In Christianity, blind faith is good faith

[Minimalist]

Did you really create an account to reply to a 5 year old thread?  Because, wow....

To a new member of the forum, the thread appears as current if you aren't careful to check to OP date.

In my "home" forum, this post would never have appeared to a new user at all. 

My apologies. 

---

I would like to see some indirect or circumstantial evidence.  All the clowns ever manage to poop out is hearsay written in a bunch of heavily-edited old books of horseshit.

Then you are misinformed about the historical reliability of the New Testament. For example, when do you think that the gospels were written? Late first century? Early Second? Or were the gospels written much earlier than skeptics like to admit?

The issue is not even when they were written but when were they last edited.  But to answer your question.  They seem to start popping up in the mid 2d century when jesusism actually got going.  Before that no one seemed to have heard of the fucker.

As far as testimony goes....

This is not news.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20O...versky.htm

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

Luckily, you have no such problem.  Xtians have no direct testimony of any kind.  Just pious prattle written by later believers.

[Cyberman]

"God" provided evidence of its existence?

Great! It shouldn't be too difficult to share it, then. Can't wait!

[Randy Carson]

Incorrect.

There is every reason to believe that the authors of the gospels really WERE Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Further, two of them were apostles of Jesus while the other two had access to the apostles.

That's not what the scholarly consensus is, on this matter, even among christian historians. Actually, we know for a fact that the names associated with the gospels weren't present in the initial works- none of them ever identify themselves within the text, or claimed to be who you're claiming they are- and that those autographs were, in fact, added in the second century by the early church. We also know that the idea that those autographs correspond to the actual biblical figures was added later still, by bishops like Papias.

I suppose it would depend on which sampling of scholars your use for your "consensus", but over the past 20 years or so, the shift has been toward a more traditional or conservative view; namely, that Jesus really existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, that his disciples believed that he was resurrected, and so forth.

Now, you are correct in saying that the names of the Authors were not written on the title pages of the manuscripts; but that does not mean that we cannot be confident about their actual authorship. For example, Luke is a slam-dunk. He identifies himself in the book of Acts as the travelling companion of Paul (there are several "we" passages, and Paul mentions him by name in an epistle or two. Further, in the opening of Acts, Luke says explicitly, "In my former work...". So, there really isn't any doubt about the authorship of Luke-Acts even among skeptics.

John is self-actually identified by the author who refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved". John was younger, possibly a cousin of Jesus, and perhaps because of this familial relationship, Jesus looked out for His young cousin.

Here are the two passages of scripture:

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

and

John 21:20-25
20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Now, you seem to dismiss Papias' indentification of the gospel writers. On what authority or basis are you able to do this? The historian, Eusebius, notes the following:

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to MARK, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words: "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)

Isn't it interesting that Eusebius cites Papias who said that Mark recorded the sayings of Jesus which he heard from Peter accurately but "not indeed in order" and that Luke specifically states that he is writing an "orderly account".

Is that just a coincidence? Or was Luke aware of Papias' comments and Mark's un-ordered account and specifically stated that he was taking a different approach in the writing of his own reportage?  

[robvalue]

Would you accept being found guilty of murder on the strength of evidence the gospels provide? Reports written decades later by non-eye witnesses? Would you say that is fair enough and go down peacefully?

At best, such reports give you somewhere to look for other evidence. It is this other evidence that would then be used to make a conviction. Without it, it's worthless. A bunch of other non-eye witness accounts vaguely confirming a couple of minor details is again not good evidence. Or would you be happy to be sent down on that too?

It's up to each person to decide what is and isn't good evidence, from their own point of view. But my point is that I think theists make particular exceptions for their own holy books, and allow kinds of evidence they would normally dismiss out of hand with regard to any other subject in life.

Being incredibly charitable, the very best you could ever get from the bible is what eye witnesses believed happened regarding Jesus. Who cares? People can be mistaken, people can be fooled. It doesn't mean what they believed was true. With no way to verify their beliefs, it is again a case of blind faith to just assume they could all somehow not lie in their accounts, not be mistaken or deceived in their accounts and correctly identify supernatural causation which is something we can't do even today.

You can go talk to people who will swear they've been abducted by aliens, right now. Will you believe everything they tell you?

[Whateverist]

Believers today do not have that direct evidence; they must rely on the indirect or circumstantial evidence. And they are blessed for accepting that evidence without the benefit of actually seeing and touching Jesus the way the original apostles did. However, this is NOT "blind faith". It is faith based upon EVIDENCE provided by eyewitnesses.

Hey, don't worry about waking a dead thread. Obviously had a couple more day's worth of life in it. But if you don't want to talk about it here, feel free to make a new thread.

I'll just say that what you call evidence is what most of us would call appeals to authority, the authority of your priest or your parents or the bible. It is the faith that those who came before you wouldn't be passing on a load of crap unless it was more than that. There is no evidence.

No shame to have faith though. I have faith too. Faith in my wife and friends and dog. Faith in my own abilities to understand and communicate and make things and be in relationships. Lots of things. But when my father tried to hand me a load of crap and call it the baby Jesus I said no.

