Is It Really A Delusion?

[Shyone]

I only see that the Bible purports itself to be this way

That's my whole point. It presents itself as magically revealed factual history and the one and only truth, and that's naturally the basis upon which people will reject or accept it. After all, not everyone is as deep and spiritually advanced as we are.

You know, at first I thought, "WTF did I say??", until I looked back and realized you quoted me out of context!!

 

Here's what I actually said: "I only see that the Bible purports itself to be this way, to be a modern interpretation from a modern context, reading itself back into history to suit itself against its challengers today." In other words, that's a modern misunderstanding.

 

You weren't being serious in your response were you?

Ironically, the way Florduh quoted you is the way that most fundamentalist literalist Christians view the bible, and most others have no clue about what it says, so they too would support the statement that "The bible reveals factual history of God and is error free."

 

Does the bible "purport itself to be" a literal historical truth?

 

Matt. 1:1. A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

The use of geneology, names of people and prophecies fulfilled suggest that the author was presenting what he wrote to be factually correct.

 

Mark does the same with specific names and places and no suggestion that this was not exactly what it appears to be.

 

Luke 1:3. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Sounds like he was trying to write a detailed and orderly account having "carefully investigated everything from the beginning."

 

Even John is told as a factual account after the rhetorical "Word" passages. "41. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).

42. And he brought him to Jesus."

 

So I would agree with Florduh that the bible presents itself as a historical account of events. It is the historical nature of the accounts which makes the miracles believable to the gullible. It would be an incorrect reading to say that all of the details presented in the accounts are meant to be understood as rough accounts of what happened. There is no uncertainty.

 

The disagreement between the gospels does not indicate that the writers knew they were bullshitting. Even if they were aware of other "gospels", each writer was writing for a particular audience and I gather they considered that their accounts would either 1) have a limited audience or 2) would replace earlier "less accurate" accounts.

 

This statement, "They sure didn't seem too terribly concerned with facts when talking about whose census it was that Jesus was born under, they didn't seem too concerned about how many women were at the tomb, etc." is just as wrong as it could possibly be! They disagreed about the details, but not because they were presenting their text to the same audiences expecting comparisons. They thought that, in those primative days, their versions would be read and used in a few churches, or that other accounts would be forgotten and/or superceded by the new accounts. They were, in fact, terribly concerned with the details in their own stories.

 

It is you, AM, who is reading a modern context onto the New Testament by assuming that the authors were "not concerned" with the details - only because the details don't match.

 

Modern Christians are not incorrect in their assumption that the Bible was meant to be a historical account accurate in all details. The dogmatic statement that the bible is inerrant does not mean "except that the details vary, and there is some difference of opinion, and the dates of the events aren't necessarily correct, and the places..."

 

Inerrant, for the average Christian, means "without error." Factual, Historical and accurate in every respect.

 

"God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

[florduh]

In other words, that's a modern misunderstanding.

You mean that modern man has the incorrect understanding of the Bible but earlier societies got it right? I hope not, because there have been millions throughout the ages fighting over "holy" sites mentioned in the book and scrambling for relics such as the Ark and the Shroud of the real and resurrected body of Jesus. The State of Israel exists only because so many people accept the Old Testament as a factual history with its Moses in the bull rushes, parting of the Red Sea, the supposed Exodus, etc. People take and have always taken the book at face value. If you see the Bible as a collection of fictional events and characters contrived to impart spiritual truths, you are in a minority.

 

It's not being sold as Authoritative by calling up the sorts of modern evidences of science and history that impress a modern audience.

No, it's still sold as the revealed, literal Word of God in spite of evidence to the contrary. Before we knew anything about geology, astronomy, and history, we had no reason to think the stories weren't factual, even if a bit fanciful. Today, modern Christians must choose to believe on faith alone or believe the book was never intended to be taken literally. Few opt for the second choice, though they may modify their interpretation to allow for certain scientific evidences they can't deny any longer.

[Vigile]

What if someone understands it to be a story to tell an underlying message and that it happened in fact, is irrelevant to that?

Whether a flood (or anything else in the book) is factual history is irrelevant to the myth meaning. You get that, I get that (believe it or not!)

