responding to common objections to bible

[total relism]

I will be doing a series of the responding to the 15 most common objections to the bible. I was originally going to do 15 different thread, but people said i should not and i agree, so i will do five right know..

My first was how could a loving god send people to hell
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143245-How-could-a-loving-god-send-people-to-Hell&highlight=

than
what about those who have never heard of bible/jesus
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143263-What-about-those-who-die-without-ever-hearing-about-Jesus&highlight=




3] does the bible allow slavery?

Slavery in the bible


Paul Copan: Did God Sanction Slavery in the Old Testament?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyLpygp4eSE


What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10

If the Those people who were very financially irresponsible, and had accumulated so much debt that they could not possibly pay it off, could request to become the slave of a wealthy individual (Leviticus 25:39; Genesis 47:19).if the wealthy individual agreed, he would pay off all the person’s debts and provide for him, and then the servant would work for the individual for some period of time apparently proportional to the amount of debt (Leviticus 25:50) but not to exceed seven years (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12). When the period of time had expired, the servant was set free, and the wealthy person was required to give him enough start up supplies so that he could begin his own business (Deuteronomy 15:13-14). The Israelite slave was to be treated respectfully (Leviticus 25:43) and was immediately granted freedom if mistreated (Exodus 21:26–27).
It’s really a very generous system. Help a financially irresponsible person to become responsible by (1) paying off his debts and providing for him, (2) training him by having him work for a period of time, (3) giving him sufficient startup capital to start his own business. It’s not quite what most people think, is it? I would suggest that the biblical system is far superior to our modern welfare system.
http://jasonlisle.com/2012/01/23/gods-law-too-harsh/


exodus 21. 5-6 says “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

This is not at all what we think of in America as slavery, Jesus is refereed to as a slave as is the apostle paul, if anyone has a job they work under someone else and for them and can be considered a slave.

A great book in the bible of what OT slavery/servanthood was like read the book of ruth. How servant were treated etc. For example, boaz marries his slave/ ruth who asked him to marry.


Contrary to the claims of many skeptics, the New Testament proclaims that all people are equal in the eyes of God - even slaves:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8)
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).


The bible tells owners to take care of “slaves” so they will be as sons, sounds like adoption almost.
21 He who pampers his servant from childhood
######Will have him as a son in the end.
Proverbs 29.21

slaves were to be treated as being hired from year to year,and were not to be ruled over ruthlessly lev 25 53-54

many laws existed to prevent this from happening,many laws to help the poor in lev ex Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy 15 1-18 shows slavery and poverty were to be battled against and not preferred institutions.
all slaves were to be realsed after 6 years and could be bought back at any time if they had the money
people chose to enter into slavery
The OT laws are not gods perfect plan,but for a specific time and people coming from a ancient near eastern culture.Matt 19.8
we cannot apply todays western standards to OT near eastern jews. ot law is not the way god wants, its a way for ancient Israel to live by in a fallen world.
many of the laws are case laws, such as if a man sells his daughter in slavery if two man quarrel etc these are working with infierer conditions in ancient near east.
In dueternomy 15 13-14 it says when a slave is realesed, the more money and wealth the former owner gives to the slave, the more god will bless them dueternomy 15.18.

job 31 13-15 shows servants and masters are no different from each other.
Courts were to rule rightly with jew or gentile Deuteronomy 1 16-17
no physical harm was to be done to a slave or they would be let go ex 21 26-27
if a master kills a slave he is to be put to death ex 21.20
1 chronicles 2 34-35 sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant jarha.
Israel was commanded to offer safe havens for foreigners run away slaves
Deuteronomy 23 15-16

1/2 to 2/3 of white immigrants to America in colonial times served as indentured servants or biblical slavery.


Slave girls? Exodus 21?
as far as the slave girl idea that is ridicules these girls were given in marriage to marry sons when they became of age, not against her choice her and father agreed upon it. They were not to be had sex with until there marriage witch they chose to enter into as well as there fathers often because they could not afford to take care of them. notice he does not qoute v 9 witch says she is to be treated as a daghter not a sex slave#

9#If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter
Exodus 21.9

and if he does not she is to be let free v 11#

11#If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.#
Exodus 21 .11



4] why is there death and suffering if god is all loving?/the reason for the gospel


I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross. #The only God I believe in is the One Nietzsche ridiculed as “God on the cross.” #In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? #I have entered many Buddhist temples in different Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of the Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world. #But each time after a while I have had to turn away. #And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in Godforsaken darkness. #That is the God for me! #He laid aside his immunity to pain. #He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. #He suffered for us. #Our sufferings become more manageable in the light of his. #There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross that symbolizes divine suffering. #”The cross of Christ . . . is God’s only self-justification in such a world” as ours. . . . “The other gods were strong; but thou wast weak; they rode, but thou didst stumble to a throne; But to our wounds only God’s wounds can speak, And not a god has wounds, but thou alone.”
John Stott,#The Cross of Christ p 235-236


Why is there death and suffering if god is all loving and a perfect sinless god?
Response to Connecticut shooting
http://www.godvine.com/Mike-Huckabee-s-Incredible-Response-to-the-Newtown-Shooting-2578.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12-23-2012

According to the bible sin caused separation from god he no longer is with us. All the once very good creation know is falling apart death disease etc have entered everything is wearing old. god is perfect and cannot be around sin. He has to judge sin because it is imperfect. The original perfect creation was destroyed by mans sin, Everything bad that happens according to the bible ultimately is caused from separation form god.
Does this mean if i go get drunk and crash my car god did it? not at all this is my will not his, we have free will thats why we pray your will be done on earth as it is in heaven, matt 6 .10 gods will is not done here ours is, that is why when Jesus was around he spent time fighting disease death etc. the bible says death is the last enemy that will be defeated Corinthians 15.26.
When people asked Jesus if the 13 people that were builders died because they sinned in Jerusalem he said no, sometimes bad things happen to good people the whole creation is under this. So the bible teaches a original perfect creation free of death suffering as god created until sin and separation from him.

god has to judge to be just. if he allowed us to do whatever we wanted kill each other etc.
there would never be a heaven or paradise. it would really be no different than know.
God hates sin and cant be around it, so really all suffering death etc. is a consequence of being separated from god. according to the bible.

but your iniquities have made a separation
###between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
###so that he does not hear.
Isiah 59.2

For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You.
Pslam 5,4


It is no longer gods creation

Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
matt chapter 4 8-9

9 In this manner, therefore, pray:

######Our Father in heaven,
######Hallowed be Your name.
###### 10 Your kingdom come.
######Your will be done
#On earth as it is in heaven.
matt 6 9-10


#16 The highest heavens belong to the LORD,
###### but the earth he has given to man.
Proverbs 18 -17

it is no longer gods creation it was given to man, psalm 8.6,gen 1 26-28 jesus calls the devil the prince and ruler of this world.

John 18 36 jesus says I am not of this world
matt 4 8-9 god is not the ruler of this world.


god gave us free will to accept or deny him we chose to deny. he could have made us all perfect pray all day always do the right thing follow all his rules.But thats not love god wants us to chose to follow him out of love which only comes with free will.


Only when god is in full control when his will is done that there will be no more wars and only peace.
God is not in control of this world his will is not done here.

What it will be like when he is in full control.


#1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
Revelations chapter 21 1-5


##he will swallow up death#forever.
The Sovereign#Lord#will wipe away the tears
####from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
####from all the earth.
The#Lord#has spoken.
Isiah 25.8


The wolf will live with the lamb,
###the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
###and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
###their young will lie down together,
###and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
###the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
###on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD
Isiah 11 6-9



1 The vision that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:
2 In the last days
he mountain of the LORD's house will be established
### at the top of the mountains
### and will be raised above the hills.
### All nations will stream to it,
### 3 and many peoples will come and say,
### "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
### to the house of the God of Jacob.
### He will teach us about His ways
### so that we may walk in His paths."
### For instruction will go out of Zion
### and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
### 4 He will settle disputes among the nations
### and provide arbitration for many peoples.
### They will turn their swords into plows
### and their spears into pruning knives.
### Nations will not take up the sword against [other] nations,
### and they will never again train for war.
Isaiah 2 1-4




also there would be no punishment and separation from god if we all followed these two commandments.

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
#37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:36-40 referring to Deuteronomy 6.5 and Leviticus 19.18


8 Do not owe anyone anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments:
### You shall not commit adultery,
### you shall not murder,
### you shall not steal,
### you shall not covet,
### and if there is any other commandment—all are summed up by this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
### 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13 8-9

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law
Galatians 5 22-23

8 Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah, saying, 9 “Thus says the LORD of hosts:
Execute true justice,
######Show mercy and compassion
######Everyone to his brother.
###### 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
######The alien or the poor.
######Let none of you plan evil in his heart
######Against his brother.’
Zechariah 7 8-10

8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.
micah 6.8


“Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes.
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor;
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow.
Isiah 1,16-17


when believers die it is precious in the lords sight,because they enter into a true relationship with him with no sin or separation
psalm 116.15

also when they die they are braught away from A evil world.

The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.
Isa. 57:1


great article on why we suffer crsq vol 45 2010 and the creation weeps 155-158
http://www.creationresearch.org/members-HYPERLINK "http://www.creationresearch.org/members-only/crsq/46/46_3/CRSQ Winter 2010 editorial.pdf"only/crsq/HYPERLINK



The gospel
This is why Jesus was sent as a perfect sinless sacrifice to god, to cover the sins of man by putting there faith in him,it is the only way for a perfect sinless all loving god to save a sinful people, because we all sin
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 3.23


picture god as a judge [he is] and he is a all loving and forgiving judge but also a perfect holy judge ex 34 6-7. To be a judge and fair and if he truly is sinless and hates sin[as a all loving just god would] than he cannot allow any sin to go unpunished he must judge all sin or he is not all just or a fair judge, so how can we make up for our own sin? how could we not face punishment? and separation from god. That is when god as all loving came into history and his creation and died as a willing sacrifice to take the just punishment we deserved on himself so he can spend a eternity with his creation whom he loves and still be all just.

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Isiah 53 5-6

24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
1 peter 2. 24

21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
2 Corinthians 5.21
we are justified freely and eternal life is a gift from god given to all man
Romans 3 9-11 eternal life is gift given Romans 6.23 [many other passages]


"The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance" (2Pet. 3.9).

"He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1Tim. 2.4).

"'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'" (Ez. 18.23,32; 33.11).


so all we need to do is accept the perfect sacrifice that Jesus was and we are cleansed of our sin and forgiven by god.


of course there will be many that see this as foolishness

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1.18

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him
1 Corinthians 2 .14

14:1#The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
psalm 14.1




5]does the bible command rape? was rape allowed?


Rape
Ex 22 10-17 Deuteronomy 22 23-29 2013-14 21 10-14 and page 118-121 is god a moral mosnter paul copan.

rape was punishable by death
Deuteronomy 22 25-27

god hates rape and is 100% against it despite what some athist say, just because the bible records times of rape, does not mean god wants it or approves of it.







6] why does god not show himself today?

why does god not show himself today?
First god did show himself in the person of Jesus Christ, he came down to this earth to suffer for us, god shows himself in the heart of man, god is spirit and communicates through spirit in the heart. God originally was with us in the garden of eden before sin, god walked with us.



Over and over in the bible god says stay away from me least you die,dont come into my presence or you will die. We are sinfull people and cannot be around a holy just god, all over the OT when these boundaries were broken the person was struck dead because they came into presence of a holy sinless god. God keeps reminding people not to get near him least they die he made many rules etc to keep this from happening. the whole temple sacrifice etc was to show we cannot enter as sinners into A holy gods presence.


but your iniquities have made a separation
###between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
###so that he does not hear.
Isiah 59.2


For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You.
Pslam 5,4



jesus said in john 7 33-34
33 Jesus said, “I am with you for only a short time, and then I am going to the one who sent me. 34 You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come.”

until we become perfect holy sinless we cannot see god, there is only one way for this to happen A perfect sinless Savior. So while people may want to see god, it is his mercy that he does not show himself in fullness, god at current times communicates very different.


