Christian faith in TrekLit?

[Rush Limborg]

Has there been archaeological evidence which invalidates it? [...]

Also...if ancient documents are to be taken with a grain of salt...where do our modern historians get their information from?

Modern historians compare various sources documenting the same events and try to extract common elements: another source of information is hard evidence, like trial notes, accounting records, that sort of thing. Historians today, owing to scientific influence, strive for objectivity far more than our (speaking as someone who holds a B.A. in history) ancient counterparts.

The burden of proof lays upon the person who makes a claim. I don't have to disprove a thing in the bible. They must be proven to be believed. There are many claims made in the gospels that there's no way of proving objectively. If Jesus was prosecuted by the Sanhedrin or Rome, there might be some official record of that--

And Josephus and Tacticus (the latter cutely calls him "Christus", as if "Latin-izing" his name), among others, confirmed that he was tried--and that he was executed.

-- but calming the seas? Turning water into wine? Only way you can believe that is by seeing it for yourself, or by wanting to believe it enough that you lower your standards of validation. No Christian would ever believe Muhammed flew to Heaven on a horse and returned, or that Buddha could heal the sick, but people told those stories about them as well. A Muslim would believe the horse story easily, and an eastern Buddhist the story about Buddha-the-healer.

Buddism and Islam don't necessarily need miracles to stand on--the miracles are theoretically simply there for illustration of things. Would members of those faiths believe them? Of course...but those faiths don't emphasize such things the way Christianity does.

The key example: Paul himself laid down the challenge, when he said in no uncertain terms that Christianity is organized in a way so that if the Resurrection did not occur, "then our faith is meaningless".

Again...the empty tomb had to be explained somehow. If Jesus died, and stayed dead, all the authorities needed to do was produce the body--and as Paul expressed, Christianity would be shot down, with only some harmless "moral teachings" to survive--and no movement whatsoever.

And yet...no one did.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I don't know why people aren't skeptical of whether Homer wrote the Iliad, or whether the Dialogues attributed to Plato came from him. Or that Ceasar wrote The Conquest of Gaul. Why not be consistent and doubt everything?

Edit: Why not doubt everything old, that is.

"It must not be real if it didn't happen out on teh Internets!"

Actually, the Bible is one of the better-researched, if not one of the best-researched, best-attested works out there, comparable to works its age or older.

I've never bought into this idea that religion should be more worthy of extra sensitivity than any other theory or beleif, and if people believe it as confidently as they claim to, no randomers comments should be able to rock them to the core.

It doesn't--I'm not bfollowell, but I do think there is a critical distinction between being insulted and being shaken in the way you suggest. It's not that dissimilar to if I walked up and called your mother all sorts of vile things. Basic courtesy demands I do not do that; same thing for other core parts of a person, such as their beliefs.

Far more offensive than words, those beleifs are often used as justifications for actual real life damage done to me and those like me by punative laws and discrimination, so while my description of fairy tales may be offensive to you, others use your beleifs as justification to do far greater than emotional damage to me and many like me.

Yet to assume that is the attitude that all or even a majority of religious people hold is in itself a form of discrimination. Undoubtedly you and I disagree tremendously. But I am not going to stand there and ridicule you because of that disagreement. I have no need to belittle your intelligence or maturity because we disagree. The reason people find the "fairy tale" description offensive is because it puts believers on the same intellectual and maturity level as children, implying that only nonbelievers are "adults." It's the same reason why naming the "Bright" movement as it is is offensive. What is everyone else, a "Dim"?

You mention that you were mistreated by people of faith, and for that I really am sorry, and I wish I could undo it somehow. But please, do not do the same in return.

For my own part, when I go into this kind of disagreement, I can do so entirely without the use of pejorative terms or trying to cut my opponent down to size, whether by a direct flame or by a subtle insinuation. That sort of thing has no place in a logical argument. It's a quick way to get your listeners to tune out on you--and frankly, when I see a lot of invective, I get suspicious of the argument on grounds that when a person gets that emotional they are not as likely to be making the best judgments about logic and evidence.