 

HOWEVER, the Bible in particular presents itself as factual and true and that's how many, if not most Christians view it. Westerners do not take the Bible stories in the same way people understand the "miracles" surrounding the Buddha. Somehow we sense those stories to be allegories to make some spiritual point, but the Bible purports to be the recorded history of the one true God and His people, and the only path to salvation, by God! When one finds cracks in that book, which parts of it are we to believe anymore? If there was no flood, then maybe there was no actual Jesus or sacrifice after all. The claims come from the same source and neither story is presented as allegory or morality play.

 

I don't know about others, but my own experience with the religion just screams the opposite of what AM is arguing here. It wasn't allegorical, it was presented as the only reality and if anything were allegorical it would have been the world of unbelievers who represented evil choices and evil actions and evil potential.

 

How the majority of xians who just self identify as such view it isn't interesting to me. I'm interested in discussing the type of belief system that makes up the evangelicals, the charismatics, etc... that truly are victims of a cult. Most xians aren't even xians if you are just talking about those who identify with it merely for cultural reasons. And I'm not talking about not true xians, I'm saying they don't practice it, think about it, understand it and it doesn't affect their lives any more than the symbol of the flag affects their lives. So in that sense, AM is right, but it dismisses the experience of those who are trapped in a cult, which is terms of cults is a pretty damn big number of them.

 

And when you see the world in terms of us vs them and when you are guilted for your own natural desires and actions and when you are pressured to evangelise, you are in a cult and there is no deeper/higher/whatever meaning to it than that. Having been a victim of it for half my life I tend to resent the insinuation that there is because it contradicts everything I know about it from being up close and personal with it and puts an unfair positive spin on something I know to be quite harmful. Certainly those coming to this website for relief aren't looking for relief from a negative spin on what might be positive allegory to others.

[Antlerman]

Ironically, the way Florduh quoted you is the way that most fundamentalist literalist Christians view the bible

So... you're saying he read my words like a fundamentalist who cherry picks the texts to support what they want to hear it say?

 

Matt. 1:1. A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

The use of geneology, names of people and prophecies fulfilled suggest that the author was presenting what he wrote to be factually correct.

 

<etc>

 

Yes, it sets it's stories against the backdrop of contemporary events. That's it's vehicle for its stories, like I said. Were they trying to make themselves historical for a specific reason? Actually, in a sense yes. But it wouldn't be for reasons that would mean anything to us today, as proving Jesus fit the descriptions of him in the narratives as a historical person (that's our criteria of "validity"). What they would have been doing, set against the backdrop of their culture and critics, is to validate their new religion as being prophesied about, and the fulfillment of the ancient religion of the Jews. That is what they cared about, not your criteria of empirical evidence to make it a trustworthy source of authority for discerning truth! That is totally reading back into history your culture.

 

Their fictions were creatively woven into Jewish history in the hopes to validate it as ancient, because the Romans considered novice religions to be a threat, and frankly to give a certain trademark stamp onto their novelty to make it even more popular. Where do you think the whole LXX rendering of the Virgin Birth myth came from? "As it says in the Jewish scriptures... (myth based upon popular misinterpretation of Isaiah) a young woman will have a baby..." And hereeeeees.... Jesus whose amazing virgin mother was impregnated by God, complete with donkeys, wise men, and a traveling star.

 

Dude, this is not about proving historical validity to modern man!! It's about crafting a myth to give a sense of antiquity to themselves to the masses of by grafting themselves into Israel's history. They weren't thinking about forensics. They were weaving a story that would fit into Israel's. Very different criteria than ours.

 

Does that resonate at all?

 

 

It is the historical nature of the accounts which makes the miracles believable to the gullible.

Are you so sure? In analyzing the various sets of miracle stories that were floating about prior to the narrative story being crafted, you can see them injected into various backdrops that really appear incidental to the story of the miracle itself. Are you so sure it was to impress ancient audiences with the same criteria of what's important as that of a modern audience?

 

It would be an incorrect reading to say that all of the details presented in the accounts are meant to be understood as rough accounts of what happened.

I wouldn't suggest that. You're still thinking like a modern man and expecting it to suit you, to one level or another.

 

There is no uncertainty.

On the contrary. Uncertainty defines it. There nothing you can point to however that make that world look like the mindset of Post-Enlightenment European thought.

 

The disagreement between the gospels does not indicate that the writers knew they were bullshitting.

Who the hell suggested that?