11And he said, "Go out and stand on the mount before the LORD." And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12And after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper.
1 Kings 19:11-12

This is god a low whisper.


Those that seek god will seek in spirit and truth and will find him. John 4.24 god promises that if a person seeks him, they will find him [ Matt 7 7-8 Jeremiah 29.13 proverbs 8.17 ]



Those that seek god will seek in spirit and truth and will find him [John 4.24] god promises that if a person seeks him, they will find him [ Matt 7 7-8 Jeremiah 29.13 proverbs 8.17 ]



7] has the bible been translated accurately?


Translation of the bible


Old teastament
Reliability of Scripture – Accuracy of the Old Testament
http://www.josh.org/resources/watch-and-listen/video-player/?player=vimeo&videoid=37529454&format=standard


historian Josephus tells how the Jews copied the Old Testament. "We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them" (Against Apion, Book I, sec., 8, p. 158). Josephus statement is no exaggeration. The Jewish copyists knew exactly how many letters where in every line of every book and how many times each word occurred in each book. This enabled them to check for errors (Shelly, Prepare to Answer, p. 133). The Jews believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be punishable by Hell. This is not like the modern secretary who has many letters to type and must work hard to keep their job, and consequently feels that mistakes are inevitable. Great care is exercised with scriptures when someone holds a conviction such as this.


#Dead Sea Scrolls
Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer said that even though there is such a difference in dates of the manuscripts, "they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more that 95 per cent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." No other historical literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.


great debates
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Director of the Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts
Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? On October 1, 2011 renowned skeptic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Director of the Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts, debated the reliability of the text of the New Testament at Southern Methodist University. This was#the largest debate over the text of the New Testament in history
ΝΟN-CHRISTIAN AUTHORS CONFIRM NT\'S RELIABILITY

http://www.josh.org/resources/watch-and-listen/video-player/?player=youtube&videoid=iaW2OpQRoP0&format=standard&t=%CE%9D%CE%BFn-Christian%20Authors%20Confirm%20NT%27s%20Reliability


The Reliability of the New Testament Text (Dr. James White)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI


Debate: Did the Bible Misquote Jesus? (White vs Ehrman)http://store.aomin.org/did-the-bible-misquote-jesus.html


F. F. Bruce#makes the following observation: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors,#the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”

He also states, “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as#beyond all doubt”#(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).

Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, was one of the foremost#experts on ancient manuscripts and their authority. Shortly before his death, he wrote this concerning the New Testament:

“The interval between the dates of original composition (of the New Testament) and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the#Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established”#(The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288-89).


There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

Clark Pinnock#
Mcmaster University

At the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the Gospels seriously as a source of information on the life and teaching of Jesus.... Indeed many ancient historians would count themselves fortunate to have four such responsible accounts [as the Gospels], written within a generation or two of the events, and preserved in such a wealth of early manuscript evidence. Beyond that point, the decision to accept the record they offer is likely to be influenced more by openness to a supernaturalist world view than by strictly historical considerations

R. T. France, "The Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus, the Founder of Christianity,"#Truth#1 (1985): 86.

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman asumes there is a true NT orginal to than make his arguments aginst mistranslated text,
Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? On October 1, 2011 renowned skeptic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Director of the Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts, debated the reliability of the text of the New Testament at Southern Methodist University. This was#the largest debate over the text of the New Testament in history


Bart D. Ehrman admits in debate,that the text we do have from earliest manuscripts has been acuretley copied.
Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? On October 1, 2011 renowned skeptic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Director of the Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts, debated the reliability of the text of the New Testament at Southern Methodist University. This was#the largest debate over the text of the New Testament in history

Bart D. Ehrman admits in debate that all the textual difernces added up in one text would differ less than the king james does with the new american standard.Debate: Did the Bible Misquote Jesus? (White vs Ehrman)http://store.aomin.org/did-the-bible-misquote-jesus.html


All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the writings of the Fathers
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,#A General Introduction to the Bible, Ch. 24. Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986.
#"virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)" (Moreland,#Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).

There are over 1 million qoutes from ealy church fathers most lengthey qoutes of bible chapters and even books in order. Bart D. Ehrman and famous biblical scholor Bruce #Metzger admitted almost entire NT can be reconstructed by church father qoutes.
Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? On October 1, 2011 renowned skeptic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Director of the Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts, debated the reliability of the text of the New Testament at Southern Methodist University. This was#the largest debate over the text of the New Testament in history


The gospels have also been supported by archaeology. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939), the archaeologist and professor from Oxford and Cambridge Universities, started investigating Luke’s gospel with the assumption that Luke was mistaken in many areas. But Ramsay discovered time and time again that Luke was absolutely precise about place names and the many varied titles of rulers. Ramsay concluded:
“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians
Ramsay, W.,#Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Baker, Michigan, USA, p. 222, 1953.


Nt far better mauscripts suport than any secular historical writting considered acurate, if anyone douts biblical acuracy, than they must 1000% times that for any anicent writing in roman or greek history.
Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? On October 1, 2011 renowned skeptic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Director of the Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts, debated the reliability of the text of the New Testament at Southern Methodist University. This was#the largest debate over the text of the New Testament in history

historians have no trouble accepting :
There are two generally reliable accounts#of#Hannibal (247–183 BC ) crossing#the#Alps in 218 BC to attack Rome. Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek historian, chronicled Hannibal’s invasion at least 50 years after#the#actual event.7 Livy (c. 59 BC – AD 17), a Roman historian, wrote#of#Hannibal’s invasion about 190 years after#the#actual event


Another famous event in history was Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) crossing#the#Rubicon in 49 BC without disbanding his army.9 Suetonius (c. 69/75 – after 130), a Roman historian, wrote his historical account#of#Caesar crossing#the#Rubicon at least 110 years after#the#event,10 and it is considered to be generally reliable. In addition,#the#two earliest biographies#of#Alexander#the#Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death.11 And these biographies are considered to be generally trustworthy.


Anything not written in stone cannot be acurate if we consider the bible not to be.


Number of manuscripts over 25,000.


Author
Date Written
Earliest MSS
Time Span
No. MSS
Caesar
100–44#BC
AD#900
1,000 yrs
10
Plato
427–347#BC
AD#900
1,200 yrs
7
Thucydides
460–400#BC
AD#900
1,300 yrs
8
Tacitus
AD#100
AD#1100
1,000 yrs
20
Suetonius
AD#75–160
AD#950
800 yrs
8
Homer (Iliad)
900#BC
400#BC
500 yrs
643
New Testament
AD#40–100
AD#125
25–50 yrs
>24,000!

Early manuscripts current as of oct 1 2012
12 from secondcentury
64 from third
48 from fourth- the whole NT can be consrtucted from times over from these early manuscripts.
Some text of john written within 100 years of orginal nt writings same as today p52 p60 p20 p72 p66 p46

Early manuscripts from 150 years apart from difernt places difernet orginal sources yet agree. Many lines of text that all agree.

Up to 900AD over 500 greek manusacripts 10% of total.
Manuscripts after 8th century add only 2% material to text.

Variation of manuscripts
there are large number of textual variants because there are so many texts.
99% of variants makes no diference, spelling,word order etc.
You can have 100's of variants in the way to say in greek jesus loves paul. Those would all count as variantts.

"essiencial christian beliefs are not affected by textual variation in the manuscripts tradition of the NT"
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman misqouting jesus Q and A section.


Preservation of text
preserved by rapid spread of nt writings.

Scripture could not be reveled before printing press if absolute on all text,or god would have to kill the writer.


Reconstructing original from existing manuscripts
check out the gospel of snoopy
http://www.friendsofcsntm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=69

scholars can reconstruct the original manuscripts based on existing manuscripts.
In gospel of snoopy seminar, [done with layman] people are given 50 copies of a manuscripts, 20 are diliberley mistakes. Of the 70 times tested, 68 were done perfectly to reconstruct the "original" witch was not given to them,but 1-2 mistakes. Over 12 times they created original perfect, the worse done was 4 words off. This is done with lay people given a few hours. Bible has many scholars with hundreds of years and thousands of manuscripts.



We have manuscripts from different time/places that give evidence to the original as they all agree. How do multiple lines of manuscripts differ in country of origin/time agree on text if edited over time?


At most 1% of text is in question-most all have no impact spelling mistakes etc
Debate: Did the Bible Misquote Jesus? (White vs Ehrman)
http://store.aomin.org/did-the-bible-misquote-jesus.html



two major groups of texts "right" side and "left" side farthest from each other still agree 95%.
Debate: Did the Bible Misquote Jesus? (White vs Ehrman)
http://store.aomin.org/did-the-bible-misquote-jesus.html


the whole original text is there, just need to figure out a few variants.




Church change doctrine/edit bible?

we have manuscript evidence from before any of the councils so if they had changed any doctrine we would have known about it.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/11/james-white-can-we-trust-new-testament.html
the above link to video also shows the impossibility of any one group or council changing the NT documents.

We have manuscripts from different time/places that give evidence to the orginal as they all agree. How do muitple lines of manuscripts differ in country of orgigin/time agree on text if edited over time?


If the catholic church changed doctrine in 4th century , why not add or subistute doctrine to fit theology/church systems? Contradicts bible in many issues the church does?.

All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the writings of the Fathers
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,#A General Introduction to the Bible, Ch. 24. Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986.
#"virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)" (Moreland,#Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).


worldview effects.
#The#problem is when you#start with a worldview that demands#the#bible#to be false, apostles to not have written books, than you#must#come up with some evolutionary process#of#how#the#bible#was written/rewritten over time. because we#know#jesus was not really god, he did not#really#do miracles, he did#not really#rise from#the#dead. So these#must#be stories that grew over time, or invented to trick people into following there new religion etc etc. For example,#the#book#of#matt#must#have been written after 70 ad because it predicts#the#temple to fall, and since prophecy does not happen, we#know#matt was written after 70 ad. I dont care about people#bias against#god/divine author/bible miracles etc. I care about facts,#what facts do you have#the#gospels were not written by#the#original apostles or Paul?. I highly suggest you watch some debates on#the#subject, with a conservative scholar there to defend#the#bible. As#thequote I wrote before said,#if these were secular documents, no one would question#the#authority#of#them,#but because they talk#of#a man, who did miracles,claimed to be god, rose from dead, they#must be imaginative#written after events, not a eye witness account. If you watch my link with james white, this is why he asked Bart Ehrman [who attacks#bible#translation#more than any] in#the#debate, doesthe#bible#misquote jesus, what has more evidence in all history to its authenticity than#the#NT, he replied#nothing does.

[Sigurd]

7...:rolleyes:

I know the why some of you believers need this.. But you should read different sources on this topic. Read some real objective authors.
I would recommend Frederic W. Farrar and e.g. his History of Interpretation. He belonged to an enlightened group of scholars at the turn of the 19th century.

[Greyblades]

Great, here was me thinking we'd seen the back of walls-of-text threads about things that dont matter.

[total relism]

7...:rolleyes:

I know the why some of you believers need this.. But you should read different sources on this topic. Read some real objective authors.
I would recommend Frederic W. Farrar and e.g. his History of Interpretation. He belonged to an enlightened group of scholars at the turn of the 19th century.


thanks for reference, i really only pay attention to bart erhman,muslims, and others on the media that would say otherwise. Bart ehrman is suppose to be the biggest most popular objector to translation of bible today. That is why i references a few debates with him on my op.

[Hax]

Nobody cares

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't argue the Bible. I use it for inspiration and believe in it, wholesale, in a figurative and sometimes literal way. Scientific and sociological reasoning are not required and may hinder the understanding of religious texts. Learn about it, the history of it, but don't attach to the contents that type of meaning as you would a scientific text, or you will be confounded.

Trust me, I love to argue, but religious texts are not meant for that, in my opinion. The arguments take place in the soul and do not adhere to our own temporal understanding

[total relism]

Nobody cares

i disagree, i am on multiple forums for many years, there are 15 or so objections that atheist bring up over and over. Often my topic are far and away the most visited/debated. as well as you will see atheist bring up all these reasons they reject the bible, accept the threads that respond to these objections. Translation of the bible i have herd dozens of times on this forum, on unrelated thread, so some do think its important. But if its not why even post on it? why open it yourself?.

