Christian Discussion Thread III

[Constantinopolis]

Do you believe in extra-terrestrial civilizations?

I believe that they are highly likely to exist. However I cannot be certain.

Due to the size of the universe, it would be logical to suspect that there is a high chance of other intelligent lifeforms evolving somewhere else in this vast universe.

No it isn't, because you don't know the odds that intelligent lifeforms will evolve on a planet. If the odds are extremely small (which they could be, for all we know) - say, if they are a trillion trillion to one - then we may well be the only civilization in the universe.

In terms of evidence, belief in extra-terrestrial civilizations is exactly the same as religious belief.

[Distruzio]

Well... the thing about the Bible many Protestants and atheists tend to forget... Christianity ain't in there.

Not in where?

In the Bible. Judaism is in there. Christianity isn't.

[Bunkeranlage]

Jesus is an actual historical figure. Bertrand Russell obviously didn't do his research before writing Why I am not a Christian. There are reams and reams of evidence supporting the existence and acts of Jesus.

I've also recently warned people off turning this into a historical Jesus thread - though there's no reason why we can't have yet another thread on the latter topic.

I do appreciate the subject is broadly germane, but there's almost no way of discussing it without the subject becoming the primary topic of discussion for several pages, at which point it becomes an inadvertent threadjack.

Oops, sorry about that! Will try to remember to keep the thread on topic.

Not in where?

In the Bible. Judaism is in there. Christianity isn't.

I'm not sure what you mean. All of Paul's letters were addressed to the early Christian Church.

[Constantinopolis]

Actually, I just checked the numbers, and I stand corrected. Methodism has about 80 million adherents. At least one of the categories on the poll ("Restorationist") is smaller than that, having only about 25 million adherents.

The non-denominational category is probably smaller than Methodism, too.

So Methodism really should be one of the options on the poll. Maybe we can have it as an option in the Christian Discussion Thread IV.

Depending on who starts v. IV, I'd argue for accommodating the Methodists by dropping out the non-denominationals rather than the Restorationists.

After all, we wouldn't want to spare ourselves another tiresome argument over whether the Restorationists are really Christian or not, would we?

Yes, I agree - even though I don't consider the Restorationists to be Christian - because the "other" category is such a natural home for the non-denominational churches (seeing as how they don't necessarily have anything in common with each other, so "non-denominational" is just as much of a catch-all as "other").

[Distruzio]

In the Bible. Judaism is in there. Christianity isn't.

I'm not sure what you mean. All of Paul's letters were addressed to the early Christian Church.

Nope. Back then, it was known as "the Way." Christianity hadn't yet been created. That happened hundreds of years after Paul. While Paul is addressing "the Church" and parishes of it, he isn't addressing Christians. So we can't honestly say that Christianity is in the Bible because there isn't a single verse in the Bible that tells a Christian what a Christian is. Neither Jesus nor any of his Apostles were Christians. They were, each of them, Jews. And heretics at that.

[Ardoki]

I believe that they are highly likely to exist. However I cannot be certain.

Due to the size of the universe, it would be logical to suspect that there is a high chance of other intelligent lifeforms evolving somewhere else in this vast universe.

No it isn't, because you don't know the odds that intelligent lifeforms will evolve on a planet. If the odds are extremely small (which they could be, for all we know) - say, if they are a trillion trillion to one - then we may well be the only civilization in the universe.

In terms of evidence, belief in extra-terrestrial civilizations is exactly the same as religious belief.

There is possibly over a trillion galaxies in the universe and over 50 billion planets which are thought to exist in the Milky Way. The chance of extraterrestrial life are not low.

Furthermore there have been many earth-like planets found in the Milky Way which could possible contain some kind of life, they are in the Goldilocks zone.

[Bunkeranlage]

No it isn't, because you don't know the odds that intelligent lifeforms will evolve on a planet. If the odds are extremely small (which they could be, for all we know) - say, if they are a trillion trillion to one - then we may well be the only civilization in the universe.

In terms of evidence, belief in extra-terrestrial civilizations is exactly the same as religious belief.

There is possibly over a trillion galaxies in the universe and over 50 billion planets which are thought to exist in the Milky Way. The chance of extraterrestrial life are not low.

Furthermore there have been many earth-like planets found in the Milky Way which could possible contain some kind of life, they are in the Goldilocks zone.

The Bible doesn't make any mention of extraterrestrial life. Believing in God does not mean we cannot believe in alien life.

[Ardoki]

There is possibly over a trillion galaxies in the universe and over 50 billion planets which are thought to exist in the Milky Way. The chance of extraterrestrial life are not low.