 

This statement, "They sure didn't seem too terribly concerned with facts when talking about whose census it was that Jesus was born under, they didn't seem too concerned about how many women were at the tomb, etc." is just as wrong as it could possibly be! They disagreed about the details, but not because they were presenting their text to the same audiences expecting comparisons. They thought that, in those primative days, their versions would be read and used in a few churches, or that other accounts would be forgotten and/or superceded by the new accounts. They were, in fact, terribly concerned with the details in their own stories.

Yes, of course they were concerned with the emphasis of their version of things, for their audience, but not about the details of historical facts, as historical facts, for the interest of proving it was a miracle to modern audiences. That was my point, not that they weren't concerned with the details of the version, their presentation. They were of course, but not with record keeping. That is not what they were about.

 

It is you, AM, who is reading a modern context onto the New Testament by assuming that the authors were "not concerned" with the details - only because the details don't match.

Really? What did you think of the quote I offered from Burton Mack? What he noted, which seems quite valid in my estimation, certainly seems to corroborate what I am saying. I'd like to see you address those points specifically, and then afterward reassert what you just said.

 

Modern Christians are not incorrect in their assumption that the Bible was meant to be a historical account accurate in all details. The dogmatic statement that the bible is inerrant does not mean "except that the details vary, and there is some difference of opinion, and the dates of the events aren't necessarily correct, and the places..."

That dogmatic statement is a modern one, post-Dwight L. Moody. My point.

 

Inerrant, for the average Christian, means "without error." Factual, Historical and accurate in every respect.

 

"God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Yes, that describes the fundamentalist. That is their language, not the "average" Christian (if fundamentalism was the 'average Christian', then it wouldn't be fundamentalism). Bibliolatry is a more modern phenomena. (Don't confuse seeing the Bible as sacred with fundamentalism).

[Antlerman]

What if someone understands it to be a story to tell an underlying message and that it happened in fact, is irrelevant to that?

Whether a flood (or anything else in the book) is factual history is irrelevant to the myth meaning. You get that, I get that (believe it or not!)

 

HOWEVER, the Bible in particular presents itself as factual and true and that's how many, if not most Christians view it. Westerners do not take the Bible stories in the same way people understand the "miracles" surrounding the Buddha. Somehow we sense those stories to be allegories to make some spiritual point, but the Bible purports to be the recorded history of the one true God and His people, and the only path to salvation, by God! When one finds cracks in that book, which parts of it are we to believe anymore? If there was no flood, then maybe there was no actual Jesus or sacrifice after all. The claims come from the same source and neither story is presented as allegory or morality play.

 

I don't know about others, but my own experience with the religion just screams the opposite of what AM is arguing here. It wasn't allegorical, it was presented as the only reality and if anything were allegorical it would have been the world of unbelievers who represented evil choices and evil actions and evil potential.

You're somewhat yanking out of context what I said above and ignoring pretty much the meat of everything else I have been saying throughout this thread. What I asked in what is quoted here above was asked as a rhetorical question to prove a point that if someone did not take the Bible literally, that the arguments against it being 'false' are irrelevant. That someone doesn't take the Bible literally, does not mean they then read it allegorically. I don't think I've ever used those words actually.

 

There is a difference between that and reading it contextually, where they understand those are expressed perceptions of a people of a different culture and different time. Reading the Bible literally, as in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, exists as a statement for a reason big enough to make such a declared position.

 

That aside, I have throughout this thread acknowledged that your average person does in fact take it on the assumption is factual. But, and my point has been, is that in practice what they are really doing is in fact using it symbolically. That they defend it tenaciously against modern skeptics to the point of irrationality, has all been covered in the many posts I've made preceding this one.

 

How the majority of xians who just self identify as such view it isn't interesting to me. I'm interested in discussing the type of belief system that makes up the evangelicals, the charismatics, etc... that truly are victims of a cult.

Then this may not be the right discussion for you. I'm suggesting that if you hope to see the world heal because of the sorts of pathologies in religion that lead to the sort of abuses that you and I both have been subjected to, that simply lashing back and those groups with terms like delusional, etc is in fact not going to take us anywhere. As I've said, its great language if your purpose is to create lines drawn in the sand in order to set safe bounds for yourself in seeking identities away from each other. But that is not going to fix source of the problem, IMO.

