinite scope for possibilities.
An abundance of evidence gives proof within our knowledge.
A tiny amount of evidence from a single source without corroboration (contemporary or historical) is worthless.
Within our current knowledge, Jesus is a character in a single text. Why should we put so much faith into his existence?
[quote]Originally posted by Toolboi:
<strong>Surely you have to beleive that there was a man, perhaps not named Jesus, who all this was based off of dont you? Its hard to have a martyr based religion without a martyr.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope. Not one bit. I believe the writings upon which the modern bible is based were similar to Aesop's fables, allegories for people to live by.
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>You are not applying the same standard across the board. For Aliens you believe they exist because no one has proved they don't. For Jesus, you don't because no once can give you his address and drivers license. You have other reasons for not believing or wanting to believe in Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand I'm not applying the same standard across the board. Read my response to BRussell.
What are my other reasons, out of interest? I'm not aware of any.
[quote]<strong>It has very little to do with fact finding as the facts and clues and stories and the very existence of Christianity and its pervasiveness attests to his existence as a man.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A bit like werewolves and ghosts, then? Sorry, that's mean.
How about the Roman gods, or Greek gods? Egyptian? Mayan? They existed for a long, long time, supported only by clues and stories and the pervasiveness of the religion within it's civilization.
Do you believe these gods exist, or existed?
[quote]<strong>Dangerous how? Will I die thinking I am going to heaven and be disappointed somehow such that it just kills me?
Maybe I will become the victim of a religious hate crime and be horribly maimed...
How dangerous? Are you only speaking metaphorically or do you believe the somehow that way of thinking will eventually lead all Christians to be come fundamentalist wackos that fly planes into buildings? Muslims are not the only ones that take things too far, but believing that Jesus existed will not cause anything bad to happen. Neither will believing in God or that Jesus was the Son of God.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, no. I don't believe that organized religion drives people to such acts, just that individuals will use religion as a defense for their actions.
It's dangerous because to rule out the possibility of every other eventuality because you have complete faith in one is closing your mind. You lose a part of your free thinking. You "choose" God, but in doing so refuse all others.
How will you feel if your children choose an alternative?
<strong>Josephus' writings are generally agreed to be dated sometime in the late first century, round about the same time most agree the first texts upon which the modern bible is based were written. Neither are contemporary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, he was a historian. That's what historians usually do - write about events that happened before they were born. We don't discount the other things he wrote about just because they didn't happen during his lifetime, why make a special exception for this?
[quote]<strong>There also seems to be a huge amount of skepticism about the authenticity of Josephus' account, specifically that it's based on other writings, and not an independent account of events.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that controversy is addressed in the link I provided.
[quote]<strong>... A tiny amount of evidence from a single source without corroboration (contemporary or historical) is worthless.
Within our current knowledge, Jesus is a character in a single text. Why should we put so much faith into his existence?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's back up here a minute. The New Testament is a single text today but in truth it is a compliation of texts by a number of different authors.
<strong>
For me, that was a fascinating read, specially as I was raised Christian with the standard simplistic 'sunday-school' drivel being forced down my throat. The extraordinary story of Rennes-le-Chateau, the Cathars and and the possibility/probability that Jesus may have even survived the crucifixion and had offspring may seem "blasphemous" to some but makes no less sense than the 'official' version. I attended a lecture by Henry Lincoln a few years back, some years after the "Grail" book was published where he expanded on some of the theories raised in the book. There are also legends that Jesus, who, after surviving the crucifixion escaped and travelled throughout Western Europe.
An area totally overlooked by official Christianity is the period, some 20 years or so, from when Jesus was about 12 years old to when he reappeared in his early 30s and started his ministry. There is nothing in the gospels to indicate what he was doing for two-thirds of his life. There are many stories from the Indian subcontinent from that same time period about a person (name "Issa" and similar) from the West who spent years studying spiritual disciplines in Buddhist monasteries. Original Christianity embraced eastern philosphical concepts such as karma and reincarnation, and despite being deliberately erased from the Bible, quite a number of subtle references escaped the censors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, the Blue Meanie has also heard the stories about Jesus travelling in the East and the Bible originally containing references to reincarnation which were ruthlessly censored by the early Church ? with, as you say, only a few subtle references surviving. (Jesus tells his followers at one point that they will have to be born again. Hmmm, wonder what he meant by that?