[Catiline]

Everybody likes an argument

[Rhyfelwyr]

OP you would be better picking one or at most two points and trying to get some discussion flowing that way. How are we supposed to respond to a wall of text on so many topics?

[total relism]

OP you would be better picking one or at most two points and trying to get some discussion flowing that way. How are we supposed to respond to a wall of text on so many topics?

lol that was what i originally wanted, if you read my first 2 links that is what i thought would be best. Than everyone complained and said to do multiple on one thread, glad to see i am not the only one who thought the other way.

but if you disagree with any,just pick anyone you most disagree with.

[Strike For The South]

the lack of brevity is causing me physical pain

[Kadagar_AV]

I think the OP should start rooting for a football team... Or get a dog... Or maybe a girlfriend...

Honestly, pretty much anything but psychotic bibelstudies would probably do him good as a hobby :)

[total relism]

I think the OP should start rooting for a football team... Or get a dog... Or maybe a girlfriend...

Honestly, pretty much anything but psychotic bibelstudies would probably do him good as a hobby :)

i happen to want both bayern and Dortmund to go to the next round of cl play. Wife as well, we do it often lol. Hate the dog so no good there. I think alitlle more variety in your life could help, the bible study idea sounds good.

[Jolt]

why does god not show himself today?
First god did show himself in the person of Jesus Christ, he came down to this earth to suffer for us, god shows himself in the heart of man, god is spirit and communicates through spirit in the heart. God originally was with us in the garden of eden before sin, god walked with us.

I never cease to be dumbfounded how much the Human race can be brainwashed into believing the most stupid of things.

If there was a rational benevolent omnipresent and omniscient (As if such a thing existed) entity and he wanted to be worshipped by all humans and subdue them to his law, he would show himself wherever to all humans and teach them his rules by himself to all humans and be clearly discernable from everything else in life, and there would be no bible and no churches since you could always speak and learn from all that such an entity knew.

Instead, every single theist religion needs to speak in metaphors such as "god shows himself in the heart of man, god is spirit and communicates through spirit in the heart." and other bullshit any person with a pair of eyes and two inches of common sense can easily disprove.

[total relism]

I never cease to be dumbfounded how much the Human race can be brainwashed into believing the most stupid of things.

If there was a rational benevolent omnipresent and omniscient (As if such a thing existed) entity and he wanted to be worshipped by all humans and subdue them to his law, he would show himself wherever to all humans and teach them his rules by himself to all humans and be clearly discernable from everything else in life, and there would be no bible and no churches since you could always speak and learn from all that such an entity knew.

Instead, every single theist religion needs to speak in metaphors such as "god shows himself in the heart of man, god is spirit and communicates through spirit in the heart." and other bullshit any person with a pair of eyes and two inches of common sense can easily disprove.


unless that is the god of the bible is that god, in witch case he does/cannot for the reasons given in the op. Not to mention as i showed in previous thread [those that have never herd of jesus], god is known to all though multiple lines that are built in to all people, many chose to reject that. This thread and objections are for those who say they reject the bible because it teaches so and so, not if there is a god, that one is coming.


by the way can you please disprove that god does not communicate with believers through spirit? me and billions of changed lives would disagree with that.

[Strike For The South]

i happen to want both bayern and Dortmund to go to the next round of cl play. Wife as well, we do it often lol. Hate the dog so no good there. I think alitlle more variety in your life could help, the bible study idea sounds good.

So you're German?

Everything makes a lot more sense

[HoreTore]

So you're German?

Everything makes a lot more sense

Never trust a Nazi German.

[HopAlongBunny]

The reason is faith.

To be clad in impenetrable armor, the person of faith needs no reason, feels no doubt! Where faith is present victory is assured! Onward Christian soldiers....!

[total relism]

So you're German?

Everything makes a lot more sense

no, i just like them in football for some reason. But frank ribery [french] is my fav.

[HoreTore]

frank ribery

The kiddie prostitute banger?

[Jolt]

unless that is the god of the bible is that god, in witch case he does/cannot for the reasons given in the op.

No, that is what you are told to make for the most ludicrous claims that a benevolent omniscient god cannot communicate with you, and with anyone else, and you choose to believe in it. Precisely because you do not have those two inches of common sense I was talking about.


Not to mention as i showed in previous thread [those that have never herd of jesus], god is known to all though multiple lines that are built in to all people, many chose to reject that.

Relevant video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t11JYaJcpxg

Which is another example of mindboggling stupidity of a fairy-tale that you choose to believe in. It's on the same level of those brainwashed folks who believe Kim Jong-Il & family are avatars of Godhood, and their spirits still live in the hearts of the glorious North Korean people, because they are told.


by the way can you please disprove that god does not communicate with believers through spirit? me and billions of changed lives would disagree with that.

Why, oh why do you persist with those silly fallacies??? You're the one who has to prove the existance of a spirit (Which is not proven to exist and even its definitions vary gigantically over what spirit is), and the existance of a god in the first place (Which likewise has dozens of thousands of different deities from all smalish pre-historical tribes until our days).

And yes, yes I can. God never communicated with me, does not live in my heart because I already did quite a bunch of ECG and the doctors never found a god there. And since you have taken the liberty of talking in the name of billions of people, I'll take the liberty of speaking in the behalf of the more than 100 billions of human beings that have lived in history who have never heard of the Christian religion, have heard but weren't Christian, were Christian but never heard anything (If Inquisition cases are of any use), and tell you that they have never heard anything speak to them, besides other humans. God communicates with you as much as I can imagine a fictional character's voice talking something when I'm reading it in a book. It doesn't mean that he is actually talking, it's a figment of my imagination. And by God! Humans have tremendous imagination (See what I did there? :) ). God lives in my heart as much as I have an invisible jet-powered unicorns, right outside my house.

[Gregoshi]

A little more courtesy would go a long way here. Gang tackling tr with insults and condescending remarks is in poor form. Or is civil discourse here at the Org a thing of the past?

[HoreTore]

A little more courtesy would go a long way here. Gang tackling tr with insults and condescending remarks is in poor form. Or is civil discourse here at the Org a thing of the past?

It was your puns which kept us civilized. See what happened when you took them away from us.

[Major Robert Dump]

I didn't realize that TV Series was stirring up so much trouble, now I wish I had watched it.

Be nice

[drone]

I didn't realize that TV Series was stirring up so much trouble, now I wish I had watched it.

Be nice

Obama was apparently cast as Satan. He won't get an Emmy for it, but passable.

[Gregoshi]

Obama was apparently cast as Satan. He won't get an Emmy for it, but passable.
Had he only sold his soul to himself, he would get that Emmy.

[Papewaio]

I don't believe in Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Vishnu or one of dozens of others.

So why even choose from one of the three Abrahmic religions who worship the same god as each other?

Pascal's wager is flawed.
First there has to be a god of some ilk.
Second believing in the correct god or its intermediary has to benefit the believer.
Third there has to be a higher chance of selecting the right sect (if it exists) or despite correct diety selection one gets heresy and hell.

God is an entity that is not possible to disprove. This is not equivalent to being a proven entity.

For an atheist the Chrisitan God and all other dieties are in the same category as the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and other fairy tales. Sure there may be a core identity in the heart of some fables. But the fairy tale version such as Santa Claus is easily bypassed for more plausible explanations such as parents supplying the presents. There is no difference between a religious gathering and a sci-fi convention. Except a religious one gets tax breaks.

[Gregoshi]

But the fairy tale version such as Santa Claus is easily bypassed for more plausible explanations such as parents supplying the presents.
What?

[total relism]

The kiddie prostitute banger?

yeah,but for the way he plays football.


No, that is what you are told to make for the most ludicrous claims that a benevolent omniscient god cannot communicate with you, and with anyone else, and you choose to believe in it. Precisely because you do not have those two inches of common sense I was talking about.


or perhaps its what the bible has said all along, as i stated this thread is objections to the bible, not what someone says or thinks about their version of a god.




Relevant video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t11JYaJcpxg

Which is another example of mindboggling stupidity of a fairy-tale that you choose to believe in. It's on the same level of those brainwashed folks who believe Kim Jong-Il & family are avatars of Godhood, and their spirits still live in the hearts of the glorious North Korean people, because they are told.



well its not in english and i have no idea how it is related to this thread. Your opinion above is just that, a unsupported opinion.





Why, oh why do you persist with those silly fallacies??? You're the one who has to prove the existance of a spirit (Which is not proven to exist and even its definitions vary gigantically over what spirit is), and the existance of a god in the first place (Which likewise has dozens of thousands of different deities from all smalish pre-historical tribes until our days).



this if for a different future thread,this happen so common with me, i do evidence for god/bible, than they claim its not translated etc than i do translation, than say evidence for bible. Because i think you have missed the topic of this thread i will let you in on it. 15 most common objections to the bible, these are people objections to the bible.




And yes, yes I can. God never communicated with me, does not live in my heart because I already did quite a bunch of ECG and the doctors never found a god there. And since you have taken the liberty of talking in the name of billions of people, I'll take the liberty of speaking in the behalf of the more than 100 billions of human beings that have lived in history who have never heard of the Christian religion, have heard but weren't Christian, were Christian but never heard anything (If Inquisition cases are of any use), and tell you that they have never heard anything speak to them, besides other humans. God communicates with you as much as I can imagine a fictional character's voice talking something when I'm reading it in a book. It doesn't mean that he is actually talking, it's a figment of my imagination. And by God! Humans have tremendous imagination (See what I did there? :) ). God lives in my heart as much as I have an invisible jet-powered unicorns, right outside my house.


as stated you have to accept god for him to communicative with you, i like this quote

Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman. ~Author Unknown

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell. ~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain


also was it not you who just said i had to prove god is spirit? than claim god should be in a flesh heart?.


as far as those who have never herd of bible see my first link.


how can god be my imagination? if as you say people never herd of bible/god how than could they make him up?. If i believe imagine in something that has nothing to do with if it true or not. I could imagine you are some robot typing as a test, that does not make it so.


"God cannot be a figment of my imagination because He is not at all what I imagined Him to be."
-C.S. Lewis



I don't believe in Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Vishnu or one of dozens of others.

So why even choose from one of the three Abrahmic religions who worship the same god as each other?

Pascal's wager is flawed.
First there has to be a god of some ilk.
Second believing in the correct god or its intermediary has to benefit the believer.
Third there has to be a higher chance of selecting the right sect (if it exists) or despite correct diety selection one gets heresy and hell.

God is an entity that is not possible to disprove. This is not equivalent to being a proven entity.

For an atheist the Chrisitan God and all other dieties are in the same category as the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and other fairy tales. Sure there may be a core identity in the heart of some fables. But the fairy tale version such as Santa Claus is easily bypassed for more plausible explanations such as parents supplying the presents. There is no difference between a religious gathering and a sci-fi convention. Except a religious one gets tax breaks.


why bible over any other religion? well there are many reasons for me personally,but that is for future thread, if you notice i have laid out 5 topic that are commonly brought up on this thread and others, care to disuse any?.


the rest is all unrelated and compeltey unsupported opinions not backed up with any logical reasoning. I cant wait for my last thread.

[HopAlongBunny]

What?

He didn't mean that... ~:pat:

[Papewaio]

the rest is all unrelated and compeltey unsupported opinions not backed up with any logical reasoning. I cant wait for my last thread.

I'm sure others agree with at least that last statement...

[total relism]

Here's my objection: It's man-made, and heavily edited. It has historically been used by humans and institutions run by humans to control other people, usually by taking parts of it out of context and using them as an excuse for dogma. Even read as a Narrative, where it doesn't contradict itself, it still tells a story that is radically different in message than the one most Christians believe in. Jesus himself occupies a pathetically small part of the text. Everything in the Bible before Jesus is what Jesus was trying to change, and everything after the gospels is just people trying to capitalize on his popularity.

With an objection like that, you would think I'm a staunch Athiest or something, but that's not the case. I do believe in a God, and I do think that Jesus embodied everything that is good about us as a species. Was he Divine? Not for me to say. The nature of divinity itself defies mortal comprehension, so why apply labels for the sake of dogma when you're dealing with a concept you can't understand? The man tried to change things for the better, died for it, and had his message twisted by the very forces he was preaching against. A more tragic tale couldn't be told.

