Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity?

[Randall]

The correlation between the story of Jonah and the Whale and ET: Is that Jonah was temporally taken aboard an ET starship, instead of being swallowed by a whale; though the whale myth was easier for people to accept.

There is also the story of the Leviathan, secularly believed to be a reference to a large crocodile. Interesting how it apparently had lights in its nose, arrows bounced off, its scales fit so tight that no water could go between, it churned the water, and it spread "pointed things" upon the mire. Sounds a lot more like something out of 20,000 leagues than the Bible! Today however I think that contact with such a thing would be looked upon very differently.

 

[Erno86]

There is also the story of the Leviathan, secularly believed to be a reference to a large crocodile. Interesting how it apparently had lights in its nose, arrows bounced off, its scales fit so tight that no water could go between, it churned the water, and it spread "pointed things" upon the mire. Sounds a lot more like something out of 20,000 leagues than the Bible! Today however I think that contact with such a thing would be looked upon very differently.

I wish I could delve more into my purported photographic evidence of such a communication attempt (Jonah and the Whale), generated by a laser holographic image of a dinosauroid humanoid --- But I'm not at liberty to show my photographic evidence of it right now --- Sorry.

 

[Randall]

I wish I could delve more into my purported photographic evidence of such a communication attempt (Jonah and the Whale), generated by a laser holographic image of a dinosauroid humanoid --- But I'm not at liberty to show my photographic evidence of it right now --- Sorry.

No apology necessary. You wouldn't want to release it until it's properly peer reviewed by a combination of biblical scholars and scientists who all agree that it is indeed proof. Maybe get Ray Stanford to help you with that.

 

[Trajanus]

Watch the video.

Don't have time for a whole vid. I presume Carrier just cites other examples of mythical figures dying and rising.

 

[Randall]

Don't have time for a whole vid. I presume Carrier just cites other examples of mythical figures dying and rising.

Pretty much. It's not really the topic of this thread anyway, except maybe to the extent of comparing how ancient people might respond to contact compared to people today. I think there is some merit in the idea that in ancient times they'd be considered Gods, even though most of the mythology was probably pure mythology rather than some sort of AAH von Däniken interpretation.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

USI : More likely they will find lifeforms in the next five years than decades.

 

[Trajanus]

Pretty much. It's not really the topic of this thread anyway...

I'm sure Ehrman addressed this argument at length in his book, but true, it's off topic.

 

[Randall]

I'm sure Ehrman addressed this argument at length in his book, but true, it's off topic.

In what way could Ehrman possibly address Carrier's research so that it's no lo9nger applicable or relevant? He'd have to prove the precedents Carrier cites aren't factual, and that doesn't seem likely. But even if he could, the initial assumption that nobody would invent a story such as the Jesus myth is simple proclamation based on assumptions that to me seem more biased than objective. Atheism isn't a faith. It's based on objective reasoning and evidence. Therefore which position would we expect to be more reasonable and objective? Jesus believers want to believe. Some atheists might want to believe too, but they need more than simple faith.

 

[wwkirk]

In what way could Ehrman possibly address Carrier's research so that it's no lo9nger applicable or relevant? He'd have to prove the precedents Carrier cites aren't factual, and that doesn't seem likely. But even if he could, the initial assumption that nobody would invent a story such as the Jesus myth is simple proclamation based on assumptions that to me seem more biased than objective. Atheism isn't a faith. It's based on objective reasoning and evidence. Therefore which position would we expect to be more reasonable and objective?

Despite my sympathy for Carrier (I have an audiobook by him on this topic), for the sake of candor: According to Wikipedia: "The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines; it contradicts the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the biography of the historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine."

 

[Randall]

Despite my sympathy for Carrier (I have an audiobook by him on this topic), for the sake of candor: According to Wikipedia: "The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines; it contradicts the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the biography of the historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine."

Those would all seem to be arguments from authority or consensus rather than counterpoint to Carrier's points, who also has a doctorate. Therefore the "mainstream historical view" is itself a point of contention, and if you check out the references in the citations, Ehrman is one of them and they appear to be simple proclamations based on belief and opinion rather than objective evidence. Not to mention that I wouldn't be surprised if most Biblical scholars are believers in the first place.

