Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Reasons why religion fails to impress

12346

Comments

  • #152
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Now you're claiming to know the cognition of Mark and John?

    What, you think they were as pedantic as you and PDN?


  • #153
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Sorry, wicknight, I'm with PDN and bluewolf on this - I can't see any contradiction here. There is a conflict between what the bible says Jesus said and what the bible says Jesus is reported to have said, but that's not actually a contradiction, just propaganda on the behalf of those who reported it. Think of any Fox News report you've seen on a speech given by Barack Obama.

    That would seem to make no sense, since Jesus not saying he will tear down the temple doesn't help his case in anyway since the charge against him is claiming to be the Messiah.

    Again if I said "I'm going to walk to the police station and kill everyone" and someone said "I heard him say I'm going to speed to the police station and kill everyone" it would hardly seem necessary to say that it is false witness, I never said I would speed (a crime), I said I would walk (not a crime) to the police station to kill everyone (a serious crime).

    If someone said "He never said that!" it would be safe to assume they meant the "kill everyone" bit, not how I would get there.

    But to be honest PDN and Jakkass' response are exactly why I don't bother discussing Bible contradictions with them (and why I should have taken my own advice). Given they both believe there cannot be a contradiction at all any explanation that resolves the contradiction must be correct.


  • #154
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Let's look at it this way.

    Let's imagine that I happened to say to a New York cop, on the 10th of September 2001, "If anyone ever blows up the World Trade Centre I'm going to build a giant ice ceam cone in its place.

    Now fast forward 48 hours. The cop alleges that I said, "I'm going to blow up the World Trade Centre and build a giant ice cream cone in its place."

    Would I be overly pedantic to point out the difference between what I actually said and what the cop alleges I said? Or is the change so unimportant that it's not worth bothering about? After all, my real crime is obviously my delusional dream of building a giant ice cream cone - not the threat to blow up a building.

    Yes if "build a giant ice cream cone" was the worst crime we could imagine and the one you are being charged with and the one people are trying to find evidence against you. :rolleyes:

    Perhaps you want to argue that claiming to be the Messiah and the Son of God is not that big of a deal?


  • #155
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Im sorry but I think this whole contradictions in the bible debate is stupid.

    I mean if you take into consideration a few vital points:

    1) The gospels were written years after the event.
    2) They were written by people based on 2nd hand accounts (there is a dispute over who actually wrote them and how much first hand information they actually had)
    3) The writers may have been biased or held a biased view (or just had inaccurate information)
    4) the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century, only fragments and quotations exist before that and so information may have been altered/misinteroreted/left out or went missing
    5) The Church heavily edited the bible when starting out in order to push their own agendas.

    Taking all this into account there are obviously going to be contradictions and information missing/left out and inaccurate.and its no surprise they dont mirror each other exactly. However the main themes/events and teachings do.

    So the whole "the bible contradicts itself so it cant be real!" argument is stupid!" because obviously it does as it was tampered with so much.

    Equally the whole argument that "The bible says this happened so therefore it must be true" is just as ridiculous as it was tampered with and so information is going to be inaccurate.


  • #156
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,583 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Des Carter wrote: »
    Im sorry but I think this whole contradictions in the bible debate is stupid.
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Equally the whole argument that "The bible says this happened so therefore it must be true" is just as ridiculous as it was tampered with and so information is going to be inaccurate.
    The first argument is only stupid if the person you are arguing with agrees that the second argument is stupid too.

    Otherwise you have to revert to the first argument again.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Des Carter - The Bible as a text is significantly more authentic than any ancient counterpart. I've seen no hugely compelling evidence that the Bible was heavily altered by any church.

    Wicknight - Is it really that difficult to admit when you're wrong and its pointed out to you clearly?


  • #158
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Wicknight - Is it really that difficult to admit when you're wrong and its pointed out to you clearly?
    If I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it, this isn't my religion nor is my eternal soul depending on it. But I need something a bit more than you and PDN telling me I'm a close minded atheist :rolleyes:


  • #159
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I take it the other atheists who disagree with you are calling you a closed minded atheist also? :p


  • #160
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Des Carter - The Bible as a text is significantly more authentic than any ancient counterpart.

    Ha, you're always good for a laugh, Jakkass.