Kinda surprised another one of these threads popped up. :shrug:


I disagree with your unsupported opinion, you claimed its man made and heavily edited, are you referring to church councils?certain text through the years? what are you referring to ? when were what is your evidence etc. You than go on claiming that many take parts of bible out of context, i agree fully, what does that have to do with anything about objections to bible, not pastors. You than claim that the text tells a story different from what most christian believe, could you give any example? any major doctrine?. it is also false to claim the bible teaches one thing,than jesus changed it all. As far as jesus divinity, either he was mad since he claimed to be god, or he was god in the flesh.

[Montmorency]

There is only one Truth, Total Relism, only one path to Salvation - and you do not apprehend it.

I pray that one day you may perceive the genuine Light of God shining within you, and not sink ever further into the depths of Sin as you do now.

Be rid of your obstinacy, for God loves you despite all. Once you are prepared to See, God will Show you the way. :bow:

[Kadagar_AV]

yeah,but for the way he plays football.



or perhaps its what the bible has said all along, as i stated this thread is objections to the bible, not what someone says or thinks about their version of a god.





well its not in english and i have no idea how it is related to this thread. Your opinion above is just that, a unsupported opinion.






this if for a different future thread,this happen so common with me, i do evidence for god/bible, than they claim its not translated etc than i do translation, than say evidence for bible. Because i think you have missed the topic of this thread i will let you in on it. 15 most common objections to the bible, these are people objections to the bible.





as stated you have to accept god for him to communicative with you, i like this quote

Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman. ~Author Unknown

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell. ~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain


also was it not you who just said i had to prove god is spirit? than claim god should be in a flesh heart?.


as far as those who have never herd of bible see my first link.


how can god be my imagination? if as you say people never herd of bible/god how than could they make him up?. If i believe imagine in something that has nothing to do with if it true or not. I could imagine you are some robot typing as a test, that does not make it so.


"God cannot be a figment of my imagination because He is not at all what I imagined Him to be."
-C.S. Lewis





why bible over any other religion? well there are many reasons for me personally,but that is for future thread, if you notice i have laid out 5 topic that are commonly brought up on this thread and others, care to disuse any?.


the rest is all unrelated and compeltey unsupported opinions not backed up with any logical reasoning. I cant wait for my last thread.

You'r problem is just that. You have a set mind, You have no interest in a debate.

If You already know your next move, it's a clear sign You have no interest in interaction.

[total relism]

You'r problem is just that. You have a set mind, You have no interest in a debate.

If You already know your next move, it's a clear sign You have no interest in interaction.

interesting, i just see it as having debated 15 subjects for years and when people bring up one it makes me want to debate it. I have come to a conclusion after many years, does not mean it cant change i wish all to try.

[Kadagar_AV]

interesting, i just see it as having debated 15 subjects for years and when people bring up one it makes me want to debate it. I have come to a conclusion after many years, does not mean it cant change i wish all to try.

Try harder.

[The Stranger]

Everybody likes an argument

You can't argue with a brick wall!

[total relism]

You can't argue with a brick wall!

i prefer that i am made of steel. But my guess, i would show your worldview is untouchable based on evidence.

[The Stranger]

you dont even know what my worldview is...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Pondering what happens after you die and a reason to live is not a stupid thing. Remarkable men and women have done incredible things because of their beliefs in such things. Even if you believe in nothing and no inherent purpose, it can't be argued to be a frivolous pursuit disconnected from the overall frivolous pursuit of life. You ponder your oblivion, we can ponder the bible and a traditional belief in heaven and hell. I just don't argue theological points.

[Jolt]

or perhaps its what the bible has said all along, as i stated this thread is objections to the bible, not what someone says or thinks about their version of a god.

It wasn't only in the modern age that people became gullible. Obviously, back at the time where the bible was written, people were far more supersticious and prone to believing in magical entities entities than in these days. You need only look at how many modern-day religions have took off the ground and compare it with Pre/Proto/Classical Times. Literally each group had its own religion. And none of them were Christian or even close to it.


well its not in english and i have no idea how it is related to this thread. Your opinion above is just that, a unsupported opinion.

Haha. It's really mindboggling how a human being can consider the overwhelming lack of proof of the existance of any magical entities unsupported in all areas of science, while thinking their own personal opinions, that were taught to them, about an invisible magical person in the sky is supported, justified, credible and legitimate. Never ceases to amaze me. And the video is related and has English subtitles. Unfortunately for you, contrary to English, which is an irrelevant language as far as historical liturgical scriptures go, Portuguese (Which is the language of the video) is far closer to languages relevant for historical Christianity. Even the title of the video is actually the word "God" written in a language which have been sanctioned by the Church for millenia. It's a pity your magical person did not embue you with the power to learn new languages. Just another thing you need to do it yourself, eh?


this if for a different future thread,this happen so common with me, i do evidence for god/bible, than they claim its not translated etc than i do translation, than say evidence for bible. Because i think you have missed the topic of this thread i will let you in on it. 15 most common objections to the bible, these are people objections to the bible.

You need to realize that your religion's book has zero weight when fundamenting the existance of anything. It has as much weight proving the existance of god magic as the Harry Potter books have weight proving the existance of wizard magic.


as stated you have to accept god for him to communicative with you, i like this quote

"You have to accept God, otherwise he won't talk to you!" Impressive how brainwashed people can become. This is religious sect crazy level.


also was it not you who just said i had to prove god is spirit? than claim god should be in a flesh heart?.

That's the crap you and other religious people are always spouting off, I'm not claiming anything.


how can god be my imagination? if as you say people never herd of bible/god how than could they make him up?. If i believe imagine in something that has nothing to do with if it true or not. I could imagine you are some robot typing as a test, that does not make it so.

God is your imagination because you have no proof of his existance besides what you're told to believe, and what you imagine.


"God cannot be a figment of my imagination because He is not at all what I imagined Him to be."
-C.S. Lewis

Alas, this happens oh, so often to people who suffer from delusions. They imagine someone they remembered, and then that someone starts acting in ways they couldn't "imagine". :)


the rest is all unrelated and compeltey unsupported opinions not backed up with any logical reasoning. I cant wait for my last thread.

But for someone who's talking about how magic fairies exists, trying to say other opinions are unsupported comes at as particularly hilarious and crazy.

[Greyblades]

Would you people please stop feeding the troll.

[Papewaio]

You can't argue with a brick wall!

When presented with a immovable object play parkour.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Total relism has generally demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with, he uses the word "evidence" but he has about as much understanding of its meaning as ATPG has in this context.

If one wishes to examine the matter of translation, for example, one should examine in parallel multiple translation into the same language from the same period. This is easily done in English, and the only conclusion to be drawn is that the translator's bias influences the translation.

If one wishes to examine the stability of the Biblical corpus, one need only examine the variable canons, whereby we see that different Christian cults revere different Books to differing degrees.

If one wishes to consider additions or subtractions to the Books themselves, one need turn only to the Gospel of Mark, which has two extant endings, or to the Lord's Prayer, of which two version exist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Still, the scriptures are remarkably well-preserved in a way that no other document or set of documents of a similar age can claim to be.

If the different books were as isolated or changed as much as people say they are, I don't see how there could be so much continuity between those that were written more than a millenia apart. Much of the New Testament, especially when Jesus is speaking, is effectively paraphrased Old Testament excerpts - often word for word.

There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors.

[HoreTore]

Still, the scriptures are remarkably well-preserved in a way that no other document or set of documents of a similar age can claim to be.

Aren't you forgetting a bunch of other religious/philosophical texts now? The first who springs to mind are those of the ancient chinese... And the code of Hammurabi, of course.

[Brenus]

"There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors." Probably why the need of the Orange Bible was not so accurate... And of course, the various streams in the Christianity never happened, nor Religious Wars. Just minors disagreements on Mary (Virgin or not), the holly Trinity, and marriage of the Priests...:laugh4:

[Sigurd]

There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors.
*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

[spankythehippo]

I got flooded with facebook posts with quotes from the Bible. After the 20th post, I couldn't take it anymore. I joined in. This is the quote I posted.

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses" Ezekiel 23:20

Following that post, I posted a picture of bukkake. I think I made my message clear.

[HoreTore]

*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

Also, the Norwegian Lutherans just turned the virgin Mary into the "young woman Mary"... And her virginity is kinda important to the catholics, isn't it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aren't you forgetting a bunch of other religious/philosophical texts now? The first who springs to mind are those of the ancient chinese... And the code of Hammurabi, of course.

Rhy only works in the context of the Latin West, in that context he is correct. There has generally been a strenuous effort to faithfully copy the Biblical texts, rather than to doctor them.


*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

In his defense, Rhy is a proper fundamentalist, he probably doesn't consider those substantive differences.


Also, the Norwegian Lutherans just turned the virgin Mary into the "young woman Mary"... And her virginity is kinda important to the catholics, isn't it?

That's actually a fault with the English translation of the Latin - Mary is described as a "maiden" in the Bible, which means the same as virgin is Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and most other Europeans languages. The reason being that young, unmarried, women are supposed to be virgins.

So big wup on that one - may I suggest trying again?

Good points of contention are Jesus' final words on the cross, and their precise inflection.

[HoreTore]

Rhy only works in the context of the Latin West, in that context he is correct. There has generally been a strenuous effort to faithfully copy the Biblical texts, rather than to doctor them.

Even so, I have a book with a number of Cicero's(and a few others) speeches. Well preserved.

As for the "big wup"... I won't claim to have followed the debate closely, but it was a hotly debated point when the new norwegian translation was released. Apparently a bunch of christians do consider changing Mary's status from "virgin" to "young woman" a big deal. They didn't use english texts in their works, btw, from what I remember they used greek and hebrew texts.

[drone]

Even so, I have a book with a number of Cicero's(and a few others) speeches. Well preserved.
Nobody is trying to control the population by getting them to worship Cicero.

[HoreTore]

Nobody is trying to control the population by getting them to worship Cicero.

I'm sure quite a few of history's demagogues have learned a thing or two from Cicero ~;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

"There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors." Probably why the need of the Orange Bible was not so accurate... And of course, the various streams in the Christianity never happened, nor Religious Wars. Just minors disagreements on Mary (Virgin or not), the holly Trinity, and marriage of the Priests...:laugh4:

Presuming you are referring to the wars surrounding the Reformation, the controversy there was largely because one side believed that sources outside the scripture had authority to reveal or determine fundamentals of the faith.


*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

Salvation? I have heard that the KJV leans towards a Calvinistic/predestination position, although the examples I've seen have never shown blatant mistranslation - if a particular word or phrase is questionable, then it is actually good and honest practice to assess its meaning by referring to that found throughout the rest of the scripture - I believe that is what happened with the KJV when certain verses in it that appear to support predestination might be contested by some as being more neutral on the topic.

Certainly, the KJV does (ironically, given its adoration by presbyterians and congregationalists) lean towards an episcopalian position on church governance. But this is less a dishonest translation, and more playing into how words have changed - preferring the term 'bishop' for example when elder would be equally appropriate, even though the term 'bishop' in the Apostles' time would have meant what we mean by 'elder' nowadays.

I suppose there is the rather blant addition of a certain excerpt to support the concept of the Trinity, although I think that concept is proven by scripture anyway (even if it is always expressed wrong, there's a reason the term 'Trinity' is never used in the scripture).


Aren't you forgetting a bunch of other religious/philosophical texts now? The first who springs to mind are those of the ancient chinese... And the code of Hammurabi, of course.

Well, perhaps. But the Code of Hammurabi is a major political/legal document, the scripture is just the writings of nobodies that were part of an obscure cult or minor desert people. The Code of Hammurabi is also carved in rock, and is I would think (apologies if wrong) much shorter in length that the entirety of the scripture. So what stands out as being more miraculous?

Plus, for all the stuff we are talking about here, with the confusion that could have come about from copying dubious copies, we have access to documents now that are at least extremely close to the originals, so we can compare them more directly.