Faith may be comforting to you but blind beleif without evidence and making major decisions based on that beleif is genuinely terrifying to me and has had horrific consequences for our world throughout history, and I'd hope any portrayal of a better future would show us having grown beyond that.

When people believe blindly, and I certainly won't deny that some do, I entirely agree about the horrific results. In my own faith, I know we need to take greater responsibility for that and not become so defensive about it when it's pointed out.

But, I do not believe faith has to be blind or mindless. I know that I have spent a great deal of time considering and researching my own positions--and that is something I have not stopped. I have no problem admitting that I still have unanswered questions. And that is a fact that serves as a powerful reminder of why arrogance in the name of faith is unacceptable.

Growing beyond mindlessness is a goal I think that any human being should be able to get behind, be they a believer or not. Mature faith is quite possible.

I am certainly within my rights to start saying all sorts of derogatory things about followers of the faith of evolution, which has just as much lack of evidence as any other faith based belief system, but I choose not to.

With all due respect, there is a key distinction between evolution as a scientific fact, and evolution as a philosophy, one that, if left out, can seriously mislead the debate.

Evolution as scientific fact is something that many people of faith--though you don't hear about them as much because they are not the ones out raising a ruckus--have absolutely no problem with. Only those who take a strict literalist position on the Bible have a problem with it. I see no problem with the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient God using the mechanisms that we have documented scientifically to create the universe and specifically our world and life. Indeed, considering the number of variables involved, it certainly is quite awe-inspiring to me...not at all destructive to my faith. There is no scientific fact you could show me that would disturb my faith at all.

Evolution as a philosophy is a different matter, and in my opinion a highly flawed position. To assume that what we have documented scientifically means that there must not be any deity is a vast overreach. Both the hypothesis that there is a God and the hypothesis that there is not a God are non-falsifiable. You cannot prove it either way with science.

Science can tell us the possibilities of what we can do, and what the potential outcomes of those actions would be, but it cannot assign a value to those actions or outcomes. Nor can it assign a purpose. Yet to assume that because that is not within its power means that value, purpose, deity, or anything else does not exist, is false. Quantitative analysis drawn from data limited by our instruments and our ability to perceive it through our senses simply cannot do that, and we must use other means to determine what we really think and feel about faith. Science has absolutely no bearing on it, one way or the other.

 

[Christopher]

Evolution as a philosophy is a different matter, and in my opinion a highly flawed position. To assume that what we have documented scientifically means that there must not be any deity is a vast overreach.

Non sequitur. First off, evolution is not a "philosophy," unless you're referring to one of the abuses of evolutionary ideas like Social Darwinism. Evolution is, as you acknowledge, an observed and proven fact of nature. Evolutionary theory is a scientific model which seeks to explain the causes and mechanisms of the observed process of evolution (in the same way that theories of gravitation attempt to explain the workings of the undeniably factual phenomenon of gravitation). There is nothing in evolutionary theory that addresses the question of a deity's existence one way or the other. Evolutionary theory is about the mechanisms of evolution, not the teleology of it.

If there is anyone out there who argues that the existence of evolution somehow proves the nonexistence of God, that is not "evolution as a philosophy." That is somebody incompetently using the assertion of evolution in support of a philosophy of atheism, even though there's no valid way of doing that. You can't prove a negative. Just because it's possible to explain evolution without resorting to divinity, that doesn't disprove the existence of divinity. I can explain how to make a grilled cheese sandwich without invoking bluegrass music as a causative factor, but that doesn't disprove the existence of bluegrass music. It simply proves that the one is independent of the other.

 

[Tropical_Night]

Isn't that kind of what Star Trek in general is?

No, in star trek, if something sounds un-scientific (theta radiation...)...quantum did it. Yeh it goes on the edge sometimes but its based on science as much as it can be.

I am certainly within my rights to start saying all sorts of derogatory things about followers of the faith of evolution, which has just as much lack of evidence as any other faith based belief system, but I choose not to. Of course, just because I choose not to, doesn't mean you have to follow my example. I merely suggest that it is the respectful thing to do.

See what happens when a person abandons the need for facts in deciding what they believe? Thats why blind faith scares me, and why I think ST, which pats itself on the back for its progressive vision of the future (not entirely deserved patting either), should stay away from it.