  • #161
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I take it the other atheists who disagree with you are calling you a closed minded atheist also? :p

    I presume when Wicknight asked for more than you and PDN calling him a "close minded atheist", he wasn't actually asking for more people.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Bible as a text is significantly more authentic than any ancient counterpart.
    For variable meanings of the words "significantly" and "authentic".
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've seen no hugely compelling evidence that the Bible was heavily altered by any church.
    Have you read Bart Ehrman? I realize that he's not exactly flavour of the month in religious circles, but then again, there's a simple reason why he isn't.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Is it really that difficult to admit when you're wrong and its pointed out to you clearly?
    A statement which applies equally well to Ehrman's comments upon the NT text.


  • #163
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is lazy. I'm suspecting you've gone and consulted either the Skeptics Annotated Bible, The Reason Project, or some other list of contradictions.
    No, I looked up the verses on an online bible. Googling the quotes I used will show exactly which translation if you're bothered.
    I could just as lazily look up apologetics websites and link you to Christians who have already dealt with these contradictions on a quick google.
    I'm not impressed by the arguments I've found.

    Details like whether it's just the two Marys, or some others too, I'm sure can vary from account to account, but, well, if I were to walk to a tomb, and find the stone sealing it gone, and the body gone, and then talk to one guy in bright clothes, that's a hell of a lot different to walking to the tomb, finding it closed, an earthquake happening, two angels appearing from nowhere, the tomb being opened, and the body not being there. In the first case, there's a logical explanation, in the second, not so much. But hey, it's all the same if you want it to be hard enough.


  • #164
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I take it the other atheists who disagree with you are calling you a closed minded atheist also? :p

    No, I would see it as worth while debating them (if either of us could be bothered, which I doubt) as they would be open to listening to my point. You and PDN had made up your mind before I had even said it.


  • #165
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I presume when Wicknight asked for more than you and PDN calling him a "close minded atheist", he wasn't actually asking for more people.

    :D


  • #166
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, I would see it as worth while debating them (if either of us could be bothered, which I doubt) as they would be open to listening to my point. You and PDN had made up your mind before I had even said it.

    So you're effectively being a hypocrite and calling PDN and myself "closed minded theists"?

    SRSLY, c'mon Wicknight you can do much better than this!

    robindch - Cite a text of his and I'll definitely consider it.


  • #167
    Reed Cold Tweet
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Reed Cold Tweet


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I take it the other atheists who disagree with you are calling you a closed minded atheist also? :p
    I think there is only one other atheist on his side :pac:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I presume when Wicknight asked for more than you and PDN calling him a "close minded atheist", he wasn't actually asking for more people.

    lol :D


  • #168
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    robindch - Cite a text of his and I'll definitely consider it.
    Try "Misquoting Jesus"

    http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170

    Whatever your position on biblical inerrancy, it's an engaging read and he does know his stuff (the caustic, disappointed comments of his former friends, and now adversaries, notwithstanding).


  • #169
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Ha, you're always good for a laugh, Jakkass.

    A comparison of roughly 40,000 New Testament manuscripts suggests that the New Testament is at least 99.6% authentic, meaning that at most 40 verses are in doubt.

    Indeed, there is more reason from the analysis of the Isaiah scrolls at the Qumran findings in 1948 to regard the Old Testament as authentic.

    Compare this to any other ancient work, and it is an outstanding measurement. Texts such as Plato and Aristotle are nowhere near this level, indeed there are nowhere near as many manuscripts despite their popularity in the intellectual world.

    So yes, laugh all you will, but I would far prefer for you or Des Carter to provide some reasons why one would be led to think that they are inauthentic, or indeed any reason why I should dismiss this evidence for Biblical authenticity. I'm willing to consider Ehrman and what robindch has posted, so you have your opportunity to present what you have.

    Otherwise your post is lacking in substance.


  • #170
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    A comparison of roughly 40,000 New Testament manuscripts suggests that the New Testament is at least 99.6% authentic, meaning that at most 40 verses are in doubt.

    Indeed, there is more reason from the analysis of the Isaiah scrolls at the Qumran findings in 1948 to regard the Old Testament as authentic.

    Compare this to any other ancient work, and it is an outstanding measurement. Texts such as Plato and Aristotle are nowhere near this level, indeed there are nowhere near as many manuscripts despite their popularity in the intellectual world.

