Submitted by Shatner'sBassoon on Fri, 11/06/2015 - 19:48
AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING KALEIDOSCOPIC JOIN-THE-DOTS/ADULT COLOURING BOOK EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT IN NARCISSISTIC/ONANISTIC BIG PICTURE PARASITIC FORUM BLEEDING.
LIKE POLITICAL LIFE, PARTICIPATION IS WELCOME, ENCOURAGED EVEN, BUT NOT NECESSARY.
Ha ha ha Optimist, you are joking surely? God made the world full of really clever tricks to make us think it was much older! The depth of your knowledge is shown by the mention of Carbon dating which is actually pretty much useless beyond 50 kya. Try Potassium-Argon which will give dates back to Earth's formation at 3.5 billion years ago. As for population the world population was several hundred million when Captain Cook landed. Best estimates for Australia's population at the time 750,000 to 1 million. Your opinion is that exactly. There is a vast amount of evidence indicating the true age of Earth and detailed evidence about the evolution of our species and its relatives going back several million years. Why do I believe radio-isotope dating? Well it is based on exactly the same theory as nuclear technology and the dates it produces are not only consistent across multiple tests using different techniques, but when applied to the fossil record produce a logical sequence of the development of life in this planet. Believe your idiotic version if you like but do not lie about the evidence.
Of the omnipresent (and self-proclaimed?) 'gods' on here - there's only really three - yes, a couple are the least believable. But they are also the least interesting. Cool doesn't even enter into it.
The third ever-present one is a great Satan. Well, to the other two.
Actually, I'm guessing he's an atheist.
"If you haven't studied the Bible or the credibility of of Jesus as a real person very hard to make comment on christians or religion?"
What about studying physics to see if it's possible to walk on water, or feed 5,000, or rise from the freakin' dead?
I've done that.
Was Jesus a Christian, Jew or Muslim though?
Pretty crazy Jesus was also a prophet in Islam
Please Stunet give me an ignore button for Talking Turkey, Shatners Basoon, Dale Cooper, Factotum, Pupkin, and any new fake profile he decides to create.
Someone like Jesus is really PM ProMo's nightmare. A persecuted 'criminal', maybe even a revolutionary, from the Middle East who can walk on water. Is he on his way??
Then again there's this real life shit to keep ProMo up at night.
"Pretty crazy Jesus was also a prophet in Islam"
He was in Christianity as well until politics between the east and west church's changed him into the son of god.
"...Not a troll sharkman, just a fundamental truth and a major reason why we should be listening to first people around the world."
"...Ha ha ha Optimist, you are joking surely? God made the world full of really clever tricks to make us think it was much older! The depth of your knowledge is shown by the mention of Carbon dating which is actually pretty much useless beyond 50 kya. Try Potassium-Argon which will give dates back to Earth's formation at 3.5 billion years ago. As for population the world population was several hundred million when Captain Cook landed. Best estimates for Australia's population at the time 750,000 to 1 million. Your opinion is that exactly. There is a vast amount of evidence indicating the true age of Earth and detailed evidence about the evolution of our species and its relatives going back several million years. Why do I believe radio-isotope dating? Well it is based on exactly the same theory as nuclear technology and the dates it produces are not only consistent across multiple tests using different techniques, but when applied to the fossil record produce a logical sequence of the development of life in this planet. Believe your idiotic version if you like but do not lie about the evidence."
There's an insight into blindboy's .non existent belief system right there, I know because I'm almost the same. Though I'm not so all in the second bit.
And, I also believe this...
"Admire and learn from First Nations people’s knowledge of the environment, but treat their religions with the skepticism you’d apply to any spiritual group think."
It appears blindboy not so much...
We're all biased facto, Post modernism taught us that (the good bits of post modernism that is, before it gets wacky)
And we all seek confirmation to our biases, that's why it's laughable when you use these terms on others. We all have a constructed view of the world, from our experiences, from our influences. Even you,. You look at everything from a contemporary marxist perspective, hence your post above. Stunet's the same. I'd suggest blindboy is more humanist positivist perspective, if they're not contradictory terms.
I'm more a no particular political philosophy perspective.
Blowin's an all over the shop perspective (in a good way). And indod is straight down the centre.
Optimist's perspective is quite conservative, probably with a little too much christian influence, hence his Jihad post
And blob is blob.
All totally unbalanced
But all constantly right, all of the time...
And all yelling at each other, it's hilarious
Sypkan, it's one thing to know what confirmation bias is, another thing to acknowledge it, and yet another to take it into account, try to reckon with it and even temper it somewhat especially in your public exhortations.
