Religion II

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by TJDave

VigorsTheGrey,

May I suggest...

“The Myth of Persecution” How early Christians invented a story of martyrdom, by Candida Moss.

Yes, of course, TJDave...I’ll give it a read...it is available on archive.org for free....thank you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

VigorsTheGrey,

May I suggest...

“The Myth of Persecution” How early Christians invented a story of martyrdom, by Candida Moss.

And I counter with Foxe's "Book of Martyrs".

And a couple of other "little factoids" while I'm at it: Martyrdom is not unique to NT saints. OT saints (Jewish believers or more specifically prophets) were also murdered by apostate Jews.

Secondly, Christians are still being persecuted today. Did Moss write about that "myth", as well?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by TJDave

VigorsTheGrey,

May I suggest...

“The Myth of Persecution” How early Christians invented a story of martyrdom, by Candida Moss.

It can be argued, even from a fellow liberal/progressive Catholic organ like Commonweal, that Moss views the historical revision of Early Christianity through the lens of the contemporary need for revision of the political landscape...

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/p...ing-persecuted

In any case, at least one could employ Moss for the historical Jesus... "Let’s get one thing straight: There is nigh universal consensus among biblical scholars — the authentic ones, anyway — that Jesus was, in fact, a real guy,” Moss (and Baden) wrote. “They argue over the details, of course, as scholars are wont to do, but they’re pretty much all on the same page that Jesus walked the earth (if not the Sea of Galilee) in the 1st century CE.”

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

“Men are always disgusted with those who use violence; they conclude that they are wrong, and that those against whom they commit violence have reason on their side. Persecution will always make partisans to the cause persecuted; and those to which we allude, tended the more to confirm Christians in their religion.

The spectators of their sufferings were interested for them. They were curious to know the principles of a sect which drew on itself such cruel treatment, and infused into its adherents a courage believed to be supernatural.

They imagined that such a religion could be no other than the work of God; its partisans appeared extraordinary men, and their enthusiasm became contagious. Violence served only to spread it the more, and, according to the language of a Christian doctor, "the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church." From Ecce Homo, Baron D’holbach.

So who's correct? Candida Moss or the noble Baron?

Can you defend his hard materialism from a neurological point of view, versus the atheist's guide to reality, i.e., Alex Rosenberg?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Err...'scuse me: Do the Hindus believe their gods are mythical?

The pot-bellied elephant-headed figure with the four arms in the link that I provided is Ganesha...Hinduism's main deity. Do you suppose that the Hindus consider him to be an actual being? It's a mythical, symbolic image of a spiritual being.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

So who's correct? Candida Moss or the noble Baron?

Can you defend his hard materialism from a neurological point of view, versus the atheist's guide to reality, i.e., Alex Rosenberg?

I not really up on my “neurological points” these days, the intricacies of minute brain functions are complex and I don’t pretend to know really anything about all that stuff...I’m not an MD, or a brain scientist, or any kind of scientist for that matter...

A lot of the Barons’ materialist work eludes me as well and no doubt has long been superceded...I’m interested mainly in his prose related to religion and philosophy...in these he is brilliant, IMO...

If you could ask your question in a more simple way about the brain, I might understand the point you are trying to make...

Are you saying the “the soul (whatever that is)” is the origin and master of our thoughts and brains...?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I not really up on my “neurological points” these days, the intricacies of minute brain functions are complex and I don’t pretend to know really anything about all that stuff...I’m not an MD, or a brain scientist, or any kind of scientist for that matter...

A lot of the Barons’ materialist work eludes me as well and no doubt has long been superceded...I’m interested mainly in his prose related to religion and philosophy...in these he is brilliant, IMO...

If you could ask your question in a more simple way about the brain, I might understand the point you are trying to make...

Are you saying the “the soul (whatever that is)” is the origin and master of our thoughts and brains...?