Furthermore there have been many earth-like planets found in the Milky Way which could possible contain some kind of life, they are in the Goldilocks zone.

The Bible doesn't make any mention of extraterrestrial life. Believing in God does not mean we cannot believe in alien life.

I do not disagree with you. However because the bible failed to mention them, christians could be forgiven for not believing in them.

[Constantinopolis]

I'm not sure what you mean. All of Paul's letters were addressed to the early Christian Church.

Nope. Back then, it was known as "the Way." Christianity hadn't yet been created. That happened hundreds of years after Paul. While Paul is addressing "the Church" and parishes of it, he isn't addressing Christians. So we can't honestly say that Christianity is in the Bible because there isn't a single verse in the Bible that tells a Christian what a Christian is. Neither Jesus nor any of his Apostles were Christians. They were, each of them, Jews. And heretics at that.

Well, you know, that's not exactly true...

"The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
-- Acts of the Apostles 11:26

Surely you've heard this verse emphasized before. The Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch mentions it quite often.

[Distruzio]

Nope. Back then, it was known as "the Way." Christianity hadn't yet been created. That happened hundreds of years after Paul. While Paul is addressing "the Church" and parishes of it, he isn't addressing Christians. So we can't honestly say that Christianity is in the Bible because there isn't a single verse in the Bible that tells a Christian what a Christian is. Neither Jesus nor any of his Apostles were Christians. They were, each of them, Jews. And heretics at that.

Well, you know, that's not exactly true...

"The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."
-- Acts of the Apostles 11:26

Surely you've heard this verse emphasized before. The Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch mentions it quite often.

Yes. I've heard it. It doesn't negate my statement, however. The disciples were not the Apostles. And Christianity didn't exist yet. You of all people on NSG know this. "The Way" may have evolved into Christianity, and the advocates may have been called "Christian" before hand, but where in scripture is there a catechism of the faith? Where is the scripture describing Christianity?

Identifying some individuals as having been called Christian does not refute my statement. It rather reinforces it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Jesus certainly didn't intend it to become a new religion, which is why he expressly forbade preaching to anyone except Israel.

The wide-spread existence of Jesus' influence outside of Israel was against Jesus' explicit wishes, which is why no one even thought of breathing that particular heresy until after he was safely dead.

... GnI... I hate to remind you of this but... according to Christian dogma Jesus aint dead. He hasn't been for 2000 years. So... those members of the Church that first created the Pauline Christianity you distinguish so often made their statements, made their decrees, and created a faith separate from Judaism with Jesus still alive.

I'm well aware that there's a Christian claim that Jesus is somehow still 'alive', but I think you're confusing that with the idea that he's actually still really alive. If Paul wants to claim that Jesus elected him to be his best apostle, and Jesus is already dead, Jesus can't say it ain't so. Because he's dead.

And while you may have some special magic feeling that lets you believe that he somehow exists despite his corporal demise - the simple truth is that he has no corporal presence - he's not rebutting shit, because he died.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why do christians believe in their god?

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that such a being exists. You may as well believe in unicorns and leprechauns.

There's lots of evidence that such a being exists.

You appear to be confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'.

[Bunkeranlage]

... GnI... I hate to remind you of this but... according to Christian dogma Jesus aint dead. He hasn't been for 2000 years. So... those members of the Church that first created the Pauline Christianity you distinguish so often made their statements, made their decrees, and created a faith separate from Judaism with Jesus still alive.

I'm well aware that there's a Christian claim that Jesus is somehow still 'alive', but I think you're confusing that with the idea that he's actually still really alive. If Paul wants to claim that Jesus elected him to be his best apostle, and Jesus is already dead, Jesus can't say it ain't so. Because he's dead.

He's dead in a historical sense,yes, but to all 2,000,000,000 of us Christians around the world, He lives.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think we've been arguing with an illiterate.

I hope you don't mean me. It would be ridiculous for someone to be accusing me of being 'illiterate' for making arguments actually based on the text (which, by definition, calls the phrase 'illiterate' into question).

Does not Mathew look familiar.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20 KJV)

Matthew looks familiar, sure. I'm also well aware that the earliest evidence for Matthew 28 is not the same as the scripture we have today - for example, the 'nations' part that's so important to your argument, isn't supported by Origen's references to the text, any of the multiple times he comments on it.