All of the above definitely lacking in various degrees with various commentators here.
As for your on-the-run analyses of these fellow commentators - and yourself! - they are...how shall I put it?
Rubbish. But laughable rubbish. Unintentional or not.
Instead of your usual on-the-run stuff maybe more haste and less speed is in order? Unless you want to treat the threads only as a mind-mapping scribble pad as others do.
Up to you of course. Most of us are time poor. Especially those of us in gainful employment.
Not really my cup of tea or m.o. on here. In the main. Hard yards have been done, or are being done, elsewhere.
For the uninitiated and interested:
Some real bias? Nah, yeah.
And bye bye Madame Asbestos. Thanks for all your, er work?!
My point was that the earth is old but the current civilization isn't that old. The earth has been here a long time and Genesis says "covered in water" before God renovated it. I don't know about this kind of carbon dating or that which BB talks about, but I know the numbers I quoted which are not mine, are from credible people regarding the age of the worlds population like the US census and the UN population people. Finus Dake who put together the Dakes annotated reference Bible which is a pretty awesome read by the way, believes in a civilization before ours and before Genesis. He quotes scriptures to back it up but I'm not so convinced. I'm only interested in this creation and where God is trying to steer it. Regarding Jesus guys, He was more real than the water he walked on and called dead people back to life because He has power over death. He fed 5,000 people with a kids lunch because He has power over atoms and molecules. He became famous very fast for doing these things and all was done in public. He could only do this by owning it all in the first place. I also think a lot of scientists are like many others, make up a good yarn to bleed politicians of grant money to keep their jobs chugging along. Want this medicine? yep be ready in 5 years. Want this fossil? yep 5 years ought to do it. I think even many scientists now believe in God after looking into the building blocks of life and seeing nothing but complex maths and pure brilliant design. Here I am at 3am sipping tea because my body hurts from all the paddling in a sick day of waves yesterday...hope you all walked on water yourselves and are ready for another round today ..yeeww.
So BB , what is your fundamental truth , if not faith?
Stu...."If you haven't studied the Bible or the credibility of of Jesus as a real person very hard to make comment on christians or religion?"
I've done that."
so you have faith in Physics and science and do not believe there is any super natural?
Factom..."Hey Sharkman, how does religious faith work in politics again? ...it doesn't as all politicians that I have seen and listened to , do not pass the Jesus test...
i.e. "what would Jesus do?" when ever a question such as a wall/refugees/immigration and or nationalist leanings ....pretty obvious there are lot of Christian pretenders in politics...
I’m not a fan of holding Christians to a higher standard. They’re only human , that’s the whole point...the fallibility of mankind vs the infallibility of God. Christians aspire to live as Jesus, doesn’t mean they’ll get there.
"Sypkan, it's one thing to know what confirmation bias is, another thing to acknowledge it, and yet another to take it into account, try to reckon with it and even temper it somewhat especially in your public exhortations."
Well if your posts on here are an example of you tempering your bias you need to try harder, like really try, way harder.
I was being flippant, and making huge assumptions (due to much denial by many - be that concious or subconciously) but I think everyone's biases are pretty clear, especially yours!
You're a bloody labor campaigner, in every post - be that concious or subconciously.
indo.....Was Jesus a Christian, Jew or Muslim though?
Jesus was a born again Christian , and as there seems to be irrefutable evidence of him actually being a real person , Muslims consider him a prophet as do the Hindu's , but not the son of God as he claims....
I think the more common belief is he was a Jew, but still don't get that you can also be connected to Christianity and Islam, if they aren't really all the same thing.
Just a choose your own adventure book gone down three different paths.
Jesus was obviously real, but I'm sure just some normally charismatic charlatan.
Probably because he more than likely was a real person. A real person whose talents may have exaggerated somewhat.
You know, chinese whispers and all that...
I'm no expert indod, and I haven't googled it to confirm, but my understanding is Jews basically follow the old testament. Jesus came along challenging the status quo, developed a following, cue the need for a new testament, the christian book. Then mohummad came along with his challenge, develooed a following, cue the koran, the muslim book.
Not an adventure book, more a geographical chronological series.
Muslims see jesus as not the son of a god, but just a measly prophet.
Mohummad's only a prophet too.
It's just bloody history really. If you have the ability to strip away the hocus pocus element and starry eyed dogma.
It's the politics of the day, basically utilising the various limited knowledges available at the time, like you said.
Not much different to now unfortunately...
