Is Mormonism so bad?

[Moksha]

The only carrier I am familiar with was formerly a stool pigeon.

[dastardly stem]

Because his experience was with the Christ. A living, breathing person who made a claim to being God’s son. And he comes back to this world multiple times to reveal himself to a person who didn’t even believe in him and was actually persecuting Christians.

Unique, yes?

I think Paul is one to take seriously. He was educated and smart. Again, you seem to be saying that he was delusional. Do you really believe that? If so, why?

Regards,
MG

Of course over the course of human existence the seemingly finest of people have been fooled by the spiritual delusions that have occasionally come. You likely would have to agree with that to some extent or another. You likely don't give credence to those who think God appeared or an emissary did and convinced someone to kill another. Sounds to me like you simply want to give Paul extra care and consideration simply because he deluded the same things you need him too. As it were, people in his day were prone to think dreams and visions were elements of divining truth, and in large measure among our most superstitious most today agree. It's not an easy thing to grow out of.

Let's not get mixed up though. Its quite possible there is a fellow from outer space who appeared to Paul in a dreamy vision. It just so happens that's an extraordinary explanation that doesn't fit with the data. Of course the most parsimonious explanation is Paul experienced a vision or dream and took it as something more than his mind, his imagination, creating something he thought he needed to hear and see. The thing is any one of us could take a dream or vision and treat it as divining truths. If we do that then we have people heading in all sorts of directions often blabbering nonsense. Most of us realize our visionary experiences are just kind of goofy imagination events, which may or may not mean something.

Something to point out about Paul's story. He was the only one. If Jesus bothered to appear to people why just one dude who apparently was among a jewish sect who was particularly opposed to the new sect rising or any new rising sect? Its far more likely he had a special dream or vision and exaggerated it and exploited it, and the people who readily accepted it as a possibility, to gain a following, praise and adoration.

[dastardly stem]

Stem, you mention above that you think it is possible people here have been a bit shallow in their engagement with Carrier. If there are deeper dimensions of Carriers views you are certainly welcome to present such and push the discussion into more satisfactory depths. In fact I and probably others thought they were inviting you to do exactly that.

I know. I'm backing off because I don't know that I want to spend my time digging deep into his work. I did poke around on his blog site the other day and found some good stuff. I'd encourage people if they are interested to see what's there. It looks like he has plenty of small-level essays that are pretty interesting and are likely snippets of some of his books or other work. But, it's true, I've enjoyed some of what he's offered, but it's been a while and I'm not feeling particularly interested to treat his work solid enough to defend him in depth.

How about the many dying rising gods in world cultures. Do you think that common and significant human theme is a deep end of possible discussion? I think the theme recreates over and over again because it is an important part of human experience. (sacrifice and rebirth)

Perhaps there is something else deep in Carrier's studies?

I think some of the stories are pretty interesting. And I don't know if you're far off with your "because it is an important part of human experience". But establishing prior myths as likely examples of where later myths came seems like a reasonable approach.

[mentalgymnast]

Of course over the course of human existence the seemingly finest of people have been fooled by the spiritual delusions that have occasionally come. You likely would have to agree with that to some extent or another.

Interesting that you would throw in the qualifier “seemingly”. If they hadn’t had spiritual experiences would the qualifier be yanked out? Sure, not all so called spiritual experiences can be trusted. People have been deluded. That being the case, the question at hand is whether or not the Apostle Paul falls into that class of individuals.

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Acts 9:1-5

For the record, do you believe that the claims that Paul made and his testimony of the Christ are either fabricated or show a deluded/mistaken man?

Let's not get mixed up though. Its quite possible there is a fellow from outer space who appeared to Paul in a dreamy vision.

Mixed up? So you’re willing to concede that Paul wasn’t deluded and was visited by an alien from space? Interesting.

As long as it’s not Jesus Christ, right? Why not Jesus?

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

Lol. Pick your fights elsewhere...

I’m here to discuss and debate, just the same as you. That is why you’re here, right? Or are you here to set up a barricade against believers?

Anyway, how about you, do you think the Apostle Paul was deluded when he testified of the risen Christ? For one reason or another he’s not trustworthy? Or the record is somehow deficient?

Like stem, would you be more likely to think that an alien was involved rather than Jesus Christ?

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

Interesting that you would throw in the qualifier “seemingly”. If they hadn’t had spiritual experiences would the qualifier be yanked out? Sure, not all so called spiritual experiences can be trusted. People have been deluded. That being the case, the question at hand is whether or not the Apostle Paul falls into that class of individuals.

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Acts 9:1-5

For the record, do you believe that the claims that Paul made and his testimony of the Christ are either fabricated or show a deluded/mistaken man?


Mixed up? So you’re willing to concede that Paul wasn’t deluded and was visited by an alien from space? Interesting.

As long as it’s not Jesus Christ, right? Why not Jesus?

