Very religious equals not very Christian.

krudler · 08-11-2012 12:14am

philologos wrote: »

God created the world, He gave us His standards to live by, we very clearly disobeyed them, as a result of this disobedience we rejected His loving rule, and decided to serve ourselves rather than glorify God in His creation. As a result of this we are due God's punishment.

God in His mercy sent Jesus Christ into the world despite our contempt towards Him, and despite our hatred of His standard in order to bring forgiveness into this world, in order to bring justification other than the law. As a result Jesus took the penalty of sin upon Himself on the cross, and He rose again three days later. As a result of this if we believe and trust in Jesus we can be forgiven and start a new relationship with Him, if we reject Him and His standards we must take God's wrath ourselves which will mean eternal condemnation.

God has done everything for us. We have shown nothing but contempt towards Him. We're the egomaniacs who've essentially stuck two fingers up to the God who created us, and who loved us so much that He sent His only Son into the world and He humbled Himself in human flesh in order to show us the severity of sin and the depths of His love. If you ask me whose selfish, it's us. We know very clearly that we've all sinned, and we know that we are all guilty. Yet for the most part we continue to stubbornly reject Him instead of receiving His grace.

We're the ones who instead of listening to the sovereign God who brought all things into creation, ignore Him and turn out backs on Him and refuse to listen to Him and what He has to say (although it won't be possible to ignore Him forever). Your post shows this. You never point out that humans have clearly done what is evil rather than what is good, and that we sin. The problem can't be with us you say so it must be with God. No, you're still the one who has done wrong, and so am I, that's what I had to realise before I could even comprehend the cross.

Whats this "we" business? God basically condemned mankind because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat some magical fruit, then sent his son, who is also himself, to die so he could bend his own rules a bit. Thats Christianity in a nutshell.

Sin is a man made concept, nothing more, nothing less.

Why wouldn't I turn my back on god if he actually existed? He's a bullying, child slaughtering genocidal asshole of the highest order, demanding worship and servitude like a spoilt child demands its parent's attention.He's let countless unspeakable acts be done in his name and stood idly by while sheer lunacy is carried out to appease him. Do I reject god? absolutely I do.

Siuin · 08-11-2012 12:14am

EZ24GET wrote: »

Ah, and now you go on my prayer list :)

You'll have to pray extra hard for me- I'm both ginger and Jewish :P

EZ24GET · 08-11-2012 12:17am

Siuin wrote: »

You'll have to pray extra hard for me- I'm both ginger and Jewish :P

Oh my ,Siuin :eek: rest assured I will.

sheikhnguyen · 08-11-2012 12:55am

Remember when the internet killed travel agents?
Do yourself and your kids a favour and stop going to Mass.
If you want to believe in God cut out the middleman.
Also the Catholic Church is a horrible institution that promotes policies accross the third world that hinder the fight against HIV.

Esel · 08-11-2012 12:56am

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. After Hours.

dttq · 08-11-2012 2:17am

philologos wrote: »

God created the world,

No he didn't.

He gave us His standards to live by,

No he didn't.

we very clearly disobeyed them,

No we didn't.

as a result of this disobedience we rejected His loving rule,

No we didn't.

and decided to serve ourselves rather than glorify God in His creation. As a result of this we are due God's punishment.

No we aren't.

God in His mercy sent Jesus Christ into the world

No he didn't.

despite our contempt towards Him,

No we didn't

and despite our hatred of His standard in order to bring forgiveness into this world, in order to bring justification other than the law.

No he didn't

As a result Jesus took the penalty of sin upon Himself on the cross,

No he didn't.

and He rose again three days later.

No he didn't.

As a result of this if we believe and trust in Jesus we can be forgiven and start a new relationship with Him,

No we can't.

if we reject Him and His standards we must take God's wrath ourselves which will mean eternal condemnation.

No he can't.

God has done everything for us.

No he didn't.

We have shown nothing but contempt towards Him.

No we didn't

We're the egomaniacs who've essentially stuck two fingers up to the God who created us, and who loved us so much that He sent His only Son into the world and He humbled Himself in human flesh in order to show us the severity of sin and the depths of His love.

No we didn't, no he didn't.

If you ask me whose selfish, it's us. We know very clearly that we've all sinned, and we know that we are all guilty. Yet for the most part we continue to stubbornly reject Him instead of receiving His grace.

No we didn't.

