Manchu wrote:@Oldgrue: Everyone can see clouds in the sky but few people are meteorologists.

Does that make the meteorologists right?

Oldgrue wrote:

Manchu wrote:If by "one of those people" you mean "a Catholic," then yes, I am one of those people.

So your understanding of a certain book is somehow more special and valid than someone without your teaching?

As a Catholic, I can say that my understanding insofar as it is informed by the teachings of the Church that Christ founded is more valid concerning Christianity than someone who's understanding is not informed by those teachings. Furthermore, if someone wants to question whether or not my understanding actually reflects the Tradition of the Church they can do so as that Tradition exists independently from my personal viewpoint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Oldgrue: Everyone can see clouds in the sky but few people are meteorologists.

Does that make the meteorologists right?

It means that they know something that other people don't about the clouds.

Ironhide wrote:If Jesus did exist prior to his birth, then why did god make up a set of rules for man to follow so that might gain access to kingdom of heaven?

It's more helpful if you think of themm as instructions instead of rules. Like needing to turn the key in the ignition before you start the car.
Your course of action determines what happens to you in the afterlife. According to what I have been taught, a man that develops certain character traits will have those traits in the afterlife. These traits will determine where his eternity is spent. He will be in whatever state he can endure or embrace.

As a Catholic, I can say that my understanding insofar as it is informed by the teachings of the Church that Christ founded is more valid concerning Christianity than someone who's understanding is not informed by those teachings.

Except to other Christian variations - like dissenting medical opinions or different flavors of ice cream.
If there are other variations of christianity. Lots of them who all think they're just as right, and have the same source document. Lots of opinions who all acknowledge only their flavor is right. Chocolate, Pistachio, Fudge Ripple, Rocky Road, Neapolitan, and Vanilla all arguing for supremacy with similar evidence of superiority.

If we can discuss the merits of pistacho we should be able to discuss the relative merit of theophagy as well as poke fun at them both.

Edit: fixed quote

Relapse wrote:

Ironhide wrote:If Jesus did exist prior to his birth, then why did god make up a set of rules for man to follow so that might gain access to kingdom of heaven?

It's more helpful if you think of themm as instructions instead of rules. Like needing to turn the key in the ignition before you start the car.
Your course of action determines what happens to you in the afterlife. According to what I have been taught, a man that develops certain character traits will have those traits in the afterlife. These traits will determine where his eternity is spent. He will be in whatever state he can endure or embrace.

I just want to point out that this is at great variance with what Trinitarian Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant Churches) teaches. Relapse, I commend you for qualifying your statements with "according to what I have been taught," but I would suggest you make it more clear that these are LDS positions rather than Christian ones.

edit of many:
Urg. dual post.

@Oldgrue: Watch out for illusory double posts. It looks like you have double-posted but when you reload the page it turns out you have only posted once--usually after you have deleted the "double post" and thereby deleted everything. Always reload before erasing.

Manchu wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Ironhide wrote:If Jesus did exist prior to his birth, then why did god make up a set of rules for man to follow so that might gain access to kingdom of heaven?

It's more helpful if you think of themm as instructions instead of rules. Like needing to turn the key in the ignition before you start the car.
Your course of action determines what happens to you in the afterlife. According to what I have been taught, a man that develops certain character traits will have those traits in the afterlife. These traits will determine where his eternity is spent. He will be in whatever state he can endure or embrace.

I just want to point out that this is at great variance with what Trinitarian Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant Churches) teaches. Relapse, I commend you for qualifying your statements with "according to what I have been taught," but I would suggest you make it more clear that these are LDS positions rather than Christian ones.

We are Christian, but yes, I speak from an LDS perspective.

LDS theology is comparable to Islam in terms of how different it is from Christianity. Christianity is a defined term. While the various Christian denominations do not agree on many things, they do agree on that definition. It is contained in the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not accept the Creed. Most importantly, Mormons do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. Mormons certainly have teachings about Jesus Christ but those teachings are not Christianity.

Manchu wrote:LDS theology is comparable to Islam in terms of how different it is from Christianity. Christianity is a defined term. While the various Christian denominations do not agree on many things, they do agree on that definition. It is contained in the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not accept the Creed. Most importantly, Mormons do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. Mormons certainly have teachings about Jesus Christ but those teachings are not Christianity.

An interesting comment, but we believe that only through Christ, can we be saved. From what little I knowof Islam, they revere Christ as a prophet rather than as our Saviour. We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are seperate entities.

This thread was good until page 8 and then it turned into a few people bashing religion again.

@Relapse: Yes, I am quite familiar with LDS theology. My comment about Islam was directed at the difference you describe, not because Mormonism and Islam are similar (in that regard at least, they are very similar in other ways). Although Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam all recognize that Jesus is an important figure they all consider him in very different lights. Yes, Christians and Mormons agree that Christ is a sort of savior. But there is little to no agreement between them with regard to what that means.

Can I just point out to Oldgrue that (from where I'm standing) I don't see Manchu arguing that Religeon is too touchy a subject to be questioned. (IMHO it seems that religeon should be open to MORE critisiscm becuase of its importance) Rather it seems to me that he was simply saying that Theologians know more about religeon than your basic person. Like a Meteorologist knows more about the weather than the average person.

This is why I like Manchu. He's always up for a luagh, but comes with a good dose of logic.

Here arethe articles of faith in the LDS church:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.


2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.


3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.


4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.


5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.


6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.


7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.


8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.


11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.


13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Thank you for posting that, Relapse. I would recommend contrasting it to the Nicene or Apostles Creed at your leisure.

@Relaspe: Interesting point there on No.12. If a government or state forbid worship or praying in tounges or otherwise imposed laws that outlawed some apsects of your Church-life, would the LDS still be obliged to follow them?

Ugg the thread..has gone on so many tangents it's almost unreadable, which I think was the intention of some of the later posters.

At this point, I would recomend splitting the discussions about LDS,spaghetti monsters, and possibly atheism into other distinct threads or pm's.

GG

@GG: You're a bit paranoid there, mate. This thread was OT long ago I don't think this was really intentional...but that's for the OP to reveal at his leisure...

@Manchu, I'll have to do that.

@Emperor's Faithful, It's in the mode of rendering unto Ceasar what is his and unto God what is his.
There are Biblical and Book of Mormon references to prayer being forbidden by unrighteous governments, yet the people continued to pray in spite of that.

Start making em, GGrog.

In any case - having been taught one thing about an interpretation of a book doesn't invalidate the value of a self educated person. Rather it puts the burden of proof on the amateur.

Religion, like ice cream, needs to be open to debate, discussion, and ridicule (Peach! Feh!) else we devalue its impact. Simply stating "My interpretation of this self referential book is right. Accept this or be punished." does not enhance the credibility of the book rather it marginalizes the person making that statement.

Relapse wrote:
@Emperor's Faithful, It's in the mode of rendering unto Ceasar what is his and unto God what is his.
There are Biblical and Book of Mormon references to prayer being forbidden by unrighteous governments, yet the people continued to pray in spite of that.

*shrug*
Fair enough. That's actually a pretty good point, and answers my question satisfactorily enough.

Manchu wrote:Start making em, GGrog.

TBH I would prefer, Oldgrue started his, Relapse started his, EF-Jwang(I'm surprised at you, by the way)- and Gwar!! started theirs.

Did I forget anyone?

LOL

GG

@Oldgrue: In an ideal world, everything would be up for ridicule. I have no doubt that if Jesus really is up there in heaven, he would be laughing his jocks off at Raptor Jesus pictures. (If still feeling sorry for the souls of the people who made them) However, this is not an ideal world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@GG: Orlanth?

John and Gwar! seem to have backed out upon being politely asked to expand their positions if it seemed worth their effort.

@Oldgrue: I really don't get what you mean by punishing you. I can't punish you. Also, you can mock anything. That doesn't subtract from the value of the thing being mocked unless its not actually valuable in the first place. I simply would ask (again) that someone who believes Pastafarianism is as legitimate a religion as Christianity explain why they think so.

It's not. But it does demonstrate a few similiarites between religeon in general and something someone has made up on the spot.

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:Start making em, GGrog.

TBH I would prefer, Oldgrue started his, Relapse started his, EF-Jwang(I'm surprised at you, by the way)- and Gwar!! started theirs.

Did I forget anyone?

LOL

GG

Sorry bout that, GG. I didn't really mean to take off on a tangent there, I let myself get caught attempting putting my view on Christianity down without trying to getting preachy.

Which is incredibly hard.

Relapse wrote:Sorry bout that, GG. I didn't really mean to take off on a tangent there, I let myself get caught attempting putting my view on Christianity down without trying to getting preachy.

No need to apologize. LDS theology is a fine discussion IMO, but one that needs to be done on it's own, so we don't have to read 5 different topic streams in one thread at once.

GG

I don't mind responding to all of them at once (as I have been trying to do) so long as people don't try and sabotage the thread. Frankly, discussion only picked off once we went slightly offtopic.

Manchu wrote:John and Gwar! seem to have backed out upon being politely asked to expand their positions if it seemed worth their effort.

With people starting to get defensive and touchy because it's their one true religion (tm), there's nothing for me to say here.

Per my previous posts, I leave you to your fun here. AND I WON"T BE BACK, SO KEEP ME OUT OF THIS.

Yes, people get touchy but there is still the possibility of discussion once people cool down and expand their comments from offended reactions into cogent arguments.

Manchu wrote: I simply would ask (again) that someone who believes Pastafarianism is as legitimate a religion as Christianity explain why they think so.

Can do!

All religion bases itself on a few (simplified) premises.
1. Our document is specially delivered. - Some conduit delivers information from the unconfirmable to an author or group of authors.
2. Our document is correct. - often confirmed within the body of the document.
3. Believers will be rewarded, non believers will not. - degree of reward is less important than the reward.

This pattern of premises relies on sophistry rather than observation or confirmation.
Deity of choice provided this information to X. Since no sort of logging or experimentation can be performed this is difficult at best to confirm.
The veracity of the document can be confirmed only through the document or its purveyors who are inherently biased despite being nice people. The promise of reward provides an incentive to affirm the first and second premises.

FSM pastaed...sent to KY...Ramen.
God created...Jesus stated...reward in heaven.
Allah created...Mohammad stated...reward in heaven.
Xenu bombed...Hubbard stated...Operating thetan superpowers.

The argument that a book is old, or handed down through some tradition does not inherently confirm its veracity. That a very nice/bombastic/well thought of/moving speaker delivers this message also has no impact on truth. The promise of reward also doesn't confirm truth any more than internal consistency or lack thereof. An external source cannot be used to confirm these assertions.

This same pattern of thinking is confirmed effective through the Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments. Its self reinforcing and prone to abuse.

Oldgrue wrote:1. Our document is specially delivered. - Some conduit delivers information from the unconfirmable to an author or group of authors.

The Gospels are four different (and widely varying) accounts of the same events. The source is not any more "unconfirmable" than a newspaper article from a century ago.

2. Our document is correct. - often confirmed within the body of the document.

The documents in the case of Christianity came after the faith communities--or Church. In any case, the point you make here is not unique to religion. Anyone who holds any kind of opinion about anything believes that they are correct.

3. Believers will be rewarded, non believers will not. - degree of reward is less important than the reward.

Christianity (from a Catholic perspective at least) does not hold that nonbelievers will be punished for their nonbelief.

Oldgrue wrote:This same pattern of thinking is confirmed effective through the Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments. Its self reinforcing and prone to abuse.

Your continued mention of these experiments does not seem to elucidate any point that you have made.

Relapse wrote:

Ironhide wrote:A person cannot be saved by a someone who has not even been born. Or are you trying to say that the "saving grace of Jesus Christ" is retroactive, when it depends on a person to believe in said individual? If Enoch or Elijah never met Christ until after the fact they went to heaven, then they were not saved by Jesus' grace. Hence, Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without the benefit of Jesus' saving grace.

By your meaning, if I take it correctly, people that died before Jesus, have no chance at Heaven or Salvation. I have to disagree here from what I've been taught. An all loving God is not going to bar someone from his presence based on when they were born. I've been taught that all will get an equal chance at Salvation.

What I was trying to imply was that there was a different system in place before Jesus was born, and that those who died and went to heaven prior to Jesus's birth, did so without Jesus' saving grace.

Manchu wrote:@Ironhide: The Church was around before any book of the New Testament. "What the Bible says" is not as clear as you seem to think. When you claim that the Bible says a certain thing what you are doing is presenting your interpretation of the Bible. I avoid this by relying on the tradition of the Church. Additionally, you will find that Maosaic law was not a system of rules by which people got into heaven. The ancient Jews did not have this concept of an afterlife, as we can learn from historical-critical analysis of the Old Testament books themselves.

Those church traditions in the old testament are thousands of years old and have changed since then. Even the bible has changed since then. The church and world leaders throughout history have seen to that. Every clergyman on this planet who preaches is talking about their interpretation of the bible. Enoch and Elijah could not have had Jesus' saving grace to get into heaven. Jesus would have needed to have been present to give it, and they would have needed to have known Christ to accept it. The could have accepted it after the fact, I guess. Upon meeting Jesus in heaven. And if Jesus' saving grace is eternal, it is eternal from that point in time it was given, and can only move forward. It can't go backwards in time. Not even god can do that, if he could, he would have rectified the whole garden of Eden debacle. Of course that would have rendered everything that happened after that moot.

@Ironides: "Eternal" means outside of time, atemporal. The statement "eternal from some point" therefore does not mean anything. Additionally, there are certainly many interpretations of the Bible. But there is only one Tradition of the Church.

1.

Manchu wrote:The Gospels are four different (and widely varying) accounts of the same events. The source is not any more "unconfirmable" than a newspaper article from a century ago.

So we can attribute historical correlation to a child being born to Mary and Joseph by the matching accounts. Indeed if we hold to the principle of virgin birth we return to hearsay. Consider for a moment the gaps in timelines for the gospels - gaps such as these would have to be questioned in a historical account. The Gospels are also contained within a book rife with editorial input and inspirational writing. Reader's Digest and The New Yorker tend to have similar contents as well.

Any four people can write generally matching accounts of an event. Nikos Kazantzakis even goes so far as to humanize the main character thereby making them more approachable. Multiple accounts only verify events, not divine origins.

2.

In any case, the point you make here is not unique to religion. Anyone who holds any kind of opinion about anything believes that they are correct.

But that doesn't make the self-reference verification. Uniqueness to religion is not relevant.

3.

Christianity (from a Catholic perspective at least) does not hold that nonbelievers will be punished for their nonbelief.

There is no reward for the non compliant. Lack of reward is not punishment.

Your continued mention of these experiments does not seem to elucidate any point that you have made.

Both of these experiments document the tendency of people to comply with a perceived source of authority especially as applied over time. Keep teaching the same data over time and it is likely to be accepted regardless of accuracy. When the reinforcement stops we can easily end up with Zeus, Odin, The Dagda, or Osiris.

edit: quotes fixed.

Oldgrue wrote:Consider for a moment the gaps in timelines for the gospels - gaps such as these would have to be questioned in a historical account.

They are. It is called historical criticism. (I've mentioned it quite often already.)

Multiple accounts only verify events, not divine origins.

The Gospels, unlike what is said of the Koran or (in a sense) the Book of Mormon, do not have a divine origin. (They are called divinely inspired, but that means something quite different.) We know where they came from historically. We do not pretend that they came down from a cloud or that God or an angel came down and told the Evangelists what to write.

Uniqueness to religion is not relevant.

I'd say your point is pretty irrelevant. People who have opinions believe they are correct. And?

There is no reward for the non compliant.

Wrong yet again. This is why I would suggest you learn about a thing before going on and on about it.

Keep teaching the same data over time and it is likely to be accepted regardless of accuracy.

That is actually not what either experiment is about.

Pastafraiansism or whatever you like to call it is not a religion merely trolling. We know where it comes from we know where its going.

Argument of attempting to attribute something not directly observed requires faith, but their is reasonable faith and there is ridiculous faith. after all this is why we have the concept of reasonable doubt. some people might have problems with certain religions, or all of them, but from the body of evidence there is reason to continue.

For this reason transparent frauds like Scientology deserve to be respected as religions. I will not respect their founder, but the worshipers have a right to be considered following their religious beliefs, we know where most scientologists come from. they join a serious church for serious ends, this doesn't require our faith in that church to validate it. Mockeries are different, we know they exist solely for that purpose, everyone does. If there were Mayan tablets that someone dug up of a sphagetti looking worm god that would be different.

Now like it or not following any major religion is a reasonable faith, Islam, Christianity, Judaism. we know where they came from. Spoof religions designed to mock are not, they casn simply be brushed aside. they are a reductio ad absurdem argument. The way though is just to ignore them, but for now I will go to the other solution and take reductio ad absurdem to its 'next level' - it is of course a never ending cycle.

To put it this way, perhaps a 'fair faith' is a belief in reincarnation with the caveat that those who rape and murder children are reincarnated as people who believe in the spagetti god. The universe is sick of those scum who are spirtitually unfit and wanting to point them out so they can be dealt with harshly thoughout their future reincarnations gives them this delusion as a punishment and warning to others.

The correct response under Universal Law it to restore balance by hunting down and inflicting as much pain as possible on Pastafarians until their guilt is assuaged over several generations.

Should this 'faith' be blindly 'respected'?

Manchu wrote:@Ironides: "Eternal" means outside of time, atemporal. The statement "eternal from some point" therefore does not mean anything. Additionally, there are certainly many interpretations of the Bible. But there is only one Tradition of the Church.

No, "eternal" means ageless. Continuing forever or indefinitely. Doesn't mean it can't have a start point.

No, eternal when used in a religious context means "timeless" not "infinite."

@Manchu,

The book of Mormon was written by prophets documenting God's dealings with the ancient American people.

@Relapse: The only actual historical evidence available about the Book of Mormon is that it was written sometime between 1823 - 1830. Everything else about it fits Oldgrue's point.

Same meaning Manchu. Still doesn't mean it can 't have a start point or a beginning.

@Ironside: No, it isn't. For something to begin there must have been a moment before it began, thn a moment in which it began, and finally a moment after it began. This is a timeline or chronology. Eternal means that there is no before, during, or after. There is no chronology.

If you were referring to eternal spirit I would agree with you. We are talking about an actual point in time were Jesus said that if you believe in me and ask to be saved, you will be. Now Jesus' statement can become eternal after he put it out there, but not before.

You are assuming that I think one is saved by accepting Jesus as one's savior. That is not what the Church teaches (and before you ask, I have no interest in trying to paraphrase it; it is extremely complicated; maybe try the term Justification on wikipedia) and so I do not see any problem with Enoch or Elijah "going to heaven" (which I do not take as literal, historical events in any case). I tried to explain by talking about the difference between history or temporality and eternity but that did not seem to help.

Edit: Actually, I just looked at it and the Wikipedia entry on the Catholic concept of Justification is pretty shabby as it only reflects the theology of Anselm and then is vague enough to not really answer the question you seem to be asking. Sorry.

I don't understand, how can you cite portions of the new testament as historical fact, but cannot believe the some things in the old testament did not happen? Do you see the bible as god's truth?

Different parts of the Bible were written not only at different times and in extremely different cultural and historical settings but also for different purposes. Psalms, for example, contains hymns or poetry about God meant to praise Him and describe Him in a literary sense. The Wisdom books, as another example, are stories that describe what it meant to be an Israelite after leaving Egypt and becoming a people. Those stories are like popular legends rather than history in the modern sense. The gospels, by contrast, are more like eye-witness acounts (although it is pretty settled that they are not) like newspaper articles. But they do not even factually agree with one another and contain many mistakes (the Gospel According To Luke, for example, gets the geography of the Holy Land wrong very often). Truth does not have to be literal. I do not believe that the Earth was literally made in six days. I do not believe that man was set on this earth in the same form that we exist in today. I also don't believe it is possible for Samson to have killed hundreds of soldiers singlehandedly armed with nothing but the jawbone of a donkey. I do believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead. See what I mean?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Per my previous posts, I leave you to your fun here. AND I WON"T BE BACK, SO KEEP ME OUT OF THIS.