[Brenus]

“Presuming you are referring to the wars surrounding the Reformation,”: Not only, not only. I refer as well to the Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ethiopian and all others) that have a different lecture of the Latin/Greek translations of the original text we don’t have any more but only copies. Copies made of course with personal input and spelling mistakes and wrong punctuation…
So we have modified copies of a very old and primitive language that was written by people wanting to boost their military and sexual prowess, and justifying their lust, loot, betrayal and mass murders by saying it was because of a God… Then it was “purified” then translated for political/religious purpose.

[Rhyfelwyr]

“Presuming you are referring to the wars surrounding the Reformation,”: Not only, not only. I refer as well to the Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Ethiopian and all others) that have a different lecture of the Latin/Greek translations of the original text we don’t have any more but only copies. Copies made of course with personal input and spelling mistakes and wrong punctuation…
So we have modified copies of a very old and primitive language that was written by people wanting to boost their military and sexual prowess, and justifying their lust, loot, betrayal and mass murders by saying it was because of a God… Then it was “purified” then translated for political/religious purpose.

Spelling mistakes, wrong punctuation... big deal. For all the different translations by all the different branches, so far the only thing of any sort of substance anybody has been able to come up with is the virgin/young woman issue with Mary. And as PVC said, I wouldn't regard that as a fundamental of the faith.

For all the drama about corrupt these translations are, I never see any solid examples of significant alterations being made.

Please stop giving me rhetoric about wars and lust and mass murder, and just put some solid examples on the table.

As a result of the apparently oh-so-corrupt KJV that I have always read, what parts of my faith are false and would have been different if I read a version closer to the original?

[Sigurd]

A little selection of commonly used scripture and proposed Pauline teaching of salvation. (KJV = King James Version / NEB = New English Bible)

Acts 11:14

KJV:
Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved

NEB:
He shall speak words that will bring salvation to you and your household.


Romans 10:1

KJV
Brethren my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

NEB
Brothers, my deepest desire and my prayer to God is for their salvation.


Romans 10:9

KJV:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

NEB
If on your lips is the confession, 'Jesus is Lord', and in your heart the faith that God raised him from the dead, then you will find salvation.


1. Cor 1:18

KJV:
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

NEB:
This doctrine of the cross is sheer folly to those on their way to ruin, but to us who are on the way to salvation it is the power of God


1.Cor 15:2

KJV:
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

NEB:
On which you have taken your stand, and which is now bringing you salvation.


2 Cor 2:15

KJV:
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish

NEB:
We are indeed the incense offered by Christ to God, both for those who are on the way to salvation, and for those on the way to perdition.



So.. if we go by the NEB translation Paul consistently spoke of salvation as a process that is life long. The Reformationists liked to teach that salvation was attainable whilst in this life, that one could be considered saved or I am saved rather than you await your salvation.

[Slyspy]

I love these threads. Not because of the content, which is frankly rambling and largely unreadable. Not for the purpose, which is futile. But for the completely random punctuation, capitalisation and use of bold letters.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even so, I have a book with a number of Cicero's(and a few others) speeches. Well preserved.

So do I, but Cicero's core output was in Latin (which is easier to copy than Hebrew) of his works have been lost over the centuries, and his total corupus was never as great as the totality of surviving scripture.


As for the "big wup"... I won't claim to have followed the debate closely, but it was a hotly debated point when the new norwegian translation was released. Apparently a bunch of christians do consider changing Mary's status from "virgin" to "young woman" a big deal. They didn't use english texts in their works, btw, from what I remember they used greek and hebrew texts.

It gets argued about, but it's a slight inflection which says more about our modern sexual practices than the interpretation of the Bible. Irrc Mary is referred to as a girl and a virgin by Jerome.

[Kadagar_AV]

I love Mary, she is the playa of playa's...

I mean, normally when Your GF refuse sex, and get pregnant, suspicions might arise. But heck no, not in her case.

Sometimes I wish I had a time machine, I would love to learn ancient hewbrew and go back to give her a ski lesson. Having Joseph snoring in the next room as she thanks me for the experience.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I love Mary, she is the playa of playa's...

I mean, normally when Your GF refuse sex, and get pregnant, suspicions might arise. But heck no, not in her case.

Sometimes I wish I had a time machine, I would love to learn ancient hewbrew and go back to give her a ski lesson. Having Joseph snoring in the next room as she thanks me for the experience.

Careful, keep being funny like that and Jesus might let you into heaven.

[Kadagar_AV]

I would just put on a Darth Vader mask and go: "Jesus, I am Your father..."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You'd probably be bored, Good Girls go to heaven.

[Kadagar_AV]

Bad girls go to the Alps.

[Brenus]

“Spelling mistakes, wrong punctuation... big deal”:
My father said: The teacher is an imbecile.
My father, said the teacher, is an imbecile.
Not a big deal?:laugh4:

[Kadagar_AV]

On the internet, I try to look past poor grammar and language knowledge. That someone is weak in English does not have to be a sign of a weak brain, at all.

With that said, I am in no way defending the intellect of the OP. I just think we should bash him for the right reasons.

[spankythehippo]

So do I, but Cicero's core output was in Latin (which is easier to copy than Hebrew) of his works have been lost over the centuries, and his total corupus was never as great as the totality of surviving scripture.
I killed Cicero. I wanted his jester's suit.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ITT: So many edgy people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

“Spelling mistakes, wrong punctuation... big deal”:
My father said: The teacher is an imbecile.
My father, said the teacher, is an imbecile.
Not a big deal?:laugh4:

Punctuation errors of that sort would I think be pretty rare since the context would be obvious from the surrounding text.

Again - could you just provide some solid Biblical examples please?

[total relism]

jolt you have not given one piece of any evidence against my op or even against god, just unsupported claims. Would you debate me 1v1 in the fight club at twc?



It wasn't only in the modern age that people became gullible. Obviously, back at the time where the bible was written, people were far more supersticious and prone to believing in magical entities entities than in these days. You need only look at how many modern-day religions have took off the ground and compare it with Pre/Proto/Classical Times. Literally each group had its own religion. And none of them were Christian or even close to it.



Haha. It's really mindboggling how a human being can consider the overwhelming lack of proof of the existance of any magical entities unsupported in all areas of science, while thinking their own personal opinions, that were taught to them, about an invisible magical person in the sky is supported, justified, credible and legitimate. Never ceases to amaze me. And the video is related and has English subtitles. Unfortunately for you, contrary to English, which is an irrelevant language as far as historical liturgical scriptures go, Portuguese (Which is the language of the video) is far closer to languages relevant for historical Christianity. Even the title of the video is actually the word "God" written in a language which have been sanctioned by the Church for millenia. It's a pity your magical person did not embue you with the power to learn new languages. Just another thing you need to do it yourself, eh?



You need to realize that your religion's book has zero weight when fundamenting the existance of anything. It has as much weight proving the existance of god magic as the Harry Potter books have weight proving the existance of wizard magic.



"You have to accept God, otherwise he won't talk to you!" Impressive how brainwashed people can become. This is religious sect crazy level.



That's the crap you and other religious people are always spouting off, I'm not claiming anything.



God is your imagination because you have no proof of his existance besides what you're told to believe, and what you imagine.



Alas, this happens oh, so often to people who suffer from delusions. They imagine someone they remembered, and then that someone starts acting in ways they couldn't "imagine". :)



But for someone who's talking about how magic fairies exists, trying to say other opinions are unsupported comes at as particularly hilarious and crazy.


I agree the modern age people are the most gullible yet,they believe anything there told. But i think the belief in magic etc is more know than ever, aliens, witchcraft, horoscopes etc etc. But would we really aspect christian doctrine to arise know? i don't see that as any way possible as it already arose, not sure your point on that.



I think you misunderstand sir, i said your claim that there is somehow no evidence for god is false and you did not support at all. The fact you have been idocrintaed so bad to believe it is not my fault. As far as learning Portuguese and being a idiot for not learning....i guess we all have our opinions. But to claim the language has anything to do with biblical history or needed to understand shows your lack of knowledge of the area.



well if that is your unsupported opinion i care not, it holds zero weight with me, this is for people who object to bible for reasons given on op, if you think there not common read my other thread, over a dozen times they say cant trust bible it was not translated right etc etc. As i said, whenever i answer a objection it turns into something else fast.



well i would say your wrong given what i have said and tried to reference to you, but this just shows your unwillingness to think outside your own worldview.



only if we ignore your last post.



besides having much evidence for creator [another thread] what proof do you have for no god? than it must just be your imagination.


lol, nice dodge, know we cant remember owr own imagination, good way to protect your worldview.


i think you have posted on wrong thread, or replied to wrong one.








Total relism has generally demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with, he uses the word "evidence" but he has about as much understanding of its meaning as ATPG has in this context.

If one wishes to examine the matter of translation, for example, one should examine in parallel multiple translation into the same language from the same period. This is easily done in English, and the only conclusion to be drawn is that the translator's bias influences the translation.

If one wishes to examine the stability of the Biblical corpus, one need only examine the variable canons, whereby we see that different Christian cults revere different Books to differing degrees.

If one wishes to consider additions or subtractions to the Books themselves, one need turn only to the Gospel of Mark, which has two extant endings, or to the Lord's Prayer, of which two version exist.


thanks for being on topic

could you support your claims, please show what evidence your referring to.
" demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with"


translation
I think you misunderstand, i never said every translation is perfect, in fact no english can really be 100% perfect from herbre/greek. Please reread op.



variable canons
please provide what you are referring to, apocrypha?. Also who cares if some see some books as more important? variety of doctrine in many books all have their fav etc.


mark
i think its generally accepted that marks ending was added on. The ordinal bible is there in full.





"There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors." Probably why the need of the Orange Bible was not so accurate... And of course, the various streams in the Christianity never happened, nor Religious Wars. Just minors disagreements on Mary (Virgin or not), the holly Trinity, and marriage of the Priests...:laugh4:

orange bible? what is that, not to mention my op is on original bible, not any and all transitional of the bible. Do we have the original bible from witch to translate,yes.

various streams in the Christianity
why does that matter? that comes from theology not bible translation.


religious wars? has to do with?


all believe mary virgin


trinity is legit debate, not based on translation

priest marry is 100% in bible no one rejects that. Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.




*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.


interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.



Also, the Norwegian Lutherans just turned the virgin Mary into the "young woman Mary"... And her virginity is kinda important to the catholics, isn't it?

as far as i know virgin=young woman.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you misunderstand sir, i said your claim that there is somehow no evidence for god is false and you did not support at all.

Wait... You want us to... Prove that there are no evidence?

At all times, I have a invisible leprechaun floating above me. Not only invisible, but ethereal, You can't touch him. Also, he never speaks when others are around, or when there are recording devices on in the vicinity.

Now prove me wrong, mmmkay?

[Rhyfelwyr]

A little selection of commonly used scripture and proposed Pauline teaching of salvation. (KJV = King James Version / NEB = New English Bible)

....

So.. if we go by the NEB translation Paul consistently spoke of salvation as a process that is life long. The Reformationists liked to teach that salvation was attainable whilst in this life, that one could be considered saved or I am saved rather than you await your salvation.

Maybe we have a language barrier somehow, but for me, the first three do not show any difference on whether salvation would be an event or a process.

The last three though, I will grant.

How far this is down to mistranslation I cannot say - the poverty of language means that not each and every language may be able to make a direct translation.

I am not aware of what was said in the original language, if you know we might be able to see whether the tense used was somehow ambiguous - ie not indicating whether salvation was immediate or ongoing.

In such cases, the most honest thing to do would be to analyse the meaning from the context provided elsewhere in the source - in this cause the particular Epistle, followed by the Pauline Epistles more generally.

I trust that that is what the Reformationist translators did, hence the bias in the KJV. But it is also worth noting that these examples are passing references to the inferred established doctrines - not the basis of the doctrines themselves (since naturally, debates on such matter always address the original language).

Thank you though for providing the examples, they make the basis for meaningful debate. :bow:

[Sigurd]

This is fun...


Do we have the original bible from witch to translate,yes.

Do you? I think not. Are the various Bible translations on the marked today translated from the original? I think not.


priest marry is 100% in bible no one rejects that. Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.