[Randy Carson]

Would you accept being found guilty of murder on the strength of evidence the gospels provide? Reports written decades later by non-eye witnesses? Would you say that is fair enough and go down peacefully?

At best, such reports give you somewhere to look for other evidence. It is this other evidence that would then be used to make a conviction. Without it, it's worthless. A bunch of other non-eye witness accounts vaguely confirming a couple of minor details is again not good evidence. Or would you be happy to be sent down on that too?

It's up to each person to decide what is and isn't good evidence, from their own point of view. But my point is that I think theists make particular exceptions for their own holy books, and allow kinds of evidence they would normally dismiss out of hand with regard to any other subject in life.

Being incredibly charitable, the very best you could ever get from the bible is what eye witnesses believed happened regarding Jesus. Who cares? People can be mistaken, people can be fooled. It doesn't mean what they believed was true. With no way to verify their beliefs, it is again a case of blind faith to just assume they could all somehow not lie in their accounts, not be mistaken or deceived in their accounts and correctly identify supernatural causation which is something we can't do even today.

You can go talk to people who will swear they've been abducted by aliens, right now. Will you believe everything they tell you?

Believers today do not have that direct evidence; they must rely on the indirect or circumstantial evidence. And they are blessed for accepting that evidence without the benefit of actually seeing and touching Jesus the way the original apostles did. However, this is NOT "blind faith". It is faith based upon EVIDENCE provided by eyewitnesses.

Hey, don't worry about waking a dead thread.  Obviously had a couple more day's worth of life in it.  But if you don't want to talk about it here, feel free to make a new thread.

I'll just say that what you call evidence is what most of us would call appeals to authority, the authority of your priest or your parents or the bible.  It is the faith that those who came before you wouldn't be passing on a load of crap unless it was more than that.  There is no evidence.

No shame to have faith though.  I have faith too.  Faith in my wife and friends and dog.  Faith in my own abilities to understand and communicate and make things and be in relationships.  Lots of things.  But when my father tried to hand me a load of crap and call it the baby Jesus I said no.

There are MANY murderers in jail today who were successfully prosecuted by cold-case detectives who made convincing cases based on 20-30-year old evidence to an open-minded and properly instructed juries.

[Brian37]

The more I see posts aimed at one label the more I push to remind everyone that ALL religions are placebos. I don't give even Hinduism or Buddhism a pass. When it comes to more violent or less violent that is a time frame issue and geographical. It is like arguing that a dormant volcano is not a volcano.

Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not our labels. Not even the word "atheist" should be treated as a moral code. All religions are placebos. One can only argue that at our current time in our species history the big three of Abraham are currently causing the most division and distraction to our species.

Even the Terracotta Warrior's first king lead them to be brutal and they were religiously dogmatic about their "philosophies" and that king was hell bent on immortality himself. Our species gap fills and creates comic book explanations as to our own self importance. But the harsh reality is that we are finite and the ride ends. No that is not a pretty truth, but that also does not mean it has to be fatalistic by facing that. Trying to create comic book immortality and give it names like "religion" or "philosophies" will not change the fact that after our planet dies and we go extinct none of the clubs or gods or religions will be anymore remembered than we as individuals will be.

There was no religion 200,000 years ago, much less 4 billion or 13 billion years ago. The universe was fine before we existed, and it will continue on with no record of our existence. The best we can do is work to extend our finite ride now, and that will not happen without losing the fear of reality. The more we accept reality as a species the more we can seek real answers without dwelling in an age of antiquated comic book thinking.

[Whateverist]

There are MANY murderers in jail today who were successfully prosecuted by cold-case detectives who made convincing cases based on 20-30-year old evidence to an open-minded and properly instructed juries.

We have a really nice bridge in San Francisco bay that is up for sale right now.  Think you'd like it.

[Randy Carson]

There are MANY murderers in jail today who were successfully prosecuted by cold-case detectives who made convincing cases based on 20-30-year old evidence to an open-minded and properly instructed juries.

We have a really nice bridge in San Francisco bay that is up for sale right now.  Think you'd like it.

It has a nice view, but the upkeep is brutal.

Thanks for asking, though. 

Any response to the argument that people go to jail based on circumstantial evidence?

Timothy McVeigh was convicted purely on the basis of just such a case.

[robvalue]

You are saying he was found guilty solely on the strength of hearsay accounts after the fact? No other evidence at all? Is that what you're saying? Do you have a link to demonstrate this?

I did a quick search and came up with this. If it's the same guy, it seems there is way more evidence. Please show me if I'm wrong. Please don't conflate "circumstantial" with "hearsay accounts".

http://articles.latimes.com/1997-02-01/n...mbing-case

If that is true, that there was no more evidence, I hope you would agree it's a travesty of justice. Or would you say that is enough evidence?  

Saying it has happened doesn't make it good evidence. I asked if you'd be happy to go down based on such evidence. Is this justice?