What's your thoughts on the story of Jesus' birth?

[edhopper]

To me it is obviously a myth/fable built around many of the religious themes and stories of the time.
Whatever the accuracy of the biblical adult Jesus, I can't see looking at the nativity story with all it's unhistorical events and contorted narrative as anything but a confabulation to fulfill the idea of a divine Jesus.
Then again I'm a ex-Jewish atheist.

But I wonder if any of the believers here put any stock in this tale?

[edhopper]

3. I can understand Christians observing today

as an overall celebration of Jesus and what he means to them.
I don't think it about Christians here (though I guess I'll find out) but I am astonished at how many Christians actually believe the nativity story is true and accurate. Not just the virgin birth, but the trip to Bethlehem, the manger, the star, the wise men, all of it.

[riqster]

2. I think a lot of it is recycled myth and allegory.

Plus, a load of adapted myth from the subjugated societies the Church overran.

But then, I figure the story is not a big deal; but the "one man was hung on a tree for saying how nice it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change" bit is worth keeping in mind.

Plus, Xmas parties are a lot of fun.

[edhopper]

5. Yes,

I mean where did that story even come from?
Let's accept for the sake of argument that some of the people around Jesus when he preached as a 30 year old adult kept talking about him long enough for some of that to get into the early Gospels. So maybe there is some veracity in the part about Jesus at that point.
Where on earth do they think these stories of a him as a child come from? Being born in a cow shed and then living in Egypt for a dozen years, and then briefly back in Israel where he disappears for a couple of decades. Who kept telling these "true stories" until they were accurately written down?

[riqster]

7. A lot of his creation myth was nicked from previous versions.

Babylonian and other polytheistic traditions. It is a fascinating topic, had it in college.

[truebluegreen]

9. Came from trying to fit him into the prophecies about the Messiah...

why else would the "Nazarene" actually be from Bethlehem?

Read "Zealot" by Raza Aslan, subject of Worst Interview Ever:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/28/video_fox_news_lauren_green_asks_reza_aslan_why_muslim_would_be_interested.html

Fascinating. Illuminating. And directed straight at your questions.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Putting aside historical/religious/mythological context...

Jesus was born into squalor to homeless parents residing in a barn: the ultimate in humility.

In return those who purportedly speak in his name have given the world, war, atrocity after atrocity, lived in opulence while ignoring the most humble amongst us, bankrolled racism, bankrolled bigotry and misogyny, told their indolent followers who should be shunned, engaged in every vile act against innocents (rape, torture, marginalization) while proclaiming piety...and the list goes on.


Happy holidays.

[riqster]

8. Merry Christmas anyway

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024227990

[cbayer]

15. That is really nice, rigster.

Happy holidays to you.

[intaglio]

14. Ummmm ... just a small problem with what you do believe

Jesus was born into squalor to homeless parents residing in a barn: the ultimate in humility.

That is a prime mythological trope; then add in the problem of Joseph's position - the word used in the Greek originals was "tekton".

Now in ancient Greek that word normally means a designer or master of construction, similar to the original meaning of "carpenter" and close to the current meaning for "joiner" in English. That said it might also have been a translation of a word with a similar meaning in Aramaic perhaps used for a scholar

Then there is the reason for the removal to Bethlehem, a census which did not happen, which allowed the birth story to line up with apparent prophesy.

Have a joyous day

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

98. Peace, intaglio, but did you miss what I wrote?

Putting aside >>>historical/religious/mythological context...<<<

Jesus was born into squalor to homeless parents residing in a barn: the ultimate in humility.

In return those who purportedly speak in his name have given the world, war, atrocity after atrocity, lived in opulence while ignoring the most humble amongst us, bankrolled racism, bankrolled bigotry and misogyny, told their indolent followers who should be shunned, engaged in every vile act against innocents (rape, torture, marginalization) while proclaiming piety...and the list goes on.

The thought was much less about me than the hypocrites that speak, or have spoken, in his name and who do disservice to it.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Humans have powerful imaginations and it's not all bad

when you're on a giant sphere of molten iron zipping through space at an ungodly speed around a huge ball of burning hydrogen (what could possibly go wrong...yeah, someone else wrote all that once).

And, hey, we're talking through devices and networks that were designed by people with big brains hanging out in garages saying, what if?

People start with what they want to be true and take it from there; be it good or bad. Technology is a human triumph. So is the Jesus story, in its original form (imagine a scrub like Jesus outlasting the Romans and being celebrated in the capital of the old empire to this day using the symbol of the cross, which the Romans designed to break the human spirit...big lesson there; one that any progressive could find inspiring if he or she is in the proper mood).

The story of his birth? Whether people want it to be true or genuinely believe, for many of them, it's because they associate it with an ideal that shouldn't bother anyone in the least. Peace and goodwill, which happens to be what the species will need in order to survive.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

10. Huh! A few days ago some Jehova's Whitnesses came to my door.

I'm an athiest who believes that I have some concept of the vastness of this universe and that it would be foolish to think that there are not things going on out there that we don't understand. I am always interested in other peoples beliefe systems and how they got there and the people at my door were sincere and very polite. We talked for awhile and they gave me their pamphlet and I agreed to peruse it. They asked if they could come by at a later date to see what I thought and I reluctantly agreed. I must say that after perusing the pamphlet, I was surprised and impressed.

An excerpt about when Jesus was born;

" the Bible does not state the date on which Jeses was born. however, it does say that at the time of Jesus birth, There were shepheards living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks." ( Luke 2:8) it is very unlikely that those shepherdswould have kept their flocks outside at night during December and January. Why?

The area where Jesus was born experiences some of its coldest weather during December and January. Regarding that time of year, the Bible reports that people were " shivering...on account of the showers oof rain." ... That would have been no time of year for shepherds to be " living out of doors" with their flocks."

The article in the pamphlet does not attempt to tell you when they think Jesus was born, just invites you to think about it!

Not what I expected at all.

[intaglio]

16. JWs also use their own translation of the Bible n/t

[OffWithTheirHeads]

17. I did not know that.

[msongs]

11. married Mary and god have sex behind Joseph's back. high morals indeed nt

[edhopper]

12. Well Mary

didn't know about any of that until she was told she was pregnant.
So there are other descriptors for what happened.
But it might get a bit blasphemous.

[cbayer]

13. Does it matter?

Whether one sees it as a myth or fable, or one feels it is an accurate portrayal of events, what seems important is the message.

This just feels like an attempt to say someone is right and someone is wrong.

May the spirit of christmas surround you today and be filled with love and hope.

[skepticscott]

19. Yes, and we all know

that under cbayer's Law, no one is ever right, and no one is ever wrong. We can never know anything (as we type on our computers). Every opinion is equally valid, and everything is "complicated".

And what exactly is the "message", and why did a whole religion have to be invented around it? Can you even enunciate this "message" that you claim exists in the bible stories?

[kwassa]

23. Give it a rest. It's Christmas.

Peace on earth, good will towards all people.

Take up the snark again tomorrow.

[skepticscott]

24. No one is forcing you to participate here on your sacred day

If you need a rest, feel free to take one.

And if the message of religion throughout most of history hadn't been "peace on earth after we've killed all of our enemies, and good will towards all people who worship god the way we do", then I might be more favorably inclined.

[kwassa]

28. No one is forcing to you to wallow in your bitterness, either.

You do a splendid job of it, though. A long, unending job of it.

Glad you could come out of your hole today to piss on other people's happiness. What would Christmas be without you, Grinch?

[skepticscott]

32. Apparently YOU really don't want to give it a rest, do you?

You're determined to spend your Xmas trying to smack someone else down, in the same way you're accusing me of. Hypocrisy. What a shock. But feel free to continue if it makes your season bright.

And your rather crude attempts at psychoanalysis are noted and dismissed.

[kwassa]

34. Dismiss all you want.

You started it, or did you forget that? It was your attack on cbayer that drew my comment. I simply asked you to stop, which drew your counterattack.

Are you a teenager? I've asked this question before, based on the immaturity I detect in your views.

oh ... and have a Merry Christmas. The good will toward all people extended to you, too.

[skepticscott]

36. Let's see now

Within the space of one short subthread, you accused me of snark, wallowing in bitterness, living in a hole, being a Grinch, pissing on other people, acting like a teenager and being immature. Oh, and told ME to give it a rest on Christmas.

I'll pass on your "good will" and Christmas cheer, thanks. I'd hate to see you when you're hostile the rest of the year.

[kwassa]

37. Your attacking someone's religion on one of the most important holy days of the year does provoke me

I asked you to give it a rest, a reasonable suggestion, you counterattacked, and I gave you an appropriate response.

You take no responsibility for your actions, a sign of immaturity, by the way.