 

I'm suggesting that to in fact uphold reason and rationality in the pursuit of genuine understanding, which necessitates trying to see things positively from the other person's point of view, is what in fact will allow people to perhaps not have such a stranglehold on their systems to the point of dogma. Branding all beliefs in the Divine, in whatever form they take, as Delusional for instance, is unhelpful. Not only in that goal, but also in truly helping the individual to heal post-Christianity, IMHO.

 

Most xians aren't even xians if you are just talking about those who identify with it merely for cultural reasons.

You do realize that you just adopted the fundamentalist's definitions of True Christian™ and applied them yourself to other Christians in agreement with them? I wouldn't be so generous in giving that element of the religious world all the power that way myself. That's totally buying into their modern mythmaking, just as the early proto-orthodox church did in branding all other Christian groups as "heretical". I don't see any difference.

 

And I'm not talking about not true xians, I'm saying they don't practice it, think about it, understand it and it doesn't affect their lives any more than the symbol of the flag affects their lives.

Alright then, "luke-warm" Christians who aren't real Christians? Sort of is saying the same thing. These 'nominal' Christians in fact will, if you threaten their symbols strongly enough, suddenly become polarized in defense of them. That's my point really. If you want to move people forward, alienating the middle is a sure bet not to make that happen.

 

So in that sense, AM is right, but it dismisses the experience of those who are trapped in a cult, which is terms of cults is a pretty damn big number of them.

What??? You really don't read what I write, do you? I'd have to be dismissing my own experience too, and I sure don't do that.

 

Having been a victim of it for half my life I tend to resent the insinuation that there is because it contradicts everything I know about it from being up close and personal with it and puts an unfair positive spin on something I know to be quite harmful.

So what are you saying? That I don't have any valid points from my perspective because of your perspective? I too have been up-close and personal with it as well, pouring myself into their world in studies and devotions in the pursuit of the ministry with them. I don't insinuate anything. I think what I hear is a lot of assumptions and reactions to those. I don't invalidate your perspective by trying to offer other perspectives that I myself have found since my experience with them. Please tell me you're not seeing me as not a True Ex-Christian™.

 

Certainly those coming to this website for relief aren't looking for relief from a negative spin on what might be positive allegory to others.

You talk about insinuating something? Are you saying that I should stop this? That I should be careful to say only the negative things and nothing beyond that because it might make someone feel invalidated, much in the way you seem to have just expressed? No. This is valid for me to pursue in the interest of my own personal growth post-Christianity, in the pursuit of Reason and Rationality, and beyond.

 

I will state in no uncertain terms that for me I can't stay in one place of thinking, and if my pursuit of this benefits others then I'm happy. If it makes someone else uneasy for whatever reason with where they are at, then frankly they're not in a place where this is a discussion they should be exposing themselves to. But I'm not going to withdraw openly discussing my perspectives because it might be too much for someone with where they are at.

 

Frankly, I'd see the nature and value of this site that comes from having a wide-spectrum of views being freely discussed to become quickly flattened to nothing but rhetorical monologues if we went down that road here. It would cease to be the powerful site that it is for that very reason of diversity of opinion.

[Vigile]

That aside, I have throughout this thread acknowledged that your average person does in fact take it on the assumption is factual. But, and my point has been, is that in practice what they are really doing is in fact using it symbolically

 

I haven't read the rest of your response yet so perhaps my frame of mind will evolve as I go through it. That's my disclaimer in case I end up contradicting myself here

 

I don't doubt that you are right that they process it symbolically as you suggest. But then isn't the end product of that still something harmful? An extreme example is heroin. It has positive effects and makes people feel good but it also harms users and society. Religion is usually not this extreme but it's still used as an escape and it does harm many of its users and it does harm society.

 

Then this may not be the right discussion for you.

 

Perhaps not, as far as my own personal interests are concerned but in the context of this being a website full of users, including myself that have been harmed to a great degree I find it difficult when someone attempts to point out the positives in it. This place is also somewhere that encourages a free and open exchange of ideas so I don't want to try and stop that in any way and while there are no doubt positives that come with the beliefs I really find myself grating when someone puts a positive spin on it.