From the evidence, I’d say Jesus was a charismatic schizophrenic.
From early history, and from the Bloodline of Abraham the Christ was to come. The Christ was to be a man like us but with 100% of the spirit of God making Him co-equal with God. Because man was free to choose and chose unwisely, sin and darkness came into the world. We chose knowledge of good and evil over being a happy kid with God looking after us. Because man blew it, another man had to make it right again. A perfect man without any sin to take the rap for all the rest of us. Only the creator could do it himself. Imagine a father with a bunch of wayward kids who have landed themselves a death sentence. The Father of them all goes to court and substitutes himself on death row for them. Their creator takes the punishment of the created. The son of God (the visible one) was there in the beginning with God. He came to earth using Mary as His spaceship to get among us...a very humbling experience for him. Even many of the Jews and priests who were His kin didn't believe in Him. They knew He was coming but wanted a superbeing with a display of massive power not a chippie from Nazareth. But God doesn't think like us. He likes things His own way and confounds the proud and haughty with childlike simplicity. Regarding Islam Indo, its a very new religion, about 500 years after Christianity and Mohamed just borrowed a bunch of stuff from the Bible and recycled it and changed it to suit him. He downgraded Jesus to a prophet to make himself bigger and through clever plunder and power broking built himself an empire and following that is what it is today. All his exploits are in the Koran and the Hadiths (historical records). He doesn't hide the fact in his writings that his religion must take over the world by stealth or force.
Boo hoo Germany
Too 'flippant', Sypkan. More haste, less speed.
I wouldn't say you're overly flippant myself, or glib, (I wonder why? Hah!) BUT...
They call you flippant, flippant, faster than lightning...
But no one you see, is wronger than he...
Anti-LNP* = Pro-Labor?
Is this the same as your Seppo proclivities?
Last sitting day of parliament till the election yesterday too.
Lord have mercy!!!!
*for mine, this LNP iteration, with its three leaders since 2013, is the most incompetent government I have seen in my political lifetime. Howard's was the worst only because his was competent. Well, in execution. We're still struggling with his various 'legacies' today. Political, economic, and cultural.
Sharkman, when it comes to politics, this is the WWJD us secular societies in the West should have a squiz at. Hah!
Not as many parts as the new testament, but getting there!
"*for mine, this LNP iteration, with its three leaders since 2013, is the most incompetent government I have seen in my political lifetime. iHoward's was the worst only because his was competent. Well, in execution. We're still struggling with his various 'legacies' today. Political, economic, and cultural."
I agree. The libs have failed, even on the things you can supposedly count on them for.
So you are saying you come to these forums with no political philosophy at all? Totally neutral?
Optimist the bible begins with a folk tale about the beginning of agriculture. The garden of Eden was the natural state of the planet which provided plenty to the hunters and gatherers. The apple was the temptation towards agriculture. Women being the gatherers understood that planting seeds increased the supply. The casting out of the garden refers to the fact that farming is bloody hard work compared to hunting and gathering and brings with it risks of famine and disease. God's role most probably refers to the use of religion to bring people to farming. Then, as ever since, it was a tool of the power hungry who realised they could control farmers more easily than hunter gatherers.
Jeez, Sypkan, even just look at my profile pic!
"The libs have failed, even on the things you can supposedly count on them for."
'Supposedly' is right. How did this supposition even get traction let alone continue to have legs over the neo-liberal economic years ya think?
WWJD? Become the media! Use these threads as a species of 'myth busters'!
1/ You think the LNP failed !
What planet are you living on ?
The LNP dreamed 10 years ago of wage growth moving backwards , of millions of extra consumers to sell to and exploit every decade , of rampant development with no oversight, of shifting the public’s tolerance levels towards corruption to unforeseen extents , of unchecked transference of public wealth into private hands , of increasing their personal net worth exponentially.
And you think they’ve failed cause they’re finally getting the boot !
2/ Blindboy - You’re attempt to portray agriculture as the curse of the Earth is a slap in the face to the extra 6 billion people walking around today due to the benevolent conditions it provides for humans to flourish in.
The way you romanticise hunter / gatherer lifestyles as though there was never any famine , disease or discomfort involved. Let alone every advance in society that agriculture has allowed humanity to develop.
Good luck with that compound fracture of the leg in the hunter/ gathered days. Let alone a prolonged drought.
Ever noticed its the most urbanised of people who fantasise about a world without supermarkets ?
indo....."I think the more common belief is he was a Jew, but still don't get that you can also be connected to Christianity and Islam, if they aren't really all the same thing.