Was he now? So.. the guy didn't get married in the big gaping hole in his biography (12y - 30y)? A man at the end of his adult life never followed the very first commandment in the bible - to be fruitful and multiply?


interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.

See my follow up post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143902-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible&p=2053520206&viewfull=1#post2053520206)

[total relism]

This is fun...

Do you? I think not. Are the various Bible translations on the marked today translated from the original? I think not.

Was he now? So.. the guy didn't get married in the big gaping hole in his biography (12y - 30y)? A man at the end of his adult life never followed the very first commandment in the bible - to be fruitful and multiply?

See my follow up post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143902-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible&p=2053520206&viewfull=1#post2053520206)


fun indeed

i think so, i suggest reading my op, and watching those debates i posted with bart herman.Do we have the original copies, no we dont, so how can we know we have original? read op/watch debates.


what do you base his supposed marriage on? when all documents say otherwise? certainly not biblical theology. The man jesus was unique if your aware. He followed all he was to do. Le tme ask you, should i build a big ark as commanded by god?. Do all laws apply to all people all times?did god ever tell jesus to have a wife? very much the opisite. Did paul the apostles have kids? in fact he told he would prefer people to not marry and focus on god.


Genesis 1:28 is not a commandment, but a blessing. It does not refer to what humans must do to please God, but to what God does for and through humankind. The text says, "God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply'" (RSV). Fertility is not a command but a blessing that God gives to his creatures, to animals as well as humans (Gen. 1:22).
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/november12/4.58.html


translation
remember i said more differences between 2 translation than manuscripts. But i think there saying same thing, your tacking common langue of the day from 100's of years ago and trying to compare, of course it is diffident,words meant different things, you claimed they said your saved a different way.

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, My imaginary Leprechaun just beat Your imaginary God in armwrestling.

I guess my objection to the bible would be: Why believe in Your definition of God when my Leprechaun just beat him in armwrestling?

[total relism]

TR, My imaginary Leprechaun just beat Your imaginary God in armwrestling.

I guess my objection to the bible would be: Why believe in Your definition of God when my Leprechaun just beat him in armwrestling?

i have many reasons, why believe in your unobserved creator? i will be doing post on this in future number 15 in fact, it get s it own thread.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wait... You want us to... Prove that there are no evidence?

At all times, I have a invisible leprechaun floating above me. Not only invisible, but ethereal, You can't touch him. Also, he never speaks when others are around, or when there are recording devices on in the vicinity.

Now prove me wrong, mmmkay?

Comparing God to invisible leprechauns or unicorns or whatever doesn't work.

The concept of God (as most of us in this thread mean by it) is a response to existential questions like how the material universe came to be - namely his role as a creator that transcends time and space, which (the theory goes) must according to their nature have a beginning. The properties we attribute to God tend to derive from this - his omnipotence, omnipresence etc.

The same does not hold true for your invisible leprechaun. Why has this unique creature taken on the particular form of a leprechaun? How did it come to be? Why does it have such strange properties as invisibility?

To challenge the particulars of various religions is one thing, but the concept of God more generally is not as silly as you make it out to be.

[Brenus]

“Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.” Nope: Council of Trento (ending in 1563), women being evil (no soul) they are leading men to perversion and perdition.

[HoreTore]

Comparing God to invisible leprechauns or unicorns or whatever doesn't work.

Perhaps not, but he can certainly claim midi-chlorians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midi-chlorians).

[total relism]

“Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.” Nope: Council of Trento (ending in 1563), women being evil (no soul) they are leading men to perversion and perdition.


please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.

[Papewaio]

The invisible leprechaun and the omnipresent yet not measurable god have the same level of proof.

Attaching desires such as how the universe was created or wishing to live forever to one of these does not decrease the burden of truth required. Nor does having an emotional attachement make it make it any easier to prove or disprove a negative.

Proof of the negative is not possible no matter how much importance is attached to the item.

KAV leprechaun and the Christian God having different size fan clubs doesn't change the ability to disprove either. At least with KAVs leprechaun we know where we are likely to find KAV searching for his pot of gold in the rainbow hued woman of the world...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The invisible leprechaun and the omnipresent yet not measurable god have the same level of proof.

Attaching desires such as how the universe was created or wishing to live forever to one of these does not decrease the burden of truth required.

To mention the creation of the universe by God is not necessarily expressing a desire or wishful thinking - it is an attempt at an explanation, a theory, in which a being with the properties we attribute to God is posited to exist based on its necessity for the existence of the material universe. As such, it should be assessed on its merits as a theory, and not speculation on an individual's motivations for believing in it.

The invisible leprechuan is not an attempt to explain anything, and no reasoning is offered to suggest why, in the absence of more direct evidence, this being must by necessity exist.

Furthermore, the concept of God as an omnipotent, omnipresent etc being is consistent in that it is based on his relationship with the universe.

On the other hand, the design of the invisible leprechuan seems to make no sense, far less have any basis for positing its existence. How, for example, does it manage to float above Kadagar's head, yet still retain the form of a creature designed to live on earth bound by gravity and similar things? How has its leprechaun skin managed to manipulate light in such a way as to achieve invisibility?

[total relism]

The invisible leprechaun and the omnipresent yet not measurable god have the same level of proof.

Attaching desires such as how the universe was created or wishing to live forever to one of these does not decrease the burden of truth required. Nor does having an emotional attachement make it make it any easier to prove or disprove a negative.

Proof of the negative is not possible no matter how much importance is attached to the item.

KAV leprechaun and the Christian God having different size fan clubs doesn't change the ability to disprove either. At least with KAVs leprechaun we know where we are likely to find KAV searching for his pot of gold in the rainbow hued woman of the world...


please bring this up when i do future thread, as i said before, i cant believe how much people today dont question things and believe what there told. Not to mention i will show you believe in things worse than a invisible leprechaun, assuming your atheist.

[total relism]

sorry

[Hax]

Sometimes I wish I had a time machine, I would love to learn ancient hewbrew

Imperial Aramaic would be more useful I think.


Carry on​.

[Papewaio]

Big Bang posits no need for God.

The leprechaun does explain KAVs need for a Big Bang...

[Brenus]

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” You don’t know the place of the Council of Trento in the Catholic Doctrine? Reinforcement of the dogma? The holly sacraments and place of the Church is the society? Really?~:confused:

[HoreTore]

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” You don’t know the place of the Council of Trento in the Catholic Doctrine? Reinforcement of the dogma? The holly sacraments and place of the Church is the society? Really?~:confused:

He's a protestant extremist, I would think he considers Catholics to be satanic...

[total relism]

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” You don’t know the place of the Council of Trento in the Catholic Doctrine? Reinforcement of the dogma? The holly sacraments and place of the Church is the society? Really?~:confused:

your claim was

"Nope: Council of Trento (ending in 1563), women being evil (no soul) they are leading men to perversion and perdition."


I simply asked
please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Big Bang posits no need for God.

While that may be your conclusion, you should acknowledge that arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument are at least logically consistent and do offer a valid theory on something that we do not yet (and may never) know the answer to. The same cannot be said for invisible floating leprechauns, hence your comparison is entirely unfair (although I suppose it was never meant for anything more than ridicule).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

could you support your claims, please show what evidence your referring to.
" demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with"

Your refusal to engage with my arguments in a previous thread, or Sugurd's


translation
I think you misunderstand, i never said every translation is perfect, in fact no english can really be 100% perfect from herbre/greek. Please reread op.

Variety of translation demonstrates variety of transmission, which invalidates the Bible as a final authority.


variable canons
please provide what you are referring to, apocrypha?. Also who cares if some see some books as more important? variety of doctrine in many books all have their fav etc.

I direct you to the Council of Trent, the Council of Carthage (Provincial) and the 39 Articles of the Church of England, wherein you will find differences of opinion on what the "Bible" is.


mark
i think its generally accepted that marks ending was added on. The ordinal bible is there in full.

Except that until about a hundred years ago the longer Mark was the more widely read. Only recently has that determination been made - for most of the last 1500 years most Christians having been working from a corrupt text.


orange bible? what is that, not to mention my op is on original bible, not any and all transitional of the bible. Do we have the original bible from witch to translate,yes.


Certain passages are so corrupt that they cannot be recovered from examination of dozens of anciant authorities. The Bible is broken, Thanks be to God.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Variety of translation demonstrates variety of transmission, which invalidates the Bible as a final authority.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that no true 'original' exists? Or are you just saying that they have been corroputed over time? If it's the former, then it is only true for parts of the Bible, if it's the latter, then I don't see why that would necessarily invalidate the original version (or those closest to it) as a final authority.


The Bible is broken, Thanks be to God.

Now that is heretical.

Why would you be thankful that a great source of inspiration in the Christian faith has (supposedly) become so corrupted over time?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that no true 'original' exists? Or are you just saying that they have been corroputed over time? If it's the former, then it is only true for parts of the Bible, if it's the latter, then I don't see why that would necessarily invalidate the original version (or those closest to it) as a final authority.

We could postulate an Ur-text all day, the fact is we don't have one - and God has made no effort to preserve one for us. My conclusion is that he worries much less about the content of the Bible than we do.


Now that is heretical.

Why would you be thankful that a great source of inspiration in the Christian faith has (supposedly) become so corrupted over time?

Is not the Gospel graven on men's hearts, rather than in a book? May I remind you, you went through a phase of idolising the Bible as a Book, you used to pray with is clasped to your chest.

Ooooooh - my black period is over!

Yipppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

*Goes off to sing corny Christians songs.*

"Carry on my wayward son...."

[Jolt]

jolt you have not given one piece of any evidence against my op or even against god, just unsupported claims. Would you debate me 1v1 in the fight club at twc?

Why would I waste time debating someone who's major argument is that "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". That is what people with pathological delusions say.


I agree the modern age people are the most gullible yet,they believe anything there told. But i think the belief in magic etc is more know than ever, aliens, witchcraft, horoscopes etc etc. But would we really aspect christian doctrine to arise know? i don't see that as any way possible as it already arose, not sure your point on that.

Only that I never made the point that this generation was the most gullible.

So, you agree that a generation which is far in advance the most instructed of human history, taught to think for themselves, is the most gullible generation in history and that we believe anything we're told? More than when you had the whole continent worshipping an invisible man, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers willing to execute massacres and die in the name of something they never saw?

Magic belief strong than ever? Haha, you do not that the precise definition of magic is a force that does not exist right? Belief in whatever god was the required norm of Western societies. You think everyone is believing in aliens, or in witchcraft or in horoscopes, all of which have around the same level of proof of existance with your God (Only that supposedly alien ships have been sighted thousands of times throughout the world - far more times than any god - and in the age where you need to see something to believe it in, it obviously gives a greater cause for belief then your "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". The other two come from a placebo effect. Nevertheless, the simple fact that you are making such a statement based on a percentage of folks who believe in magical things to then claim it as a "whole generation that believes in magic" shows you have a pretty distorted view of reality. Which isn't surprising.


I think you misunderstand sir, i said your claim that there is somehow no evidence for god is false and you did not support at all.

It's not a claim. A claim would be "I think I'm the smartest man alive.". The lack of proof in something unprovable is only a logical fact. A bothersome fact that ultimately contributed to the downfall of religion in parts of the world where people are not constrained by the tradition of forcing kids to believe in something.


The fact you have been idocrintaed so bad to believe it is not my fault. As far as learning Portuguese and being a idiot for not learning....i guess we all have our opinions. But to claim the language has anything to do with biblical history or needed to understand shows your lack of knowledge of the area.

Yes, I admit it. I have been indoctrinated by my own experience and self-meditation and arriving at my own metaphysical conclusions, without anyone else forcing their own visions, their own dogmas and their own gods down my throat.


well if that is your unsupported opinion i care not, it holds zero weight with me, this is for people who object to bible for reasons given on op, if you think there not common read my other thread, over a dozen times they say cant trust bible it was not translated right etc etc. As i said, whenever i answer a objection it turns into something else fast.

The bible in itself has no value besides as an historical and philosophical document. The fact that the bible is mistranslated is just another nail in the coffin.


well i would say your wrong given what i have said and tried to reference to you, but this just shows your unwillingness to think outside your own worldview.