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
You should have looked and verified what was said in the post before praising it as a "fascinating read" that was abviously more truthful than the Bible itself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
And Jesus survuving the Crucifixion and raising a family would be blasphemous. If that were indeed the case then man has no chance of redemption when they die. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
So Noah's true colours are showing again. Anything he doesn't agree with "blasphemous"
Until you have actually read the book in question, you have no legitimate right to dismiss it out of hand. I'm not saying "The Holy Blood" is necessarily true in its entirety, but it does at least present some evidence.
Allow me to quote you a news item in the latest edition of one of The Blue Meanie's favourite magazines <a href="http://www.forteantimes.com"; target="_blank">The Fortean Times</a>:
[quote] "Behind that innocent face is the power of Satanic darkness. Harry Potter is the devil and he is destroying people," pastor Jack Brock, of the Christ Community Church, told reporters as the works of JK Rowling burned alongside those of Stephen King, AC/DC, Eminem and even Walt Disney. These books teach children how they can get into witchcraft and become a witch, wizard or warlock." Brock later admitted that he hadn't actually read any of the books. <hr></blockquote>
Sez it all really, doesn't it?
[quote] If that were indeed the case then man has no chance of redemption when they die. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <hr></blockquote>
Maybe Man has no need of redemption when we die? If the whole concept of Jesus "saving" humankind is bogus, then we don't have a problem.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
The last points made have to do with historical thoughts on whether the Bible is complete and if things have been left out or not that compromises the integrity of the scriptures. I am not well enough studied in bilical history to make a good go at the truth of the matter but with this guy seemingly batting 0 I put no faith that his assertions are fully truthful, he seems to have an agenda that the facts are not backing. <hr></blockquote>
The New Testament was written entirely in Greek - the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean at the time.
[quote] I put no faith that his assertions are fully truthful, <hr></blockquote>
So, like, he must have been making it all up? Come on, Noah, that's not an answer. This is an internationally published book - ten years' research, one author a PHD. You can't just make stuff up.
If you don't have an answer to these allegations, but choose to continue believing that the Bible is the literally inspired word of God anyway, then of course, that's fine. I wouldn't want to knock you for that. But at least be big enough to admit it.
<strong>
I know people also who claimed to have seen Jesus. I have read accounts of Indian yogis, Tibetan lamas Catholic nuns and others (Sri Yukteswar etc) who claim to have seen and even conversed with Jesus. I haven't seen him, so thats all irrelevant to me. I haven't seen an alien either, to my knowledge.
Looking back at the biblical story of Jesus' birth, what with the tales of the Star of Bethlehem, the "angel" at the crib, the "virgin birth", etc; this could just also be explained away as as a flying saucer hanging over the area, with an alien in a space-suit examining the newborn baby of an artificially induced pregnancy in a pre-selected mother. This interpretation is no more far-fetched than what the Christian Church expects its followers to believe. And, Jesus in his later life apparently was able to perform some really bizarre and mindboggling feats which turn some of the classic laws of physics upside down, re. human capabilities.
Most Christians I have met would readily concur that Jesus was definitely no ordinary human being. Perhaps he was an alien? I just don't know, and neither does anyone else, so I cannot believe or but faith in that possibility. Similarly, I cannot place faith in what Church officials (ordinary human beings) have decided to be the interpretation of the story that surrounds that teacher/shaman/yogi/alien/spiritual master/etc etc, whoever he was who lived 2000 years ago in the middle east. However I can accept that there is enough evidence that he existed as a historical figure, just as I can with, for example Plato, or Caesar, or Henry VIII etc etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Where do you find time to write these essays?
Yes, indeed. Noah and Fluffy might find Mithraism strangely familiar...
I dunno, I think that the Ble Meanie is crazy and I agree with him <hr></blockquote>
Why, thank you, sir :cool:
[quote] as soon as I start mentioning things like reincarnation you start throwing words like "arse" around
Just to be irritating, didnt I mention reincarnation? <hr></blockquote>
Yes, you did - and somewhat disappointingly, you've been the only one, so far. Other than you and me, all we've had in this thread so far are variations on "no way, dude!" and earnest Christian sermons - the kind of response you might expect from a random sampling of people on the street. Where are all the Zen Buddhists, the Jainists, devotees of the White Goddess, the Neopagans, the Sufists, the Qabbalists? I thought Mac users were supposed to be creative, artistic free thinkers...
(Flame throwers at the ready