    So yes, laugh all you will, but I would far prefer for you or Des Carter to provide some reasons why one would be led to think that they are inauthentic, or indeed any reason why I should dismiss this evidence for Biblical authenticity. I'm willing to consider Ehrman and what robindch has posted, so you have your opportunity to present what you have.

    Otherwise your post is lacking in substance.

    I am laughing at what you say, Jakkass, for two reasons.
    First of all, the implication that just because the bible has remained unchanged since it was written (if it has) means anything for its veracity - a lie repeated perfectly word for word is still a lie.
    Secondly, the problem of the authenticity when viewed as a historical document given the function of the documents. They are religious propaganda, documents whose sole aim is to sell the religion. You would expect many copies without too much variation in them, as they were being used to spread the dominance of the religious leaders. That doesn't mean there wasn't heavy alterations going on during the churches history. The clerically espoused interpretation could be, and was, edited multiple times without the need for one word being changed in the written documents.


  • #171
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I think there is only one other atheist on his side :pac:


    lol :D

    Robindch is too, no? After all, he did first quote the passages detailing the contradiction.
    Do you still not see the contradiction?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Robindch is too, no? After all, he did first quote the passages detailing the contradiction.

    To be fair, after I pointed out the flaw in Robin's post he's had the good sense not to keep flogging a dead horse.

    But it's good that you linked to that post, because in it Robin gave a good definition of a contradiction:
    saying-one-thing-in-one-place + saying-the-opposite-in-another-place = contradiction

    Now we seem to have got to the point where it has been redefined as:

    Jesus-saying-one-thing-in-one-place + false-witnesses-saying-something-quite-different-in-another-place = a contradiction because Wicknight says so

    If we cut through all the waffle, there is clearly no contradiction except in Wicknight's head.

    Jesus said, "If you destroy this Temple (referring to His Body) then I will raise it up in three days."

    The Bible reports that false witnesses said, "I will destroy the Temple and raise it up again in three days."

    Now, it is abundandantly clear to anyone who can read that what the false witnesses reported is different from what Jesus actually said. Therefore they were indeed false witnesses. The fact that they got the bit right about Jesus raising something in three days (even if they got it wrong whether it was His body or the Jerusalem Temple) in no way alters the fact that they were false witnesses who were falsely ascribing to Jesus a claim that He would destroy the Temple.

    It really doesn't cut it to say, "The Bible's full of contradictions - Look here's one. Well, I know it isn't a real contradiction, but that's because you're being so pedantic and defensive as to look at what the Bible actually says rather than what I imagine it says."


  • #173
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I am laughing at what you say, Jakkass, for two reasons.
    First of all, the implication that just because the bible has remained unchanged since it was written (if it has) means anything for its veracity - a lie repeated perfectly word for word is still a lie.
    Secondly, the problem of the authenticity when viewed as a historical document given the function of the documents. They are religious propaganda, documents whose sole aim is to sell the religion. You would expect many copies without too much variation in them, as they were being used to spread the dominance of the religious leaders. That doesn't mean there wasn't heavy alterations going on during the churches history. The clerically espoused interpretation could be, and was, edited multiple times without the need for one word being changed in the written documents.

    Mark Hamill - The point was about corruption in the text, not about whether it is true or false if you read what Des Carter actually posted. If you want to laugh about what wasn't being discussed be my guest :pac:

    By authenticity - I mean that they are what they are. They are the key documents of the Christian faith as they have been since the 1st century.

    Indeed, interpretation is equally off topic, as we were discussing about textual alteration. My post is wholly satisfactory given what Des Carter originally posted. If you like to strawman other peoples posts that is your prerogative.


  • #174
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    PDN wrote: »
    Jesus said, "If you destroy this Temple (referring to His Body) then I will raise it up in three days."

    The Bible reports that false witnesses said, "I will destroy the Temple and raise it up again in three days."

    Now, it is abundandantly clear to anyone who can read that what the false witnesses reported is different from what Jesus actually said. Therefore they were indeed false witnesses. The fact that they got the bit right about Jesus raising something in three days (even if they got it wrong whether it was His body or the Jerusalem Temple) in no way alters the fact that they were false witnesses who were falsely ascribing to Jesus a claim that He would destroy the Temple.