And frankly, I don't think a thing I've said about you is untrue. This is mostly based on long observation of your writings, not just your behavior today.

[skepticscott]

54. The negative effects of religion, superstition

and belief in the supernatural don't magically go away on December 25th. Did giving things "a rest" last Xmas accomplish anything? Or the Xmas before that? Or before that? Is religion any less bigoted and sexist, any less destructive? And what constitutes an "attack" is apparently very overblown among Xstians in this room. It seems to mean anything that questions their "faith" in any way, or even their posting style and hypocrisy.

And I take full credit for everything I've posted on this thread. Satisfied? I apologize for none of it, however. All of my responses were as appropriate as yours, if not more so.

Making things up about people is also a sign of immaturity, btw. As is saying everything that you think is true without restraint. If I did the same about you, you'd probably alert on me, but I'll be the grown-up here and not just blurt out everything that pops into my head.

[cbayer]

25. A very merry Christmas to you, kwassa.

I hope you are surrounded by love, family, friends, good cheer and excellent food.

[kwassa]

29. Thank you, cbayer, and I hope you had a great Christmas, too.

We had wonderful meal, and are now sitting in front of a nice warm fire, playing with our new Christmas toys!

[cbayer]

30. Very low key here.

Husband is feeling really under the weather, but that's ok. I prefer it quiet.

Glad you had a wonderful day and I hope you see some dreams come true in the new year.

[kwassa]

31. Same to you, cbayer.

We have a lot of Christmas classical music on rotation in the background. Very nice and relaxed.

[840high]

159. Merry Xmas

[trotsky]

40. Actually it matters quite a bit.

Believing in the story - believing that it's factually true - is a dismissal of reason. The enabling of fantasy over real-world facts. This is exactly the same phenomenon that feeds the right-wing agenda. There are no facts to justify cutting taxes for "job creators," or destroying anti-poverty programs, or denying people healthcare. Instead, the right relies on emotion and faith. We deplore that methodology and share frustration over it when used by the Republicans - why do we praise it or ignore it elsewhere?

We humans had already figured out every single positive thing the Jesus character expressed - most of them LONG before he appeared. That we cannot appeal to these as universal HUMAN values and instead have to attach them to our preferred religious character seems to frustrate, not facilitate, our efforts to live by them.

[rug]

41. Lol! The little drummer boy is destroying anti-poverty programs.

Just when I think I have your talking points down, you outdo yourself.

Well done, trotsky.

[okasha]

74. Then there's the assertion

that the right acts on "faith and emotion" when in fact they act on an extremely cold and logical calculus of what benefits them.

[edhopper]

42. That is very well said.

I think there is such a difference between people who say they follow the teachings of Jesus, and this story of his birth that i can only categorize as a fairy tale. To insist it is true in the face of all other historical evidence, is a picture of irrationality.
I find this so different than discussing the adult Jesus and his preachings. I can see someone who follows his teachings, and as you say they are universal. And who the historical Jesus might or might not have been. But that is so far from that we are left with hrmjustin's argument of "Well I'm a Christian, so I believe it."

[okasha]

61. I don't presume to speak for Justin,

but I think you've got his position backwards. It seems to me to be "I believe it, so I'm a Christian."

[edhopper]

64. Kind of circular.

I'm a Christian, so I believe it. And since I am a Christian, I believe it.
Either way I accept he believes it based on faith and the historical information around it doesn't matter to him.

[hrmjustin]

67. It does interest me to some 3xtent but it will nevrr stop my from being a believer.

[edhopper]

69. That is how I took it.

Don't think I am answering with disrespect. i took your reply at face value.

[hrmjustin]

70. I understand. no worries.

[hrmjustin]

65. I never said that.

I said I believe it. I do have my doubts like others but I choose to believe it.

[edhopper]

71. Is the actual story important to you.

Or is the narrative something that helps shape your overall faith?

If it was shown to you that historically, those events were very highly improbable, would that change your mind about the nativity?
That is not to say that would change your belief in Jesus, just that aspect of his story.

[hrmjustin]

72. Well the birth narrative is suspect to a good extent and arguments can be made that it draws on

other sources. I would say my faith really has nothing to do with the narrative. As I said I do believe it but I have healthy doubts.

[edhopper]

78. Thanks

[skepticscott]

49. +100

Now we'll see if our resident champions of open-mindedness and "civil" discussion have a worthwhile response.

[hrmjustin]

18. I believe it.

[Niceguy1]

20. I think it happened that way

Or something close to it considering how much time has passed

[rug]

21. He was born, lived, and died.

What happened in between was remarkable.

There's nothing in the Nicene Creed about shepherds and myrrh so I don't get excited about it either way.

[pinto]

22. Apparently he was a working class Jew (mother Jewish, father Gentile).

Worked as a carpenter. Somewhere along the way took on the role as a speaker (prophet) among working class Jews. Spoke outside of the Rabbinical structure of the day, reinterpreting (or de-constructing) the Torah in more common terms. One for the masses of everyday middle and lower class Jews. As his "fan base" grew he was increasingly seen as a threat to both the Rabbinical and Roman hierarchies. He wasn't a Christian, obviously, he was a Jew. Tagged as a heretic he was tried and executed in the Roman manner, i.e. crucifixion (fixed to a cross). The INRI said to be posted on his cross may have been a derisive reference to the role he assumed or was given by his following. INRI = Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, in Latin.

Seems the most likely story; it fits the time and place.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

26. ... father gentile?

Odd idea. I believe one of the gospels traces Joseph's family tree back to King David -- so that the prophecy about the messiah belonging to the House of David can be satisfied. That makes Joseph pretty Jewish....

[pinto]

27. That's what I've read. Who knows? I think many of the Gospels may have been written,

after the fact of course, to support the claim for Jesus as the messiah of the Old Testament.

Whether Joseph was Jewish or not, Jesus was via the matriarchal lineage.

[okasha]

33. Bishop John Spong, James Tabor

and Bruce Chilton have all explored what Spong calls "the scandal of the manger" (paralleling Paul's "scandal of the cross.&quot They all argue that, in addition to their theological and political burdens, the birth narratives were designed to cover something irregular or embarassing about Jesus' conception.

The most obvious and most likely "scandal" is that Mary and Joseph didn't wait for the wedding, and little Yeshua arrived a speedy six months later. Tabor explores rather exensively the rumor that Jesus might have been the son of a soldier named Panthera, a name that does, however, occur among first-century Jews. A third, much sadder, possibility is that Mary may have been a rape survivor. About the time of Jesus'birth, the city of Sepphoris was razed and its citizens enslaved as punishment for rebellion. As they still do, war and rape went hand in hand. An early tradition holds that Mary was originally from Sepphoris and came to Nazareth as a refugee; in any case,Nazareth was only four miles from Sepphoris, and the terrible violence in the city may easily have spilled over into neighboring villages.

All we can know from the texts is that there was something unusal about Jesus' birth. Just what that was, we don't know.

[enki23]

157. Two gospels explicitly claim trace Joseph's family back to David. Both do it differently.

Both refer to Joseph, who was allegedly not the father, given the "virgin birth" bit. Neither refers to the person's actual mother, and the only human from which Jesus could have been said to have been descended if the rest of the dogma were true. It is as if we were to believe that it was important to God that Jesus's adoptive human father could trace his ancestry back to King David, as if that was what was needed to fulfill certain alleged passages of messianic prophecy. I suppose the writers were in a bit of a bind, given the combination of extremely patriarchal society and the need (based on certain, likely erroneous* readings of other messianic prophecy) to claim a virgin birth.

Anyway, the writer of whichever version came second was either in possession of an outdated copy of the first, couldn't be bothered to try to keep the story straight, or purposely made some edits to clear up some perceived errors in the first. If they were trying to correct some errors, which is plausible enough, the fact of this has failed to be transmitted along with the manscript copies, simultaneously allowing and confounding idiots who desire to claim biblical inerrancy.

And nobody, but nobody has ever given an adequate explanation for why the fuck Joseph's putative ancestry should be considered at all relevant in the first place.

*Ignore the irony of calling mystical "prophecy" erroneous in this case. Erroneous here refers to being wrong about the *original surface meaning* of the text; i.e. the whole "young woman" vs "virgin" thing. It really doesn't amount to much, since it's all a load of hooey anyway, but it certainly would add to the embarrassment of prophecy fans if they were capable of embarrassment.

[okasha]

161. Both gospels do in fact

"refer to the person's mother." Matthew 1:16 calls Joseph "the husband of Mary," and Luke's first two chapters are largely devoted to her, before he ever gets to the begats.

[edhopper]

163. He meant

neither refer to her lineage, and she is the sole human parent. Why doe Joseph's lineage matter if he is not the father.
It seems an obvious attempt to fulfill prophesy.