For my own curiosity I once tried to find a single shred of evidence directly tied to Jesus e.g. a scroll, tablet, carving, something, but found nothing. I even figured out that the shroud of Turin had to be fake before anyone else I'd read about with respect to it had put 2 + 2 together on it. There's only myths that allude to a Christ like character prior to when Jesus was alleged to have lived, and stuff written well after the fact, and any other mentions are unverifiable regarding whether or not they were in reference to an actual specific person. Maybe there's something I've missed. If so, then I'm always open to new info.

 

[O'Rilly]

I listened to Carrier's entire lecture found at the link a few posts above (as well as some of his other lectures). I'm not that impressed that his specific arguments for the "euhemerization" of Jesus would be very convincing for audiences other than atheists. In the linked vid above he says he's addressing atheists, and the composition of the audience almost certainly has an effect on how one presents a lecture. In addition, Carrier did not specifically mention by name a well-known competing concept, which is apotheosis. IMHO, Carrier ought to have carefully compared his proposal of euhemerization to the concept of apotheosis in order to make his argument convincing to any degree, and in the lecture he did not. Moreover, Carrier was asked a particularly pertinent question derived from the epistles of Paul, and his answer was not adequate at all, but you'd have to know the epistle in question and some Greek. Most people don't know that much about either. In my case, growing up a non-theist and despite not knowing anything about religion, then having an unsought "Jesus visitation" at a certain point in life which was quite confusing at the time, there seems to be a lot more to this question of the historicity of Jesus than the arguments that Carrier raises would show.

 

[Randall]

I listened to Carrier's entire lecture found at the link a few posts above (as well as some of his other lectures). I'm not that impressed that his specific arguments for the "euhemerization" of Jesus would be very convincing for audiences other than atheists. In the linked vid above he says he's addressing atheists, and the composition of the audience almost certainly has an effect on how one presents a lecture. In addition, Carrier did not specifically mention by name a well-known competing concept, which is apotheosis. IMHO, Carrier ought to have carefully compared his proposal of euhemerization to the concept of apotheosis in order to make his argument convincing to any degree, and in the lecture he did not. Moreover, Carrier was asked a particularly pertinent question derived from the epistles of Paul, and his answer was not adequate at all, but you'd have to know the epistle in question and some Greek. Most people don't know that much about either. In my case, growing up a non-theist and despite not knowing anything about religion, then having an unsought "Jesus visitation" at a certain point in life which was quite confusing at the time, there seems to be a lot more to this question of the historicity of Jesus than the arguments that Carrier raises would show.

That's a well formed bit of counterpoint. BTW: I went back to the Wikipedia article to look-up some of the citations opposing Carrier, and as I suspected, they aren't well substantiated. More than one was a product of religious education and/or promotion, and like I already mentioned that is very different from an atheist approach. The atheist approach is based on evidence and reason rather than faith. In other words Carrier looked for evidence to prove his work wrong, as well as the arguments against his from others. So naturally those who believe out of faith wouldn't be convinced by his work. They're not convinced by anyone's unless it agrees with their faith.

Faith doesn't look for evidence to prove itself wrong. Instead it rejects information to the contrary and counters with unsubstantiated opinions and proclamations. That is the nature of virtually all criticism I've encountered against his views so far. That's on top of my own search for anything that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was real. However I'd like to hear more about your " unsought Jesus visitation." I've had an archetypal religious experience myself, so it's not like I don't believe strange things happen ( they do ). It's how we interpret them that matters. So please feel free to share your experience.

Maybe we should start a new thread for it? Personal Religious Experiences

 

[Trajanus]

Despite my sympathy for Carrier (I have an audiobook by him on this topic), for the sake of candor: According to Wikipedia: "The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines; it contradicts the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the biography of the historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine."

I'm atheist but I subscribe to the mainstream view. I may have to dig out Did Jesus Exist? but while there were dying and rising gods before jesus, it made absolutely no sense, in a 1st century context, to make up a story of someone crucified by the Romans. It's not just that crucifixion was the most demeaning way to go, totally unworthy of a messiah. At that time, Rome was firmly established in the Mediterranean world, and the last thing anyone who wanted converts--especially among the gentiles-- would do is invent something at odds with Rome.
It's clear that the early christians were very eager to make converts, and it makes little sense that they'd have that attitude if the whole story was made of whole cloth. Something must've impressed them (even if the "resurrection" was just a postmortem visionary experience). They had little personal incentive in this world--look at the fate of many of them.