Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thank you, Mr. Inappropriate Post.

(On a side note in the same vein, I'd love to play a Final Fantasy that doesn't have a blatantly-in-denial homosexual as the main hero. I don't have a problem with gay people; I just prefer not to have them as my avatar.)

I started this thread, whippersnapper! I'll go meta-off-off-topic if I want.

You've also insulted Japanese culture with your insensitive comment, not to mention Zanarkandian.

Inappropriate?

Inappropriate? Yes, it has gone beyond that. Please don't destroy a decent discussion, after all we have done well to have got so far on such an issue without trolling. It would be a shame if it deteriorated now over something so trivial.

Starting a topic does not indicate ownership of it, this thread belongs to the Dakka community, not to me or you.

Incidentally did people see this news story ?

Be intrigued to see what the fundamentalists say about this.

What's their position on the Apocrypha anyway ?

I've read some of the "misssing" books, the ones where Jesus as a baby is like a mini "Look who's talking" is pretty wacky. The bit in Thomas where he kills the boy he gets in a fight with is... interesting.

Nothing new, every even month somebody is "discovering" the lost and forbiden gospel of Rintintin. Most are forgeries made in the early times of Christianity to gather support towards the agendas of the various power groups, the rest are a bunch of stories, gospels and proto-evangeliums so confusing (and quite a few badly written to boot) that the official line of the Vatican is that they are not the word of God because there is no way to find the slightest connection with the real Jesus Christ and his times in them.

So please forget the Dan Brown´s of the world and the hidden conspirations of the Vatican to snuff the "true" evangeliums. All this stuff has been studied by the main Christian Churches and dissmised years ago, of course any dead end fundamentalist in the middle of the New Mexico desert might praise them as the true word of God but these guys tend to decry the Pope as the Harlot from Babylon that will bring the Apocalypse (working on it since AD 1000) any day now.

M.

PS: Orlanth, I can´t but praise you for your measured responses, as a Catholic I´m tired of hearing how my religion is the punching bag for the "progresives" source of all kind of evils meanwhile more militant or misunderstood faiths get a free pass on everything. Sometimes I can´t be as generous as you with these type of people.

Orlanth wrote:
Are you so sure that is just random. So very very sure?

Look at how from our perspective the sun and the moon are almost exactly the same 'size'. Extreme coincidence possibly, I doubt that phenomena would be commonplace on inhabitable planets. Random happenstance, or was it meant to be that way. Can you be so very very on your surity? Could you say why?

First, I do not think our world is completly random. While genetic mutation might be random (Or perhaps even not, as cosmic rays do alter genetic structure..), once you have replicators natural selection takes over. Evolution and natural selection is most decidely not random. If you doubt this, flip on Discovery and watch gazelle run from a pride of lions.....or read about resistant bacteria and how they achieve their resistance.

If you are talking on a cosmological level, I too would agree the chances of a 'green' zone planet being very rare. Perhaps 1 in 40 million! This seems like an impassable number, as our human brains have problems rationalizing such a large digit, but when you look at the billions of imploding stars, the countless planets we can see (and billions we cannot)...it is not very difficult to see that the universe could very well be teeming with life. To give a glimpse into those numbers with something we can more easily understand...let us say the chances of developing a cell wall from amino acid chains was 1 in 120 million. Big number right? That's the same odds of winning the poor people tax (state lottery). People seem to win quite often regardless of those odds though...

Orlanth wrote:
I thought you would latch onto that.
Atheism is a religion.
A belief in no God is no less or more blind or irrational than anyones faith in one, or a pantheon of them.
Do not make the mistake that you are in a better position by scepticism. Untimately it is a heart choice to chose to beleive there is no God.
Like you and I agree, there is no proof either way. So there is just faith.
Where does your irrationality take you?
Where does your religion take you?

We can only steer away from absolute decrees of standing (as we both in farness to the other have done so here. And we can agree not to let our own dogmas, yours and mine both not to lead us to 'evil'. Beyond that faith is faith, while one of the other of us (or niether could be right or wrong, it would be arrogant to claim so definatively now. we can only declare what we beleive, adn if that beleif touches our lives in a positive way.

