Yes, there is no specific "time-honoured" test. Not the way you are suggesting. But no, you can't lump them all together. Even you have to admit there is a big difference between the Dalai Lama and that guy on the bus who hasn't washed in awhile.
I don't have to admit that at all. The Dalai Lama's claim to be the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has the exact same plausibility as the guy on the bus' claim to be the son of bigfoot. As you say, there is no principled way to distinguish between these two claims.
Now, that is not to say that the things that the Dalai Lama has to say have no value. Indeed, they may well have value, but if they do, it will be because they are reasaonable and insightful, not because they are coming from the xteenth incarnation of the Dalai Lama.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I don't have to admit that at all. The Dalai Lama's claim to be the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has the exact same plausibility as the guy on the bus' claim to be the son of bigfoot. As you say, there is no principled way to distinguish between these two claims.
Now, that is not to say that the things that the Dalai Lama has to say have no value. Indeed, they may well have value, but if they do, it will be because they are reasaonable and insightful, not because they are coming from the xteenth incarnation of the Dalai Lama.
I said there is no "time honoured test", not "no principled way to distinguish". There is a clear way to distinguish, it just isn't something that I am able to put across in a single sentence. I don't agree with those people who require the truth to be put forward in single sentences or it's not valid.
The Following User Says Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
I said there is no "time honoured test", not "no principled way to distinguish". There is a clear way to distinguish, it just isn't something that I am able to put across in a single sentence. I don't agree with those people who require the truth to be put forward in single sentences or it's not valid.
Take as many sentences as you like. No one required you to do so in one sentence.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Take as many sentences as you like. No one required you to do so in one sentence.
Makarov, i would argue that it is something similar to what I posted earlier
1. does what this person is saying agree with what Jesus said (note this is assuming the person of Jesus existed and the holy bible includes what he said)
2. do I automatically doubt what they are saying? (this one could be bypassed depending on the situation - miracles etc)
3. Is this person reliable and trustworthy (ie how well do I know them? what is the character history?)
4. Is it likely that what this person is saying is motivated by a personal gain?
5. bring this person to a panel of spiritual elders (because I am not as wise as them, being so young and inexperienced)
if they pass all these, then I would say they actually saying what God told them.
In my opinion these tests do stand the test of time and would be used in any era
also..
Quote:
I have spent a considerable amount of time firmly entrenched in various religions. At this point in my life I firmly believe that Jesus Christ did not exist or was typical to the "man on the bus" as presented earlier. There is no evidence of his existence that satisfies my curiosity and surprisingly none provided by any of the major denominations. "Have faith my son". There is also no difference between any religion, they all espouse to have divine knowledge yet cant come up with any comprehensive proof of "his" existence outside of allegorical or thematic representations. No different than what I mentioned earlier....it is the same as Aesop's Fables, Shakespearean sonnets, Cat in the Hat, etc.
just to respond, because you responded to my question. fair enough that that is what you believe. I am curious as to what kind of evidence would have satisfied your curiousity? I believe in Jesus as it makes sense to me, and I have felt a change in my life since becoming a "Christian" and it gives life more meaning also. I guess it also gives me hope, and peace about things. I am seeking to understand things more, but I know part of faith is just that, if it could be proven, I wouldn't need faith. If I could travel back in time to see if Jesus was there, I would, but I can't, so I will continue to believe in him.
__________________
GO FLAMES, STAMPEDERS, ROUGHNECKS, CALVARY, DAWGS and SURGE!
Makarov, i would argue that it is something similar to what I posted earlier
1. does what this person is saying agree with what Jesus said (note this is assuming the person of Jesus existed and the holy bible includes what he said)
I'm afraid that you're missing the entire point. I propose to file Jesus under the heading "people who hear voices, etc.) On what pricipled basis can one distinguish between his supernatural claims, the Dalia Lama's, and the claims of the guy on the bus?
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
just to respond, because you responded to my question. fair enough that that is what you believe. I am curious as to what kind of evidence would have satisfied your curiousity? I believe in Jesus as it makes sense to me, and I have felt a change in my life since becoming a "Christian" and it gives life more meaning also. I guess it also gives me hope, and peace about things. I am seeking to understand things more, but I know part of faith is just that, if it could be proven, I wouldn't need faith. If I could travel back in time to see if Jesus was there, I would, but I can't, so I will continue to believe in him.
