Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To illustrate I mean by creating a legend around a vacuum, let's imagine we have a group of 12 people (the apostles) who decide to make a legend.

They make up a name a history and a philosophy. They don't get an actor, they don't do any public appearances, they don't preach or do anything. All they do is go round telling other people that this made up name guy is doing all these things and he's fantastic, you should follow him.

How's that going to work?

Kilkrazy wrote:To illustrate I mean by creating a legend around a vacuum, let's imagine we have a group of 12 people (the apostles) who decide to make a legend.

They make up a name a history and a philosophy. They don't get an actor, they don't do any public appearances, they don't preach or do anything. All they do is go round telling other people that this made up name guy is doing all these things and he's fantastic, you should follow him.

How's that going to work?

The same way any good legend building works: go to another town.

Christianity never really took off huge in Judea, but the rest of the world took to it well. Build up a cult, create the early stories, and than export it.

The earliest reports of Christianity are what, 30-50 years after jesus died? The first gospels weren't written until roughly then either. Start small, build the legend, build the myth, and sell it well. You start maybe 10-20 years before the first gospel, and you talk about Jesus as all his deeds, in areas far enough away that nobody really questions them for historical accuracy. The message was well constructed and the apostles were gifted evangelists, it's not impossible to see them as spreading a good story. Relate enough stuff back to actual events (how many people were crucified annually in Jerusalem?) to avoid real problems, but I don't think it would be impossible.

You'd be better off picking a random name out of the ancient phone book to make the dates match up, but back then you could create a persona pretty easily.

Polonius do you believe in the historicity of Jesus? Do you believe the Gospel accounts to be fact or myth? I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, since you have stated you're a Catholic. (I had always assumed Catholics, which claim to be Christians, believe the Gospel accounts to be true)

Are you postulating your opinion on how a myth can be created and spread? Using Jesus as an example? Or are you saying you believe this is what actually happened, in regards to Jesus.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Polonius do you believe in the historicity of Jesus?

I'm really not sure. I mean, I believe that Jesus is the son of god. His actual existence on this earth doesn't really seem to be a big factor for me.

Do you believe the Gospel accounts to be fact or myth?

If I were to try to articulate my beliefs, I would say that they are true, in that they are good things to base one's faith off of. As for their literal factual accuracy? I wouldn't say that I'm sure of that. I feel that I can use the gospels as an instrument of faith, but I can still remain skeptical of their their factual nature.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, since you have stated you're a Catholic. (I had always assumed Catholics, which claim to be Christians, believe the Gospel accounts to be true)

Well, Catholics are Christians, we don't claim to be Christians. Anybody that believes that faith in Jesus is the path to salvation is a Christian.

Few Catholics get too bogged down in biblical literalism. It's why Catholics don't have a huge problem with science now: the stories made sense, the stories are true, and if a few things are different from the stories, it's not a big problem.

I would say that I don't think every word in the Bible is literally true. I think Jesus came to earth, died for our sins, and all that, I just think that God has always erased his fingerprints from the world. The world was created so that we could explore it's past without hitting a brick wall, there's no real evidence for or against jesus's ministry. And that's a good thing. God want's faith, not obedience, which is why he gave us free will. He's interested in those people that seek him out.

Are you postulating your opinion on how a myth can be created and spread? Using Jesus as an example? Or are you saying you believe this is what actually happened, in regards to Jesus.

GG

I'm just postulating. No, I'm pretty sure there was a historical Jesus of some sort.

Polonius wrote:
Anybody that believes that faith in Jesus is the path to salvation is a Christian.

I'm not sure that I would agree totally with this. Altough technically I think you are correct, in that someone professing belief can be classified, "outwardly" at least, as a Christian, however that doesn't mean that they really are one, "inwardly".

Matthew 7:21-23(KJV)21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Of course I actually believe that these words were spoken by Jesus, not only by faith but becuase it is consistent with other parts of the Bible.

I'm trying to understand a bit better about Catholicism, so if you don't mind I'd like to ask you a few more questions.

If you do mind, just tell me to pound sand, I won't be offended. :-)

Do you believe that having faith in Jesus is the only path to God, or do you believe "all paths go to heaven".