Never forget your position in relation to me. You're the one that is talking about invisible men here.


only if we ignore your last post.

Nope, with or without my last post.


besides having much evidence for creator [another thread] what proof do you have for no god? than it must just be your imagination.

Are you seriously repeating the same fallacy as in the previous reply? There is no proof that it exists. Your proof consists of becoming crazy and needing to start imagining stuff, otherwise, I'll never be able to find that one god you're talking about.


lol, nice dodge, know we cant remember owr own imagination, good way to protect your worldview.

Hahaha. A guy who consistently employs fallacies, quotes fallacies, and ultimately believes in an invisible man that only talks to those who believe in him, thinks I'm protecting my world view. :D As to your "we can't remember our own imagination", without even going into the semantics of it, it is wrong on a great many different levels.


i think you have posted on wrong thread, or replied to wrong one.

Nah, you have your own God, that communicates to you because you believe in him. I have my magical fairies that help me out in my tasks in Valhalla, and I go there on my white diamond unicorn. You can also get a similar set if you accept them.

[Brenus]

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” So you are ignorant of the Councils of Latran followed by Trento (the series of).:yes:
From a quick research in internet: “According to the book The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, in a local Synod in France in the year 585 one or more bishops expressed the view that the word "homo" (meaning mankind) did not include the female gender, and that a woman is not an authentic person in the sense the male is. It was thought by some that she did not possess the divinely-imaged soul of her male counterpart. The belief goes back to the creation story in the Bible, as you described it (and other references in the Bible which indicate the female is not equal to the male).”
Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."

My usual sources are in French, so inaccessible for you, sorry.:embarassed:

[Husar]

He's a protestant extremist, I would think he considers Catholics to be satanic...

As he should. You get to heaven by accepting Jesus as your saviour, not by good deeds. Your sins are forgiven by Jesus, not by praying a certain number of prayers. Everybody who says otherwise is a false prophet trying to lure you into the arms of satan.

[spankythehippo]

I think it's futile arguing with this guy. He either responds with a massive wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for the future thread".

Can't we all just cast aside our differences and pursue our own goals without impeding on anyone else's? Or is that too much to ask?

[Kadagar_AV]

I think it's futile arguing with this guy. He either responds with a massive wall of text, "read the OP" or "wait for the future thread".

Can't we all just cast aside our differences and pursue our own goals without impeding on anyone else's? Or is that too much to ask?

Nailed it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We could postulate an Ur-text all day, the fact is we don't have one - and God has made no effort to preserve one for us. My conclusion is that he worries much less about the content of the Bible than we do.

Well naturally we cannot know for certain whether our earliest manuscripts might be the original, divinely inspired version. Except in those cases when they are not in what we would expect to be the original language.

Still, it's worth considering that even if we treat the Bible as a historical document, what we see in the New Testament shows that Jesus and the first Christians regarded the scripture as extremely important (though by scripture they obviously meant something resembling the Old Testament). So God does care about the scripture.

And like I said earlier, it is preserved far better than any other text of a similar age or length. That indicates that God cares.


Is not the Gospel graven on men's hearts, rather than in a book? May I remind you, you went through a phase of idolising the Bible as a Book, you used to pray with is clasped to your chest.

You have a good memory. When you are new to the faith you tend to latch onto things like that. Maybe some Protestants like myself do (or did) venerate the Bible to the point of idolatry.

We're human, over time we hopefully learn better, rather than trying to justify past errors. For a while now I haven't identified with the idea of Sola Scriptura, since I recognise the value of general revalation, as well as special revelation.

None of that changes the fact that the Bible remains a great example of God's special revelation to men, and for you to rejoice in its manipulation by men seems well out of order. Maybe you could explain exactly what you meant by it?

[Husar]

Can't we all just cast aside our differences and pursue our own goals without impeding on anyone else's? Or is that too much to ask?

Too much to ask from someone who thinks you are a sinner and go to hell. And who additionally thinks his lord and saviour wants him to love you and to do his best to make you see the light so you can go to heaven, too. After all the only reason you try to resist is because the devil is trying his best to prevent you from seeing the truth.

On the other side of the argument you have the people who think that this behaviour is the root of all evil on this planet and if only they can convinve religious people with rational, scientific argumentation, they can purge the world of this problem and make it better, more rational place.

Unfortunately rational, scientific thought is a way of thinking invented by the devil so people cannot see the truth from/of god. No, I didn't make that up, I heard a whole sermon about it once.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...My usual sources are in French, so inaccessible for you, sorry.:embarassed:

I'd suggest posting them anyway. Even those who lack fluency in a language can often work through [with translation tools and/or school-child knowledge] enough of a text to corroborate for themselves that you are using the source in a valid manner and that the source is based on credible methods/expertise etc. That is the point of citing them after all, so that we can see that your point is based on decent evidence.

[HoreTore]

I'd suggest posting them anyway. Even those who lack fluency in a language can often work through [with translation tools and/or school-child knowledge] enough of a text to corroborate for themselves that you are using the source in a valid manner and that the source is based on credible methods/expertise etc. That is the point of citing them after all, so that we can see that your point is based on decent evidence.

....or just wait for PVC or Sigurd to comment, I guess...

[total relism]

Your refusal to engage with my arguments in a previous thread, or Sugurd's



Variety of translation demonstrates variety of transmission, which invalidates the Bible as a final authority.



I direct you to the Council of Trent, the Council of Carthage (Provincial) and the 39 Articles of the Church of England, wherein you will find differences of opinion on what the "Bible" is.



Except that until about a hundred years ago the longer Mark was the more widely read. Only recently has that determination been made - for most of the last 1500 years most Christians having been working from a corrupt text.



Certain passages are so corrupt that they cannot be recovered from examination of dozens of anciant authorities. The Bible is broken, Thanks be to God.

i will ask again, please provide one specific place you are referring to.



not at all, unless your unwilling to learn or watch debates, and ignore what you dont want to hear, read op/watch debates posted on op.



so if i decide to write a book called the gospel of total relism, than that proves we dont have the original bible?


that may be true,does not refute what i said, we have all the original bible. if you read my op, you would see i said that.



please provide any evidence.






Why would I waste time debating someone who's major argument is that "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". That is what people with pathological delusions say.



Only that I never made the point that this generation was the most gullible.

So, you agree that a generation which is far in advance the most instructed of human history, taught to think for themselves, is the most gullible generation in history and that we believe anything we're told? More than when you had the whole continent worshipping an invisible man, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers willing to execute massacres and die in the name of something they never saw?

Magic belief strong than ever? Haha, you do not that the precise definition of magic is a force that does not exist right? Belief in whatever god was the required norm of Western societies. You think everyone is believing in aliens, or in witchcraft or in horoscopes, all of which have around the same level of proof of existance with your God (Only that supposedly alien ships have been sighted thousands of times throughout the world - far more times than any god - and in the age where you need to see something to believe it in, it obviously gives a greater cause for belief then your "You can't see, or hear or otherwise interact with my magical man because you refuse him.". The other two come from a placebo effect. Nevertheless, the simple fact that you are making such a statement based on a percentage of folks who believe in magical things to then claim it as a "whole generation that believes in magic" shows you have a pretty distorted view of reality. Which isn't surprising.



It's not a claim. A claim would be "I think I'm the smartest man alive.". The lack of proof in something unprovable is only a logical fact. A bothersome fact that ultimately contributed to the downfall of religion in parts of the world where people are not constrained by the tradition of forcing kids to believe in something.



Yes, I admit it. I have been indoctrinated by my own experience and self-meditation and arriving at my own metaphysical conclusions, without anyone else forcing their own visions, their own dogmas and their own gods down my throat.



The bible in itself has no value besides as an historical and philosophical document. The fact that the bible is mistranslated is just another nail in the coffin.



Never forget your position in relation to me. You're the one that is talking about invisible men here.



Nope, with or without my last post.



Are you seriously repeating the same fallacy as in the previous reply? There is no proof that it exists. Your proof consists of becoming crazy and needing to start imagining stuff, otherwise, I'll never be able to find that one god you're talking about.



Hahaha. A guy who consistently employs fallacies, quotes fallacies, and ultimately believes in an invisible man that only talks to those who believe in him, thinks I'm protecting my world view. :D As to your "we can't remember our own imagination", without even going into the semantics of it, it is wrong on a great many different levels.



Nah, you have your own God, that communicates to you because you believe in him. I have my magical fairies that help me out in my tasks in Valhalla, and I go there on my white diamond unicorn. You can also get a similar set if you accept them.


so i take that as a no, me thinks you know you just make claims and cant back them up, a 1v1 debate would show that clearly and you dont want that. But if my evidence and arguments are only what you say they are, why not debate me you could make us believers look so stupid with the kind of arguments you have assured me i will use.



I disagree 100%, i feel people are indoctrinated to the fullest, they are taught to spit back info they have been fed and not taught to think challenge etc, this has been the agenda of the liberals and atheist for decades and it is know installed. In fact i would love to show how you are a victim if you debate me 1v1. Ask for some info next post i will provide.


as i said people believe in forces that dont exist more than ever,ghost,aliens,horoscopes,mother earth etc etc many beliefs. the rest is great example of your faulty logic and indoctrination.

here is my offer, 1v1 debate on the evidence for god vs evidence for atheism. otherwise i will take as your own self admit ion you just say what you want and are not willing to back up as you cant, and you dont want to face evidence contrary to your own faith, and have your beliefs challenged. Of course you could just wait as it is future thread.



asumtions not backed up easily refuted [look to debate offer above] indoctrinated.



we will see if you debate me, if this is true than you should be able to defend your beliefs and have no internal contradictions.



based on your beliefs that are easily refutable [look to debate offer]


same again.



only if you ignore my last post.



lhmm, i repeated your false logic to show it false, im glad you can see it if another uses your own logic.




i think twice you have missed me using your logic to show it false, yet both times you see it as false when i use it.



ill debate that.



“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” So you are ignorant of the Councils of Latran followed by Trento (the series of).:yes:
From a quick research in internet: “According to the book The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, in a local Synod in France in the year 585 one or more bishops expressed the view that the word "homo" (meaning mankind) did not include the female gender, and that a woman is not an authentic person in the sense the male is. It was thought by some that she did not possess the divinely-imaged soul of her male counterpart. The belief goes back to the creation story in the Bible, as you described it (and other references in the Bible which indicate the female is not equal to the male).”
Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."

My usual sources are in French, so inaccessible for you, sorry.:embarassed:


instead of atheist site, could you please provide the Councils of Latran followed by Trento were it says what you say. The simple fact is i dont believe you unless you can provide original catholic source. If there is one, very much doubt it, i will refute biblical anyways.

[Hax]

I hate atheist sites, they're usually really vocal about their beliefs.

[Kadagar_AV]

evidence for atheism

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Really? No, really? I mean... Really??

[InsaneApache]

It's like trying to reason with a brick.

[Brenus]

“instead of atheist site, could you please provide the Councils of Latran followed by Trento were it says what you say. The simple fact is i dont believe you unless you can provide original catholic source. If there is one, very much doubt it, i will refute biblical anyways.”
Dear, dear, dear, these are NOT atheist sites but ARE Religious one. :laugh4:

www.landoverbaptist.org/news0500/femsoul.html

Decisively the proof you don’t check or want to have dialogue, but just you telling others…

To ask a Catholic Site to tell that in the middle ages the Catholic Church is the same that to ask a Neo-Nazi Authors to prove that the Nazi killed more Jews than it was alleged before:laugh4:



And I can understand why when I can see from your answer how deep is your ignorance of the history of Religions…

For your general knowledge: When you will have read it then understood it I will provide more about the reasons of these decisions (catholic site). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

But I doubt you want to know more, as it might give you matters for thinking, so doubts might crawl...