 

I'm suggesting that to in fact uphold reason and rationality in the pursuit of genuine understanding, which necessitates trying to see things positively from the other person's point of view, is what in fact will allow people to perhaps not have such a stranglehold on their systems to the point of dogma. Branding all beliefs in the Divine, in whatever form they take, as Delusional for instance, is unhelpful. Not only in that goal, but also in truly helping the individual to heal post-Christianity, IMHO

 

I can't speak for everyone but I know for a fact that the xians I know and grew up with would just write this off as a false teaching. They are somewhat flexible in their theology, but they are very rigid about what it ultimately means to them. Meeting them half way will still distance them. If it wouldn't then they are likely thoughtful enough to just deconvert.

 

You do realize that you just adopted the fundamentalist's definitions of True Christian™ and applied them yourself to other Christians in agreement with them?

 

Not at all. I'm not saying they are saved or not saved. I'm saying that most of them who just check xian on their Census form but go no further don't even think about it. It's purely a label and a security blanket for them. Discussing them is a whole other discussion than it is when considering those who the meme has in their grasp. It might be useful for a small unfruitful sociological study but it doesn't address the religious problem that has a stranglehold on millions of people's lives. There has to be a way to distinguish these two groups from each other without breaking the Godwin's law of True™ xianity.

 

What??? You really don't read what I write, do you? I'd have to be dismissing my own experience too, and I sure don't do that.

 

Sorry if I offended you. I probably skimmed through too quickly and didn't give you a fair shake. I'll just point back to my comment above where I mentioned how putting a positive spin on it makes me feel. I will also point out that if you are right about your position then you are right to do it, but it's still an emotionally touchy subject for me.

 

So what are you saying? That I don't have any valid points from my perspective because of your perspective?

 

What I am saying is that as a person who spent the first half of his life absolutely tortured with the prospect of other people and perhaps even myself burning in hell forever, who literally cried himself to sleep countless nights because he couldn't get a hold on sexual desires, who felt that every thought that was worldly was sinful, all for just taking seriously what is taught widely, that trying to find the good in those messages is like trying to find the good in Hitler youth rallies. And if my reaction to it makes those on the fence or those luke-warm to become defensive, I really don't care. It's not my job to save the world and play Rodney King.

 

Please tell me you're not seeing me as not a True Ex-Christian™

 

Like I said, there has to be a way to distinguish those caught in the net and those who just identify with it for cultural reasons because they really are fundamentally different even if their beliefs are the same.

 

And no, I don't see you as an xian believer.

 

You talk about insinuating something? Are you saying that I should stop this? That I should be careful to say only the negative things and nothing beyond that because it might make someone feel invalidated, much in the way you seem to have just expressed? No. This is valid for me to pursue in the interest of my own personal growth post-Christianity, in the pursuit of Reason and Rationality, and beyond.

 

You shouldn't stop doing what you feel you need to do. As I said, free expression should be encouraged here like it always has been. This is an ideal I truly believe in. My response to it is my own expression of how it makes me feel. I don't mean to insult you here. I'm just being honest.

 

Frankly, I'd see the nature and value of this site that comes from having a wide-spectrum of views being freely discussed to become quickly flattened to nothing but rhetorical monologues if we went down that road here. It would cease to be the powerful site that it is for that very reason of diversity of opinion.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

[florduh]

The facts of the actually historic events were insignificant to the point of irrelevance compared to all the rest tied into the story! That is the nature of symbolism. And so too with the NT and their imaginings of Jesus as like the prophet Elijah and Moses to one community, imagining him as the Eternal Logos to another, imagining him like the apocalyptic Son of Man to another. Their focus is on identity and societal truth, not science and facts of history!!

 

I'm going to quote from the Christian scholar Burton Mack on this, since it fits so well into this point:

 

A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.

 

 

Again, this is not an effort to tell history. This is about something entirely else!

 

Plainly, the words of the Bible state that it IS a history of a real God, real people and real events. While you and Mack want to see a subtext of symbols and mythology, most people do not. Obviously, to anyone who critically examines the texts it becomes apparent that the stories are not what they appear to be. Now, with that information we may imagine the authors had some valuable Truths to impart via the fanciful stories, or they were simply inventing a new religion for political or other reasons. If they are attempting to create a mythology to illustrate something they believe to be the Truth, why should anyone assume their Truth is valid?

 

People haven't martyred themselves for an abstract religious concept. They don't declare wars and threaten nonbelievers with eternal damnation because of a religious philosophy. People do these things, and more, because they believe the God of the Bible literally created everything, sent His son to suffer and die for us, and Hell is real.

