Originally posted by twhitehead
I too have heard the argument before and I too do not have the motivation to go trawling the boards to find it. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Take it or leave it.
I do not know exactly how the universe began. Today the prevailing theory is that of the Big Bang from a infinitely small singularity.
There are other expanations. One for example, according to Greek and Roman cosmogeny, Uranus (or Heaven) the supreme god was driven from power by his son Cronos or Saturn. Afterwards Cronos received the same treatment from his father Zeus or Jupiter. Chaos, was the first thing in existence, and a series of transient gods then came into being.
I don't know for sure which of these two happened to bring about the universe. I think the Big Bang explosion from a singularity does not have the equal plausibility as the story about Uranus, Cronos, Zues, and Chaos.
At this time in history I think a larger number of thinkers are considering the Big Bang cosmogeny to the Greek / Roman cosmogeny. This is not an Argumentum as populum proof that the Big Bang happened. It is, perhaps, evidence that Big Bang is more plausible then the family feuds of the Roman gods.
I also think that if God exists, it is more plausible that God manifested God to mankind in the Person of Jesus Christ then God manifested God in the personage of the Norse god Thor.
Forget about Ad Populum and just ask yourself honestly.
You don't KNOW that there is no God. But if God is possibly real do you think more about the possiblity of having to one day face
Jesus Christ or having to face
Thor ?
You don't have to tell me. But be honest with yourself. You think IF God is real you find one encounter at the end of time as plausible as the other ?
"If I an athiest, turn out to be incorrect about God's existence, I suspect that its just as likely to be Jesus Christ that I will stand before as Thor."
No ad populum. Just be honest in your own heart. If and ever you do, in the solitude of your contemplation about your life's final end, do you think about the God of the Bible or the God of Norse beliefs - Thor ?
Maybe you as an atheist will simply melt peacefully into the dust of the earth, eternal oblivion. What has been done to you, no one will answer to any God for. What you did to others, you'll never have to give any accounting for, nor need any forgiveness.
But maybe, since you don't really know if athiesm is true, you may meet God someday, someday.
Do you think if that is the case Thor is just as likely as Christ and/or the Father Whom Christ spoke about ?
Don't consult "the masses". Just ask yourself with honesty.
Agerg writes:
=======================================
Yet still this farce continues. Oh and you overlooked the all important "(at least in the divine or supernatural sense)"...never forget that one! (Ie I'm referring to magic Son of God Jesus born of a virgin as opposed to some character, human and non-divine as the rest of us possibly named Jesus (or possibly invented) - that type of Jesus is not Bible Jesus (since no magic properties))
============================================
The Jesus of typical humanity who at times did nothing supernatural is just as much the "Bible Jesus" as the supernatural Son of God.
That such embellishments were added after the fact to make a man supernatural is what de-mythosizer has the burden to prove or present persuasive evidence for that as having happened.
Dating copies of the transmitted texts of the New Testament is how the textural critic would establish a track record of embellishments being added in subsequent centries after the writing of the original text.
It is a possibility that a typical non-supernatural Jesus had supernatural embellishments added. An
other possibility is that He was God / man and those who knew Him were cataclysmically impressed by such a life and decided it should be recorded in the varied aspects of His life. The implications were huge enough for them to want to not only write this down for the world but die for the belief too.
I take the position that the latter is the case. You cannot say a Jesus who many times acted as a typical man is not a "Bible Jesus". Of course if you don't read the Bible you might assert that with great confidence. But you'd be wrong.
In the Bible we also read of a tired Jesus,
an anxious Jesus, a hungry Jesus,
a tempted Jesus,
a weeping Jesus,
a Jesus who did not know things at times,
a surprised Jesus,
a Jesus longing that His friends would stay awake and pray with Him,
a Jesus who could not perform miracles because of the unbelief of His audience.
a Jesus Who cried out that He was perplexed why He was forsaken by God.
It just so happens that some men could have been so thoroughly impressed by this life that they decided it was a big enough event to record for future generations. So you have in the Gospels a miracle performing Jesus with a Jesus with like attributes as typical humans, except for being sinful.