Also do you think you, and your beliefs are typical of Catholics? I have to admit that some of your beliefs(belief in evolution,doubt about the veracity of the Bible) seem to be consistent with Catholics I have met and even consider friends.

GG

Well, let's not confuse being a bad Christian with not being a Christian. I think it's a fine distinction, and I"m hip to the idea that if you're not serious about living a christian life than you're not really a christian, but I don't think that applies. I think that if you think you can attain salvation through christ, you're a christian. If you're willing to take your chances with the rest, that's up to you.

Well, I'm very ecumenical. The Catholic Church, IMO, has officially stated that the covenant with the Jews is still valid, so there's at least one other way to attain a certain amount of salvation. Personally, I think that as a Catholic, where good works are required along with faith, it's not a big step to see the faith as something that need not be outwardly expressed. To take the idea that the best way to show faith in christ is to live as christ did, anybody that does so is showing at least some faith in him.

In the broader sense, I think that most religions, if not all, have some insight into being a path to god. I'm not afraid to chide certain religions from time to time, my own included, but Jesus is part of the trinity. I think if a person has faith in god, and obeys the laws of god, it doesn't matter if he practiced as a hindu or as a primitive baptist: it'll get you to the same place.

I think that attitude is at least in some ways part of a catholic upbringing. Catholicism is similar to Judaism in one big way: it's a very cultural religion. When you're raised catholic, you do fun catholic stuff, both that's universal and that's unique to your ethnic group. Catholicism also has wacky little rules that affect day to day life, like no meat on fridays during lent. Protestantism doesn't always have that. So you see how tightly wound religion and culture can be, and how maybe some cultures just have a different outlook. When you get down to it, having a god that's actually trinity of entities, plus angels, and saints you can pray to makes it easier to see other views, like there being many less powerful gods, with one power still binding them all.

As for my views, I'm never comfortable saying I'm typical of any group. I'm generally an outlier, but I'd say that I do a pretty decent job representing the liberal catholic side. We're called cafeteria Catholics, and that's fine. We both see the value in the structure and dogma of the Church and aren't horribly worried about it when we think it's wrong.

When you get to the Bible, the catholic church is pretty lukewarm on it, compared to protestants. We know how to teach god's word, and the Bible and its' veracity just aren't that crucial to it.

Where do artists that make violent/demeaning/hyper-sexual works that thank Jesus for inspiring them fall into this?

Ahtman wrote:Where do artists that make violent/demeaning/hyper-sexual works that thank Jesus for inspiring them fall into this?

The Internet : )

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:Possibility tends to diminish zeal.

Where are you going with that?

GG

Devil's advocate.

Often times arguments are made not because the arguer believes in what he is arguing for, but because he is attempting to contextualize the veracity of something he does believe. For example, if I were to argue for agnosticism I wouldn't begin by addressing the benefits of the position. Instead I would approach the dualistic relationship between atheism and theism such that they could be considered on equivalent grounds, then I would denote a valid set of agnostic position along that continuum. Along the same lines, Polonius is addressing the sketchy nature of evidence with respect to Jesus' actual existence in order to characterize his take on religion as a matter of faith, rather than fact.

You've seen me do this before, I'm sure. Actually, I started to do it a little ways up the thread. It made Frigs unhappy. Oddly enough it always seems to bother atheists more than theists. Probably because they tend to equivocate religion and theism.

Jesus was more of a communist in my view (accept it or disagree i don't care) wanted power for the people under a council of peers, share everything equally (now we have heard this before, Marxism, Stalinism) worship 1 all powerful being (again Stalinism) just my view agree or disagree, it makes no difference if Jesus did exist he lived in a time of dictatorship or autocracy.

Vulkan77 wrote:share everything equally

And where is that said? Did he advocate charity and kindness, to help your fellow man? Sure. Does it say to share everything equally? Nyet. If you have more than enough food it is considered a good and kind act to share but it is no where said that you have to give away everything to everyone.

Polonius wrote: If anything, it's far more likely they took a real person that sort of fit, and added extra stuff to the legend.

That's what I think happened. More or less.

If you look/google at some of the "facts" about Elvis, a real person who many many people have met etc, and the disagreements over them, and that's in this day and age with all our technological advantages, then it seems horribly plausible to me that 2 thousand (ish) years ago it is quite likely that there would have been some...hmm..let's say distortion over time. And that's without all the myriad of linguistic (mis)translations, deliberate misrepresentation, and general typical human behaviour.