 

So perhaps the story of the death and resurrection of a God-Man named Jesus is just a fanciful illustration of spiritual rebirth. or whatever larger meaning one might want to assign to it. What of it?

 

Due to the inconsistencies of the Bible we have thousands of Christian sects believing various conflicting doctrines. Still, I venture to say that all who identify as Christian consider the Bible to be the Truth and factual to some degree, and Christianity is the true religion. Few people, even non Christians, doubt that there was a real person named Jesus simply because the Bible says there was. When claiming the title of Christian one also is claiming Jesus is the Christ, and that assertion only comes from the Bible.

 

So what is the value of the Bible to both believers and non believers? I guess it's whatever value or meaning one assigns to it. If you want to assume it to be a literal and factual account as the book itself says it is, you may do so and become a Christian of some ilk. Should you see that it is not factual despite its claim to be so, you may still want to find value in it anyway and make it a mystical treasure trove of symbolic spiritual wisdom and Truth. I do not have a desire to keep digging deeper and somehow make it work on some level. It's just a book unless you're driven to make it more than that.

[mwc]

Yes, it sets it's stories against the backdrop of contemporary events. That's it's vehicle for its stories, like I said. Were they trying to make themselves historical for a specific reason? Actually, in a sense yes. But it wouldn't be for reasons that would mean anything to us today, as proving Jesus fit the descriptions of him in the narratives as a historical person (that's our criteria of "validity"). What they would have been doing, set against the backdrop of their culture and critics, is to validate their new religion as being prophesied about, and the fulfillment of the ancient religion of the Jews. That is what they cared about, not your criteria of empirical evidence to make it a trustworthy source of authority for discerning truth! That is totally reading back into history your culture.

 

Their fictions were creatively woven into Jewish history in the hopes to validate it as ancient, because the Romans considered novice religions to be a threat, and frankly to give a certain trademark stamp onto their novelty to make it even more popular. Where do you think the whole LXX rendering of the Virgin Birth myth came from? "As it says in the Jewish scriptures... (myth based upon popular misinterpretation of Isaiah) a young woman will have a baby..." And hereeeeees.... Jesus whose amazing virgin mother was impregnated by God, complete with donkeys, wise men, and a traveling star.

 

Dude, this is not about proving historical validity to modern man!! It's about crafting a myth to give a sense of antiquity to themselves to the masses of by grafting themselves into Israel's history. They weren't thinking about forensics. They were weaving a story that would fit into Israel's. Very different criteria than ours.

Since I don't want to get caught up in this whole discussion (since I've been here before), I'm going to add a quote from Cicero that I thought related to this (especially part of the first paragraph):

Diogenes the Babylonian was a follower of the doctrine of Chrysippus; and in that book which he wrote, entitled "A Treatise concerning Minerva," he separates the account of Jupiter's bringing-forth, and the birth of that virgin, from the fabulous, and reduces it to a natural construction.

Sadly, the works of Diogenes and Chrysippus are lost (though if they can ever figure out how, if ever, to recover them I believer a couple of works from one of them were found at Herculameum). We only know what we know of these people and their works through quotes from other authors (if the story is accurate I think Chrysippus was the one who died from a fit of laughter after getting his ass drunk and watching it try to eat figs or something).

 

I mention this since, obviously, Zeus and the birth of Miverva, could not be taken literally...could they? Did they explain the birth of Zeus (all of them?) naturally? And how could the virgin Minerva burst forth from his head in a natural sense? They must have figured out a way. Cicero does not explain.

 

mwc

[Sconnor]

Antlerman,

 

When a person constructs an imaginary invisible buddy (Jesus) to have a "relationship" with, which -- amazingly -- coinsides with their own specific desires and supposedly intervenes on their behalf -- is this not the very essence of deluding ones self?

 

If someone constructs a government to represent their ideals and creates a flag to symbolically embody this image of themselves... is that the very essence of 'deluding ones self'?

 

Antlerman,

 

I respect your insight and intelligence but I think you are off the mark.

 

I don't think that's a fair analogy.

 

We can actually go and watch our government in action. We can see actual people having debates and making laws.