Before you accuse me of illiteracy, maybe you should familiarize yourself with a broader spectrum of commentary that already exists on the scriptural texts, and what was actually present in the oldest versions. Oh, and it probably wouldn't hurt to get at least a little familiarity with the languages in which the scripture was written - not only am I 'literate' in the many translations, but I'm not even dependent on them - I check how the translation match the native language. Can you say the same?

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm well aware that there's a Christian claim that Jesus is somehow still 'alive', but I think you're confusing that with the idea that he's actually still really alive. If Paul wants to claim that Jesus elected him to be his best apostle, and Jesus is already dead, Jesus can't say it ain't so. Because he's dead.

He's dead in a historical sense,yes, but to all 2,000,000,000 of us Christians around the world, He lives.

Which is fine. Like I said, you may have some magical sense that he still exists and influences you - but I'm talking about objective provable realities.

Like - if Paul says that Jesus came to him on the road, did Jesus actually make a physical representation saying this was true. A press release, anything? No - because his mortal coil had been thoroughly shuffled off by then.

[Constantinopolis]

Also, Archregimancy, I have been looking for some reliable estimate of the numbers of non-denominational Christians worldwide. I have not been able to find one (unsurprisingly, since this is not a category typically used in religious statistics), but apparently some 10% of Christians in the U.S. - in other words about 25 million people - identify as "other Christian" in polls, and there are three other countries with over 1 million non-denominational Christians, while smaller numbers are scattered across the world. So a ballpark estimate for the total number of non-denominational Christians worldwide would be something around 30 million. That's very close to the number of Restorationists, so those two categories are indeed the smallest on the current poll (and smaller than Methodism).

For comparison, the worldwide numbers for the other Christian churches/denominations/categories on the poll are as follows:

Catholic - 1200 million (approx.)
Eastern Orthodox - 225–300 million
Non-Chalcedonian - 87 million
Lutheran - 74 million
Baptist - 100 million (approx.)
Reformed - 75 million
Anglican/Episcopalian - 85 million

Besides the Methodists, who stand at 75-80 million, another notable absence is Pentecostalism, which claims 279 million (!!!) adherents.

So, for the next poll, I would recommend dropping the non-denominational category and also merging the Lutheran and Reformed categories (because of their shared historical roots, they seem closer to each other than any other two existing categories), to make room for Pentecostalism and Methodism.

[Grave_n_idle]

Jesus certainly didn't intend it to become a new religion, which is why he expressly forbade preaching to anyone except Israel.

.... ....

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
-- Matthew 28:18-20

"The gospel must first be preached to all the nations."
-- Mark 13:10

"Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
-- Luke: 24:45-47

There's considerable debate about when the Great Commission texts were added, and it's commonly speculated that Mark and Matthew (for example) have had their Great Commission content either totally added from another source, or modified. And that's not new - I have an antique Bible which mentions in it's notes that the Great Commission text in Matthew appears to have been copied from other texts.

So - the 'oldest texts' argument is actually against most of the Great Commission content, which is an important argument against it.

More importantly, though - it directly opposes Jesus' actual recorded earthly ministry, where Jesus explicitly told his followers NOT to preach to anyone else. You should instantly be suspicious of ANY teaching that allegedly occurs AFTER the death of Jesus that is an absolute contradiction of the text attributed to him while he was alive.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have been an atheist from birth.

C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, says that he originally read the Bible to disprove it. He ended up converting.

C. S. Lewis was a liar.

[Distruzio]

... GnI... I hate to remind you of this but... according to Christian dogma Jesus aint dead. He hasn't been for 2000 years. So... those members of the Church that first created the Pauline Christianity you distinguish so often made their statements, made their decrees, and created a faith separate from Judaism with Jesus still alive.

I'm well aware that there's a Christian claim that Jesus is somehow still 'alive', but I think you're confusing that with the idea that he's actually still really alive. If Paul wants to claim that Jesus elected him to be his best apostle, and Jesus is already dead, Jesus can't say it ain't so. Because he's dead.

And while you may have some special magic feeling that lets you believe that he somehow exists despite his corporal demise - the simple truth is that he has no corporal presence - he's not rebutting shit, because he died.

GnI... you know better. He really is, actually alive. It's a core part of Christian dogma. As in... can't be a Christian if you don't believe that. If you can't affirm it. When Paul said all that junk, Jesus did affirm it. Because He's alive.

[Grave_n_idle]

Perhaps he was just scared of the sadistic torture basement? I have read parts of the bible, but I find it sadistic and horrible. I have also read a lot of the Koran, which was actually a lot more child friendly and nice.

Perhaps you should read the whole Bible.It makes lots of sense when you do.
Also, isn't atheism a hard position to uphold?

