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.

Some proofs of the existence of God

The singing of angels:



The singing of children:



And of course the Wiener Dog song:



Throw in chips, queso, and Selma Hayak and I think we're done here.

thedude wrote:One of the flaws I see the deitification of Jesus and the resulting religion is that from what I understand the earliest known scriptures are from almost a hundred years after his death which are copies of copies (as there was no printing press), and of course we have all played the pass the story to your neighbor game. Further, the scriptures compiled into what is generally regarded as the New Testement are hand selected by the church (a powerful institution by that time) with other scriptures omitted. Other institutions/sect also compiled and omitted 'books', each resulting in their own versions of the Christs' teachings.

There's a very lengthy answer to that (and it probably won't completely satisfy you either).

In the larger historical context, the earliest (and traditional) dating for the Gospels is within 50 years of Jesus' death which is actually not in 1 AD as some people think it is but rather in 30-33. More liberal dating gives the books being written within 70-90 years of Jesus' death. That is actually remarkably quick for getting someone's ideas down on paper. Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic teachings went centuries before being written down. Jesus' teachings started getting put to paper within 100 years of his demise. The epistles, the letters of Paul, are debated as to their authenticity, but some of them are considered to be real and written by Paul himself or dictacted. These were all written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

Within two generations, these teachings were being written down, and lacking evidence to the contrary, we can safely assume they reflect Jesus' teachings accurately. The Gospels also need to be noted as not just about Jesus' teachings, but about the man himself (these same books are also cross referenced to a certain extent with each other). Oral tradition may have diluted certain information, but there was a really quick turn around on getting this information written down. Many of Jesus' disciples were very young men in their early or mid teens. Many would have still been alive when the writing process started and are likely to have aided in the writing.

Revelation is the last book of the New Testament to be written. Somewhere within 180 years of Jesus' death. There's a lot of debate on exactly when Revelation was written. Earliest is 30 years after the death of Jesus, the latest I've seen in the 4th Century.

The construction of the New Testament, contrary to other common belief, while canonized at one meeting actually existed in various forms much earlier. The letters of Paul were being spread as a collected volume at the very latest the early 2nd century. The Gospels, the four primary ones, were already very well known and well read. One of the confusions about canonization is that the other books were not excluded for being inaccurate per se. Some were believes fallicous, like the Gnostic gospels which are vividly deviant from early Christian texts and were I think very properly excluded. Others were just deemed not critical. The goal was to put together a book that would serve to portray the teachings and message of christ, and texts were targeted to best achieve this in the least space and with the simplest explanation that could be found. They also wanted the 'earliest' available documents. By all rights, I feel that had they known of the Book of Enoch, it would have been included at least as Apochrypha, but Enoch was not well known at the time.

Canon did not get created overnight. It was the result of about 200 years of debate, long before the Catholic Church even took its shape. They decided on the 'canon' in the 16th century, but the Bible has existed in its current form (among other forms mind you) since at least the 3rd, when the early Orthodox Church widely accepted it and eventually canonized it in the 7th. The Catholics took a lot time putting basically the same collection together.

Monster Rain wrote:

thedude wrote:I can appreciate that, and that is exactly to my point... how do you decide which perspective of ancient history will be what defines you given that?

If there was no GW and the omnibus was created by a group of dedicated fans trying to reach an agreement of what to include, it may be reasonable to assume some good (truthful) stuff could be left out that would otherwise have affected how the overall history was perceived

If the basic theme was left untouched I don't see what the problem is.

Even if 100% of the manuscripts were completely accurate, they still couldn't all be used or the Bible would be an insanely enormous book.

not only would it be enoumous, but it would be VERY repetative. its already on the border of repetition, adding more copies of the description of what happenned would be like reading witness statements from a police casr that happenned in front of thousands pf people. we just want the conclusion, not neccisarily everyones perspective.

No, she's just too busy playing TF2 and trying to get some more hats to listen to your prayers.

biccat wrote:I'd be impressed if Dawkins took on Wiccans, Hindus or Shinto. Unfortunately, he continues to revel in his teenage angst against Christians for some as-of-yet unexplained reason.

Why wouldn't you write about what you know?
And it has the benefit of taking on the biggest religions in the world.
Between them Xianity and Islam probably account for half the people in the world.

