If You Knew There Was God, A "god", Etc...

[DonkSlayer 1]

ha, i am not going NEAR the question of the status of paul and his authority. there are a lot of people who are way more smart than me that talk about that stuff. also, fyi, this topic is pretty much all the rage amongst christian scholars these days. they don't agree, but they do like fighting about it.

I wonder if at any point they're like "Well, we can't really prove our argument...

[iggymcfly 0]

Arguing with religious people is the most frustrating thing on earth. You just can't win with them. They make all kinds of cocky bold statements about their own book which they play off as a historical account. Then, when you prove them wrong in their own arena, not asking them to even show evidence of it being true, they still deny it, and pretend like it didn't happen.How about lois just says something like "you're right the Bible does have contradictions, it's not a historical account" or "the Bible wasn't divinely inspired, it was just a bunch of people trying to remember what happened." Either one of these would at least be plausible. But no, he stubbornly sticks to his guns despite proof to the contrary, and just ignores the parts he doesn't like. I don't get it. I mean deep down, somewhere, isn't there an internal logic that clicks in and says "wow I guess I was wrong"? Do you at least admit it to yourself? The fact that you could honestly believe that you're right here just flabbergasts me.Canada made a terrific point here, and I'm going to emphasize it one more time just to see if it sinks in. The Resurrection was the most important event in Christian "history". If anything would have a consistent telling, that would be it. Now, if this was an eyewitness account by four people who lived with Mary and Mary Magdalene for months, and knew Jesus on a personal level, don't you think they'd remember this? Wouldn't they sit around all the time, and talk about the time Jesus rose from the dead? Wouldn't they talk about it enough, that they'd, you know, remember how it happened? This isn't just the difference between early morning and dawn, the whole story's fundamentally different. Was there one angel outside the tomb that made an earthquake, or was Jesus inside the tomb from which the rock had already been rolled back? These are huge, fundamental points! If the gospels were really written by the apostles that lived with Mary for months after the Resurrection, they'd know these things. The fact is that they were written by people that were starting up a religion, hundreds of years later, they weren't eyewitness accounts, and they obviously weren't "divinely inspired" either if they had that many mistakes.

[Balloon guy 158]

The missing point to alot of this is that there is supposed to be a given degree of respect to the writers and people putting together any book.You're assuming that these books are full of contridictions, and then people that want to claim they are God inspired aren't smart enough to 'change' the contriditions.Doesn't that make you pause and say; "Why would they not fix these errors?"A good example is in Proverbs, where in one verse it saysDo not answer a fool according to his follyand the next verse says;Answer a fool according to his folly.You can either say this is a contridiction, or you can say what did he mean by making both these statements?There are many books that clearly explain the harmony of the 4 Gospels. The thing that will help you is to know that each Gospel was written with a different audience. Matthew was written for the Jewish people, so more emphasis was on things that matter to Jews. John was written to Christians, Mark to Gentiles, and Luke to Greeks. Each had a purpose that would appeal to that audience.To OP's question, I would be pretty screwed up if I found Christ to be a fake, the Bible even says we would be the most pitied people if Christ did not rise from the dead. That's as honest as I can be.

[checkymcfold 0]

The missing point to alot of this is that there is supposed to be a given degree of respect to the writers and people putting together any book.You're assuming that these books are full of contridictions, and then people that want to claim they are God inspired aren't smart enough to 'change' the contriditions.Doesn't that make you pause and say; "Why would they not fix these errors?"A good example is in Proverbs, where in one verse it saysDo not answer a fool according to his follyand the next verse says;Answer a fool according to his folly.You can either say this is a contridiction, or you can say what did he mean by making both these statements?

this, i think, is a more healthy way of approaching the "contradictions" in any religious text--that is, asking "what can we make of this?" rather than "it says two different things, let's disregard it outright." the latter approach would mess up a lot of more "scientific" evidence from the earlier periods of human history too, right?

There are many books that clearly explain the harmony of the 4 Gospels. The thing that will help you is to know that each Gospel was written with a different audience. Matthew was written for the Jewish people, so more emphasis was on things that matter to Jews. John was written to Christians, Mark to Gentiles, and Luke to Greeks. Each had a purpose that would appeal to that audience.

as far as i know, this isn't true. people who spend their lives ascertaining the history of the gospels (as far as i can remember from my history of christianity classes, anyway), there is little to no conclusive evidence to get at the purported audience of each of the gospels. we do know, though, that mark came first (about 81 CE), then matthew (somewhere in the 100-200s CE), then luke (just a little after matthew), and then john about 200 years later. and remember: the WORD christian didn't even come up until the 6th century CE, so all "christians" prior to that were just jews that really thought christ was the messiah. obviously, that's a pretty big hermeneutic split within the religion, but they were still calling themselves jews during the period of time in which the. gospels were written.