God answers prayer.

Okay, gotcha. I'm outta here for the rest of the night.

Let me jump in here regarding the "trustworthyness" of the Christian Bible. We hear this critisism all the time, "The Bible has had many additions/changes therefore it is not trustworthy. Or it is hearsay as Oldgrue is putting forth.

The concept of textual critisim is founded on sorting through as many ancient texts of a thing(In this case the Bible) and comparing these texts to each other to try and find out what the we think the original manuscripts were. It is true of course that we do not have any "original" manuscripts, only copies of the original. Also it needs to be remembered that the original gospels were written within 60 to 30 years of Christ. Another thing to remember when talking about textual critism is that the more copies you have, the easier it is to narrow down the errors. For example, if you compare 2,000 texts and you see 3 of them have something worded slightly different than the rest and you go with the 2,000.

Bruce Metzger of Princeton University makes the claim that our Bible, we have now, is probably 99.5% of what the originals were. Most of the errors (called variants)are mostly transcription errors such as spelling, errors in translating greek, and putting periods or apostrophies in different places. That leaves a small percentage of differences that we are left wondering about. Another fact, is that the small percentage does not affect any doctrine of orthodox Christianity, indeed it doesn't even really affect our minor difefrences between the denominations. Also if you own a New International Version or New American Standard verison, they actually have included notes in them, telling you what the .5% differencces, that are debated over, are so you can study it yourself. It's really not a big deal at all.

You also have quotes from the writings of Christians dating back to 2nd century AD. Iraneus has many quotes that can be cross checked against our Bible he was around 200 AD, and he was comfortable quoting these scriptures. Terttullian even said that they had the originals or extremely accurate copies of the originals and that was 220 AD

When it comes to the old testament, up until 1946 we relied on what was called the masoretic texts which dated back 1,000 years ago. In 1946 the dead sea scrolls were found in the Qumron area, and they were dated back to around 300 BCE to 50 AD. These dead sea scrolls matched almost identically to the masoretic texts(with very few transcription errors) which were written 1,000's of years later!

This is great confirmation that great care was taken when making copies of Biblical texts. So it's highly dubious of anyone to make a claim that somehow the Bible has been so corrupted that we can't know that what we have is what was originally what was written.

GG

Generally agree w/GG (except Gospels were written a bit later than he describes). Want to point out that Luther, following the Jews in their Masocretic Text (that GG mentions), cut out a series of texts that would have been available to the Church Fathers (including Saint Iranaeus) and even Christ Himself. These texts are not found in Protestant Bibles to this day except when they are included, usually in the back, as "apocrypha." They can, however, still be found in Catholic editions of the Bible.

Manchu wrote:Generally agree w/GG (except Gospels were written a bit later than he describes). Want to point out that Luther, following the Jews in their Masocretic Text (that GG mentions), cut out a series of texts that would have been available to the Church Fathers (including Saint Iranaeus) and even Christ Himself. These texts are not found in Protestant Bibles to this day except when they are included, usually in the back, as "apocrypha." They can, however, still be found in Catholic editions of the Bible.

This is true, and being a protestant, I don't know much about the apocrypha. What I have heard, is that they are good moral stories but not worthy of canon. But we can agree to disagree on this, I hope.

GG

edit..I did some digging.
Matthew is believed to have been written between 50 and 70 AD
Mark between 55 and 70 AD
Luke around 63 AD
John between 80 and 100 AD

They are not included in canon because the Reformers did not like that they could not be found in the Masocretic Texts and so believed that they were only in canon because of ecclesial authority (which, of course, they rejected!) but these texts, as I said, would have been one that Jesus read given that the Jews during His life used the Septuagint rather than the Masocretic Texts.

The Book of Judith is a personal favorite. I recommend that you give it a read. It's a beautiful story of a courageous woman who save Israel from an thousands strong army single-handedly.

Manchu wrote:@Relapse: The only actual historical evidence available about the Book of Mormon is that it was written sometime between 1823 - 1830. Everything else about it fits Oldgrue's point.

I can see where you come from in your statement, but it's a translation of texts from just before Jeruselum fell to the Babylonians to a few hundred years after Christ.

Relapse wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Relapse: The only actual historical evidence available about the Book of Mormon is that it was written sometime between 1823 - 1830. Everything else about it fits Oldgrue's point.

I can see where you come from in your statement, but it's a translation of texts from just before Jeruselum fell to the Babylonians to a few hundred years after Christ.

Yes, I know what Joseph Smith claimed about these texts. I also know that there is no historical evidence to support those claims. Orson Scott Card once wrote an interesting piece about it. If you're interested, it can be found here.

I'm having a bad night it seems.
I'm having a bad night for posting troubles.

The Gospels, unlike what is said of the Koran or (in a sense) the Book of Mormon, do not have a divine origin. (They are called divinely inspired, but that means something quite different.)

So 'divinely inspired' books written up to 70 years after the death of their subject (and that whole synoptic problem) are still more accurate and less fantastic than being delivered by an angel? What makes these 'divinely inspired' books any more valid given several of the authors are in question?

I'd say your point is pretty irrelevant. People who have opinions believe they are correct. And?

You have an opinion your religion is correct. I am proposing the possibility it is equally correct as another by demonstrating consistent behavior with beliefs that claim to be no less valid. If one self referential set of teachings might be correct why then are others wrong? Doctrines who all claim to be correct and have no third party method to confirm them.

In essence I'm wrong because one religion doesn't do any of these very general things in specific. Are the other ones still Wrong?

Of course, if truth doesn't have to be literal, it doesn't have to be confirmable and *all* religion could be right.




edit: significant user failure.










Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:God answers prayer.

So does Joe Peschi. Arguably with the same frequency.

@Oldgrue: I shouldn't have to explain to you why a book being delivered by an angel is more fantastical than a book written from memory (of either events witnessed first hand or described to him by someone else). I'm having difficulty understanding the rest of your post.

Orlanth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Per my previous posts, I leave you to your fun here. AND I WON"T BE BACK, SO KEEP ME OUT OF THIS.

God answers prayer.

Bugger off, mate.

Bloody hell, the sheer elitism and pride I'm picking up from your posts is truly sickening. Put a cap on it, eh?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Per my previous posts, I leave you to your fun here. AND I WON"T BE BACK, SO KEEP ME OUT OF THIS.

God answers prayer.

Bugger off, mate.

Bloody hell, the sheer elitism and pride I'm picking up from your posts is truly sickening. Put a cap on it, eh?

John DD came to troll, he left. I made a joke comment. What is so eliteist?

Is 'elitisim' and 'pride' your definition of standing firm for beliefs that are opposed to yours. The nature of a firm belief is its solidity and the ability to defend it against all comers. This goes both ways, some here defend atheism or agnosticsm very well. Why do you need you resort to ad hominem, is it because you cant challenge me in debate? I have already clearly put the point across, if you want a piece of me on the issues go ahead. If you cant stand aside and let someone else try. Others here put the case for atheism here better and we get on fine.

I see a trend, the more you understand your atheism the less you need to get upset and post rude words, because you can use big words to support your beliefs. This thread is for the big boy trousers. I will respect anyones fair arguments, at any level but wont hold back from trying to pick holes in them. If you are secure in your beliefs this should not be a problem.

Everyone:

Fair enough. I am calm and trying to put points across rationally.

Remember that posts on the internet are often crabbier than intended, inflection is not shown.

In fact Manchu you are a good example of what i posted above you defend you end well. Because your message is not so disagreeable to many of my detractors you are also accepted. Had you been posting in exactly the same way but from my point of view you would be 'arrogant' 'elitist' 'prideful' or plain 'deluded' by now and mocked from several sides. This is because some of these are default opinions before you write a word.

Bible apologists are by popular image supposed to be crusty old hash outs in robes who are irrelevant and out of touch. It can come a shock that some of us are not, or not quite and can stand our ground. When that happens ad hominem attacks flow like a burst dam.

I think you'll find that at least a couple of posters have already insinuated that I am an elitist or just deluded. I have also been defending the concept of faith and the Traditions of the Church, which positions have been disagreeable to the people you call your detractors. This thread has walked a knife edge and survived for 13 pages. Let's keep on with the discussions at hand.

True, but that is because you are a Catholic, which is mainstream. I am a charismatic, which is more hardcore in some ways.

You get it from those who just hate Christianity or religion full stop, I get that plus people who have problems with the content.

We shall continue as normal. Someone please pass me an atheist. I promise to let them get in the first bite.

No seriously, keep it coming. On the issues please.

Man, why do things always get interesting when I have been at work!?!? Manchu even busted out his Popish ideas, and put the smack down on some trolls! Those Papists, always talkin' or doin' something or other

@Orlanth: Hardcore, lol.

There is a charismatic movement within the Catholic Church. I went to one of their masses and sure enough at one point the parishioners were jibber-jabbering ("speaking in tongues"). The movement received some support from John Paul II but Benedict XVI has been cool toward it.

I don't come across many people who hate Christianity or religion. I come across a lot of frustrated people. Some of them misunderstand Christianity because of what they have learned from people who are preaching a person interpretation of the religion (a la Pat Robetson's remarks on Haiti) and some people who have had bad experiences with institutions. I have also seen, especially here on dakka, a lot of people who are frustrated with the idea of Christianity and the history of Christian peoples that they have cooked up from things that they have seen on TV or read on the internet. But I have never felt persecuted in the way that you seem to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Man, why do things always get interesting when I have been at work!?!? Manchu even busted out his Popish ideas, and put the smack down on some trolls! Those Papists, always talkin' or doin' something or other

Ah, JEB. Welcome back. I think most of what I referred to ("apocrypha" aside) is pretty well accepted by the Anglican communion, as well.

Manchu wrote:Hardcore, lol.

Indulge me, I am having fun on most posts. Religious discourse is best not served dry.

Manchu wrote:
There is a charismatic movement within the Catholic Church. I went to one of their masses and sure enough at one point the parishioners were jibber-jabbering ("speaking in tongues"). The movement received some support from John Paul II but Benedict XVI has been cool toward it.

The current pope is very orthodox, which is not a bad thing. Catholicism is best served from the same dish. The main strength of Catholicism is its stoic longevity. Unlike the Church of England and others wghich are trying to get 'trendy' Catholicism stays more of less the same. Frankly this is correct way yo to about things. I believe God wants so many denominations because we serve different peoples its only a problem when a people group exclusively access one type of church. Catholics and charismatics belong hand in hand, such is the Unity in Christ that is to be desired.
i am sure of this because the Catholic church is one of the few places a man can go as a child and return to as an old man and still see the same. This is so important in todays rapidly changing world, where we have few constants. Man is not made for such a pace - we need cultural roots. It is a comfort to me to see the solidity of catholicism, and I hope that when I am old the same Catholic church will still be there.

This is something the Anglicans have sadly forgotten over the last twenty years, the doctrines were already good they bend their style to appear 'relevant' and thus lost their relevancy as the church is intended to reflect the eternal. Since 1997 as the Church of England got progressively politicised, and subject to lay investiture. Yes its sadly true you do need to believe in New Labour to get to be a bishop today, belief in God is optional and is difficult to find if you listen to some of the current lot. I am yet to hear a clear statement of faith from Dr Williams, the Archbishop is there to play the nice guy all things to all men.

Manchu wrote:
I don't come across many people who hate Christianity or religion.

I do from time to time. As I mentioned in a prior post one of my chuch congragation was martyred, stabbed to death, in England. This was an aberration though, and not in any way usual. I just happen to be one of the ones with the testimony of having known her at the time. I have been pointed out and harassed a few times. This was long ago though, I learned to duck.

Manchu wrote:
I come across a lot of frustrated people. Some of them misunderstand Christianity because of what they have learned from people who are preaching a person interpretation of the religion (a la Pat Robetson's remarks on Haiti) and some people who have had bad experiences with institutions. I have also seen, especially here on dakka, a lot of people who are frustrated with the idea of Christianity and the history of Christian peoples that they have cooked up from things that they have seen on TV or read on the internet. But I have never felt persecuted in the way that you seem to.

This is a common problem, and we as part of the church are corporately to blame. I beleive the prime cause of atheism are Christians. Nice God, shame about the fan club.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote: Manchu even busted out his Popish ideas, and put the smack down on some trolls!

You got it wrong.

JEB_Stuart out to have wrote: Manchu verily busted forth his Popish ideas, he layeth down the smack and didst smite the trolls.

There fixed.

@Orlanth: I appreciate your sentiment about Holy Mother Church but it's not quite as you seem to imagine it. Someone who had just stepped out of the 1950s would not recognize the Church as it has become since Vatican II. What you call "longevity" is more accurately described as "continuity." Despite what some ultraconservative Catholics constantly claim, there have been changes. For one thing, I can agree with you in union with my Bishop that it is a good thing that there are many denominations. Before Vatican II, that position would have earned me censure. But all in all, the Church today is the same one founded by Christ. The trouble about being a temporal institution is that you are stuck in history and subject to contingency and conflict. But this is a lesson that even Jesus needed to learn as He overcame the prejudices of His culture during His ministry. And I don't mean just the prejudices against His ministry, but also the ones that He Himself harbored.

I don't want to throw JEB too large of a bone here but I very much admire Archbishop Williams. He is likely a better theologian and contemplative than a bishop but he might also be a better Christian for it.

Manchu wrote:Ah, JEB. Welcome back. I think most of what I referred to ("apocrypha" aside) is pretty well accepted by the Anglican communion, as well.

I would agree. Although it is stated that after death, those not admitted to Heaven will receive eternal punishment, in our Articles of Faith. Not RAW exactly, but certainly RAI. Thank you for the kind words concerning Dr. Williams, and I am definitely inclined to agree with you. He is a kindly old man, and has much compassion in him, but he is not quite cut out for the role of being a bishop. And not to declare to much in the way of Romish sympathies, I do *ahem* adore the current bishop of Rome. Although, he wasn't enough to convince me of conversion, despite what my Papist friends may tell me.

@Orlanth: Might I assume that you are a member of our glorious institution: the Church of England?

Orlanth wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote: Manchu even busted out his Popish ideas, and put the smack down on some trolls!

You got it wrong.

JEB_Stuart out to have wrote: Manchu verily busted forth his Popish ideas, he layeth down the smack and didst smite the trolls.

There fixed.

Okay, I gotta admit it. That was pretty funny.

Sorry, Orlanth. But at times, you come off as downright condescending to some people. It ticks me off a little.

Orlanth wrote:We shall continue as normal. Someone please pass me an atheist. I promise to let them get in the first bite

Done, and done.

Provided you actually have the foggiest idea of what one is, of course. You seem to think that all Atheists are god-deniers and require Faith. If believing that we're all in the same boat in that respect makes you feel better about your Faith, then fine, whatever gets you through the night. Just don't tar me with the same brush you use to paint yourself. I do not pray to 'no-god'. I don't rely on Atheism to get me through difficult times, or give thanks to Atheism for my successes. I do not live my life according to the tenets of Atheism, because there aren't any. Merely having an absence of theism is enough, and that includes everything from god-haters to agnostics.

I don't think a god or gods exist, because I have seen nothing which convinces me otherwise. However is that the same as saying god doesn't exist? No. I don't know that for certain, and neither do you you Orlanth. However the question 'Does god exist?' has a definite scientific answer, that we are currently incapable of answering it is completely irrelevant. We know that there is a way to cure AIDS, or travel to other star-systems - we just don't understand quite what that is yet. Given that it is a question with a definite, factual answer - the fact that there is no scientific evidence for god's existence means that non-belief is a prudent course. Does that equate to closed-mindedness? Absolutely not - I would accept the existence of god, were it proven. Most atheists would.

The statement 'you can't prove that god 'DOESN'T' exist' is not enough to base one's life on, that's all I'm saying.

Saying that 'all Atheists are..' is no different to 'all christians are...', something which most christians on here would have a problem with - however, if you're allowed to use the 'one true scotsman' argument, then so am I: True Atheists are not god deniers (although their beliefs are a-theist, with a small 'a'), as such practice is nonscientific and based on Faith. True Atheists, therefore, would remain open to the possibility of god's existence, however slight, because it is scientifically prudent to do so.

Therefore Atheism = Science.


Your move.

p.s. Apologies if I have offended any OTHER Christians here - that wasn't my intention.

Manchu,

Thanks for the Orson Scott Card link. Definitely an interesting read, especially where he talks about how if the book was a forgery written by the best science fiction authors fully aware of Meso American culture , it still would have been readily apparent as a fake, but he can't find any flaws in the Book of Mormon that would demonstrate it as such.
Joseph Smith was an extremely amazing man who went through a lifetime of persecution and eventually martyrdom attesting to the truth of the book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Albatross,

It's a fair point you put across about no evidence God exists, and to be honest, I don't have the wit or education to try to convince you intellectually that he does.
The only thing I could say is to experiment with an open mind towards finding his existence through a desire to have faith in it.
You don't have to have faith, just a desire. It is a hard thing to cultivate, I understand through my own experience, but it's about all I have that I can tell you on the subject outside of the fact that through faith, I know God exists and that he does love us all since we are his literal sons and daughters from before the Earth existed.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:We shall continue as normal. Someone please pass me an atheist. I promise to let them get in the first bite

Done, and done.

Albatross wrote:
Provided you actually have the foggiest idea of what one is, of course. You seem to think that all Atheists are god-deniers and require Faith. If believing that we're all in the same boat in that respect makes you feel better about your Faith, then fine, whatever gets you through the night. Just don't tar me with the same brush you use to paint yourself. I do not pray to 'no-god'. I don't rely on Atheism to get me through difficult times, or give thanks to Atheism for my successes. I do not live my life according to the tenets of Atheism, because there aren't any. Merely having an absence of theism is enough, and that includes everything from god-haters to agnostics.

Well my posts were clearly worded, and didn't imply what you said. Your comment revolves around the words you seem to think. Well you don't know what I think except from what I write, which doesn't support the above.

It is interesting that you posted this as apparently a copy of my opinions, while completely ignoring the comments I actually did make. Throughout your entire reply you fail to challenge my arguments and instead just assumed I wrote something completely different and 'refuted' that.

Well lets look at the content:
None accuses you of praying to no-god, it wouldn't be logical and would be uncharacteristic of my approach to the thread.

Albatross wrote:
I don't think a god or gods exist, because I have seen nothing which convinces me otherwise. However is that the same as saying god doesn't exist? No.

In a way yes. The second comment is the same as the first with a greater degree of surity.

Albatross wrote:
I don't know that for certain, and neither do you you Orlanth.

I have little doubt God exists because I experience His presence. My testimonies as explained earlier back me up on that.
I can go no further than to say I can't prove that to others though, therefore I cannot make a universal comment.

Others on all sides are likely be just as sure, by looking at the evidence and drawing their conclusions as they will.

Albatross wrote:
However the question 'Does god exist?' has a definite scientific answer, that we are currently incapable of answering it is completely irrelevant.

It has a boolean answer, which one is moot.

Albatross wrote:
Given that it is a question with a definite, factual answer - the fact that there is no scientific evidence for god's existence means that non-belief is a prudent course.

Again you completely ignored prior posts as if they were not there. I challenged you on your comments that there was no evidence for God. I call you out on that. You backed off from the challenge. Why?

The idea that there is no scientific evidence for Gods existence is anything but a 'fact'. We have pre-recorded long range accurate prediction. If Bible passages point out future events that happen as described that is evidence of the potential of omniscience and omniscience is a signiture characteristic of God.