[enki23]

166. Jesus, that was an obtuse "objection".

But this is the level of argument I've come to expect on these sorts of topics. I don't mean rudeness, which is mostly irrelevant. I mean utter inability to confront the actual problems raised. It's like they have face blindness, but for the bible.

Helpful hint for people who want to believe this stuff is important: you can try like hell to hold, instead, to the belief that some weaselly wording in Luke's account allows you to pretend that the final "Joseph" mentioned wasn't actually the father of Jesus, but that the previous name ("Heli&quot was actually Jesus's maternal grandfather. You have to stretch, and strain, and twist yourself in a knot to look at it that way (not least because the two genealogies are so siimilar, though not exactly the same), but at least it's "possible."

Possible in the same sense that it's not quite as impossible as a perpetual motion machine, which directly violates observed laws of the universe, but rather more like a shrinking ray, which (while pretty fucking fanciful) does not.

[edhopper]

168. Also

Neither Luke or Mathew knew any one from Jesus' family (only the speculation that someone related some oral history, though neither makes note of this) So are we to accept that some unnamed source knew Jesus' lineage back 30 or 40 generations? A common carpenter who can trace his family back to David two different ways? Yeah?

[okasha]

169. We have no idea whether

"Matthew" or "Luke" knew anyone from Jesus' family. We don't even know who "Matthew" and "Luke" were, since the canonical gospels bearing their names were assigned to their authorship only after they had circulated widely as anonymous documents.

Jesus came from a large family with at least six younger siblings surviving to adulthood. His brother James survived him by 30 years. It's entirely possible Jesus had direct descendets but near certain that he had nephews and nieces, all of whom would carry some version of family history well into the 2nd century CE.

And again, look at the importance of lineage in clan organized tribal societies. It determines whom one can marry, who participates in raising which children and a host of other factors, including lines of inheritance. In a society that relies on oral transmission, a list of 30 or 40 ancestors would not be unusual.

[edhopper]

170. Especially

if they lead to Kings and prophets.

And how does the two different lineages fall into your scenario?

So your answer is, we don't know anything, so why not? Because there is no mention where these lists came from.

And what scholarship did you cite that memorizing 75 ancestors (Luke) was usual in Judea at that time?

So absent any corroboration, you're just throwing stuff out there?

[edhopper]

172. And all these relatives

who know the exact story of his birth, even though they weren't born yet, have absolutely nothing to say about twenty years of his life, not a peep.
Jesus, who is so important that the wise men proclaim him King and that his birth sets off a genocide. This person disappears for 20 years and we have not a word about it.
Curious?

[Shadowflash]

180. But...

I believe the bible says that the Savior has to be of the BLOODLINE of david and MUST have been born of a virgin.

Given that there is none of Joseph's bloodline in Jesus as he was not the father, Jesus cannot be the Savior, as Mary was not of the David bloodline. Or Jesus IS of Joseph's bloodline, in which case it was not a virgin birth and Jesus would not be the savior.

Both cannot be true. Unless I'm reading my bible wrong, (which is possible) Jesus was EITHER of the David bloodline OR was born of a virgin but it could not have been both and, given the bible's own criteria, could not have been the Savior.

[Act_of_Reparation]

182. A minority view holds Matthew's genealogy traces Mary's line back to David

But not only does the Greek text reject this view, Jesus would have no claim to the House of David under Hebraic law if Mary was the one descended from David.

As far as apologists go, most will say Joseph adopted Jesus; that biological parentage wasn't what was meant by the prophesies. While still backpedaling, in my opinion, it is a more sensible explanation than the alternate genealogies.

[el_bryanto]

35. I don't believe in every aspect but I believe that it happened.

Then again, I'm a Christian.

Bryant

[spin]

183. That's fair. (n/t)

[goldent]

38. Well, if Jesus died on the cross, he had to born somehow.

Practically speaking, I don't see how you can say whether what is written in the Bible about Jesus' birth is true or not. It is pretty incredible what people use as "proof" either way.

[edhopper]

39. If we put aside the supernatural aspects

which stretch credulity quite a bit. The narrative does not coincide with the known historical evidence and facts we know about that time period. All we are left with is the writings of men who never knew Jesus written well after his the time of his death. Not to mention the inconsistencies between the various Gospels themselves.
What "proof" do you wish from those who say there is zero evidence for this story and plenty of counter evidence.
And of course, burden of proof is on those who offer the story as true, (without any real evidence in support).

[goldent]

43. I assume the Gospel stories were passed down orally

and it would be hard for even the Gospel writers to know how accurate they are. My Mom has some stories like this about when our ancestors immigrated to America. Some are a little dramatic and I wonder how accurate they are. We might have distant relatives who have different versions of the same stories. She doesn't have to prove to me whether they are true, and I don't feel the need to to pick them apart

[trotsky]

44. Nor is there really a need to pick your family stories apart.

Unless you were writing a book documenting your family history for use by other genealogists, or were attempting to pass legislation based on details in those stories, or if large groups of people in society were being denied rights based on how your family had relayed those stories.

Then I would imagine the veracity of your mom's stories might become somewhat important, and attacking/shaming/scolding those doing so would be rather inappropriate.

[edhopper]

45. If you are interested in seeing how

the nativity story is alagory and myth rather than an account of anything that actually happened. You could start with this recent article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-d-tabor/christmaswhat-would-jesus_b_4485768.html

And though the oral history argument might merit consideration when it comes to Jesus as an adult preaching in Israel. Where these people got the story of a baby, born in a manger during a census that never happened and then left of Egypt for a dozen years, only to disappear for 20 more only works with divine intervention.

[goldent]

51. Well, Jesus' mother was alive at the time of his Crucifixion...

and Mothers do tend to talk about their children, and people love baby stories. And I would think that once he became famous/notorious, there would be interest in his family. So these stories could well have been passed down along with the others. Fun to speculate....

I agree with that article in the sense that I don't think there is any Bible justification for the date. There is a modern parallel to this, the Queen's birthday - from Wikipedia:

The Queen's Official Birthday (King's Official Birthday in the reign of a male monarch) is the selected day on which the birthday of the monarch of the Commonwealth realms (currently Queen Elizabeth II) is officially celebrated in those countries. The date varies as adopted by each Commonwealth country, but is generally around the end of May to the start of June, to coincide with a high probability of fine weather in the Northern Hemisphere for outdoor ceremonies.

I think early June would have been a fine time for Christmas, but at this point I guess it would be kinda hard to change

[okasha]

59. And his brother James was alive 30 years later.

Given that James was apparently the #2 son, that leaves three younger brothers--Simon, Judah, and Joseph (Joses)--and two sisters who could easily have outlived him. That would carry persons who knew Jesus directly and intimately well into the 70's-80's CE and overlaps the date of Mark and possibly Luke. Not to mention assorted nieces, nephews and cousins whose names we don't know.

[arely staircase]

174. I have always wished we knew the names of the sisters

As for James I think there was more tension between he and Paul regarding the new faith than Pauls epistles let on. I have often suspected the "false teachers" that paul warned the early Churches about were emissaries of James . I think Paul could never come right out and say it because one of the main claims to legitimacy was his proclaimed acceptance by James and the church in Jerusalem.

[edhopper]

177. Here is my problem

I am told on this thread that Jesus was so important that Herod killed all the newborns just because his birth was announced. That people around him remembered the exact details of his birth and the 70 ancestors he had so that 60 or 70 years later they could be recited to one or more of the gospel writers. But the names of his siblings and the events of 20 years of the life of the most important man ever somehow escaped everyone's attention.

[arely staircase]

181. The Herod/newborn killing story probably isn't historically accurate

only the Gospel of Matthew mentions it. No other Gospels nor historians like Josephus. Matthews Gospel is the most "Jewish" of the Gospels and at some point the baby killing story was added so as to create a parallel with the story of Moses and the Pharoh. We do know the names of Jesus' brothers, but not his sisters. And as far as the ancestor thing goes, that is probably also an invention of Gospel writers trying to show he was related to King David/Abraham, etc.. There are two different genealogies of Jesus, one in Matthew and one in Luke. They differ, so they can't both be correct.

[edhopper]

184. And yet people believe it to be true

and that the ancestor thing is accurate.

[cbayer]

185. And that surprises you?

Republicans growing more skeptical about evolution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024250919

[arely staircase]

186. Sure

There are people who believe every word in the Bible to be literally true. Many people do not understand that the first generation or two of Christians didn't read the Gospels we read today. They are the people who produced them, and they did so based on oral (and probably some written) accounts that had been passed around the eastern Mediterranean by Christians for decades. As such, there are going to be differences in them. But the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ are the same regardless of disparities in details of events. A lot of the differences in detail are determined by the Gospel author's audience. Matthew for example seems to be appealing to a Jewish audience and hence the Herod baby killing Jesus as Moses allusion - Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah. John, the last written Gospel (at a time when converts are coming more from a Roman/Greek pagan tradition than a Jewish one) naturally reads more like a Greek God Hero tale (the Son of a God who becomes a man and defeats death.)