Surely I would respond to that, as it's absolutely false. Definition of religion;

A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.

Explain to me how that applies to atheism. Regardless, in my original post I made quite clear I was not definitely stating "There is no God". I cannot prove this statement. However, I can say that given evidence the probability of God is on par with Santa Claus. If evidence presents itself, I would change my mind. I don't mind being called an atheist however, as for all intents and purposes I am.

Orlanth wrote:
I hear this one thrown about a lot. Dawkins likes to head his chapters with quotes like that accusing relgion of so much bloodshed. The one I remember from his book is "Politics has killed its thousands, but religion its tens of thousands". If this means nothing to you, it is a paraphrase from a 'poem' in the book of Chronicles replacing the words Saul and David with Politics and Religion respectively.

The religion of atheism is by no means innocent or excluded from this truth. Many many atrocities stems from a blind faith in no-God. This included the atrocties under Hitler and Stalin, both the Soviets and the Nazis had a very strong atheist dogma, and were far more bloody with it than any religious group we could name before or since.


Revalations 12:11 says "And they overcame (him) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony...". This refers to the ongoing struggle against evil, 'him' being the devil. The first part refers to an 'internal matter' regarding acceptance of salvation. While crucially importanht to me I will leave this out here as you might not beleive in it. I instead wish to point you to the second part of the verse which refers to the testimony of a be.leiver which is only valid if the person is worthwhile listening too. i.e. is of positive character. The Bible puts good store on the importance of how faith changes lives for the better as a pointer to God.
This of course goes both ways, and transparently unholy people professing to mbe members of faith effect the credibility of that faith. Christians have noone else to blame if the rest of the world does not believe that same way we do, and in that respect your comment against the character of relgion is valid.

Sure, show me one mass genocide that was done in the name of atheism.

This is where we are having the disconnect. You seem to think atheism is a moral code in which we live by. It is not. Atheists may be good guys, athiests may be bad guys. Atheists may be Rand followers or they may be secular humanists.

As to your examples, I hear Hannity and other talking heads spout this quite often. It is not black/white if Hitler was religious...but regardless of what he internally believed he certainly used the church to further his cause. Here is a page with various references on Hitlers christianity;

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

This is also partly why I used the term dogma in my previous posts. Blind belief in anything without evidence is bad...this is why I stated earlier faith is not a virtue. It doesn't matter if it's belief in a sky wizard, belief in 'Dear Leader' or belief in the tooth fairy; we should all demand evidence for such extraordinary claims.

Cheers

reds8n wrote: Incidentally did people see this news story ?

Be intrigued to see what the fundamentalists say about this.

What's their position on the Apocrypha anyway ?

I've read some of the "misssing" books, the ones where Jesus as a baby is like a mini "Look who's talking" is pretty wacky. The bit in Thomas where he kills the boy he gets in a fight with is... interesting.

If you enjoy reading on the subject, I would humbly suggest;



Fascinating read

Miguelsan wrote:Nothing new,

... err. yes it is new. Oldest version found yet. If anything has been altered or changed it's after these drafts were written.

every even month somebody is "discovering" the lost and forbidden gospel of Rintintin. Most are forgeries made in the early times of Christianity to gather support towards the agendas of the various power groups, the rest are a bunch of stories, gospels and proto-evangeliums so confusing (and quite a few badly written to boot)

And your proof that they are forgeries and what we've got is the truth is.... what ? The Vatican says so ?

Assembled to garner support for a power group ? Confusing and badly written ? You mean a bit like the Bible itself then ? Altered and changed throughout the centuries at the behest of various groups.

that the official line of the Vatican is that they are not the word of God because there is no way to find the slightest connection with the real Jesus Christ and his times in them.

So please forget the Dan Brown´s of the world and the hidden conspirations of the Vatican to snuff the "true" evangeliums. All this stuff has been studied by the main Christian Churches and dissmised years ago, of course any dead end fundamentalist in the middle of the New Mexico desert might praise them as the true word of God but these guys tend to decry the Pope as the Harlot from Babylon that will bring the Apocalypse (working on it since AD 1000) any day now.