I would not claim there is no evidence for atheism, I don't agree with it and theists might manage to refute some, but I wont deny it on a point of dogma. Just read Dawkins et al and you will see some. Either way it is not proof. However you keep to this notion that there is no scientific evidence for God, as a dogma, regardless of evidence to the contrary placed in front of you. It's the playground 'la la la la i'm not listening' type of argument, and that sir is anything but honest scientific reasoning.

The point remains there is enough evidence on both sides that the question cannot be conclusively answered within science.

Albatross wrote:
Does that equate to closed-mindedness? Absolutely not - I would accept the existence of god, were it proven. Most atheists would.

No but ignoring evidence put in front of you and continuing with comments that were reasonably challenged. that can fairly be called closed-mindedness I am afraid to say.

I do agree that most atheists would accept the existence of God if proven, though probably not all. As with all forms of point of view some will not be convinced no matter what evidence is placed before them.

Albatross wrote:
The statement 'you can't prove that god 'DOESN'T' exist' is not enough to base one's life on, that's all I'm saying.

Who is basing their faith/life on this? It would be a contradictory comment for an atheist and insufficient for a theist.

Albatross wrote:
Saying that 'all Atheists are..' is no different to 'all christians are...', something which most christians on here would have a problem with - however, if you're allowed to use the 'one true scotsman' argument, then so am I

I have no problem with you speaking you mind either. You forget I opened myself to the challenge and consequently am willing to accommodate your viewpoints. Go ahead.

However the one true scotsman fallacy has not been used, I place a universal statement only on the single point that at some level you cannot aquire a concept of atheism (or theism) without some element of faith on the known fact that the question of the existence of God has not been conclusively settled by scientific discourse, it is a direct logical consequence. After all without absolute proof a measure a 'guesswork' is required to come to a person a conclusion, athesists need to guess no more or less than anyone else. This is a fair comment as it goes both ways, I merely omitted that faith is also required for theistic beleif as that is rather obivous.

Go ahead and use the 'one true scotsman' yourself, just remember its regarded as a fallacious argument.

Albatross wrote:
: True Atheists are not god deniers (although their beliefs are a-theist, with a small 'a'), as such practice is nonscientific and based on Faith. True Atheists, therefore, would remain open to the possibility of god's existence, however slight, because it is scientifically prudent to do so.

Just to clarify, God-denier is a loaded term and one I would not use on any specific atheist as denial implies ignoring of evidence. Now some 'atheists' are God-deniers, but only the ones who believe in God and choose to claim otherwise because they hate the concept. That is a God-denier and in a real way not a true atheist.

Your argument stems from the idea that the default scientific point is to believe there is no God, the default point is not atheism, atheism is a conclusion. Now I agree with you that an honest scientifically minded atheist would be open minded to accept a God if found, however a persons theology is subject to change anyway. 'I am not sure so I am an atheist' doesn't actually work. If you are not sure so meanwhile I will practice atheism then you are making a faith choice 'step', granted likely a small one but one nonetheless.

There should be no problem with this. Scientists make 'faith' steps all the time. Do you think scientists discover truths and only then believe in them. No its the other way around, particle theorists look for particles and believe in them long before we build the colliders that find them. Other scientists look for the link they cannot prove, or sometimes cannot even properly theorise because they believe the link is there, and the opposite of course to prove a disconnection. As noone is unrelated to the idea of thanatonic thought, as it is part of our nature to question our mortality, everyone has some form of position on the subject 'yes', 'no' or 'not sure meanwhile yes', not sure meanwhile no'.
If we take your hypothesis that no-one is completely sure, including myself as you put it then we come down to the inevitable simple 'yes' or 'no', with some degree of 'not sure' being part of the standard answer. I can go along with that. with regards to God and religion no-one knows all the answers.

Albatross wrote:
Therefore Atheism = Science.

Stated without addressing the clear and repeated logic that indicates the opposite. Besides even if I just accepted the entirity of the rest of your post, it would not lead 'therefore' to that conclusion. You might have been talking on something else entirely.
If you cant find error in my earlier replies to you just say so and be done with it. If you can quote and challenge what I wrote.

Albatross wrote:
p.s. Apologies if I have offended any OTHER Christians here - that wasn't my intention.

Ad hominem. It is a pity that your arguments are personal, because it holds you back from being objective. This hampers your attempts to reach logical conclusions, and likely explains why you flatly ignore evidence already in situ that refutes much of what you are posting.

What is the one true Scottsman argument?

Relapse wrote:What is the one true Scottsman argument?

One or no true scotsman (both the same):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Its that thing that alot of Christians do..

Anyway, im not going to start over, i mean, i already made my point right?

Not believing in a Theistic God is not "definately knowing there is nothing" and ergo does not require faith.

I thought you might be interested to know though Orlanth, even Richard Dawkins doesnt say he knows there is nothing, on a scale of one to seven (although, i presume you have read his book as you are no where near as aggresive or ignorant as many of your fellow X-tians) 1 being certain of God, and 7 being certain there isnt, he said he is a 6.

It leads me on from what i was saying about having a lack of faith not being "belief" as i was thinking about this alot yesterday.

I genuinelly have no issue with Deism, and it made me think, arent Christians a bit defensive here? I mean, people like me are refered to as "athiests" right? Not "Adeists", and i think the latter would require aggression from Theists.

I have no issue with Einsteins God, or Spinoza's God, or many well meaning people of "faith", you know, some sort of.. poetic metaphor for that force which created everything or started the whole thing off or something. I worked with a very nice guy once who was in the army, and he talked about God and such.. and when i asked him what religion he was he said "i dont follow religion, i am simply a man of faith" That sounds like a much more acceptable face of belief to me.

The reason i have as issue with Theism, is because it takes so much MORE faith, the most obvious one being, why that God? And not the hundereds (well thousands but lets stick to the big ones) of other Gods or Religions?

And also, none of the holy books even claim that they were written by Gods or Angels right? I may be wrong, and im sure JEB or Orlanth will happily inform me if im incorrect, but they claim to have been inspired by, or dictated right? But always, by their own admission they were actually written by men. Weak, fallible, tall tale telling men.

I just wanted to add that because i genuinelly think that many people like me (agnostic/athiest) have no real issue with Deism, i dont accept it, because there isnt much evidence, but, you know.. whats to dislike?

Theism on the other hand, almost demands that you are a nosey bugger! You know, knocking on my door and such. The reason i have an issue with theism is because it DOES affect my life.

Examples, NHS funding 75 million quid a year for providing Priests!? Dont the churches have enough money? Think of all the ambulances we could buy with that! Muslims and Christian pro-lifers demanding that my daughters or my wife do what they say with regards to their own fething bodies. Or stopping stem cell research or refusing blood transfusions or any one of the number of other things that basically mean YOU get to tell ME what i have to do, and yes can make peoples lives much more miserable.

Thats why i have an issue with Theism, but i have no issues with a Deist, i just kinda think its a tad.. you know.. hard to believe.

You can't disprove a negative. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist.
With lack of evidence either way, I don't see any reason to believe in "God".

If you want to believe in God, you're likely to attribute coincidence to him and make excuses.
If I "pray" for something and get it, I might say that God's been good to me. If I don't get it, well it must be his "will".

Closer to the topic of this thread, I get irritated when churches can decree things evil, even when there's nothing relevant in their holy texts. I find they like to make it up as they go along.

They also come out with polarizing and aggressive statements and then a few years later, change their mind, but become infallible all over again.

I find that most amusing.

mattyrm wrote:
Not believing in a Theistic God is not "definately knowing there is nothing" and ergo does not require faith.

It takes faith for you to ignore the evidences for a Creator though. I.E. I have seen/heard a bunch of testimonies concerning this or that thing, and I have a made a decision that I don't believe it. I have just made a choice by faith. The faith that what I believe is the correct interpretation.

mattyrm wrote:
I thought you might be interested to know though Orlanth, even Richard Dawkins doesnt say he knows there is nothing, on a scale of one to seven (although, i presume you have read his book as you are no where near as aggresive or ignorant as many of your fellow X-tians) 1 being certain of God, and 7 being certain there isnt, he said he is a 6. .

He has to say that, otherwise he would sound dogmatic, and as an atheist he cannot do that or he seems hypocrytical.

mattyrm wrote:
It leads me on from what i was saying about having a lack of faith not being "belief" as i was thinking about this alot yesterday.

I genuinelly have no issue with Deism, and it made me think, arent Christians a bit defensive here? I mean, people like me are refered to as "athiests" right? Not "Adeists", and i think the latter would require aggression from Theists. .

I'll call you whatever you would like me to call you. The word I prefer, is friend.

It sounds to me that you just don't like being challenged, matty. I personally relish being challenged(as long as it's a respectfull challenge) as it helps me to "sharpen my sword" and learn more about myself and my faith.

Also it seems that you don't have a problem with Theists or Deists per se, but have an issue with the politics associated with them. I tend to agree with you on that point. But you have to admit that it is very hard to not allow your personal beliefs to influence your politics.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Not believing in a Theistic God is not "definately knowing there is nothing" and ergo does not require faith.

It takes faith for you to ignore the evidences for a Creator though. I.E. I have seen/heard a bunch of testimonies concerning this or that thing, and I have a made a decision that I don't believe it. I have just made a choice by faith. The faith that what I believe is the correct interpretation.

mattyrm wrote:
I thought you might be interested to know though Orlanth, even Richard Dawkins doesnt say he knows there is nothing, on a scale of one to seven (although, i presume you have read his book as you are no where near as aggresive or ignorant as many of your fellow X-tians) 1 being certain of God, and 7 being certain there isnt, he said he is a 6. .

He has to say that, otherwise he would sound dogmatic, and as an atheist he cannot do that or he seems hypocrytical.

mattyrm wrote:
It leads me on from what i was saying about having a lack of faith not being "belief" as i was thinking about this alot yesterday.

I genuinelly have no issue with Deism, and it made me think, arent Christians a bit defensive here? I mean, people like me are refered to as "athiests" right? Not "Adeists", and i think the latter would require aggression from Theists. .

I'll call you whatever you would like me to call you. The word I prefer, is friend.

It sounds to me that you just don't like being challenged, matty. I personally relish being challenged(as long as it's a respectfull challenge) as it helps me to "sharpen my sword" and learn more about myself and my faith.

Also it seems that you don't have a problem with Theists or Deists per se, but have an issue with the politics associated with them. I tend to agree with you on that point. But you have to admit that it is very hard to not allow your personal beliefs to influence your politics.

GG

This is why, even though i 99% of the time disagree with you : ) I'd still buy you a beer!

frgsinwntr wrote:
This is why, even though i 99% of the time disagree with you : ) I'd still buy you a beer!

Hey Dood! I've been wondering where you were. I asked myself why frigs wasn't participating in the discuss. Welcome!

GG

Orlanth wrote:If you cant find error in my earlier replies to you just say so and be done with it. If you can quote and challenge what I wrote.

Really? I DO actually have a life....

Oh, go on then:

Orlanth wrote:There is no proof of God or lack of God, so the default for science is a neutrality. Neutrality is a long long way from atheism.

Orlanth wrote:'I am not sure so I am an atheist' doesn't actually work. If you are not sure so meanwhile I will practice atheism then you are making a faith choice 'step', granted likely a small one but one nonetheless.

That you don't fully understand the concept of atheism is not my fault. Neutrality is by it's very definition atheist - by way of not subscribing to theistic beliefs. It's the above statement which lead me to not quote and challenge your post in the first place. Educating you on subject of atheism is not my responsibility.

Orlanth wrote:
The idea that there is no scientific evidence for Gods existence is anything but a 'fact'.

Orlanth wrote:Likewise there is evidence the other way, archeological evidence that supports Biblical stories, miracles are also occasionally documented but likewise there is no proof.

Documented miracles? No, sorry. That is valid neither as evidence or as proof - it is human testimony. Humans lie and misinterpret. Biblical stories? Stories such as the ressurection of Christ? The immaculate conception? There is practically no hard physical evidence that Jesus Christ ever even existed. Although I think it's highly likely that he did. Even if such evidence did exist, it wouldn't be inconrovertable proof of his divinity. There is no archeological proof for the existence of god.

Orlanth wrote:We have pre-recorded long range accurate prediction. If Bible passages point out future events that happen as described that is evidence of the potential of omniscience and omniscience is a signiture characteristic of God.

Please don't ask me to take this seriously. Next you'll be talking about The Bible Code. Any predictions which may or may not have 'come true' are no doubt as a result of pure coincidence. I am sure there are predictions made in the Bible that haven't come true. Regardless, the books were written by humans, edited, translated, re-edited...
Unreliable.

Orlanth wrote:If atheism is seen as scientific 'fact', erroneously or otherwise then by absolute logical definition theism is not science and is not a fact.

Exactly. You admit yourself that there is no proof for anything you believe. That you want to play with the semiology of words like 'evidence' and 'proof' is your own business. How can atheism be a scientific fact? Again, you seem to be referring to god-denial. No-one here has said that the non-existence of god is a fact.

Orlanth wrote:I place a universal statement only on the single point that at some level you cannot aquire a concept of atheism (or theism) without some element of faith on the known fact that the question of the existence of God has not been conclusively settled by scientific discourse, it is a direct logical consequence.

Fair enough, but your statement is incorrect. If the question is not settled, then the logical position is not to make a leap of faith and dedicate your life to god, the logical step is to reserve judgement and not live one's life according to scripture. Which is effectively what you seem to base your faith on.

Orlanth wrote:
Your argument stems from the idea that the default scientific point is to believe there is no God

No it doesn't. I never said that. I said the default point should be not to subscribe to theist beliefs as that requires an acceptance that god exists, something which is scientifically unproven.

Orlanth wrote:Do you think scientists discover truths and only then believe in them?

Erm, no. But they don't accept something as fact until it can be proven.

Orlanth wrote:Ad hominem. It is a pity that your arguments are personal, because it holds you back from being objective. This hampers your attempts to reach logical conclusions, and likely explains why you flatly ignore evidence already in situ that refutes much of what you are posting.

You have been unsuccesful in refuting anything that I posted. Your arguments stem from a misunderstanding of what atheism actually means. If I am unconcerned about offending you it is because you come across as insufferably arogant and smug. I think you are actually a zealot, to be honest. You claim to have 'evidence' that god exists, I ignored it originally because it seemed so risible as to be unworthy of refutation. My arguments are obviously personal, as we are discussing personal belief, and lack thereof. Don't pretend that YOU have reached any logical conclusions, because you haven't. Your faith isn't based on logic.

GG im happy to be challenged, but you answered your question yourself mate, i am more than happy to count Theists and Deists as my friends, indeed, one of my closest long term friends is a devout Catholic, although, when he visited last month he said the last pope was a "dill weed" because he had accepted evolution, so.. i dont know if he is a creationist or a catholic but he says he is the latter!

Yeah, its the politics of it all. I have no issues with religious people, its when they want to try and force their opinions onto other people that i take umbrage, but i can and do of course happily count some religious practitioners as friends.

Albatross wrote: Regardless, the books were written by humans, edited, translated, re-edited...

This may be true, but the fact that we have many thousands of manuscript copies we can compare them to each other and get really darn close to the original. Please see my earlier post, in this very same thread no less!

It's preposterous to believe that the Bible is an unreliable source when the dead sea scrolls themselves proved no real change in over 2,000 years.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:GG im happy to be challenged, but you answered your question yourself mate, i am more than happy to count Theists and Deists as my friends, indeed, one of my closest long term friends is a devout Catholic, although, when he visited last month he said the last pope was a "dill weed" because he had accepted evolution, so.. i dont know if he is a creationist or a catholic but he says he is the latter!

Creationsim and Catholicism aren't mutually exclusive. Neither is evolutionism and Christianity, like some people would believe. I happen to be a creationist, but agree to disagree with my brothers who aren't.

GG

GG wrote:It's preposterous to believe that the Bible is an unreliable source when the dead sea scrolls themselves proved no real change in over 2,000 years.

No change? Really? So the translations from Aramaic through to Hebrew, Greek and Latin, which meant that 'young maid' turned into 'virgin' haven't changed anything? Catholics would say different! Plus have you seen The Gnostic Gospels? They are radically different to modern christian teaching. They read like Mage:The Ascension!

Lol. Yes, because the Bible has been unchanged for millennia, despite the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls being completely different!

You know what this thread needs?

This:


People need to stop taking things that are said as personal attacks against them, and see the for what they are. As has been said countless time, you can't determine inflection or tone in a text format. So don't assume people are talking down to you, they are just defending their side of the debate.

Manchu wrote:@Oldgrue: I shouldn't have to explain to you why a book being delivered by an angel is more fantastical than a book written from memory (of either events witnessed first hand or described to him by someone else). I'm having difficulty understanding the rest of your post.

Books from memory inherently have the hazard of editorial bias. The further from the event the more likely the event is modified at least probably per Wang and Aamodt. We've no way to disprove or prove the more fantastic accounts in these gospels. Maybe nobody's special enough any more, mankind simply understands the world more, or oral tradition has the responsibility to entertain as much as inform. Books from memory may be *less* fantastical but does that remove the likelihood of error?

To accept these accounts inherently requires an acceptance of the fantastic. One 'holy' spirit implies the possibility of a host of other spirits of a myriad of flavors. Converting a woman to salt, causing spontaneous fermentation, and rising from the dead all demand we accept that under special circumstances all of these things are in some way true and possible. This is a recipe for folklore rather than evidence whether delivered purportedly by a divine being or inspired by memory of years past. Purnis suggests that Beowulf is rife with historical details despite its fantastic events as well.

I'm not trying to evidence whether or not Catholics (any flavor of Christians really), Pastafarians, Muslims, or Wiccans are wrong. I'm trying to explain the possibility that several groups with the same behaviors and lack of evidence all could be equally wrong or right. Throughout this whole discussion its been expected that I accept the veracity of the doctrine you were taught and you were somehow more qualified by virtue of doctrine as accurate. I'm correlating general behavior and subjecting each of these fantastic accounts to the same expectations.

@ ironhide - Yeah, sounds like a plan. A miracle, a few beers, and maybe a pizza...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
It's a fair point you put across about no evidence God exists, and to be honest, I don't have the wit or education to try to convince you intellectually that he does.

I wish someone could for me. Demanding evidence is a cold comfort when we read accounts of the horrors mankind perpetrates on itself. No gods means mankind is just a dirty vicious animal wit self-inspired ideals. Gods get genuinely scary..but leave me reasonably happy I haven't gotten their attention.

I think some people are confusing "lack of faith" with "faith" itself.
Also, it's hilarious to suggest the bible never changed. It's a book created by committee and apart from that, once bits were proven illogical or impossible, they suddenly became allegory and metaphor.

Yeah i find that the idea of "proof" from Theists a tad ridiculous. Would any of this stuff hold up in a court of law?

Gwar! and Albatross--now your just being silly, it's a amazing what a book of fiction like the davinci code will create. The gnostics were a cultic group that sprang up around the 2nd century AD. In fact they were decnounced as heretics by our friend Iraneus.

It's very disengenuious of you to waive the gnostic gospels in our faces and pretend that they are as equally valid a source as orthodox scripture.
You may as well say "Well what about the New World Translation that the Jehovas witnesses use!" they like the gnostics have written their own Bible, which cannot be backed up by the many 1,000's of manuscripts, that textual historians have, to cross check them.

GG

Didnt a whole bunch of people just get together and vote for what should be in the bible about 400 years after it was all written down?

It seems to me GG that considering how much human interference has been involved with getting your bible to you that surely you cant REALLY take it all as "gospel" right?

If God wanted it in a pure form, why didnt he just, i dunno, cast copies of it into loads of rocks or something?