    Are you honestly arguing that the "false witness" part is only in relation to whether or not Jesus said he himself would do the destroying before he would do the rebuilding?
    In Mark 14:61-64, you have:
    14:61-64 wrote:
    But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
    Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
    “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
    The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
    They all condemned him as worthy of death.
    The Sanhedrin judging Jesus were looking for anything blasphemous that Jesus may have said that could be used against him. Whether or not Jesus said he himself would destroy the temple is irrelevent, the idea that he could rebuild in 3 days was blasphemy enough, as all they were looking for were claims of divine power. This means that when Matthew 26:59-61 says:
    Matthew 26:59-61 wrote:
    The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
    Finally two came forward and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
    one of the two must be John (or whoever related the story to John), because of what he says in John 2:19-21.


  • #175
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Mark Hamill - The point was about corruption in the text, not about whether it is true or false if you read what Des Carter actually posted. If you want to laugh about what wasn't being discussed be my guest :pac:

    By authenticity - I mean that they are what they are. They are the key documents of the Christian faith as they have been since the 1st century.

    Indeed, interpretation is equally off topic, as we were discussing about textual alteration. My post is wholly satisfactory given what Des Carter originally posted. If you like to strawman other peoples posts that is your prerogative.

    So you agree that even if not one word was changed in the texts that it makes not one bit of difference to whether or not any of it were true?
    You agree that even if not one word was changed in the texts that it makes not one bit of difference to whether or not the official interpretation of the text hasn't changed greatly over the years?

    Its funny how even after Robindch mentioned Bart Ehrman you are still talking about the bible as if the quran wouldn't actually be considered more "authentic" if viewed under similar criteria. Its funny where you get the number "40,000", and how you imply that these are originals, or copies made within a short timespan of the originals (I only see 24,000, usually dated from the 2nd century on and 50-100 years is a long time for the original texts to have been altered) Its funny how you think 40 doubtable verses in the bible is an acceptable number for what is supposed to be a divinely inspired collection.

    Like I said, you make me laugh.


  • #176
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    By authenticity - I mean that they are what they are. They are the key documents of the Christian faith as they have been since the 1st century.
    Wrong.

    It's generally accepted that the earliest known fragment of NT manuscript is the tiny, tiny piece of papyrus discovered as part of the Oxyrhynchus find and is currently held in the John Rylands University library in the UK. This has been dated to "with some confidence [...] in the first half of the second century A.D", sourcing it to around one hundred years after the events it purports to relate. The fragment is approximately 3.5 inches by 2 inches in size and can be viewed online here:

    http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/

    There are no known manuscripts or fragments dated to the first century, and I believe the Rylands fragment predates the next earliest fragment by many decades, and possibly, by as much as another century.

    The "authenticity" that you refer to simply does not exist.


  • #177
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    So you're effectively being a hypocrite and calling PDN and myself "closed minded theists"?

    I have always thought you and PDN were close minded theists? How is this being a hypocrite?


  • #178
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    The fact that they got the bit right about Jesus raising something in three days (even if they got it wrong whether it was His body or the Jerusalem Temple) in no way alters the fact that they were false witnesses who were falsely ascribing to Jesus a claim that He would destroy the Temple.

    That is a nonsense interpretation. It would not change the charge of blashamy against Jesus so what is the purpose of calling this false testminony.

    Its like a judge saying "Philip Desmond Noriss you are charged with triple count of murder, what do you have to say in your defense"

    "Well your honor, you got my name wrong, it is Philip Dermot Noriss"

    "Apologies Mr Noriss clearly we have been wrong about you"
    :rolleyes:


  • #179
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    If I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it, this isn't my religion nor is my eternal soul depending on it. But I need something a bit more than you and PDN telling me I'm a close minded atheist :rolleyes:
    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, I would see it as worth while debating them (if either of us could be bothered, which I doubt) as they would be open to listening to my point. You and PDN had made up your mind before I had even said it.

    Wicknight, this is tiresome. Look at the bold.

    Indeed, I need and want more than this to be convinced of your position rather than being told I'm closed minded. Crazy hypocrisy.


  • #180
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indeed, I need and want more than this to be convinced of your position rather than being told I'm closed minded. Crazy hypocrisy.

    I've given you more, I've always been happy to expand on anything I've said. I did not say you have made up your mind as simply a way to dismiss having to answer your questions. I said it in response to you asking the difference between you and PDN and the atheists here who don't agree with me.

    I do thought think certain discussions with you are pointless though, you have shown very little interest in having your ideas challenged.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ladies -- handbags down on the ground, please.


Advertisement