My Take On Jesus

[nonverbal]

Arational, from The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: "Unconcerned with or outside rationality; non-rational." I would encourage you to use whatever words best explain your thoughts, Bruce.

[LaMont Cranston]

Bruce Burleson, I just signed on here yesterday, and I'm interested in this thread. I was one of the theist members on RDF for quite awhile and had about 2000 posts. After the RDF meltdown, I joined RS, but I was permanently banned from that forum after a mere 54 posts. So it goes...

I have not read all of your thoughts about God, Jesus, etc., but I will attempt to get caught up. I grew up in a not-very-religious Jewish family and knew nothing about Jesus. I'm a writer, and at some point in my life I became much more intersted in such things as philosophy, religion, history, spirituality, the nature of consciousness, love, utopian communities, etc. My studies led me into looking into the teachings of Jesus and other spiritual icons. I was totally blown away, and I still am. I came to the conclusion that Jesus (the J-Man to me) was a very cool guy who was talking about some very heavy shit. I have no doubt that, among other things, he had a great sense of humor, and the reason his teachings have had such a powerful impact on the world is that the message is so strong.

I think there are certain things in life that we have to decide for ourselves, including whether or not we believe God exists. I have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" case that works for me, and I have no interest in trying to covert others to believing anything they don't currently believe. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is good enough for the legal systems of most civilized countries, and I get it that science uses a different set of standards. I have a life-long appreciation of science, but I also find that science is quite limited in what it can actually explain, much less prove.

By me, people and organized religions have done some horrible things in the name of God, Jesus, country, fame, success, oil, etc., and the fact that they have done those things is really a separate issue from whether or not God exists. From what I can tell, proselytizing is a lot of work, and it doesn't work very well. Furthermore, those people who use "believe what we tell you or you will suffer bad consequences" tactics are really screwing up.

If you are interested is discussing more of your thoughts about God, Jesus, etc., I'm more than willing. Take care...

[Surendra Darathy]

Arational, from The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: "Unconcerned with or outside rationality; non-rational." I would encourage you to use whatever words best explain your thoughts, Bruce.

I think that juxtaposing "explain" and "arational" works about as well as juxtaposing water and metallic magnesium.

We need a purely-invented category. "Irational" combines the best features of "irrational" and "arational". It's the Hurt Locker of coherent thought. It's da bom.

In mathematics when the solution leads to infinities, we say that the solution "blows up". In the irational category, perhaps, the solution just blows, or blows chunks.

Foofooraw

I see it has alternative spellings - fooforaw and foofaraw. Sort of like rational, irrational, and arational.

I spelt it "foofuraw" to make a pun on the subsequent lolcat. Clevernessness! I haz it!

[Surendra Darathy]

All I have is the experience of my own life, and this is how I have interpreted it to date.

Actually, this is not strictly true. You also have the benefit of the exasperation experience of other people, which is why you feel safe driving across an intersection controlled by a green traffic signal, or climbing aboard a commercial airliner.

[IIzO]

If bruce's faith on God and jesus are "arational" it pretty much mean that there are no reasons for them other than "having senses that detect the existance of Gods ,the veracity of the gospels" etc etc....unfortunately those fall into the domain of rationality.

Edit: Arational ,concerns only "experiences " as qualias , but not the "conceptualisation , into a theoretical framework" wich is rationality's domain.
For exemple , while describing a scene you may describe them as you have seen or understood it, and say "this is arrational" to make the other party understand that it is not "what is" but rather "what you experienced firsthand" ,and then you discuss the legitimacy of your experiences/reactions rationally.

[Bruce Burleson]

Arational, from The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: "Unconcerned with or outside rationality; non-rational." I would encourage you to use whatever words best explain your thoughts, Bruce.

I appreciate that, nonverbal. I was simply attempting to accommodate someone without getting into a useless war of semantics. Looks like this thread is winding down, anyway, so the issue may be moot.

[Bruce Burleson]

All I have is the experience of my own life, and this is how I have interpreted it to date.

Actually, this is not strictly true. You also have the benefit of the exasperation experience of other people, which is why you feel safe driving across an intersection controlled by a green traffic signal, or climbing aboard a commercial airliner.

OK, except that I never seem to make it across the intersection or onto the plane in discussions like these. Maybe I should stay at home.

[Bruce Burleson]

If bruce's faith on God and jesus are "arational" it pretty much mean that there are no reasons for them other than "having senses that detect the existance of Gods ,the veracity of the gospels" etc etc....unfortunately those fall into the domain of rationality.

