I don’t recall any references to the Q’ran here, though the Q’ran talks of Jesus as a prophet, and mentions many other characters in the Bible as being actual people.

Best laugh I’ve had in ages, cheers! 😄

Minority?

you don’t have ti believe that to believe in God or the divinity of Jesus.

But then it gets a bit tricky. If it’s not all true then how do you choose which bits are? As soon as one element is questionable it all unravels, how can you then trust any of it?

But lots of people really do have to work for them and study topics of value, so it’s not a pop at people on here

TBH given I have one they aren’t that big a deal. I’m thick as mud lol

@molgrips

Chevy blathering on about logical fallacies makes zero sense in this context. We absolutely should listen to those who know more than we do.

Bollocks.

You can get degrees in homeopathic medicine – and in every way the holder of that degree would know infinitely more about homeopathy fhan I would. An ‘expert’, yo see.

But it’s an expert in bunkum and bullshit because at no point, ever, has any homeopathic remedy been proven using a well-designed falsifiable trial to be any more effective than placebo. Because it’s shite and it’s practitioners are snake oil salesmen.

And that refusal to rely on a solid evidental basis kills people – you have people being advised to take homeopathic remedies for their deadly cancer rather than life-saving chemotherapy. And they die because of it.

Yes, we should listen to scientists who are experts in their fields – they have a rigourous burden of proof thrust upon them and are more than happy to provide their evidence base when challenged (because that’s how science works).

This religious study can never adhere to the highest standards. By definition it’s snake oil at best. It deals in the unproveable and should be treated with healthy suspicion and it’s practitioners should be treated like the guy who turns up with a cart full of colourful liquids promising he can cure your bunyons.

On a separate note. You seem to be particularly vociferous. Do you have an oar in this game? Are you of the believer persuasion? If you are I’ll cease and desist – as there’s nothing I could say you wouldn’t perform mental gymnastics to justify your own point of view over as not to do so would undermine everything you believe…

This religious study can never adhere to the highest standards. By definition it’s snake oil at best. It deals in the unproveable and should be treated with healthy suspicion and it’s practitioners should be treated like the guy who turns up with a cart full of colourful liquids promising he can cure your bunyons.

Do you believe in the existence of Plato and Aristotle or other historical figures?

We’re talking about verifiable history here, not whether the bloke was devine or not. Seems to me that with that statement you are discounting all of history because it’s not “science”.

Chevy – you’re making the false equivalency fallacy do some seriously heavy lifting. Just because quackery such as homeopathy exists it does not follow that other experts are quacks. Knowledge is frequently defined as the convergence of belief and truth, supported by adequate justification. Your justification appears to be the fallacy above which is crap.

Have you ever heard of epistemology? The sorts of batshit mental contorsions you’re churning out were tackled head on in antiquity by the Hellenistic philosophy schools, where you might play the role of Diogenes. Your local university probably has an expert in espistemology who could eduacate you.

Christianity has always been subject to debate and been able to change and evolve.

At the behest if those in power who want to adapt it to their whims. Would we be Protestants if Fat Harry hasn’t wanted to divorce Catherine?

Apologies for interrupting a discussion about Jesus, but ..

I have to say, though, that if we were having one of our relatively frequent medical discussions, then I would expect someone like DrJ – whose expertise is strongly hinted at in his screen name – to weigh in

my screen name was in fact chosen in reference to a well known hip-hop artist rather than any pretence to medical knowledge (of which I have essentially none 🙂 )

On with the show!! 🙂

Do you believe in the existence of Plato and Aristotle or other historical figures?
We’re talking about verifiable history here, not whether the bloke was devine or not. Seems to me that with that statement you are discounting all of history because it’s not “science”.

Exactly. (Actually it is science, seeing as science just means knowledge. 😉 )

@chevychase, you clearly know nothing about @molgrips. And as for this statement

This religious study can never adhere to the highest standards. By definition it’s snake oil at best. It deals in the unproveable and should be treated with healthy suspicion

there is a great deal we deal with on a daily basis that we can’t “prove”. But that is not what this thread is dealing with. Having said so, the world of academic theology – having given birth to the sciences you are exalting as the pinnacle of knowledge – has been part of the conversational process from the dawn of the universities – if not the dawn of consciousness. Regardless, though, there are elements of what you call “this religious study” that fit into many other (more empirical) disicplines: the historical and the sociological to name but two.

This religious study can never adhere to the highest standards. By definition it’s snake oil at best. It deals in the unproveable and should be treated with healthy suspicion and it’s practitioners should be treated like the guy who turns up with a cart full of colourful liquids promising he can cure your bunyons.

I don’t think that’s entirely fair.