My reply was a simple request and you are free to ignore it and be as offensive to others as you wish.

I can't help if facts and another persons opinion of them offends you, all I can do is try not to be offensive for its own sake, and I will.

Yet to assume that is the attitude that all or even a majority of religious people hold is in itself a form of discrimination.

I make no such assumption, and to be clear, I've no idea what T'Girls social beleifs are and so that was not directed at her. However when you subscribe to a belief system, that system counts you among its numbers and claims, when its lobbying governments, to thus have x level of support for its hate and bile. and for them its not an unreasonable thing to state, its reasonable to assume if you say your a catholic for example that you beleive catholic dogma.

I have no need to belittle your intelligence or maturity because we disagree.

My not respecting someones beleifs, because they're not based on anything other than blind faith, does not mean I don't respect the individual or their rights to hold them.

The reason people find the "fairy tale" description offensive is because it puts believers on the same intellectual and maturity level as children, implying that only nonbelievers are "adults."

Its not the believers I put on the same level as children, its the beliefs I put on the same level as fairy tales, as they have the same level of credibility in my opinion, one being believed by more people and being around longer does not make it factual.
The bible, no matter what version of it, Tora Qu'ran, whatever, are all essentially contradictory books of old fairy tales, most of which cannot be true, many of which have no historical evidence at all to back them up.

You mention that you were mistreated by people of faith, and for that I really am sorry, and I wish I could undo it somehow. But please, do not do the same in return.

I wasn't mistreating anyone, as I said, I cant help if someone finds facts and anothers opinion as offensive when its not meant that way, I'd never try to interfere with someone elses rights, which makes me different, incidentally, to large numbers of religious followers who are positively obsessed with using the power of the state for just such interference.

For my own part, when I go into this kind of disagreement, I can do so entirely without the use of pejorative terms or trying to cut my opponent down to size, whether by a direct flame or by a subtle insinuation. That sort of thing has no place in a logical argument. It's a quick way to get your listeners to tune out on you--and frankly, when I see a lot of invective, I get suspicious of the argument on grounds that when a person gets that emotional they are not as likely to be making the best judgments about logic and evidence.

Thats a fair point, but at the same time, someone pointing out similarities to fiction and past absurd belief systems like sun worship helped others convince me that many aspects of religious dogma were not true.

I have no problem admitting that I still have unanswered questions. And that is a fact that serves as a powerful reminder of why arrogance in the name of faith is unacceptable.

Thats the difference between religion and science, science does not claim to know it all, religion does. Mature faith is an oxymoron, the whole point of faith is that you don't require evidence.

Science can tell us the possibilities of what we can do, and what the potential outcomes of those actions would be, but it cannot assign a value to those actions or outcomes. Nor can it assign a purpose.

Nor is religion required to give something purpose or meaning, and that is an insinuation, since were on the topic, that I find very offensive from religious people, they often assume your somehow empty or lacking in depth because you don't believe their specific religion.

 

[JD]

I just want to say that as somebody who has been always been a little unsure about what to believe when it comes to this kind of stuff, I have found this discussion fascinating.
I've also never understood why it matters to one person, or group what another person or group believes. IMO as long as it's not a danger to people, I think everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want, whether I think it's stupid or not. As long as it makes them happy then I say leave them to it. At the same time, I don't think it's appropriate to try to force you're beliefs on someone else, or turn someone from theirs. Religious belief if a very person thing, and no one should be allowed to change a persons belief except them.

 

[Sci]

I don't know why people aren't skeptical of whether Homer wrote the Iliad, or whether the Dialogues attributed to Plato came from him. Or that Ceasar wrote The Conquest of Gaul. Why not be consistent and doubt everything?

Edit: Why not doubt everything old, that is.

It gets even better when you consider that the earliest manuscript of The Iliad we have is dated at a MUCH longer time after Homer than the second-century manuscripts after the time of Christ.

Exactly. Which is why Homer's very existence, let alone his authorship of the Iliad, is doubted.

Also...it is fallacious, in a "bandwagon" manner, to assume that the majority opinion is inherently correct. Literary analysis, like any science, is constantly revising of itself--in its methods, as well as its conclusions. Just as the general consensus centuries ago had been that the world was flat...so general consensus does not truth make in literary analysis, either.