Edit: Arational ,concerns only "experiences " as qualias , but not the "conceptualisation , into a theoretical framework" wich is rationality's domain.
For exemple , while describing a scene you may describe them as you have seen or understood it, and say "this is arrational" to make the other party understand that it is not "what is" but rather "what you experienced firsthand" ,and then you discuss the legitimacy of your experiences/reactions rationally.

My faith is not based solely on the arational. As I mentioned previously, there is a rational and objective component to it, as well (or at least I think there is). So, using your line of thought, my experiences are qualias, while my interpretation of them in light of what I find written in early Christian writings falls into the realm of rationality.

[Bruce Burleson]

If you are interested is discussing more of your thoughts about God, Jesus, etc., I'm more than willing. Take care...

I'm always willing to do this. Perhaps the best way of doing that is by PM. Send me one, and we'll see where it goes.

[IIzO]

If bruce's faith on God and jesus are "arational" it pretty much mean that there are no reasons for them other than "having senses that detect the existance of Gods ,the veracity of the gospels" etc etc....unfortunately those fall into the domain of rationality.

Edit: Arational ,concerns only "experiences " as qualias , but not the "conceptualisation , into a theoretical framework" wich is rationality's domain.
For exemple , while describing a scene you may describe them as you have seen or understood it, and say "this is arrational" to make the other party understand that it is not "what is" but rather "what you experienced firsthand" ,and then you discuss the legitimacy of your experiences/reactions rationally.

My faith is not based solely on the arational. As I mentioned previously, there is a rational and objective component to it, as well (or at least I think there is). So, using your line of thought, my experiences are qualias, while my interpretation of them in light of what I find written in early Christian writings falls into the realm of rationality.

It is contradictory to say that faith isn't based solely on the arational , since wich would not be arational would be either irrational or rational , if your faith is based on rational discourse then its not faith but an evidence based stance.
And yes exactly interpretation falls into the realm of rationality , for exemple , watching my computer the brute qualia i have while watching a movie is "person A does X at moment Y" , but a rigor interpretation of the phenomenon i see would involve no person since i am merely watching a flat led pannel , and i am into the illusion of seeing actual persons doing incredible things.
Edit.I will reread the thread and come with some questions about how you link your personal experience and the Christian writings.

[IIzO]

What is a historical Jesus as opposed to a "supernatural" one ?Oh you mean that if we take the story as real beforehand everything inside the story would be natural....oh yeah of course ,but so are every single myth/lies around , myth are originaly taken seriously....before the lack of evidence just nails them as myth that is.

You analyze each piece of historical evidence on its own merits. Do you care to point me to another example prior to Jesus of a story you consider to be myth where a contemporary of the events at issue gave a firsthand account?

Could you be more specific upon what the "holy spirit" is supposed to be/make and has supposedly done to you and how the explanation of the NT is worth something?Thanks in advance

The Holy Spirit is the presence of God in the life of the Christian. "Holy" simply means set apart - God is separate from his creation in essence. "Spirit" is simply a personal being from another dimension. The New Testament describes an experience known as "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" in which the believer is immersed in the presence of God. Some of the manifestations of this experience are found in I Corinthians 12. Jesus promised in John chapters 14-16 that the Spirit would come and be with the believer. This is our experience - the personal presence of God, which has the capacity to bring joy, peace, strength and counsel.

Every single myth are "firsthand account".
If the holy spirit is about joy ,peace ,and strength anything that gives you a shot of dopamine works.That definitions isn't narrow enought to have substance.
I feel "joy , peace , strenght and counsel " hearing good music or watching good movies.
You can also feel those by autosugestion.
How are you supposed to know that a being from another dimension/god has "entered" yourself , except by confirmation bias ?
Basically you think that because the bible said that if you feel joy and strength doing something religious you actually feel God , and this is so because you think that the early Christian writings are reliable , therefore they are reliable in their interpretation of what happens when you feel joy.
In the previous posts in this thread you chronologically explain it like this :
_18yrs old brought up a baptists not practitioner but having the bible
_Taking lsd ,having hallucinations , "in search of some relief from the acid" openend "the book to Matthew 1:1, which says "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." My eyes locked on the name "Jesus Christ," and vibrating flames started to emanate from it. Immediately, the "bad trip" was gone, and I had the experience of being in the presence of Jesus.".
You are already a believer , you look for comfort under the effect of acid , you open the bible , have hallucinations about jesus , *decides* that the trip is over and that you are actually in the presence of jesus.
_Supposedely in the same time frame you hear "The phrase "Jesus is the Son of God" began repeating itself in my mind, and I had the subjective sensation of something grabbing me and entering me in the area of the solar plexus. Accompanying subjective sensations included overwhelming awe, surges of joy and power, and deep peace."...that fits being under the effect of acid that you arbitrarly decide to say the effect "stopped" without further explication.
_Then you say you had "Hunger" to study the bible , sure you thought that your extraordinary acid experience was a revelation of jesus
_Feeling joy ,etc speaking in tongue is just acting upon confirmation bias , it has no special meaning , but you over interpret them because of this one first acid experience that seems to have set the whole "joy experiences" as "being in presence of God/jesus/holy spirit" and the other confirmation you've made to yourself is that the bible describe feelings of peace and joy as being "the presence of God" wich you were already biased for since you were already a baptist.

