Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

[dore]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Going along with the above post it's safe to say religion would be under a lot more scrutiny if it were actually disprovable. Any time you get into a religious argument with a Christian, for example, they can always back up their claims with "The Bible says ______" thus making the argument overall not worthwhile. Especially fun is religion vs. religion arguments.

[Afrobean]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Okay, I haven't read many other replies, but I kind of wanted to say something about the first post.

Religion actually does undergo quite a bit of scrutiny.

I know that you admitted to not reading every post, but I just want to say that I've already pointed out that it's an ENTIRELY different sort of scrutiny. It's looked at from a literary or philosophical way. It is not under the same kind of scrutiny that science or logic follows.

But as a Christian, I also think that religious peoples should study their religion, and be prepared to defend it if it undergoes trial. In fact, I think religious people should be glad that they are under scrutiny, because it gives them a chance to show how their religion works, why it is true (if it is), and what misconceptions people have about the religion (especially in a place like this, where you can look up defenses for your religion in between posts - not nearly as difficult as it is when you are talking to someone).

If you cannot defend your religion without the help of the Internet on your back, you shouldn't believe so strongly in those things. This is a primary qualm I have with organized religion and its followers; many of them are largely oblivious to just how absurd some of the beliefs they claim are.

Going along with the above post it's safe to say religion would be under a lot more scrutiny if it were actually disprovable. Any time you get into a religious argument with a Christian, for example, they can always back up their claims with "The Bible says ______" thus making the argument overall not worthwhile. Especially fun is religion vs. religion arguments.

There are plenty of things stated in the bible which can be scientifically disproved.

These things are the areas where reasonable persons throw in the metaphor card. The only thing I don't get is that if "global flood" or "seven days" can be a metaphor, why can't "water to wine" or "walk on water" or "rise from the dead"? In fact, I'd say that the parables of Jesus are more ripe for literary symbolism than the Old Testament absurdities.

[dore]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I'm not talking about events because I wouldn't argue with a Christian about whether the events detailed in the Bible in the Bible actually occurred. That would be dumb and pointless. I'm more talking about ideological concerns of the Bible, such as humans being made in God's image, the validity of the Ten Commandments as moral law, etc. You can't scientifically prove morality so why would you scrutinize the moral implications of a given religion assuming it's within the law and doesn't affect anyone else's unalienable rights?

And you really can't say "Jesus did not turn water into wine" because if you believe in Jesus as the son of God then he isn't limited by time and space as we know through science. You would have to prove without a doubt that Jesus was not the son of God which is impossible because you can't scientifically disprove God by his very definition and therefore you can't scientifically disprove someone who has inherited magical powers from said divine being.

I agree with you it's absurd but it's not disprovable.

[somethingillremember]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

If you cannot defend your religion without the help of the Internet on your back, you shouldn't believe so strongly in those things. This is a primary qualm I have with organized religion and its followers; many of them are largely oblivious to just how absurd some of the beliefs they claim are.

Yeah, I really should be able to back up my religion better, but I have only recently started seriously looking into my own religion, and I'm not going to suddenly know everything about my religion in the first few months of study (in fact, I'm almost worried about posting in these forums, because eventually I'm going to meet someone who knows more than me and will totally chew me out :P). And the things I know I believe in very strongly. Also, although I was definitely thinking of the internet when I said what I said, you could also use your pastor, religious friends, parents, or other people for backup, not just the internet.

But I never said that someone should not have to back up their faith without the help of the internet and other sources, I just said that it's easier. In fact, I totally agree with you. Religious people should be able to back up their faith.

As far as Christianity's claims being absurd, yes, the views of Christianity are radically different from how most of the world thinks (and, frankly, what most of the world thinks they are). And the miracles are very absurd. That's why they're miracles, they're supposed to be wacky.

There are plenty of things stated in the bible which can be scientifically disproved.

These things are the areas where reasonable persons throw in the metaphor card. The only thing I don't get is that if "global flood" or "seven days" can be a metaphor, why can't "water to wine" or "walk on water" or "rise from the dead"? In fact, I'd say that the parables of Jesus are more ripe for literary symbolism than the Old Testament absurdities.

Except for the beginning of Genesis, which was used to explain the creation of the universe to people who would not understand it, all of the historical parts of the bible are literal. Much of prophesy is highly metaphorical, because if people were to perfectly understand it, then it might not happen. It's not until after the said events occurs that it is understood, like the 70 weeks prophesy in Daniel.

http://www.truthnet.org/dan70.html

If you don't want to read all of that (which I don't think that you do), it's basically a prophesy in Daniel that links to the exact date that Jesus was crucified, but was so filled with metaphors that no one could make sense of it until after it happened.

Many of the historical events themselves are metaphors, like the festival of unleavened bread from the Old Testament, which represented church growth and excommunication in later times, but at the time was just a yearly thing that the Israelites did. So although it was a metaphor, it actually happened historically.

Also, Jesus rising from the dead has to have happened. Jesus' death and revival are the main things in Christianity. Take them away, and the entire religion falls apart.

[Afrobean]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I'm not talking about events because I wouldn't argue with a Christian about whether the events detailed in the Bible in the Bible actually occurred. That would be dumb and pointless. I'm more talking about ideological concerns of the Bible, such as humans being made in God's image, the validity of the Ten Commandments as moral law, etc. You can't scientifically prove morality so why would you scrutinize the moral implications of a given religion assuming it's within the law and doesn't affect anyone else's unalienable rights?

Morality is easily explained as a social contract. I've mentioned this in the thread on morality a ton of times, as well as a few times here.

Anyway, all of the commandments that don't involve religion are based on moralistic principles. They're not a bad beacon of moral law.

