Honest questions for God

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

Criteria for Biblical Canon

1. Apostolic authority
2. Age of text
3. Orthodoxy
4. Widespread acceptance

Pretty much the same criteria by which we know the Iliad is true and that Zeus exists.

Oh that makes LOTS of sense, kallend.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

I already answered.

You have not. What's stopping you?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Ha ha - first you said it was from a novel, now you change your tune.

Don't drink and type, kallend.

Quote

You have NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that this is any less accurate than any source you quote, and wow, it's a historical document 1100 years old!

I do have objective evidence that your sources (a novel, and rumor) were made up by historical revisionists--- again, see http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html:

Quote

There seem to be a number of legends about the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) in circulation on the internet, presented as fact. Some people seem to think that the council, which was the first council of all the Bishops of the Christian Church, either invented the New Testament, or edited it to remove references to reincarnation (or whatever) or burned large numbers of heretical works, or whatever. These are in error. This page documents the problem and provides links to all the ancient source material in order to allow everyone to check the truth for themselves....

Quote

Every single argument you use eventually grinds to a halt in subjectivism because NO proof exists. You don't seriously expect church historians to admit that the church was redacting this stuff, do you - a church that for centuries had a habit of torturing and executing "heretics". Or do you deny that too?

First, I was under the impression that scientists had respect for evidence, and treated all evidence impartially. I also thought that scientists didn't confuse the terms, "proof" and "evidence." I was also under the impression that you were a scientist. I mean, seriously... your arguments only amount to snide comments and retorts, to the point that I find it extremely difficult to take anything you say seriously. You've also claimed to have answered the questions I asked you last week, but you didn't. I will repeat them here and ask you again to answer them. If you don't want to, at least say so.

1- Could you be mistaken in your presupposition about the non-existence of God and/or the supernatural?
2- You made the claim that a supernatural explanation for Christ's empty tomb isn't necessary; what is your explanation? (You made a stab at answering this by referring to magic; but of course, I didn't think you were being serious.)
3- You made the claim that "the bible has been edited and re-edited." I asked for evidence that early Christians conspired to change scripture (N.T., that is); you've not given any.
4- [Found another question you didn't acknowledge...) You opined that organized religion is just a mechanism for an elite group to control the masses. I asked how you accounted for protestant Christianity.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Zenister 0]

Wooden Jesus (C.Cornell)
Wooden jesus where are you from
Korea or canada or maybe taiwan
I didnt know it was the holy land
But I believed from the minute
The check left my hand, and I pray

Can I be saved, I spent all my money
On a future grave
Wooden jesus Ill cut you in
On twenty percent of my future sin

Porcelain mary her majesties pure
Looking for virgin territory
Coat hanger halos dont come cheap
From television shepherds with living room
Sheep, and I pray

Can I be saved, I spent all my money
On a future grave
Wooden jesus Ill cut you in
On twenty percent of my future sin

Your Savior (C.Cornell)

People like you, I know myself
Walk in the shoes of somebody else
Whisper to me, my tragic fate
Whisper to me, my tragic end
But don't give me your savior

People I choose, life on my own
Burn me your fuse, throw me your stones
Give me your brand, burn on my hand
Whisper to me, my tragic end
But don't give me your savior

People I choose, I know myself
Lay my need out, give you my help
But you give me your blues
And you whisper my fate
But don't give me your savior

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

you have YET to provide 'proof' or OBJECTIVE 'evidence

testimony of a believer MAY qualify as evidence (flimsy though it be) however it is as FAR FROM OBJECTIVE as is possible.

you still fail to recognize all you have is a TEXT and one compiled from CLEARLY BIASED SOURCES.

your entire argument falls apart from the beginning.. only your BELIEF sustains it in your mind and the mind of those of your Faith.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 3,072]

People go crazy in congregations
They only get better one by one

-Gordon Sumner

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and--as in fact happened--the spurious on the bottom.

Quote

Why would you object to this? Selections were made, and it seems that some system involving random chancewould at least give some avenue for divine selection if you believe in that sort of thing.

I'd object to the fable that kallend proposed (see quote above) because it's false and ridiculous. They used much more objective criteria-- the criteria that Pajarito referred to. Random chance (kallend's answer-- why am I not surprised?) is not objective criteria.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I'd object to the fable that kallend proposed (see quote above) because it's false and ridiculous. They used much more objective criteria-- the criteria that Pajarito referred to. Random chance (kallend's answer-- why am I not surprised?) is not objective criteria.

what possibly leads you to think a group of BELIEVERS are in any way objective?

would you accept the authenticity of such documents from a religion not your own? how about if said documents COMPLETELY REFUTED your personal belief?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

They were just looking for the truth where there was none to be found, and the guy who came to show them something (Marshall Applewhite) was just another delusional, charismatic fuck who had no intention to deceive them, but did anyways.

What did he have to back up his claims? What did he do in his life to back up his claims?

