Scriptures New And Old

[Balloon guy 158]

suggesting a test for natural selection that is clearly impossible to execute and pointless isn't thinking beyond conventional wisdom about evolution. it's mentally jacking off. your simulation thread doesn't even challenge evolution - only conventional natural selection, and nobody here has ever said we're done asking. stop lying.sorry for hijack. carry on.

Well no one will ever accuse you of being capable of shucking your duties as the protector of all truth on the interweb.Do you get dental with these duties or just do it for the pride?Obviously you don't do it for the truth, because you are fast and loose with that. Not that you would know it if it hit you in the face. You've spent so much time twisting the truth into your little world of 'crow knows everything' that you probably have to carry around a full set of correction pens in your pocket protector just so you never run out of the ability to change everything into your paranoid delusions of truth.What's funny is how irrelevant your point is to the discussion, and how little you care because you just love to hear your own voice.Sorry for truth. Carry on.

[crowTrobot 2]

Obviously you don't do it for the truth

the obvious truth is nobody here dismisses out of hand by appealing to authority any question or challenge you pose on any subject, particularly evolution. you always get detailed responses.resorting to that claim is just your dishonest manipulative attempt to distract from your inability to intellectually support your own challenges. same goes for your personal attacks against me.

[vbnautilus 48]

I don't see why I should not trust the men who sat down and hashed out the canonization of the Bible just because you guys don't believe in their motivation.

I don't think you should trust anyone with something so important without questioning them. Humans are capable of making mistakes.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't think you should trust anyone with something so important without questioning them. Humans are capable of making mistakes.

Ad infinitum?

[Balloon guy 158]

the obvious truth is nobody here dismisses out of hand by appealing to authority any question or challenge you pose on any subject, particularly evolution. you always get detailed responses.resorting to that claim is just your dishonest manipulative attempt to distract from your inability to intellectually support your own challenges. same goes for your personal attacks against me.

Again, check who attacked who first Skippy.You have nothing to add, because you are a one dimensional clown, so you try to equate my conversation in this thread on this topic into another thread and a different topic and then think you must of course correct me because 'it's not right that he might be wrong', even though it was your completely false assumption that I was talking about another thread instead of the entire scope of the religion board.Which is why in the humorless fag camp you are a featured member.

[crowTrobot 2]

Again, check who attacked who first Skippy.

that would be you, by stating that proponents of evolution here ignore your challenges and blindly accepts evolution based on authority.

You have nothing to add, because you are a one dimensional clown, so you try to equate my conversation in this thread on this topic into another thread and a different topic and then think you must of course correct me because 'it's not right that he might be wrong', even though it was your completely false assumption that I was talking about another thread instead of the entire scope of the religion board.

you were clearly referring to your simulation thread, and what you were referring to is irrelevant to the point. there is no comparison between your self-admittedly blind acceptance of authority on the canon and the reasons people here accept evolution, and you know it.

[Balloon guy 158]

that would be you, by stating that proponents of evolution here ignore your challenges and blindly accepts evolution based on authority.you were clearly referring to your simulation thread, and what you were referring to is irrelevant to the point. there is no comparison between your self-admittedly blind acceptance of authority on the canon and the reasons people here accept evolution, and you know it.

It used to be funny to me when you claimed to know the thinking and feelings of all scholars and all groups of people. Now you are telling me you know my mind better than I do.Yawn...one day in the far distant future, you are going to grasp the reality that sometimes you are wrong.I expect that I will be dead.I will not care either way.

[crowTrobot 2]

sorry, SB. i'm done.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Sigh... I suppose it really isn't possible to have a discussion that is friendly, thoughtful, and productive in this forum. I do what I can.At least I did get an answer to one of my many questions posed here: that you (BG) would feel about new books approximately how Catholics feel about the Apocrypha (and about how you feel, it seems): that it would be true and holy and worth reading, but not biblical. That's a simple enough answer. Thank you.As for questioning the motivation of early bishops, I only question it about 10%. I think the large majority of their motivation was to get the best books of what were available and gather them for the betterment of people. But I think it's a little naive to assume that they had zero motivation to leave out books that disagreed with the direction they were leading the church. I think it's about a 90/10 split.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

sorry, SB. i'm done.

It's okay. Sometimes we all gotta vent, sometimes we all gotta be sweet. Human nature.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Sigh... I suppose it really isn't possible to have a discussion that is friendly, thoughtful, and productive in this forum. I do what I can.

It's really only BG and crow towards each other. I think most of the regulars around here are friendly and thoughtful (and BG and crow fall in this category too; again, except towards each other).

[Balloon guy 158]

As for questioning the motivation of early bishops, I only question it about 10%. I think the large majority of their motivation was to get the best books of what were available and gather them for the betterment of people. But I think it's a little naive to assume that they had zero motivation to leave out books that disagreed with the direction they were leading the church. I think it's about a 90/10 split.