But again, message of love, forgiveness, and redemption are the message in all the Gospels. That is the truth of the Gospels. And what appeals to me and the reason I am a Christian.

[edhopper]

187. So why believe any of the supernatural stuff?

The message doesn't need Jesus to be the son of God. Or even for there to be a God. If you agree the stories are part myth, how do you discern what is a true event in the text. Why do you need to believe or choose to believe in a divine Jesus to follow the philosophy?

[arely staircase]

188. I do not believe one must be a christian to uphold or live by

the values Christ taught. I know many atheists who exemplify Christian values better than some Christians. So why follow Christ instead of just being a good person? I can't answer that for you. It makes sense to me on a deep personal level. But my faith is not an evangelical of fundamentalisf one so what works for you works for you. Now this part f the Jesus narative, which requires no supernatur belief might help you understand its appeal to me. Jesus taught people to love one another, show preference for the poor, and condemned religious hypocrits so they murdered him. But like I said. I m not trying to convert anyone. Just sharing my thoughts.

[edhopper]

189. I get that

and I am not asking why you follow Christ. I can see why you would follow his teachings. But what makes you think the divine element of his story is true. You can see the narrative has been written with different purpose for different people. Why do you think any of the supernatural elements are real? Is this something you feel you just must have faith. Without evidence?
I am just trying to get a clearer idea of your thoughts. I see where you look rationally at the Bible, but you also accept Jesus as the son of God (I assume). What is your foundation for this belief?

[arely staircase]

190. supernatural elements

I believe in God. I can't prove the existence of God and I have no need to. I will quote the liberal theologian George Ricker who puts it better than I could. "God is an object of faith, a transcendent diminsion of life not amenable to our physical senses; and Jesus is the lense through which I experience God." I can't tell you for certsin there is a God, only that I believe in God and Jesus as his son. It is simply a conu sion I I have reached through reading the Bible, though I know it isn't inerrant as fundamentalists believe. But it an anthology of people trying to explain God and our relation to him.

See nothing I say will satisfy you intellectually. That is the faith part. BBut I a ppreciate your questions and respectful tone. I will try to answer any specific questions you have regarding specific "supernatural" aspects of the Bible though I am sure I will fall short.

[edhopper]

191. I wasn't trying for you to satisfy my mind.

Only to get a clearer understanding of what you think.
Thanks for the response.

[arely staircase]

192. cool happy new year nt

[cbayer]

46. The veracity and accuracy of these stories matter only to biblical scholars

and those who wish to somehow prove that christianity is based on a lie.

The beauty of these stories is in the allegory. That's true whether it is applied to biblical stories or stories about your family.

Most people realize that and act accordingly.

[edhopper]

47. I agree with your first part

that the allegorical nature of the story is what is interesting and should be the focus.

But you are naive to think that a great amount, I would probably say a majority, of Christians think they are factually true and therefore mean much more than just what might be the meaning of the myth.

Why do you think people who believe in this supernatural tale as true are any different than those who believe in the rapture or end times or people possessed be the devil?
They also act accordingly.

[cbayer]

53. I don't disagree that many christians think the stories are factually true,

and they may or may not be.

That doesn't make them any more or any less important, imo.

I think you have made my point for me, however. Part of the reason some people care about this is because they want to score a point in saying that people that do believe are basing their beliefs on a lie…. and that makes them bad and wrong.

[edhopper]

57. But if they believe something happened that did not happen

they are wrong. And the consequences for acting based on things that aren't true can be quite harmful.

[cbayer]

58. So what?

There's a lot of debate about what did or didn't happen.

Sure there are consequences for acting based on things that aren't true. But that's not the same thing as acting on faith.

And the consequences are not necessarily harmful.

Again, I think this idea is proposed in order to say exactly what you just said. That is, if people believe something on faith, they are wrong and that makes them bad.

Not a very good argument, imo.

[edhopper]

60. Well I certainly think acting solely on faith is wrong.

Since that faith is the only arbitration there is no ethics or morals to also guide some one.
I don't think it is necessarily bad if one's faith is part of what informs one's conduct. But my opinion of that would be shaped outside that faith.

And believing, not in the teachings of Jesus, or trying to live as you believe Jesus would want. But on stories that are obvious fabrications and thinking they are divine, immutable truth, to me can have serious consequences.

Literalist never have a good argument and for the most part do much more harm than good.

[cbayer]

62. Faith doesn't exclude ethics or morals.

In fact, it can reinforce them.

You don't rely on faith when it comes to religious things, but you probably do in other areas.

Love is primarily based on faith, as their is no objective measure or way to test it.

You keep saying that the christ stories are "obvious fabrications" when, in fact, there is a lot of debate on that point.

What exactly are the serious negative consequences of believing that the stories are true or at least have some basis in truth? I am talking specifically about the christmas story, as that is the one you have chose to highlight.

I agree about literalism, but you would be hard pressed to find a literalist here. You will however find some members here who feel that all religious people are literalists, something that has no basis in fact whatsovever.

[trotsky]

66. That is a very interesting claim, cbayer.

"You will however find some members here who feel that all religious people are literalists"

In fact, I'm calling shenanigans. I don't believe your claim. Do you have any links whatsoever to show that "some members... feel that all religious people are literalists"?

Without that documentation, it will be hard to take you seriously, because it sounds more like a smear based on a straw man. Such behavior is disruptive and detrimental to discussion. Shouldn't we expect better from you?

[edhopper]

68. Well first

I am talking on this thread about just the nativity story, not the whole of Jesus in the Bible.

We've been over this misrepresentation of faith in a loved one or an ideal or philosophy and religious faith. Not the same and I thought we laid that one to rest.

Because they don't only believe that one story is true and they do things like make publishers change textbooks when it shows their stories are false.
And they can get very angry and violent when their faith is challenged.

Read my post again, I said those who base SOLELY on faith.

I don't know what "some people here" think. But I think that is a flimsy argument. A literist would think that the Bible is literally true, that the events actually happened as described.

[cbayer]

73. Publishers have changed textbooks due to people's beliefs in the nativity story?

I think not.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about creationism, that's a whole different thing. Where there is evidence to refute some of the literal readings of the bible, I think you have a sound argument.

But where there is no such good, verifiable, generally agreed upon evidence, I don't think you do.

You have moved the goalpost from the nativity story to other areas, but that is not what you asked about.

In truth there are no literalists. None. There can't be because there is contrary information contained in those sets of books and there is information based on the social norms of different ages that make zero sense at this point (see Letter to Dr. Laura).

I have never seen any proof that things didn't happen as they are described, although I have seen many arguments from both directions.

And I don't imagine I ever will.

So, if someone wants to believe something based on faith and there is no harm in their holding that belief and no one has firm evidence to refute them, I say, "So what?".

But others have a need to prove them wrong. I don't really get that part, but that's the way it is.

[edhopper]

75. The very article you posted a few days ago

showed how historically improbable the nativity story is.

No census that had a mass migration to tribal cities or towns, dates for rulers don't coincide, no celestial event like the star....

Zero evidence to support any of it outside the bible, but hey, can't go and challenge faith.

[cbayer]

77. And it's an important article in the debate, imo.

But it's not definitive.

Again, I ask, so what?

Even if it is definitively proves as untrue, I don't really understand what would be gained by that except a good, hearty "nyeh, nyeh, nyeh!".

If the goal is to make believers look like fools when they believe things that are rather innocuous (unlike creationism or that there is no climate change), I guess you might win. Good for you.

[edhopper]

81. I don't think I have been obnoxious to the Christians here who have answered.

You seem to have the most trouble with my lack of acceptance for mistaken beliefs.

I am sorry but i think the belief in something that is not true always leads to a harmful end in some measure.
Whether it's trickle down taxes, psychics, astrology or literal events in the Bible. I don't think it stops with one thing you may deem harmless.
You don't care what anyone thinks as long as they don't hurt anyone.
I think that their beliefs are the basis for what they do. So i challenge those beliefs.

Better to light one candle and all.

[cbayer]

82. No, I have trouble with your position that your beliefs are right

and others are "mistaken".

You can believe anything you want, but your position mirrors the fundamentalists on the other side.

You have the answer and they don't, so you are somehow superior to them.

You are correct, I don't care what others think or believe as long as they don't harm others. What exactly is wrong with that?

If you show me instances where harm is being done, I am likely to agree with your position in those cases.