But neither is the fact that science is imperfect a valid reason to reject the conclusions the majority of its researchers come to.

For all the talk about allegory and revisionism--who would be willing to die by the manners of execution used by Rome...if their claims about Christ--which were precisely what pissed off the Emperor--were false?

Ask Jim Jones and his followers.

Christian ideals, in fact, actually disprove the alternatives Lewis proposed (that Jesus was nutso, or that he was evil). Neither a nutcase nor a monsterous deciever could ever have constructed so beautifully one of the most influential and time-tested moral codes in history.

I'm sorry, but the basic moral codes of Christianity -- obey your God, behave in a loving manner, don't cheat on your wife, respect the rights of others -- are not unique. Nor, for that matter, is its moral code always admirable: Most notably, it allows slavery. What makes Christianity unique are its dogmas describing the nature of Jesus and of sin and redemption.

*(As far as "the majority of 'modern' scholars" seem to be concerned, that's a big "if". But again--majority vote does not truth make. If it did...Star Trek was not a television series worth watching, because the ratings were so low.)

Actually, the original Star Trek received ratings that would just a few years later have been considered quite good, because it specifically attracted the young male demographic even if the overall ratings weren't as high as other shows. But TOS aired before networks began tracking demographics and charging commercial space targeted to those demographics, meaning that no one knew what a profitable show they were actually airing.

 

[Tropical_Night]

IMO as long as it's not a danger to people, I think everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want, whether I think it's stupid or not. As long as it makes them happy then I say leave them to it.

I agree, the problem is many people seem to want to codify the dogma of their particular faith into law and force it on others, they're not satisfied just believing it themselves.

This was something I wondered about Bajor, the Kai appears to be head of state with the first minister being head of goverment and they seem to treat the Vedick assembly as an upper house of congress...woudnt' that make bajor a theocracy?

I know Vatican City can't join the European Union because its a theocracy, so it's odd an organization like the UFP would admit one.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think the Kai or the Vedek Assembly were supposed to have secular political authority. When Winn made herself the de facto First Minister, it was quite controversial and soon reversed. It's just that the Bajoran faith (Prophetism? They never named it) is so pervasive in the society that the religious authorities have considerable influence on how people live their lives even without formal legal or political authority.

 

[Rush Limborg]

But neither is the fact that science is imperfect a valid reason to reject the conclusions the majority of its researchers come to.

Not necessarily, Sci. Science, as a rule, holds as necessary and essential the constant asking of questions. The minority opinions are just as important--if not, indeed, more so--than the opinion of the majority, in that they hold the majority's feet to the fire, challenging any real or percieved fallacies and anomalies.

Ask Jim Jones and his followers.

Jim Jones led one of the most contemptable cults ever to link itself to the name of "Christianity". They were in no sense comparable to the Christians persecuted under Rome. Martyrdom and suicide are hardly the same, Sci.

Christian ideals, in fact, actually disprove the alternatives Lewis proposed (that Jesus was nutso, or that he was evil). Neither a nutcase nor a monsterous deciever could ever have constructed so beautifully one of the most influential and time-tested moral codes in history.

I'm sorry, but the basic moral codes of Christianity -- obey your God, behave in a loving manner, don't cheat on your wife, respect the rights of others -- are not unique. Nor, for that matter, is its moral code always admirable: Most notably, it allows slavery. What makes Christianity unique are its dogmas describing the nature of Jesus and of sin and redemption.

Sci...first, you basically repeated what was exactly my point before--namely, that without the nature of Christ, and the miracles therof, the moral code of Christianity is a harmless, ordinary code which posed no threat to Rome.

Second, the "dogmas" (the term is doctrine, technically...but that's splitting hairs) of salvation, sin, and redemption are also major elements of Christianity's full moral code.

Now, you are correct in implying that without the nature and miracles of Christ, such elements are basically stripped of its effectiveness (and even then, Judaism has a similar "dogma" of sin, although to be fair, there ARE differences). Nonetheless, to imply that said doctrines are completely separate and distinct from the moral code is fallacious, at best.