Nothing to do with Dan Brown, not a fan of his at all.

The fact that inconvenient texts have been dismissed as unhelpful in supporting the entrenched powers that be is no defense either. There's loads of very learned historians and theologians who don't dismiss all of the texts out of hand at all. The Dead Sea scrolls and similar have and are providing some real insights into the formation of Judaeo-Christian literature and thought.


Mr. AgeofEgos : ta, will do. I think I saw him on the Daily Show wierdly enough and meant to check his book out at the time. Thanks again.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Surely I would respond to that, as it's absolutely false. Definition of religion;

A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.

Explain to me how that applies to atheism. Regardless, in my original post I made quite clear I was not definitely stating "There is no God". I cannot prove this statement. However, I can say that given evidence the probability of God is on par with Santa Claus. If evidence presents itself, I would change my mind. I don't mind being called an atheist however, as for all intents and purposes I am.

Claiming to the absence of a God is still a claim about the supernatural. And believing in the absence of a God certainly leads to moral claims about reality. Indeed, Dawkins frequently reminds us of that in his speed to judge the actions of religious icons (and certainly others as well) as reprehensible. As far being built around a codified process; scientific method pretty well covers that, even if it isn't purely the domain of Atheists (though many claim it to be).

Now for a bit of a personal tangent. The vast majority of work carried out in recent years pertaining to the veracity of religion has centered around biological argumentation. I understand that this is motivated primarily by a desire to oppose the myriad Intelligent Design theorists around the globe, but to my mind the entire debate is foolish. Biology, like any other science, is essentially about the development of a model so that one might predict the result of his actions. A model which does not have empirically logical grounding in reality. The assumption that most Atheists make, as the foundation of their faith, is that science discovers the 'real'. This is something which is completely metaphysical; articulately separate from any part of scientific method. What this means, apart from putting a whole in the sanctity of 'unbelief', is that ANY conceivable metaphysical system could be attached to science and prove justifiable. At least so long as that metaphysical system allowed for the predictive power of the scientific model (a belief in miracles is not problematic here).

This last bit is something which most ID people do not do. They attempt to make alterations to the model in order to prove that their metaphysical project is correct. Of course this is foolish. Metaphysics are what they are by virtue of their unfalsifiability (at least given our current level of understanding). But then again, maybe it isn't so foolish. Science progresses by testing hypotheses developed through almost purely unscientific means. By this definition what the ID movement does is science, maybe bad science, but certainly science. However, it would be a mistake to presume that the most aggressive ID people are somehow representative of the entire religious community. Indeed, simply disproving the narrow conception of ID that is popular today does not disprove the idea as a whole.

So God isn't apparent in our relatively macroscopic view of the world. That's not problematic. Do you really think the actions of a pluralistic Omni-Being would be so easy to detect? Moreover, even if we could detect them, there is no reason to believe that we could perceive them for what they were. Though that is, admittedly, what ID Christian Fundamentalists claim.

So the Interventionist Christians are likely wrong. That isn't news. However, it is a mistake to generalize their mistaken cosmology onto the whole of religion. You claimed that Natural Selection isn't random, and of that you are correct. But there certainly are events in Earth's history which cannot be categorized in any other way. The chemical origination of life is one such event. The location of the Earth in the Green Zone is another. Of course we can play this game at even deeper levels. Why is the weak force as strong as it is? Why is the gravitational constant what it is? Why does it appear that the Universe is ultimately governed by probability? Indeed, if the Universe is ultimately governed by probability one can make a convincing case for its inherent randomness. And if the Universe can be random, then it can be intelligent. After all, a sufficiently complex mind is fully indistinguishable from a sufficiently random enterprise.

dogma wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Surely I would respond to that, as it's absolutely false. Definition of religion;

A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.

Explain to me how that applies to atheism. Regardless, in my original post I made quite clear I was not definitely stating "There is no God". I cannot prove this statement. However, I can say that given evidence the probability of God is on par with Santa Claus. If evidence presents itself, I would change my mind. I don't mind being called an atheist however, as for all intents and purposes I am.