Good questions, Paj. The leader of "Heaven's Gate" had NOTHING in common with Christ.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Zenister 0]

very true.. we can prove that (deluded as he was) Marshall Applewhite actually existed.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

Suppose I write an entry in my journal, tear out the page and give it to you and ask you write a copy of it. When you're done, pass the original to someone else and ask them to copy it. And so on, until 10 handwritten copies (manuscripts) have been made. More than likely, every person will have made a mistake in copying. Perhaps an error in punctuation, omission of a word such as "the", a misspelling, or something. However, probably none of the copiers will have made the exact same mistake. If you were to take those 10 manuscripts and compare them, do you think you could reconstruct the original journal entry? Of course; if you run across an omitted word in one copy, all you have to do is look at the other 9 to see what word was omitted.

This is why textual criticism can say that there is less than 1% unresolved variation among the thousands of Greek manuscripts, yet none of the differences are significant; they don't effect the doctrine taught in the bible.

However, if there's a mistake in copy 1, chances are, the person copying it, if told to copy exactly, would copy that mistake. so, by the time you get to copy 10, all the mistakes from the prior copies are included, plus whatever mistake the last guy made.

The ten people in my example were each copying the original.

Granted, this example is a very small-scale version of the real process, but the point is that by comparing manuscripts, textual critics can reconstruct the original with a large degree of certainty.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Zenister 0]

you should really study more textual criticism you've got more than a few misconceptions.

in addition the validity of the bronze age version of 'kinko's' says NOTHING about the 'truth' of the 'original' text or its author's; identity, actual participation in the 'events' as recorded or his intentions in creating the 'original' document. You still must take on Faith that what is written reflects some actual event..

which is EXACTLY Kallend point that went flying by you so many posts back...

you know NOTHING for certain about any of your TEXTS but you believe implicitly that they are what they claim to be...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

He wrote that before he became a Christian, but his message is still very good. the answers begin when you look within.

Some people will never do that. They are afraid of where the truth might lead them. But little do they realize that the truth (Christ and his claims: "I am the way, the truth, and the life") will set them free.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

He wrote that before he became a Christian, but his message is still very good. the answers begin when you look within.

Some people will never do that. They are afraid of where the truth might lead them. But little do they realize that the truth (Christ and his claims: "I am the way, the truth, and the life") will set them free.

You found Christ within you, did you? I call shenanigans, because if you found Christ within you, his name wouldn't be needed in the Book, and those who have not had the Book introduced to them would still be able to find Christ, albeit by a different name. Yet you claim that Christ is the only way. So, which is it, from within, or from the Book?

Furthermore, if Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life", well, the Tao claims to be the same, and it actually claims to come from within. Why can't "the way, the truth, and the life" come by different methods?

This ad space for sale.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

you have YET to provide 'proof' or OBJECTIVE 'evidence

testimony of a believer MAY qualify as evidence (flimsy though it be) however it is as FAR FROM OBJECTIVE as is possible.

you still fail to recognize all you have is a TEXT and one compiled from CLEARLY BIASED SOURCES.

your entire argument falls apart from the beginning.. only your BELIEF sustains it in your mind and the mind of those of your Faith.

Several of us have reported data/evidence such as: what the textual criticism demonstrates about the reliability of the N.T. texts; the eyewitness testimony of the disciples of Jesus, which is reliable because the texts in which their testimony is recorded has been shown to be reliable; archeological data which backs up events, people, and places in the Bible. To name a few...

Nowhere have we put forth testimony of our own experience as objective evidence; so your bringing that up is a strawman.

As I read the replies to the arguments we present, I wonder how much of the discussion they've read; and of what they've read, I wonder how much of it they've actually considered. Many of the replies just seem like knee-jerk reactions to something they've taken out of context.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Zenister 0]

Quote

the reliability of the N.T. texts

internal reliablity from CLEARLY BIASED SOURCES is not evidence

Quote

eyewitness testimony of the disciples of Jesus

please provide PROOF that any of the documents you claim as 'true' were EVEN DICTATED (ie passed down orally prior to being recorded) by an 'eyewitness' to said events.

Quote

archeological data which backs up events, people, and places

Archeology backs up the CULTURE and CONDITIONS, not the EVENTS or the PEOPLE.

I'm not creating a strawman, please read for comprehension. The Believers I referred to are the CREATORS of the documents you hold in such high regard, as such they (the original writer of the source documents, as well as every subsequent copy (also made by BELIEVERS) that cannot be compared to an original are suspect from the start and in NO WAY OBJECTIVE or Proof or Evidence

Your Belief clouds your Perception. The entire reason for bringing up other religions is to show you how ludicrous what Christian's blithely accept as 'evidence' is when viewed without Belief. What you accept as "Evidence" is laughable and falls apart without your Belief to sustain it.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

archeological data

give me an example, one that directly relates to jesus...

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

what possibly leads you to think a group of BELIEVERS are in any way objective?