Jesus was obviously real, but I'm sure just some normally charismatic charlatan."
Hmm seems you have an opinion based on hearsay........the most documented Man in History, 3 years of preaching , 36,000 paprys manuscripts..in 5 languages....so funny to think that people believe in History , like alexander the great , where his history was written 300 years after he lived....then of course some of the greatest atheists/intellects in History like C S Lewis became christians after trying to disprove Jesus....interesting what you based your opinion on?
Sorry sharkman but none of that is actually true
The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses. Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek.
The only mentions of Jesus in reliable sources are from Josephus and Tacitus and both are very brief and well after his death. The majority opinion amongst professional historians of the period is that he was a real person but that the accounts we have of his life cannot be taken as historical fact given the time gap to the writing of the gospels and the fact that they were written in Greek rather than Aramaic, the language that Jesus and the apostles would have used. Believe what you like but let's stick to the facts.
haha BB , facts or faith ?
I could send you a dozen links including the Romans Egyptians Greek Aramaic......but one mans facts are another persons bullshit as we see all the time in this day and age...." The majority opinion amongst professional historians of the period is that he was a real person but that the accounts we have of his life cannot be taken as historical fact given the time gap to the writing of the gospels and the fact that they were written in Greek rather than Aramaic," so what's your link to this??
"The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Some believe that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability; and others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion."
Not sure that I'd fully trust wikipedia for a topic as charged as this. Not saying that it's unreliable, but that I'd cast a wider net and try to judge a range of sources (wiki included) on their apparent merits.
FWIW, if anyone is interested in looking at well thought out defences of christianity, Dr. Willliam Lane Craig's website reasonablefaith.org gives a sober-minded treatment of a pretty wide range of issues. Dr. Craig is a professor of philosophy, holds a PhD in philosophy and a doctorate of theology. So his biases are clear, but his writings are worth reading for anyone with an interest in this kind of thing, particularly his writings on the historical credibility of the accounts of Jesus.
He who hesitates is lost
Fair enough Pops. I did dig a bit deeper and the reality is that the only non-biblical references to Jesus from anywhere near his own lifetime are in Tacitus and Josephus and the key passage in Josephus is under suspicion of being edited later. The gospels themselves are part of a much larger body of writing about Christ's life, (apocrypha). The books that make up the New Testament were only decided finally in the 5th century! In the circumstances, given the disagreement amongst the accounts that made the cut and the even larger differences between them and the apocrypha, it is not surprising that historians of that period do not believe we have enough evidence about Christ's life to be sure of anything beyond his birth and death.
hey BB Wikpedia , are you serious or taking the piss LOL?
I agree with most of that. Probably not fair to write as though all historians studying the era agree that Jesus' birth and death are the only events for which we have sufficient evidence as there does still seem to be an active debate there. One point I've heard that is worth pondering is that there's a pretty decent number of name-dropped witnesses in the gospels + book of acts, and some percentage of them would have been still alive at the time of writing. Concealing the truth would be pretty hard when someone could track down a named witness and ask for their account?
Parts of the new testament are a really good read - enjoyed John's stories especially. I'd be happy to see the ten commandments for living on the side of public buses periodically as a gentle reminder to all of what makes up a good citizen and it may help to promulgate more decency towards all people of all backgrounds, creeds and cultures. But then again, many of the cynical would probably argue its a nefarious froot-loop fundamentalist conspiracy to inculcate!!!
^^As for the differences between the gospels and the apocrypha, unless memory serves me (edit: incorrectly, not correctly - typo!) most of the apocrypha were written some hundred years or so after the gospels? That'd account for a fair bit of the discrepancies.
Yeh taking the piss sharkman just like you with your 36,000 papyrus documents!
Pops I had a look at your web site and found the argumewnts pretty weak.
But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:
1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.
bbThis contradicts everything we know about how memory actually works. All memories are inherently unreliable. Everytime you access a memory you potentially change it. So the length of time was much greater than necessary to produce distortions
2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.
bbWell actually there are many folk tales (or their modern equivalent in TV drama) that ARE based on historical characters, Robin Hood, Wyatt Earp, Billy The Kid,
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.
bbThis really is grasping at straws since a comparison of the gospels demonstrates that there was no agreed, consistent oral tradition. Merely frequently contradictory versions.
4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.
bbIt is probably true that the ideas that Jesus taught were transmitted accurately. These, being more conceptual than factual, were more likely to be accurately remembered. (We might forget the circumstances of a crime but we remember that it is wrong)
5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.