[LaMont Cranston]

Bruce Burleson, If we're going to discuss these things, I'd rather do it on a thread such as this and include others who want to contribute. Like I said, I think Jesus was a very cool and righteous being. There are parts of the Jesus story I'm not sure about, but most of it works for me. I also have some rather mixed feelings about the role of Paul in the whole thing. I'm going to be travelling in the next day, so it might take awhile to get back to you. Take care...

[Oldskeptic]

Bruce wrote:
I did not cite the Duckphup Effect as being supernatural. I cited it as an example of the transmission of information by non-rational means. There may be a perfectly rational explanation for it that we do not know. But the point is that our brains have the capacity to receive information immediately in such ways. This is important for the concept of revelation.

Well, immediately, no. That would imply faster than light transmission of information. And Duckphup’s nor any other premonition is evidence that our brains have the capacity to transmit or receive information at any speed without the use of sensory input.

It may be important for the concept of revelation, but there is no evidentiary support for either. It is all anecdote of things that are imagined to be in some way real.

I am reminded of Michael Shermer’s comment that beliefs like these are like unsinkable rubber ducks. It was about a woman that admitted to him that her premonitions about phone calls from her best friend where not always right and that she only remembered the ones that were right, but she then concluded that it still worked; just not all the time.

Bruce wrote:
Your suggestion, of course, is one possible explanation. But my emotions are not the only things that are at work here. The experience of doors opening at opportune times for me throughout my life and the experience of answered prayer are examples of non-emotional events.

You don’t get any kind of emotional boost when something confirms your bias?

Bruce wrote:
I have my doubts, and have rejected may of the doctrines I was taught. If I was only interested in confirming my beliefs, I could have retreated safely into the fortress of dogma long ago and become a young earth creationist and fundamental Calvinist.

I did not say that you were concerned with confirming any particular beliefs, only those that can support the emotional attachment you have to those drug induced emotions from long ago.

Bruce wrote:
Finally, in order to diagnose me as having a delusion, you would have to prove affirmatively that my faith, in fact, is a delusion.

I didn’t call it a simple delusion, I said it was a self reinforcing delusion. All the indicators are there: Drug induced hallucinations, feelings of ecstasy and comfort. Seeking out the same emotions by having a conversion episode instead of recognizing the experience for what it was is a big indicator of delusion.

Bruce wrote:
That would mean that the burden of proof would be on you to prove that the accounts of Jesus in the NT are false and that God does not exist. Of course, you cannot do this, so it appears that we have a Mexican standoff.

You’d like that I guess, but its not the case. It is perfectly fine for me or anyone else to be highly skeptical of your beliefs, even to the point of calling them delusional, if you have no more evidence than what you have presented.

Bruce wrote:
You misunderstand my argument about the historicity of Jesus. I am NOT saying that I believe that the NT is the true story because I believe that Jesus is the Christ. I am saying that based on historical analysis of the NT accounts, some of them, but not all of them, appear to make out a claim by a preponderance of the evidence for the historicity of Jesus and what he did.

There is no preponderance of evidence for anything that Jesus did, said, or experienced. There is some evidence that there was a person called Jesus that established a following of people that admired him or maybe even thought that he was a prophet or even the messiah , but that is where it ends. The New Testament cannot be used for evidence of the myth that it promotes.

Bruce wrote:
Thus, proceeding from this historical analysis, I conclude that some of the accounts of him are true, including some of the miracles and the resurrection.

That is truly delusional unless you can present a historical account of miracles and the resurrection other than the New Testament.