We're the ones who instead of listening to the sovereign God who brought all things into creation,

No he didn't.

ignore Him and turn out backs on Him and refuse to listen to Him and what He has to say (although it won't be possible to ignore Him forever).

No we didn't.

Your post shows this.

No he didn't.

You never point out that humans have clearly done what is evil rather than what is good, and that we sin.

No we didn't

The problem can't be with us you say so it must be with God. No, you're still the one who has done wrong, and so am I,

No he didn't

that's what I had to realise before I could even comprehend the cross.

Ok.

Sarky · 08-11-2012 2:40am

Has he said we're all on the same level as serial rapists when it comes to jebubs yet? He does that sometimes.

endacl · 08-11-2012 3:05am

Siuin wrote: »

You'll have to pray extra hard for me- I'm both ginger and Jewish :P

Ginger? Feck! No hope...

sheikhnguyen · 08-11-2012 3:09am

philologos wrote: »

God created the world, He gave us His standards to live by, we very clearly disobeyed them, as a result of this disobedience we rejected His loving rule, and decided to serve ourselves rather than glorify God in His creation. As a result of this we are due God's punishment.

God in His mercy sent Jesus Christ into the world despite our contempt towards Him, and despite our hatred of His standard in order to bring forgiveness into this world, in order to bring justification other than the law. As a result Jesus took the penalty of sin upon Himself on the cross, and He rose again three days later. As a result of this if we believe and trust in Jesus we can be forgiven and start a new relationship with Him, if we reject Him and His standards we must take God's wrath ourselves which will mean eternal condemnation.

God has done everything for us. We have shown nothing but contempt towards Him. We're the egomaniacs who've essentially stuck two fingers up to the God who created us, and who loved us so much that He sent His only Son into the world and He humbled Himself in human flesh in order to show us the severity of sin and the depths of His love. If you ask me whose selfish, it's us. We know very clearly that we've all sinned, and we know that we are all guilty. Yet for the most part we continue to stubbornly reject Him instead of receiving His grace.

We're the ones who instead of listening to the sovereign God who brought all things into creation, ignore Him and turn out backs on Him and refuse to listen to Him and what He has to say (although it won't be possible to ignore Him forever). Your post shows this. You never point out that humans have clearly done what is evil rather than what is good, and that we sin. The problem can't be with us you say so it must be with God. No, you're still the one who has done wrong, and so am I, that's what I had to realise before I could even comprehend the cross.

Do you have any evidence that would reach the standards accepted in a Court room/bar bet to back up any of this drivel?

If god exists, and demands we worship him and love him just because he created us (something we had no choice in by the way) then he doesn't deserve the worship and doesn't understand what love is either.

Seriously, stand up on your own 2 feet and stop relying on a magical sky god to rationalise/justify your existence. It's not that scary.

And if you worry that without the guiding moral principals of chrisitianity the world might fall apart then let me give you a simple mantra that I use to guide myself through this at times difficult world: "don't be a prick and give a hand when it comes time to wash the dishes"

Wereghost · 08-11-2012 3:09am

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The synonyms on thesaurus.com are somewhat telling.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/Christian?s=t
Definition: moral, righteous
Synonyms: Christian , clean, conscientious, correct, decent, elevated, equitable, fair, fitting, good, high-principled, honest, honorable, humane, just, kosher*, moralistic, noble, principled, proper, respectable, right, right-minded, square, straight, true blue, upright, upstanding, virtuous

Wat?

Out of curiosity, I checked to see what the entry for "Muslim" was.

"Did you mean Museum".

Double Wat, and doubly telling.

the_syco · 08-11-2012 3:23am

philologos wrote: »

God in His mercy sent Jesus Christ into the world despite our contempt towards Him

Would that be because of all the killing he did before (old testament)?

Canis Lupus · 08-11-2012 3:26am

the_syco wrote: »

Would that be because of all the killing he did before (old testament)?

You can't really blame him? Surely you've built a massive city in Simcity 4 and then set godzilla on a rampage through it. Same thing for god.

Esel · 08-11-2012 3:38am

Seeing as this thread has gone well OT already....

Why is it that fundamentalists seem to prefer the Old Testament? Is it because they can easily use it to justify hating anyone or anything 'because the Bible says....', whereas it is much harder to find that kind of justification in the Gospels?

Do Christians believe all the stuff in the Old Testament as well? If not, why not? Can you really pick and choose?

joseph brand · 08-11-2012 3:55am

Phil would have us believe that for some reason, god needs over 4 billion humans to worship, praise, grovel and give thanks every day.
And if you're alive, you're a sinner.