[crowTrobot 2]

Matthew was written for the Jewish people

many scholars think the original text of matthew was written in aramaic lol

[Balloon guy 158]

... that mark came first (about 81 CE), then matthew (somewhere in the 100-200s CE), then luke (just a little after matthew), and then john about 200 years later. and remember: the WORD christian didn't even come up until the 6th century CE, so all "christians" prior to that were just jews that really thought christ was the messiah. obviously, that's a pretty big hermeneutic split within the religion, but they were still calling themselves jews during the period of time in which the. gospels were written.

I have never heard of such late dates for John, and most of my study Bibles have always pointed out the audience of the Gospels which explain the emphasis on different points. I honestly never heard there was any question to this."One of the earliest known manuscripts of the New Testament is a fragment from John. A scrap of papyrus discovered in Egypt in 1920, now at the John Rylands Library, Manchester, accession number P52 (see link below), bears parts of John 18:31-33 on one side and John 18:37-38 on the other. If it has been correctly dated to the first half of the second century (by C. F. Roberts), it ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language"And CrowTrobot;I don't see why that is a problem.

[davezz5 0]

One thing that does bother me is that in the religous area of this forum we pretty much have non- religous people as the strongest, most well spoken individuals, which sucks, really bad. I hate more than you guys when another drone comes out of the woodworks to give his testimony on why God works wonders in his life- it does nothing to further the cause and just comes across as the simpleminded.

Lois, do you ever wonder why the secular members of this forum tend to argue in an intelligent and coherent manner? I feel that your observation is important when considering the fundamental polerisation of the two camps. Although, not without exceptions.

[checkymcfold 0]

I have never heard of such late dates for John, and most of my study Bibles have always pointed out the audience of the Gospels which explain the emphasis on different points. I honestly never heard there was any question to this."One of the earliest known manuscripts of the New Testament is a fragment from John. A scrap of papyrus discovered in Egypt in 1920, now at the John Rylands Library, Manchester, accession number P52 (see link below), bears parts of John 18:31-33 on one side and John 18:37-38 on the other. If it has been correctly dated to the first half of the second century (by C. F. Roberts), it ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language"

hmm, that'd be news to me, but i'm open to it. i've always heard of john spoken of as the "most mature" gospel, referring to the fact that it came later and isn't really synoptic with the others. myself, i kind of buy into some form of the "Q document" theory, which is that the 3 synoptic gospels (mark, matthew, luke) all share some referent text to some degree which would predate them and has yet to be found. i don't know if i agree with the stance that most "Q-scholars" would take--namely, that Q is really the document which would unlock the hermeneutic gate of biblical scholarship--but it does seem plausible to me that such a document would exist.where'd you get that quote from? and do you know what language that papyrus contained?

Lois, do you ever wonder why the secular members of this forum tend to argue in an intelligent and coherent manner? I feel that your observation is important when considering the fundamental polerisation of the two camps. Although, not without exceptions.

i'm "secular," i guess (in that i don't ascribe to any religion, really), but you'll probably find me advocating the "religious" position in most of these threads.don't assume correlation = some sort of causal relationship. there are a lot of well-spoken christians in the world. indeed, over the course of history, we owe a ****ing lot to them.

[Balloon guy 158]

where'd you get that quote from? and do you know what language that papyrus contained?

I'm embarrassed to say..wikediaflame suit on

[checkymcfold 0]

I'm embarrassed to say..wikedia

LOL. you should be. i'll try to find some sort of academic resource for saying john came later.edit: the internet is a mess of stuff that i have no idea how to take. i'll find like, a real book.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htmFragment of the oldest copy of any of the Gospels.Written in GreekThe main reason most scholars I have read agree that the book of John is older than you say is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish Temple. Which would have been a major event that couldn't be ignored.

[checkymcfold 0]

http://people.ucsc.edu/~mgrivich/TheAuthor...ewTestament.htmthis seems to be the best thing i could find on the net. and yes, it does seem to imply that i am rusty with my history of religion (although it does say that john came last). thank god i am a philosopher and not a historian.

[crowTrobot 2]

there are a lot of well-spoken christians in the world. indeed, over the course of history, we owe a ****ing lot to them.

perhaps, but we owe it to the individual, not to christianty. in every case i can think of their faith was incidental to their contribution.

[checkymcfold 0]

perhaps, but we owe it to the individual, not to christianty. in every case i can think of their faith was incidental to their contribution.

many of them would say otherwise, i think.still, it's important to realize that much of the education that occurred during a large part of (western) human history was entirely church-based. to that end, we owe pretty much all of our progress since to "christianity," in some way or another.