I see a lot of hate for Dawkins, but tbh it basically boils down to people not liking the truth when it conflicts with their world view.

Also in regards to the wirtings and books of the modern bible, take note that MOST of the new testament, is written by the Apostle Paul. A man that had not met Christ, until about 130 years after the ressurection. not only did he not meet him, he was well into 3 generations afterwards.

so the entire span of the writings of the bible, go greatly before and WELL after the death of Christ.

Also, Paul's teachings, asren't teachings. they are letters to members and leaders of church's usually discussing the events or nature of the flock its self.

you cannot think of the Bible directly as TBGB, think of it more like a compendium of codecies. The rules are there, but its not all always applicable to you, and there is a time and a place. you also have to know how to read it.

yay I just made a Warhammer and biblical reference LOL

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I see a lot of hate for Dawkins, but tbh it basically boils down to people not liking the truth when it conflicts with their world view.

You're being deliberately ironic here, right?

2: it was actually NOT the church that created the modern bible. you are referring to the Dead Sea scrolls. very vaild some of which containing actual gospels of the disciples, of most complete the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary. The council that did in fact create the modern bible was The council of Nicea, founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea it was a gathering of the 12 tribes (or houses) of the new church founded in christs name in an effort to stop the bickering between the followers of the original 12 disciples. a concept the Catholic Church has been propagating over the centuries.

The First Council did NOT determine the form of the New Testament. It did try, but the debate continued for over 1000 years. 1st Nicea is important moreso for the determination of the Nicean Creed and the unilateral rejection of Arianism by the early Catholic Church. EDIT: Like I said though. The Bible in its current form has been around since at the latest the 4th Cenutry. It was a debate of canonization and recognition for the Catholics more than anything.

The Dead sea scrolls contain no New Testament documents. All Dead Sea scrolls relate to the Old Testament and Hebrew scripture. They were basically written by 'hermit' Pharisees called Esinees. Hebrew monks more or less.

3: "other institutions" such as? there has not yet been a single organization that professes to be christian that has omitted any part of the modern bible. HOWEVER, there are various sects that have added books in addendum. such as the Mormons. the validity of the Book of Mormon is what is under dispute within the christian community, not their use of the bible.

They've actually got a rather altered version of both the Old and New Testaments. Their translation stresses different things, changes some words, and their interpretation is very very different from other denominations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rimmy wrote:Also in regards to the wirtings and books of the modern bible, take note that MOST of the new testament, is written by the Apostle Paul. A man that had not met Christ, until about 130 years after the ressurection. not only did he not meet him, he was well into 3 generations afterwards.

Paul died in 67 CE... He was born 5-10 years after Jesus was (according to traditional dating). We do however know for a fact when he died.

you are correct, I stand mistaken. I am referring to the Nag Hammadi Library

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I stand corrected again.

Phototoxin wrote:
The reasons dawkins gives for slating christiantiy are reasons only a few loonies believe for the most part.

Really? Could you name a few examples of those reasons you mentioned so that we can discuss it? I feel as though I should say a few things in Mr Dawkins defence. Apart from the fact that he has got, what is arguably, one of the finest minds in living memory, anyone who thinks that he hasn't contributed anything worthwhile to our understanding of the world we live in is quite clearly misinformed, to a worryingly woeful degree too. His books are absolutely pivitol to our understanding and are essential reading to anyone who is serious about gaining some truly monumental insights into science. Read a few of his books before you pass judgement. At least then you will know what you are talking about.

Monster Rain wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I see a lot of hate for Dawkins, but tbh it basically boils down to people not liking the truth when it conflicts with their world view.

You're being deliberately ironic here, right?

I thought I was stating the obvious.

Muhr wrote: His books are absolutely pivitol to our understanding and are essential reading to anyone who is serious about gaining some truly monumental insights into science. Read a few of his books before you pass judgement. At least then you will know what you are talking about.

His books that are related to science are great, no one could deny that.

This whole "God" gimmick of his is trolling in order to make money, not unlike Ms. Ann Coulter.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I see a lot of hate for Dawkins, but tbh it basically boils down to people not liking the truth when it conflicts with their world view.

You're being deliberately ironic here, right?

I thought I was stating the obvious.

And you think think that Dawkins has some kind of insight to some absolute, objective truth about God or the lack thereof?