Regards,
MG

I'm not sure what more you're looking for. I"ve offered the notion that of course its possible in an anything is possible way. But the data doesn't really give good reason to accept his extraordinary claims of the events. Its far more likely he, like millions of others from millions of other backgrounds, had an event that he exaggerated and exploited to play off people's religiously inspired fears and predilections. You're preference to pedestalize Paul because, I mean, you already have your assumptions, bias and desires, doesn't really do much justice in the form of accepting the burden.

[Lem]

Of course over the course of human existence the seemingly finest of people have been fooled by the spiritual delusions that have occasionally come. You likely would have to agree with that to some extent or another. You likely don't give credence to those who think God appeared or an emissary did and convinced someone to kill another. Sounds to me like you simply want to give Paul extra care and consideration simply because he deluded the same things you need him too. As it were, people in his day were prone to think dreams and visions were elements of divining truth, and in large measure among our most superstitious most today agree. It's not an easy thing to grow out of.

Let's not get mixed up though. Its quite possible there is a fellow from outer space who appeared to Paul in a dreamy vision. It just so happens that's an extraordinary explanation that doesn't fit with the data. Of course the most parsimonious explanation is Paul experienced a vision or dream and took it as something more than his mind, his imagination, creating something he thought he needed to hear and see. The thing is any one of us could take a dream or vision and treat it as divining truths. If we do that then we have people heading in all sorts of directions often blabbering nonsense. Most of us realize our visionary experiences are just kind of goofy imagination events, which may or may not mean something.

Something to point out about Paul's story. He was the only one. If Jesus bothered to appear to people why just one dude who apparently was among a jewish sect who was particularly opposed to the new sect rising or any new rising sect? Its far more likely he had a special dream or vision and exaggerated it and exploited it, and the people who readily accepted it as a possibility, to gain a following, praise and adoration.

[bolding added]
Indeed, why just one, exaggerating and exploiting? Sounds familiar, where have I heard something like that before....

[Manetho]

There was a time when I was somewhat open to the idea that Jesus did not exist, but the more I looked into it, the more I realized it fails Occam's Razor. In addition to the evidence of Paul, we have Josephus, who wasn't even a Christian. And while one of the two mentions of Jesus in his works is contaminated by blatant and clumsy Christian interpolation, the other isn't, and it's the one that mentions the execution of James, "the brother of Jesus who was called Messiah", in the course of political events that Josephus, as a member of the Jewish priestly class, personally witnessed. Carrier has a convoluted explanation for why this passage exists, in addition to his convoluted explanations for the passages of Paul that treat Jesus as a human being, but the simpler explanation is that the Josephus passage is genuine and Paul means what he seems to mean.

Moreover, the mythical aspects of the Jesus story are equally explicable using the much more widely accepted explanation, that Jesus was a real person who was mythologized after his death. Kishkumen has made that point quite clearly, in my opinion, regarding the miracle stories. Some elements of the gospels are actually more convincingly explained by the conventional explanation than by the mythicist one, because the gospels show signs that they're struggling to adapt a genuine story that doesn't fit the preexisting messianic prophecies. To quote from a page that all advocates of mythicism should read:

The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unheard of and utterly alien to any Jewish tradition prior to the beginning of Christianity, but the idea of a Messiah who was crucified was not only bizarre, it was absurd. According to Jewish tradition, anyone who was “hanged on a tree” was to be considered accursed by Yahweh and this was one of the reasons crucifixion was considered particularly abhorrent to Jews. The concept of a crucified Messiah, therefore, was totally bizarre and absurd... Paul acknowledges how absurd the idea of a crucified Messiah was in 1Cor 1:23, where he says it “is a stumbling block to the Jews and an absurdity to the gentiles”.

The accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion in the gospels also show how awkward the nature of their Messiah’s death was for the earliest Christians. They are all full of references to texts in the Old Testament as ways of demonstrating that, far from being an absurdity, this was what was supposed to happen to the Messiah. But none of the texts used were considered prophecies of the Messiah before Christianity came along and some of them are highly forced. The “suffering servant” passages in Isaiah 53 are pressed into service as “prophecies” of the crucifixion, since they depict a figure being falsely accused, rejected and given up to be “pierced …. as a guilt offering”. But the gospels don’t reference other parts of the same passage which don’t fit their story at all, such as where it is said this figure will “prolong his days and look upon his offspring”.

Finally, as I've looked deeper into it I've realized that Christianity and mythicism are rather like mirror images of each other, in ways that are unflattering to both. In all the bizarre varieties and offshoots that Christianity has produced over the centuries, the one thing that remains consistent is the idea that Jesus was special. Mythicists obviously doesn't believe he was special in the sense that Christians do, but they still give him special treatment by applying to him a standard of proof that, if applied consistently, would erase a lot of other people from the historical record.

[mentalgymnast]

Interesting that you would throw in the qualifier “seemingly”. If they hadn’t had spiritual experiences would the qualifier be yanked out? Sure, not all so called spiritual experiences can be trusted. People have been deluded. That being the case, the question at hand is whether or not the Apostle Paul falls into that class of individuals.


For the record, do you believe that the claims that Paul made and his testimony of the Christ are either fabricated or show a deluded/mistaken man?