And you really can't say "Jesus did not turn water into wine" because if you believe in Jesus as the son of God then he isn't limited by time and space as we know through science. You would have to prove without a doubt that Jesus was not the son of God which is impossible because you can't scientifically disprove God by his very definition and therefore you can't scientifically disprove someone who has inherited magical powers from said divine being.

I agree with you it's absurd but it's not disprovable.

If "God created the world in seven days" and "God created man in his image from dirt" are decided to be a metaphors, why then is the New Testament not able to be looked at symbolically rather than literally? That's the point I was trying to make. An omnipotent god could have done any of the absurd things in the bible, even ones that make no sense. For example, how old the Earth is. If he truly is all powerful, then he could have created the world 6000 years ago and all carbon dating and signs pointing to the world (and the Universe) being much older could be elaborate lies that this all powerful god put in place for some reason. Dinosaurs? Why, they never really lived; God just placed those fossilized bones there in the dirt as a joke.

Except for the beginning of Genesis, which was used to explain the creation of the universe to people who would not understand it, all of the historical parts of the bible are literal. Much of prophesy is highly metaphorical, because if people were to perfectly understand it, then it might not happen. It's not until after the said events occurs that it is understood, like the 70 weeks prophesy in Daniel.

http://www.truthnet.org/dan70.html

If you don't want to read all of that (which I don't think that you do), it's basically a prophesy in Daniel that links to the exact date that Jesus was crucified, but was so filled with metaphors that no one could make sense of it until after it happened.

That's a problem that religious folks seem to have.

It's not predictive if it's not "understood" until after the fact. Well crafted metaphor can be interpreted many ways. The reader will always paint their own beliefs onto it and look for things they know of. That does not mean that the person who "predicted" those things knew they'd happen, it just means that they gave enough vague detail that another person could fill in the rest.

This is a logical fallacy.

Something which is truly predictive would be understood before the thing has happened.

Many of the historical events themselves are metaphors, like the festival of unleavened bread from the Old Testament, which represented church growth and excommunication in later times, but at the time was just a yearly thing that the Israelites did. So although it was a metaphor, it actually happened historically.

Also, Jesus rising from the dead has to have happened. Jesus' death and revival are the main things in Christianity. Take them away, and the entire religion falls apart.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Basically, you're believing something that is absurd, because if you didn't believe in it, you wouldn't believe in it. Does that make sense?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's why it's so absurd. What reason is there to believe that Jesus was resurrected? Because if he didn't rise from the dead, then the whole religion is based on a lie?

Jesus taught some great things, but come on. He doesn't have to have risen from the dead to be worthy of notice. His stories should be placed alongside the greats of the ancient world, along with the stories of the Greek Heroes. There's plenty to learn from it, but to literally believe this absurd stuff is just... absurd...

[somethingillremember]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

That's a problem that religious folks seem to have.

It's not predictive if it's not "understood" until after the fact. Well crafted metaphor can be interpreted many ways. The reader will always paint their own beliefs onto it and look for things they know of. That does not mean that the person who "predicted" those things knew they'd happen, it just means that they gave enough vague detail that another person could fill in the rest.

This is a logical fallacy.

Something which is truly predictive would be understood before the thing has happened.

That isn't necessarily true. Imagine two people were stuck in a room for their whole life, and one of them gets a vision of a sunrise which he describes as "A great ball of flame, growing on the Earth". Then he dies, and the other person cannot figure out what he means by "A great ball of flame, growing on the Earth". Finally, he escapes the room and sees a sunrise. The man instantly realizes what the other man saw in his vision. The man who escaped wouldn't say "Well, obviously he didn't predict anything because I did not know what it meant until I saw it. In fact, he could have meant something totally different." He would say "HOLY ****! So that's what he was talking about!"

The passage is here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...209&version=31 (it's Daniel 9)
The 70 weeks interpretation of Daniel is pretty dang solid. I don't think that there are very many other interpretations that suit the passage well.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Basically, you're believing something that is absurd, because if you didn't believe in it, you wouldn't believe in it. Does that make sense?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's why it's so absurd. What reason is there to believe that Jesus was resurrected? Because if he didn't rise from the dead, then the whole religion is based on a lie?

Jesus taught some great things, but come on. He doesn't have to have risen from the dead to be worthy of notice. His stories should be placed alongside the greats of the ancient world, along with the stories of the Greek Heroes. There's plenty to learn from it, but to literally believe this absurd stuff is just... absurd...

The reason I believe in the bible is because God has showed me throughout my life how it works (I know that you don't believe this, so note that I am not trying to attack anyone, this is just my view). Also, Much of the new testament was written after Jesus' death and resurrection. If you look at the bible correctly, it makes sense and it all fits together. So I don't believe it because I believe it, I believe it because it makes sense to me.

Not only that, but the whole message of the Gospel is very different from that of other world views and religions, that Jesus died and saved us, and we are no longer under obligation to follow the law. You see, I have learned that trying on my own to follow the law does not work, and if you get to the point where you are following the law, the you are just following a bunch of arbitrary rules. In my view, God is perfect, and so even if I got to the point where I was obeying "the law" I would be radically far from perfect, which is what is required by God. In fact, the reason for the law, in my view, is to lead us to Christ, not to be applied to your life, because even the Old Testament law before the 10 commandments (it had over 600 laws) was incomplete. "Sin" is not just disobeying the law. The whole nature of humans is sin, and as humans we are constantly sinning. So it's not just like I sin here and there, and if I just fix those few things, I'll be alright. My whole thought process is sinful, and I constantly sin in everyday life. In my opinion, people who are Christians that are "trying their hardest" to obey the law aren't looking at it the right way because that's a bit like saying "Jesus' death on the cross wasn't enough for me, I still need to work to earn my salvation." Instead, in my view, it has to be looked at like "I'm messed up, I can't possibly change myself, and I need God to save me and change me." When I look at it like that, then I am relying on God to change me, not my own works. Ephesians 2 talks all about this, as well as many other places in the New Testament, like for most of Galatians, and for alot of the gospels, and in fact for most of the New Testament, really.