Claiming to the absence of a God is still a claim about the supernatural. And believing in the absence of a God certainly leads to moral claims about reality. Indeed, Dawkins frequently reminds us of that in his speed to judge the actions of religious icons (and certainly others as well) as reprehensible. As far being built around a codified process; scientific method pretty well covers that, even if it isn't purely the domain of Atheists (though many claim it to be).

Now for a bit of a personal tangent. The vast majority of work carried out in recent years pertaining to the veracity of religion has centered around biological argumentation. I understand that this is motivated primarily by a desire to oppose the myriad Intelligent Design theorists around the globe, but to my mind the entire debate is foolish. Biology, like any other science, is essentially about the development of a model so that one might predict the result of his actions. A model which does not have empirically logical grounding in reality. The assumption that most Atheists make, as the foundation of their faith, is that science discovers the 'real'. This is something which is completely metaphysical; articulately separate from any part of scientific method. What this means, apart from putting a whole in the sanctity of 'unbelief', is that ANY conceivable metaphysical system could be attached to science and prove justifiable. At least so long as that metaphysical system allowed for the predictive power of the scientific model (a belief in miracles is not problematic here).

This last bit is something which most ID people do not do. They attempt to make alterations to the model in order to prove that their metaphysical project is correct. Of course this is foolish. Metaphysics are what they are by virtue of their unfalsifiability (at least given our current level of understanding). But then again, maybe it isn't so foolish. Science progresses by testing hypotheses developed through almost purely unscientific means. By this definition what the ID movement does is science, maybe bad science, but certainly science. However, it would be a mistake to presume that the most aggressive ID people are somehow representative of the entire religious community. Indeed, simply disproving the narrow conception of ID that is popular today does not disprove the idea as a whole.

So God isn't apparent in our relatively macroscopic view of the world. That's not problematic. Do you really think the actions of a pluralistic Omni-Being would be so easy to detect? Moreover, even if we could detect them, there is no reason to believe that we could perceive them for what they were. Though that is, admittedly, what ID Christian Fundamentalists claim.

So the Interventionist Christians are likely wrong. That isn't news. However, it is a mistake to generalize their mistaken cosmology onto the whole of religion. You claimed that Natural Selection isn't random, and of that you are correct. But there certainly are events in Earth's history which cannot be categorized in any other way. The chemical origination of life is one such event. The location of the Earth in the Green Zone is another. Of course we can play this game at even deeper levels. Why is the weak force as strong as it is? Why is the gravitational constant what it is? Why does it appear that the Universe is ultimately governed by probability? Indeed, if the Universe is ultimately governed by probability one can make a convincing case for its inherent randomness. And if the Universe can be random, then it can be intelligent. After all, a sufficiently complex mind is fully indistinguishable from a sufficiently random enterprise.

Hey Dogma,

I would fundamentally disagree that my lack of belief in a Supernatural power is a belief. I suppose this is due to how we each personally view Atheism. To me, atheism is not a belief that there is no God—it is the absence of belief in God. I make no claim nor try to prove a negative in my atheism, I simply state current evidence shows no reason for the belief. Atheism is not a 100% claim of certainty concerning God.

As to your self-described tangent , I will make no argument against the metaphysical stance...as it allows no room for rational discussion. As an example, I could state that there really is 4 Chaos Gods whom created the Universe, but unlike the books they do not intervene in human affairs. They set necessary physic dials and let the show run. You cannot detect them or examine them as they exist only in the metaphysical. That's nice, can't be argued against...but who is going to listen ?

I get the very strong sense you are making an argument for deism, as it seems we both agree theism is a dead end. However, even deist make real world claims that can (or may in the future) be tested. Occams razor applies here, as well as the anthropic principle. It is possible there is a supernatural being that set the dials and created this singular universe just for us. However, the question is probability. Given our knowledge of the 'billions of billions' of stars (to quote one of my childhood heroes), the chemical attraction we witness, the material we examine emerging from stars...what is more probable?