The promotion of self loathing and the surrender of ones freedom are not virtuous. Blindly following strange men and asking them to 'lead' you is sad and pathetic. Isn't it rather ironic that by joining a cult, one is said to be 'saved'.

And if you're enjoying your life, free from superstition and ancient dogma, well, you're just selfish.

Christopher Hitchens: ‘Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well.
‘And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea.’

He just left out the church-organized slavery and endemic child raping.

The church loves suffering. Check out Hitchens' video on Mother Theresa. There's also our own headcase, Matt Talbot.

joseph brand · 08-11-2012 4:06am

EZ24GET wrote: »

I believe I am a Christian and I believe I should share the good news that Christ has died for the world. I also believe that at that point my God will take over, I certainly can't convince anyone. He can. You accept God and Christ and the holy spirit on faith. If not there isn't anything I can do about it. I can only strive to live my life as a glory to God. Yes, I fail - a lot , but I keep trying. To me it's something that is very personal and there's no reason to argue.

It's very personal indeed. When you're talking to 'god', you're talking to yourself. Nothing wrong with some inner chat. Everybody does it.

Religion SHOULD be personal, and kept out of politics. It's this news spreading, soul saving and converting which people find irksome.

im invisible · 08-11-2012 4:09am

krudler wrote: »

[...]
Do I reject god? absolutely I do.

And all His works? And all His empty promises?

philologos · 08-11-2012 8:29am

sheikhnguyen wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that would reach the standards accepted in a Court room/bar bet to back up any of this drivel?

The tomb was empty. If it wasn't then my faith would be absolutely worthless (1 Corinthians 15:14).

I posted this a number of years ago. The only response I've got to it is to compare it with completely unrelated events such as Joseph Smith, Sai Baba, or David Koresh. Nobody has assessed post-Resurrection history on its own terms on this forum yet:

2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.

sheikhnguyen wrote: »

If god exists, and demands we worship him and love him just because he created us (something we had no choice in by the way) then he doesn't deserve the worship and doesn't understand what love is either.

Think of it this way. God created the world, He has authority over it as a result, and He gave us standards to live by for our own good. Think about it for just a second. If God is the Creator, He knows what is best about how to live in the world. God by calling us into fellowship with Him allows us to know, and live and breathe in the fundamental knowledge of our being, our purpose is to glorify Him in every thing we do and speak. What is cruel is the secular haze I (and many others are) was subjected to as a teenager. Deep down you know something is true about the universe, but you're utterly confused as to what it is. It was only when I investigated, and when I finally reached out to God that things started to make sense like they never had before.

The claim that God is a tyrant can be easily dismissed if we consider how God has treated us in comparison to how we have treated Him throughout Scripture.

To the previous poster who replied "No he didn't..." etc. You clearly didn't understand that the point that was posed to me presumed God existed. Please read the thread of discussion first before posting to me.

sheikhnguyen wrote: »

Seriously, stand up on your own 2 feet and stop relying on a magical sky god to rationalise/justify your existence. It's not that scary.

I've seen evidence for God's existence in my own life, and in the life of others. I've also seen evidence for God in the every day workings of this reality, and in the very fact that we're stood here today. I've also seen an examined the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus of Nazareth and it seems to hold up.

sheikhnguyen wrote: »

And if you worry that without the guiding moral principals of chrisitianity the world might fall apart then let me give you a simple mantra that I use to guide myself through this at times difficult world: "don't be a prick and give a hand when it comes time to wash the dishes"

I don't follow Christianity because of its guiding principles. In fact it's guiding principles the law prove that I am a sinner, and they prove that I need God's mercy and that I can't be justified by my own works. The only reason I can stand before righteous before God - is Jesus, His blood was shed for me. If it wasn't I'd be condemned and I'd be subject to God's wrath in hell.

This is why I think God is worthy of praise. I sinned, yet He spared His judgement from me, and gave me another chance.

I don't think your moral framework is any substitute for Christianity. Irrespective of what you do when you wash the dishes, the reality is clear to me, we've all sinned and we're going to face God in judgement. He won't care about how well you washed the dishes.

krudler · 08-11-2012 8:29am

im invisible wrote: »

And all His works? And all His empty promises?

Especially those, and crappy christian rock music

philologos · 08-11-2012 8:37am

Esel wrote: »

Seeing as this thread has gone well OT already....