Finally...did Christianity allow for slavery? Only in the same sense that it allowed for divorce--"because your hearts were hardened". It was not part of the moral code. It is worth noting that Paul adviced Philemon to accept Onesimus back, not as a slave, but as a new brother in Christ.

*(As far as "the majority of 'modern' scholars" seem to be concerned, that's a big "if". But again--majority vote does not truth make. If it did...Star Trek was not a television series worth watching, because the ratings were so low.)

Actually, the original Star Trek received ratings that would just a few years later have been considered quite good, because it specifically attracted the young male demographic even if the overall ratings weren't as high as other shows. But TOS aired before networks began tracking demographics and charging commercial space targeted to those demographics, meaning that no one knew what a profitable show they were actually airing.

Which did not change the fact that the majority opinion of the authorities of the network had been that it was a flop.

 

[Rush Limborg]

IMO as long as it's not a danger to people, I think everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want, whether I think it's stupid or not. As long as it makes them happy then I say leave them to it.

I agree, the problem is many people seem to want to codify the dogma of their particular faith into law and force it on others, they're not satisfied just believing it themselves.

This was something I wondered about Bajor, the Kai appears to be head of state with the first minister being head of goverment and they seem to treat the Vedick assembly as an upper house of congress...woudnt' that make bajor a theocracy?

I know Vatican City can't join the European Union because its a theocracy, so it's odd an organization like the UFP would admit one.

When the United States was founded, certain states possesed "official" religions/denominations, did they not?

Also...it could be considered hasty and illogical to consider that the UFP is identical in structure and standards of membership to the EU. I would venture to argue that it is more akin to the USA, pre-Civil War (not in the sense of slavery or racism, mind you--simply in the sense of state/member sovereignty).

 

[Tropical_Night]

I don't think the Kai or the Vedek Assembly were supposed to have secular political authority. When Winn made herself the de facto First Minister, it was quite controversial and soon reversed. It's just that the Bajoran faith (Prophetism? They never named it) is so pervasive in the society that the religious authorities have considerable influence on how people live their lives even without formal legal or political authority.

So the Vedik assembly may have been like the college of cardinals in the catholic church? and the Kai just had major influence over the worlds leaders like the Pope in Europe did in the 15-1600s.

Finally...did Christianity allow for slavery? Only in the same sense that it allowed for divorce--"because your hearts were hardened". It was not part of the moral code.

The Bible offers advice on how to correctly beat your slave (you can beat him up but not kill him, he has to be able to get back to his feet again, is the Bible not mercyful? )

When the United States was founded, certain states possesed "official" religions/denominations, did they not?

I have never heard that, if they did it was a violation of the US constitution.

Also...it could be considered hasty and illogical to consider that the UFP is identical in structure and standards of membership to the EU. I would venture to argue that it is more akin to the USA, pre-Civil War (not in the sense of slavery or racism, mind you--simply in the sense of state/member sovereignty).

I'd say its way more like the EU, the member states appear to have far more autonomy than US states do, and theres much more emphasis on social goals. I find it hard to beleive they'd take in a theocracy because they got their undies in a twist over Bajor introducing a caste based system, so celarly they have social criteria the same way the EU has human rights and socio-economic elements in the Copenhagen Criteria for membership.

 

[Sci]

But neither is the fact that science is imperfect a valid reason to reject the conclusions the majority of its researchers come to.

Not necessarily, Sci. Science, as a rule, holds as necessary and essential the constant asking of questions. The minority opinions are just as important--if not, indeed, more so--than the opinion of the majority, in that they hold the majority's feet to the fire, challenging any real or percieved fallacies and anomalies.

Certainly. But you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. That science is imperfect is a necessary condition to reject its consensus conclusions, but it is not a sufficient condition to do so.

Ask Jim Jones and his followers.

Jim Jones led one of the most contemptable cults ever to link itself to the name of "Christianity". They were in no sense comparable to the Christians persecuted under Rome. Martyrdom and suicide are hardly the same, Sci.

You asked why someone would die for something that is not true. History is full of examples of people willing to die for things that were not true -- sometimes at their own hands, sometimes at the hands of others. The idea that no one would willingly die for a nonsense reason is itself nonsense.