Wow. I got really sidetracked there.

[dore]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I offer this question: why are we sinful? What makes our natural thought processes wrong? Why is our everyday life so terrible? It seems arbitrary to make human nature "sinful" when all that does is add fuel to stereotypical thinking such as hiding emotions and being above instinct. There is a reason why we have instincts and there is a reason why we feel these emotions, so why should it be considered wrong? Why, just because I am conscious and can consider these things are they somehow evil? Why ignore some instincts like basic sexual instincts but not others, like eating?

The whole concept of sin is arbitrary and in my opinion only was created to control people's morality. By making human nature "evil" you now have a society of people trying as hard as they can to be prim and proper while oh by the way it's sinful to not give money to your church haha now you can't afford food.

[Afrobean]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

That isn't necessarily true. Imagine two people were stuck in a room for their whole life, and one of them gets a vision of a sunrise which he describes as "A great ball of flame, growing on the Earth". Then he dies, and the other person cannot figure out what he means by "A great ball of flame, growing on the Earth". Finally, he escapes the room and sees a sunrise. The man instantly realizes what the other man saw in his vision. The man who escaped wouldn't say "Well, obviously he didn't predict anything because I did not know what it meant until I saw it. In fact, he could have meant something totally different." He would say "HOLY ****! So that's what he was talking about!"

The passage is here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...209&version=31 (it's Daniel 9)
The 70 weeks interpretation of Daniel is pretty dang solid. I don't think that there are very many other interpretations that suit the passage well.

Again, I will say this. If something is not descriptive enough and overt in its depiction, nothing it says is truly predictive.

That, and most of that stuff follows basic archetypes. If someone says "one day there will be a tremendous battle on a hill and many will die", that could be any number of small skirmishes to full blown wars across all of human history. Take a look at some of the stuff Nostradamus "predicted"... many of his predictions can be applied to many separate situations, sometimes even providing conflicting world views.

The reason I believe in the bible is because God has showed me throughout my life how it works (I know that you don't believe this, so note that I am not trying to attack anyone, this is just my view). Also, Much of the new testament was written after Jesus' death and resurrection. If you look at the bible correctly, it makes sense and it all fits together. So I don't believe it because I believe it, I believe it because it makes sense to me.

Actually, I think you mean to say "All of the New Testament was written a very long time after his death, in some cases decades or more."

And quick question, but how has "God... showed you throughout [your] life" that the story of Jesus rising from the dead is literally true? Forgive the pun, but you said it yourself- the resurrection is at the crux of Christian belief. If "God has showed you throughout your life" that the bible should be believed, then he must have personally relayed to you why Jesus's resurrection story should be believed literally. Can you please relay this to me in some way that makes logical sense?

Not only that, but the whole message of the Gospel is very different from that of other world views and religions, that Jesus died and saved us, and we are no longer under obligation to follow the law. You see, I have learned that trying on my own to follow the law does not work, and if you get to the point where you are following the law, the you are just following a bunch of arbitrary rules. In my view, God is perfect, and so even if I got to the point where I was obeying "the law" I would be radically far from perfect, which is what is required by God. In fact, the reason for the law, in my view, is to lead us to Christ, not to be applied to your life, because even the Old Testament law before the 10 commandments (it had over 600 laws) was incomplete. "Sin" is not just disobeying the law. The whole nature of humans is sin, and as humans we are constantly sinning. So it's not just like I sin here and there, and if I just fix those few things, I'll be alright. My whole thought process is sinful, and I constantly sin in everyday life. In my opinion, people who are Christians that are "trying their hardest" to obey the law aren't looking at it the right way because that's a bit like saying "Jesus' death on the cross wasn't enough for me, I still need to work to earn my salvation." Instead, in my view, it has to be looked at like "I'm messed up, I can't possibly change myself, and I need God to save me and change me." When I look at it like that, then I am relying on God to change me, not my own works. Ephesians 2 talks all about this, as well as many other places in the New Testament, like for most of Galatians, and for alot of the gospels, and in fact for most of the New Testament, really.

Wow. I got really sidetracked there.

That is a VERY dangerous way to look at morality, and that sort of thing is why I have such disdain for Faith without Reason. People take the stance that "this life" doesn't matter, that they're already sinners.

They may even be set in a belief that they're going to Hell regardless of how they handle the rest of their lives.

Morality need not be driven by dogmatic bull****. The idea of treating others as you would like to be treated is both the fundamental basis for morality AND a message taught by Jesus himself. Don't submit to the idea that you're a sinner and "beyond help" and you can't be "good" on your own and you need "God to change [you]". I assure you, no matter what you believe, God is not going to intervene in this world and help you in the slightest. He'll stand by and let freak accidents and diseases claim the lives of faithful servants just the same as asshole atheists or anyone else. Because that's what he does if he does exist; stand by and do nothing.

[somethingillremember]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Whoops, I wrote this post twice. Sorry, I'm really tired.

I offer this question: why are we sinful? What makes our natural thought processes wrong? Why is our everyday life so terrible? It seems arbitrary to make human nature "sinful" when all that does is add fuel to stereotypical thinking such as hiding emotions and being above instinct. There is a reason why we have instincts and there is a reason why we feel these emotions, so why should it be considered wrong? Why, just because I am conscious and can consider these things are they somehow evil? Why ignore some instincts like basic sexual instincts but not others, like eating?

The whole concept of sin is arbitrary and in my opinion only was created to control people's morality. By making human nature "evil" you now have a society of people trying as hard as they can to be prim and proper while oh by the way it's sinful to not give money to your church haha now you can't afford food.

Note that the following response is not to prove the Bible, but to state what it says.