Why is it that fundamentalists seem to prefer the Old Testament? Is it because they can easily use it to justify hating anyone or anything 'because the Bible says....', whereas it is much harder to find that kind of justification in the Gospels?

Do Christians believe all the stuff in the Old Testament as well? If not, why not? Can you really pick and choose?

I read the Bible as a whole. Christians have done this since the first century. Christians believe in something called covenant theology. God made a covenant with Abraham, Moses, and so on. The Hebrew people were given the Law of Moses and lived according to these standards until a point where God would reveal Himself to all people in a new covenant through Jesus Christ. I.E - The Bible is a progressive revelation. Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses on our behalf (as we could never follow it ourselves) and created a new covenant for both Jews and non-Jews.

If you read the entire Scripture, you'd know that this was true.

So in a sense, we read the Old Testament considering the implications of what Jesus has done. For example, Jesus fulfilled the dietary laws and the ceremonial laws (Mark 7). Christians are under the new covenant rather than the old. The death penalty is fulfilled also because if Jesus died for me, then who am I to expect others to die for their sin.

My simple answer is I read the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation. The same God speaks throughout.

What do you mean by a fundamentalist?

joseph brand wrote: »

Phil would have us believe that for some reason, god needs over 4 billion humans to worship, praise, grovel and give thanks every day.
And if you're alive, you're a sinner.

No, He doesn't need anyone to repent and believe. We need to repent and believe. God has given us His mercy rather than His wrath.

joseph brand wrote: »

The promotion of self loathing and the surrender of ones freedom are not virtuous. Blindly following strange men and asking them to 'lead' you is sad and pathetic. Isn't it rather ironic that by joining a cult, one is said to be 'saved'.

I don't hate myself. I know my value and worth come from God and everything else is essentially rubbish. God shows me my worth by the cross.

joseph brand wrote: »

And if you're enjoying your life, free from superstition and ancient dogma, well, you're just selfish.

I love this line that some non-believers trot out that Christians can't enjoy their lives if they believe and trust in the Gospel. It's absolutely bizarre.

joseph brand wrote: »

He just left out the church-organized slavery and endemic child raping.

The church loves suffering. Check out Hitchens' video on Mother Theresa. There's also our own headcase, Matt Talbot.

What church?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-11-2012 9:00am

otto_26 wrote: »

I called you on your claims in an older thread and you followed your steps 4 and 5!!!!

I answer all posts directed at me actually, unlike philologos. If you feel there is a thread that I have not answered a point on from you then simply ressurect it and ask again. I am not about to derail THIS thread because you are unwilling or unable to post on THAT thread or have run away from it. As I say I do my best to respond to every post that addresses me. Sometimes I do miss one and if you think there is post you directed at me that I missed and did not reply to then simply link to it and I will of course rectify the error at once.

Contrast that to philologos who when he runs away from a reply from me he never goes back to it, even if I link to it 100 times. He can not claim to have simply missed it in error because he has been linked back to it numerous times. Whereas I promise that if I somehow missed a reply from you then if you link me to it I will instantly go back and rectify. That is the difference between me and Jakkass/Phil there. You will not see him do that.

What I will not do however is go back and reply to a post that was just you taking my own post and copy and pasting it back at me because you are unable to write a post of your own. The Moderators already pulled you up on that one, warned you about it, and asked you not to do it again. If however you want to go back to the thread in question and reply to my post in your own words with your own arguments, I am all ears. But do not presume to run away from a thread in that fashion and then pretend like it was me that was not backing up my points when it was you.

I have a policy of replying to every post directed my way if and when possible. So your accusation above is just spurious. This is a total contrast to Philologos who will make a rake of points, run away, lay low, then make the same rake of points as if they were never debunked before.

otto_26 wrote: »

You come into every single thread with any form of spiritual aspect and say the same things over and over about proof.

If I have said anything in this thread that has not been backed up then simply ask me about it. It is very easy to just throw such accusations around by you, but back them up just once. Point to something I said and ask me why I said it and I will happily go into more detail.

otto_26 wrote: »

Why can't you just understand and accept that nobody can prove anything to you.

Why would I do that when it is not true? I have things evidenced and proven to me all the time. Just because I do not accept one thing someone is claiming that does not mean I do not accept anything. I accept new substantiated ideas all the time. I just do not pander to special pleading, nor should I.

But it is a theist canard I see often. If you do not accept their specific claim(s) they will suddenly go on a rant that you accept nothing, are close minded about everything.

otto_26 wrote: »

Why do you need to push your beliefs onto every single spiritual thread?