Think about that though for a bit. You are assuming that these men got together and decided that they wanted to mold the Bible into only the books they favored for their own agendas.In order to hold to that belief you would have to make the assumption that these men are willing to ignore the 'possibly true' scriptures to maintain a control over the direction of the church. Do you really think that a person could be willing to corrupt the very religion they are placing their entire faith and eternal salvation on?Wouldn't that be akin to you declaring that Buddhism no longer holds to the teaching of Karma because you found a focus group poll that says that America doesn't believe in Karma anymore? Could you really slash the basic tenants of your faith, or change them and then continue to pursue them? Could you knowingly corrupt the teachings and then continue to teach them.I don't hardly know you and I would bet your integrity level is too high to even consider doing that.How can you so easily apply this low of a moral character on the group of men who set aside these books to clarify the truth to the farther outreaches of the world where news was slow to travel and charlatans were known to deceive in order to gain favor.Remember, these books we are talking about were being passed from church to church, copied and sent to other churches and regions for centuries before anyone thought to collect them all to get them straight. So the day after a large group of people got together and declared this new collection of books, letters and poems was the definitive Bible, nobody was rushing out to buy the new book to see the new material. And just because a book or letter didn't make it to the Bible didn't mean it was burned and declared a sin to read it. Which is why we have so many copies of ancient church father's letters and writings.When we want to look at our Constitution to understand the original meaning of the authors etc, we often times refer to other writings of theirs and use their authority to help define the writings our country was founded on. Taking a guy who wrote this is what Jefferson meant 200 years later over what Jefferson actually wrote would be a little presumptuous don't you think?

[Balloon guy 158]

It's really only BG and crow towards each other. I think most of the regulars around here are friendly and thoughtful (and BG and crow fall in this category too; again, except towards each other).

He started it

[vbnautilus 48]

Think about that though for a bit. You are assuming that these men got together and decided that they wanted to mold the Bible into only the books they favored for their own agendas.In order to hold to that belief you would have to make the assumption that these men are willing to ignore the 'possibly true' scriptures to maintain a control over the direction of the church. Do you really think that a person could be willing to corrupt the very religion they are placing their entire faith and eternal salvation on?Wouldn't that be akin to you declaring that Buddhism no longer holds to the teaching of Karma because you found a focus group poll that says that America doesn't believe in Karma anymore? Could you really slash the basic tenants of your faith, or change them and then continue to pursue them? Could you knowingly corrupt the teachings and then continue to teach them.I don't hardly know you and I would bet your integrity level is too high to even consider doing that.How can you so easily apply this low of a moral character on the group of men who set aside these books to clarify the truth to the farther outreaches of the world where news was slow to travel and charlatans were known to deceive in order to gain favor.Remember, these books we are talking about were being passed from church to church, copied and sent to other churches and regions for centuries before anyone thought to collect them all to get them straight. So the day after a large group of people got together and declared this new collection of books, letters and poems was the definitive Bible, nobody was rushing out to buy the new book to see the new material. And just because a book or letter didn't make it to the Bible didn't mean it was burned and declared a sin to read it. Which is why we have so many copies of ancient church father's letters and writings.When we want to look at our Constitution to understand the original meaning of the authors etc, we often times refer to other writings of theirs and use their authority to help define the writings our country was founded on. Taking a guy who wrote this is what Jefferson meant 200 years later over what Jefferson actually wrote would be a little presumptuous don't you think?

Ultimately it doesn't matter what Gautama said or what Jefferson said. What matters is what is true and right, and we may or may not be able to learn that from those people's writings and speakings. Buddhism has value insofar as the principles it describes are discoverable as true or useful (I happen to think many of them indeed are). Likewise, the principles that Jefferson wrote about appear to hold true over history. If it turns out they don't, we leave them in the dust with his ashes.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ultimately it doesn't matter what Gautama said or what Jefferson said. What matters is what is true and right, and we may or may not be able to learn that from those people's writings and speakings. Buddhism has value insofar as the principles it describes are discoverable as true or useful (I happen to think many of them indeed are). Likewise, the principles that Jefferson wrote about appear to hold true over history. If it turns out they don't, we leave them in the dust with his ashes.

And the same standard can be applied to the Bible.So far so good for our side.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

And the Lollards were an amazingly devoted people who risked it all to get the Word of God into the hands of the people to remove the power that the church had stolen by controlling the access to the Bible.

How can you so easily apply this low of a moral character on the group of men who set aside these books to clarify the truth to the farther outreaches of the world where news was slow to travel and charlatans were known to deceive in order to gain favor.

When you talk about the the Catholic church stealing authority and controlling access to the bible, aren't you rather harshly questioning their motivation? Well, the early church fathers whom you say had 100% pure motivation are early Catholic fathers. Athanasius was a bishop in what can be traced in an unbroken line down to the modern Catholic church, up to and past those whose motivation you are willing to question. So when do you start feeling their motivation is open to question? 1000 CE? 1500? Because you certainly do question the motivation of some church leaders today.

I don't think you should trust anyone with something so important without questioning them. Humans are capable of making mistakes.

This is more my issue -- that mistakes in attribution were almost certainly made and could be corrected today.

[crowTrobot 2]

I don't want this thread to be about proving and disproving.