You continued to quote the Baron, so I chose to continue with the implications of his hard materialism(post #'s 8810-8815), according to the eliminative materialist, Alex Rosenberg (The Atheist's Guide To Reality). That is, because there is no intrinsic meaning in clumps of neurons (Post #8815), or any other matter (therefore it can't be acquired elsewhere), there is no meaning or purpose, no intentionality (such as your responding to my preceding post) or goal-seeking behavior. It is merely an illusion, even at the level of the individual mind. Here's the rough draft to his aforementioned book...

https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org...de-to-reality/

So what I've just typed is crap, but so is what you have typed, and what Rosenberg himself has written--and the good Baron. Just nihilism. And not Rosenberg's "nice nihilism, if you're still a fan of Nietzsche.

On the other hand, for the metaphysically inclined...

[dnlgfnk]

And should I tip my cap to the suggested Candida Moss (most any persecution as theologically driven myth) or the Baron (ubiquitous, irrationally desirous persecution because...heaven)?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

You continued to quote the Baron, so I chose to continue with the implications of his hard materialism(post #'s 8810-8815), according to the eliminative materialist, Alex Rosenberg (The Atheist's Guide To Reality). That is, because there is no intrinsic meaning in clumps of neurons (Post #8815), or any other matter (therefore it can't be acquired elsewhere), there is no meaning or purpose, no intentionality (such as your responding to my preceding post) or goal-seeking behavior. It is merely an illusion, even at the level of the individual mind. Here's the rough draft to his aforementioned book...

https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org...de-to-reality/

So what I've just typed is crap, but so is what you have typed, and what Rosenberg himself has written--and the good Baron. Just nihilism. And not Rosenberg's "nice nihilism, if you're still a fan of Nietzsche.

On the other hand, for the metaphysically inclined...

Ok, I NOW understand your drift here...

...SO in a way you ARE RIGHT and WRONG at the same time...

IT IS CRAP and/or IT IS NOT CRAP depending on HOW we view things...we agree on some stuff because we already have some presuppositions in place that allow that to happen....we agree already that certain words MEAN certain things...but do they mean certain things ‘in an absolute sense’....? i don’t know...

I know that I personally have meaning in my life, the meaning that I create for myself and the meaning that I accept from any number of outside sources...but I know that at bottom all these are merely provisional and temporary...

Theists are fond of crying foul of folks who claim there is no meaning or purpose to, in, or for Life or Living...they object to this blank position and use it as an absurd type rhetorical foil to play whack-a-mole with their opponents...compared with their All-purposeful Allmighty One (who knows the meaning, the destiny, presumably of all ) which I assume to be singularly the eternal adoration of his munificent Being...right...that’s the purpose to all our lives, isn’t it, according to your theory...?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Ok, I NOW understand your drift here...

...SO in a way you ARE RIGHT and WRONG at the same time...

IT IS CRAP and/or IT IS NOT CRAP depending on HOW we view things...we agree on some stuff because we already have some presuppositions in place that allow that to happen....we agree already that certain words MEAN certain things...but do they mean certain things ‘in an absolute sense’....? i don’t know...

I know that I personally have meaning in my life, the meaning that I create for myself and the meaning that I accept from any number of outside sources...but I know that at bottom all these are merely provisional and temporary...

Theists are fond of crying foul of folks who claim there is no meaning or purpose to, in, or for Life or Living...they object to this blank position and use it as an absurd type rhetorical foil to play whack-a-mole with their opponents...compared with their All-purposeful Allmighty One (who knows the meaning, the destiny, presumably of all ) which I assume to be singularly the eternal adoration of his munificent Being...right...that’s the purpose to all our lives, isn’t it, according to your theory...?

Still general vagarities, so I won't press on after stating again...the physical properties making up the matter in the brain, or the pixels conveying physical symbols arranged in a particular manner as you're reading this, have no intrinsic meaning in themselves , neither the pixels nor the symbols and their arrangement.