Just making stuff up now aren't you. There are 1000s of threads on boards of a spiritual and religious nature. Claiming I post on EVERY SINGLE one of them is a wild claim and you are going to have a hard time backing that one up.

My issue is not just with religion either. I try to confront as many unsubstantiated claims as I can, when I can and where I can. If religion has more than it's fair share of unsubstantiated claims then that is not my fault.

gbee · 08-11-2012 9:35am

Many years ago lived a clever little boy. He wondered at the world and why all around him were looking for their King.

Clever little boy did a few experiments and later had perfected his retirement plans, people queued up for days to hear the man speak an give him coinage, he insisted though it was after tax earnings, after all he did not want the Romans collecting it from him ~ clever.

Anyway the cheeky young lad even told the holders of the message where to go and threw out the competition and claimed his father was very angry, any spare cash ye have left ye give to him, through me of course.

This missed off the holy-men and they like spoiled little children complaining to daddy, complained to the Roman Governor, who, up to this point had not known that they even existed and with typical Judge Judy SARCASM, he dismissed their claims.

This missed them off even ore and they threatened to complain to the Emperor, by God, Gingo, whatever, that does it, crucify that upstart. So it was that a man called Jesus was tied to a tree about noon and freed himself by early evening and legged it with his wife an family.

Today, on the high hills of Nazareth sits his descendents, smirking and laughing as they bury more scrolls in the sand, this fun it too good to stop.

TwoShedsJackson · 08-11-2012 10:53am

sheikhnguyen wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that would reach the standards accepted in a Court room/bar bet to back up any of this drivel?

He doesn't need evidence, he's got faith. And once someone declares they have faith and that's enough for them, you can usually stop the discussion right there, because they cannot be convinced otherwise.

philologos · 08-11-2012 10:59am

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

He doesn't need evidence, he's got faith. And once someone declares they have faith and that's enough for them, you can usually stop the discussion right there, because they cannot be convinced otherwise.

Funnily enough I've used quite a number of things outside of the Bible such as scholarship and history to make my point.

My approach to the Bible is rather simple. The Bible claims X -> based on what is the case in reality can X be true.

The reality is you can make this strawman argument as much as you like but there are good reasons to trust the Bible as being reliable and true.

I find it funny that people criticise a Christianity that is nothing like the real Christianity people actually believe in. Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand what you criticise.

The main objections I've heard are the "God is so mean for holding me to His standard when I break it" and the Bible as Chinese whispers hypothesis. The latter isn't true the former is inapplicable when one considers what God said and did in Scripture.

TwoShedsJackson · 08-11-2012 11:02am

philologos wrote: »

The reality is you can make this strawman argument as much as you like but there are good reasons to trust the Bible as being reliable and true.

Please list these reasons. 'It was written a long time ago and describes some events that could theoretically happen' is not a reason by the way.

krudler · 08-11-2012 11:28am

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Please list these reasons. 'It was written a long time ago and describes some events that could theoretically happen' is not a reason by the way.

No it totally is, its true because it says its true, that's totally solid evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-11-2012 11:30am

philologos wrote: »

My approach to the Bible is rather simple.

I think simplistic is the word but otherwise I agree fully.

philologos wrote: »

The Bible claims X -> based on what is the case in reality can X be true.

A horrific way to approach the issue. Anything "Can" be true. So if you are going to gauge what to believe based on whether it "Can" be true then you would have to believe all kinds of nonsense. Oh wait, you do. That explains that then.

No the question to be asking about these things is not whether or not it "Can" be true but whether there is any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to think it "Is" true.

philologos wrote: »

there are good reasons to trust the Bible as being reliable and true.

Reasons you appear unwilling to adumbrate despite me asking you over and over again. Except of course that one time you told me that the Resurrection must be true because his mates would not have acted like it was unless it was. If THAT is the level of evidence you have on offer then your position is weaker than most people here appear to realise.

philologos wrote: »

I find it funny that people criticise a Christianity that is nothing like the real Christianity people actually believe in.

Which people? You? Because there is well over 33000 recognized branches and sects in Christianity so I think you will find that there is no one thing people believe in and no "real" Christianity. The only people who seem to think there is a "Real" Christianity are the people who think they are the correct ones and the other 33,000 have it wrong.

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand what you criticise.

Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand the criticisms.

ejmaztec · 08-11-2012 11:46am

philologos wrote: »

Funnily enough I've used quite a number of things outside of the Bible such as scholarship and history to make my point.