 

We can't witness people interacting with Jesus, because he only "lives" in the confines of their imagination,

 

We can certainly watch belief in Jesus in action too, making and enforcing laws in his name, building massive institutions through interaction with “Jesus”, interaction with the symbol of their faith.

 

Yes -- belief in jesus; not Jesus himself like delusional people believe.

 

Those are all just as much the result of the reality of “Jesus” is to them, as the U.S. government is to those who act through their belief in the invisible friend called “Democracy”.

 

There's a difference. Real live people are behind democracy. The correlative is real live people doing things as opposed to the deluded belief an imaginary god is doing things.

 

Delusional people believe Jesus intervenes on their behalf. When a parent is so delusional that they will pray over their sick child -- believing an invisible entity -- (Jesus) will heal their sick and dying child in lieu of medical intervention that is delusional.

 

You can NOT go up into the sky (or wherever) and see Jesus make miracles. Just because you can see the parent praying does not get them off the delusional hook.

 

You say it’s not invisible because we can see it manifest in institutions. But this somehow doesn’t apply to belief in the invisible friend Jesus, who is likewise manifest through people in their institutions created in his name?

 

Again, there's a difference. I agree that christians do things in the name of their religion -- the ones I have an issue with are the ones who delusionally believe Jesus is doing their bidding, intervening or punishing people with earthquakes etc.

 

Do you see the difference? I hope I'm explaining it enough for you to see where I'm coming from.

 

You are comparing real human being doing things to real human beings doing things. Where it breaks down is when you compare real human beings doing stuff with real human beings who have deluded themselves into believing an invisible entity has us in mind and intervenes on their behalf. You can NOT see this invisible entity intervening except what is conjured up in the deluded christian's imagination. That's deluded.

 

BTW I just got back from Boston for work. Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

 

I only responded to the first part of your response -- time restraint; you know. I'll try to get to the rest of your responses but go ahead and address my first response. Thanks.

 

--S.

[J.W.]

Ok folks, Im here again with a question or few.

 

Do you guys really believe that a billion people on this earth are delusional for believing in Jesus?

 

 

Yes I do.. It is our nature to delude ourselves.. it really is.. for several reasons.

1. to give us certainty in an uncertain world

2. to give us comfort.. but xianity also multiplies guilt so it is a double edge sword

3. to help us deal with death.. personally I like the idea of oblivion.

4. you have never met the man, he did not shake your hand, and if he is alive he can speak for himself.

5. he made claims with no evidence today to support those claims

6. he didn't blame Thomas for needing proof so why wouldn't you require proof?

7. the trinity doesn't make sense, so he doesn't make sense-- is he the son of god, god, or a prophet? pick one

8. if something is too good to be true it usually is

9. if he loved us enough to die for us why doesn't he love us enough to end needless suffering.

10. ad populum-- appealing to the masses is a fallacy to begin with.. millions believed the earth was flat, that bleeding cured disease, and that cutting a hole in your skull gets rid of demons

 

Do not underestimate the power of your own imagination... that put the ghost in the closet, the monster under your bed, santa in your chimney, and the gods in this world

[Shyone]

Ok folks, Im here again with a question or few.

 

Do you guys really believe that a billion people on this earth are delusional for believing in Jesus?

 

 

Yes I do.. It is our nature to delude ourselves.. it really is.. for several reasons.

6. he didn't blame Thomas for needing proof so why wouldn't you require proof?

 

Do not underestimate the power of your own imagination... that put the ghost in the closet, the monster under your bed, santa in your chimney, and the gods in this world

I am reminded of the "final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God" from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

 

[Well, this is a slight modification]

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

 

"But," says Man, "[irreducible complexity] is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not occur by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

 

"Oh, dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

In place of irreducible complexity, you can place any particular argument or "evidence" for the existence of God.

[J.W.]

The best example of delusion in process is the scene in the movie Joan of Arc.

Dustin Hofmen- the devil if you will examines Joans argument in this scene

 

[Shyone]

The best example of delusion in process is the scene in the movie Joan of Arc.

Dustin Hofmen- the devil if you will examines Joans argument in this scene

That was brilliant, and brilliantly performed! Occam's razor presented visually. Wow.

 

"You saw what you wanted to see."

 

The film clip stops, but I wonder if Joan realized her delusion after that stunning explanation. I doubt it.

[J.W.]