Say we had Father Christmas Studies. Santa has a huge cultural impact on our society, especially so at this time of year for some reason, even though he’s (spoilers, sorry) entirely fictional. One could readily look into how the figure gained popularity, how and where in the world it spread, what alternatives other countries have, and whether or not his traditional red outfit came from a Coca-Cola advert. These are all real tangible things even if the central tenant is mythical.

The same could be said of religion. We could easily have a discussion on, as a random example I’ve just pulled out of thin air, whether Jesus was a real man who actually existed or not.

knowledge (of which I have essentially none 🙂 )

Thought this was a prerequisite for posting on STW?😉

Actually it is science, seeing as science just means knowledge.

The entomology of the word science has changed over the last 3000 years. It doesn’t just mean knowledge. It is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

See these people that think they are experts in certain fields just because they read something on the internet.

also the idea that academic theology gave birth to science is a bit far fetched at the least.

Cougar

Please can I sign up to your Father Christmas studies course?

Sure. The exam at the end counts as one of your Ho-Ho-Ho Levels.

Five **** pages just to let you get to that punchline? 😄😂

The entomology of the word science has changed

“Etymology,” unless the science you’re sciensing is the study of insects. (-:

Five **** pages just to let you get to that punchline? 😄😂

I think it was worth the journey.

What I was going to say has been said. You might not believe in God but a lot of real actual people do, and the stuff that they really actually did can be studied. The existence or not of Jesus is also a matter of real actual history, studied by real actual historians using real actual methodology.

Saint Nicholas was real. Did he do the thing in his story? Maybe.

Also Santa is historically not the same as Father Christmas.

The entomology of the word science has changed over the last 3000 years. It doesn’t just mean knowledge. It is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

As Cougar points out, it’s “etymology”, and etymology by its very nature doesn’t change. The root is what it is; only the tree changes. But, funny enough, when it comes to the word “scire” (to know), its related words have changed very little.

See these people that think they are experts in certain fields just because they read something on the internet.

Is that a suggestion that I pulled my etymology off the internet? If so, you know those manuscripts I have spent my life reading? Guess what language(s) they’re in…

If you’re going to tell us you’re fluent in Aramaic and Classical Hebrew I’ll be very impressed. (-:

(And yes, I know most of the NT was a form of Greek, but that’s less funny.)

Alas, just Latin and Greek. Syriac, which is a still-used version of Aramaic, features prominently in my field, but I have always had to work with it in translation.

As for Hebrew, I started learning it, but couldn’t hack it. I can still say “shalom alechem mi melech”, but have to admit it’s not very useful. 🙂

EDIT: Just re-read the above and realised how much of a not-very-humble humble-brag it is.

“shalom alechem mi melech”,

Could you send for the hall porter, there appears to be a frog in my bidet?

I find all religeon to be equally unbelievable and over the passage of history the cause of huge amounts of evil from the crusades to the current extremist end of Islam. Given that all say the only way to redemption is via thier belief system then every religion is full of non belivers in everything else so condemned to hell by them. It’s a complete nonsense

EDIT: Just re-read the above and realised how much of a not-very-humble humble-brag it is.

Only because most (non-immigrant or descendants thereof) people in this country can’t speak a second language beyond “two beers please.” It’s all relative.

Useful to know that you know Latin, that might come in handy at some point.

You can get degrees in homeopathic medicine

I’m not sure you can, you know.

I find all religeon to be equally unbelievable and over the passage of history the cause of huge amounts of evil from the crusades to the current extremist end of Islam. 

I used to think much along the same lines, but it’s in complete contrast to every person of faith I ever met – people have done terrible things in the name of religion but that doesn’t, for me, mean that it’s representative of that religion. Much feeding of the homeless has been done over Christmas in Birmingham (and goes on with no fanfare during the rest of the year) by numerous groups of a broad variety of faiths – the Quran says the path of rightousness includes giving money to the needy and the homeless, seems to me that’s much closer to the overall intention of the text than instigating civil war and commiting acts of terrorism.

Alas, just Latin and Greek.

Slacker. Get on Duolingo.

Only because most (non-immigrant or descendants thereof) people in this country can’t speak a second language beyond “two beers please.” It’s all relative.

I’ll have you know I’m fluent in at least seven languages 😉

dos cervezas por favor
deux bières s’il vous plait
dvě piva prosím
twee biertjes alstublieft
zwei Bier bitte
due birre per favore

@pondu. If religions are supposed to help the poor and needy why do they keep so much wealth for themselves? It is often individual congregations who do good work in the community using thier own money or what they raise, rarely does the church use its own vast wealth.

Ga i cwrw os gwelwch yn dda?

The question is the problem in this thread as both yes and no are the right answer. Jesus was a real person and Jesus is a fictional character.