Sci

...first, you basically repeated what was exactly my point before--namely, that without the nature of Christ, and the miracles therof, the moral code of Christianity is a harmless, ordinary code which posed no threat to Rome.

Oh, I dunno about that. Anything out of Judea was a potential threat to Rome, since the Jews were one of the few conquered peoples who posed a real threat to Roman hegemony.

Finally...did Christianity allow for slavery? Only in the same sense that it allowed for divorce--"because your hearts were hardened".

Which is another way of saying it allowed for slavery.

When the United States was founded, certain states possesed "official" religions/denominations, did they not?

I have never heard that, if they did it was a violation of the US constitution.

Not exactly. Until the mid-1800s, the restrictions on the behavior of the federal government outlined in the Bill of Rights were not considered to apply to the state governments. Thus, it was viewed as unconstitutional for the federal government to have an official religion, but not for the states to do so.

It was only with the passage of the 14th Amendment that the restrictions on federal behavior were interpreted as applying to state governments as well.

 

[Smellincoffee]

^ That's historiography, right? Basically asking who wrote it, and what their motivation and perspective was on the subject, and in so doing figuring out what isn't being said, and what too much is being said on.

Being aware of biases and emphases is part of historiography, or at least was part of my training...one of the more fascinating lectures we heard focused on how approaches to history have changed over time. Ever since the late 19th century, for instance, when Marxist critical theory became popular, there have been social historians who focused on the lives and actions of 'common people' instead of kings and wars.

Again, if the Gospels are fraudulent, historically, than those Christians persecuted under Nero and his sucessors died, to put it bluntly, for a lie.

They died for something they believed in, just like soldiers die for something they believe in. Sincerity doesn't translate to being right. I think Woodrow Wilson was full of barnyard produce when he called the Great War a 'war to make the world safe for democracy', but that doesn't mean I view the soldiers who died in that war contemptously. They were misled. Error isn't equivalent to foolishness.

Buddism and Islam don't necessarily need miracles to stand on--the miracles are theoretically simply there for illustration of things. Would members of those faiths believe them? Of course...but those faiths don't emphasize such things the way Christianity does.

The key example: Paul himself laid down the challenge, when he said in no uncertain terms that Christianity is organized in a way so that if the Resurrection did not occur, "then our faith is meaningless".

Again...the empty tomb had to be explained somehow. If Jesus died, and stayed dead, all the authorities needed to do was produce the body--and as Paul expressed, Christianity would be shot down, with only some harmless "moral teachings" to survive--and no movement whatsoever.

And yet...no one did.

A valid point about Buddhism and Islam, though to my knowledge, the emphasis on the resurrection and its role in atonement began with Paul, who wrote decades after Jesus' death. The gospel accounts were being written and edited during and after this time, as well. The intentions of the people who wrote and compiled those books are suspect, just like Tactitus' accounts are suspect, and just as Bede's History of the Anglo-Saxons has its biases.The facts of Jesus' death are truly lost in the mists of history: who recorded what happened to Jesus after he was taken from the cross? Romans liked to leave crucifiction victims hanging for days as a reminder, though that policy may have varied based on the person in power and the region. Maybe Jesus was beaten so badly that he was unrecognizable. Maybe they didn't want to admit that the shattered corpse the Romans snidely presented to them was their beloved teacher. Bodies go missing from history all the time. Just ask Jimmy Hoffa. ;-) Additionally, just because his body went missing does not mean he was a god or even resurrected himself. There's a great rational chasm between "not having a body" and "that man was God". You can jump it in a leap of faith, but that's about it.

 

[Rush Limborg]

But neither is the fact that science is imperfect a valid reason to reject the conclusions the majority of its researchers come to.

Not necessarily, Sci. Science, as a rule, holds as necessary and essential the constant asking of questions. The minority opinions are just as important--if not, indeed, more so--than the opinion of the majority, in that they hold the majority's feet to the fire, challenging any real or percieved fallacies and anomalies.

Certainly. But you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. That science is imperfect is a necessary condition to reject its consensus conclusions, but it is not a sufficient condition to do so.