If you state that you "personally have meaning in my life", that can't be the case from a wholly physical process, if "one configuration of matter cannot, in virtue just of its structure, composition, location, or causal relation, be 'about' another configuration of matter in the way original intentionality requires..." (Rosenberg). (cf. the link in post #8815)

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Still general vagarities, so I won't press on after stating again...the physical properties making up the matter in the brain, or the pixels conveying physical symbols arranged in a particular manner as you're reading this, have no intrinsic meaning in themselves , neither the pixels nor the symbols and their arrangement.

If you state that you "personally have meaning in my life", that can't be the case from a wholly physical process, if "one configuration of matter cannot, in virtue just of its structure, composition, location, or causal relation, be 'about' another configuration of matter in the way original intentionality requires..." (Rosenberg). (cf. the link in post #8815)

There is a difference between function and ‘meaning’....’Meaning’ is a subjective term, open to interpretation...My brain is a type of recorder, a type of vinyl that some material needle is grooving lines into, creating a memory that my mind then, later, interprets AS IF these grooves did have meaning...that is my brains FUNCTION...

But getting back to my question to you...you think that ‘A SOUL’ makes all this happen....? Or maybe that a non-material (whatever-that-is) SPIRIT makes all this work since it is impossible, in your view, from a purely material or functional point of view...you EXPLAIN AWAY this biological phenomenon (even though we may not know or understand all of what goes on in the brain NOW) you EXPLAIN AWAY all of this positive natural science in exchange for some SPOOKERY that you cannot even being to make ANY SORT OF SENSE WITH....?

And you think that THAT is a reasonable explanation....?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

All this has been addressed previously.

That's what I said in #8889 when you brought the subject up.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The fact of the matter is that various writers universally presumed ...

From M-W. Underscores mine.

presume v

1. to assert that something is virtually certain to be true even though there is no proof of it.
2. to behave so inconsiderately, disrespectfully, or overconfidently as to do something without being entitled or qualified to do it.
3. to assume that something is true in the absence of evidence that will confirm or contradict it.
4. to exploit or take advantage of someone unscrupulously.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... the existence of Jesus. Conversely, there is no such presumption of the Jesus myth in ancient writings.

Irrelevant. There is also no presumption of the germ theory of disease in ancient writings.

[TJDave]

How many believers here would choose martyrdom over a public renunciation of faith?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The "Jesus Myth" became so insanely popular that some Catholic monk (I think it was) ...

Dionysius Exiguus who lived 450 to 544 C.E.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... invented a universal, global calendar numbering system that label the years with specific reference to the birth of Christ!

That's part of how the myth was constructed.

The birth of Christ was chosen as 70 years before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem because 70 is a magic (i.e., religious) number.

• The ancients mistakenly believed that a year was 360 days, ergo, 360 is a magic number.
• There are 12 full moons in a year, ergo, 12 is a magic number.
• Divide 360 by 12 and you get another magic number, 30.
• It takes 25200 years (known as a great year) for the equinox to precess through one cycle around the ecliptic, ergo 25200 is a magic number.
• Divide 25200 by 360 and you get 70, ergo, 70 is a magic number.
• There are 7 heavenly bodies visible to the naked eye: the sun, the moon and five planets, ergo, 7 is a magic number.

The gospel writers chose 30 C.E. as the date for Christ's death/resurrection because 30 is a magic number. That means his death must have been ordered by the Roman governor Pilate since no Jewish official had the power to impose the death penalty. But wait, there's more. We don't want to piss off the Romans who are still in charge. We need a Jewish villain. Caiaphas will do. The gospel writers constructed their story so as to make the Romans happy and condemn the Jews, which also made the Romans happy.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The pot-bellied elephant-headed figure with the four arms in the link that I provided is Ganesha...Hinduism's main deity. Do you suppose that the Hindus consider him to be an actual being? It's a mythical, symbolic image of a spiritual being.

Well...let'sw approach this from another perspective: Was there a founder of Hinduism? If so, who? And was this person real or fictional?