GG wrote:Gwar! and Albatross--now your just being silly, it's a amazing what a book of fiction like the davinci code will create. The gnostics were a cultic group that sprang up around the 2nd century AD. In fact they were decnounced as heretics by our friend Iraneus.

Who mentioned the Da Vinci Code? I am holding in my hand a copy of The Gospel Of Judas, produced by National Geographic - yes, I am aware of Gnosticism and the timeframe it occupies. It precedes the first and second councils of Nicea. I am also aware of the fact that early christianity consisted of many conflicting strands. you just happen to belong to one of the successful ones.

"book created by a committee," etc = ignorant unto meaningless


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, since when does practical certainty require faith in a religious sense? I am certain that tomorrow will happen. I do not have religious faith that this is so. I am certain that atoms always behave in the same way. Again, no religious faith is necessary. Similarly, atheists can be certain that God does not exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Albatross: The National Geographic publication "Gospel of Judas" was a scandal in academia. Their translation and interpretation proved to be faulty when it was finally opened up to other scholars (yes, after they bought the manuscript, NatGeo hired scholars and made them sign non-disclose agreements) and the corporation has been accused by academics of willful sensationalism in order to sell more books/magazines. The "Gospel of Judas" has not proven to be a very significant text outside of this controversy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:Thanks for the Orson Scott Card link. Definitely an interesting read, especially where he talks about how if the book was a forgery written by the best science fiction authors fully aware of Meso American culture , it still would have been readily apparent as a fake, but he can't find any flaws in the Book of Mormon that would demonstrate it as such.

Yes, Card shares some very interesting personal reflections about his literary affection for the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, he completely ignores the many anachronisms found within it as well as the many sound plagiarism arguments, not mention the complete lack of archeological evidence. I think Card's main point, or at least what I took away from the piece, is that he is able to ignore all of these solid criticisms of the book's authenticity because he believes that it is a great story.

@Manchu,
It appears the fate of religious books to be controversial, be it the Book of Mormon or the Bible.
Many people have been willing to lose everything up to and including their lives due to their testomony of the truth of the Book of Mormon. I can only say that I know it's a true book and it changed my life for the far better.

Here's what you had to say about the gospel of Judas

"@Albatross: The National Geographic publication "Gospel of Judas" was a scandal in academia. Their translation and interpretation proved to be faulty when it was finally opened up to other scholars (yes, after they bought the manuscript, NatGeo hired scholars and made them sign non-disclose agreements) and the corporation has been accused by academics of willful sensationalism in order to sell more books/magazines. The "Gospel of Judas" has not proven to be a very significant text outside of this controversy."

The book of Mormon was translated by an unschooled farm boy out in the middle of the woods in the 1820's, yet has endured and been the basis for what is now a worldwide church that has helped countless millions since it's inception. You say the book of Gospel of Judas, written by scholars will prove not significant.

Orson Scott Card goes beyond saying the Book of Mormon is merely a great read, he calls it the most important book in his life and he also calls it life changing.
It appears we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, no hard feelings, but plenty of thanks for the discussion. I've been learning a lot on this thread about other's beliefs and hope to continue to do so.
This thread has so far been a great springboard for research.

@Relapse: Losing one's life to promote the truth of the Book of Mormon is an interesting subject. If Joseph Smith lied about the authenticity of the book--actually, drop the word "lie" given that the man's motives could have been much more complex than simply trying to drum up fame and followers--but if the Book was not what he claimed it to be, a lot of people would have lost their lives for . . . what? Well, like you and Orson Scott Card have said, for the chance to change their lives and other people's for the better, right? So even if the text is not actually the history of God's relationship with a lost tribe of Israel intermingled with meso-American peoples (as it pretty much cannot be given the dearth of archeological, literary, and genetic evidence) it is still an important work that has been able to move people to do incredible things. To be honest, I find the LDS movement to be very disheartening. On the one hand, the imagination and conviction of men like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are admirable. On the other hand, it is saddening that Mormons claim that Christianity represents an apostasy, a lie, a sham perpetuated by the very guardians of His message that He Himself chose. I am grateful for my Mormon friends and family members, grateful that they are people of integrity and generosity, but I find their beliefs at heart alien and pernicious. I don't mean to offend. At this point in the conversation, I think it's best to be sincere and open.

Also, the Gospel of Judas was not written by scholars. It was merely translated by them. I'm not following your comparison, however.

Albatross wrote: No change? Really? So the translations from Aramaic through to Hebrew, Greek and Latin, which meant that 'young maid' turned into 'virgin' haven't changed anything?

Well, as GG already noted, we can compare modern translations of Scripture to scrolls and text that date back as early as AD 120. That is less then 100 years after the death of Christ, and only 20ish years or so after the death of St. John the Apostle. If Scripture had such wildly inaccurate translations, as you claim, I am sure such men as Mr. Dawkins would have made it incredibly clear that our text is wrong and used such evidence to back up their claims. Other then minor grammatical errors in translation and so on, the book has been largely unchanged. And the language of the text did not change as much as you might suggest. The vast majority of the New Testament was written in Greek, and some even in Latin. St Paul, who authored most of it, was a Roman Citizen (which was a big deal), and would have definitely written in Greek and Latin. Very few, if any, of the books of the NT were written in Aramaic, and it is almost certain none were written in Hebrew.

Albatross wrote:Plus have you seen The Gnostic Gospels? They are radically different to modern christian teaching.

That is because they are false heretical writings. Whereas the Synoptic Gospels, and the Gospel of St. John were written within 50 years of the death of Christ, the oldest Gnostic Gospel, the gospel of Thomas, was written no earlier then AD 150. Some scholars believe it was written after AD 172, because they theorize that it was influenced by Tatian's Dietessaron.

Thorgut wrote:Also, it's hilarious to suggest the bible never changed. It's a book created by committee and apart from that, once bits were proven illogical or impossible, they suddenly became allegory and metaphor.

Your understanding of Church history and proceedings is sorely lacking. The Ecumenical Councils were no mere committee. They were made up of all the Bishops of the Church, and the greatest minds in the realm of Christendom. They poured over the books that were suggested to be part of the canon, and painstakingly pieced together what would be our modern Bible. And as far as it being proven wrong or otherwise, your claim is just amusing. The Church, in all its long history, never assumed the Bible to be completely, literally true. That is a product of the Enlightenment, and it has ever caused the Church problems. There are some parts that are very literally true, and other that are poetic and allegorical. To assume otherwise is ridiculous.

mattyrm wrote:Didnt a whole bunch of people just get together and vote for what should be in the bible about 400 years after it was all written down?

No, not really. It was created in list form by St. Athanasius, and was promoted by St. Augustine, and was adopted in the Council of Carthage in 397.

mattyrm wrote:It seems to me GG that considering how much human interference has been involved with getting your bible to you that surely you cant REALLY take it all as "gospel" right?

We have evidence to back up our Faith, and the Scriptures are considered to be some of the most, if not the most, accurate text from Antiquity.

Albatross wrote:Who mentioned the Da Vinci Code? I am holding in my hand a copy of The Gospel Of Judas, produced by National Geographic - yes, I am aware of Gnosticism and the timeframe it occupies. It precedes the first and second councils of Nicea.

And it is also wrong, and wildly inaccurate and has no historical founding.

Albatross wrote:I am also aware of the fact that early Christianity consisted of many conflicting strands. you just happen to belong to one of the successful ones.

It wasn't as divergent as you might assume. The councils were called to order to combat heresy as it arose. The first problem was that of Arianism. Gnosticism was a long dead issue, as it was not accepted by the early Church Fathers as valid. The Apostles left behind very clear definitions of the Faith for Church leaders to adhere to, and they were, and still are, very sound, useful pieces of Scripture.

To sharpen JEB's point about the conciliar ratification of the biblical canon, it was not as if the bishops came together to create and promulgate a new collection of texts. That is not the way Councils work. Rather, the bishops at Third Carthage merely authoritatively confirmed what was already the practice of the Church.

double post in the roast

Manchu wrote:To sharpen JEB's point about the conciliar ratification of the biblical canon, it was not as if the Bishops came together to create and promulgate an new collection of texts. That is not the way Councils work. Rather, the bishops at Third Carthage merely authoritatively confirmed what was already the practice of the Church.

Thanks for that Manchu, I thought I left something out in that text wall.

@Manchu,

My bad on saying written instead of translated.

The comparison I had in mind was the significance of a book worked on by scholars backed by the National Geographic with all the modern resources available as compared to a book translated by someone with no formal schooling in his early 20's in the middle of the backwoods in 1820's America.

If you are saying that the LDS church says the Apostles perpetuated a sham, you are wrong. In our meetings, the Apostles are quite often quoted and set up as examples to follow.

If you mean that we believe large parts of the truth were lost over the course of time you are correct. Just looking at the conversation going on in this thread shows the truth of that.

Your comparison is not very credible because, and this is a conclusion of textual criticism and not merely my personal opinion, it is not the case that Joseph Smith translated (from what language even?) the document he called the Book of Mormon. Actually, according to the unscientific standards employed by Orson Scott Card, it is more likely that J. R. R. Tolkien translated the Silmarillion from Elvish. The Book of Mormon no doubt has had and will continue to have a greater influence than the so-called "Gospel of Judas" (which is, at the end of the day, just one more Gnostic text to add to the pile) but the Gospel of Judas is a document from the ancient past while the Book of Mormon is a document from nineteenth-century America. The only view to the contrary is based upon willful avoidance of empirical evidence. It has the same validity as the claim that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed by Allah word for word. These are faith claims but they are not historical claims.

I am not merely talking about the Apostles but also the successors of the apostles right down to the (Catholic and Orthodox) bishops of today. This is a documented historical succession.

@Manchu,

I have to disagree with you about the Book of Mormon merely being a 19th century document based on my faith in its truth and the difference I see it make in people's lives.
At the end of the day, that's what it comes down to.
I won't deny there is a debt owed for a lot of preserved knowledge that came down from the Catholic church, however.

Relapse wrote:If you mean that we believe large parts of the truth were lost over the course of time you are correct. Just looking at the conversation going on in this thread shows the truth of that.

Not intending to pile on, but how can you say "large parts of truth were lost" when we have been trying to show you, that the science of textual critisism whereby many 1,000's of texts make our bible more accurate because, the more texts you have, the more easily it is to find errors by comparison. This in't some guy in an RV and comic book gloves comparing iron man vs spider man and what happened in issue 35 vs issue 58. You have PHD's who have dedicated their entire life to this field of study, to compare extremely minute differences, even down to where a period should be. All this to find out if there are any valid differences that could be "significant" enough to rise to the level of relooking at a certain passage.

And also as has been said, this "course of time" argument doesn't really hold water either, since we have texts that have shown to be unchanging(except for minor transcription errors) over a period of 2,000 years. NO element of truth have been lost, and certainly no major doctrine of Christianity has been effected by the variants that have been discovered.

Compare this to the book of mormon. Joe Smith makes a claim that the angel moroni dictated the book of mormon. All we have is Joe smiths word and the document that he wrote. I'm sorry, but that single source does not compare equivalently to the many thousands of sources that our Bible is based on. Not to mention the fact that, apparantly the angel moroni speaks king james english in the 19th century.

GG

@Relapse: I'm not doubting your faith that the Book of Mormon is authentically what it claims to be. I'm also not denying that it has had a significantly positive effect on people's lives. What I am saying is that there is as much evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims as there is evidence that the Silmarillion is an authentic, historical account of a civilization of elves in ancient Europe. By contrast, it is a scientific fact that the books of the New Testament are from the first century AD. Whether the supernatural incidents described within it are literally true (or even meant to be taken as literal truth) is another question.

Edited.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah i find that the idea of "proof" from Theists a tad ridiculous. Would any of this stuff hold up in a court of law?

Sorry Mattrym I think you misunderstand us.

Theists generally been saying here 'there is no no proof' with careful consistency and it is odd that you are reading it read in the same context as claiming 'proof'.

Most theists dont require 'proof' for their world view as faith is a more actively integral part of it. This is not to say that proof would be very nice.

I could even say to some extent an honest theist would 'welcome' proof of the non existence of God. We would be shocked and bitterly disappointed but at least we could dismantle religion at the point and do something else more worthwhile.

@GG,

A fair comment, but if large portions of the truth were not lost, wouldn't we all be the same religion?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Thorgut wrote:Also, it's hilarious to suggest the bible never changed. It's a book created by committee and apart from that, once bits were proven illogical or impossible, they suddenly became allegory and metaphor.

Your understanding of Church history and proceedings is sorely lacking. The Ecumenical Councils were no mere committee. They were made up of all the Bishops of the Church, and the greatest minds in the realm of Christendom. They poured over the books that were suggested to be part of the canon, and painstakingly pieced together what would be our modern Bible. And as far as it being proven wrong or otherwise, your claim is just amusing. The Church, in all its long history, never assumed the Bible to be completely, literally true. That is a product of the Enlightenment, and it has ever caused the Church problems. There are some parts that are very literally true, and other that are poetic and allegorical. To assume otherwise is ridiculous.

A committee of bishops is still a committee. To say that some books are true but others aren't is convenient. Who is to say they made the "right" choices?

In regards to allegorical stories; if Adam and Eve isn't true, then where does the concept of original sin come from?
Is Noah's Ark just allegory?

Manchu wrote:@Relapse: I'm not doubting your faith that the Book of Mormon is authentically what it claims to be. I'm also not denying that it has had a significantly positive effect on people's lives. What I am saying is that there is as much evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims as there is evidence that the Silmarillion is an authentic, historical account of a civilization of elves in ancient Europe. By contrast, it is a scientific fact that the books of the New Testament are from the first century AD.

If it's a made up book, then it's one of the most amazing made up books the world has ever seen considering its origin and the effect it's had almost 200 years later.

@Relapse and GG: You both seem to assume that the "truth" is primarily contained in written texts. Why should this be so? The Church is older than the epistles or gospels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:If it's a made up book, then it's one of the most amazing made up books the world has ever seen considering its origin and the effect it's had almost 200 years later.

I agree. The only other made up book in the same ballpark is the Quaran.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thorgut wrote:A committee of bishops is still a committee. To say that some books are true but others aren't is convenient. Who is to say they made the "right" choices?

You're still not understanding how this works. The Council affirmed the already existing practice of the Church.

In regards to allegorical stories; if Adam and Eve isn't true, then where does the concept of original sin come from?
Is Noah's Ark just allegory?

The word allegory simplifies it too much but essentially yes.

What Manchu said...

Thorgut wrote:
A committee of bishops is still a committee. To say that some books are true but others aren't is convenient. Who is to say they made the "right" choices?

I'm not an expert on how the canon was complied, but what I have read is that the notion "If in doubt, throw it out" was the operative of the day. That's why there are books called apocrypha and psuedopygrypha (spelling?) and probably others I don't know about. It's certainly possible that they may have disgarded a work that was inspired, but I don't think it's likely that a work that was uninspired was included. I make this claim because of the remrkable synergy that the non apocryphal books of the Bible have which each other. They all seem to mesh perfectly in theme and content.

Of course denominations disagree on whether or not to include the apocrypha, however we all agree on the main canon.

Thorgut wrote:
In regards to allegorical stories; if Adam and Eve isn't true, then where does the concept of original sin come from?
Is Noah's Ark just allegory?

I agree with the concept of Biblical literalism and the need to be carefull of that. The thing is, and this another area where Christians can disagree, that using the principle of exegesis(literally "to dig up") helps you to find the true, or at the very least the most likely meaning of a passage.

My favorite example is from Mark 16-17,18 (NIV){17} And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; {18} they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Of course these things did come to pass and examples are given in the bok of Acts of these incidents. Some Christians however take the term literally about "pick up snakes" and "drink deadly poison" to mean that they can freely do these things without consequence. This Bible passage is a perfect example where Biblical literalism takes something out of context.

And on the other hand in Mark 15:33(NIV)At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour.
We have no reason to believe that this was allegory about the "darkness coming over the whole land" and therefore we have no problem taking it literally.

Those are just a fraction of examples I could give.

I also want to say that in the case of Noahs ark, Adam and Eve, Genesis chapter 1, I believe should be taken literally, and I believe that a proper exegesis would back me up on that,but I know some Christians would disagree with me.

Hope that helps.
GG

Thorgut wrote:A committee of bishops is still a committee. To say that some books are true but others aren't is convenient. Who is to say they made the "right" choices?

You're still not understanding how this works. The Council affirmed the already existing practice of the Church.

I do understand how it works. What I don't understand is how people can place faith in such few men to dictate what is canon to the religion and what isn't.

In regards to allegorical stories; if Adam and Eve isn't true, then where does the concept of original sin come from?
Is Noah's Ark just allegory?

The word allegory simplifies it too much but essentially yes.

Then why do we have Young Earth believers and Creationists? Where is the line drawn?

If we are to say then yes, what these people chose is exactly the right message, then how is it that parts of it can be conveniently ignored?

Thorgut wrote:I do understand how it works.

Nope, you still don't.

Then why do we have Young Earth believers and Creationists? Where is the line drawn?

Give this a read: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

Its been fun again folks, im off to bed. Night Night Dakka.

Manchu wrote:

Thorgut wrote:I do understand how it works.

Nope, you still don't.

Then why do we have Young Earth believers and Creationists? Where is the line drawn?

Give this a read: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

I'm well aware that the Catholic church supports evolution. I wasn't aware that this discussion was limited to their views.
EDIT: Also, I hope no one thinks I'm taking this too seriously. I don't harbour any bad feelings towards my fellow Dakka members.

Manchu wrote:@Relapse and GG: You both seem to assume that the "truth" is primarily contained in written texts. Why should this be so? The Church is older than the epistles or gospels.

I'm not sure why would think that from what I've said. Sure people speak truth all the time, however I believe that ultamately anyone claiming to speak truth must do so with the Bible as the ultimate authority.

I.E. If I was to come to you and say, Jesus told me that God was from another planet, and that we could all make little planets and have offspring and be gods ourselves. You wouldn't just take my word for it would you? You would test what I said by the "light" of scripture to see if I were making something up or not.

GG

@Thorgut: If you're asking me to accept that authentic Christianity teaches one scientific theory or another then you are asking too much. Christians who believe in the Intelligent Design theory are just as aggravating to me as to you, I'd imagine.

@GG: How did the Church exist before the books of the New Testament were composed if the Bible is the "ultimate authority"?

Night mattym, see ya tomorrow.

Also, in regards to the line between allegory and literal meanings never causing problems: that is incorrect.
I'm sure we are all aware of Galileo. He argued that his heliocentric view of the universe did not contradict the bible, saying it did not literally say the earth did not move. Unfortunately, his view was not shared by high up members of the church.

So yes, there are examples of where "literal" parts are later declared to be allegorical.

Manchu wrote:@GG: How did the Church exist before the books of the New Testament were composed if the Bible is the "ultimate authority"?

Manchu now your playing games, you know what I meant. I'm talking about modernity, because that's what we have.

As to your question about the early church. I would say that they had the gospels written at the earliest foundation, and also the fact that the early church were eyewitness, and contemporaries of the apostles and indeed Jesus. If your talking about a few generations after the Apostles, the question is more difficult. But they did have copies of the gospels and the Pauline epistles to guide them. So I would say that they did have the Bible as their ultimate authority, just not the current format. Also they were well within a few generations of the Apostles so I would guess some oral tradition was at work, especially considering that most people were illiterate at that time, to coincide with the gospels and epistles.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thorgut wrote:Also, in regards to the line between allegory and literal meanings never causing problems
.

Who said that?