My point was not to say that Christianity is speaking of repressing emotions and tendencies, but that that is what many people think it is. These "sins" that we do are what lead us away from God. But Christianity isn't about trying not to do these things. In fact, sin isn't even really certain "things" that we do. By sinful nature, I mean the desire we have for ourselves, putting our own needs above others, just the selfish way in which we live. Although people may do certain things for other people, when put in a pressure situation, like receiving a promotion, a person would be much more joyful if they got the promotion. The point is that our nature is to do things that benefit ourselves in some way: as humans we are contrary to doing things like afrobean said (er, quoted Jesus), loving our neighbor as ourselves. We want to love ourselves.

Galatians 5:17 says
"For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want".

Our sinful or selfish nature is conflicting with God (the Spirit being the Holy Spirit).
So since our nature (note that this is my view and I am not trying to force you to believe it) is conflicting with God's nature, we cannot conquer it without his help. So Christianity is about having a relationship with Christ and God, and through God I may be free from my sinful nature, so it's not me trying to be free from my nature to get to God.

Please, again I would like to mention that I am not trying to force you to believe this, but that it is what the bible says and what I believe. Sorry if I sound at all dogmatic.

Hold on, I'm going to make a response to afrobean, (actually, that name is pretty sweet. How did you come to think of it?) probably in an edit, but I have to do some stuff first.

[Afrobean]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

as humans we are contrary to doing things like afrobean said (er, quoted Jesus), loving our neighbor as ourselves. We want to love ourselves.

Yeah, but a logical person is able to see that by treating others fairly and maintaining the social contract, you're actually benefiting indirectly too.

How about this:

Say your neighbor has a great lawn mower and you have none. You would like to mow your grass. If you take the mower without asking, you break the social contract and risk retribution not only from him personally (or indirectly via a tarnished reputation), but also from the law. But if you ask him to borrow it, he tells you "no" because you've never done anything nice for him.

I guess the idea I'm getting at could be a more tangible form of karma. Treat others with respect and you will be respected. Love your neighbor as yourself and you'll find your neighbor loving you right back. It's not selfless at all and it never claims to be. I don't follow moral rules for your good, I follow them for my own good.

But again, this is morality talk that would be better placed in the morality thread.

Anyway, looking forward to dissecting another one of your posts, but I might miss it this morning. I'm about to finally check out Religulous... >

[Reach]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Yeah, but a logical person is able to see that by treating others fairly and maintaining the social contract, you're actually benefiting indirectly too.

How about this:

Say your neighbor has a great lawn mower and you have none. You would like to mow your grass. If you take the mower without asking, you break the social contract and risk retribution not only from him personally (or indirectly via a tarnished reputation), but also from the law. But if you ask him to borrow it, he tells you "no" because you've never done anything nice for him.

I guess the idea I'm getting at could be a more tangible form of karma. Treat others with respect and you will be respected. Love your neighbor as yourself and you'll find your neighbor loving you right back. It's not selfless at all and it never claims to be. I don't follow moral rules for your good, I follow them for my own good.

But again, this is morality talk that would be better placed in the morality thread.

Anyway, looking forward to dissecting another one of your posts, but I might miss it this morning. I'm about to finally check out Religulous... >

You're getting at something important here, in particular something we have a lot of evidence from social psychology to support. That is, people aren't altruistic by nature, BUT do engage in helping behaviors when there are benefits to the self. I would say it's evolutionary...you can call it God given sinfulness if you want, but whether or not people will help depends entirely on the benefits for helping.

The benefits don't have to be direct. We know from experimentation that even in the presence of very indirect benefits, people will help...but if you take that away and increase the negative consequences of helping, people stop helping across the board. Sometimes the benefits are even hidden. For example, some very clever experimentation found that people will help almost solely to make themselves feel better. If you trick them into thinking that their mood is stable using a bogus placebo, they won't help in the same situation. If anything, to me it seems like this may be indicative that humans are innately wired to help other people, albeit for a selfish reason, but I don't think it matters.

It's the way we are; if people did not look out for themselves, we wouldn't be here. Evolution ultimately, by consequence, selects those that look out for themselves. I certainly don't think it's sinful. I think people should put themselves first, and I find myself much more willing to help others when I am already doing well.

[somethingillremember]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I offer this question: why are we sinful? What makes our natural thought processes wrong? Why is our everyday life so terrible? It seems arbitrary to make human nature "sinful" when all that does is add fuel to stereotypical thinking such as hiding emotions and being above instinct. There is a reason why we have instincts and there is a reason why we feel these emotions, so why should it be considered wrong? Why, just because I am conscious and can consider these things are they somehow evil? Why ignore some instincts like basic sexual instincts but not others, like eating?

The whole concept of sin is arbitrary and in my opinion only was created to control people's morality. By making human nature "evil" you now have a society of people trying as hard as they can to be prim and proper while oh by the way it's sinful to not give money to your church haha now you can't afford food.

Note that the following response is not to prove the Bible, but to state what it says.

My point was not to say that Christianity is speaking of repressing emotions and tendencies, but that that is what many people think it is. These "sins" that we do are what lead us away from God. But Christianity isn't about trying not to do these things. In fact, sin isn't even really certain "things" that we do. By sinful nature, I mean the desire we have for ourselves, putting our own needs above others, just the selfish way in which we live. Although people may do certain things for other people, when put in a pressure situation, like receiving a promotion, a person would be much more joyful if they got the promotion. This is contrary to the Christian religion. The point is that our nature is to do things that benefit ourselves in some way: as humans we are contrary to doing things like afrobean said (er, quoted Jesus), loving our neighbor as ourselves. We want to love ourselves.

Galatians 5:17 says
"For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want".

Our sinful or selfish nature is conflicting with God (the Spirit being the Holy Spirit).
So since our nature (note that this is my view and I am not trying to force you to believe it) is conflicting with God's nature, we cannot conquer it without his help.