[crowTrobot 2]

still, it's important to realize that much of the education that occurred during a large part of (western) human history was entirely church-based.

that also is incidental and unimportant. if anything the development of western intellectualism was retarded due to the fact that most circles were based in christianity.

[checkymcfold 0]

that also is incidental and unimportant. if anything the development of western intellectualism was retarded due to the fact that most circles were based in christianity.

i disagree that it's incidental. the church funded science in the beginning, still does. hard to believe, but at times in history the (catholic, usually) church was at the head of a lot of forward-thinking movements.as for the second claim, that intellectualism was "retarded" by church influence, well, i call you out on that. there's no possible way to know that one way or the other, considering that it happened like it did in this, our only, history. and furthermore, one could easily argue that the entire birthplace of secularism, the enlightenment age, came about ONLY as a result of the church becoming to some degree corrupt (how much is debatable, of course), and hence, that all of this non-religious "pure science" or whatever in fact owes its whole existence to the very church it disdains.i'm not sure that i necessarily agree with the last point i made, but a lot of really smart people make it.

[crowTrobot 2]

i disagree that it's incidental. the church funded science in the beginning

as would have any other political body that happened to be in charge.

as for the second claim, that intellectualism was "retarded" by church influence, well, i call you out on that. there's no possible way to know that one way or the other, considering that it happened like it did in this, our only, history.

i was thinking of individual cases where genius was stifled or sidetracked by christian influence (and unable to think of any where genius was uniquely aided by christianity).

nd furthermore, one could easily argue that the entire birthplace of secularism, the enlightenment age, came about ONLY as a result of the church becoming to some degree corrupt (how much is debatable, of course), and hence, that all of this non-religious "pure science" or whatever in fact owes its whole existence to the very church it disdains.

pure science developed with other influences if not on its own entirely in eastern cultures. no reason to think it wouldn't have without christian influence in the west.

[davezz5 0]

i'm "secular," i guess (in that i don't ascribe to any religion, really), but you'll probably find me advocating the "religious" position in most of these threads.don't assume correlation = some sort of causal relationship. there are a lot of well-spoken christians in the world. indeed, over the course of history, we owe a ****ing lot to them.

"Maybe the term secular posed a certain semantic difficulty. The term non-religious would be less open to mis-interpretation. The non-religious advocating the position of the religious would seem to be an amusing parodox"Well spoken" is far to general a term to be meaningful in a discussion concerning interlectualism,religion and non-religion. Also your last sentence is completely without merit. We owe a lot, to a lot of people over the course of history, regardless of their religious standpoint. But that has no real bearing on the relationship(or lack of it) between interlect and religion.The term "correlation" is ok, but "causal" would seem out out of context. Drink-drive = crash, is causal. Nevertheless, i think to say that religion, or lack of it, is dependent on mental ability is incorrect. This is not a causal relationship.

[Loismustdie 0]

I will try and add a few things quickly, my In laws are in town so I am short on time- I really only have one comment that came to mind quickly, and that is that when it comes to proving the divinity of the bible, we really cannot do it. It's not possible to do so without a shadow of a doubt. I can show you facts of science written throughout the Old Testament, that have no buisness being there in that they were not known to be facts at the time- I have, on this very site, done so, but when I did there were a plethora of response about, " Oh, it doesn't really say that, " and, " There is no way that was actually written, nobody believed that then"... which is silly because that's the whole point. Are there differences in how certain things were made account of in different books in the Bible? Yes. Are there any diffferences in doctrine that Jesus brought, plan of salvation, etc.? No, not one. What does that tell you? A, different people wrote the bible, B, the things Christ taught were so plain and simple they couldn't screw it up. So, when I look at the Bible I personally don't look at just one scripture, one book and run with it, I take it as a whole, and as a whole it's pretty damn cohesive for a a book written by I don't even remember how many people.I don't just look at one story, such as Noahs Ark and say," Well, that's just ridiculous", because it's not the only story- there are many, and only a few have notions that are a little hard to swallow- parting of the red sea, dude being fed by birds, guy dying and then coming back from the dead, guy feeding a boatload of people with very little- these things need to be either A, accepted by faith or B, looked at as a neat story, with a good moral reason for telling said story and the go ahead with your belief in Christ until your faith is strong enough to accept these things, however impossible it seems. After all, what would faith be if it was all just handed to us?- here's some slides of the flood, heres a photo of Christ walking out of the tomb- look, see, it's a digital photo, that date is after he died!! Faith at that point would be less than perfect,because it would require no abaseing of ones own mind to accept what is being told you. If you hadn't noticed, one of the recurring things with God is a required sense of losing ones own self, to become a better version of self.

[screech 0]

many of them would say otherwise, i think.still, it's important to realize that much of the education that occurred during a large part of (western) human history was entirely church-based. to that end, we owe pretty much all of our progress since to "christianity," in some way or another.