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Hey Dogma,

I would fundamentally disagree that my lack of belief in a Supernatural power is a belief. I suppose this is due to how we each personally view Atheism. To me, atheism is not a belief that there is no God—it is the absence of belief in God. I make no claim nor try to prove a negative in my atheism, I simply state current evidence shows no reason for the belief. Atheism is not a 100% claim of certainty concerning God.

As to your self-described tangent , I will make no argument against the metaphysical stance...as it allows no room for rational discussion. As an example, I could state that there really is 4 Chaos Gods whom created the Universe, but unlike the books they do not intervene in human affairs. They set necessary physic dials and let the show run. You cannot detect them or examine them as they exist only in the metaphysical. That's nice, can't be argued against...but who is going to listen ?

I get the very strong sense you are making an argument for deism, as it seems we both agree theism is a dead end. However, even deist make real world claims that can (or may in the future) be tested. Occams razor applies here, as well as the anthropic principle. It is possible there is a supernatural being that set the dials and created this singular universe just for us. However, the question is probability. Given our knowledge of the 'billions of billions' of stars (to quote one of my childhood heroes), the chemical attraction we witness, the material we examine emerging from stars...what is more probable?

See, that type of Atheism is disingenuous. It co-opts the uncertainty of agnosticism into the weighted probabilities of the Dawkins-Dennett Bright movement. Probabilities which are only determined through the dubious application of indirect evidence levied against the whole of religion based upon the tenets of a single faith. It's like admitting you could be wrong, then saying that the probability of that incorrectness is so small as to be inconsequential. Nothing but a nice bit of double-speak.

As for Chaos God argument. You miss the point. 4 non-interventionist Chaos Gods (or even interventionist ones) are fundamentally indistinguishable from the forces of chance. The only distinction is one of narrative weight, and it is narrative weight which people listen to.

See, I don't agree that theism is a dead end. The argument against an interventionist God is that his intervention should be detectable via scientific process. That supposition violates the very definition of the miraculous. Moreover, it presumes that intentionality and meaning are somehow the domain of the modern physical sciences; something which is patently untrue.

In any case, you have latched on to the probability argument. The problem with that argument is that the 'probability of God' is something which you could only ever determine through secondary sources; even Dawkins acknowledges that there is no direct evidence for or against any deity. As such, any weight you ascribe to your evidence is essentially derived from its connection to a larger project of assumptions. This is identical to the formulation of a hypothesis. The only difference being that your hypothesis about the non-existence of God can never be tested. It is therefore unfalsifiable and equivalent to any positive supposition concerning God's existence.

The point of all this is that there is no evidence towards the confirmation or denial of a God, and there won't be in at least the foreseeable future. As such, any statement about the likelihood of his existence is aesthetically, not scientifically, motivated.

dogma wrote:
See, that type of Atheism is disingenuous. It co-opts the uncertainty of agnosticism into the weighted probabilities of the Dawkins-Dennett Bright movement. Probabilities which are only determined through the dubious application of indirect evidence levied against the whole of religion based upon the tenets of a single faith. It's like admitting you could be wrong, then saying that the probability of that incorrectness is so small as to be inconsequential. Nothing but a nice bit of double-speak.

As for Chaos God argument. You miss the point. 4 non-interventionist Chaos Gods (or even interventionist ones) are fundamentally indistinguishable from the forces of chance. The only distinction is one of narrative weight, and it is narrative weight which people listen to.

See, I don't agree that theism is a dead end. The argument against an interventionist God is that his intervention should be detectable via scientific process. That supposition violates the very definition of the miraculous. Moreover, it presumes that intentionality and meaning are somehow the domain of the modern physical sciences; something which is patently untrue.

In any case, you have latched on to the probability argument. The problem with that argument is that the 'probability of God' is something which you could only ever determine through secondary sources; even Dawkins acknowledges that there is no direct evidence for or against any deity. As such, any weight you ascribe to your evidence is essentially derived from its connection to a larger project of assumptions. This is identical to the formulation of a hypothesis. The only difference being that your hypothesis about the non-existence of God can never be tested. It is therefore unfalsifiable and equivalent to any positive supposition concerning God's existence.

