The Virgin Mary
- Thread starter Humberto
- Start date
Cid
Proper break this time
Well no, it goes to a bloke trying to convert his dying elderly parents.
nogojones
spelling is overrated
these could equally be "proof" of a malevolent "god"Excellent. I refer you now to this
5 Ways We Can Find Proof of God’s Existence
is part of a collective of generation changers who are changing the way we view humanity.us.columbuscatholic.org
Cid
Proper break this time
What?
PTK
Paul Kegan
A professor at a business school could not find a rationale for doing good. That is perhaps not surprising.
Jewish professor turned atheist, until Mary intervened
Roy Schoeman was a good Jew. In fact, he excelled in his faith. Born outside of New York City to conservative Jewish parents who were Holocaust refuges, he was given every possible opportunity to...bccatholic.ca
danski
"vibey"
Would you like me to post some pics that you can compare with?!
bcuster
Well-Known Member
that may violate Urban's TOS...
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
hitmouse
entreprenulsoip critical thinking
This whole time I had thought that the Sacred Heart was Mary's heart, it's only today that I've learned that the Sacred Heart is Jesus's and it's Mary's heart that's the Immaculate one. In my defence I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and have no real reason to know about any of this stuff. Anyway, whether it's sacred or immaculate, you can't deny that Mary's sorrowful heart is one of the fucking hardest pieces of iconography ever:
Say what you like about goths, they were really on to something when they came up with Catholicism.
Say what you like about goths, they were really on to something when they came up with Catholicism.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
I don’t remember. Apologies if I was unduly harsh.
Thing is, I am interested in comparative religion. It’s fascinating.
What I’m not interested in is trying to persuade theists of an atheist or agnostic position. (Or indeed vice versa). There’s no point. It’s just upsetting for both sides.
Quite happy to hear people explain their own beliefs about religion. But that’s a different thing.
Humberto
anthropocene participant
Nay was the Goths that sacked Rome.
PTK
Paul Kegan
You do not hear much about this early group of followers of Jesus.
en.wikipedia.org
Ebionites - Wikipedia
bcuster
Well-Known Member
Jesus certainly did not perfectly follow the Law of MosesYou do not hear much about this early group of followers of Jesus.
Ebionites - Wikipedia
Idaho
blah blah blah
According to accounts dictated over a hundred years after his death.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Yes I broadly agree. I'm live and let live unless someone attempts either to persuade me, or starts making biblical references in a historical/factual discussion.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
In the end Christians and adherents of other religions rely on faith, on belief, as they themselves often admit. The main reason for that is that you can't actually prove the truth of any religion, because any text is open to question, to multiple interpretations.
But they still make pathetic attempts to prove this ultimate truth.
As humans we realise that a mere statement of belief is unconvincing. People lie, invent facts, fill in gaps in stories, make mistakes, hallucinate etc etc. We need proof of some sort to believe things. Just because stories are old and form part of a holy book does not give them any special veracity, especially since we know that such texts have been altered many times in their early days.
So it comes down to this. You need faith to believe. You don't need proof. In theory. Yet we do need proof, in fact. And there isn't any.
But they still make pathetic attempts to prove this ultimate truth.
As humans we realise that a mere statement of belief is unconvincing. People lie, invent facts, fill in gaps in stories, make mistakes, hallucinate etc etc. We need proof of some sort to believe things. Just because stories are old and form part of a holy book does not give them any special veracity, especially since we know that such texts have been altered many times in their early days.
So it comes down to this. You need faith to believe. You don't need proof. In theory. Yet we do need proof, in fact. And there isn't any.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
I’m not sure we’re that rational at all. We might know that, but we still do it all the time. We still believe stuff without evidence and ignore evidence we don’t like.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
I’m often surprised by the number of atheists (and I’m an atheist) who think there was no historical Jesus. They’re convinced. They just want there to not have been a real guy at the root of it all. And so, evidence they’d be quite happy to (and would need to) accept for any other 1st Century figure, especially an illiterate one one in the edge of the Empire, becomes “insufficient” evidence of an historical Jesus.
The historicity of Jesus is now pretty well established. We do need to differentiate him from the “Christ of faith”, but it’s actually going some to persist in insisting no such historical person existed.
The historicity of Jesus is now pretty well established. We do need to differentiate him from the “Christ of faith”, but it’s actually going some to persist in insisting no such historical person existed.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
'Pretty well established' is not conclusive. If we exclude the 'Christ of faith' then we are excluding the Christ of the Virgin Birth, the Christ of the Nativity, the Christ of the Miracles, the Christ of the Temptation on the Wilderness, the Christ of the Crucifixion, the Christ of the Resurrection and the Christ of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Which leaves us with some bloke called Jesus knocking around Palestine once upon a time. Not a lot proof really.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
This is the mistake lots of people make. They think that accepting an historical Jesus means accepting miracles and virgin births. It doesn’t.
Having read the academic arguments, I’m satisfied there was an historical Jesus. 100%? Of course not. Very little is 100% certain.
But I’m really not interested in arguing the toss with anyone determined to disagree, despite the scholarship. If they engage with that and still insist there’s absolutely nothing in it, then frankly they’re depending on faith just as much as religious people are.
On balance, there was an historical Jesus.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Jesus was a common name at the time. So there were lots of Jesuses. My question is still a valid one. If we don't accept the Christ of faith, what remains? We can't be certain of his teachings either, as they will have been invented/altered . You can have a similar argument about King Arthur.
Personally I'm convinced about Arthur. You want proof? I've been to Tintagel and seen Merlin's takeaway pizzas.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
I guess I would ask what exactly you mean by a “historical Jesus”? The Jesus we’re talking about has a lot of very specific mythology associated with him. Are you saying there was a historical figure for whom this mythology is true? If not, what constitutes this “historical Jesus”? Just someone having a similar name?
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
A charismatic sage who had effects still felt today.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
How do you know that the Jesus of mythology isn’t a composite of various charismatic sages of the time plus a load of made up stuff?
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
The mythology is definitely a composite plus made up stuff.
Similar threads