Hold on, I'm going to make a response to afrobean, (actually, that name is pretty sweet. How did you come to think of it?) probably in an edit, but I have to do some stuff first.

Okay. Here 'tis.

Again, I will say this. If something is not descriptive enough and overt in its depiction, nothing it says is truly predictive.

That, and most of that stuff follows basic archetypes. If someone says "one day there will be a tremendous battle on a hill and many will die", that could be any number of small skirmishes to full blown wars across all of human history. Take a look at some of the stuff Nostradamus "predicted"... many of his predictions can be applied to many separate situations, sometimes even providing conflicting world views.

The Daniel prophesy has A LOT of backup. If there were a prophesy that said "One day there will be a battle" then yeah, that wouldn't exactly be the greatest prophesy. But if someone prophesied "There will be a great beast that floats on the sea. None will have seen any like it before, and none thought it was destructible, yet it is made by man. But this great beast will have a defect, and when it hits a great piece of ice, it will fall under the freezing sea, and countless people riding on him will freeze and die. Stories will be told of this fall throughout the ages. People will watch it over and over again for decades and centuries afterward." If this were written in 1000 A.D., the people of that time would have a hard time figuring out what it was about, and there would surely be many different strange interpretations. But in our modern eyes, after seeing the film "Titanic" it makes a lot more sense.

Actually, I think you mean to say "All of the New Testament was written a very long time after his death, in some cases decades or more."

Er, yeah. I'm restarted sometimes. I was thinking about the gospels being written about the time before Jesus' death, not actually being written before them :P.

And quick question, but how has "God... showed you throughout [your] life" that the story of Jesus rising from the dead is literally true? Forgive the pun, but you said it yourself- the resurrection is at the crux of Christian belief. If "God has showed you throughout your life" that the bible should be believed, then he must have personally relayed to you why Jesus's resurrection story should be believed literally. Can you please relay this to me in some way that makes logical sense?

Erm, again, I was being kind of stupid. I meant that from my perspective, it seems like there have been many times where God has helped me in my life. When I prayed to him it seemed like he helped me understand the gospel (from my point of view, I mean). And I linked two things that are not linked. Sorry about that, you're right, my life does not show Jesus' death as literal. However I do have other backup for this.

Jesus' death was a historical event. Jesus was written of by a number of witnesses, and although you may say it was only four, Luke was not an eyewitness, but put together a history from eyewitnesses, who also proclaimed that they had seen Jesus live again. Jesus' death and resurrection has to have been literal, as it truly shows that he is the son of God, to have risen on his own. Like I said before, Christianity would fall apart if Jesus never died and rose again.

1 John 1 says (not John 1)
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."

John was an eyewitness. He had seen these things himself, and was very strongly opinionated about it. In fact, Christian Nostics did arise in around 200 A.D. that said that Jesus never really died out of the belief that a God could not die, and churches had to combat that view.

That is a VERY dangerous way to look at morality, and that sort of thing is why I have such disdain for Faith without Reason. People take the stance that "this life" doesn't matter, that they're already sinners.

I never said that this life doesn't matter (I also might be reading what you said wrong, so sorry if I am). In fact, I believe that this life matters a whole lot, and I have never heard Christians say that this life doesn't matter, and doing good things is very important. The point is that good things don't need to be done to achieve salvation. Is that what you mean? Or did you mean something else? Unless you mean being successful in this life is not important, in which case I don't think that it is.

They may even be set in a belief that they're going to Hell regardless of how they handle the rest of their lives.

What do you mean by "they"?

Morality need not be driven by dogmatic bull****. The idea of treating others as you would like to be treated is both the fundamental basis for morality AND a message taught by Jesus himself. Don't submit to the idea that you're a sinner and "beyond help" and you can't be "good" on your own and you need "God to change [you]". I assure you, no matter what you believe, God is not going to intervene in this world and help you in the slightest. He'll stand by and let freak accidents and diseases claim the lives of faithful servants just the same as asshole atheists or anyone else. Because that's what he does if he does exist; stand by and do nothing.

First of all, although Jesus did say many things along the lines of "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31) he also said many things like "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father (God) except through me." (John 14:6) and earlier in that same passage " In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." (John 14:2-4) and " Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." (Matthew 10:32-33). I mean, if Jesus isn't really God and didn't really die on the cross, then he is one of the most arrogant people who ever lived. Or totally crazy, and I don't think someone that crazy could come up with teachings that last thousands of years. He made references to his own death and resurrection, like in Matthew 20:17 where it says "Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!' " Jesus said a bunch of crazy stuff like that.

In my view, I am a sinner, I am beyond help, and I do need God to change me. Again, I'm not trying to force you to believe this, but it is my view that God [I]will[\I] help me throughout my life, and that I can pray to him and ask for his help. Jesus said to his disciples "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." Ephesians 6:18 says "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. Also, Jesus said "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." This seems to imply that Jesus will, in fact, help us in our lives.

I gotta go, so I can't say much more, but it says in the bible that Christians will undergo suffering, and that it is part of the Christian life. And how do you know that God doesn't help people all the time, and that it would be much, much worse without his help?

Anyway, I have to go to bed (I live in Taiwan). Talk later!

[devonin]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

But in our modern eyes, after seeing the film "Titanic" it makes a lot more sense.

OH, I thought it was predicting the sinking of the Lusitania. Curses.

Okay, point made, now I'll make a more actual response.

If this were written in 1000 A.D., the people of that time would have a hard time figuring out what it was about, and there would surely be many different strange interpretations.