Bruce wrote:
It is this historical analysis that then leads me as far as reason can regarding the claims of who Jesus is. I do not then return and validate the entire NT. I think some of it is wrong or not historical.

So the New Testament only agrees with what you have already decided to be true?

Bruce wrote:
I can assure you that I have read the NT countless times and know everything that is attributed to Jesus. He did not come only to spread love and peace. He came to call us to himself, with the idea that peace is not possible in any other way.

But that is not what the gospels report. This spreading of peace and love was a later invention. Didn’t the Jesus as reported in the New Testament bring a message of absolute blind faith obedience and a promise of hell fire for any infraction.

Bruce wrote:
In order to achieve that, discipleship demands some tough choices, as you have noted in the passages you cite. My purpose here is not to call anyone to discipleship, as I assume that you have all fully rejected that already. My purpose here is to have a discussion, which I think we are doing.

Tough choices that no one seems to have been willing to make for a very long time except for a few of the most frantically delusional sects and cults that spring up occasionally. The truth is that people pick and choose what they want from the New Testament because it is an unworkable way of life to follow. It is an irrational philosophy that did not make any sense after the end of the world and the coming of the Kingdom of heaven did not happen within the life time of Jesus‘ disciples. So it was turned into something else. From the doomsday cult arose another myth of a loving peaceful Jesus that died for all the sins of humanity.

I was a Christian that attended church regularly until I went off to college and I remember all of the nice Jesus sayings such as, “Love you neighbor as yourself,” and, “Turn the other cheek.” The pleasant parts of the Sermon on the Mount, and all of the miracles, but not once do I remember a sermon that mentioned Jesus saying that family members should hate each other or that Jesus shunned his own family and rebuked his mother.

The Jesus as portrayed of the New Testament is myth and illusion, and to believe in any one part over another is a delusion.

[Bruce Burleson]

but you over interpret them because of this one first acid experience that seems to have set the whole "joy experiences" as "being in presence of God/jesus/holy spirit" and the other confirmation you've made to yourself is that the bible describe feelings of peace and joy as being "the presence of God" wich you were already biased for since you were already a baptist.

Confirmation bias is one possible interpretation of my experiences. If I were basing this on one experience 40 years ago, this is might be more likely. I can only say that for almost 40 years, the sense of the presence of God hasn't left. It is different than the experience of hearing beautiful music or seeing natural or man-made beauty, which we all have in one degree or another. It is a sense of the divine, of an internal presence of a person of higher order. It can be captivating at times. You know what it is like to experience the presence of another person with whom you are familiar. Now abstract that feeling and internalize it, and add a sense of awe, and that is fair description of the phenomenon.

Of course, all experience is in the brain, and no doubt brain chemicals are responsible for the immediate effects. The question for me is what causes the experience to begin with, and the early Christian writings come closest to describing what I feel. So I go with that interpretation.

[Bruce Burleson]

Bruce wrote:
"I did not cite the Duckphup Effect as being supernatural. I cited it as an example of the transmission of information by non-rational means. There may be a perfectly rational explanation for it that we do not know. But the point is that our brains have the capacity to receive information immediately in such ways. This is important for the concept of revelation."

Well, immediately, no. That would imply faster than light transmission of information. And Duckphup’s nor any other premonition is evidence that our brains have the capacity to transmit or receive information at any speed without the use of sensory input.

Maybe immediately was the wrong word. It doesn't take light long to travel a few thousand miles, so no law of physics would have to be violated. Duckphup's experience itself is evidence - he had the experience and later investigation confirmed that his experience was valid. I consider his testimony credible because it is, in effect, a statement against interest, since it goes against a purely materialistic viewpoint which is more in line with atheism.

You don’t get any kind of emotional boost when something confirms your bias?

I think my grandchildren love me. If they do something that demonstrates that love, I get an emotional boost. Is that "confirmation bias" or proof that they love me?

I did not say that you were concerned with confirming any particular beliefs, only those that can support the emotional attachment you have to those drug induced emotions from long ago.

The experience that I had 40 years ago was merely one experience. My experiences of a divine presence over the past four decades have nothing to do with drug induced emotions. That was when the presence was first felt, but there is no attempt to repeat the experience.

I didn’t call it a simple delusion, I said it was a self reinforcing delusion. All the indicators are there: Drug induced hallucinations, feelings of ecstasy and comfort. Seeking out the same emotions by having a conversion episode instead of recognizing the experience for what it was is a big indicator of delusion.