GG

@Thorgut: The famous line "the scriptures teach us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go" is misattributed to Galileo. It was actually said by Ceasare Cardinal Baronius. This man was nearly elected pope twice and is in the process of being canonized by the Church. At the time, Cardinal Baronius was the librarian of the Vatican. His remark was cited by Galileo in a letter to the Duchess of Tuscany. My point is that the matter you are referring to is somewhat more complex than you seem to indicate.

generalgrog wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thorgut wrote:Also, in regards to the line between allegory and literal meanings never causing problems
.

Who said that?

GG

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Made in us The Church, in all its long history, never assumed the Bible to be completely, literally true. That is a product of the Enlightenment, and it has ever caused the Church problems.

I was responding to this post. I assumed from the syntax the "ever" was a typo. Was I wrong?

EDIT:

Manchu wrote:@Thorgut: The famous line "the scriptures teach us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go" is misattributed to Galileo. It was actually said by Ceasare Cardinal Baronius. This man was nearly elected pope twice and is in the process of being canonized by the Church. At the time, Cardinal Baronius was the librarian of the Vatican. His remark cited by Galileo in a letter to the Duchess of Tuscany. My point is that the matter you are referring to is somewhat more complex than you seem to indicate.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my post. How does the wrongful attribution of that quotation change the message?
The issue is that he presented a view that caused controversy due to it "contradicting" the bible, leading to his house arrest and charges of "heresy". Of course, now those sections of the bible are no longer to be taken literally, as they once were.

generalgrog wrote:Manchu now your playing games, you know what I meant. I'm talking about modernity, because that's what we have.

The scriptures are not now and have never been the "ultimate source of authority."

Manchu wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Manchu now your playing games, you know what I meant. I'm talking about modernity, because that's what we have.

The scriptures are not now and have never been the "ultimate source of authority."

I'm not sure what you are on about, possibly Pope speech?

Obviously the ultimate souce of authority is God, if that is where you are headed.

GG.......confused

Manchu wrote:@Relapse and GG: You both seem to assume that the "truth" is primarily contained in written texts. Why should this be so? The Church is older than the epistles or gospels.

We, in the LDS church, also believe that God speaks to his prophets and those prophets share the revalations with the membership, as in the ancient days, so all knowledge is not contained for us solely in books. These revelations are written down of course.

Albatross. I have edited my post and decided to start with an apology.

While we have both offended each other it behooves me to make a climb down on moral grounds. How can I defend my God if I disavow him by my reactions.

Therefore I apologise for any part of this thread by which I appeared smug arrogant or in other ways unpleasant or hostile to you. If you have umbridge at any point with what I have said and it causes you offense PM me a quote and I will reword my comment or if unable to make my point while doing so will delete it.

While putting you back up was never the intention as the thread got heated our disagreement got increasingly personal. I cannot deny may part in that.

Albatross wrote:
That you don't fully understand the concept of atheism is not my fault. Neutrality is by it's very definition atheist - by way of not subscribing to theistic beliefs. It's the above statement which lead me to not quote and challenge your post in the first place. Educating you on subject of atheism is not my responsibility.

Wiki: Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

About .com: The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Try to find anywhere an example definition of atheism that claims it is a lack of opinion on God. Nothing neutral in atheism, neutrality is 'no opinion'. 'Not believng in' or refusing to beleive in at any level is not 'no opinion', it's a definate choice. Likewise a stance of 'no opinion' is not atheism.
As the choice of atheism lacks firm definate proof it is as faith choice, just like any other.

Albatross wrote:
Documented miracles? No, sorry. That is valid neither as evidence or as proof - it is human testimony.

Here are some documented miracles:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

There are many more of course.

Testimony is evidence, if it were not law courts would never get anywhere.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:We have pre-recorded long range accurate prediction. If Bible passages point out future events that happen as described that is evidence of the potential of omniscience and omniscience is a signiture characteristic of God.

Please don't ask me to take this seriously.

Why not? I offered serious evidence in my prior post:

The Signature of God by Grant R Jeffrey includes one such example. Now he uses the word proof instead of evidence too much for pure science, but for this he can be forgiven. He found something extraordinary. By using the Hebrew religious calender of 360 days and no other evidence except plain text passages from the Bible namely: Exodus 12:41, Jeremiah 25:11, Ezra 1:3, Ezekiel 4:3-6 and Leviticus 26:18 cross referenced with Revelations 12:6 he indicated that the exact date of the end of the exile of Israel to be 15th May 1948, the exact date of the Independence of Israel. I can go into this in more detail and go through the evidence with the thread verse by verse and see how we can come to that date if anyone is interested. It will take another text wall, full references will be given so you can follow the commentary and see for yourself.

Albatross wrote:
Any predictions which may or may not have 'come true' are no doubt as a result of pure coincidence. I am sure there are predictions made in the Bible that haven't come true. Regardless, the books were written by humans, edited, translated, re-edited...
Unreliable.

Well if Bible writers in the 5th century BC or before can show us, not through Bible Code but in plain text that Israel was being exiled for a period of time. This period of time is very specifially defined. It ended on 15 May 1948 to the day when calculated on the Hebrew religious calender. The day Israel was founded.
Day accurate predictions, in plain text, from two and a half millenia old text. I have to restrain from calling that proof let alone evidence.

The Dead Sea scrolls showed that the Book of Isaiah has not significantly changed between the modern version and the Qumran texts from the 1st century AD. In fact the Bible is known for being unusually consistent over time for a text of its age.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:If atheism is seen as scientific 'fact', erroneously or otherwise then by absolute logical definition theism is not science and is not a fact.

Exactly. You admit yourself that there is no proof for anything you believe. That you want to play with the semiology of words like 'evidence' and 'proof' is your own business. How can atheism be a scientific fact? Again, you seem to be referring to god-denial. No-one here has said that the non-existence of god is a fact.

This doesn't challenge my point of view. I am fully aware I need faith for my position, its theism 101. Agreed how can atheism be a scientific fact, therefore you require FAITH to choose it.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I place a universal statement only on the single point that at some level you cannot aquire a concept of atheism (or theism) without some element of faith on the known fact that the question of the existence of God has not been conclusively settled by scientific discourse, it is a direct logical consequence.

Fair enough, but your statement is incorrect. If the question is not settled, then the logical position is not to make a leap of faith and dedicate your life to god, the logical step is to reserve judgement and not live one's life according to scripture. Which is effectively what you seem to base your faith on.

The logical step to reserve judgement is not atheism, its 'no opinion'.

Albatross wrote:
No it doesn't. I never said that. I said the default point should be not to subscribe to theist beliefs as that requires an acceptance that god exists, something which is scientifically unproven.

Sorry, that is not atheism either. Atheism is subscribing the the idea that it is or is likely God(s) do not exist.

Albatross wrote:
You have been unsuccesful in refuting anything that I posted. Your arguments stem from a misunderstanding of what atheism actually means.

Which is not so. It appears to me that you are trying to claim the middle ground of 'no opinion', which is not in itself atheism.

Albatross wrote:
If I am unconcerned about offending you it is because you come across as insufferably arogant and smug. I think you are actually a zealot, to be honest.

I apologise for this.
However I must request that you refrain from responding with ad hominem attacks with regards to the issues themselves as it can lay yourself open to a charge of hypocrasy.

I defended my corner but just because you don't like the world view that is not in itself 'arrogance', I haver attempted to put my points across patiently and politely, where I have failed to do so I apologise; but please note that surely that blanket dismissals can be seen as no less arrogant, after all you must apply your standards first to yourself for it to be valid yardstick to others.

Albatross wrote:
You claim to have 'evidence' that god exists, I ignored it originally because it seemed so risible as to be unworthy of refutation.

Thankyou that you had the courage to admit you had resorted to this strategem, but it doesn't help your arguments and to accuse me of zealotry while under under this admission is very unfair.
I don't believe your world view, but I take the time to state my case against it. It offended me that in return it appears that you are just handwaving away return comments based on the source rather than content.
please attempt to offer me the same courtesy rather than mock my arguments with a blank dismissal.

Albatross wrote:
My arguments are obviously personal, as we are discussing personal belief, and lack thereof. Don't pretend that YOU have reached any logical conclusions, because you haven't. Your faith isn't based on logic.

I believe my faith has a logical basis? yes in a very real way steps of faith have been made in my life and I cannot claim to understand everything of my faith choice. However there is room for logical cionsistency in my theology. Logic follows to its own end depending on your starting premise. Pascals wager is a famous logical premise, one that encourages faith in God. There is theistic logic, there is atheistic logic, which you are more than entitled to use to defend your position. Logic does not take sides of itself it goes where it leads.

generalgrog wrote:I'm not sure what you are on about, possibly Pope speech?

Sort of. The Deposit of Faith is made up of both Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures. One does not make sense without the context of the other. Protestants (aside from Anglicans and some high church Lutherans) have pretty much abandoned Sacred Tradition as a rejection of eccelsial authority in favor of personal interpretations of scripture. This approach is ridiculous on its face, as I have already asserted, because there was a time when there was no scripture. There were only the Apostles and their successors. These people are the bishops. Most simply put, their teachings over the millennia and the reception of those teaching into the practice of the Church, are Sacred Tradition.

@Relapse: Thank you for that clarification.

This has been quite a thread so far with all the different ideas on God's existence or non existence.
Add tothat the various differences on points of doctrine and validity of different religious texts and it's been one of the most interesting reads on Dakka I 've ever seen.
Thanks to everyone for keeping their cool on what can be a very sensitive issue to a lot of people.
It's a testament to the maturity and intellegence of the posters.

Orlanth wrote:How can you say my faith by definition not based on logic? Again that is quite blinkered. Logic follows to its own end depending on your starting premise. Pascals wager is a famous logical premise, one that encourages faith in God.

QFT. Atheism does not require faith. Faith does not require the abandonment of logic, even if one cannot come to the first premise of faith ("Credo in . . .") by empirical evidence.

Now that I have a cool head and a moment on my lunch break, let me see if I can redeem myself from my spasm Monday.

Orlanth wrote:Throughout your entire reply you fail to challenge my arguments and instead just assumed I wrote something completely different and 'refuted' that.

LOL. There is some of that hypocrisy I was ranting about earlier on like page 7.
That is exactly what happened to me when I posted that Corey Taylor blog.

@Manchu: I posted that to make a point. Why waste time arguing about silly little things? Semantics and definitions about emotions that cannot be described in words.
It was not about having to defend your religion, which was the initial response.
It was not about countering every little point he made. Yes, Manchu, I understand what he said was not 100% true, but it wasn't 100% false either.
When I was a child (raised LDS, aka Mormon), I was taught the human experience is God's test for us. All of our trials and tribulations are test to see if one is worthy to inherit the Kingdom of God. It is God's design to put us in situations (via temptation from the devil) that makes us waver from the path to righteousness.



Blanket statements are a bitch aren't they. I now realize what I posted was a blanket statement. But your response to it was equally blanketed... Stating it is simply not true... Balls.

@Everyone: Yes, I am angry about this topic. That is because this thread can be summarized like this:
Atheists have no idea what Christians think, and Christians do not understand what atheists think... Blah blah blah.

DUH!!!

But, there are people in this thread that want to educate those on the other side of the argument, in a doomed attempt to foster understanding, all the while throwing around insinuations and pissing others off.

I will put this up again. Please read it this time.

Corey Taylor wrote:And so, the question of God is an unimportant one. If people spend too much time on it they might, like many, fall into the seclusion of religion. Sectioning themselves off from society in a search for internal truth and comfort. Saying that beleivers should be held higher then non-beleivers, and spending their lives imposing it on others or living behind the divisions of its walls. When the real problems are right in front of our noses. PEOPLE need help. the WORLD needs help. And compassion, knowledge and the power to change, has and should have nothing to do with "God"

The problems have nothing to do with money, or volunteering, or giving donations. It is about tolerance. Time after time again on Dakka, I have been told I am intolerant by religious people who hide behind their beliefs and chastise me for attacking them, when I am really just calling out stupidity and hypocrisy, as I see it. Almost everyone here does it, and most take pride in pointing out the stupid things in life. I never said, NEVER SAID (I am looking at you, Frazzled. I know you are here somewhere) that religion is stupid. What I have been saying all along is:

Stupidity and hypocrisy doesn't discriminate against skin color, age, race, gender, sexually orientation, or religion... I am very guilty of these things. I am not perfect. No one is. It is like what JEB was saying a while ago: It makes you stronger when you recognize your faults.

@JEB: Well, JEB, you are a little pompous. Just saying. I know I can be rude when something rubs me the wrong way. Like being attacked for defending MDG when he said Christians piss him off. They can piss me off, too. Albatross summed it up nicely a few pages ago. It is the circumstances, not the people or the religion. Like the circumstances on this page. Everyone is trying SOOOO hard to make their point, they unintentionally (or intentionally... I am guilty of that) piss people off.

So, my point is: The fact we are discussing God is irrelevant, in my opinion. Yes, we are discussing it. That is true, but it is irrelevant. Until Christians here accept the fact that dictionary definitions cannot truly describe how an atheist feels or what it means to be atheist, just as much as the Bible cannot truly describe to an atheist how a Christian feels, the flame wars will continue...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, this will be a fun experiment to see how many people have me on ignore

@Tblock1984: TBH, I don't think you're adding anything to this discussion.

tblock1984 wrote:Now that I have a cool head and a moment on my lunch break, let me see if I can redeem myself from my spasm Monday.

Orlanth wrote:Throughout your entire reply you fail to challenge my arguments and instead just assumed I wrote something completely different and 'refuted' that.

LOL. There is some of that hypocrisy I was ranting about earlier on like page 7.
That is exactly what happened to me when I posted that Corey Taylor blog.

Did I comment on your Corey Taylor blog?

Orlanth wrote:How can you say my faith by definition not based on logic? Again that is quite blinkered. Logic follows to its own end depending on your starting premise.

I see. Let us then examine the claim that god has spoken to you. How did you reach that conclusion? Was it a dispassionate examination of the facts?

If you actually heard a voice, there are several possible reasons for this - aural hallucination has multiple causes. Did you have a fever? Were you sleep deprived? I experienced extraordinarily vivid aural hallucinations whilst in hospital with Pneumonia.

What about this:

Cryptesthesia (or cryptaesthesia) means, literally, "hidden sensation." Cryptesthesia refers to information gathered by the senses that enters conscious awareness by some other form.

The waking awareness generates a narrative based on the sensory input it receives. Input deemed irrelevant is frequently ignored or stored for later within the mind. Sometimes, however, the mind recognizes the need for that information, typically for the survival of the individual. In order to bring that information to the forefront of consciousness, the mind will transmit that material through sensory hallucinations (e.g. tactile, visual, aural) in an attempt to redirect and refocus the efforts of the individual.
This unconscious use of sensory cues and ostensibly extraneous data has been the undoing of several parapsychological experiments, particularly those dealing with ESP. It has been argued that this perception and integration of physical cues outside of the boundaries of normal waking consciousness is, in fact, responsible for all claims of extra-sensory perception.

Quite interesting. Not sure how common it is though.

There is also the possibility that you may have suffered head trauma or be suffering from a brain tumour, although I sincerely hope that this isn't the case (seriously, all banter aside).

You may even suffer from a mental illness and be unaware of it.

If it was the case that you just 'felt' the voice, perhaps it was just your subconcious mind - an inner monologue that you've misinterpreted. That might be a long-shot, actually, but it's certainly possible.

There is of course the possibility that you are simply lying. There, I said it. Not trying to flame you at all - it's a distinct possibility that you could have just made it up, at least from my perspective.

I'm not saying that any of the above is actually the case, but they are possibilities that have to be considered. Whilst they are on the table, it does not follow that believing god ACTUALLY spoke to you is a logical conclusion to draw. That said, you're free to believe whatever you want - I'm not here to try and convince anyone that god doesn't exist.

You offered some definitions of Atheism. The fact that you had to do some online research is telling.

Orlanth wrote:As the choice of atheism lacks firm definate proof it is as faith choice, just like any other.

Firm definite proof? Of what? Your talking about denial of god's existence again.

Orlanth wrote:Try to find anywhere an example definition of atheism that claims it is a lack of opinion on God.

Why? I don't need to. Newborn babies, being unaware of the concept of god, have no opinion on the matter - and as such, are atheist in a practical sense. See below.

Wiki wrote:In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.

This is pretty much how I live my life. And I DO have an opinion on god.
Since we're quoting internet sources:

Wiki also wrote:...unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions...

And I don't believe YOUR god exists because as long there is the possibility that The Old Testament is a complete man-made fabrication, given the alternative explanations, that possibility is impossible to rule out. If I can't rule that out, then I can't believe in the Abrahamic God. Again, this doesn't require faith on my part.

As for the miracle and prediction thing, same deal. Whilst possibilities rooted in reality and scientific fact (even if it is hitherto undiscovered) still exist, divine intervention can not, and should not, be ruled in. For example, is it possible that the Israelis were aware of these predictions, perhaps even subconciously? Is it possible to interpret the data in such a way as to make the prediction look plausible? Was this prediction discovered before or after the founding of the state of Israel? (it was after, IIRC) It's easy to predict things that have already happened. I've just provided two reasonable possibilites off the top of my head, so I would caution against accepting this prediction or any other like it as proof. Consider it evidence - that's up to you. But IMO it isn't evidence of the most solid type.

The logical step to reserve judgement is not atheism, its 'no opinion'.

(sigh) 'No opinion' is a-theist by it's very definition. If you have no opinion, you don't hold theistic belief therfore you are functionally atheist. I'm getting bored of this now.

Orlanth wrote:And you are not? This is a plain ad hominem attack. You know little about me. I defended my corner but because you don't like the world view that is 'arrogance'.

Not so, I have a lot of time for several christians on here. My personal feelings for you have nothing to do with your faith and everything to do with your personality, at least, inasmuch as it is represented by the posts you have made in this and other threads. Comments like 'pass me another atheist' ARE smug and arrogant, considering the decidedly shaky premise of much of what you seem to believe. Such smugness smacks of zeal. You 'know' you are right, there can be no other possibilities. Other christians here have the humility to admit that faith is difficult to maintain and requires hard work and dedication. I can respect that. You call me arrogant, but I have admitted several times that I would accept that god exists, were there sufficient proof to back it up. Stop crying 'ad hominem', that just makes it look like you want the MODs to win the argument for you. I never insulted you, I merely pointed out something about your manner that other posters, including christians, had noticed. Sorry if that bothers you, perhaps it's my mistake - perhaps you didn't mean to come across that way. I'm man enough to apologise if that is the case.

But I'm not convinced it is.

FFS, why? Look here, buddy. I am trying to explain myself from the other day. That alone is worth something. To admit I was wrong is no trivial thing for me.

But there you go again, saying I have nothing to add to the discussion. Again. Why? Can you not agree that my statement about understanding and tolerance is important to avoiding flame wars? Keep in mind my last post on this forum was two days ago in the heat of a flame war...

Or is it because I quoted this guy?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:Now that I have a cool head and a moment on my lunch break, let me see if I can redeem myself from my spasm Monday.

Orlanth wrote:Throughout your entire reply you fail to challenge my arguments and instead just assumed I wrote something completely different and 'refuted' that.

LOL. There is some of that hypocrisy I was ranting about earlier on like page 7.
That is exactly what happened to me when I posted that Corey Taylor blog.

Did I comment on your Corey Taylor blog?

No, sorry. I apologize for the sloppy formatting. I quoted you because that is how I felt about Manchu's reply to my Corey post.

Manchu wrote:The Deposit of Faith is made up of both Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures. One does not make sense without the context of the other. Protestants (aside from Anglicans and some high church Lutherans) have pretty much abandoned Sacred Tradition as a rejection of eccelsial authority in favor of personal interpretations of scripture. This approach is ridiculous on its face, as I have already asserted, because there was a time when there was no scripture. There were only the Apostles and their successors. These people are the bishops. Most simply put, their teachings over the millennia and the reception of those teaching into the practice of the Church, are Sacred Tradition.