Well no, they have a proven record of inconsistency and contradiction.
Oh and Blowin, there is a vast amount of archeological evidence that records the drastic decline in health following the shift to agriculture. Most of the chronic diseases we have now such as arthritis and tooth decay do not appear in skeletons from pre-agricultural times, nor do the diaseases of malnutrition such as rickets. Now why did Arthur Philip name Manly? Oh yeh remember now? He was impressed by the contrast between his weak, unhealthy crew and the obvious strength and good health of the local hunter gatherers.
Blindboy, fair enough - I merely wanted to provide food for thought.
I am curious if you read the longer treatment of point 5, and have any critiques on that? Also, is there anything in particular that you find inconsistent/contradictory between the gospels?
The longer treatment of point five fails to prove that "Luke" had any contact with Paul or any other eyewitnesses to Christ's life. It simply asserts it on some really flimsy grammatical evidence. As for the contradictions Mr Google will be much more helpful than me.
One thing i find confusing about Jesus is, his birth was obviously a big event supposedly Mary was a virgin* and the three kings came and brought some cool shit, and then the star of Bethlehem came out and made a big appearance.
But then Jesus grows up to be a carpenter before he get's into being a prophet or whatever and doing all the Jesus things.
So they knew they had this kid that was like sent from god and he is the man, but just ends up being a carpenter?
Why didn't he start doing all these miracles etc when he was young?
What happen in his childhood/youth?
Even Anakin was trained as a Jedi from when he was young and in real life Buddhist leaders are chosen from a young age and treated almost like kings.
*Joseph someone was obviously shagging your missus?...and why wasn't it you?
I'm sure I'd get plenty of hits on google, but I was actually interested in what you personally find contradictory. No worries if you don't have time/can't be stuffed going into it - I was just enjoying the discussion (a welcome distraction from a batsh*t boring day at work, and all the torturous vids and pics of pumping SE Qld).
Interesting questions Indo. Possibly because the main thing was his teaching, so he had to wait until he was old enough for to be taken seriously?
At one point in his youth he had to bugger off down to Egypt because Herod wanted to kill him. Not sure how long for.
Pops not particularly interested in the detail of the contradictions but in the way they show that the gospels are clearly not eyewitness accounts and the way they undermine any attempt to claim them as historical sources. One of the things that also interests me about religious believers generally is why they don't have MORE faith in their beliefs since so many are prepared to distort evidence to support their beliefs. This has been going on for a long time. Consider the evidence for the age of Earth and the evolution of life on it. It is absolutely staggering. Yet people with minimal knowledge still want to argue against it. The same with this issue. If you genuinely believe that Jesus was the son of god, why do you need to attack the evidence that merely shows we don't know the truth about his life if we judge it by the prevailing academic standards. How can that be a threat to your belief?
I've no intention of attacking any evidence, apologies if I've come accross that way.
FWIW, I have two degrees in STEM fields, and absolutely agree that the evidence for an old earth, and for evolution is extremely strong, and I know a good number of christians who believe in a billions-year-old earth and evolution.
By the way, surely having some interest in the detail of the contradictions would help you argue more strongly for how they "undermine any attempt to claim them as historical sources"?
Time to clock of for the weekend anyway. My apologies if I don't respond to any posts directed to me before Monday.
All good Pops, enjoy your weekend!
whether or there was a historical figure jesus and whether or not he was he son of god is irrelevant to whether we should accept/follow his teachings.
there are two reasons backing up my claim: one the nature of ad hominen fallacies. two, the Euthyphro problem
ad hominen arguments are fallacious because the value of an idea or argument is independent of the person you utters it. for example, take the statement "we should treat others as you would treat ourselves". it is true or false because of the content of the statement, not because of who uttered it. jesus uttering this statment does not make it true. similarly, if hitler said it, it would make hitler a hypocrite, but it would not make the statement false.
the Euthyphro problem is one posed by Socrates (in the the dialogue Euthyphro). Socrates poses a dilemma: he asks "is (A)an act x is good because it is loved/approved by the gods, or (B) do the gods love/approve the act x because it is good".
If A, then morality (right/wrong good/bad) is completely arbitrary. it's just whatever the gods love. but you might object -- "the gods are all knowing so they would only love acts that they know are good". but in that case this would not be an instance of A, but an instance of B.
B says that gods love/approve an act because it is good. In which case, the act is good/morally right independently of whatever attitude the gods take to it.
The Euthyphro problem shows that authority (in the form of God, gods, the school headmaster/mistress) does and cannot underpin morality.