It is nonsense to say a non-supernatural Jesus is not a Bible Jesus. You have both. And the word
"incarnation" suggests that we should expect to see both the human and the divine in this Person's life.
You mean a
solely non-supernatural Jesus is not a Jesus presented in the Bible. And to that I think the Gospel writers would reply that if they told us of only a non-supernatural Jesus, they would not have been telling us about what they knew about Him. It would not be an honest account. Their desire was to tell the truth without bias.
Conversely, if the Gospel writers had only written of a supernatural Jesus, and not one that behaved amazingly like a typical man, except for being within sinfulness, they would not be truthful about what they knew about Jesus.
So now we emphasize a Jesus who manifested attributes expected of a transcendent God. Is such a Jesus (with this focus) more plausible or less plausible then the Norse deity Thor ?
There is no purely and solely supernatural Jesus in the Bible. To assess the plausibility of His claims to be God incarnate or Deity I also have to consider all His words and actions.
I will take a few examples of the Bible Jesus, the full picture, and give my reasons for believing it is more plausible the He be God incarnate then Thor.
Anyone can present their reasons why Thor is just as likely to be considered for the possibility of Deity.
This approach does not call for majority or minority in numbers. I want to see why some of you think there is little qualitative difference between a claim of Godness for Thor as is for Jesus Christ.
Agerg, if you are reading, at present I prefer to carry on this exhange with someone other than you. And here's why.
You have said some very insulting and blasphemous things. You also spoke of another poster kissing my arse.
When I see debaters begin to do things like this, I count them as getting into what I call "Argument by Revulsion". I count this tactic of driving away an opposing opinion with revulsion. "I will now be so revulting to your taste that I will
drive you away with disgust."
The people who poison the discussion this way usually end up boasting that someone with a different viewpoint has now gone away. Hip Hip Hoora, Big intellectual victory.
If you want a fair shot to solidly expose alledged errors in my reasons, stop poisoning the discussion with revulsion. I have seen this on your other discussions and here also.
I don't say twhitehead is kissing your arse because he had a similar opinion. You're saying that about Freaky is well poisoning to humiliate someone you do not agree with to ad hom them away.
Another thing. I will quote the Bible whenever I feel it helps. Quoting the Bible does not necessarily mean that I am asking you to take it as I do, as a divinely inspired book from God.
I may quote the Bible. You don't have to assume what was quoted is true. Sometimes it is helpful to see that what was written was beleived to be true by whoever wrote it.
Paul, is the earliest writer to talk about the resurrection of Christ. It is important that Paul listed people who Paul says witnessed the resurrected Christ, AND such persons were ALIVE at the time to refute him had he been wrong.
QUOTE:
" ... He was buried, and ... He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;
And the He appeared to Cephas ( who is alive to confirm or refute ),
then to the twelve (which twelve consist of living people who can confirm or refute me ),
Then He appeared to to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until; now, but some have fallen asleep ... [from which 500 there are many who can confirm or refute the resurrection of Jesus]
Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles [known by you all and can confirm or refute],
Now someone may say "The Bible stinks so don't quote it to me!" But it is important, even if you do not regard it as divinely inspired, to note that Paul writes to an audience furnishing them with names of people who can say "Paul's out of his mind, Jesus is DEAD." or "Yes, Paul is right. The resurrected Jesus did appear to us."
It is important that a man would dare to present such logic to a contemporary audience of his. And I won't except that the text was sneakily added latter by some monk, but was not really what Paul wrote.
Bible scholars of atheistic and agnostic persuasion agree that the Corinthian letter was authentic.
[b]==========================================
So [b]"(Ie I'm referring to magic Son of God Jesus born of a virgin as opposed to some character, human and non-divine as the rest of us possibly named Jesus (or possibly invented) - that type of Jesus is not Bible Jesus (since no magi...
Argumentum ad populum
12 Nov '10 15:14
Back to Top