But when you broad brush it and sweep up all believers, I will not.

You think you are shedding light with this kind of approach, but I think you cast a shadow.

Challenging is one thing and can be very good. Intolerance and an insistence that you are correct despite having zilch to substantiate that is quite another.

[eomer]

101. It seems to me that you're the one adding the objectionable part.

I also would say that I think people are mistaken. But I wouldn't say "nyeh, nyeh, nyeh" - didn't even know how to spell it without your help.

I do care about other people believing things on apparently no reasonable basis and, even more so, on the basis of having been intentionally deceived. And I have my reasons for caring just like you must have some reason for caring so much about the things you constantly chastise for. My reasons are that I was taught that certain things were true by my parents and other relatives in a way that was extremely deceptive. So when I see other people who have been subjected to the same thing, subjected to what I consider abuse, it makes me want to discuss the subject wituntinue to believe or like me can shed the beliefs - that part is up to them. But I will feel like I've done something that I should do - I will have given them the opportunity to come to whatever beliefs they choose by way of a process not based on deception.

I don't see how there is anything wrong with my wanting to have these frank discussions with people as long as they are also willing. And that seems to me to be a primary purpose for this religion forum - to be a place where people can exchange those types of ideas. So in my opinion it is you who are out of line for constantly trying to shut down discussion of religion in a religion discussion group.

I would also say that anyone who believes something must also inherently believe that others are mistaken. The only way to not believe someone else is mistake is to have no beliefs whatsoever. So what you're asking, really, is not about what people believe but rather that people should be silenced about what they believe. But a religion discussion group in which people must be silent about the things they believe (or don't believe) wouldn't amount to much.

[cbayer]

102. What things do I constantly chastise for, eomer?

Intolerance? Judgmentalism? Prejudice? What is the difference between your wanting to talk about your ideas and me wanting to talk about mine? Why do you consider yours something positive and mine "constantly trying to shut down discussion"?

I am sorry that you were deceived. I am glad for you that you have found a place that is comfortable and makes sense for you.

But you can't decide for others whether they were deceived or whether they feel that they were deceived.

I disagree very much with your statement that if someone believes something they must also inherently believe that others are mistaken. I feel strongly that people's perception can differ radically and what is truth for one person may not be truth for another.

It is the position of "If I am right, you must be wrong" that I object to. We can hold different beliefs and it is possible for them both to be valid. To approach it any other way is to enter a battle that no one can win.

When have I ever tried to silence anyone? You appear to have adopted a meme that is widely spouted but really has no basis in fact. I probably engage with others more than just about anyone in this group, so your claiming that I want to silence people just has no credibility.

[trotsky]

103. So, cbayer, in your wonderful, open, tolerant world...

where you ostracize and shun anyone with a different viewpoint from you, what if someone is raised to think homosexuals are evil and should be executed?

That person and I hold very different beliefs, and I don't think they are equally valid. But you do, evidently? How disgusting.

[eomer]

104. You constantly chastise people for saying what they believe, if what they believe entails that...

someone else must be wrong. I believe that there is no such thing as God. So there's no way around it - if I am right then others are wrong. You want me not to say that out loud, even though I would be merely stating what I believe.

And I can decide whether others have been subjected to deceptive teaching - it's right there in front of us. I can go to a Sunday service and witness it anytime I want. Whether there is some underlying truth or not, the delivery of the information is done in a way that is intentionally deceptive.

[cbayer]

106. Chastise or disagree?

In the realm of religion, I hold the position that no one really knows, so those that say they do (be they believers or non-believers) are in an untenable position. They can't really say others are wrong because they can't say they are right.

I want you not to say that out loud? Disagreeing with you does not equal telling you not to say it. And I have no way of silencing you, let alone the wish to.

My point about deception is that it is highly subjective. What you see as deception or indoctrination, others may see very differently. You can decide for yourself, but how can you decide for anyone else?

Do you think all religious teaching is deceptive or just some parts of it?

[eomer]

108. Chastise.

When edhopper was stating his views in a civil and reasonable way, you launched a series of accusations that were unfounded and not called for. You said he would say "nyeh, nyeh, nyeh", when he had said no such thing. You said he wanted to show that people with other beliefs were "fools" when he used no such language. You said that his beliefs made him a "fundamentalist", which you obviously meant as derogation. You attempted to silence his reasonably-presented beliefs by imputing to him things he had not done.

And regarding deception, I'm talking about a way of presenting information that intentionally hides a myriad of problematic facts that would likely affect the conclusions many people would draw. The presentation of the Bible in the Christian churches I've been to is deceptive. It intentionally masks the fact of all the contradictions and errors in the Bible while calling it "the Word of God".

[cbayer]

109. edhopper and I are just fine.

Why don't you ask him if he felt he was being chastised.

We often disagree and have spirited discussions.

If you feel that others disagreeing with you is chastisement, that would appear to be your problem.

And he certainly doesn't need you or any one else to defend his positions. He does just fine on his own.

Silence him? Hardly. Disagreeing with someone or reflecting back to them how I think they are coming across is not in any way silencing them.

Is what you are doing right now chastising me perchance?

[eomer]

110. I welcome people disagreeing with me and disagreeing with others. That's what I'm here for.

That's also what edhopper was doing. You, on the other hand, took it to something else. You weren't reflecting back how he was coming across - you were inventing hatefulness that was in no way a part of anything he said. You attempted to take the reasonable things that he said and convert them into hate that wasn't there so you could call it bigotry when it wasn't. Since I believe the same things that edhopper said, you were doing the same thing to me and others. Believing that other people are wrong is not bigotry in and of itself. If it were then every single one of us would be bigots.

[edhopper]

111. My ears are burning.

Thank you eomer for furthering my argument. And yes, we agree on this.
I understand how cbayer's words might seem unnecessarily harsh on this post. But we have a history here and I know cbayer to be a good person with whom I agree on practical matters like a progressive agenda and the need for a secular society. So I see this as a philosophical disagreement among friends and "war of words" with no ill will intended.
The world she believes in where everyone can believe what they want to an get along is so much nicer than the religion poisoned world I see populated by an irrational human race

[cbayer]

113. I apologize for speaking for you, edhopper.

It was not my intention to bring you into this discussion, but once brought in, I wanted to state what I felt our relationship was like.

I am very glad you weighed in and look forward to more "war of words" with you.

[trotsky]

114. I wish you luck, ed, in maintaining your status as a person worthy of interaction.

The list of us who are untouchable, filthy, despicable, intolerant, fundamentalist atheists just keeps growing, it seems.

[rug]

115. How big is your ignore list?

[cbayer]

112. Well,it's quite interesting that you find what you do to be a-ok, but

what I do as something entirely different when they are, in fact, pretty much the same thing.

By your definition, you are chastising me. You are leveling a judgement on my style, my tone.

You are welcome to interpret what others say any way you want, but that doesn't make you correct.

If you feel personally chastised or attacked by me, just say so. But to say you experience that by extrapolation really makes no sense. And to further extrapolate it to others makes even less sense.

Please. You may or may not believe the same things as another member or members, but you can't really speak for anyone but yourself.

Unless you are part of a group that has already determined and agreed upon who and what I am.

Are you?

[eomer]

116. What you did was take reasonable, civil discussion and attempt to conflate it with hate.

What I'm doing is asking you to cease doing that and come back into a circle of civility.

[cbayer]

117. I am quite civil, as the person I was discussing this with has verified.

Now, if you want to address people who are not civil and make things intensely personal, there are others you could "chastise".

Circle of civility? Accusing me of being outside the circle is laughable.

[eomer]

118. You were the one out of bounds.

Even if it is definitively proves as untrue, I don't really understand what would be gained by that except a good, hearty "nyeh, nyeh, nyeh!".

If the goal is to make believers look like fools when they believe things that are rather innocuous (unlike creationism or that there is no climate change), I guess you might win. Good for you.

The discussion was otherwise completely civil, you were the one wanting to take reasonable discourse and characterize it as something it wasn't. What was the goal of that if not to silence it?

[cbayer]

122. The irony here is, well, stupefying.

You start this off by accusing me of chastising and trying to silence others.

But you appear to have no problem chastising me for my "tone" and telling me I need to be quiet and join the "circle of civility".

The goal in the conversation you refer to was to have a lively discussion on a matter in which another member and I disagree.

We have both explained that to you, but somehow it doesn't appear to fit your narrative.

I had no wish to silence him, nor he me, and we ended the conversation on very friendly terms.

Again, while you certainly can comment on any comments I direct at you, your feeling the need to chastise and try to silence me about things that didn't even involve you speaks volumes.

Now, I am pretty much done discussing how you disapprove of my opinion or how I express it.

If you want to have a discussion about topics that are presented in this group which we both find interesting, I will be glad to engage with you.

