Probably whipped him in the process. I personally take a jaundiced view of most illiterate peoples works of fiction actually witten by enslaved people but YMMV. Daily Beast has great stories, you should include them, the Atlantic, esquire, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker in your reading list.
What would it take for you to regard the writings attributed to Paul as Holy Writ and Jesus as your Lord and Savior ? I’m interested to find out if you’re as sophisticated as the illiterates you disparage.
What does it say about God that he wants us to bow down and worship him? I think it is interesting how some Christians think certain behaviors exhibited by humans are abhorrent, like killing babies or requiring someone to worship you, but think it is not odd at all that God exhibits such behaviors. If a person demanded a dog to worship them, most people would find that distasteful. I have heard some say “God is good”. But what does that mean? Is God good for no other reason than he is God, no matter what he does or is God good because he engages is virtuous behavior?
You could assert these things as evidence, but they don’t come close to rising to the level of being verifiable truth. There are a lot of people that have written a lot of different things. I’m sure you can come up with multiple Muslim writers who would similarly articulate their case, as well as multiple different morman accounts, or various other religions. To say something is objectively and verifiably true, and you believe something to be true, are two different things, and may or may not overlap.
I never understood this line of thinking. I don’t begrudge my late Father for insisting that I respect his position as Father. Indeed, I’m all the better for ascribing to him his worth.
I feel like it’s the ethical equivalent of Nixon’s declaration that if the president does it, then it’s not illegal.
I don’t know what you mean by “verifiable truth.” These statements from non-biblical sources are accepted by the vast majority of Bible scholars, even skeptics and non-Christian scholars, as being true facts. They don’t dispute them. I think what you’re saying is that we cannot know anything from antiquity. In fact, with that way of thinking, I don’t see that we could know anything from any point in history. Did Alexander the Great exist? The earliest biography we have was written 200 years after he lived. Did the Greek philosophers live? Can’t verify it. How about Julius Caesar? Was there a battle at Waterloo or did any battle in the Civil War happen? Can we know anything about the life of slaves in the American south? How would you verify any of that? Ultimately, every fact known from history comes down to somebody’s testimony. Even if you find official government records, those records are still the testimony of the person who recorded.
From my limited understanding, whether Jesus really existed as a person is debated. I’m just going to assume he probably did. Now Jesus being the son of God, born of a virgin, died and resurrected, there is no evidence of that and no rational reason to believe any of it. if you choose to believe it, that is fine. But don’t construe faith (unquestioned belief) with verifiable fact.
According to Christianity & Christians Jesus is not a (an?) historical figure. weird/TELLING to treat him as 1. Jesus chooses to be aloof despite what's on the line for humanity. Love, indeed.
Christianity is built on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Fortunately, there is evidence for this event. Dr Gary Habermas of Liberty University has over many years kept a database of what Biblical scholars almost all accept as true. This collection includes both Christian and non-Christian scholars, and there are quite a few non-believing scholars in academia. The Christian scholars must have a PhD and produce academic work. He loosens the requirement slightly for non-Christians. They do not need a PhD if they are well-published in the area. Habermas calls this the "minimal facts approach." The minimal facts agreed by almost all scholars are the following: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) Jesus was buried, most likely in a private tomb; 3) Soon afterward, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope; 4) Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment; 5) Very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus; 6) The disciples' lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message; 7) These things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion; 8) James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ; 9) The Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience; 10) The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before; 11) The Gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus; and 12) Sunday was the primary day for gathering and worshipping. These are taken as facts by historians. Of course, not all of them believe the explanation is that Jesus rose again to life. We each need to assess the facts and draw our own conclusions. The methodology used should be the inference to the best explanation. I believe the explanation with the strongest explanatory power and broadest explanatory scope is that Jesus rose from the dead. It is quite rational to come to this conclusion. No other proposed explanation can account for all the facts. By the way, Habermas has a number of Youtube videos where he explains the minimal facts approach.
I seriously doubt any non believer historian believes Jesus rose from the dead. For those that are believers, of course, they are going to believe in the possibility of supernatural events. I’m not going to waste a lot of time polling historians but I’m willing to bet most serious historians don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead. The fact that you can find a half dozen that will construct some scenario of supernatural intervention is not particularly impressive to me.
Habermas has also been doing a research project on doubt with a clinical psychologist. Their research has shown that the reason most people doubt is not because of facts or the lack of them. Most doubt comes from emotions. Some people don't like the implications of belief. Some don't want to change their life. Many are angry at God. He says 19% of all atheists are angry with God. Go figure that one out.
Ok you are really seeking out affirming material here. The reason most people doubt isn’t facts, but emotions? These days out of respect for others I try to avoid going on screeds or the ridiculousness of aspects of the Bible. But those things are there and easy enough to find. I will say you are describing a real phenomenon among some atheists. If I had to guess, if they grew up in a religious environment, but rejected it, there is a cult like programming that sticks with you, and people resent that, and that is what you are calling anger at God. I may have experienced that many years ago but it dawned on me that not believing in some non demonstrable supernatural account of history doesn’t make me remarkable, and it would seem odd to seek out to congregate with other non believers just as it would be to identify with a group that doesn’t believe in Santa Claus. To the extent I am angry at religion these days it is at the people who participate in it and yet idolize an absolutely awful human being such as Donald Trump. When people are willing to set aside reality for belief that opens a lot of doors and are willing to accept whatever some conman like Trump says or does at face value. The whole Trump thing has really given Christianity a black eye which will likely accelerate its demise inthe US.
You're not directly addressing it, but that's sort of the Christian paradox. My position is that God provides a direction and standard to endlessly strive towards. The results generally benefit society as a whole in the long-term. But on an individual level, if we're judging ourselves and each other under a Godly standard, we all look pretty darned ugly pretty quickly. So it makes sense for Christians to believe that the only way to gain eternal life is through Christ. If God were "fair" in judging us, almost none of us (and perhaps none at all) deserve it. It's quite the frightening thought. That said, Christian societies (and all societies) have fallen short of the desirable standard to date, and will probably continue to do so until the end times. It's just the nature of human beings. We're so far from perfect and we're never going to get there. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to get better, especially from generation to generation.
I think the secular point is an easier point to make just because people typically don't look at the Bible as persuasive when it comes to policy. Not saying that's a good thing, but that's how things are now.
I think the vast majority of people strive to meet certain standards (and we often fail), whether the standard is based upon religious doctrine, a generic deity, or secular beliefs. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that people failing to live up to a standard invalidates that standard or one's sincere belief in it. But I also think many times we look back on history with a level of reverence and nostalgia that isn't necessarily deserved and so perspective is important. I also don't think any group or religious has any exclusive truth when it comes to something like valuing healthy and loving families.
“ I also don't think any group or religious has any exclusive truth when it comes to something like valuing healthy and loving families.” I expect many, many people will disagree with that. And btw, such a statement could be considered a micro-aggression towards Christians and “anti-Christian code speech” which could get you fired or removed from a DEI embracing entity. Oh wait, DEI itself is anti-Christian. Never mind.
DEI is not anti-Christian, what total nonsense. And don't lump all Christians into one group. They are not all right wing fringies and many support a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions. We also don't play with snakes during our services or speak in tongues and we understand the earth is WAY older than 6000 years. Please confine your generalizations to things you know about.
I am sure many Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and others would disagree that Christianity has a monopoly on valuing family.