The fact that the experience of (in my interpretation) divine presence continues in the absence of any drug nudges me in the opposite direction from your interpretation. I don't even seek these experience out all the time - sometimes they just come.

It is perfectly fine for me or anyone else to be highly skeptical of your beliefs, even to the point of calling them delusional, if you have no more evidence than what you have presented.

It is perfectly fine for you to be skeptical, and you can interpret it any way you want. I'm not trying to convince anyone - just discussing something that is interesting to me.

There is no preponderance of evidence for anything that Jesus did, said, or experienced. There is some evidence that there was a person called Jesus that established a following of people that admired him or maybe even thought that he was a prophet or even the messiah , but that is where it ends. The New Testament cannot be used for evidence of the myth that it promotes.

The NT is evidence of the facts that it asserts, at least in those writings that relate eyewitness testimony or researched historical narrative. We have a fundamental disagreement on this point. Whether it convinces is another matter. It is my subjective experiences added to the objective evidence that cause it to be convincing to me. Preponderance of the evidence, in spite of the legal definition, just boils down to what convinces each "juror." The fact that there is no contemporary refutation of the claims of the NT regarding Jesus speaks volumes to me. It would have been so easy to refute Christianity at its beginning with a factual assault, were that possible. That no one did it suggests to me that it was not possible to refute it, because it was true.

(Bruce) "Thus, proceeding from this historical analysis, I conclude that some of the accounts of him are true, including some of the miracles and the resurrection."

That is truly delusional unless you can present a historical account of miracles and the resurrection other than the New Testament.

I disagree. The "New Testament" is simply a construct that was superimposed upon the early Christian writings centuries later. Originally, there were simply separate writings of early Christians, some of which were eyewitness accounts. How would an eyewitness account of the resurrection be provided by someone who wasn't a believer? If they witnessed the resurrection, they would have believed. What kind of writings are you contemplating? We have evidence from witnesses that the resurrection occurred, and no evidence that it did not. Historically, that is sufficient to establish the fact. That won't convince everyone, but it's still sufficient from a purely historical perspective.

So the New Testament only agrees with what you have already decided to be true?

No. Let me explain the process. The early Christian writings give evidence of something. My subjective experience (and that of others) leads me to believe that the evidence is true. This same process occurs in a jury trial - a witness gives testimony, but it is the jurors' subjective experience of the entirety of that person's demeanor which causes them to accept or reject the testimony.

But that is not what the gospels report. This spreading of peace and love was a later invention. Didn’t the Jesus as reported in the New Testament bring a message of absolute blind faith obedience and a promise of hell fire for any infraction.

No, that is a very perverted interpretation of Jesus. He said all sins would be forgiven men, excepting the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 12:31-32). He said that he came to save men's lives, not to destroy them. (Luke 9:56). If he intends to forgive all sins, he didn't preach hell fire for any infraction. To whom have you been listening?

Tough choices that no one seems to have been willing to make for a very long time except for a few of the most frantically delusional sects and cults that spring up occasionally. The truth is that people pick and choose what they want from the New Testament because it is an unworkable way of life to follow. It is an irrational philosophy that did not make any sense after the end of the world and the coming of the Kingdom of heaven did not happen within the life time of Jesus‘ disciples. So it was turned into something else. From the doomsday cult arose another myth of a loving peaceful Jesus that died for all the sins of humanity.

You are cherry-picking here as much as any Christian against whom atheists level the same type of accusation. Jesus challenged his apostles to leave everything for him - the times were going to be rough and they needed to be single minded. That is why Christianity did so well in such a tough environment. The degree to which those demands apply now is debatable, but the Jesus who healed people and forgave sins and gave his life as a ransom for the world is pretty clearly portrayed in the earliest gospel - Mark. It was not an afterthought.

I was a Christian that attended church regularly until I went off to college and I remember all of the nice Jesus sayings such as, “Love you neighbor as yourself,” and, “Turn the other cheek.” The pleasant parts of the Sermon on the Mount, and all of the miracles, but not once do I remember a sermon that mentioned Jesus saying that family members should hate each other or that Jesus shunned his own family and rebuked his mother.

The Jesus as portrayed of the New Testament is myth and illusion, and to believe in any one part over another is a delusion.

I disagree on the grounds of evidentiary analysis. I see no reason to reject the basic historicity of the Jesus portrayed in Mark, since there is no contemporary evidence to dispute the account. The only reason to reject the account is because someone has an a priori position about the miraculous.