Do you really want to have a Catholic theology vs Reformed theology debate here? However much I would enjoy that, I personally think it would be detrimental at this time in this thread.

GG

@Manchu - Bit harsh mate.

@tblock1984: You have said that the discussion is irrelevant (to what? I suppose you mean "useless"?) and is a"doomed attempt to foster understanding." I don't mind you quoting the guy from Slipknot. I took the time to explain to you how many of the points he made were factually wrong, after all. You called this a "blanket statement." It doesn't seem like you are interested in a dialog.

@Albatross: I didn't mean it to be.

@GG: I would say it has less to do with theology than politics.

Albatross-You forgot one other possibility. The possibility that God may have indeed talked to him. What about the millions of other people that claim to have had encounter with God. Do we assume that they must all be deranged, brain tumored or lyers as well?

That's kind of what you are suggesting. I.E. anyone that claims to have an intimate relationship, including feeling the "touch" of God must be decieved since you have never personally experianced such a thing, and you can't scientifically prove it.

GG

@Manchu - I love harsh!

@GG - That's not quite what I was saying. Sorry if it came across wrongly. My point was that those options were more likely than god actually speaking to you. To rule them out and replace them with something highly improbable would seem illogical. It was a discussion about logic in relation to certain aspects of faith.

But possible? Sure, why not?

Just to be clear, when we speak of "hearing God" or "feeling God's touch" are these metaphorical sentiments or literal descriptions? I'm not asking about examples from scripture, either, as that is a different topic. I mean contemporary examples.

@Manchu - I was referring to Orlanth's claim that he had personally spoken to god, in a literal sense. I can't speak for anyone else, mind.

generalgrog wrote:Albatross-You forgot one other possibility. The possibility that God may have indeed talked to him. What about the millions of other people that claim to have had encounter with God. Do we assume that they must all be deranged, brain tumored or lyers as well?

That's kind of what you are suggesting. I.E. anyone that claims to have an intimate relationship, including feeling the "touch" of God must be decieved since you have never personally experianced such a thing, and you can't scientifically prove it.

GG

It has often puzzeld me that 'god' is one of the few invisable (people/forces/beings) that one can claim to have spoken to and get little more than a polite smile,or at worst a "pffft" from the western world in general.
In many case people who claim to talk to "gaint invisable rabits" (just an example) find themselves in padded cells,however the practice of claiming to talk to "god" (another invisable being) is widely accepted or at least "understood".
Just because the "idea" is widely accepted does it make the action any less delusional?

I talk to Giant Invisible Rabbits! :( Stop persecuting me!!!

Manchu wrote:Just to be clear, when we speak of "hearing God" or "feeling God's touch" are these metaphorical sentiments or literal descriptions? I'm not asking about examples from scripture, either, as that is a different topic. I mean contemporary examples.

I'm talking about a few things actually.


First: The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and what has been described as "The still, small voice of the Holy Spirit". This "still, small voice of the Holy Spirit" can be described as a "leading" a "sense" of what you think God's will is for your life. It woudl be really hard to explain this indwelling to someone that hasb't experianced it.
Second: The baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is what happened to the Church at Pentacost which was followed by speaking in tongues. John the Baptist prophesied this event when he said that "John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."" (Luke 3:16)

GG

GG wrote:...speaking in tongues...

GG wrote:It woudl be really hard to explain this indwelling to someone that hasb't experianced it

Sorry, couldn't resist. Yes, I am aware that this makes me a bad person.




@GG - just a bit o' gentle teasing matey!

I believe in voices and visions. It happened in biblical times and there would be no reason for such things to stop now.
I understand that statement presupposes belief in the bible and there are more than a few people that question it's accuracy or truth.
If I tried to come up with scientific, intellectual, or other reasonings to support my views, there'd be an equal number of reasons to thump them down.
It took a lot for me to come to this faith I have in the truth of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, including an excommunication from the LDS church for about 12 years.
I had no use for things that bound me to fables or religions that seemed to favor some over others. I felt that the crucifiction was not for me, but for other people, and I was outside the bounds or care of God. I just did what I felt like and if I ended up in Hell or where ever, I was going there anyway.
It was a slow awakening for me over the course of years, but I look back on that time now and shake my head at where I was. It felt like one long and dead time to me, and now there is purpose since I finally decided to get myself reinstated.
There were no voices and visions as such for me, it's a bit like the scripture that I paraphrase here about the prophet Elijah who was in the wilderness. This is from 1Kings, 19:11:

First came a wind that broke rocks, but the Lord was not in the wind. Next came a an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. Then came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. Then came a still small voice, and that was the Lord.

I didn't get the elemental display, but that small voice came to me. It came to me in more the form of an impression tha an actual voice, but the principle is the same.

including an excommunication from the LDS church for about 12 years

Do you mean you left or that you were forced out?

Getting late again. I will quickly cover one or two points.

Albatross wrote:
I see. Let us then examine the claim that god has spoken to you. How did you reach that conclusion? Was it a dispassionate examination of the facts?

Ok, the answer comes in the 'quality'. The Bible gives us indication as to what to do when God speaks to us.

1. Any 'voice' must be compared with known Biblical teaching on the nature of God. If let us say told to do something out of character with God it isn't God.
2. The voice of God sits well with the Holy Spirit within you - Thats pretty deep and very difficult to explain to an outsider. I cannot adequately describe receiving the Holy Spirit to myself, let alone anyone else.
3. If important look for a cross reference from others who hear God.


I mentioned these to show how exacting we consider the concept of hearing God. It does not as yet answer your question.

The nearest to a 'dispassionate examination of the facts' I can give is the examples I gave of correlation of multiple instances of hearing God. While not proof independent correlation make it increasingly unlikely that the pheonomena is random. To be frank with you we are not looking for dispassionate examination of the facts at the time, all evidence is retrospective. Normally stuff like this happens in a worship service, something called the corporate gift. I hear God far more frequently in company in worship than alone. we have scriptural (not scientific) explanations for that too as joining together in worship and prayer invites the presence of God in a deeper way than alone in a daily life. at times of prayer and worship scrutinising God in a scientific manner is not the focus.

That is the best I can do to explain.

Albatross wrote:
If you actually heard a voice, there are several possible reasons for this - aural hallucination has multiple causes. Did you have a fever? Were you sleep deprived? I experienced extraordinarily vivid aural hallucinations whilst in hospital with Pneumonia.

As God 'taps into' a human to speak to one. I would not be suprised if some biological process is enabled. I don't know how its done, I only know it happens.

Albatross wrote:
What about this:

Cryptesthesia (or cryptaesthesia) means, literally, "hidden sensation." Cryptesthesia refers to information gathered by the senses that enters conscious awareness by some other form.

Cool, I could well accept that. Taking that from my point of reference our experiences form a library from which I can hypothesise God draws information to the forefront.
I am not saying that is true, but maybe from my paradigm this is an option.
My point here is that I have no problem whatsoever if prophesy suddenly 'got understood'. Its like saying 'Evolution is the method by which God creates'. The science can be read a number of ways, with or without God.

However sometimes you get information outside your frame of reference, and it doesn't account for independent correlation.
sometimes, in fact frequently we might get what is known as a 'word of knowledge' to speak to someone, often we don't know that person.

Words of knowledge are often vague when real and in fact can be faked if you do know something about the person and pretend you dont, as I will cover in the unfortunate trait of false beleivers.

Albatross wrote:
There is also the possibility that you may have suffered head trauma or be suffering from a brain tumour, although I sincerely hope that this isn't the case (seriously, all banter aside).
You may even suffer from a mental illness and be unaware of it.

Keep the banter in.

Ok crazy I can cope with, but I doubt we are all crazy. As for brain tumours, we can discount that flat out as we would have to explain why certain churches are filled with people with brain tumours evedn how that can occur. It must be something in the communion bread....

You see I am anything but an odd case (in regards to hearing God that is) in the churches. Many of us, in some congregations I would safely say most of us claim to hear God.

Let us assume I had a brain tumour, because I hear more or less what others do unless they all have brain tumours I would find that hard to indicate a conclusion.

Albatross wrote:
There is of course the possibility that you are simply lying. There, I said it. Not trying to flame you at all - it's a distinct possibility that you could have just made it up, at least from my perspective.

If I am lying nothing I will be able to say can indicate either way, after all lies can be compounded.

No problem with that as a caveat and not offendeed by the question. It only gets tiring if it becomes a Modus Operandi to deal with religion:

10 If Detect religion = yes
20 Say "More lies!"
30 END

I have no motive to lie, but sadly that is not a good answer either. I have been stung before believing a testimony that was made up to look good, it is frustrating when that happens and damaging to all who love God. I believe in miracles but frankly I was really reluctant to post links on sites about miracles here. While I know there are many and in fact the first link I came to was of quality source I have to admit that many miracle testimonies today ARE frauds, especially on the internet. Some preacher wants a bigger offering and lies about their ministry to get it. Generally you can pick out the decent ones from the bad, there are signs (human ones not light from heaven ones) by which you can tell a dodgy preacher from a honest one. The emphasis on preaching the offering is always a good one.

Albatross wrote:
If it was the case that you just 'felt' the voice, perhaps it was just your subconcious mind - an inner monologue that you've misinterpreted. That might be a long-shot, actually, but it's certainly possible.

This is what it often is. Suprised to hear that. but yes seriously.
This is why we apply the tests mentioned at the beginning of the post. Hearing God comes into our heads similar but not the same as our own imaginations. When we hear something we really do have to take some degree of care.

Albatross wrote:
I'm not saying that any of the above is actually the case, but they are possibilities that have to be considered. Whilst they are on the table, it does not follow that believing god ACTUALLY spoke to you is a logical conclusion to draw. That said, you're free to believe whatever you want - I'm not here to try and convince anyone that god doesn't exist.
But I'm not convinced it is.

Point accepted. I am not deluded enough to think that I can suddenly convert you or fear that I was going to lose my faith by listening to you. This was never in my mind at any point, nor a motive for posting here.

All I can say is that hearting God is a privilege, not an illness. I cannot earn it, it is from grace because God loves us and wants to talk to us.

My final point is that the 'inner voice' does not exclusively speak to believers. I know of testimonies of the voice described that 'feels' like God speaking. I remember secular experiences of people who were asked by the still small voice not to do this or that, noticing that the comments made were in keeping with God's character and wondering.
In retrospect I heard God before I was a Christian myself. I remember very clearly in 1987 in Birmingham not to take a particular route by the same voice I now know. I was told why too. I ignored the voice, I was mugged on cue.
Occasionally I hear the same sort of thing, this particular point could well be my imagination, but when it is harmless just to obey I just obey. 'Take this route rather than that route' is no skin off my nose, and not something I can see if it fits the Biblical pattern of God. Might something wrong have happened, I will never know.
If this had became a frequent event I might have cause to see a counsellor. Again hearing God has its dangers if you become deluded enough to 'hear God everywhere'. I believe that can happen even from a a genuine start.

@Manchu,

I left, because I didn't think at the time the LDS or any religion had anything real to offer me.

Oh, okay. I know that Mormons use that term to describe kicking people out. I was going to ask you about that experience had it been the case.

I agree. The only other made up book in the same ballpark is the Quaran.

Are you serious? Do you really think the Koran is made up? How is Mohammad's revelation by the angel Gabriel any different from the writers of the old testament being divinely inspired? Or the book of Revelation of St. John?

Divinely inspired does not have to mean (and I do not believe that it means) an angel whispered what to write in the Evangelists' ears. The same is true of Revelations, which is not that important of a text anyway. By contrast, Mohammed asserted that an angel spoke to him in Arabic, telling him what to write.

This link talks of manifistations that happened
during a temple dedication:

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=7bdeaf79ec2b5210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

@Relapse: That's nothing. We've got about eighteen hundred years worth of this stuff on you guys. Here's an especially interesting one: Almost a century ago, three young children claimed to have seen an apparition of the Virgin Mary who told them, among other things, that there would be a miracle involving the sun on 13 October 1917. On that day, tens of thousands of people (including newspaper journalists and photographers) gathered at Cova da Iria, Portugal, reported seeing the sun dance, darken, and fall out of the sky. This strange event is called the Miracle of the Sun. Belief in the miraculous nature of such events is optional for Catholics.

The Koran is not only Mohammad's "conversations" with an angel. They also include the passages taken from Jewish and Christian scriptures. If god talking to man, telling him what to write in the old testament, can be chalked up as divinely inspired. Then the same could be said for Mohammad.

Mohammed, sort of like the Mormons, believed that there was some truth to Jewish and Christian sacred texts but that it had been corrupted over time by apostate religious leaders. Mohammed claimed that God communicated the truth to him word-for-word to eliminate this corruption. I also don't think that God told the authors of the Old Testament books what to write. Many of the Old Testament texts were written by various people over the course of centuries.

Ironhide wrote:The Koran is not only Mohammad's "conversations" with an angel. They also include the passages taken from Jewish and Christian scriptures. If god talking to man, telling him what to write in the old testament, can be chalked up as divinely inspired. Then the same could be said for Mohammad.

The Koran is literally the word of Allah. It went through man but is 100% not of man. To Muslims anyway. That is one reason why followers are expected to learn it in the original language, because it is the language of Allah.

@Manchu: I agree with you fully on your declaration concerning both the Koran and the Book of Mormon. I constantly tell people that I have no doubt that both Mohammad and Joseph Smith saw and communicated with an angelic being of sorts, but I remind them that even Satan can masquerade as an angel of Light. St. Paul declares that it is not unlikely that someone will have visions, but he does assert that it is their responsibility to question the being and demand to know by what authority it speaks. I could not find in either account the questioning and testing of authority, and thus I find them to be lacking in any authority or power. Would you not agree with this idea?

@JEB: I believe that the Book of Mormon and Koran have no religious authority whatsoever. (Speaking sincerely, does this answer your question?)

Yes, and to be honest it is my feeling as well.

Manchu wrote:@JEB: I believe that the Book of Mormon and Koran have no religious authority whatsoever. (Speaking sincerely, does this answer your question?)

That is your belief. Just as I believe the bible has no religious authority aside from what man has placed in it and on it.

Ironhide wrote:

Manchu wrote:@JEB: I believe that the Book of Mormon and Koran have no religious authority whatsoever. (Speaking sincerely, does this answer your question?)

That is your belief. Just as I believe the bible has no religious authority aside from what man has placed in it and on it.

No argument.

@Ironhide: I haven't heard anyone say that you can't believe that.

This thread is difficult to keep up with. You're posting faster than I'm reading at times.

@JEB and Manchu: Would you care to explain to us why you believe the Bible should take religeous prevalence over the Qua'arn (sp?) or the Book of Mormon? What differs it so? Apart from being slightly/much older?

I hesitate to speak for JEB. In my own case, the Bible takes precedence over the Koran and Book of Mormon because I am a Christian rather than a Muslim or Mormon. Yes, it really is as simple as that. No, I did not base my decision to convert to Christianity on the textual merits of the Bible--which are considerable, however.

Sooo...How did you come to the conclusion? Was it sort of a "Whatever Religeon I come across first" type thing? Surely there must have been something about Catholosiscm (*sigh* spelling?) that drew you to it rather than the others?

We've PMed on this subject.

True, you did say what attracted you. (Would you like to send another PM? ) But you didn't actually say what detered you from something like Protestants or CoE or Islam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, does Buddism count as a religeon or a philosophy?

Manchu wrote:We've PMed on this subject.

They make a cream for that at Eli-Lily I think.

This is my honest opinion: One thing that Protestantism and Islam seem to have in common is their political origin.

Martin Luther probably did not begin with the idea that his theological debates would turn into a series of wars leading to modern nation states. But he quickly aligned himself with a German prince in exchange for protection, even going so far as to write tracts about why it was irreligious for the peasantry to revolt against their proper feudal masters. Moreover, the idea that any given person can decipher the meaning and significance of ancient texts is ridiculous on its face. This idea seems transparently aimed at challenging structures of authority built upon knowledge and expertise. The simplest way, as Henry VIII found, to deal with a religious problem was to relativise it: forego the legitimate authorities when they don't give you the answer you like in favor of proclaiming yourself (or anyone/everyone and so no one) the highest possible authority on the matter.

Similarly, I believe Islam was invented by Mohammed to achieve pecuniary and political goals via capitalizing on cultural unification. He was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant leaders in history. Starting from a position of indigence and ignorance, he quickly improved his circumstances and eventually assembled an unwieldy collection of nomadic peoples into a frighteningly effective army within his own lifetime. By inventing Islam, this man literally invented the Arab people. Not being Arab, this kind of nationalism holds no personal fascination for me. I do not find the religious claims of Islam to be at all compelling or appealing, especially in light of its history. In my opinion this religion expresses a continuing political agenda rather than a message about the meaning of life (except perhaps that the meaning of life is complete submission to Allah/the earthly Islamic authority--whatever that may be).

@Ahtman: I'll look into it.

EF wrote:Wait, does Buddism count as a religeon or a philosophy?

Well, I've heard Buddhism described as 'atheist' before, which tecnically I suppose it is. But I believe that it is in fact a religion, one without a central 'god' figure. It DOES require faith.

Well, looking back the Catholic church has some pretty bloody history itself.

With regards to the Crusades for example, what actually annoys me is that Christians today are so very quick to denounce what (in those times) would have been VERY pious people, willing even to fight and die for thier beliefs and the well-being of others (pilgrims)

Having visited the The Holy Sacre' Cour in Jerusalem and seeing for myself the thousands of First Crusaders' Crosses etched into the walls, I feel a bit upset that a thousand years later the faith they fought for so readily disregards them as bloodthirsty monsters.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that everything (even faith and religeon) is subject to change. What was considered pious a millenia ago would be considered wrong today. What is considered pious today may not be looked at the same way in another millenia.

And my point is that Christ's life, death, and resurrection are not about political power.

Albatross wrote:

EF wrote:Wait, does Buddism count as a religeon or a philosophy?

Well, I've heard Buddhism described as 'atheist' before, which tecnically I suppose it is. But I believe that it is in fact a religion, one without a central 'god' figure. It DOES require faith.

It really depends greatly between what type of Bhuddism you are talking about. Zen? I could buy it as a philosophy, but if you go all the way back to right after historical Buddha died they still were heavily influenced by Hindu and had a much greater religious feel, with dogma, ceremonies and the other such fun things. When it combined with taoism in China you see a move toward less of those things until you get to Japan, though the Korean influence can't be left out. It should also be noted that the norm in Japan is Pureland Buddhism, not Zen, as it is considered more of an academic (read upper caste) form.

@Manchu - I thought the reasons for Jesus' execution were political? I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject though.

As a epilogue to my response to EF regarding Protestantism and Islam, I'd like to say that I didn't convert to Christianity because Islam wasn't as good an option or become Catholic because Protestantism didn't satisfy me. My conversion was not a matter of crossing of items from a list or auditioning various faiths, although I did and still try to learn about them even if I think they are more or less false. In this spirit, I think the following quotation is fitting:

Thomas Merton wrote:I will be a better Catholic, not if I can refute every shade of Protestantism, but if I can affirm the truth in it and still go further. So, too, with the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, etc. This does not mean syncretism, indifferentism, the vapid and careless friendliness that accepts everything by thinking of nothing. There is much that one cannot "affirm" and "accept," but first one must say "yes" where one really can. If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: and certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it.

@Albatross: Jesus's killers may have been politically motivated but Christ was certainly not. If anything, His death showed that the standard legitimization of political power--the threat of violence--is hollow. The basis of authority is revealed, in Him, to be love and hope rather than fear and cruelty.