[eomer]

123. Sure, here's hoping you can stick to the topic at hand and resist mis-characterizing as bigotry...

something that isn't. Let's have a spirited debate without calling people out for things they didn't do.

[cbayer]

126. I think we can both agree to do that, eomer.

Can't we?

[trotsky]

128. I think a very good place to start, cbayer,

is acknowledging that when someone states they don't want Catholic church rules interfering with medical care, they are NOT "proposing genocide."

Would you agree?

[Act_of_Reparation]

97. Fallacy

Love is primarily based on faith, as their is no objective measure or way to test it.

This is a ludicrous claim. Love is an emotional state for which there is ample behavioral and biological evidence, and testing it is relatively simple.

But that's beside the point, because what you're doing here is equivocating. Love is not a thing--it is a concept, and does not "exist" in the sense that it occupies a specific place in space and time. It is a generally-agreed-upon term used to describe a set of phenomena. Comparing this to a supposed historical event, something spacially and temporally concrete, is completely fallacious.

[okasha]

63. But every time you and others

post here on the assumption that all believers or all Christians are wrong, deluded or otherwise living in la-la land, you are wrong. You are acting based on things that aren't true.

Dust mote, 2x4 and all that.

[edhopper]

76. If you ask me if all Christians who believe there is a God are wrong.

My answer is yes, as an atheist I would think they have to be.
If we are talking about other more specific things, then we would have to see what we both think and where we differ or agree.

How am wrong that Christians are wrong if there is no God?

[cbayer]

79. But that would assume that you are right.

And that's just not verifiable.

It's that position that really irritates me. You have faith that your position is right, so everyone who doesn't hold it must be wrong. You don't have any facts to back that up, but you sure seem to had a lot of faith in it.

That's just as obnoxious as any fundamentalist who believes that they are right and you are wrong.

You don't know. That's a fact.

[edhopper]

83. Of course i assume I am right

Why would I be an atheist if I didn't think I was right. I would be an agnostic.
So here as we debate i take the position that I am right and there is no God. Based on the lack of a single shred of evidence for a God. Not faith I am right, the rational result of critical inquiry into the concept of God.

You don't think their are any beliefs that are wrong? UFOs, Fairies, ESP, Astrology, Angels, Demons?

You certainly would not think some one who believed in slavery or that women are second class citizens are wrong.

[cbayer]

86. And you are convinced you are right with the same amount of evidence - none.

I take no position other than agnosticism on the things you list.

Slavery and misogyny are totally different things. There is evidence that these things are harmful and I have strong positions on them.

I don't give a flying fart about UFO's, fairies, esp, astrology, angels or demons. If others want to believe them and they cause no harm to any one else, why should I be bothered in the least?

Plus, I really have no evidence to dispute them. Well, maybe when it comes to predictive astrology, as I can show that the predictions are only right as a matter of chance.

Hey, I've got parking karma! You would be blown away by it, seriously.

Do I really believe that there is a force outside myself that causes this to happen? Very, very unlikely. But I still have it.

[edhopper]

90. Been there, done that

just because you don't accept that the lack of evidence has no bearing on the basis of a premiss, doesn't mean we should give equal weight to those who propose something without a bit of supporting evidence and those who won't accept the same absent any corroboration.

But the belief in those things do cause harm a great deal in fact, just ask the victims of people like Sylvia Brown or Peter Popoff. But you must think I am wrong about that, as you think me wrong about so many other things.

And there is a mountain of evidence to dispute them. It's fine if you have no interest in such things, but your lack of knowledge should not be the basis of accepting them as possible.

[cbayer]

92. I disagree.

When it comes to religious matters I think both believers and non-believers share equal footing.

The beliefs that cause harm also cause good. That does not mean that one must have religion to do good, only that the religious and religion have resulted in good as well as bad.

I don't think you are wrong in so many things. I do think you are wrong that you have the answer. You have only your answer, no one else's.

I don't know what you mean by my lack of personal knowledge. I know what I know, as do you. I just don't feel the need to foist my beliefs or lack or beliefs on others or to show them that they are wrong if their perspective on things religious is different.

That's proselytizing and it turns me off.

[edhopper]

94. I was referring just to your response

about psychics, UFOs, ESP...
sounded like you don't have much info on that, and that you aren't that interested. I was not trying to make a larger point or be disparaging about your knowledge on other things or in general.

[cbayer]

95. I appreciate that clarification, edhopper.

We have a fundamental point of disagreement, but that's ok.

In general, I enjoy our discussions. I find them frank, but civil.

You do irritate me at times, but I am sure that feeling is mutual.

[edhopper]

96. Yes to all

[AtheistCrusader]

121. Ah, but see, the position of Atheism is actually SUPPORTED by a lack of evidence.

It's the only sane position when encountering a subject of which there is ZERO EVIDENCE.

"If others want to believe them and they cause no harm to any one else, why should I be bothered in the least?"

Well, that would be nice, except they are causing ENORMOUS harm. Hell, various religions have institutionalized and supported the two very items you just cited as being real things with evidence of harm.

[cbayer]

124. What a fallacious argument.

Is the position that there is no other intelligent life in the universe supported by the complete lack of evidence? Or is the probability so vast and infinite that lack of evidence means nothing?

People's belief in the veracity of the nativity story is causing ENORMOUS harm? Really?

As I have stated many times before, when religion causes harm, and there is no doubt that it has and does, I will unwaveringly take it to task.

But in cases where it does not, or even more so causes good, I have no reason to try and take someone's beliefs away from them.

That goes for politics, social systems, ethics, etc. Religion is one of many areas where this applies.

[edhopper]

127. Of course I doubt there is a single person

who believes only that the nativity story is true and no other stories in the Bible are. It goes to larger issues of supernatural belief and magical thinking. Those can cause serious harm.

But I started this thread to see how liberal Christians viewed this story, which I admit seems to me as mythical as the early tales in the OT.
Since tis the season it was something I just thought about.

[cbayer]

129. Magical thinking is a psychiatric terms and I generally

object to those being used when describing people that believe.

When beliefs, including magical thinking, post a risk to a person, others or make a person unable to adequately care for themselves, I think you probably are dealing with a psychiatric disorder.

But that is distinctly different than religious beliefs that do none of those things.

They may exist, but most liberal/progressive christians are not literalists. I don't think I have seen any around here. While some may believe that some of the stories from the bible are literally true, I've not seen anyone who would take the position that the whole book is true.

[edhopper]

151. My post covered various things

I didn't mean Liberal Christians are guilty of magical thinking. But if they think that the nativity is exactly true, in the face of all counter evidence, not general true, but that the Bible is completely accurate, they are mistaken about that and probably many other things in the Bible.

I think that is a subset of religious folk. Like the ones that believe the nativity happened exactly as it did in the Bible.
Those who gave away their possessions because the world was ending last year could be considered such.
People who pray rather than see a Doctor for medical care and wait for a miracle would be others.

[cbayer]

153. Well, when it comes to people who pray rather than seek medical care,

there is a substantial amount of empirical evidence that they are betting not he wrong horse.

The nativity is a difficult one to argue about. For many, including myself, it was a deeply cherished childhood story that was only about good things. It was something that was wholly believable and speaks to children in a way that other stories do not. It's about being loved, treasured, special and having one's birth celebrated. It's about people bringing simple gifts, be they rich or poor. It's about humility and awe. You got to admit, it's one of the better stories in there.

Ok, the whole virgin thing is a little hard to swallow, but the rest of it not so much. And kids don't care about whether there was actually a census or not, or whether the time of year makes sense.

So it's going to be one of the hardest stories for people to let go of.

But I would also posit that it is truly without harm.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. Speaking of fallacious arguments.

Dolphins are intelligent. If we didn't exist, and they did, distant life forms would be hard-pressed to detect them, not having advanced to the fire-axe stage of technological development. Even the Drake equation only speaks to communicative civilizations. Not intelligent life, let alone life of any form.

The possibility of life on other planets is a probability game for now. Nobody is revealing any truth that informs social mores on the earth from possible extra-terrestrial life. None of the major religions of the earth are supported by creation stories that include VERIFIED revealed truth as to the origins of the earth. ALL evidence points to god as we suppose it, as a fabrication by humans, not the other way around.


To go further, you suggest "take someone's beliefs away" a claim you have made before. I am not trying to ban or take anyone's beliefs away. Helping someone to reason for themselves does in no way 'take away their beliefs'. This is tantamount to a strawman, couched as 'I wouldn't', when no one was anyway.

ALL of the subjects you name at the end can and must be reformed. Not one political entity on this planet has it 'right' from stem to stern. But nobody said anything about 'taking it away'.

