Fractelle, it is a beautiful thing to be in love, but where does that leave BOAZ_David and Pericles?

I would never wish to say or infer that because you are an atheist that you are somehow "morally reprehensible". Forgive me please if I have suggested that. I’m sure that there are atheists who would embarrass some Christians with their superior moral rectitude. My question to you however would be, “what is the basis of your morality, what anchors it so that it does not slip around from day to day?”.

CJ, you’re a champ, and the thing is we can argue without being (intentionally) objectionable.

Martin Ibn Warriq, did I spring you?

David Palmer,

Thank you for your kind words.

I hope you will not be offended if I ask you a few questions.

When it comes to the existence of a creator of the universe I am agnostic. Not only don't I know, I don't know how it is possible to know.

If perchance a creator of the universe does exist I doubt he / she / it / they would ever give his followers the choice of murdering, crucifying or dismembering his "enemies" as described in the koran 5:33.

So much for the theory that the creator of the universe used an angel to dictate the koran verbatim to Muhammad.

However I find the bible equally improbable. How CAN you as an intelligent man believe in:

--Virgin birth? - how did Jesus get a Y chromosome?

--God incarnate?

--Resurrection?

Even if I wanted to I could not believe anything of the sort.

I find much to admire in Jesus' ethical teachings? The fact that these are largely a synthesis of various Jewish schools of thought of the time do not detract from their grandeur. In the end everything is built on something else.

But the "Son of God?"

Fractelle, *blush*

Boaz, you do this simply to antagonize, don't you?

>>I have decided to introduce my own theory... naturally,(to borrow the imagery of another eloquent OLO poster) “soaked in humility and clothed in love” (Thanx Pericles)<<

This suggests to readers that I once described you in this manner, which would be not far from libellous. It sounds more like the subheading of a particularly racy Barbara Cartland novel set in a monastery, "Two Cloistered Hearts Entwine - soaked in humility and clothed in love", perhaps.

>>I think we can see that the Universe is held together by very real and predictable forces. It's duration in time surely testifies to this<<

Are we talking Creation time here, Boaz, or Cosmic time? Given the likely life span of the human race's in the latter case - which would be infinitesimal in the overall scheme of things - how can this possibly "testify"?

>>PS.. much of my output is a response to “The History of Western Philosophy” by Russell.<<

No kidding? Which parts? All of it? Wow! It would help next time if you tell us which aspect of Russell's ideas you are responding to? Thanks.

Martin - nice try.

>>Pericles – good. We’ve established these events are historical.<<

Not at all. Unless of course you would like to call Grimm's Fairy Tales historical, simply because somebody historical wrote them.

>>How could the Gospels become authoritative for the early church (at great risk to themselves) unless they knew it was true?<<

Because they needed a unifying theme that they could all work with. No-one's doubting their religious fanaticism, only questioning the factual basis for it.

And David Palmer:

>>the world will never be "a calm and mild place", with or without religion, human nature goes against us which is why the statement that “religion is the root of all evil” is such utterly asinine troll rhetoric<<

No dispute on that. But it sure doesn't do much to promote calmness and mildness having the world's two mainstream religions tearing at each other's throats.

Does it?

PERICLES.. for the record.. it was you describing me this way:

"Your post is HARDLY soaked in.. etc" (that was the tone if not the words) i.e.. you were drawing a contrast between those qualities and what you thought you saw in my post. You were tearing me to bits.

My 'theory of time' had only one goal.. to demonstrate to Fractelle that I

a) actually do read other things, and
b) That I read enough of it to pick out the funny bits.

If you know anything about Russells book, you would realize it is a history of OTHER peoples ideas..not Russels alone. He lists all the major philosophical identities from early greeks down to modern, who have impacted 'how we think'....

So, he summarizes their positions. Who would want to read all of Plato, Bacon,Locke, Hume, Sartre, Neitczh etc just to get the guts of what they were on about. Much better to read the short version :)

What I observed in the renaissance thinkers was their primary goal seemed to be working out the meaning of life, and on what basis government can be established. God always figured in their thinking, even if it was to dispose of Him before proceeding.

I have seldom felt so vindicated as I was when reading those various thinkers.

STEVEN... you are in the position of the Jews of Jesus day.
Consider this.
-Jesus healed a man blind from birth. (John 9)
-The Blind man knew the source of his healing, as did his family and passers by.
-The religious leaders, by 'dogma' would not accept this.

Your question 'Son of God'? is not answered by the enquiring mind, but the opened heart.

It boils down to the words of Jesus

<<The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.>> John 14:10

cheers.

BOAZ_David,

You are obviously much more learned about christianity than I am; indeed possibly more than many of the writers here.

I draw on the work “Trial of Jesus of Nazareth” by Professor S.G.F. Brandon, a Christian. This work is rigorously researched and impeccably documented. Brandon has/had (I do not know if he is still living) impressive qualifications in Comparative Religion, presented significant lectures: Wilde lectures at Oxford, Forwood lectures at Liverpool. Not only was he a member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, but also of the Society for Old Testaments Study; and the International Society for the Study of Time.

Brandon states that two Christian groups existed. Those of the Church of Jerusalem which comprised of Jesus’ original apostles and desciples, including Mary, (Jesus’ mother), James (his brother), Peter and John. This group denied that St. Paul had been an apostle. They also taught a “Christianity” at such variance with Paul’s, that Paul himself referred to it as “another gospel” ... “another Jesus”, particularly when “reporting” Jesus’ trial and death. The Jerusalem community perished in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.

Paul had never met Jesus during his life. Paul distances himself from the Jerusalem group in a letter to the Galatians:

“I would have you know, bretheren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man ... but came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul’s intention was to establish that his teachings were divine in origin, quite independent of that taught by the original apostles.

In Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, he defends himself from the Jerusalem group, which perceived him of unsound mind, of being delusional. The Jerusalem held Jesus’ death as a ‘human event’; Paul, on the other hand, claimed it as a ‘mystical event. Paul:

“... even though we once regarded (oidamen) Christ from a human point of view, we regard (ginoskomen) him thus no longer ...”

cont ...

From my own memory of religious teaching at school.

It was as late as 649 AD, that the dogma of the Virgin Birth was proclaimed under Pope Martin I, during the third council of the Lateran Council. It was not until 1854, that the Catholic Church, in the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, that Pius IX pronounced and defined that Mary, herself, had been of Immaculate Conception, thus, freeing her from original sin, and providing her with a pass into Heaven without the need for baptism.

I am in complete agreement with Steven.

“I find much to admire in Jesus' ethical teachings? The fact that these are largely a synthesis of various Jewish schools of thought of the time do not detract from their grandeur.”

Personally, I suspect that Jesus was either a rabbi or Jewish teacher. It is no coincidence that Jesus taught only in the area where “Jews” had been forced to convert to Judaism - an extremely rare occurrence. The only other time being a biblical reference.

Your response to Steven:

“Jesus healed a man blind from birth. (John 9)
-The Blind man knew the source of his healing, as did his family and passers by.”

Quite possibly this did occur. There are numerous cases of such - and undoubtedly result from “mind/body” connection. Lourdes has documented many; and faith-healers abound in history. To me, however, a miracle would have occurred if a disfigured child became whole; or an amputee grew a new limb.

Re: Lazarus’ rising from the dead. Even today, death can be misdiagnosed without the necessary technology. In one state (at least) in the USA, paramedics must continue with resuscitation unless the “patient” demonstrates morbid lividity, or rigor mortis, or is decapitated.

However, we have gone right off the original topic ...