@Ahtman: Taoism has nothing to do with Zen. Nevermind, I get what you mean now.

That sums it up quite well, actually.

But tell me, what ARE your personal thoughts on things like the Crusades? I hate it when people brand the entire thing as political with a religeous cover. I think that the piety of those involved was more than that.

Manchu wrote:I hesitate to speak for JEB. In my own case, the Bible takes precedence over the Koran and Book of Mormon because I am a Christian rather than a Muslim or Mormon. Yes, it really is as simple as that. No, I did not base my decision to convert to Christianity on the textual merits of the Bible--which are considerable, however.

Thank you for your consideration in regards to my own opinion, but they are essentially identical. I am about as Anglo-Catholic as one can be...

Emperors Faithful wrote:Sooo...How did you come to the conclusion? Was it sort of a "Whatever Religion I come across first" type thing?

I cannot answer for Manchu, but mine was a very, very long ordeal. In short I read many texts from other religions when I was younger. Being a historian of sorts though I was always struck by the historicity of much of the Bible. I eventually approached it with an open mind and became a Christian. I did struggle with denominations for a while, going from Fundamentalist to Evangelical to traditional Baptist, until I studied at Oxford for a time. There I was introduced to the glorious institution that is the CoE, and the Archbishop to boot! I have loved it ever since.

Emperors Faithful wrote:With regards to the Crusades for example, what actually annoys me is that Christians today are so very quick to denounce what (in those times) would have been VERY pious people, willing even to fight and die for their beliefs and the well-being of others (pilgrims)

It is mankind's ignorance that wills us to denounce those who fall short of our own standards. A much more informed look at the Crusades suggests that they were not all done with bad intentions and even provoked by Muslims themselves. I could teach whole seminars on the Crusades, and never grow weary of it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Having visited the The Holy Sacre' Cour in Jerusalem and seeing for myself the thousands of First Crusaders' Crosses etched into the walls, I feel a bit upset that a thousand years later the faith they fought for so readily disregards them as bloodthirsty monsters.

The Crusades are easily one of the most misunderstood events in history. As for the church you visited, I believe you meant that you visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Basilique du Sacré-Cœur is a beautiful church in Paris.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I suppose what I'm trying to say is that everything (even faith and religion) is subject to change. What was considered pious a millenia ago would be considered wrong today. What is considered pious today may not be looked at the same way in another millenia.

Humanity changes even as God does not.

Emperors Faithful wrote:But tell me, what ARE your personal thoughts on things like the Crusades?

I would recommend that you read God's War by Christopher Tyerman.

Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: Taoism has nothing to do with Zen.

Do you really want to argue a point you are wrong on? I have degrees in both Eastern Philosophy and History to back me up. If you want to dance little man we can.

I have degrees in East Asian History and East Asian Studies myself and have been awarded several grants in those fields. (You might have noticed my username . . .) If you refer back to the post you've just quoted you may find something that will calm you down.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:With regards to the Crusades for example, what actually annoys me is that Christians today are so very quick to denounce what (in those times) would have been VERY pious people, willing even to fight and die for their beliefs and the well-being of others (pilgrims)

It is mankind's ignorance that wills us to denounce those who fall short of our own standards. A much more informed look at the Crusades suggests that they were not all done with bad intentions and even provoked by Muslims themselves. I could teach whole seminars on the Crusades, and never grow weary of it.

I know. I love it as a piece of history, very interesting to say the least. (Though I would hesistate to say the the Muslims provoked the Crusades. You could be right in saying that at times the Crusaders could be downright bloodthirsty. But still, you cannot speak for all or even most them like that.

In fact I regard Sulladin as a man of great cunning, integrity (sp?) and mercy (something one might call quite rare in those times ). Truly the Crusades were where Legends were born.

I am bursting to run into a discussion about this (and wouldn't mind seeing a thread maybe ) but that would mean SERIOUSLY dragging this OT. Something I wish to avoid.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Having visited the The Holy Sacre' Cour in Jerusalem and seeing for myself the thousands of First Crusaders' Crosses etched into the walls, I feel a bit upset that a thousand years later the faith they fought for so readily disregards them as bloodthirsty monsters.

The Crusades are easily one of the most misunderstood events in history. As for the church you visited, I believe you meant that you visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Basilique du Sacré-Cœur is a beautiful church in Paris.

Yes, I double checked and I mixed them up. Whoops. (I've been to both )
Still, that silent testimony of that magnificent room in the Holy Lands...well, it's very imposing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I suppose what I'm trying to say is that everything (even faith and religion) is subject to change. What was considered pious a millenia ago would be considered wrong today. What is considered pious today may not be looked at the same way in another millenia.

Humanity changes even as God does not.

No doubt our perception of him does though.

Manchu wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:But tell me, what ARE your personal thoughts on things like the Crusades?

I would recommend that you read God's War by Christopher Tyerman.

Really? I can't believe I've never heard of it before. Do you know where I might find it? Or do I have to resort to Amazon. *blegh*



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eastern History is very interesting in itself to. But I really don't know very much about it apart from the Middle Kingdoms of China and the Shogun Wars of Japan.

@EF: Tyerman is at Oxford so I'd be surprised if you couldn't find a copy of it in your neck of the . . . globe. In the States, this book is available at most popular booksellers.

Certainly, I'll sniff around at ABC. Sounds like an interesting read.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Though I would hesistate to say the the Muslims provoked the Crusades.

There are many, many ways they did. But this isn't the thread for that evidence.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You could be right in saying that at times the Crusaders could be downright bloodthirsty. But still, you cannot speak for all or even most them like that.

Undoubtedly. The Crusades are incredibly complex, ranging from outright political ploys to a religious fervor that would make a Space Marine seem outright heretical.

Emperors Faithful wrote:In fact I regard Saladin was a man of great cunning, integrity and mercy (something one might call quite rare in those times ). Truly the Crusades were where Legends were born.

Saladin was...interesting. Even sifting through writings about him, it is hard to distinguish fact from myth. In a paper I wrote on the historiography of the 3rd Crusade, him and Richard were easily the most challenging parts of my argument to work through.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I am bursting to run into a discussion about this (and wouldn't mind seeing a thread maybe ) but that would mean SERIOUSLY dragging this OT. Something I wish to avoid.

Well then start one, though I seriously doubt I will write much more on the subject tonight. It is growing far to late for me to be up and piddling away my time on Dakka.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No doubt our perception of him does though.

I will not argue with you on that. That is why we have things such as the Holy Bible and even such imperfect institution as the Church to help guide us and our understanding.

Though even OUR perception of this guidance changes over time. (Or perhaps the Bible itself changes, who knows?)

Anyway, If I don't see a Crusader thread up soon I'll make one myself. It will be interesting to see what people have to say about it. Not tonight though. It's about time I headed off.

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Manchu: I agree with you fully on your declaration concerning both the Koran and the Book of Mormon. I constantly tell people that I have no doubt that both Mohammad and Joseph Smith saw and communicated with an angelic being of sorts, but I remind them that even Satan can masquerade as an angel of Light. St. Paul declares that it is not unlikely that someone will have visions, but he does assert that it is their responsibility to question the being and demand to know by what authority it speaks. I could not find in either account the questioning and testing of authority, and thus I find them to be lacking in any authority or power. Would you not agree with this idea?

To paraphrase scripture, this is an instance of by their fruits shall ye know them. A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a bad tree bring forth good fruit.

Not everyone would agree that the tree planted by Joseph Smith has borne good fruit, Relapse.

Manchu wrote:This is my honest opinion: One thing that Protestantism and Islam seem to have in common is their political origin.

Manchu, you had to go there didn't you?

I have been purposely trying to avoid this, as I was trying to present a united front. But I get the feeling that you don't believe any one outside the Roman Church is a Christian. At the very least you seem to have this contemp for protestantism. Are you a Priest, a Jesuit? I have never personally dealt with a member of the Church of Rome that was so militaristic?

I'm going to just say that the Roman Church has many problems of it's own, as there is no perfect instittution since there are no pefect men. But the major difference between the Roman Church and the reformed Church is a theological one, and not a political one. Yes, of course, theere were politics involved, especially with Henry VIII. However the reformation was in full swing by the time Henry VIII was king so it was convenient for him. This doesn't automatically discount the reformation because a few kings could see that chnage was coming and took advantage of it.

The bottom line, the Roman Church has to discount the Bible in much the same way as mormon,Jehovas witness's do because if you atcually rely on "sola scriptura" over "sola eclesia" then your whole system of theology breaks down. When you rely on the Bible as your source of truth, instead of a few people in Rome, you find out that there is a priest hood of all believers, and that Bishops are allowed to marry, and that Mary isn't a demigod, and that selling indulgences is heresy, and that puragtory is a false teaching, and that Holy communion is a symbol of Christ's body and blood not the actual body and blood(talk about literalism?).

But no, the Roman Church wants to hold onto it's tradition's and you(Manchu) seem to want to denegrate any body that disagrees with you.

GG

@GG:

I have already explained to you that the way the Church has operated for nearly two thousand years with regard to the Deposit of the Faith is that there are two equally important parts: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There is no "discounting" of the Bible. Actually, the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches (and some Lutheran communities) take the Bible so seriously that they do not like to see it twisted into any Joe-Off-The-Street's personal interpretation.

I do not believe that there is now or has ever been a Protestant exegete or theologian that can compete with the erudition of the thousands (and perhaps even millions) of brilliant minds that together have informed the development of Sacred Tradition. You yourself have cited one of the Church Fathers, Saint Irenaeus, at least twice in this thread. You also confess the Nicene Creed and yet nowhere in scripture will you find this formulation. That is because it was taught authoritatively by Catholic bishops in Council at Nicaea in 325 and not written down by any of the Evangelists or anywhere else in the New Testament.

I admit (have admitted to) a certain disdain of Protestantism. I am a Catholic, after all. I do think that Protestantism is at best a series of errors. I freely reassert that it is ridiculous on its face to believe that laymen have the ability to analyse and interpret a document like the Bible. I would not ask a layman to do this with the works of Plato. I would not ask a layman to do this with Imperial Chinese Legal Codes. Why should the Bible be any different? When Protestant scholars examine the Bible according to scientific principles of historical criticism, I pay attention. I do not agree with their conclusions insofar as they are theological but how can I disavow scientific findings? The answer is, I don't. I have no interest in non-scholarly opinions about the Bible, however, except to point out--when they are passed off as the truth about Christianity--that they are actually unfounded and in no way represent Christianity.

I also freely reassert that the Reformation seems as much if not more a political event than a theological one from all that I have studied (my Reformation History professor was a Lutheran pastor and most of my reading at that time and since was from texts by Protestant scholars. I have also read, of course, the writings of the major Reformers themselves). I do not deny that the Catholic Church has always been and continues to be a historical institution subject to contingency and conflict, the same as any other institution. I maintain that its origins are in no way political. Its origin is in the command of Christ, recorded in Sacred Scripture as consistently interpreted by two thousand years' of Tradition and consistently AND authoritatively taught from Peter down to Benedict XVI.

If you find that my faith denigrates you, I can make no other apology (explanation) than I already have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your description of Catholics thinking that Mary is some sort of a demi-god is a clear testament to anyone here with the slightest real understanding of Catholicism that you don't actually know the first thing about what you're criticizing.

Al of that can be summarized to this statement. I believe this or that because the Church of Rome said so.

That's fine and dandy, but when you start denigrating another Christian group because they disagree with you then you are showing the same kind of closemindedness that a "King James only" person would show.

I certainly believe the Roman Church has members that are in the body of Christ, the true catholic Church or universal Church. I also certainly believe that the Roman Church isn't the one and only Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is made up of Roman Church members,eastern orthodox members, and protestant members, yet not all members are true faith believers.

As I said, I happen to disagree with the Roman Church's theology because I think's it's rediculous to downplay a persons God given right to study scripture for themselves and use it as the measuring stick against any and all teaching. If you just rely on men to tell you what to believe and don't check what they say you are guilty of not being a good steward of God's word.

Anyway, I just wanted to give the other point of view, since you were really starting to usurp the conversation with protestant this and protestant that which was getting quite offensive. And I hope you view it as a gentle rebuke and not an attack.

GG

The Body of Christ includes all Christians. It also includes Jews, Mulsims, Buddhists, Mormons, atheists, and every one else. I have never claimed otherwise. I do not know of any God-given right for individuals to study or (more ominously) interpret Sacred Scripture for themselves. This seems extra-Biblical to me but I am not interested in trading verses with you as I see it as a completely invalid (and somewhat blasphemous) exercise.

The statement you "rebuked" was my reluctant answer to EF's direct question on this subject, not a sustained diatribe aimed at offending anyone or you particularly. I wonder if you saw the second part of that post in which, foreseeing exactly this sort of response, I included a certain quotation from Thomas Merton?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally, the Catholic Church is not "the Roman Church."

generalgrog wrote:
But no, the Roman Church wants to hold onto it's tradition's and you(Manchu) seem to want to denegrate any body that disagrees with you.

I disagree. As much as I'd like to, he's been pretty fair even to us 'heathens'. No organization likes to give up tradition.

That said, it does seem to me that all religions put their members as superior to outsiders. Maybe is human nature to need to segregate into us versus them.
Not accepting *any* religious book as an authority, I'm apparently defaulted out of his conversation. Atheists aren't special enough.

There's a difference in the comfort that religion provides than Atheism. With Religion one must accept the fantastic exists and is at some level is inscrutable. One must accept that some people are inherently superior to others and the cues to that specialness are undetectable by man. The powers that be however love and cherish its members so long as they abide by certain (in many cases) sensible rules.

That mankind can't *yet* understand certain things leaves room for wonder and exploration. Mankind is free to explore, learn, and use the universe around him to its own (hopefully responsible) ends. No one is inherently more special, and succeeds or fails on their own merits and a little bit of luck. Yet the universe ultimately doesn't really care about the individual and there is no promise of consciousness continuing on. There's some compelling arguments to never having to fully come to grips with the end of ones consciousness. Death is scary.

Consider for a moment though that in all our discussion of 'god' and all the variant appendices there have been few concessions on the possibility that any one (or all) of them could be wrong. About books crafted by a flawed creature, institutions crafted by a flawed creature, in reverence of a downright scary proposed being and its creations. The books cited so far require a superbeing that can only be seen by those who accept it exists, and whose beloved creations still are allowed to suffer and torment each other. Still its ok, because they don't follow the right interpretation.

As a technical professional I make charged electricity and pulses of light carry zeroes and ones from here to there. Many people think what I do is some sort of extra special skill. Everything I do on a daily basis is confirmable, repeatable, and subject to third party experimentation. There is no magic in how an electron or photon travel through a medium, no one source where I must turn to for answers, and no infinite argument about what technologies are acceptable or not. I can question and challenge any principle, insufficient evidence is subject to as much scrutiny as is practical, and nothing is more special excepting the importance I place on it. My failings are ultimately my own fault rather than the plan of some questionable superbeing or its opposite number.

Just to be clear, Oldgrue, Christianity does not teach that I am any better than you because I am a Christian. If you read Saint Augustine, you'll find him talking about how a non-Christian may well be better off than a Christian in terms of grace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:That mankind can't *yet* understand certain things leaves room for wonder and exploration. Mankind is free to explore, learn, and use the universe around him to its own (hopefully responsible) ends. No one is inherently more special, and succeeds or fails on their own merits and a little bit of luck.

If you can find room for the concept of grace in there (and not as a replacement for luck, either) then you and I will be on the same page here.

Oldgrue wrote:There's some compelling arguments to never having to fully come to grips with the end of ones consciousness. Death is scary.

In my experience, it doesn't become less scary in the light of faith.

Manchu wrote:Just to be clear, Oldgrue, Christianity does not teach that I am any better than you because I am a Christian. If you read Saint Augustine, you'll find him talking about how a non-Christian may well be better off than a Christian in terms of grace.

One interpretation of Christianity doesn't, how many others do? What about all the other faiths that run around claiming to be the one true way?
Augustine postulated but Fresnel demonstrated. There's no demonstrating - this is one way trip except possibly for some super special folks.

If you can find room for the concept of grace in there (and not as a replacement for luck, either) then you and I will be on the same page here.

That would require some people to be more special than others.

As to explaining other "interpretations," I'm not in the business of defending what I consider to be error. You'll have to ask the other Christians to defend their own beliefs.

Oldgrue wrote:That would require some people to be more special than others.

I don't see why.

My knowledge of the crusades isnt fantastic i must admit, it just goes back to history class in high school and a few fiction books i read on the subject, but i agree with Jeb there, at least two of the crusades were certainly brought on by muslim actions, and they werent ENTIRELY one way aggression from the Crusaders, even though the modern PC lot dont like to talk about it! (Kingdom of Heaven?!)

But either its true or Mr Willis my old History teacher is a liar!

Manchu wrote:As to explaining other "interpretations," I'm not in the business of defending what I consider to be error. You'll have to ask the other Christians to defend their own beliefs.

Fair.

As for grace - that requires partaking of divine favor. I need no sprinkling of water, schrodinger's bread, or reconcilliation with something i question exists. I certainly don't want to be the conduit for a supernatural being. Additionally, I've violated cannon 1398 at least in spirit (as I understand paying for is as bad as performing or participating) so I'm right out excepting the 'but maybe not' thanks to catechism paragraph 1861. So do I go to hell, or do I have to wait for the jury to come back on whether or not I'm special enough to get a forgivness I'm not convinced exists?

If a person wants to do the work exemplified by the positive example of their choice does it have to be divine? Do I have to be a conduit for jesus to not be a blight on society? Do I have to channel Eli Whitney to advance manufacturing, or George Washington Carver to turn low cost crops into profitable goods? Why does a superbeing have to get involved when there's no guarantee its blessing will have any impact at all? If grace exists it expresses as luck - which seems to be nondenominational.

Manchu wrote:Not everyone would agree that the tree planted by Joseph Smith has borne good fruit, Relapse.

Very true, but the same could be said of the Catholic church, though, and even of Christ. The source and reasoning has to be considered.

Gwar! wrote:

Clthomps wrote:That first video is about 7 minutes to long...

When you call a video that is 6:59 "seven minutes too long", you know it has to be awful!

I thought it was ten minutes too long.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:With regards to the Crusades for example, what actually annoys me is that Christians today are so very quick to denounce what (in those times) would have been VERY pious people, willing even to fight and die for their beliefs and the well-being of others (pilgrims)

It is mankind's ignorance that wills us to denounce those who fall short of our own standards. A much more informed look at the Crusades suggests that they were not all done with bad intentions and even provoked by Muslims themselves. I could teach whole seminars on the Crusades, and never grow weary of it.

I know. I love it as a piece of history, very interesting to say the least. (Though I would hesistate to say the the Muslims provoked the Crusades. You could be right in saying that at times the Crusaders could be downright bloodthirsty. But still, you cannot speak for all or even most them like that.

Christians can deny the Crusades because they werre clearly contrary to what the Bible teaches about Christian behaviour. Straight up in print.

Its nothing about 'our' standards but about the original standards. Please remember that the average medieval person couldnt read, and couldn't read the Bible anyway as it was only provided in Latin. Priests said what they wanted irrespective of the Biblical event. A number of persons of the times did protest Catherine of Sienna and Francis of Assissi protested the militancy of the church.


The Moslems did not provoke the Crusades, the First and Second Crusades were pure adventurism, subsequent Crusades worked on reaction and counter-reaction. Remember the Fall of Jerusalem, which provoked the Third Crusade, wasnt remotely as bloodthirsty as the Fall of Jerusalem at the highlight of the First Crusade.

Relapse wrote:
Very true, but the same could be said of the Catholic church, though, and even of Christ. The source and reasoning has to be considered.