Perhaps not...but it certainly is, indeed, a sufficient condition to take it with a grain of salt--i.e., approach it with a degree of skepticism, particularly if it conflicts with personal experience.

The reverse is true, of course--personal experience is limited by bias and limited perspective--but I would venture to conclude that the two elements form a kind of check-and-balance in the field of reasoning--especially if you yourself have credibility in the field, as well. Ethos and kairos--credibility and present condition.

You asked why someone would die for something that is not true. History is full of examples of people willing to die for things that were not true -- sometimes at their own hands, sometimes at the hands of others. The idea that no one would willingly die for a nonsense reason is itself nonsense.

I asked--or at least, my intention was to ask--why someone would willingly die for a lie. In the case of Jim Jones and Co., they all honestly believed the nonsense. But what you must understand, Sci, is that the greater the size of the group...the lesser the likelihood that the entire group is insane, or else decieved, in that manner.

It is much more difficult to sway and manipulate--and decieve--a group of a million than a group of a thousand. And while it is within the bounds of reason that a group of 900 might be insane--the likelyhood of a coalition all being insane decreases as the size of the group increases.

In fact...you appealed to the ethos of the General Consensus, before. In this case...there was a significantly greater "consensus"--a greater group of people who agree--in the millions (I'm estimating here) of Christians in the Roman Empire than in the 900 dupes of Jim Jones.

Oh, I dunno about that. Anything out of Judea was a potential threat to Rome, since the Jews were one of the few conquered peoples who posed a real threat to Roman hegemony.

And yet the Jews did not encounter that kind of mass slaughter until A.D. 70.

Which is another way of saying it allowed for slavery.

The morality did not allow for slavery, Sci. The circumstances of the society demanded a temporary concession--however...the moral code demanded a gradual, step-by-step reform--the kind reform which, indeed, directly led to the evenutal abolishment of the institution of slavery.

The moral code strongly emphasized personal responsibility. From personal responsibility arises the necessity of personal liberty--in order to carry out that personal responsibility.

When the United States was founded, certain states possesed "official" religions/denominations, did they not?

I have never heard that, if they did it was a violation of the US constitution.

Not exactly. Until the mid-1800s, the restrictions on the behavior of the federal government outlined in the Bill of Rights were not considered to apply to the state governments. Thus, it was viewed as unconstitutional for the federal government to have an official religion, but not for the states to do so.

It was only with the passage of the 14th Amendment that the restrictions on federal behavior were interpreted as applying to state governments as well.

And even then, there was a major debate in the Supreme Court as to whether "privileges and immunities" and "due process" really meant that the Bill's liberties actually applied to the states--and if so, which ones.

It wasn't until 1934 that Freedom of Religion was incorporated into the 14th Amendment by the Court, and formally applied to the states. Free Excercise of Religion was incorporated six years later, and the Establishment Clause (or, as some would have it, Separation of Church and State) in 1947.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The facts of Jesus' death are truly lost in the mists of history: who recorded what happened to Jesus after he was taken from the cross? Romans liked to leave crucifiction victims hanging for days as a reminder, though that policy may have varied based on the person in power and the region. Maybe Jesus was beaten so badly that he was unrecognizable.

To who? The Romans? I hardly think so.

Maybe they didn't want to admit that the shattered corpse the Romans snidely presented to them was their beloved teacher. Bodies go missing from history all the time. Just ask Jimmy Hoffa. ;-)

It may not have convinced the apostles--but it would have damaged the credibility of their message to the point that few, if any, would believe them. The message would have been destroyed. Remember, the ministry had begun in Jerusalem. One need only consult the tomb, and the fact that it was empty.

Additionally, just because his body went missing does not mean he was a god or even resurrected himself. There's a great rational chasm between "not having a body" and "that man was God". You can jump it in a leap of faith, but that's about it.

So...did the Romans misplace it, or something?

Also, as Paul noted when he laid down the challenge, there were over 5000 witnesses to Jesus walking around after his death--and he pointed out that many of them were still alive as of his writing.

 

[LaBarre]

I know Vatican City can't join the European Union because its a theocracy, so it's odd an organization like the UFP would admit one.