With respect to what sort of evidence would satisfy me that someone's supernatural claims were true, it would obviously depend on the nature of that supernatural claim, and it would likely require some sort of constellation of evidence. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to prove it seems like a reasonable rule of thumb.
With respect to the rest of your post, fair enough. You are of course perfectly entitled to believe in whatever you like. However, I take exception if you try to claim that it is based on reason or rationality when it clearly is not. You seem to admit as much in your post, so I take no issue with it.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
There is a big, and clearly obvious difference between this:
and this:
Even if you don't agree or believe the above videos, if you can't tell the difference, you're as crazy as the last two.
Um, Martin Luther King and Ghandi didn't make any supernatural claims. I'm not able to view the Dalai Lama video (I'm at the office), but if he is claiming to be the reincarnation of the buddha, then that claim has as much merit as the claims of the crazy people on the bus because (1) they are all implausible according to our present understanding of the world around us; and (2) they are not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
If you mean worthless in the sense of defining our morals, or our understanding of the universe, then I would say that I stand behind that. I don't see how a text that attempts to explain our existence by leveraging the concept of a being whose basic existence cannot be demonstrated to begin with provides any value.
In the first place, this must present as a serious problem for you in your attempts to find any appreciation in practically any ancient literature whatsoever, since the default position for virtually every culture on the planet until probably 300 years ago was a theistic one. I would suggest that you re-evaluate the literature in concert with a recognition that "religion" was inseparable from life: these are not really "religious" texts or "religious" propaganda, given that religious presuppositions permeated every single facet of existence. It is a simple matter for us to compartmentalize and thus to dismiss religious claims on the grounds of their being religious. But this was quite literally unthinkable and bewildering for ancient thinkers (for that matter, "religion" was conceptualized very differently in the ancient world than in our own, which further complicates amateur attempts to evaluate it). The problem with your above statement is in the presumption that the biblical texts were apologetic religious compositions. They presumed a dominant worldview, and need to be understood in that respect—I had attempted to do just that in my own very "secular" reading of Genesis 1 above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
As Carl Sagan once said...
Who said anything about god? My whole argument in this thread is about gaining an appreciation for the LITERATURE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
...I see no harm in answering a question with "We don't know yet", but what I do see harm with is making up an answer for the sake of comfort, and closing the investigation. Religion promotes this lack of questioning, and it is something I see not only lacking value, but harmful in one's endeavour to gain a deeper understanding of our world.
How unbelievably presumptuous and patronizing of you to merely assume that the hundreds of millions of theistic or religious people in the world are engaging in some sort of existential placation, or that they are willfully dismissive of the pursuit of truth, knowledge and understanding by virtue of their faith. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and it is highly prejudicial for you to presume your own conclusions vetted from your private religious experience and to project them onto others. This is a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
Similarly, a text which contains such a vast array of contradictions throughout its pages would not serve to be a very useful guide on any subject, nevermind one that is purported by many to provide an objective moral framework. You and I do agree on something, that morality is undoubtedly subjective.
First, I take issue with your presumption that value and function must proceed from consistency. If you are bothered by contradictions then I would suggest that you are reading the text wrong. Keep in mind that the Bible is not—nor was it ever intended to be—a single, coherent composition with a central theme or idea to govern it (Such an hermeneutical burden was imposed upon scripture in large part as a consequence of the invention of the codex). The Bible is a collection. I have many books on my bookshelves as I am sure you do yourself, and there are very few of them that appear "consistent" or "non-contradictory" with one another. What a dreadful bore that would be!
You seem to me to be reading the Bible precisely in the same manner that I have been attempting to rebut. I am not advocating for reading and using the Bible as an "objective moral framework"—how preposterous. What I am trying to suggest is reading the biblical literature in the context of its own world, and drawing from it applicable insight; reading the text through a sense of recognition that it might actually spark my own intuition and ingenuity. This most certainly does not mean checking one's intellect upon cracking its pages, and blindly asserting all of its ideas. But what it does require is a sensitive and occasionally even sympathetic hearing on the part of its recipients. Since when did developing an appreciation for literature require consent or agreement to an author's purported ideals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
BUT, if you mean the books have value simply as a collection of texts, then I suppose that depends on who is the one reading them. I don't read Harlequin romance novels, but my grandmother sure seemed to enjoy them when she was alive. I read the Bible and it only served to push me further away from the beliefs I was once indoctrinated with.