That was brilliant, and brilliantly performed! Occam's razor presented visually. Wow.

 

"You saw what you wanted to see."

 

The film clip stops, but I wonder if Joan realized her delusion after that stunning explanation. I doubt it.

 

It truly is one of my favorite displays..The movie is worth while, but that scene makes the movie for me. Im glad you liked it. It stunned me the first time I saw it.

 

I remember enjoying Hitchhikers Galaxy as well.. and I had forgotten that part. Maybe I will read it again.

[Adelice]

Now i do am starting to love your posts here , really

 

Anyway .... here is my little part in all this.

 

You know , i will answer all in one point of view , we arent angry at you for showing us your faith , personally i dont find it bad at all , but when you try to mess up with another people just because you think your way is the only one , then theres when we get into troubles. Second , if your so sure of your god and what he have showed you , why are you doubting like this? If you say your not insane , then why you show otherwise? I personally DO HAVE experienced the same things you told me with another deity , do i suffer the same mental illness or am i demon possesed? you see , only the things you feel seem to be the right ones , meanwhile your just banning a lot of other human beings who felt the same with another deity , personally what i believe? that if we got in the crusades with the flying spaguetti monster church , we would be praying to an bowl of spaguetti made of gold right now , period.

 

Light and dark are only relative , we are the ones who put an name into those things. Wanna see what i see? theres no devil to begin with , theres no Satan , if the real satan is an being of love that got demonized , then it means he never could have fallen , if he never fell to hell , then theres no hell to be in. See my point? If i see your alredy lying in there , why would i believe you? Could it be that god or jesus or the pope see theyre lies are showing up?

 

You know what? your not seeing the true reasons of why those things happen , most part of the killers are because they had some kind of problem in theyre childhood , they never had enough love , or understanding from others and guess WHO helps those things to happen? Religion! The parent have theyre heads stuck up so deep in theyre butts that things like this happen. If the world had more TRUE love and TOLERANCE , then it wouldnt suck so bad. Sorry religion , your part of this too.

 

As i said to you , theres only one true god that reign us all : STUPIDITY. People are stupid by nature , and it will always be, and it comes right off the bat from who did the evil and the one that HELPED that evil to grow inside that heart , were all part of this , not only the one who decided to take an knife and kill his wife.

[concerned agnostic]

I realize this is an older thread that does not appear to be active, but I felt compelled to answer Kathlene's post...

 

Ive been mulling this over in my head a lot in the past few days. There is either a spiritual world out there or there is not. I could never doubt the experiences I have had as mere coincidence, or something I made up. There are just too many of them, that have had positive effects, and some that No-One else has ever known about, but contributed to it in some way.

 

I am happy for you that you have had these experiences. I, however, have yet to hear anything at all from "God", depite years of praying and doing what his book preaches to be the "right" way to live. Perhaps "God" listens to you, but he has ignored me my entire life. I cannot continue to believe in a "loving father" who would continually ignore a pleading child.

 

I am sure your answer is that I must not be doing something right. I have heard it all before -- you must not be praying right or you must not be asking the right thing or you just don't like the answer you've been given...Well, I grew tired of trying to figure out what it could possibly be that I am doing wrong.

 

Best wishes to you. I am glad your "God" is there for you.

[concerned agnostic]

The best example of delusion in process is the scene in the movie Joan of Arc.

Dustin Hofmen- the devil if you will examines Joans argument in this scene

 

 

Absolutely perfect!

[Realist]

I am happy for you that you have had these experiences. I, however, have yet to hear anything at all from "God", depite years of praying and doing what his book preaches to be the "right" way to live. Perhaps "God" listens to you, but he has ignored me my entire life. I cannot continue to believe in a "loving father" who would continually ignore a pleading child.

 

I am sure your answer is that I must not be doing something right. I have heard it all before -- you must not be praying right or you must not be asking the right thing or you just don't like the answer you've been given...Well, I grew tired of trying to figure out what it could possibly be that I am doing wrong.

 

Best wishes to you. I am glad your "God" is there for you.

 

... I too have not experienced one iota of input from this god even after years of pleading and praying! The one thing that has perfectly explained to me why some do and some don't has been revealed with modern discoveries in neuroscience and brain activity. Of course christians will read into this what they want to as well ... but christians are like politicians .... they can take any information and argue whichever way happens to suit their cause!