The Changing Views of Modern Christians

[Selaphiel]

Commentaries by theologians are the last place I would look, as they are clearly going to be biased and opinionated.

So you assume you are right even before looking at the best formulations of the other points of view? And you accuse them of bias? Theologians who write such commentaries are academically trained professionals, experts in their fields. Accusing them of bias without argument is just ridiculous.

And of him, there is nothing. No objective evidence at all. No bones. No real-time historical documentation. Nothing. Just stories, written years after the fact, containing obvious exaggerations, lots of religious interpretation, and very little actual information. We don't even know if he was married, or had children. Apart from the story, we have nothing. Apart from his being the character in the story, we can't even say for sure that he existed.

You mean apart from the writing about him, both stories and testimonies (the testimonies traced from Paul and then to James and the apostles are really close to the events), there is no evidence? We can't say for sure, but then again, history does not deal in proof, it deals in probability of accuracy.

That's why there's no such evidence to find. Nothing exists of Jesus but the religionist's stories and the opinions of theologians.

Opinions of theologians? I'm starting to doubt that you have ever read a work of theology in your life. You have a lot of strong opinions about a field you seem to know very little about. The theologians that deal with those questions are biblical scholars. Exceptionally few biblical scholars or historians of antiquity doubt the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

You accept those as proof because you have to.

I have to? Why do I have to? I have not even remotely suggested anything like 'proof'. I didn't grow up in a religious home, I set foot in church about 2 times before I met serious Christian thought at the university. I accept them because I believe there are good arguments for them.

I don't need to believe in divine miracles to believe in the truth of the ideal and promise of Christ that the story presents.

You don't believe in the Christ as the story presents it. Even if the entire story is a myth, Christ does not mean what you think it means in that story. The entire story might be complete make believe, but Christ in that context still means Messiah, a title whose only real meaning is found in Jewish scriptures. In particular its the concept of Messiah similar to second temple apocalyptic/eschatological Judaism. This is the sort of thing you would know if you had bothered to read what those 'biased theologians', aka as the actual experts on those questions, instead of dismissing them before you have read them.

Those are all about the mythical story of Jesus of Nazareth, not the reality of man that the story is about. But there is no reality of that man, left, for anyone to study.

By that standard, there is no reality of anyone who is dead that we can study. Which is ridiculous.

Again, how have you reached the conclusion that they are mythical stories? What scholarly material have you actually read on the subject matter?

You're hoping that you'll exist forever, even after your body dies. Jesus died, and yet he still exists in the minds and hearts of billions of people, more than two millennium later! He has long 'outlived' even the most famous emperors in all human history. His spirit is still alive within the spirit of billions of other people.

The spirit of the man you don't believe even existed exists in your heart? Those hearts and minds are delusional unless he actually existed and is actually alive.

I'd say that's a pretty good reason for you to be hopeful. Because your spirit already shares a great degree of commonality with mine, and with everyone else. And through that commonality, your spirit will remain alive in mine and in others for a very long time. And the more you are willing to share your spirit with us, the more true that becomes.

Why would that matter? In the end, why would those memories matter? If there are no resurrection of the dead in any form. Then why would the fact that some meaningless organisms on a minor planet in an insignifcant solar system was a bit inspired by you for what amounts to a drop in the sea in cosmic time before the entire universe disperses out in absolute entropy? The answer is: It doesn't. Christianity on the other hand says that there is real resurrection and new creation. That might be false, but at least it is a coherent story that would have meaning if true.

You seem to be confused about what is real and what is not. Your spirit is the most 'real' thing about you (according to Christian ideology). Your physical body is what is temporary. Jesus never promised that your body would last forever. He promised that if you align your spirit with the eternal spirit, it will live forever. And that's quite literally true. Because that eternal spirit exists in all of us, and we in it.

Where did he promise that? What is this spirit anyway? What is the eternal spirit? How will I live forever in this eternal spirit? How is that eternal spirit any less magical than an act of God? Maybe all of that is true, but it has very little to do with what Jesus taught IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE STORY IN ITS PROPER HISTORICAL CONTEXT. It is an absolute nonsensical interpretation of story.

"Won" what? What did they win? They had no effect on Jesus' spirit at all. They certainly did not kill it, as it lives on inside of you and I and billions of other people even to this day!

Sorry, but that is absolutely meaningless. You have not in any way established why that would matter. Why is his 'spirit' good? How is his spirit any better than the spirit of Hitler or Stalin?

That tells me that he had very serious doubts about it. Why else would he have expended so much time and energy defending it? You're overlooking the obvious.

Because he cared enough to construct careful arguments about it? The only obvious thing here is that you are once again dismissing a thinker and all his work before you have even read it. Not only do you dismiss it, but you have secret access to his real psychological motivations. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Well, you are not the determiner for what is a recognizable form of Christian belief for anyone but yourself. And I can't think of any reason why I should cede to anyone else's idea of what I should believe to be a Christian. Can you?

Yeah, that is what hamburger eating vegetarians keep saying as well. "I determine what a vegetarian is, and I hold that it means that I can eat 500g hamburgers every day if I want to". Words have meanings, worldviews have content. If your beliefs dont in any way, shape or form resemble that content, then that label is probably not a good label for you.

You're being a little childish, here. I actually agree with the first sentence of that statement. But being 'in Christ' and being 'in the Christian Church' are two different things. They may overlap, but they don't have to.

A living reality as in a living subjectivity, not as a memory of a person that according to you didnt even exist. You might as well call Gandalf a living reality then.

And again, 'in Christ' is a term used by St.Paul and its meaning is derived from him. And it is not the vague feel good spirituality you are talking about here. You need to accept that words and concepts actually have meaning, they refer to certain propositions.

I'm only denying the intellectual dishonesty involved in insisting that we pretend they are factual when they are clearly mythical. Myths often contain factual information, but they are not intended to be factual and they often contain fantastic exaggerations to better convey their message. They are intended to convey revelatory lessons and ideals, not historical facts.

1) That assumes that the stories in question actually are myths.

2) A myth can indeed convey an ideal, but a myth alone cannot validate it. A myth can convey heroism, it cannot convey whether heroism is a true virtue or not.

That is correct. The myth presents us with the revelation of some truth. The proof of that truth must come from it's application to our experience of being.

You complain about a lack of objectivity in the gospels, yet the validation of your own belief is a pure appeal to subjective experience?

There are "reasons" that we might follow either of these paths (universal love or individual selfishness). But one of those choices leads to eternal joy and gratitude, while the other leads to eternal damnation. Remember, it's the spirit that lives forever.

The only form of eternal life that you have presented is being remembered. A memory could in theory be a form of objective immortality, but never a subjective one. A subjective form of immortality demands the survival of the actual experiencing subject in one form or another. Without that, talking about eternal joy and gratitude are absolutely meaningless, since they are states only possible in living experiencing subjects.

 

[PureX]

The only form of eternal life that you have presented is being remembered.

If that's all you perceived from what I posted than I don't see much point in continuing this conversation. We apparently understand the concept of 'spirit' in very different ways, which then fundamentally effect our understanding of the Christian ideal and promise.

I've pretty clearly stated why I do not accept the religious dogmas and superstitions associated with contemporary religious Christianity. And I am apparently not alone in this position. It does not appear to me that you are going to be capable of understanding my position clearly enough to discuss it, however, as you seem too intent on defending your own perceptions to contemplate and discuss mine.

And that's OK. There's no special reason why you should want to contemplate or discuss mine.

Peace, brother.