Rimmy wrote:you are correct, I stand mistaken. I am referring to the Nag Hammadi Library

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

This I have no heard of. Intriguing. But what we really really need a copy of 'Q' That's the big discovery we're all waiting for. I know that some scholars have been trying to use Thomas as a means of possibly tracing and reconstructing Q. Thomas however is radically different from accepted Christian practice at the time is was written... or any time prior to the formation of the Catholic church so I'm unsure why anyone thinks its helpful for figuring out Q.

Personally, I've always laughed at the Gnostic gospels (being well versed in the traditions of Late Roman mysticism) and the things people say they 'prove.'

EDIT: For anyone reading this who doesn't know what Q is: Synoptic Gospels

nectarprime wrote:

biccat wrote:
You're assuming I'm Christian and that I believe that Christianity requires me to care about others' acceptance or rejection of God.

Well you pretty much say it without directly saying it.

Being a GOOD and DECENT PERSON means that you should care about your fellow man, no matter what mistakes they have made. If one is religious, then wanting others to be saved as well would follow under this. This doesn't mean you have to preach to everyone who does not share the same view, however. It just means that you should care, even if that person doesn't care about themselves!

If you are a Christian, you aren't a very good one.

Maybe Biccat is a Roman and believes in Mars, in which case it is his duty to crush the weak, for their betterment and his, as society should be?

nectarprime wrote:Well you pretty much say it without directly saying it.

Or it could be that I think religious discrimination is a bad thing, and Christianity tends to be the most targetted. If you started a thread bashing Muslims, I promise I'd be there defending their right to believe whatever they want to believe. That doesn't make me a Muslim.

nectarprime wrote:Being a GOOD and DECENT PERSON means that you should care about your fellow man, no matter what mistakes they have made. If one is religious, then wanting others to be saved as well would follow under this. This doesn't mean you have to preach to everyone who does not share the same view, however. It just means that you should care, even if that person doesn't care about themselves!

I didn't say that I didn't care at all, I said that I don't care enough to want to save them from their own mistakes. I'm not interested in taking on the burdens of someone else's mistakes, I've got enough on my plate as it is.

Besides, isn't that what Christ did?

nectarprime wrote:If you are a Christian, you aren't a very good one.

The tenets of Christianity are spelled out in the Nicene Creed. There's nothing in there about spreading the gospel. Therefore, one can be a "good Christian" without adhering to a lot of the tenets imposed by modern Christian churches.

Being a good Jew or Hindu is, comparatively, much more difficult.

Someone call for Q?

Troy wrote:Maybe Biccat is a Roman and believes in Mars, in which case it is his duty to crush the weak, for their betterment and his, as society should be?

Rovers for the Rover God!

Ahtman wrote:Someone call for Q?

I thought Q was this guy...

Monster Rain wrote:And you think think that Dawkins has some kind of insight to some absolute, objective truth about God or the lack thereof?

I think think he understands science better than most.
He would be the first to say that no one can absolutely prove god(s) either way.

That is Major Boothroyd of Q division.

Muhr wrote:Following the success of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is about to publish a new work called I Don't Like it, Not One Bit - a damning, thrillingly systematic dismantling of modern magic and everything Paul Daniels has ever stood for. The only thing that remains is to prove that Victoria Beckham does not exist! I was wondering if any of my fellow dakkite's have an opinion on this?

If its anything like The God Delusion it will be trite and shrill.

dogma wrote:

Muhr wrote:Following the success of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is about to publish a new work called I Don't Like it, Not One Bit - a damning, thrillingly systematic dismantling of modern magic and everything Paul Daniels has ever stood for. The only thing that remains is to prove that Victoria Beckham does not exist! I was wondering if any of my fellow dakkite's have an opinion on this?

If its anything like The God Delusion it will be trite and shrill.

So he is like Deepak Chopra, but with less free time.

dogma wrote:

Muhr wrote:Following the success of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins is about to publish a new work called I Don't Like it, Not One Bit - a damning, thrillingly systematic dismantling of modern magic and everything Paul Daniels has ever stood for. The only thing that remains is to prove that Victoria Beckham does not exist! I was wondering if any of my fellow dakkite's have an opinion on this?

If its anything like The God Delusion it will be trite and shrill.