The point of all this is that there is no evidence towards the confirmation or denial of a God, and there won't be in at least the foreseeable future. As such, any statement about the likelihood of his existence is aesthetically, not scientifically, motivated.

I see nothing disingenuous about the probability argument other than the dismissive nature of your metaphysical stance. In which case, I'll be honest...I don't concern myself with such metaphysical nonsense. However, I get the very strong sense you are slowly introducing the ontological argument. Concerning that, I could easily state that since it is possible God does not exist and God is not a contingent being (Either possible/necessary)....it's not possible that God exists. So, God does not exist. Or; God is the greatest conceptual thing, however existence of two Gods would be better than one. This loops.

Regardless, I will not travel down the abyss of the ontological on a gaming site . Kant has done a better job of dismissing that argument than I could ever hope to. I do not consider it an argument and I feel as we learn more in the neuro-science field, it will gradually fade.

Cheers

AgeOfEgos wrote:

I see nothing disingenuous about the probability argument other than the dismissive nature of your metaphysical stance. In which case, I'll be honest...I don't concern myself with such metaphysical nonsense. However, I get the very strong sense you are slowly introducing the ontological argument. Concerning that, I could easily state that since it is possible God does not exist and God is not a contingent being (Either possible/necessary)....it's not possible that God exists. So, God does not exist. Or; God is the greatest conceptual thing, however existence of two Gods would be better than one. This loops.

Regardless, I will not travel down the abyss of the ontological on a gaming site . Kant has done a better job of dismissing that argument than I could ever hope to. I do not consider it an argument and I feel as we learn more in the neuro-science field, it will gradually fade.

Cheers

You're missing my point. I am not arguing for the existence of God. Indeed, I agree that the Ontological argument is utter nonsense (though I feel similarly about Kant). I am arguing against the notion that we have any evidence regarding God's existence. To me metaphysical questions are simple matters of aesthetics, and dealing in the existence of God (even by attempting to prove his absence) is necessarily metaphysical. You claim not to deal in such matters, but the second you make the conceptual leap from schizophrenic evidence scattered though biological, physical, and cosmological disciplines you are constructing a metaphysical argument.

dogma wrote:
You're missing my point. I am not arguing for the existence of God. Indeed, I agree that the Ontological argument is utter nonsense (though I feel similarly about Kant). I am arguing against the notion that we have any evidence regarding God's existence. To me metaphysical questions are simple matters of aesthetics, and dealing in the existence of God (even by attempting to prove his absence) is necessarily metaphysical. You claim not to deal in such matters, but the second you make the conceptual leap from schizophrenic evidence scattered though biological, physical, and cosmological disciplines you are constructing a metaphysical argument.

I agree with you that we don't have any evidence that proves/disproves God. I think we keep muddying the waters on my stance and this could be due to my inability to communicate my thoughts into text.

I do not have a belief in Gods absence, I have an absence of belief in God. When I speak in terms of biological and cosmological terms, it is a direct refute of this being proof of Gods existence. If someone states 'Look at how complex the human body is, surely this is not simple chance', I am justified in applying Occams Razor and giving theory on a more plausible explanation. I do not offer this explanation as proof of Gods inexistence....but simply point out that it does not prove God.

Cheers

*Edit* Thanks for this discussion. I say that with total sincerity.

reds8n wrote:

Miguelsan wrote:Nothing new,

... err. yes it is new. Oldest version found yet. If anything has been altered or changed it's after these drafts were written.

I find difficult to understand how something discovered in the XIX century, preserved in the Russian National Library for years, sold to the British Museum for £100,000 in 1933 by the Soviet Union is new and definitive as presented in the article, it´s an old and known document that it´s being digitised and even that work started 4 years ago!.
From the article: But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.
Perhaps you skimmed through the article too fast to read that they are talking about the possibility of this text being the oldest, not the certanty. Anyway for further information check the codex sinaiticus at the wiki.

every even month somebody is "discovering" the lost and forbidden gospel of Rintintin. Most are forgeries made in the early times of Christianity to gather support towards the agendas of the various power groups, the rest are a bunch of stories, gospels and proto-evangeliums so confusing (and quite a few badly written to boot)

And your proof that they are forgeries and what we've got is the truth is.... what ? The Vatican says so ?