"People's belief in the veracity of the nativity story is causing ENORMOUS harm? Really?"
Yes, because as you know full damn well, that 'story' is one of the prophetic basis for Christianity at its foundation. From that proceeds all Christian dogma. No nativity? No one bothers to consider the resurrection anyway. Prophecy not 'fulfilled', idea discarded as mythos.

I just got the typical half hour long fucking stupid assed sermon from a Christian friend about how homosexuality is a sin, and how he just wants to save people living in sin, and blardey blar. That he doesn't hate gay people, just the sin of homosexuality. Like that's a social fucking comfort. All of this dogma proceeds from the root of the bible itself, old and new testament, as revealed truth. Something it is not. Something that it behooves all of us to show it as.

[cbayer]

136. Exactly. The inability to detect something does not lend

credence to it not existing if the possibilities are vast and probably infinite. The dolphins exist, don't they?

I would make the argument that the existence of a god, gods or at least something more highly evolved than humans is also a probability game. I'm not talking about creationism here, just existence. What exact evidence points to god as a fabrication?

I'm sure their are many who would be grateful for your helping them become persons of reason (sarcasm). Just as there are those that are grateful for the missionaries that help them see the light of religion.

Why in the world would you sit through a 30 minute long sermon on the sinfulness of homosexuality? He sounds like a bigot. Did you think you might convert him?

He is, however, only an individual and can lay no claim to representing christians in general. If you think he does, you are mistaken.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. Yes, the dolphins exist. And primary examples of INCREDIBLE numbers of species that cannot be detect

ed from afar with our current technology.


And NONE of them are influencing distant alien cultures, ARE THEY?

"What exact evidence points to god as a fabrication?"

Revealed truths that are not true. The ONLY honest position could possibly be agnosticism, given the creation myths upon which major world religions are built that are clearly untrue. Meaning, belief in a god that maybe doesn't speak to us at all, or we can't hear/understand, etc. That lumps practically every religion on the planet in the Mythos category. Done. Hands washed. I could live with a planet full of humans that might be agnostics, but don't tell me i'm going to hell for an abortion, or for having sex with a man, or cutting my hair so, or that there is even a place like 'hell' at all, for me to go to.

When a religion makes a claim about god, or the world while in the same breath claiming to be the revealed truth of that god, well, we don't need to go any further with that claim, when it turns out to be horseshit, do we?



Yes, my Christian friend is a bigot, but I repeat myself.
And I hope for better for him, because if he dropped his faith, and I believe you'll see his bigotry fall away like a mistake, since revised.
He was not a bigot, to my knowledge, before he became a Christian. He didn't care one way or the other about issues like homosexuality.

[cbayer]

139. Have any believers here told you any of the things you list?

[AtheistCrusader]

140. Yes, many times. With references to their source material.

Whenever I challenge their opposition to, for instance, R74 in my state, I get that shit thrown back at me. There is an intense correlation between their religiosity and their opinion on whether that referendum should have been passed. And their lamentations SINCE it's passage.

[cbayer]

143. Here, on this site, people have told you you are going to hell?

I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe.

Perhaps it happens to you IRL, but your the vitriol you express on this site towards religious people seems entirely misplaced.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. Again, you turn the discussion to personal attacks.

I have, and will continue to attack religion en total. I am not attacking religious people. Quit pretending I am. Quit pretending that I am trying to take away people's beliefs. I am not capable of doing so.

Ideas are not people. Ideas are not immune from criticism by way of tolerance toward people.

[cbayer]

146. What personal attacks? Do you not think that the way you are expressing yourself

is an attack on religious people?

It's not just the ideas. You describe people as bigots, brainwashed, incapable of reason, in need of being saved from their own ideas.

That's a personal attack.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. It is not. It is an attack on an idea some people hold.

Fair game.

"You describe people as bigots, brainwashed, incapable of reason, in need of being saved from their own ideas."

Some ideas are bad ideas. Some ideas are bigoted ideas. Religion is an idea. It is not an attack upon people to attack an idea. Especially a bigoted idea, or a big idea that contains lots of bigoted little bits of ideas embedded in it.

[cbayer]

150. Suit yourself, but it seems like hairsplitting to me.

You know, you have a lot of good things to say and your POV is valuable and needs to be heard.

But, I've got to be honest with you. It's really hard to listen to you sometimes because whether you intend it or not, you sometimes just sound rageful and intolerant.

Part of that is the weakness of written communication. I was taken to task today for an attitude that I do not intend to convey, so I recognize that people on the internet can be grossly misunderstood.

And I clearly caught you at a bad time, based on your description of the interaction you had with your "friend".

[cleanhippie]

165. "What exact evidence points to god as a fabrication?". Well, there's this...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct/dp/1250008808


No, not the book itself, but the mountains of scientific peer-reviewed research it summarizes.

[pinto]

87. Roll three dice. Statistically you can predict with some measure of certainty a result.

That's logical and right. If the result differs, is that illogical and wrong? No. Uncertainty is the constant. Uncertainty isn't necessarily logical and doesn't fit into a neat right / wrong format. Yet it is what it is.

[edhopper]

89. I really don't know what you are trying to say

[pinto]

91. Kind of awkwardly made. A stab to move beyond a right and wrong framework.

And challenge that approach. In context of this thread - the nativity story - may have been a side track.

[edhopper]

93. Well I can understand

a Christian accepting the meaning of the story without thinking it factually true. Or that the where and whats don't matter.
Others may think it a basis of their faith that it is true.
To them I wonder how they look at the scholarly and historical evidence contrary to it being true.

Your reply here makes me think the allegory and meaning are more important to you than the veracity.

Both worthy of discussion.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Not just score a point.

Fix society. Because right now, shit is pretty broken.

When you see Progressive California pass an initiative banning same sex marriage, something is very, very wrong.

What better way to fix people legislating religious morality, than to show religion for the empty sack that it is?

[cbayer]

125. Society will be fixed primarily through legislative means, which is why I frequent this board.

And it's why a lot of liberal/progressive people of faith frequent it as well.

The problem is not just religion. The problem is the inability to distinguish the good from the bad and only see an empty sack in a bag full of all kinds of things.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. Problem is, the sack has specifications written on it, as to what is allowed in the sack.

All of them do it. Most are inflexible to a significant degree on that point.

Nor do a SINGLE FUCKING ONE OF THEM have a monopoly on sacks, or having things in them, let alone having good things in them, or even mixed baggage.


And take the fucking beam out of thy own eye. Atheists trend BELOW homosexuals, at the BOTTOM of the surveys of 'acceptance' by religious believers for things like running for president. (2006 Gallup/Edgell/Gerteis/Hartmann)

So here I stand, fighting against religious dogma bullshit, in the trenches, on behalf of people who are better liked by religious affiliated people, than I AM. And I don't mind a bit. I like it dirty.

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
Atheist 40%
Muslim 26%
Homosexual 23%
Conservative Christian 14%
Recent Immigrant 13%
Hispanic 8%
Jewish 7%
Asian 7%

(American Mosaic Project Survey)

regard the impact of these groups as negative:
Islam: 71%
Buddhism: 76%
Scientology: 81%
Atheism: 92%

(PEW)


Hell, we scored lower than RAPISTS in the "Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice" study in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology


When your core social dogma is built on the idea that man sins, always sins, must sin, and can only be redeemed by your religion, this is not just an INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH the good from the bad, the worldview is broken from the word 'go'. It instructs them in this conclusion.

When your core social dogma is built on a scrap included in a book that is not subject to revision, that tells you homosexuality is a sin, whether it tells you to judge or not, you will, and you do, by your nature, and there is only one solution for that.

Lump it on the mythos heap with all the other bullshit.

[cbayer]

138. Oh, there is no doubt that there is tremendous distrust and prejudice towards atheists.

How do you think that might best be resolved?

How has it been resolved for other groups that were in the same position but have moved forward?

I think it's happened by normalizing it - exposure, education, increasing understanding, promoting tolerance for different ways of being or seeing things.

It's clear that you like it dirty, but others may turn away from that kind of dirt.

Perhaps you will mellow over time, perhaps you will not. But continually attacking the belief sets of others that are different than your own is not going to get you very far, imo.

How did things end with your bigoted friend, by the way?

[AtheistCrusader]

142. I'm pretty sure black people didn't overcome bigotry in this country by being tolerant of bigotry.

In fact, it's still a work in progress.

You don't get rid of Jim crow laws, for instance, by telling people that instituted those laws that you are tolerant of their belief those laws should be in place.

Some of the items you list yes, but not tolerance. I don't tolerate bigotry. It's not worth tolerating. You don't fix it by tolerating it. You see bigotry, fucking call it to the carpet. Test it. Challenge it.