This is an horribly simplistic analogy. Most of the literature preserved in the Bible is the the high-water mark of intellectual and cultural achievement for the societies that produced them. Would you consider Harlequin comparably so for us in our time? I heartily hope not! We read great literature because it is great literature. The Bible contains an enormous wealth of great literature—admittedly some of it is better than other bits, but a sensitive and careful appraisal of biblical literature can never hurt. In fact, such past appreciations of biblical literature have themselves inspired and spawned a bounty of brilliant literature and art from Chaucer, to Milton, to Davinci, to Blake, to Tolstoy and beyond.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I'm afraid that you're missing the entire point. I propose to file Jesus under the heading "people who hear voices, etc.) On what pricipled basis can one distinguish between his supernatural claims, the Dalia Lama's, and the claims of the guy on the bus?
ahh, I see, I was missing your point. I would imagine people tested what Jesus said in that day too (assuming his existence and the correctness of the gospels). I don't know how people tested what he said, except against scripture (as he does quote scripture - Old Testament).
on what basis can one distinguish between Jesus, the dali lama and the bus guy?
I'm not sure.
people in Jesus time would have seen his miracles, so to me that would be one test (and likely the most significant). if he actually did the miracles that the bible says he did, that's more than the bus guy or the dali lama.
his teaching gets at the heart of what God wants from us, and wasn't for his gain (he knew on some level he would be crucified for what he was saying).
also the scripture prophecies he fulfilled, like where he was born, how he died (on a cross) and rose and other things.
the miracle of him arising from the dead when everyone would have said he was dead.
people then did criticize what he said, the pharisees (the religious elite of the time) wanted to crucify him for what he said (probably more because he was becoming more popular than them and called them a brood of vipers etc though).
the idea of him being the sacrifice has alot of context when you look at old testament requirements of sacrifice for sin. Matthews whole gospel was about trying to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the messiah they had been waiting for and had been prophesied.
maybe it isn't fair to weigh the guy on the bus against Jesus, but don't think everyone just accepted what Jesus said and didn't question it. I am not sure how you would test the guy on the bus, but maybe if he did some miracles or fulfilled some prophecies I might be more inclined to believe what he says.
__________________
GO FLAMES, STAMPEDERS, ROUGHNECKS, CALVARY, DAWGS and SURGE!
The Following User Says Thank You to calgaryrocks For This Useful Post:
This is the first problem though, we don't know what Jesus said, he never wrote anything down. All we have is accounts from a) anonymous authors who didn't know Jesus (the gospels) b) someone who explicitly says he didn't know Jesus (Paul), and c) forgeries (which a number of the letters attributed to Paul are).
So you're really not comparing it to what Jesus said, you're comparing it to what some other people said Jesus said, or what Paul said, or other people said in the name of Paul...
Not so fast, photon. Without question, you are correct in noting that the four gospels (as well as a number of the other ancient "non-canonical" gospels) and Paul and his proteges have badly obscured the picture of the "historical Jesus". However, there are almost certainly actual sayings and stories therein attributed to Jesus that are genuine—i.e. I don't think there is any doubt that he was baptized by John, most of the Markan parables are probably authentic, and he was almost certainly condemned for sedition and executed by the Romans. Having said that, the authentic "message" of Jesus is one that requires a good deal of supplementation for it to be applicable or relevant, given that he was a Jewish apocalyptic nationalist. He preached social reform, but only on the expectation that the world was to end in the lifetime of his followers.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I'm not so sure anymore, not that I've gone over to a mythic Jesus position, but does a historical Jesus fit more than, say, a collection of "historical Jesuses" and the authentic portions of the writings are themselves from collections of oral traditions that merged over time (or something like that)?
There's some books coming out regarding the historical Jesus that I'm waiting for.. Richard Carrier has a couple (the first outlining the usage of Bayes' Theorem in the context of history, the second applying that to the question of a historical Jesus), and Ehrman has one too coming out (Ehrman seems to conclude that there is a historical Jesus, but I don't know if he's changed that in his book).
I meant it more that the confidence in what is written and its internal consistency isn't sufficient (IMO) to warrant it being the absolute standard by which all other claims about divine revelation should be judged.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
You're moving the goalposts. First it went from someone, to their specific claims. And yes, Gandhi made claims.
MLK Jr did make many mentions to God and his beliefs. Even in that speech.
But if you can't see that, here's another one.