Then it was a failed prophecy. The purpose of a prophecy (in the sense of "true" prophecy) is to predict a future event in a way that allows some degree of meaningdul understanding in regards to that event. Prophecy reveals fate, it doesn't obscure reality. Look at the role played by prophecy in the Greek epics. Everything that was predicted to happen was both clear "You yourself are not one who shall live long, but now already death and powerful destiny are standing beside you, to go down under the hands of Aiakos' great son, Achilleus" understandable at a level that didn't require hindsight, and not something using terms that made no sense to the people of the time.

it seems like there have been many times where God has helped me in my life.

So God broke His promise to mankind to grant us free will to let us do as we choose? If God poked His hand in and interfered any time we asked nicely, then He is shaping events that He promised to allow to take their own course. How do you reconcile the concept of free will with the concept of direct intercession in human affairs by God?

Jesus' death was a historical event. Jesus was written of by a number of witnesses, and although you may say it was only four, Luke was not an eyewitness, but put together a history from eyewitnesses, who also proclaimed that they had seen Jesus live again.

Begging the question. The bible's validity as a source is what is under question. Since, as you said, the lack of a resurrected Jesus makes the whole thing fall apart, OF COURSE the bible states clearly and repeatedly that there was a resurrected Jesus. The thing you need to do to show proof is to show extra-biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

Jesus' death and resurrection has to have been literal, as it truly shows that he is the son of God, to have risen on his own.

You ought to replace the phrase "has to have been" to "desperately needs to have been" to make that a true statement. Unfortunately, you can't get an 'is' from an 'ought'

I mean, if Jesus isn't really God and didn't really die on the cross, then he is one of the most arrogant people who ever lived. Or totally crazy, and I don't think someone that crazy could come up with teachings that last thousands of years.

Or he was a deluded individual who was interested in founding a religion, gaining followers and understood that you need to sound suitably impressive to impress people around you? Or more to the point, the second-hand accounts of what Jesus said or didn't say are not quite accurate reflections of what he intended to have said. The majority of statements in the bible attributed to Jesus do not deal with his assumed divinity, or any superiority to those around him. Frankly, my own readings of the bible suggest that the effect God was going for with Jesus was that he be a normal human man the exact same as everyone else. In that case, the ability to perform miracles is certainly not included in the package. If the purpose of Jesus was to show everyone the proper way to live in order to get into the kingdom of heaven, he needed to be a perfectly normal person, to show us how we, perfectly normal people, can do it.

If he had divine grace, never sinned, performed miracles at a whim and basically got to cheat to get into heaven, then his existance is useless for us as a guide. He needs to be a normal, fallible, prone to sins and greed and selfishness person just like us.

As for his message, I think you'll find that he didn't "come up with" teachings that lasted thousands of years. The vast majority of his teachings are exactly the same as ones you'd find in a whole host of other religious and moral teachings predating him by many years.

You think "If you're nice to people, they'll be nice to you" is a brand new idea that Jesus had?

[Afrobean]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

The Daniel prophesy has A LOT of backup. If there were a prophesy that said "One day there will be a battle" then yeah, that wouldn't exactly be the greatest prophesy. But if someone prophesied "There will be a great beast that floats on the sea. None will have seen any like it before, and none thought it was destructible, yet it is made by man. But this great beast will have a defect, and when it hits a great piece of ice, it will fall under the freezing sea, and countless people riding on him will freeze and die. Stories will be told of this fall throughout the ages. People will watch it over and over again for decades and centuries afterward." If this were written in 1000 A.D., the people of that time would have a hard time figuring out what it was about, and there would surely be many different strange interpretations. But in our modern eyes, after seeing the film "Titanic" it makes a lot more sense.

You really don't understand why this train of thought is a logical fallacy?

I will link you to a wikipedia article. You will read that article. If you don't understand where the fallacy lies, then there is nothing more I can do. If you fail to understand it after reading in depth about the issue, then you are beyond help.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
Also worthy of notice because it details the logical fallacy specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

It would also probably be wise of you to chain off into the related articles such as the articles for "Confirmation bias" or "Shoehorning".

Er, yeah. I'm restarted sometimes. I was thinking about the gospels being written about the time before Jesus' death, not actually being written before them :P.

Eh?

"Restarted"?

Do you mean the Old Testament? What the Jews know as Tanakh? You know, that stuff was old even when Jesus got it. He had nothing to do with that stuff, and the stuff he did affect was only written long after he was already dead.

Erm, again, I was being kind of stupid. I meant that from my perspective, it seems like there have been many times where God has helped me in my life. When I prayed to him it seemed like he helped me understand the gospel (from my point of view, I mean). And I linked two things that are not linked. Sorry about that, you're right, my life does not show Jesus' death as literal. However I do have other backup for this.

And there's no way that your prayer could have been self fulfilling prophecy? You wanted something to happen, so you worked harder at achieving it? It is absurd to say that you needed, asked for, and received divine assistance in understanding a piece of literature. Do you truly believe that it is impossible for you to have simply used your brain to understand the material?

Jesus' death was a historical event. Jesus was written of by a number of witnesses, and although you may say it was only four, Luke was not an eyewitness, but put together a history from eyewitnesses, who also proclaimed that they had seen Jesus live again. Jesus' death and resurrection has to have been literal, as it truly shows that he is the son of God, to have risen on his own. Like I said before, Christianity would fall apart if Jesus never died and rose again.

You're still clinging to that circular reasoning. You're saying that it has to be true, because if it's not true, then Christianity is based on a lie. Why is it impossible to think that the stories of Jesus's life and death might have been exaggerated or partially (or entirely) fabricated in the time between his death and the time people began writing about him?

In addition, while I am willing to accept eyewitness accounts of the man living when the source is the bible, I am not willing to accept eyewitness accounts of unbelievable feats. You're using the same argument that the Bible is true because it says it is.

1 John 1 says (not John 1)
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."

John was an eyewitness. He had seen these things himself, and was very strongly opinionated about it. In fact, Christian Nostics did arise in around 200 A.D. that said that Jesus never really died out of the belief that a God could not die, and churches had to combat that view.