This is where claims of universal authority based on historicity frequently run into trouble. Its all too easy to claim correct speech by reference to written tradition, while forgetting that its entirely possible to reject a given set of logically possible conclusions due to a lack of belief with respect to them.

I was actually just referring to the hijacking and repackaging of Christianity.

Manchu wrote:I was actually just referring to the hijacking and repackaging of Christianity.

You can't claim that something has been hijacked without presupposing some kind of correct purpose.

A term like "correct" is too broad for what you mean given that all that I have implied is a historical subversion of content from established orthodoxy to a usage that far transcends heterodoxy.

@Orlanth: The point I was making is that beliefs change over time. I myself was not aware that Christianity had a zero-tolerance for violence policy. After all, Jesus himself did drive the merchants from the temple screaming all sorts of hulabaloo and swinging (was it a knotted?) rope.

BTW, about your theory concerning the provocation of the Crusades. I'd like to hear that in detail, would you post in the 'Holy Wars' thread? ")

@Manchu:

So you simply meant to imply that Mormons are not Christian. That's fine, and many people would agree with you. My point is that Mormons no more hijacked Christian content, than Christians hijacked Jewish content.

Christians did hijack Jewish content. Hence the reaction at the time.

Eh?

*imagining Jesus hijaking a plane with the Star of David on the side*

Manchu wrote:Christians did hijack Jewish content. Hence the reaction at the time.

Not quite right. Please remember first generation Christianity was almost exclusively Jewish and its practitioners Jews. Peter had to be coersed into accepting Gentiles to begin with, also most of the3 leadership were initially averse to evengelising outside their own community.

Christianity was an extension of Judaism, the 'new improved version'. It teaches things not out of place to a Jew, except with the promises attained.

The major problems were that it removed the traditional powerbase from the rabbinic class and worse than that, from am orthodox Jewish perspective, it opened an exclusive religion to all. Please remember that in Christian teaching a Gentile Christian is an adopted Jew, a fact overlooked by the church and vehemently denied by the regular Jewish community.

Orlanth wrote:Please remember that in Christian teaching a Gentile Christian is an adopted Jew, a fact overlooked by the church and vehemently denied by the regular Jewish community.

Very interesting. I have some family that I had not known and just recently been introduced at a faimly reunion. It turns out, my great aunt married a Jewish man. There sons, were brought up Jewish. One of them has become a "Messianic Jew". I found it interesting when I used the term messianic Jew to the brother still practicing orthodox Judaism, that he did not like the term "messianic Jew". He prefered to just call his brother a Christian.

GG

Orthodox Jews have been known to hold funerals for Jews in the family who convert.

Orlanth wrote:Orthodox Jews have been known to hold funerals for Jews in the family who convert.

Strangely enough most faiths teach the principle of: "try not to be such a jerk". Not holding a funeral for a family member because they chose a different flavor of deity pretty much blows the doors off that principle. The willingness to justify holding faith as a reason to do so should be a cue to how little one should socialize with this person regardless of faith.

JEB and Manchu both vary wildly from my opinion on faith, yet I doubt any of us would deny the others' meriting a funeral were it possible. Even a short ceremony to pay respects and allow families to get a sense of closure so they can grieve. (I doubt the corpse has any opinion) To deny that to a family member seems to make a statement to a person's character beyond their faith.

Orlanth wrote:

Manchu wrote:Christians did hijack Jewish content. Hence the reaction at the time.

Not quite right. Please remember first generation Christianity was almost exclusively Jewish and its practitioners Jews. Peter had to be coersed into accepting Gentiles to begin with, also most of the3 leadership were initially averse to evengelising outside their own community.

Christianity was an extension of Judaism, the 'new improved version'. It teaches things not out of place to a Jew, except with the promises attained.

The major problems were that it removed the traditional powerbase from the rabbinic class and worse than that, from am orthodox Jewish perspective, it opened an exclusive religion to all. Please remember that in Christian teaching a Gentile Christian is an adopted Jew, a fact overlooked by the church and vehemently denied by the regular Jewish community.

I think it was the "go deep before you go wide" philosophy at work with the initial preaching to Jews before spreading out to the Gentiles.

Oldgrue wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Orthodox Jews have been known to hold funerals for Jews in the family who convert.

Strangely enough most faiths teach the principle of: "try not to be such a jerk". Not holding a funeral for a family member because they chose a different flavor of deity pretty much blows the doors off that principle. The willingness to justify holding faith as a reason to do so should be a cue to how little one should socialize with this person regardless of faith.

JEB and Manchu both vary wildly from my opinion on faith, yet I doubt any of us would deny the others' meriting a funeral were it possible. Even a short ceremony to pay respects and allow families to get a sense of closure so they can grieve. (I doubt the corpse has any opinion) To deny that to a family member seems to make a statement to a person's character beyond their faith.

Oldgrue, I think what orlanth was trying to say was that some orthodox Jews hold a funeral when "they find out" that one of their family is converted. I took it to mean, they do this funeral as a symbolic act to symbolize the person as being dead to them. Not deny a funeral to an actual dead person.

Corect me if i'm wrong orlanth.
GG

@Orlanth: No doubt that the first Christians and even Christians today see Jews as "behind the times." My point was that Christianity developed out of Judaism BUT IS NOT Judaism. I used the word hijacking to emphasize my agreement with dogma on the point that Mormonism developed out of Christianity BUT IS NOT Christianity.

@Oldgrue: Regarding funerals, you'd think so right? But do you remember that many ultra-conservative Catholics said that Ted Kennedy should have been refused Christian burial. That gak makes me sick.

@Relapse: I don't think we can dismiss the fundamental disagreement between Peter and Paul on the subject of the Gentiles nor underestimate the importance of Peter submitting to Paul. We Catholics are left with this question: we know who Peter is (the pope) but where is Paul?

He's with Mary.


I wonder if anyone will get that joke?

Ironhide wrote:I wonder if anyone will get that joke?

?

He's Not The Messiah!

He's a very Naughty Boy!

Seems like all the naughty boys get all the following though.

Anywhoo, wasn't Jesus considered Jewish himself?

Cryonicleech wrote:Seems like all the naughty boys get all the following though.

Anywhoo, wasn't Jesus considered Jewish himself?

...

Considered? That's like asking is The Pope of the Catholic Church "considered" Catholic!

Jebus was Jewish. He was also, more than likely, deeply tanned, ultra buff, hands as rough as glasspaper with short, black hair and dark eyes.

Oldgrue, I think what orlanth was trying to say was that some orthodox Jews hold a funeral when "they find out" that one of their family is converted. I took it to mean, they do this funeral as a symbolic act to symbolize the person as being dead to them. Not deny a funeral to an actual dead person.

On second reading, I can see that yet only slightly less a violation of the "try not to be jerks to each other"






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ironhide wrote:He's with Mary.

I would have gone 5th Beatle.

Gwar! wrote:Jebus was Jewish. He was also, more than likely, deeply tanned, ultra buff, hands as rough as glasspaper with short, black hair and dark eyes.

Why doe sseem like thae start of some very disturbing, heretical and tasteless slash fiction about Our (or at least My) Lord and Saviour?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Jebus was Jewish. He was also, more than likely, deeply tanned, ultra buff, hands as rough as glasspaper with short, black hair and dark eyes.

Why doe sseem like thae start of some very disturbing, heretical and tasteless slash fiction about Our (or at least My) Lord and Saviour?

No slashfic, I assure you.

Even the most orthodox of Christians agree that Joseph was a Carpenter, and Historical knowledge allows us to extrapolate that, being the Male Child of a Carpenter (regardless of his actual parentage, Joseph Raised him), he too would have been a carpenter. Historical knowledge also allows us to know that, during the time that Jesus of Nazareth was supposedly alive, carpentry involved a lot of backbreaking labour, more than likely outside in the Sun chopping down trees with herrings! (OK, a joke there, but you get what I am saying).

Thus, if Jesus WAS a real person (and I am of the opinion that he was, just not the mega magical Chuck Norris of Palestine that some make him out to be), he would have been very muscular, tanned and weathered.

Holy Cow stop the presses. The world just spun backwards a bit!

I actually agree with GWAR! on this.

I don't think what he said was heretical, maybe a bit crude, but I wasn't offended.

GG

Jesus being a carpenter is actually debated. The word used has been translated several different ways including: craftsmen (general labor), tool maker, and scholar.

I have ran into church's that have denied that Jesus was Jewish.

Of course I also know one that said that Jesus ministered while carrying a copy of the King James Bible. So there is always that.

Gwar! wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Jebus was Jewish. He was also, more than likely, deeply tanned, ultra buff, hands as rough as glasspaper with short, black hair and dark eyes.

Why doe sseem like thae start of some very disturbing, heretical and tasteless slash fiction about Our (or at least My) Lord and Saviour?

No slashfic, I assure you.

Even the most orthodox of Christians agree that Joseph was a Carpenter, and Historical knowledge allows us to extrapolate that, being the Male Child of a Carpenter (regardless of his actual parentage, Joseph Raised him), he too would have been a carpenter. Historical knowledge also allows us to know that, during the time that Jesus of Nazareth was supposedly alive, carpentry involved a lot of backbreaking labour, more than likely outside in the Sun chopping down trees with herrings! (OK, a joke there, but you get what I am saying).

Thus, if Jesus WAS a real person (and I am of the opinion that he was, just not the mega magical Chuck Norris of Palestine that some make him out to be), he would have been very muscular, tanned and weathered.

Pretty much. I'm actually more than a bit annoyed with the constant portrayals of him as a fair skinned, blue eye'd, brown haired, well groomed white male.

generalgrog wrote:

Oldgrue wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Orthodox Jews have been known to hold funerals for Jews in the family who convert.

Strangely enough most faiths teach the principle of: "try not to be such a jerk". Not holding a funeral for a family member because they chose a different flavor of deity pretty much blows the doors off that principle. The willingness to justify holding faith as a reason to do so should be a cue to how little one should socialize with this person regardless of faith.

JEB and Manchu both vary wildly from my opinion on faith, yet I doubt any of us would deny the others' meriting a funeral were it possible. Even a short ceremony to pay respects and allow families to get a sense of closure so they can grieve. (I doubt the corpse has any opinion) To deny that to a family member seems to make a statement to a person's character beyond their faith.

Oldgrue, I think what orlanth was trying to say was that some orthodox Jews hold a funeral when "they find out" that one of their family is converted. I took it to mean, they do this funeral as a symbolic act to symbolize the person as being dead to them. Not deny a funeral to an actual dead person.

Corect me if i'm wrong orlanth.
GG

This is precisely what I am saying. Remember Judaism is a network its not just a faith, its also an ethnic grouping and business network and a nationality, though not necessarily all at the same time in the same place. To convert is to dosavow yourself from this network in the eyes of many Jews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: No doubt that the first Christians and even Christians today see Jews as "behind the times." My point was that Christianity developed out of Judaism BUT IS NOT Judaism. I used the word hijacking to emphasize my agreement with dogma on the point that Mormonism developed out of Christianity BUT IS NOT Christianity.

Incorrect comparison. Christians can see Judaism as a true faith, just incomplete. The Incarnation of the Messiah leads to Chrstianity. However the job ends there. Judaism points to the coming of the Messach in its own scriptures, Christianity does not point to the coming of Joseph Smith in its won scriptures. In fact Jesus has some pretty choice words about presumed further extensions. I cannot immediately find the quote but it goes like:

"From now on those who come before you either appear in my name (Jesus) or come in the name of the evil one"

The New Testament specifically states there will be no new messiahs. Thus Islam cannot draw from the New Testament as a supporting document, the Islamic reaction to this is to assume that the New Testament is inaccurate and has been rewritten in the early Middle Ages.

Manchu wrote:
@Relapse: I don't think we can dismiss the fundamental disagreement between Peter and Paul on the subject of the Gentiles nor underestimate the importance of Peter submitting to Paul. We Catholics are left with this question: we know who Peter is (the pope) but where is Paul?

The collective Paul are those who go out and do mission. Your analogy is correct, the church must support the evangelist first of all, as the evangelist preaches to the lost. The evangelism first focus supported in scripture, it only becomes a problem if thats all you do. In Gods eyes someone who personally goes forth and saves souls is worth more in heaven than a leader such as and including the Pope.

This is precisely what I am saying. Remember Judaism is a network its not just a faith, its also an ethnic grouping and business network and a nationality, though not necessarily all at the same time in the same place. To convert is to disavow yourself from this network in the eyes of many Jews.

People prefer to do business with people with similar traits and cultural experience. We don't exactly see a lot of blue eyed blondes running a halal market for any of a number of reasons but to lump it all together as a function of 'Jewish' (or Islamic, what have you )is staggering. Oh, that swarthy dark haired fellow must be going into that bodega because he's Catholic rather than for the best pupusas in town. (mmm. pupusas...) Judaism is as much a business network as Catholicism, Islam, or other faiths - doing business within one's social circle.

Still its just justification of violating the 'jerk' tenet - If your Cousin/grandson/3rd nephew/neighbor decides that they want to pray to something else they haven't stopped being a person. As Manchu mentioned - Several Catholics thought along a similar line and were still just being jerks. People (as evidenced by a significant number of posts on Dakka) hardly need a reason to be jerks beyond that they can. Hiding behind a mythology to justify it just assuages guilt.

@Orlanth,

I hope you're not saying Mormons believe Joseph Smith is a Messiah.

Relapse wrote:@Orlanth,

I hope you're not saying Mormons believe Joseph Smith is a Messiah.

I was trying to avoid this subject.

Christians believe that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Nothing in the New or Old Testament gives us reason to believe the testimony of the angel Moroni is genuine, and warns us to consider suspect any further extensions to the Judeo-Christian religious base.

Now many Jews will consider that Christianity is nothing to do with Judaism, but they have to deny their own scriptures wholecloth to do so. At the very least Judaism points to a fulfillment with a coming Messiah. You could argue that isn't Jesus, conversely Christians can claim he is just by using Old Testament references a Jew would not deny as genuine scripture.

Admittedly Christianity does speak of future promises as Judaism does in what we call the Second Coming. The difference is that the Second Coming is clearly described, if anyone is in any doubt, it hasn't happened yet. The Second Coming leaves nothing open to faith, you don't need to believe it will happen, it will or it wont without any ambiguity. This is the only room for extension beyond Christianity in its current form, the only other way to make a new 'Christian' group is by different interpretation of existing scripture rather than the addition of new scripture. If Mormonism was based entirely on a new interpretation of existing books then it would be a denomination.

Christian Science is looked at in exactly the same way, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures has a similar doctrinal category as the Book of Mormon.

What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon, and what makes you think God would decide to stop talking to his children 2000 years ago?
Just to let you know, I have no hard feelings here, and have gained a lot of fondness for you, Manchu, and others through learning your ideas on this thread .

Relapse wrote:What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon

Revelation 22:18 wrote:I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Relapse wrote:What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon

Revelation 22:18 wrote:I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

This is the one that always gets quoted to me. What gets forgotten is the fact that the Bible is made up of a series of books, of which the book of Revelations is one. The Book of Mormon adds or takes nothing from Revelations.
The Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient records detailing God's work among the people of the Ancient Americas.

Relapse wrote:What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon, and what makes you think God would decide to stop talking to his children 2000 years ago?
Just to let you know, I have no hard feelings here, and have gained a lot of fondness for you, Manchu, and others through learning your ideas on this thread .

No hard feeling intended. We cannot be of different faiths and agree, only the multi faith dogma ridden will do that. Its an easy path, all very nicey nice but has no logical consistency or moral value.
You cannot believe in two or more 'one true faiths'.
I will take it as written you will consider my explanations regarding the balance of truth between Mormonism and Christianity 'wrong'. I can go with that.


What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon

Let me come back to you on that one. I know two good quotes by paraphrase, one I have already paraphreased in an above post but finding them in a bible is difficult as I dont know enough of the exact wording to pin down a reference. I will edit this post when I find them so read back, or I might instead/as well repost this entire post instead. Either way I wont make such a comment without backing it up. What I am looking for covers this:

Essentially Jesus is the FINAL revelation from God, all future divine messages come in His name or are false.

The only way around that is to assume the New Testament was incorrectly scribed or rewritten. Moslems beleive exactly that, they need to or the Prophet Isha (what Moslems call Jesus) will be in direct contrast to the Prophet Mohammed. Conversely reading the Old Testament, does not show any contradiction between the words of the prophets and Jesus and that is using the exact same text the Jews also use, given translation.

Thus a Christian can believe in Judaism as a precursor, but not in Islam. Mormonism is similar to Islam in that it adds an additional book, I dont know if Mormonism also considers the Koran as scripture, (I dont think you do) from a Christian perspective it wont matter either way.



and what makes you think God would decide to stop talking to his children 2000 years ago?

Albatross and others seem to think that, and put it to us that God didnt speak to this children even then, for one reason or another. Non-existence being the possibility some raise.
I cannot see where you get the idea I share that opinion.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Relapse wrote:What part of the bible talks against the Book of Mormon

Revelation 22:18 wrote:I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

This is the one that always gets quoted to me. What gets forgotten is the fact that the Bible is made up of a series of books, of which the book of Revelations is one. The Book of Mormon adds or takes nothing from Revelations.
The Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient records detailing God's work among the people of the Ancient Americas.

I concur with that answer because the commentary might refer just to the Book of Revelations. After all the canon of scripture was compiled afterwards

This is not one of the verses I am looking for.

Orlanth, you totally missed both of my points.

Manchu wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I wonder if anyone will get that joke?

?

Glad you got the reference. Would have made me feel real old if someone hadn't.

Manchu wrote:Orlanth, you totally missed both of my points.

Very likely, as I was adressing someone else.

What points exactly, then I wont miss them.

Orlanth wrote:
We cannot be of different faiths and agree, only the multi faith dogma ridden will do that. Its an easy path, all very nicey nice but has no logical consistency or moral value.
You cannot believe in two or more 'one true faiths'.
I will take it as written you will consider my explanations regarding the balance of truth between Mormonism and Christianity 'wrong'. I can go with that.




Let me come back to you on that one. I know two good quotes by paraphrase, one I have already paraphreased in an above post but finding them in a bible is difficult as I dont know enough of the exact wording to pin down a reference. I will edit this post when I find them so read back, or I might instead/as well repost this entire post instead. Either way I wont make such a comment without backing it up. What I am looking for covers this:

Essentially Jesus is the FINAL revelation from God, all future divine messages come in His name or are false.

The only way around that is to assume the New Testament was incorrectly scribed or rewritten. Moslems beleive exactly that, they need to or the Prophet Isha (what Moslems call Jesus) will be in direct contrast to the Prophet Mohammed. Conversely reading the Old Testament, does not show any contradiction between the words of the prophets and Jesus and that is using the exact same text the Jews also use, given translation.

Thus a Christian can believe in Judaism as a precursor, but not in Islam. Mormonism is similar to Islam in that it adds an additional book, I dont know if Mormonism also considers the Koran as scripture, (I dont think you do) from a Christian perspective it wont matter either way.



and what makes you think God would decide to stop talking to his children 2000 years ago?

Albatross and others seem to think that, and put it to us that God didnt speak to this children even then, for one reason or another. Non-existence being the possibility some raise.
I cannot see where you get the idea I share that opinion.

I'll have to start out by saying this has been one extremely interesting thread.

I should state again that Mormons are Christian. We believe Jesus to be the literal son of God and Messiah who paid for our sins that we may be saved. I'll repost the articles of faith of the LDS church here:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.


2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.


3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.


4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.


5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.


6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.


7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.


8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.


11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.


13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

I think you'll see that a lot of what I quoted from you is addressed in the articles. If you want, I can go over them in more detail with you, and probably might anyway.
Instead of debating who has the correct religion, I just decided to let you know what we believe, and I'm extremely interested in your beliefs.