Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - What is the purpose of christianity then?

Ierre Il · 08-21-2003, 12:09 PM

I think its an interesting point put forward, especially when we consider that all the original people that helped to start this thing died in nasty ways for their beliefs. Because they wanted to trick people into being a bit nicer? Or was it because they wanted to have power over everyone after they died? I really hope it was some decent mad selfish reason like that, that a normal person could actually understand...
If religion is there to explain away things that we have no clue about, and hence eliminate uncertainty, one wonders a little how much it helped the people who actually started it. I mean... that might be a reason to believe it "Well, they tell me the world is all sorted out by God, so it's ok", but not a reason to come up with the idea in the first place. How does it eliminate uncertainty to randomly theorise based on data one does not have? Please, lets not fall for the "This was a long time ago and everyone was really stupid back then" argument. Humans really haven't changed that much physically since we domesticated grain and animals, probably earlier. I'd address the "what happens after that", but I imagine its somewhat dependant on the "that" having already happened...
JamesS - If Jesus was not a God, claiming to be one was the best way to get his ass fragged, which is exactly what DID happen. He was a Jew. The Jews had a little piece of scripture they would all recite each day, from Deuteronomy 6:4-9, called the Shema. It basically says there is only one God. They had other sections telling people exactly what to do if someone claimed otherwise. Judaeism is probably the least likely religion for a society in which a man can claim to be God and get away with it. I've heard an argument saying that he was not a good moral teacher, but a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord, as he claimed to be God. Essentially it runs thus: Liar: He knew he wasn't God, but claimed to be. Lunatic: He thought he was God, but wasn't. I'll leave you to work out the last option. In any case, I don't even see three choices here. In a Judaist society, a man calling himself God and believing himself not to be is not a great conman, but a suicidal fool, equally level with a man who believes he is God, and a man who believes he is a boiled egg! It's really the lunatic, lunatic, lord theory...
Mael - you are doing two things: repeating yourself, and saying the same thing. The first you do through use of synonyms, the second through the redundancy you create by employing those synonyms.
Constant - Indeed.. doesn't look too much like the words of a man who believes he's a boiled egg, does it? Maybe he just oscillated a bit.
Ah, Charlatan provides some good meaty arguments... lets take a look at this...
1) He wasn't killed for telling people to play nicely. He was killed for claiming to be God.
2)Why did they struggle to keep his message alive? He was dead. Many of them had followed because they believed he was the Messiah, not in a spiritual sense, but in a political sense, someone who would set their nation free and establish it forever as greatest amongst the nations. When he died, they were a little disillusioned, as you might imagine. Why the sudden turn around then? Why were they willing to die, as he had, knowing that he had NOT risen from the dead, and that chances were niether would they, his followers. Also, one must wonder if, assuming of course he was just a man, these people who lived with him for the years of his ministry, every moment, not just when he was in the public eye, could possibly have believed him to be the son of God for an instant...
3)Talking of sudden turn arounds... Paul is the most drastic of the lot. He was a very zealous Jew, intent on wiping out this evil cult that worshipped a man, putting them to death, always insisting that they be put to death whenever he had a say in their trials, and travelling from town to town to persecute them. He was on one of these very journeys, setting out from Jerusalem with the intent of seeking out any followers of the Christ in Damascus and bringing them back to stand trial, when he changed his mind. These were not simply the words of a man playing two sides and biding his time so he could jump ship, he already had the blood of many of these blasphemers on his hands. Somehow, when he got to Damascus, he was a fervent follower of Jesus, willing to die for him, and went on to suffer trials, stonings, imprisonments and eventually death for what he believed, exhorting others to do likewise in his letters, the largest part of the new testament. His account of what happened between Jerusalem and Damascus was that he saw a bright light and God spoke to him, but it seems far more likely that he just decided maybe blasphemy wasnt such a bad thing after all, and might even be fun.
As for a good message... I personally consider a good lie to be an oxymoron, and see no reason to say you'll go to heaven if you won't. You may as well say that living a good life is its own reward, and will be found as such by those who truly seek it. True enough, as I'm sure many of us, Charlatan for one, can attest to, life changing and with no need to break its own honour code with dishonesty.
4)Salesman? Meh, you define your term, and it's accurate with the given definition.
I agree that the Church has had its nastiness, and possibly may be held responsible for the worst evils in western history. Such happens when people get power, whatever the source. Now... the idea that whether or not Jesus was the son of God or rose from the dead or did ANYTHING other than talk would seem to me to be essential to believing anything else. Otherwise, all he is is another high sounding philosopher with some good ideas, and there have been plenty of those, but with the major difference that the things he put most emphasis on were LIES, and incredibly foolish ones at that.
I think it comes down to that, for Christianity as for the idea of religion as a whole, if it is true, it is of infinite importance, if it is untrue, it is of no importance whatsoever. There isnt really much middle ground there. Do you want to put any weight on the insinuations of a liar (I almost mistyped that as "lawyer"... an interesting slip...), or on the ravings of a madman?

Just my 42 cents... I ran a little long, but don't worry, that was entirely my fault, so I'll still only charge you 2 cents worth.