I find all religeon to be equally unbelievable and over the passage of history the cause of huge amounts of evil from the crusades to the current extremist end of Islam. Given that all say the only way to redemption is via thier belief system then every religion is full of non belivers in everything else so condemned to hell by them. It’s a complete nonsense

I don’t really know where to start with this. Your argument conveniently ignores/dismisses all the good done by religious people, all the charity work, the community and social benefits of organised religions.

To simply point to the extremes misses much of the point. No one claims that there aren’t flaws, and when things go wrong, the effect can be off the scale, but to claim that religion is in itself a source of evil is very wide of the mark.

Whether or not you believe in God as such is immaterial, and if you strip away the (seemingly) anachronistic commandments/hadiths/teachings you find a simple message of “love thy neighbour as thyself” or in other words, “do only good”. As for redemption, think along the lines of conscience. If a believer can go to their deathbed safe in the knowledge that they will be rewarded for their past life in a form of paradise, then so too can a non-believer spend their life with a clear conscience and the satisfaction of knowing they have never intentionally harmed anyone, and that can’t really be a bad thing can it?

Yes, blind faith can be ridiculed, the favourite sport of the intellectual atheist, but if you just pause to think about Mrs Smith who attends church every Sunday and does her best to be nice to folk, ridiculing her because of holy wars or jihad is a bit of a stretch.

Historically speaking father Christmas was a fly agaric mushroom that reindeers ate, then the far northern reindeer herding communities ate the piss soaked snow and tripped balls. True story. So technically there is merit in the historical study of father Christmas. Just ask Jesus.

You can get degrees in homeopathic medicine

I’m not sure you can, you know.

It’s true, it’d seem:

https://www.ucas.com/ucas/after-gcses/find-career-ideas/explore-jobs/job-profile/homeopath

Google also threw up this commentary from the FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/e2772e34-45a0-11de-b6c8-00144feabdc0

Is that a suggestion that I pulled my etymology off the internet? If so, you know those manuscripts I have spent my life reading? Guess what language(s) they’re in…

Latin is not relevant today and the word science has a different meaning to the latin word that it is derived from.

Saxonrider I posted this last night but think it got missed in a load of bickering and a page turn.

The nature of the evidence should be stronger in this case as Jesus is believed in without question by so many throughout history that the assessment of the evidence must be fraught with difficulty.

Just read your post saxonrider, so do you “”believe” in jesus christ as well as the existence of jesus? If so how do you put one view aside to asses the evidence, not trying to have a dig just think its an interesting conundrum. I really couldnt care less if he did or didnt have have no strong opinions eithercway.

What I find more interesting is whether he existed and said all those things. I mean, in those days God’s were all about being powerful and smiting enemies if you flattered them enough. But Jesus’s message was entirely different. Being nice to each other, thinking about yourself and loving your enemies. It seems normal to us now but that’s cos we are from a Christian country whose whole society is based on those ideas. Back then, it was revolutionary. The Romans were totally baffled at first. Compare Jesus’s teachings with Roman theology.

Much of his sayings are also not compatible with maintaining entrenched power. They are in fact pretty rebellious, and early followers were defiant against the authorities. So divine or not he would have been an incredible and fascinating person, and entirely worthy of study. If he didn’t exist, then there would have had to have been a pretty impressive conspiracy to create such a powerful revolutionary idea – but there was no obvious reason for doing so. After all Christia ity predates states that would exploit it by three hundred years.

Aren’t most of the parables in the Bible lifted directly from Buddhism?

and early followers were defiant against the authorities.

Hmmm, right up until the point at which they became the authority, then they tended to indulge in quite a bit of revenge smiting. The history of the very early Christian church once it got its hands on the levers of power within the Roman Empire isn’t a happy one. It’s estimated that we have as little as 10% of philosophical writings, plays, undamaged statuary etc from the “classical” world, mostly thanks to the wilful damage inflicted by early Christian sects.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one for religion bashing, but it should be more widely discussed that as well as Roman emperors happily feeding Christians to the lions, the Christians did much the same thing in turn (and on a vastly more destructive scale)

Hmmm, right up until the point at which they became the authority

The early Christians were long dead by the time this happened. And it’s not as simple as you make out. The book I put down to pick up my phone is talking about Basil, Gregory and Macrina who were pushing the charity aspect of it pretty hard in the 360s. The establishment wanted to exploit the popularity of Christianity, sure, but there were and still are plenty of people inspired by their faith to do good. Seems unfair to condemn the entire religion because some people are abusing it.

Aren’t most of the parables in the Bible lifted directly from Buddhism?

sorry, I’m at dinner right now and will respond later to some of the above, but to this? The answer is “no”. Pure and simple. There may well be some overlap in terms of ideas, but not textual sharing at all.

 but there were and still are plenty of people inspired by their faith to do good.

Sure, there were many many early Christians who would file this sort of destruction under “doing good”  There are any number of these littered all over the Roman world.