Mixed up? So you’re willing to concede that Paul wasn’t deluded and was visited by an alien from space? Interesting.

As long as it’s not Jesus Christ, right? Why not Jesus?

Regards,
MG

I'm not sure what more you're looking for. I"ve offered the notion that of course its possible in an anything is possible way. But the data doesn't really give good reason to accept his extraordinary claims of the events. Its far more likely he, like millions of others from millions of other backgrounds, had an event that he exaggerated and exploited to play off people's religiously inspired fears and predilections. You're preference to pedestalize Paul because, I mean, you already have your assumptions, bias and desires, doesn't really do much justice in the form of accepting the burden.

So then Ananias was in on it too?

Paul related his experience with Christ on his way to Damascus at least three times. Three witnessings of this experience. One thing for sure, he stuck to his story even when under persecution.

There is no evidence to suggest that Paul arrived on the road to Damascus already with a single, solid, coherent scheme that could form the framework of his mature theology. Instead, the conversion, and the associated understanding of the significance of the resurrection of the crucified Jesus, caused him to rethink from the ground up everything he had ever believed in, from his own identity to his understanding of Second Temple Judaism and who God really was.

The transforming effect of Paul's conversion influenced the clear antithesis he saw "between righteousness based on the law," which he had sought in his former life; and "righteousness based on the death of Christ," which he describes, for example, in the Epistle to the Galatians.

Based on Paul's testimony in Galatians 1 and the accounts in Acts (Acts 9, 22, 26), where it is specifically mentioned that Paul was tasked to be a witness to the Gentiles, it could be interpreted that what happened on the road to Damascus was not just a conversion from first-century Judaism to a faith centred on Jesus Christ, but also a commissioning of Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles—although in Paul's mind they both amounted to the same thing.
Wikipedia

I believe that Paul experienced something that forever changed his trajectory in life. And that trajectory involved/included great discomfort and persecution. I guess you can look at him as being deluded or conspiring to gain a following, but I think the evidence seems to show Paul was not an ordinary man and one would have to question what he had to gain by fabricating a vision.

He was in a pretty good place and had a good gig going before traveling the road to Damascus.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

There was a time when I was somewhat open to the idea that Jesus did not exist, but the more I looked into it, the more I realized it fails Occam's Razor. In addition to the evidence of Paul, we have Josephus, who wasn't even a Christian. And while one of the two mentions of Jesus in his works is contaminated by blatant and clumsy Christian interpolation, the other isn't, and it's the one that mentions the execution of James, "the brother of Jesus who was called Messiah", in the course of political events that Josephus, as a member of the Jewish priestly class, personally witnessed. Carrier has a convoluted explanation for why this passage exists, in addition to his convoluted explanations for the passages of Paul that treat Jesus as a human being, but the simpler explanation is that the Josephus passage is genuine and Paul means what he seems to mean.

Moreover, the mythical aspects of the Jesus story are equally explicable using the much more widely accepted explanation, that Jesus was a real person who was mythologized after his death. Kishkumen has made that point quite clearly, in my opinion, regarding the miracle stories. Some elements of the gospels are actually more convincingly explained by the conventional explanation than by the mythicist one, because the gospels show signs that they're struggling to adapt a genuine story that doesn't fit the preexisting messianic prophecies. To quote from a page that all advocates of mythicism should read:

The idea of a Messiah who dies was totally unheard of and utterly alien to any Jewish tradition prior to the beginning of Christianity, but the idea of a Messiah who was crucified was not only bizarre, it was absurd. According to Jewish tradition, anyone who was “hanged on a tree” was to be considered accursed by Yahweh and this was one of the reasons crucifixion was considered particularly abhorrent to Jews. The concept of a crucified Messiah, therefore, was totally bizarre and absurd... Paul acknowledges how absurd the idea of a crucified Messiah was in 1Cor 1:23, where he says it “is a stumbling block to the Jews and an absurdity to the gentiles”.

The accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion in the gospels also show how awkward the nature of their Messiah’s death was for the earliest Christians. They are all full of references to texts in the Old Testament as ways of demonstrating that, far from being an absurdity, this was what was supposed to happen to the Messiah. But none of the texts used were considered prophecies of the Messiah before Christianity came along and some of them are highly forced. The “suffering servant” passages in Isaiah 53 are pressed into service as “prophecies” of the crucifixion, since they depict a figure being falsely accused, rejected and given up to be “pierced …. as a guilt offering”. But the gospels don’t reference other parts of the same passage which don’t fit their story at all, such as where it is said this figure will “prolong his days and look upon his offspring”.

Finally, as I've looked deeper into it I've realized that Christianity and mythicism are rather like mirror images of each other, in ways that are unflattering to both. In all the bizarre varieties and offshoots that Christianity has produced over the centuries, the one thing that remains consistent is the idea that Jesus was special. Mythicists obviously doesn't believe he was special in the sense that Christians do, but they still give him special treatment by applying to him a standard of proof that, if applied consistently, would erase a lot of other people from the historical record.

Great post, thanks for sharing it.