This is more my issue -- that mistakes in attribution were almost certainly made and could be corrected today.

i don't see how this isn't a contradiction. surely you agree that correcting all mistaken attribution would effectively BE disproving, since fundamentalist christianity has its foundation in those mistakes. it would fall apart without them. like YEC's they are committed to the status quo, with little or no room for compromise.

[Balloon guy 158]

When you talk about the the Catholic church stealing authority and controlling access to the bible, aren't you rather harshly questioning their motivation? Well, the early church fathers whom you say had 100% pure motivation are early Catholic fathers. Athanasius was a bishop in what can be traced in an unbroken line down to the modern Catholic church, up to and past those whose motivation you are willing to question. So when do you start feeling their motivation is open to question? 1000 CE? 1500? Because you certainly do question the motivation of some church leaders today.

I don't deny history. The Catholic church has lots of examples of being more power/money driven than faith driven. Their burning at the stake men such as Tyndale for wanting to print the Bible in English also proves this out. ( BTW I have a page from a pre-1600 Geneva Bible on my book shelf, a very cool bit of Bible history ).

This is more my issue -- that mistakes in attribution were almost certainly made and could be corrected today.

Arguing that the original canon is in need of correction because 'we' could correct it still requires you to make the case that it needs fixing doesn't it?Seems to me that you are asking us to believe that there are books equal in status of say the book of Romans that we are missing out on. What would you say these books add to the religion of Christianity? Because obviously they couldn't be any disagreement with the current Bible, unless you first want to argue that the Bible is not the Word of God.

[David_Nicoson 1]

What would you say these books add to the religion of Christianity? Because obviously they couldn't be any disagreement with the current Bible, unless you first want to argue that the Bible is not the Word of God.

With this standard, would you have felt comfortable adding the New Testament? The Old Testament is also the Word of God, right?

[Balloon guy 158]

With this standard, would you have felt comfortable adding the New Testament? The Old Testament is also the Word of God, right?

Good question, but since it was Christ who came to fulfill the prophecies about Himself in the OT, then you can really argue that the OT was always an incomplete message.Also the Person behind the entire message is God, who came to earth and took on flesh to show us how to live, died on a cross to pay for our sins, rose from the dead to confirm His conquering of death, and ascended into Heaven to show God the Father's acceptance of His sacrifice.With these actions He completed the message began all the way back in the Garden of Eden when God said in Genesis chapter 3, verse 15: God said to Satan who was in the serpent, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."So having new relevant happenings to the planned salvation of the human race would be reason enough to 'add' to the books considered Holy at that time.I guess the next happening to meet these requirements for a reasonable excuse to add to the existing Bible would be when Christ returns, the Anti-Christ is revealed ( might be Obama but don't quote me on that ) and or the Rapture ( which would be kind of dumb since after the rapture there will be no one saved ( enter the pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib debate ))

[Spademan 94]

You are ants. Not the Ozymandias type of ants, just ants.Stumbling about.

[BaseJester 1]

I guess the next happening to meet these requirements for a reasonable excuse to add to the existing Bible would be when Christ returns, the Anti-Christ is revealed ( might be Obama but don't quote me on that ) and or the Rapture ( which would be kind of dumb since after the rapture there will be no one saved ( enter the pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib debate ))

Are there are any official bodies that you would trust to identify the anti-christ or any other end times events in a new scripture? Or would you rely on your own judgment since you're living during the events?

[Southern Buddhist 1]

With this standard, would you have felt comfortable adding the New Testament? The Old Testament is also the Word of God, right?

Are there are any official bodies that you would trust to identify the anti-christ or any other end times events in a new scripture? Or would you rely on your own judgment since you're living during the events?

This is getting into the meat of the issue (or an issue, at least). The New Testament contradicted some things in the Old (for instance, burnt offerings and keeping kosher). If you had been alive and had the same belief that something had to agree totally with the Old Testament in order to be added, then you would had to have opposed adding the New Testament because of that. Even the bible says there were lots of people casting out demonds and even raising the dead at that time, so you assume that you would have recognized and followed Jesus, but someone who is innately conservative may very well have doubted his claim. After all, the Old Testament had worked for thousands of years, why change it? And when a new revelation is being revealed, not everyone is going to embrace it right away -- and in fact, it might be the conseratives, those who are suspicious of change, who might be the least likely to embrace it. So can you be sure that God didn't bring the Nag Hammadi scriptures to light now in order to reveal a new revelation, a refinement of the way we understand the bible?

[colonel Feathers 5]

You are ants. Not the Ozymandias type of ants, just ants.Stumbling about.

And you are rightfully being ignored. Oh wait Didnt I just..... oh nevermind.

[Balloon guy 158]

Are there are any official bodies that you would trust to identify the anti-christ or any other end times events in a new scripture? Or would you rely on your own judgment since you're living during the events?

The Bible says that the anti-Christ will deceive even the elect, so it's possible I could get fooled, let's face it, I'm not the smartest Christian around...But seeing as how the anti-Christ being revealed will be the beginning of the last 7 years of the earth's existence, followed by it's complete destruction, I don't think the issue of adding to the Bible will be relevant.