I don't mean to the move the goalposts. I've always been asking how one distinguishes, in some rational and principled way, between one supernatural claim (such as "God is speaking to me", or "I am the son of God", or "so and so was immaculately conceived" or "I am the reincarnation of such and such") from other supernatural claims ("I am the son of bigfoot" or "so and so is an alien"). Perhaps I haven't been expressing myself clearly.
Now, if you want to distinguish these sorts of claims in a non-rational way, such as "it makes me feel better about the world to believe in the Jesus' claims about heaven and the afterlife", that's fair enough. Just don't claim to be making a rational and principled distinction.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I'm afraid that you're missing the entire point. I propose to file Jesus under the heading "people who hear voices, etc.) On what pricipled basis can one distinguish between his supernatural claims, the Dalia Lama's, and the claims of the guy on the bus?
Did Jesus himself make any "supernatural claims"? If so, what were they? Furthermore, given what I have already stated about the religious saturation of the culture in which Jesus MUST be understood, how important or relevant are these so-clled supernatural claims relative to other parts of Jesus's teaching?
As someone who has probably committed more than an average amount of tine to investigating the life, teachings, claims, and the "myth" of Jesus, I am not at all convinced that he made any out-of-the-ordinary "supernatural" claims. He most certainly did not claim to be god or the son of god, and I have my doubts that he "heard voices". We must bear in mind that his type of rhetoric was a religious cultural phenomenon; it was a method whereby one taught, and it was a commonplace thing for a Jew to claim that he (not she) spoke for God, because every Jew concerned himself with "what the scriptures mean".
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
In the first place, this must present as a serious problem for you in your attempts to find any appreciation in practically any ancient literature whatsoever, since the default position for virtually every culture on the planet until probably 300 years ago was a theistic one.
You're right - it does, and as a result, I don't.
As for everything else you said: I. Find. No. Value. In. The. Bible. Period. I don't even find its discussion a valuable use of my time, and the fact that the discussion has even gone down that road bores me.
I don't mean to the move the goalposts. I've always been asking how one distinguishes between one supernatural claim (such as "God is speaking to me", or "I am the son of God", or "so and so was immaculately conceived" or "I am the reincarnation of such and such") from other supernatural claims ("I am the son of bigfoot" or "so and so is an alien"). Perhaps I haven't been expressing myself clearly.
Fair enough. It is a very difficult thing to do. Often people choose to use personal experiences to help them make the decision. The problem a lot of modern people have is that they demand explicit answers, which God nor the universe provides. Even if you chose to kick God out of the equation, determining the truth in this matter is difficult. I purposefully chose individuals that I didn't necessarily agree with however, to show that equating a crazy person and a person making spiritual claims is not really helpful. But determining if someone's claims are "valid" or not is one of incredible debate, one that continues for generations. The only reason those individuals or claims get to that point, is based significantly on the value one can and will derive from that claim. At least that's what I think. I find it difficult to explain myself sometimes, other times I find it very easy. Textcritic's post on the literature is a great starting point, however.
The Following User Says Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
As for everything else you said: I. Find. No. Value. In. The. Bible. Period. I don't even find its discussion a valuable use of my time, and the fact that the discussion has even gone down that road bores me.
That much is clear. However, I think Textcritic is suggesting* you must also have a difficult time with all the other texts written throughout history.
In other words, you must not think that highly of the collective sum of human experience. And you think much too highly of your own deductive abilities.
*My appologies to Textcritic if I misinterpreted him.
Last edited by Knalus; 02-07-2012 at 03:57 PM.
Reason: clarity, spelling
Did Jesus himself make any "supernatural claims"? If so, what were they? Furthermore, given what I have already stated about the religious saturation of the culture in which Jesus MUST be understood, how important or relevant are these so-clled supernatural claims relative to other parts of Jesus's teaching?
As someone who has probably committed more than an average amount of tine to investigating the life, teachings, claims, and the "myth" of Jesus, I am not at all convinced that he made any out-of-the-ordinary "supernatural" claims. He most certainly did not claim to be god or the son of god, and I have my doubts that he "heard voices". We must bear in mind that his type of rhetoric was a religious cultural phenomenon; it was a method whereby one taught, and it was a commonplace thing for a Jew to claim that he (not she) spoke for God, because every Jew concerned himself with "what the scriptures mean".
Fine, but other people have certainly made supernatural claims about Jesus. Those are the claims that I am interested in.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