I believe they (the councils) were objective because of the critieria they used. The criteria were, as Pajarito listed:

1. Apostolic authority (the authors had to be apostles or have apostolic backing)
2. Age of text
3. Orthodoxy
4. Widespread acceptance

Taking these criteria into consideration, please read the following which sheds some light on how the criteria were used in the selection process. (Excerpt from The Book of Books, by William Evans © Copyright 1902)

Quote

At the time of the formation of the New Testament canon twenty out of the twenty-seven books were readily and universally accepted as genuine, and therefore called "Homologoumena" (i.e. acknowledged). These twenty books were the four Gospels, the Acts, the epistles of Paul (except that to the Hebrews), and the first epistles of John and Peter. The other seven books--Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, Revelation--were disputed for a time by particular churches, and were therefore styled "Antilegomena" (or disputed).

The question at issue with regard to the books called "Antilegomena," was not so much that of the canonicity of the writings, as whether they were really written by the men who were called their authors. Hebrews bore no name of its author, and differed in style from the acknowledged Pauline epistles; 2 Peter differed in style from 1 Peter; James and Jude styled themselves "servants," and not "apostles"; the writer of 2 and 3 John called himself an "elder" or "presbyter," and not an "apostle"; Jude recorded apocryphal stories. For these reasons these books were not at once allowed their place in the canon. After a deliberate examination, however, they were at last received as genuine, the very delay proving the close scrutiny which their claims had undergone. At the beginning of the fourth century they were received by most of the churches, and at the end of that century they were received by all.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

you know NOTHING for certain about any of your TEXTS but you believe implicitly that they are what they claim to be...

and you DISbelieve without knowing anything for certain.

I look at the evidence and deem it as beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't.

So?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

you should really study more textual criticism you've got more than a few misconceptions.

Tell me what I do not understand correctly about textual criticism.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

You found Christ within you, did you?

I most certainly didn't! What I found within me was a bent toward unrighteousness. I found self-importance, especially. I won't go into the specifics, however. What I found was not pretty.

To state it another way, basically, I found that I was not at all right with God and needed Christ to reconcile me to Him.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Archeology backs up the CULTURE and CONDITIONS, not the EVENTS or the PEOPLE.

I'll see what specifics I can cite.

Quote

I'm not creating a strawman, please read for comprehension. The Believers I referred to are the CREATORS of the documents you hold in such high regard, as such they (the original writer of the source documents, as well as every subsequent copy (also made by BELIEVERS) that cannot be compared to an original are suspect from the start and in NO WAY OBJECTIVE or Proof or Evidence.

Would you have this much suspicion about secular documents/texts for which we have no original? Or is it just the Bible? If it's just the authorship of the Bible that concerns you, why? Is it because of the personal implications involved with believing what the Bible has to say? (Issues that, if believed, would require a response?)

Quote

Your Belief clouds your Perception. The entire reason for bringing up other religions is to show you how ludicrous what Christian's blithely accept as 'evidence' is when viewed without Belief. What you accept as "Evidence" is laughable and falls apart without your Belief to sustain it.

Your unbelief probably clouds your perception, as well, don't you think? Perhaps your unbelief keeps you from seeing the validity of the evidence. So, are we gonna' argue about whose reasons for believing/disbelieving are the most "laughable"?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

archeological data

give me an example, one that directly relates to jesus...

As I said to Zenister, I will find something specific. But not tonight!!!! I'm dead tired. If I forget, feel free to remind me!

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He wrote that before he became a Christian, but his message is still very good. the answers begin when you look within.

Some people will never do that. They are afraid of where the truth might lead them. But little do they realize that the truth (Christ and his claims: "I am the way, the truth, and the life") will set them free.

You found Christ within you, did you? I call shenanigans, because if you found Christ within you, his name wouldn't be needed in the Book, and those who have not had the Book introduced to them would still be able to find Christ, albeit by a different name. Yet you claim that Christ is the only way. So, which is it, from within, or from the Book?

Furthermore, if Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life", well, the Tao claims to be the same, and it actually claims to come from within. Why can't "the way, the truth, and the life" come by different methods?

Actually, I looked within an saw I needed a savior. Maybe when you look within you don't see the need

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

Would you have this much suspicion about secular documents/texts for which we have no original? Or is it just the Bible? If it's just the authorship of the Bible that concerns you, why? Is it because of the personal implications involved with believing what the Bible has to say? (Issues that, if believed, would require a response?)

If I found a paper that claimed to contain a new theory on global warming, medieval golf course management, or indeed any claim of not insignificant magnitude, I would expect it to withstand a certain level of scrutiny. The bigger the claim, the higher the level of scrutiny. The Bible's makes an extraordinary claim of the highest magnitude (ie. that a perfect God exists and he loves me yet I'm going to burn in hell eternally if I don't kiss his arse) so I expect the Bible to withstand the very highest levels of examination. Moreover the book is supposed to have been writen under the guidance of the very omnipotent, omniscient god the book claims exists. The circular reasoning of the biblical claim alone doubles the need for suspicion but if the claim is true, the Bible should easily withstand such criticism. Clearly it doesn't. I doesn't even meet the minimum standard to be considered a coherent story.

Your standards are obviously very much lower than mine.