Doubting something that has no objective, verifiable evidence? No - it's not only incredibly easy, it should be the default position... and in most cases, it is. We kind of make a special exception for religion, where we'd mock it anywhere else.

[Grave_n_idle]

Jesus is an actual historical figure. Bertrand Russell obviously didn't do his research before writing Why I am not a Christian. There are reams and reams of evidence supporting the existence and acts of Jesus.

I've also recently warned people off turning this into a historical Jesus thread - though there's no reason why we can't have yet another thread on the latter topic.

I do appreciate the subject is broadly germane...

It's not only 'broadly germane', it's absolutely central to a "Christian Discussion Thread", and certainly well within the scope of the OP.

Yes, there are most certainly other things to discuss, but it would be beyond ridiculous to actually offer a moderation decision against discussing the historicity of a literal Jesus in a "Christian Discussion Thread".

[Constantinopolis]

.... ....

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
-- Matthew 28:18-20

"The gospel must first be preached to all the nations."
-- Mark 13:10

"Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
-- Luke: 24:45-47

There's considerable debate about when the Great Commission texts were added, and it's commonly speculated that Mark and Matthew (for example) have had their Great Commission content either totally added from another source, or modified. And that's not new - I have an antique Bible which mentions in it's notes that the Great Commission text in Matthew appears to have been copied from other texts.

So - the 'oldest texts' argument is actually against most of the Great Commission content, which is an important argument against it.

More importantly, though - it directly opposes Jesus' actual recorded earthly ministry, where Jesus explicitly told his followers NOT to preach to anyone else. You should instantly be suspicious of ANY teaching that allegedly occurs AFTER the death of Jesus that is an absolute contradiction of the text attributed to him while he was alive.

Except that one of the three quotes I gave you (the one in Mark) is NOT from a Great Commission text, but rather from before the death of Jesus. It's part of Him making a prophecy that "the gospel must first be preached to all the nations" before the end of the world comes.

In any case, please note the fact that you began by claiming that Paul's writings did not represent the "true" preaching of Jesus and now you are claiming that the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels don't represent the "true" preaching of Jesus, either. Keep throwing away Biblical texts for arbitrary reasons and you might soon be left thinking that Jesus was a traveling physician preaching about herbal remedies.

[The Archregimancy]

Yes, there are most certainly other things to discuss, but it would be beyond ridiculous to actually offer a moderation decision against discussing the historicity of a literal Jesus in a "Christian Discussion Thread".

As noted to Benuty earlier in the thread, you're very welcome to file a GHR if you disagree with my concerns over threadjacking on this subject.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm well aware that there's a Christian claim that Jesus is somehow still 'alive', but I think you're confusing that with the idea that he's actually still really alive. If Paul wants to claim that Jesus elected him to be his best apostle, and Jesus is already dead, Jesus can't say it ain't so. Because he's dead.

And while you may have some special magic feeling that lets you believe that he somehow exists despite his corporal demise - the simple truth is that he has no corporal presence - he's not rebutting shit, because he died.

GnI... you know better. He really is, actually alive. It's a core part of Christian dogma. As in... can't be a Christian if you don't believe that. If you can't affirm it. When Paul said all that junk, Jesus did affirm it. Because He's alive.

Again, I think you're missing the point - perhaps deliberately.

I can say that Jesus just came and told me that the whole Bible is bullshit. And you'll notice that if I do, Jesus won't make a formal rebuttal.

This doesn't mean he isn't in some spiritual form, tending to us as a kind of deity shepherd - it means that, for want of a more explanatory way of phrasing it - he has left no forwarding address.

Could Jesus be some kind of God entity, invisibly messing with reality? Sure. Does he have a material presence and/or a history of offering actual, physical commentary on words and actions? Not so much.

The best you can say is that some people who claim to represent him, say they know what he wants to be said. Not the same thing.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes, there are most certainly other things to discuss, but it would be beyond ridiculous to actually offer a moderation decision against discussing the historicity of a literal Jesus in a "Christian Discussion Thread".

As noted to Benuty earlier in the thread, you're very welcome to file a GHR if you disagree with the above.

If the subject comes up, I'll discuss it. If you decide to moderate me based on me joining an on-topic discussion about something central to the thread, and you actually carry out some action based on it? Sure, I'll file a GHR.

In the meantime, as you said, you "try and leave formal rulings over potentially actionable behaviour in the thread to colleagues to try and avoid any appearance of bias on my part", and so we shouldn't have it be an issue.