Hmm...I thought many "western scientists" were outcast/persecuted by the church whenever they had a new insight that went agianst the grain of the church dogma. Also, the ancient greeks did pretty well by seperating their tihnking from the church.I think it's a big mistake to say that these god-fearing intellectuals owe their contributions to society because of the church. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that the church pretty much controlled everything in western cultures. It is possible that some of these intellectuals praised the church, becuase, well, it was a smart thing to do.Also, it is hard to believe that these individuals wouldn't have made their contributions to society if it wasn't for the church. It is true that a select few may have gained inspiration from the church because they were emotionally unable to produce that inspiration themselves, but a majority would have fared just as well or better without it. People develope their logical minds at a very early age. I think to say that we owe progress due to the church is absolutely insane. I agree with Crowbot 100%. The church has been perhaps the most evil instition of all times. Think of all the people that were masacred by the church. Think of it's strangle hold on the western world all these years. Think of all the new ideas that were held back, or even weren't even spoken of for fear of persecution. Think of the pennies it collects from my grandmother eveyr sunday. **** the church.

[Loismustdie 0]

Hmm...I thought many "western scientists" were outcast/persecuted by the church whenever they had a new insight that went agianst the grain of the church dogma. Also, the ancient greeks did pretty well by seperating their tihnking from the church.I think it's a big mistake to say that these god-fearing intellectuals owe their contributions to society because of the church. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that the church pretty much controlled everything in western cultures. It is possible that some of these intellectuals praised the church, becuase, well, it was a smart thing to do.Also, it is hard to believe that these individuals wouldn't have made their contributions to society if it wasn't for the church. It is true that a select few may have gained inspiration from the church because they were emotionally unable to produce that inspiration themselves, but a majority would have fared just as well or better without it. People develope their logical minds at a very early age. I think to say that we owe progress due to the church is absolutely insane. I agree with Crowbot 100%. The church has been perhaps the most evil instition of all times. Think of all the people that were masacred by the church. Think of it's strangle hold on the western world all these years. Think of all the new ideas that were held back, or even weren't even spoken of for fear of persecution. Think of the pennies it collects from my grandmother eveyr sunday. **** the church.

When it comes to Cathlocism, I could not agree more. Now, you want a backwards religion, start there.

[screech 0]

When it comes to Cathlocism, I could not agree more. Now, you want a backwards religion, start there.

We agree on something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[crowTrobot 2]

I can show you facts of science written throughout the Old Testament, that have no buisness being there in that they were not known to be facts at the time- I have, on this very site, done so, but when I did there were a plethora of response about, " Oh, it doesn't really say that,

if that's all that's been said, consider yourself lucky. the examples of OT "science" you have posted are utterly stupid. no objective informed person would come remotely close to taking them seriously.

Are there any diffferences in doctrine that Jesus brought, plan of salvation, etc.? No, not one.

no differences in doctrine? i guess there should only be one type of christian church then.

and only a few have notions that are a little hard to swallow

a few? there are hundreds of metaphysical events described throughout the bible.

Faith at that point would be less than perfect,because it would require no abaseing of ones own mind to accept what is being told you. If you hadn't noticed, one of the recurring things with God is a required sense of losing ones own self, to become a better version of self.

wow you are the best i've ever read at making christianity sound like any other cult. that must take some skill.

[Loismustdie 0]

if that's all that's been said, consider yourself lucky. the examples of OT "science" you have posted are utterly stupid. no objective informed person would come remotely close to taking them seriously.no differences in doctrine? i guess there should only be one type of christian church then.a few? there are hundreds of metaphysical events described throughout the bible.wow you are the best i've ever read at making christianity sound like any other cult. that must take some skill.

There absolutely should be only one christian church!! I have been saying that for months!! Why do you think Matt and I went at it so much- because we agreed? Alot of people, when presented with an idea or ideology that requires change of oneself to become something else immediately say cult. It's a knee jerk reaction, and really just points to a lack of understanding of what is being dealt with, which is understandable. So, a scripture that says all nations are of one blood is stupid- it's not brilliant, it's simple science that was not known at that time- the man who wrote that had no way of knowing it, yet, he wrote it. Why is that stupid? Why would ou immediately just label it stupid? Look it up, Acts 17:26. Read Job 38- it's full of references to things Job would have no idea of. Read it, and explain to me why it's stupid.

[crowTrobot 2]

Alot of people, when presented with an idea or ideology that requires change of oneself to become something else immediately say cult.

of course that's the reaction when the change requires abandoning common sense.

So, a scripture that says all nations are of one blood is stupid

no it's stupid to assume the author had an understanding of genetics or whatever you're implying.