That’s untrue, as even the most casual perusal of the internet reveals.

The Holy See’s territorial base is Vatican City but it is the Holy See that has diplomatic relations with nation states, including the individual members of the EU and the EU itself:

http://ec.europa.eu/delegations/delita/work_whith_holy_see/work_with_holy_see.htmThe

The Holy See is the oldest continuing body with diplomatic status in the world and it currently has diplomatic representation in 177 states.

The Holy See chooses not to join the EU for the same reason it chooses to hold permanent observer status with the United Nations: it has no wish to compromise its independent authority to any one state or group of states.

FYI, there are at present several dozen theocratic member states of the UN.

 

[ST-One]

Again, if the Gospels are fraudulent, historically, than those Christians persecuted under Nero and his sucessors died, to put it bluntly, for a lie. The Christian moral teachings were not the problem, remember--the problem for Rome was that the Christians were proclaiming that Jesus was a King higher than Caeser. And Nero basically thought he was a god--and let his citizens know it.

Oh dear... next you are going to tell us he burned down Rome (that fire was what caused his persecution of the Roman [the city, not the empire] Christians)

 

[Christopher]

Again, if the Gospels are fraudulent, historically, than those Christians persecuted under Nero and his sucessors died, to put it bluntly, for a lie.

That's nonsense. It's missing the whole point of the Bible to think that its only meaning resides in the literal, surface interpretation of the words. As I already explained, in that time and culture, the priority (at least in religious writings) was not a literal, exact recording of the facts, but the use of storytelling as allegory and symbolism to convey a deeper spiritual meaning. It's shallow and superficial to see only the surface meaning of the Bible -- that's like reading Aesop's fables and thinking their only message is "animals can talk." Nobody's supposed to assume the talking animals are a literal truth; rather, the truths conveyed by Aesop's fables are in their deeper, allegorical meaning, the very true statements about human nature that the fiction of talking animals is used to symbolize. By the same token, the meaning of Biblical texts is not in their surface assertions, but in the underlying ideas they're intended to convey.

In fact, it's well-known that the Gospels contradict each other in many of their "factual" details, so of course they can't be treated as literally true. Rather, the author of each Gospel was offering a symbolic account in order to convey his particular interpretation of the meaning of Jesus Christ to the Christian community. One Gospel gave Jesus an origin story that conformed to Isaiah's prophecy of the Messiah (for instance, concocting the whole "census in Bethlehem" thing to fit Jesus of Nazareth into the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem) in order to convey the spiritual message that Jesus was the Messiah. Another gave him a backstory paralleling that of Moses (the slaughter of the innocents, etc.) in order to say that Jesus was the new Moses, the next great leader who would free the Jews from oppression. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus with the Greek concept of Logos, the Word made flesh. The meaning of the Gospels is spiritual, not historical. It's not about factual details, because that wasn't a priority in that culture. It's about what lies beneath the surface of the words.

So nobody is saying the Gospels are "fraudulent." The Gospels weren't meant to be news reports or history textbooks. They were meant to be sermons, allegorical and metaphorical tracts conveying an inspirational spiritual message to early Christians or potential converts. Their meaning isn't simply in whether their details actually happened as described; their meaning is in the emotions, hopes, and ideals that they inspire in their listeners. They have more in common with songs and poetry than they do with newspapers or documentaries.

 

[JWolf]

In A Rock and a Hard Place, on page 147, a character named Vernon defends his decision to call the Enterprise for help in an emergency to the colony leader with the following...

"Let me make it clear, Mr. Masters, I admire your pioneer spirit , and your determination. It's dedication and pride such as yours that has enabled mankind to come as far we we have. But as much as I admire mankind's striving, I also admire the bible. And in the bible it says 'Pride goeth before destruction, and haughty spirit before a fall'. I will not let your pride and haughty spirit be responsible for the fall and destruction of Captain Riker. Or anyone."

Wrong Bible. The proper Bible is only the Old Testament.

 

[JWolf]

Mary & Joseph 2:10 We never had a child out of wedlock and we would never have called any child of ours Jesus. So please take all these falsehoods about Mary cheating with God and having a child named Jesus out of the bible. It never happened.