This is all irrelevant. If someone claims eyewitness of something fantastic having occurred, that alone cannot be used as evidence to its proof. There needs to be corroborating evidence suggesting that the eyewitness testimony is accurate.

I never said that this life doesn't matter (I also might be reading what you said wrong, so sorry if I am). In fact, I believe that this life matters a whole lot, and I have never heard Christians say that this life doesn't matter, and doing good things is very important. The point is that good things don't need to be done to achieve salvation. Is that what you mean? Or did you mean something else? Unless you mean being successful in this life is not important, in which case I don't think that it is.

I never said that you did think this way, but that is why it is a dangerous stance. There are those who DO believe that this life is meaningless. You may have chosen to see a worthwhile purpose in it, but not everyone who shares your ideas of sin and morality do.

What do you mean by "they"?

I was referring to the group of people who share a similar view of sin and morality as you identified. If a person has done terrible things and believes they will go to Hell when they die, and their only reason for behaving morally was to avoid Hell, why would they attempt to behave in a moral manner for the rest of their life?

First of all, although Jesus did say many things along the lines of "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31) he also said many things like "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father (God) except through me." (John 14:6) and earlier in that same passage " In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." (John 14:2-4) and " Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." (Matthew 10:32-33). I mean, if Jesus isn't really God and didn't really die on the cross, then he is one of the most arrogant people who ever lived.

Yeah, or maybe the quotations you are making are translations from Latin to English of "eyewitness accounts" written decades or more after he was already dead. Do you truthfully believe that every word the Bible says that Jesus said came out of Jesus's mouth?

Or totally crazy

This is also possible. Where do you think Jesus would be if he were born today?

He'd be in a mental hospital, at least as long as he proclaimed some of the fantastic things the writings written long after he was dead claimed.

and I don't think someone that crazy could come up with teachings that last thousands of years.

This is not a legitimate logical argument. The principles he taught were, as I already said, the very same principles that basis morality is built on. He could have been completely insane, but he's teaching a TIMELESS MESSAGE of morality, that story is going to live on. After all, look at other stories, some of which are older than Jesus's. The stories of Heracles, Odysseus, Perseus, Morpheus, Jason and the Argonauts. They tell timeless stories, their stories live on. It doesn't mean that the protagonist in the story is sane, intelligent, or shares the "right" theological belief. It just means that it's a good story worth being recalled for the ages.

He made references to his own death and resurrection, like in Matthew 20:17 where it says "Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!' " Jesus said a bunch of crazy stuff like that.

This easily could have been added to the story when it was finally written down. Embellishment.

Alternatively, he could have been "foretelling" of a resurrection his whole life, then when the first writings were made of the story of his death, the writer might have added the bit about resurrection to really sell the divinity angle.

Remember, this was a book written by men a long time after he was dead. They could have and most likely did change and add or remove anything they felt like to make the story more interesting or more epic or more divine.

In my view, I am a sinner, I am beyond help, and I do need God to change me. Again, I'm not trying to force you to believe this, but it is my view that God [I]will[\I] help me throughout my life, and that I can pray to him and ask for his help. Jesus said to his disciples "Pray that you will not fall into temptation."

Praying means nothing when the ball is in your court. "Pray that you will not fall into temptation." That's on you. If you give in to immoral temptation, that's because you failed, not because you didn't get enough help from your divine creator who, despite being claimed as allpowerful, refuses to overtly help anyone.

And what about free will? If you pray to overcome temptation and you believe God helped you in this, isn't that just admitting that you believe yourself to be God's puppet and have to bend to his will rather than being free?

Ephesians 6:18 says "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. Also, Jesus said "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." This seems to imply that Jesus will, in fact, help us in our lives.

Uh... yeah. When he was alive and of this world, I'm sure he'd do a bunch for everyone he could. If this God exists and if Jesus truly is God, he has made it plainly clear that he's not doing humanity any favors at this point.

I gotta go, so I can't say much more, but it says in the bible that Christians will undergo suffering, and that it is part of the Christian life. And how do you know that God doesn't help people all the time, and that it would be much, much worse without his help?

What could be worse? Everyone dying? Wouldn't Christians see that as a good thing? Isn't that one of the primary good things about the End of Days?

Yeah, man, let's just blow up the world then so we can all just be with God and everything can be amazing.

Really, I don't understand it. If you truly believe in the afterlife as is defined by Christian dogma, why would you want to live? Why would you want anyone to live? We should all just kill each other right now and end the world. **** it, drop a couple nuclear bombs and kill everyone. If Heaven exists and it's so ****ing great, what the **** are we doing standing around here with our fingers up our butts? Let's get dead so we can have immortal life at God's side.

ps hi dev there's probably some things id like to comment on in your post but i honestly dont feel like assing myself into putting anything together

[somethingillremember]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

OH, I thought it was predicting the sinking of the Lusitania. Curses.

Okay, point made, now I'll make a more actual response.

Then it was a failed prophecy. The purpose of a prophecy (in the sense of "true" prophecy) is to predict a future event in a way that allows some degree of meaningdul understanding in regards to that event. Prophecy reveals fate, it doesn't obscure reality. Look at the role played by prophecy in the Greek epics. Everything that was predicted to happen was both clear "You yourself are not one who shall live long, but now already death and powerful destiny are standing beside you, to go down under the hands of Aiakos' great son, Achilleus" understandable at a level that didn't require hindsight, and not something using terms that made no sense to the people of the time.

I think there has been some confusion this entire time. We've got different definitions of prophesy. The prophesy that I am speaking of is a kind that is actually meant to be hidden until after a certain event happened. There is the other type of prophesy in the bible, which is supposed to be understood before the time it came true, but there is a different sort of prophesy. I'm not using this as proof to say that my side is right, or even that the verses I am speaking of are definitely meant for this, but we're arguing with man-made definitions that don't really apply.