08-21-2003, 12:09 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ierre Il Banned Location: Where I live? What you say!	I think its an interesting point put forward, especially when we consider that all the original people that helped to start this thing died in nasty ways for their beliefs. Because they wanted to trick people into being a bit nicer? Or was it because they wanted to have power over everyone after they died? I really hope it was some decent mad selfish reason like that, that a normal person could actually understand... If religion is there to explain away things that we have no clue about, and hence eliminate uncertainty, one wonders a little how much it helped the people who actually started it. I mean... that might be a reason to believe it "Well, they tell me the world is all sorted out by God, so it's ok", but not a reason to come up with the idea in the first place. How does it eliminate uncertainty to randomly theorise based on data one does not have? Please, lets not fall for the "This was a long time ago and everyone was really stupid back then" argument. Humans really haven't changed that much physically since we domesticated grain and animals, probably earlier. I'd address the "what happens after that", but I imagine its somewhat dependant on the "that" having already happened... JamesS - If Jesus was not a God, claiming to be one was the best way to get his ass fragged, which is exactly what DID happen. He was a Jew. The Jews had a little piece of scripture they would all recite each day, from Deuteronomy 6:4-9, called the Shema. It basically says there is only one God. They had other sections telling people exactly what to do if someone claimed otherwise. Judaeism is probably the least likely religion for a society in which a man can claim to be God and get away with it. I've heard an argument saying that he was not a good moral teacher, but a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord, as he claimed to be God. Essentially it runs thus: Liar: He knew he wasn't God, but claimed to be. Lunatic: He thought he was God, but wasn't. I'll leave you to work out the last option. In any case, I don't even see three choices here. In a Judaist society, a man calling himself God and believing himself not to be is not a great conman, but a suicidal fool, equally level with a man who believes he is God, and a man who believes he is a boiled egg! It's really the lunatic, lunatic, lord theory... Mael - you are doing two things: repeating yourself, and saying the same thing. The first you do through use of synonyms, the second through the redundancy you create by employing those synonyms. Constant - Indeed.. doesn't look too much like the words of a man who believes he's a boiled egg, does it? Maybe he just oscillated a bit. Ah, Charlatan provides some good meaty arguments... lets take a look at this... 1) He wasn't killed for telling people to play nicely. He was killed for claiming to be God. 2)Why did they struggle to keep his message alive? He was dead. Many of them had followed because they believed he was the Messiah, not in a spiritual sense, but in a political sense, someone who would set their nation free and establish it forever as greatest amongst the nations. When he died, they were a little disillusioned, as you might imagine. Why the sudden turn around then? Why were they willing to die, as he had, knowing that he had NOT risen from the dead, and that chances were niether would they, his followers. Also, one must wonder if, assuming of course he was just a man, these people who lived with him for the years of his ministry, every moment, not just when he was in the public eye, could possibly have believed him to be the son of God for an instant... 3)Talking of sudden turn arounds... Paul is the most drastic of the lot. He was a very zealous Jew, intent on wiping out this evil cult that worshipped a man, putting them to death, always insisting that they be put to death whenever he had a say in their trials, and travelling from town to town to persecute them. He was on one of these very journeys, setting out from Jerusalem with the intent of seeking out any followers of the Christ in Damascus and bringing them back to stand trial, when he changed his mind. These were not simply the words of a man playing two sides and biding his time so he could jump ship, he already had the blood of many of these blasphemers on his hands. Somehow, when he got to Damascus, he was a fervent follower of Jesus, willing to die for him, and went on to suffer trials, stonings, imprisonments and eventually death for what he believed, exhorting others to do likewise in his letters, the largest part of the new testament. His account of what happened between Jerusalem and Damascus was that he saw a bright light and God spoke to him, but it seems far more likely that he just decided maybe blasphemy wasnt such a bad thing after all, and might even be fun. As for a good message... I personally consider a good lie to be an oxymoron, and see no reason to say you'll go to heaven if you won't. You may as well say that living a good life is its own reward, and will be found as such by those who truly seek it. True enough, as I'm sure many of us, Charlatan for one, can attest to, life changing and with no need to break its own honour code with dishonesty. 4)Salesman? Meh, you define your term, and it's accurate with the given definition. I agree that the Church has had its nastiness, and possibly may be held responsible for the worst evils in western history. Such happens when people get power, whatever the source. Now... the idea that whether or not Jesus was the son of God or rose from the dead or did ANYTHING other than talk would seem to me to be essential to believing anything else. Otherwise, all he is is another high sounding philosopher with some good ideas, and there have been plenty of those, but with the major difference that the things he put most emphasis on were LIES, and incredibly foolish ones at that. I think it comes down to that, for Christianity as for the idea of religion as a whole, if it is true, it is of infinite importance, if it is untrue, it is of no importance whatsoever. There isnt really much middle ground there. Do you want to put any weight on the insinuations of a liar (I almost mistyped that as "lawyer"... an interesting slip...), or on the ravings of a madman? Just my 42 cents... I ran a little long, but don't worry, that was entirely my fault, so I'll still only charge you 2 cents worth.