To clarify though : even if he was/turned out to be 101% fictional, i would still argue that there would be some merit in much of the essential moral message.

Polonius wrote:If anything, it's far more likely they took a real person that sort of fit, and added extra stuff to the legend.

So now you think there may have been a real person after denying it for several pages? Flip-flopper!

reds8n wrote:To clarify though : even if he was/turned out to be 101% fictional, i would still argue that there would be some merit in much of the essential moral message.

So the bible is basically like Charlotte's Web?

When did I ever deny that there was a real person? I was merely showing how it possibly could have been done.

Ahtman wrote:So the bible is basically like Charlotte's Web?

..talking animals ? Crazy idea !

Polonius wrote:When did I ever deny that there was a real person?

In three separate posts of course.

reds8n wrote:

Polonius wrote: If anything, it's far more likely they took a real person that sort of fit, and added extra stuff to the legend.

That's what I think happened. More or less.

Just remember redsatan that when you start saying things like "That's what I think" or "quite likely that there would have been some..." those are "faith" based statements.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Just remember redsatan that when you start saying things like "That's what I think" or "quite likely that there would have been some..." those are "faith" based statements.

GG

That depends on whether you're considering faith in the colloquial sense (the sense in which is it synonymous with belief), or faith in the religious sense (the sense in which it functions independent of proof).

Red's statements seem to be based on the former sense, not the latter, as he isn't making a positive statement. He's basically saying this: "The idea that, 2000 years ago, there was a traveling Rabbi who did good thing is quite tenable as we know there were many traveling Rabbis who did good things. However, the notion that said Rabbi was able to work miracles is less likely, as we have no empirical evidence that said miracles are at all possible."

^ +1.

.. I'm tempted to argue that there's a difference between what people think and what they believe also .. but that is going totally elsewhere and OT even for this/thread/board/cliche.

..BUt... ... no.. what I "think" is not, always, based upon any/all "faith" statement either.

But let's avoid the exacting ins and outs of this area of grammatical philosophy..it's a real.. "downer".. ... man !

Suffice to say (1) : Given the varying interpretations of the Xtian... indeed pretty much any/all faiths now or in the past....I find it impossible to even try and swallow the idea that any single denomination ( of any faith or religion) has a 100% genuine grasp of
THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH (copyright applied for, TM etc .. void where prohibited).

Or any person equally so of course.

Example : I have no doubt that there was a historical basis for the person we now refer to as "King Arthur".

But even a token exploration into the "facts" of said person reveal a veritable maze of myths, misinformation and, occasionally, outright lies-- note I am not claiming however that ALL such lies are, perhaps, such a bad thing-- : this is, crassly and pissed up on several pints and a bottle of red plonk, roughly analogous to how I view Jesus. IE. : an element of "truth" ( damn you Descartes... we've never quite ,managed to disprove your theory !) but said "nugget" wrapped in a tissue of... of......


.. well... "human nature" would be the best description I reckon.


(1) For a Saturday night anyway. Damn you alcohol ! And I was sure inwas on his ignore list as well !

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:When did I ever deny that there was a real person?

In three separate posts of course.

If you say so.

You should try what I did and drink nothing but tea and water on a Saturday night.

Polonius wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:When did I ever deny that there was a real person?

In three separate posts of course.

If you say so.

Oh come on you had to get that.

Kilkrazy wrote:You should try what I did and drink nothing but tea and water on a Saturday night.

But then I won't feel like death warmed over on Sunday morning !...

Vulkan77 wrote:Jesus was more of a communist in my view (accept it or disagree i don't care) wanted power for the people under a council of peers, share everything equally (now we have heard this before, Marxism, Stalinism) worship 1 all powerful being (again Stalinism) just my view agree or disagree, it makes no difference if Jesus did exist he lived in a time of dictatorship or autocracy.

Ahtman wrote:

Vulkan77 wrote:share everything equally

And where is that said? Did he advocate charity and kindness, to help your fellow man? Sure. Does it say to share everything equally? Nyet. If you have more than enough food it is considered a good and kind act to share but it is no where said that you have to give away everything to everyone.