If that is what you look for, that is what you will find.

biccat wrote:
Or it could be that I think religious discrimination is a bad thing, and Christianity tends to be the most targetted. If you started a thread bashing Muslims, I promise I'd be there defending their right to believe whatever they want to believe. That doesn't make me a Muslim.

Why is telling someone that you don't like what they believe, or think that what they believe is wrong, discrimination?

I mean, its discrimination in a literal sense, just as deciding to act one way around person X and another way around person Y is discrimination. But it isn't discrimination in the sense of, say, banning the open exercise of Christian ritual.

Why can we not criticize a religious belief, but we can criticize a belief about a movie?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
So he is like Deepak Chopra, but with less free time.

And less air time.

1: This is not entirely true. There are scripts written by his deciples cataloging his journies in real time. though few because most of the disciples could not write. as such, most are transcribed. also, most of the originals are lost. so make an analogy here, Aesop's fables originals are lost, but the stories are accepted as written. I an not speaking in terms of what is holy or non holy, only addressing the issue of missing originals.

Indeed, but what I mean is, given we have copies of copies, how can we be sure what we accept as written was actually as written or that nothing was lost in translation?

2: it was actually NOT the church that created the modern bible. you are referring to the Dead Sea scrolls. very vaild some of which containing actual gospels of the disciples, of most complete the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary. The council that did in fact create the modern bible was The council of Nicea, founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea it was a gathering of the 12 tribes (or houses) of the new church founded in christs name in an effort to stop the bickering between the followers of the original 12 disciples. a concept the Catholic Church has been propagating over the centuries.

I am not referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls exclusively, the Christian Church was responsible for the council of nicea. I'm a little confused by this, perhaps we are misunderstand what each other means by Church.

3: "other institutions" such as? there has not yet been a single organization that professes to be christian that has omitted any part of the modern bible. HOWEVER, there are various sects that have added books in addendum. such as the Mormons. the validity of the Book of Mormon is what is under dispute within the christian community, not their use of the bible.

Well aside from all the confusion that the Council of Nicea sought to eliminate, there is also the Catholic bible.

I like how we are being ignored LOL

I had not read about the Q existance, VERY cool.

find and read some of the Nag Hammadi codex's. VERY enlightening stuff there. totally controversial, but interesting none the less. and yes, I meant the gospel of Thomas as well as Mary of Nazareth (Jesus's mother) paints an interesting picture of his as a child.

all cool stuff!

Thanks for the honest explanations. I finally had a chance to read some of the other responses. It seems the answer to my orignal question is that the reason what we now have is accepted is because after long debate, man has determined it is the best we can do to preserve what we view as the true message...fair enough.

dogma wrote:Why can we not criticize a religious belief, but we can criticize a belief about a movie?

Because movies, unlike religious beliefs, are not tied to a person's core beliefs of themselves and others. To criticize someone's belief in movies attacks their aesthetic choices while to criticize someone's religion is to criticize their life, morality and purpose in life.

If you're taking the position that criticism of belief is acceptable, shouldn't criticism of sexuality, gender, race, national origin, or native language be on the table as well? These characteristics have at best an equal impact on a person's concept of life and themselves than their religious beliefs.

thedude wrote:Indeed, but what I mean is, given we have copies of copies, how can we be sure what we accept as written was actually as written or that nothing was lost in translation?

Copies of copies is a problem. The Textus Revisitus, a translation that many modern Bibles are based on specifically the King James version, is notably erroneously translated and filled errors as well as being based on Byzantine texts rather than the closer to source Alexandrian texts. Most of the errors however are minor and not really a big deal but for particular things they can have radical differences.

We have copies of most books and letters of the Bible (canon and non-canon) from the 2nd Century, and even some from the 1st. It's actually quite shocking how little the books have changed. A much bigger problem for the New Testament isn't its context but rather its translation (which is an even bigger problem for the Old Testament)

I am not referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls exclusively, the Christian Church was responsible for the council of nicea. I'm a little confused by this, perhaps we are misunderstand what each other means by Church.

The important thing to remember is that the Bible in its current form actually predates the Nicaean councils. The early Orthodox Church was using it at the same time and many Christians widely recognized John, the Synoptic Gospels, and the letters of Paul as authoritative going back to the late 1st Century and early 2nd. Revelation was the notable inclusion as early in the Christian community it was very controversial.