"Perhaps you will mellow over time, perhaps you will not. But continually attacking the belief sets of others that are different than your own is not going to get you very far, imo."

The truth can be uncomfortable, but I'd rather shine sunlight on bigotry, than accept it and try and co-exist with it and just hope it goes away.

[cbayer]

145. Of course they didn't. I am not suggesting that bigotry be tolerated.

But they didn't get there by taking the position that all non-AA's were defective either, because that would just be another form of bigotry, wouldn't it?

Laws or attitudes that discriminate against atheists should not be tolerated and if their origins are religious, they should be challenged.

There is a lot of distance between tolerating bigots and accepting that there are good people that hold religious beliefs and are not bigots.

Once again, I will say emphatically that you do not hold the truth when it comes to religion. You merely hold your own unique perspective.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. I'm not saying the group is defective. Well, I said something similar way upthread, but it was about

society, not individuals.

The BELIEF is defective. The claims of those beliefs, defective. The associated dogmas, defective. The foundation from which the faith proceeds, entirely, completely, and wholly defective.

I can protect myself from relgion/law intersection, because of some wonderful tools like the 1A, but there are bigger social issues at stake here. Much bigger.


Again, you conflate calling individuals bigots, as opposed to individuals buying into an ideology that INCLUDES some bigoted ideas.

There IS no truth when it comes to religion. If it could, you could double-blind peer review prove it.

[cbayer]

149. Defective for you, but not for others.

For others it is inspirational, motivational, beautiful and a source of comfort.

You make the mistake of extrapolating your own experience to the experience of others and just can't seem to understand that because something is defective and doesn't do anything for you, that doesn't mean that is true for everyone.

And when you say that people's beliefs and the foundation of their faith is entirely, completely and wholly defective, you are attacking them.

We absolutely agree on your last statement. There is no truth when it comes to religion…. so there is no basis for calling it defective.

[goldent]

105. I find the writings of the biblical scholars fascinating

The nativity story is especially interesting in that there is independent evidence of many of people, places, and events mentioned, but they aren't consistent.

I have always said that if my wife and I independently wrote a timeline of events in the first five years of our relationship, and world events during that time, the inconsistencies in our stories would make the four Gospels look pretty good.

[cbayer]

107. Lol. I totally agree about you and your wife and the timeline.

The same would be true for all of us.

A movie that had a profound impact on me is Rashomon. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it.

It is the story of an event experienced by 5 (I think) different people. Each recollects the event very differently, but none appear to be lying.

The underlying theme is that reality may be difficult to determine, as it is filtered different by each individual.

This is an ongoing issue in forensics as well.

So when it comes to irrefutable truths in areas like religious stories, that is going to be very hard to come by.

[Warren Stupidity]

141. There is zero verifiable specific evidence other than generalities of the era.

There was a Rome. They were in control of Judea. There was a king of Judea and the story gets his name right. The people focal to the story itself: almost nothing at all. Outside of one almost contemporary history (Josephus,) there is no evidence for an historical Jesus, and even that scant evidence is brief and not terribly convincing. Doesn't mean he didn't exist, just that "independent evidence" is mostly not available.

[edhopper]

152. The census that caused Joseph and Mary

to go to their "tribal home" is particularly problematic. As there is no other record of this and no record of Rome ever having this type of census. Would the pragmatic Romans really have the entire population pick up and migrate to another city just to get a head count? Just a way to get Joseph to be a descendent of David. Of course why that matters since he wasn't the Father is curious.
The slaughter of the innocents is another spurious tale.

[Leontius]

154. The census may not have been Roman. It could have been in the territory of Herod under his

authority as a client king of Rome. The Romans gave their clients quite a lot of independence to do as they wished in their kingdoms as long as trade and taxes were stable and Rome's cut continued to flow and civil unrest controlled.

[okasha]

155. There was a census,

but it was conducted by and for the new Roman governor of Judea to produce a tax roster. Bruce Chilton points out in RabbI Jesus that ther was a second Bethlehem in Galillee, just a few miles from Nazareth. There my have been some confusion about the geography in early oral birth narratives.

[goldent]

156. This is what I mean by inconsistency...

I believe there is evidence for a census, but the timing is inconsistent with other events, and the census would not have required travel, based on the evidence. Did this get intertwined with the Nativity story by accident, on purpose, or is the recorded history missing some detail? I know by experience that our current laws contain special provisions that most people are unaware of.

Sometimes I think we are not quite as smart as we think when we try to construct ancient history using 20th century thinking.

[edhopper]

158. Things either happened or they didn't

Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 08:56 AM - Edit history (2)

now it might be impossible to know for sure. But we can look at a story like this and realize there are too many problems with it.
That is not to say Jesus wasn't the son of Joseph and Mary, and we can't know about the Virgin birth, you either believe in the supernatural or you don't. But the narrative in the Bible with mangers and stars and wise men just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[goldent]

162. I agree that it is impossible to know for sure

All recorded history from ~0 BC is sketchy. Some recorded history from the 20th century is sketchy as well.

[cleanhippie]

167. But it possible to surmise what is plausible and what is not.

And if it's not plausible....

[hrmjustin]

48. He was born and that is all I really need.

[skepticscott]

50. Seriously?

You just need to be told something happened, or to see it in writing, or to need to believe it, in order to accept it as absolute and unquestionable truth? Do you not see the very scary consequences of that sort of thinking, all around us?

[hrmjustin]

52. What do you want me to say?

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Oh? Did god forget how to manufacture new humans out of the dust of the ground?

[darkangel218]

55. Myth, all around.

And if Jesus existed, he was a simple human, like everyone else.

Besides, they say we are all "children of god". Why was he special? He died for his beliefs, like hundreds of thousands and maybe more have died in religious battles.

Gah..

[hrmjustin]

56. I tend to believe that Mary was a virgin but I understand that is hard for some to believe.

[NaturalHigh]

80. I believe the Biblical version.

[edhopper]

84. Even in the face of historical evidence

to the contrary?

[NaturalHigh]

85. Historical evidence?

Not sure what you mean. How do disprove the Biblical story?

This is my last post of the evening. Gotta run. If you reply, I'll try to answer back tomorrow. Thanks.

[edhopper]

88. There are many places on the web to

read about the counter historical evidence for the nativity and many of the contradictory parts of the different Gospels.

Just start with Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Jesus

If you are interested in that.

or this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/14/reza-aslan-birth-of-jesus_n_4441762.html

[NaturalHigh]

99. I'll try to read this weekend.

Thanks for the info.

[edhopper]

100. no problem.

[Marblehead]

130. I wish he was here today

he could kick some ass

[madrchsod]

131. mary could`t travel to bethlehem on a donkey so....

jesus was`t born in a manger. according to one source he could have been born in a "birthing cave"

[larkrake]

132. Bull***t

Pure fantasy to support a book written by men about an idiot savant who mesmerized idiots.

[cbayer]

133. Wow. You might win today's prize for most off the wall post!

[edhopper]

171. Are you talking about

the "Baby Jesus"?

Who I always found curious. People pray to the "Baby Jesus" as if he exists as both an adult sitting next to Dad. And as the "Baby Jesus" who also hears prayers. Nobody mentions the teen Jesus or the twenty something Jesus.

[840high]

160. I believe.

[edhopper]

164. Everything

manger, wise men, Bethlehem, guiding star, visitations. Or just aspects like the Virgin Birth.

[arely staircase]

173. as a Christian I accept and believe the creeds

As an historian I obviously see the grafting of greek mythology onto the story to appeal to potential converts of the day. It impossible to explain to an atheist or a fundamentalist how this creates no cognitive dissonance on my part.

[edhopper]

175. Of course it creates cognitive dissonance

you just found a way to deal with it.

[arely staircase]

176. fair enough nt

[saltpoint]

178. Compelling narrative but wobbly history. eom

[On the Road]

179. I Believe Jesus Existed

but pretty much dismiss all of the nativity stories, including the jerry-rigged trip to Judea to bring in the star prophecy.

I pay more attention to the earliest known beliefs of the Ebionites, since that movement descended directly from Jesus' family. Apparently, they did not believe in Jesus' virgin birth, resurrection, or divinity. In the 3rd-4th century, Eusebius joked that they they were referred to as 'the poor' because they had such a 'poor' opinion of Jesus.

All the Christmas stuff we're familiar with, including the manger, wise men, shepards, angels and the rest, was probably written by people much later who were not there. Some people even believe that Paul thought of Jesus more as an eternal heavenly figure rather than a man, and that many gospel stories were written allegorically and never meant to be seen as historical events.

Jesus apparently was from the part of Galilee near Capernaum. However, his brother became a prominent priest in the temple in Jerusalem on the other end of the country. How that happened is not known, but it could be very important for understanding how and where the two of them were born and grew up.