My approach to the Bible is rather simple. The Bible claims X -> based on what is the case in reality can X be true.

The reality is you can make this strawman argument as much as you like but there are good reasons to trust the Bible as being reliable and true.

I find it funny that people criticise a Christianity that is nothing like the real Christianity people actually believe in. Perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand what you criticise.

The main objections I've heard are the "God is so mean for holding me to His standard when I break it" and the Bible as Chinese whispers hypothesis. The latter isn't true the former is inapplicable when one considers what God said and did in Scripture.

I don't know why you bother wasting your time on this, you're clearly outnumbered by the angry nouveau religious persecutors on here.

Death and Taxes · 08-11-2012 11:56am

Happily Im not a God believer and have even less faith in the closet gay that was Jesus Christ, if he even existed, so whether being religious means being less christian is of no consequence to me.
I would make the point however that the hapless witless ones who are religious may not care if they are percieved as being good or bad christians as the they might be Muslim, Hindu, etc etc.

Canis Lupus · 08-11-2012 11:59am

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't know why you bother wasting your time on this, you're clearly outnumbered by the angry nouveau religious persecutors on here.

It really gets on my nerves when atheists are now branded as 'know it alls' etc simply because we question the existence of a god. However, throwing insults won't make us go away

kylith · 08-11-2012 12:08pm

philologos wrote: »

No. Follow the points originally made. I had people claim the New Testament was significantly altered. The manuscript evidence shows this to be false. The New Testament has more evidence of authenticity than any other, using criteria that's used in scholarship to assess ancient texts.

I'm more than happy to discuss with you why I believe the Bible to be true.

Sorry, I haven't been in a position where I could do much research over the last couple of days, and I don't like to reply to things half-baked.

Firstly the gospels were written not in English, obviously, but probably in Greek, then translated into Latin, then into Middle English, and translated on from there. Although it could have gone Hebrew-Greek-Latin-Etc, or even Aramaic-Hebrew-Greek-Latin-Etc. There is no way for you to know that the gospel in your bible is textually the same as the original gospel unless you a) are able to read 2000 year old Greek and b) can convince the pope to let you have a look at them. Of course, I guess that you're taking the same 'proof' that the bible hasn't been altered from the original text as you do for the existence of god, i.e. someone said that it hasn't been altered. Of course, don't forget that the translations were done by hand, and it wasn't unheard of for simple misspellings to creep in.

Wiki wrote:

The newly crowned King James convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604. That gathering proposed a new English version in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Three examples of problems the Puritans perceived with the Bishops' and Great Bibles were:
First, Galatians iv. 25 (from the Bishops' Bible). The Greek word susoichei is not well translated as now it is, bordereth neither expressing the force of the word, nor the apostle's sense, nor the situation of the place. Secondly, psalm cv. 28 (from the Great Bible), ‘They were not obedient;’ the original being, ‘They were not disobedient.’ Thirdly, psalm cvi. 30 (also from the Great Bible), ‘Then stood up Phinees and prayed,’ the Hebrew hath, ‘executed judgment.’[43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Considerations_for_a_new_version

Secondly; The emperor Constantine, I think it was, was the one to decide that all the various biblical stories should be gathered together in a book. This was some time in the 4th century. It's largely accepted that the various books of the NT were originally sometime between 45CE and 90CE, at least 12 years after the alleged death of Jesus. How reliable would you consider an eye witness account of an even 17 years ago? Even if we accept that the bible hasn't been changed since Constantine collected those 1st century writing, how reliable is a copy of a copy of a copy of eyewitness testimony from 300 years ago?

Thirdly: The missing gospels. There are dozens of gospels that didn't make it into the bible. Why didn't they make the cut? What do they say that those men in ~300CE didn't want people to know? Gospels written by everyone from Peter (seriously, the first pope's gospel didn't make the final cut?) and Mary Magdalene, to Judas himself (Judas says that Jesus asked him to call the Romans, btw).

So there you have it; We can't know that the gospel today says what it originally said due to multiple retranslations over time, the gospels were apparently written between 12 and 60 years after the events they purport to document, and dozens of gospels were disregarded by Constantine's bishops in the 4th century because they did not fit with the story these guys were putting together.

And my favourite bit: The Wicked Bible, which has a wonderful typo commanding people that they "shalt commit adultery". Kind of a shame they caught that one, it could have made Christianity a lot more fun, in a hippie love-in kind of way.

Very religious equals not very Christian.

Comments