Assembled to garner support for a power group ? Confusing and badly written ? You mean a bit like the Bible itself then ? Altered and changed throughout the centuries at the behest of various groups.

Yes, because the Vatican says so but not on a theological level but on an historical level. The 4th and 5th centuries (when this text was suposely written) was rife with schisms and splinter groups from the early Christianity. St Agustine, records in one of his late works more than one hundred schisms from the teachings of Rome. So perhaps the Donatist, Nestorians or Novatianist (e.g. of three of the biggest power groups in their times) had some interest in writting their on Gospels to regulate their teachings. And the current Bible (Catholic) received the imprimatur from the Pope in 1943 meaning that the scholars from the Vatican had gone over 5,300 greek, 10,000 latin manuscripts plus thousand others in different languages to check the faithfulness of the Bible with its origins. So that one greek manuscript in the article doesn´t seem to be so important then

So please forget the Dan Brown´s of the world and the hidden conspirations of the Vatican to snuff the "true" evangeliums. All this stuff has been studied by the main Christian Churches and dissmised years ago, of course any dead end fundamentalist in the middle of the New Mexico desert might praise them as the true word of God but these guys tend to decry the Pope as the Harlot from Babylon that will bring the Apocalypse (working on it since AD 1000) any day now.

Nothing to do with Dan Brown, not a fan of his at all.

Good for you.

The fact that inconvenient texts have been dismissed as unhelpful in supporting the entrenched powers that be is no defense either. There's loads of very learned historians and theologians who don't dismiss all of the texts out of hand at all. The Dead Sea scrolls and similar have and are providing some real insights into the formation of Judaeo-Christian literature and thought.

(italics mine)

I don´t get the first part of your answer, why they are inconvenient?, the Vatican belives in God and articulates its faith on a set of foundations (the Bible and tradition), to support this foundations succesive Vatican scholars chose the most significant text from antiquity. That doesn´t mean that others can not disagree and as you pointed most of the other texts are insights in the formation, useful to undertand Christianity but quite different than being the genesis of the Bible.

M.

Orlanth wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, the Pope has now officially abolished Purgatory...so how long until they decide the game is up and admit all this God stuff is just made up?

Admit? A bit loaded that isn't it. Perhaps they beleive God is real, I do.

For that matter I met a man who came back from the morgue after being 8 hours dead, he knows what he saw is real. So faith is not so hard for me anymore.

Besides Popes do not have an authority to 'abolish Purgatory' they cane decide not to preach it anymore, but if it is real it hasnt suddenly disappeared, which is what you are implying. Purgatory is unscriptural though and is a medieval add on. There is just a heaven and a hell, or to be really picky three 'heavens' and two 'hells'.

I dream of the day when the pope screams out 'APRIL FOOLS' on national TV.

Miguelsan wrote:
I don´t get the first part of your answer, why they are inconvenient?, the Vatican belives in God and articulates its faith on a set of foundations (the Bible and tradition), to support this foundations succesive Vatican scholars chose the most significant text from antiquity. That doesn´t mean that others can not disagree and as you pointed most of the other texts are insights in the formation, useful to undertand Christianity but quite different than being the genesis of the Bible.

M.

You don't see why the earliest documents making no reference to elements like the resurrection is inconvenient ( to say the least) for religious authorities ? Really ? Power to you then.

And yes lots of texts. many of which they already disregard and the rest possibly erroneous in nature with regards to their content. Been quite a few dsicoveries since 1943 I think you'll find, but why let them matter right ? After all this isn't really important.

It's impossible to separate the development of the early Christian movement from the Genesis of the Bible, the two are completely intertwined.

Migualsan

I completely agree with you over the 'lost scriptures'. They are nothing new, they are just touted as such.

As far as rewritten scripture are concerned it is a mistaken phenomena. If to take the example you find copies of the 'book of Mark' without twelve verses relating to the resurrection, it doesnt mean these are originals with the ressurrection invented and added on later, it is very hard to date absolute origins of older documents, however there is a commonality through the Gospel accounts.