Also, I will post more responses, but at the moment i have less time and more content to reply to. I know this may end up in a bit of double posting, but putting down my reply to everything at the same time is starting to confuse me, because I keep switching subjects and not getting anywhere.

As another side note, do you think that this discussion should be moved to a different post? Like, just arguments for/against Christianity? I kinda went off on a tangent, sorry.

*EDIT*
I didn't want to make a new post, so I just put my next argument here.

You really don't understand why this train of thought is a logical fallacy?

I will link you to a wikipedia article. You will read that article. If you don't understand where the fallacy lies, then there is nothing more I can do. If you fail to understand it after reading in depth about the issue, then you are beyond help.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
Also worthy of notice because it details the logical fallacy specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

It would also probably be wise of you to chain off into the related articles such as the articles for "Confirmation bias" or "Shoehorning".

Okay, it is possible that this prophesy does not have a true interpretation, but you are currently using the logic that "since other metaphorical prophesy I have seen is interpreted with logical fallacy and is obviously wrong, all metaphorical prophesy must be this way." And Nostradamus is a fairly extreme example (you used it previously), I looked up some of his stuff and it's interpretation. His writings do not seem logical in any way.

I am probably not going to ever be able to convince you that Daniel 9 is correct, and you aren't going to be able to convince me that it isn't, but I think that you should look up the passage and what is said about it before you accuse it of logical fallacy. If you have done this, then by all means, think what you want. But if you haven't, then you can't really make arguments against it. You can make arguments against prophesy in itself, but not specific prophesies.

Obviously, though, there are less metaphorical proofs for the bible. First, I am going to use prophesy again, this time from Psalm 22. Bear with me here, I know you think I'm using logical fallacies, but I have more to it than just arbitrary verses that relate to other ones.

Verse 1: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?

…

Verse 16: "Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet."

…

Verses 17-18: "I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing."

Psalm 22 says many other things, too, which are interpreted as being about Christ, because when Jesus was put to death on the cross, he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It was also reported in the gospels that people cast lots (bet) for his clothing and that not a single bone was broken (while the other two being crucified with him had their legs broken, because they needed to be dead by Sabbath, which was the next day - Jesus was reportedly already dead at the time). And the method or crucifixion ("piercing of the hands and feet" seems to be referential to crucifixion) was not even around at the time in which Psalms was written.

Before you begin to argue with me, yes, logically this could be a misinterpretation, or set up to be this way. In fact, although Jesus had no control over people casting lots for his clothing, he could have said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" in quoting of the original text (which, even from the Christian viewpoint, he might have been). And yes, it could have been chance that Psalms sounds like it is speaking of crucifixion. But as more and more complications are put into the Christianity equation, it seems less and less likely that this stuff was just fabricated. Yes, the disciples of Jesus could have just put in a bunch of stuff that Jesus didn't say, and link it with many other prophetical passages in their own interpretation. But would it not be extremely hard to do this, in four different writing styles which seem to fairly well sync up with these and other passages from the old testament, even if they do so vaguely (in my opinion, the Psalm 22 passage is very clear, but some other passages such as Micah 5:1-2, which claims that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, are less clear)? And for the events to link up by chance would be very unlikely, especially with other Old Testament prophesy. Also, the people writing the gospels seem to believe firmly in what they are saying. They would all have to be crazy to believe stuff that they themselves made up, and their writings are very opinionated and well thought out.

For Jesus' resurrection, I would like to provide you with some less biblical backup. The Jews and the Romans weren't very happy at the way Christianity arose, especially during the times of Nero. So here is my question: since Christianity relies on Christ's revival from the grave, then why didn't the Romans and Jews just show that Jesus' body was still inside the tomb in which he had been lain? There are arguments against this, like that the guards at the tomb stole the body, but why the heck would they? Also, that Jesus wasn't really dead and he tunneled out, but the workers at the crucifixion knew what they were doing, and probably wouldn't put a non-dead body in the tomb. And even if he wasn't dead, he was almost certainly very injured, and in no way could "dig out" or remove the heavy stone from in front of the tomb or fight off the guards outside of it. Another view is that the disciples stole the body, but I don't think if your life long mentor, the person who you loved most, died that you would want to steal his dead, limp body from the tomb. Also, there were tomb guards to pass.

Well, that does it for tonight. I gotta go to bed (I do have school tomorrow). I'll try to reply to some of the other things you guys said later, but my schedule is tighter now that Christmas break ended. I look forward to hearing your replies!

*SECOND EDIT*
I gotta go soon, but I thought I'd clear some things up real quick.

Eh?

"Restarted"?

Do you mean the Old Testament? What the Jews know as Tanakh? You know, that stuff was old even when Jesus got it. He had nothing to do with that stuff, and the stuff he did affect was only written long after he was already dead.

You see, right here I proved my point while making it. I tried to type "I'm retarded sometimes" , spelled "retarded" "retarted", and then had spellchecker change it to "restarted".

But aside from that, no, I was never really reffering to the Old Testament, just parts in the New Testament written about times before Jesus' death. Not actually written before it.

*THIRD EDIT*
Again because I don't want to make a new post.

As for his message, I think you'll find that he didn't "come up with" teachings that lasted thousands of years. The vast majority of his teachings are exactly the same as ones you'd find in a whole host of other religious and moral teachings predating him by many years.

You think "If you're nice to people, they'll be nice to you" is a brand new idea that Jesus had?

Jesus didn't teach "Be nice to people and then they'll be nice to you," he taught "I don't care what other people think of you, be nice to them anyway." He even said "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:27-31) Although I can't say I'm sure, I don't think that "love your enemies" was a teaching that was often told before the times of Jesus.