Jesus himself didn't mention anything like shared ownership to my recolection, but the book of Acts describes a "multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common". (Acts 4:32) That's not communism because their possessions didn't belong to the state and no mention was made of any rulers. So the New Testament could be interpreted as advocating that kind of sharing of possessions, but you didn't hear it from Jesus.

reds8n wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You should try what I did and drink nothing but tea and water on a Saturday night.

But then I won't feel like death warmed over on Sunday morning !...

Somehow it didn't work.

I feel like crap at the moment.

However, I intend to restore my average by drinking red wine with roast lunch.

Ok, to the OP

Um

What's wrong with being a socialist?

I would consider socialist beliefs fundamental to any religion which insists we should 'treat everyone equally' or 'help the needy' or, in fact, participate in any act of charity at all...

generalgrog wrote:(I had always assumed Catholics, which claim to be Christians, believe the Gospel accounts to be true)

Hold on, we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church, the one headed by the Pope - the de facto largest and in many cases ONLY Christian church in western europe from it's foundation (was this by St.Peter or am I wrong?) until the reformation and protestant reorganisation in fourteenth century europe.

That one? Well it definitely 'claims' to be Christian! It's certainly 'as Christian' as the Greek Orthodoxy, or the Russian Orthodoxy, or any of the much (MUCH) more recent forms of protestantism (Baptism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Methodism etc).

I don't follow a religion. But I think that, if you decide to live your life by any organised philosophical ideal (Christianity, Islam, Socialism, Fascism, Confucianism etc) you really should read up on it's history before involving yourself in arguments about it.

Teh_K42 wrote:That's not communism because their possessions didn't belong to the state and no mention was made of any rulers.

I'm no expert, but I thought Marx's original "communism" was actually stateless itself (and voluntary).

All property being owned by the (democratic) state was socialism, which was supposed to be the transitory phase between capitalism and communism.

ArbitorIan wrote:I would consider socialist beliefs fundamental to any religion which insists we should 'treat everyone equally' or 'help the needy' or, in fact, participate in any act of charity at all...

There's a significant difference between thinking people should do something and wanting to force people into doing it.

Depending on what "socialist beliefs" entails, you could be highly opposed to them while considering personal charity very important as well.

It seems like there is a misunderstanding of the difference between kindness and political ideology going on here.

For example, charity does not mean socialism at all. You can be conservative and be charitable. It has nothing to do with how a state conducts itself.

Ahtman wrote:It seems like there is a misunderstanding of the difference between kindness and political ideology going on here.

For example, charity does not mean socialism at all. You can be conservative and be charitable. It has nothing to do with how a state conducts itself.

This is true, I'm conservative, hell I'm a stereotypical right wing wack job. But every time I see a hobo askin for change I give it when I have any. Charity is something based on a person. Socialism is something based on a country.

ArbitorIan wrote:Ok, to the OP

Um

What's wrong with being a socialist?

I would consider socialist beliefs fundamental to any religion which insists we should 'treat everyone equally' or 'help the needy' or, in fact, participate in any act of charity at all...

I have said that Capitalism without socialism sucks. And vise versa. You need a healthy mixture of both. The problem with a lot of Americans is that a lot of us(not me) think that marxist leninism is the kind of socialism that Western Europe is using. I.E. they are very wrong in there understanding of Socialism.

ArbitorIan wrote:

generalgrog wrote:(I had always assumed Catholics, which claim to be Christians, believe the Gospel accounts to be true)

Hold on, we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church, the one headed by the Pope - the de facto largest and in many cases ONLY Christian church in western europe from it's foundation (was this by St.Peter or am I wrong?) until the reformation and protestant reorganisation in fourteenth century europe.

That one? Well it definitely 'claims' to be Christian! It's certainly 'as Christian' as the Greek Orthodoxy, or the Russian Orthodoxy, or any of the much (MUCH) more recent forms of protestantism (Baptism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Methodism etc).

I don't follow a religion. But I think that, if you decide to live your life by any organised philosophical ideal (Christianity, Islam, Socialism, Fascism, Confucianism etc) you really should read up on it's history before involving yourself in arguments about it.

I don't know where this came from, but I never said that Catholics weren't Christians. You could have inserted Baptists for Catholics and the point would remain the same.

GG