There is a however far simpler and easy to see reason that can be observed today.

The crucifixion of Jesus and his historicity while challenged by some are not in themselves spiritually contraversial acts, it is the resurrection that is key. Just as none can proclaim Jesus is Lord except by the spirit of God (1 Corinthians 13:3 also crossreference Romans 10:8-12 my favourite verses in the Bible0; so there is a resistance amongst some to accept the resurrection, or to let it pass their lips.

Jesus is a commonly used swear word, the crucifixion is a joke, but the resurrection is not. It has a different dynamic, those who would profane the name above all names normally have a spiritual dynamic added to their actions, wittingly or not. You will notice even the shock comics, including those who would normally have no problems with causing offense on religious topics, they too are silent on this. Look around and you will notice the difference here. It is an uncomfortable tropic left alone, unless to just flatly deny or proclaim.

The denial of the resurrection is the lynchpin of unbelief. So if you were a cleric who joined up because of the free food and clothing and to escape your overlords (a good enough reason to join back then) but you did not believe, what verses would you 'carelessly' omit?

Miguelsan wrote:
Orlanth, I can´t but praise you for your measured responses, as a Catholic I´m tired of hearing .....

Cool move, nice trick to rid the forum of me

Howe does it go....:

Orlanth accepts your praise.
God gets jealous
God gets wrathful
Orlanth is consumed by worms
Orlanth dies and is not happy.

double post, sorry

Orlanth wrote:The crucifixion of Jesus and his historicity while challenged by some are not in themselves spiritually contraversial acts, it is the resurrection that is key. Just as none can proclaim Jesus is Lord except by the spirit of God (1 Corinthians 13:3 also crossreference Romans 10:8-12 my favourite verses in the Bible0; so there is a resistance amongst some to accept the resurrection, or to let it pass their lips.

Jesus is a commonly used swear word, the crucifixion is a joke, but the resurrection is not. It has a different dynamic, those who would profane the name above all names normally have a spiritual dynamic added to their actions, wittingly or not. You will notice even the shock comics, including those who would normally have no problems with causing offense on religious topics, they too are silent on this. Look around and you will notice the difference here. It is an uncomfortable tropic left alone, unless to just flatly deny or proclaim.

Actually... there being a sound enough bloke who we refer to as Jesus who had some interesting things to say about life, death etc and he was crucified I don't have any problem accepting as a historical fact. From memory thee are even Roman scholars who mention the movement around the time. But they don't mention the resurrection and this is the bit I and many others don't believe in.

And as to the joke thing... srsly ?11... I've seen at least a dozen or so sigs to do with "3 days and experiencing lag" or some such. Basic politeness when in certain company/situations aside me and my social circle wouldn't think twice about joking about it.

... that said we are all godless heathens on our well to hell so we've nothing to lose really...


And no, they're not new, that's kind of the point. It's similar to when they claimed that Moses and the Israelites travelled through the parted Red sea when it seems much more likely that this was a translation error and was in fact the Sea of Reeds.

Well, I've read this entire overblown and long-winded thread, and now I will add my brief responses.
First, most people don't have a deep religious education because they just don't have the time and energy to sit and pore through so much dry literature.
Second, what seems perfectly rational for one person might seem like complete madness for another. This is the sort of argument that cannot be won.
Third, If the people who claim that their version of their chosen religion is so superior to that of the fanatics and fundamentalists want to seperate themselves from the nutcases, they should do something about them.
Fourth, Is is not possible that what we now refer to as supernatural or miraculous will eventually be explained by science, but we simply don't know how to do it yet?
Finally, I don't know the exact percentage, but certainly a significant number of people are going to do whatever they are going to do, for good or for evil, and the presence or absence of religious devotion should not be the meter by which they are judged, rather the effect on the people around them. It doesn't matter whether someone murders in the name of god or to spite him. It's still murder. Charity performed by someone who gives because he perceives it as a way to contribute to society as a whole which will eventually, in an indirect manner. benefit him does not need any further justification such as a church.