[total relism]

“instead of atheist site, could you please provide the Councils of Latran followed by Trento were it says what you say. The simple fact is i dont believe you unless you can provide original catholic source. If there is one, very much doubt it, i will refute biblical anyways.”
Dear, dear, dear, these are NOT atheist sites but ARE Religious one. :laugh4:

www.landoverbaptist.org/news0500/femsoul.html

Decisively the proof you don’t check or want to have dialogue, but just you telling others…

To ask a Catholic Site to tell that in the middle ages the Catholic Church is the same that to ask a Neo-Nazi Authors to prove that the Nazi killed more Jews than it was alleged before:laugh4:



And I can understand why when I can see from your answer how deep is your ignorance of the history of Religions…

For your general knowledge: When you will have read it then understood it I will provide more about the reasons of these decisions (catholic site). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

But I doubt you want to know more, as it might give you matters for thinking, so doubts might crawl...


not sure if you read my last post, i said can your provide original source from council of Catholics that said so.


you claim i dont want dialogue because i ask you to back up your claim with source, you claimed a catholic council said these things at council of trent, i want evidence for your claim with original source. Until you do so its a false to me.


you say i dont know about "religious" history, assuming that is true, but that does not make your claim any more true. Not to mention what you know of "religious history" is prabley just what your liberal teachers have told you, witch is all that is bad about christian history.


Great you linked me to a catholic site on Trent, know just support your claim and show me were it says anything on woman not having souls.

[Jolt]

I was going to reply again, but then I read:

evidence for atheism.

9009

and decided some people are just too dumb and consistently illogical that it's a waste of precious time.

EDIT: Just something I'll do for my own research, and maybe you guys can point me in the right direction: Is there any provable historical supernatural phenomenon that is not inside a religious book, and cannot be explained or theorized upon by use of science, physics and logic, and can easily be explained by any religion?

[Rhyfelwyr]

For all the abuse that total relism gets, the stuff some other people are coming up with here is comedy gold.

Everybody is rubbishing his (admittedly rubbish) sources, and then with a straight face they come out and quote Landover Baptist Church as a reliable source on Christian doctrine. :laugh4:

For those not aware, Landover Baptist Church is a troll website parodying hardcore Evangelical Protestants.

But don't let me get in the way of the circle-jerk...

[The Stranger]

i think it was only brenus, and from my one encounter with him, he might be the atheist version of Total Relism... so ye XD

[Brenus]

“For those not aware, Landover Baptist Church is a troll website parodying hardcore Evangelical Protestants.” I was not aware of this (why should I?) as what is said there looks really like is said but non parodying Evangelical Protestants.
Still, the place of women in the middle Age by the church is developed by the theologian Thomas Aquinas: males are the perfect form and female children are simply defective males. Or Read St Augustin.

“i think it was only brenus, and from my one encounter with him, he might be the atheist version of Total Relism... so ye” When? I don’t remember any encounter with you, but I might have, so can you give details, please…~:confused:

[Rhyfelwyr]

“For those not aware, Landover Baptist Church is a troll website parodying hardcore Evangelical Protestants.” I was not aware of this (why should I?)

The fact that you couldn't tell that it was a rather outrageous parody site sums up how much you know about Christian doctrine.

btw you also never delivered when I asked you for those quotes earlier. You seemed quite confident with the rhetoric but if this is the quality of your sources I think it was a bit misplaced.

[Hax]

Why do you feel a need to defend him? Idiocy might be contagious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hypocrisy is worth pointing out.

[Brenus]

“The fact that you couldn't tell that it was a rather outrageous parody site sums up how much you know about Christian doctrine.” I know enough of the “Christian” doctrine to know that there is more than one. You, on contrary, seem to think there is only one. The place of women in the history of the multiple aspect of this generic religious movement can be easily seen, without even a careful and long attention.
And to be really open about it, the stupidity of this text that matched what I can watch on Evangelist TV (the rare time when I by chance listen -shortly-) so I didn't doubt it was an authentic site, a little bit like the one from the guy who wanted to burn some samples of the Koran. This will teach me a lesson.

“btw you also never delived when I asked you for those quotes earlier. You seemed quite confident with the rhetoric but if this is the quality of your sources I think it was a bit misplaced.” I am confident as I studied Religions. I didn’t felt the need to answer as, as I said before, you do not need careful, long and painful studies to acknowledge the place of the women in societies under “Christian” rules, whatever the “doctrine” says. The opinion and statement of the Religious Politicians as Tertullien (using St Paul), St Augustin (Who has a woman turns away from God) and Thomas Aquinos do not need vast exegeses. Remember Eve…
She was the temptation to which the man who finds it difficult to resist. She, herself, is tempted by the devil in the form of snake, serpent associated with sex and demonized by the Church. The woman is worthy of hell for the Church that does not forgive her to succumb to the temptation of the forbidden fruit consumption and so to have result in loss of the garden of Eden.

You want reference: In French
« saint Paul, le théologien favori du Vatican (surtout aujourd'hui ), d'écrire que « la femme est un corps sans tête », et à saint Jérôme de dire que « la volupté avec une femme est un crime à classer juste après l'homicide ». Même au cours du XIXe siècle, pourtant plus éclairé, le prêtre catholique Lamennais a affirmé que « la femme est une statue vivante de la stupidité parce qu'en la faisant d'un reste de limon, Dieu en a oublié l'intelligence »
St Jerome : Rien n'est plus infâme que le mari qui aime sa femme comme une maîtresse : il commet le péché d'adultère »
In English:
Saint Paul, favorite theologian of the Vatican (especially today), to write that "the woman is a body without a head", and St. Jerome said that ' the voluptuousness with a woman is a crime to classify just after the killing. Even during the 19th century, yet more enlightened, the Catholic priest Lamennais stated that "the woman is a living statue of stupidity because by of a rest of silt, God have forgotten intelligence". St Jerome: nothing is more infamous than the husband who loves his wife as a mistress: he commits the sin of adultery. Women take from God the love of her husband…

Now, you can say that these people who spoke and wrote Latin, and most of them Greek, were not as good as you are to define the real meaning of Christianity…
You might be right.
But the fact is the reason why during the Council of Trent the Catholic Dogma reinforced and imposed the Single Status of the priests, the fact that Women couldn’t give the Holly Sacraments and couldn’t be priest was based on their opinion and their analyse on the texts they were able (most of them) to read in the original copy in Greek or Latin.

We do know now that the Eve and the Snake story is a copy of a Sumerian Legend, Enki and Ninhursag, 1500 before the Bible. We do know now that Yahweh’s actions looked very similar to the one of the Goddess Ninhursag.
From the Encyclopedia Encarta, used by thousands students in France:
"The biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve differs only in a few details of many other similar myths of the ancient Middle East and elsewhere. Similar themes also appear in ancient Mesopotamian sources such as the epic of Gilgamesh, dating from about 1800-1700 BC.”

But they didn't.

[Hax]

Remind me, why do we care so much about the so-called plagiarism in Christianity? Every​ religion does this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

....or just wait for PVC or Sigurd to comment, I guess...

Is that a compliment?

I can't tell.

Regardless,

Many of the things that have been said about Christians are so much chaff - from the allegations of baby-eating onwards the Cultic nature of Christianity has left it open to ridicule by people on the outside.

I don't believe it's ever been an official doctrine of the Catholic (wider historical) Church that women are without souls - there have been various riffs on the theme of them being natural temptresses, because they not only fall into Sin but because of Eve's curse they naturally lead others to it.

[Brenus]

“Remind me, why do we care so much about the so-called plagiarism in Christianity? Every religion does this.” Err, because this one is one the pillar of the religion: Original Sin... It is not a so-call, it is a pure and simple real copy and paste exercise that had a powerful effect on 3 monotheistic religions (in their main streams, at least).
TR question is about the Bible. If the Bible appears to be more and more as a collection of Myths and Legends (and it is more and more likely) for the Mesopotamian Region and surroundings, with so-called Prophets who just put together a digest of all they could find in order to sustain their own beliefs, the question of the legitimacy of the Religions derived from it is on the table.
The bases of the Bible are de facto Pagan Myths, as later the annexation of Pagan Myths of the Medieval Ages Europe will be added to the liturgy. Nothing wrong with that until you claim that was the words of a God.
The long effects of these choices are visible in nowadays societies, and the added holiness of it makes changes very difficult.
As explained, the choice to put on Eve (or Lilith) the blame for the loss of the Paradise shaped the reflexion of Theologians all the past centuries, and still does. You can’t brush aside this fundamental question just with a “who care”, because wars and killing were based on these texts. Do you know what the differences between Serbs, Croats and Muslim are? Religions. Not ethnicities, or language or clothing or brand of coffee they drink, no, they are divided by the interpretation of the Bible…

[Ironside]

Remind me, why do we care so much about the so-called plagiarism in Christianity? Every​ religion does this.

Because if you claim that the Bible is the word of God, then it's a problem if the demon/devil/whatever idolatry had access to the information long before the true believers. If nothing else, it's a bit embarrasing for God to lose the initiative that much.

If you consider the Bible as a divinely inspired collection of myths, then it's a much smaller matter.

Edit: In relation to Brenus.
Don't forget the importance if the flesh of Christ is leavened or not.

[Kadagar_AV]

Is that a compliment?

I can't tell.

Regardless,

Many of the things that have been said about Christians are so much chaff - from the allegations of baby-eating onwards the Cultic nature of Christianity has left it open to ridicule by people on the outside.

I don't believe it's ever been an official doctrine of the Catholic (wider historical) Church that women are without souls - there have been various riffs on the theme of them being natural temptresses, because they not only fall into Sin but because of Eve's curse they naturally lead others to it.

A bit of both, I'd say...

It's like watching that 64000 dollar quiz show... You are impressed with their knowledge about something truly redundant, but a part of Your brain still go "Why bother?"

[total relism]

I was going to reply again, but then I read:


9009

and decided some people are just too dumb and consistently illogical that it's a waste of precious time.

EDIT: Just something I'll do for my own research, and maybe you guys can point me in the right direction: Is there any provable historical supernatural phenomenon that is not inside a religious book, and cannot be explained or theorized upon by use of science, physics and logic, and can easily be explained by any religion?


you said
" consistently illogical that it's a waste of precious time."

yet you want evidence for christian/god [ i agree] to believe in it, yet none for your faith? than call me the illogical one. reasons like these i think you know would not go well in a debate, the reason you refuse me.



For all the abuse that total relism gets, the stuff some other people are coming up with here is comedy gold.

Everybody is rubbishing his (admittedly rubbish) sources, and then with a straight face they come out and quote Landover Baptist Church as a reliable source on Christian doctrine. :laugh4:

For those not aware, Landover Baptist Church is a troll website parodying hardcore Evangelical Protestants.

But don't let me get in the way of the circle-jerk...



just wondering witch of my sources do you see as rubbish in regards to the topic? and why?.


“
Still, the place of women in the middle Age by the church is developed by the theologian Thomas Aquinas: males are the perfect form and female children are simply defective males. Or Read St Augustin.


could you start supporting any of you claims? also woman in bible is topic i will do in future. I recemend diversifying your reading, to not just what you want to hear.
http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751
http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260



“[B]The fact that you couldn't tell that it was a rather outrageous parody site sums up how much you know about Christian doctrine.” I know enough of the “Christian” doctrine to know that there is more than one. You, on contrary, seem to think there is only one. The place of women in the history of the multiple aspect of this generic religious movement can be easily seen, without even a careful and long attention.
And to be really open about it, the stupidity of this text that matched what I can watch on Evangelist TV (the rare time when I by chance listen -shortly-) so I didn't doubt it was an authentic site, a little bit like the one from the guy who wanted to burn some samples of the Koran. This will teach me a lesson.

“btw you also never delived when I asked you for those quotes earlier. You seemed quite confident with the rhetoric but if this is the quality of your sources I think it was a bit misplaced.” I am confident as I studied Religions. I didn’t felt the need to answer as, as I said before, you do not need careful, long and painful studies to acknowledge the place of the women in societies under “Christian” rules, whatever the “doctrine” says. The opinion and statement of the Religious Politicians as Tertullien (using St Paul), St Augustin (Who has a woman turns away from God) and Thomas Aquinos do not need vast exegeses. Remember Eve…
She was the temptation to which the man who finds it difficult to resist. She, herself, is tempted by the devil in the form of snake, serpent associated with sex and demonized by the Church. The woman is worthy of hell for the Church that does not forgive her to succumb to the temptation of the forbidden fruit consumption and so to have result in loss of the garden of Eden.

You want reference: In French
« saint Paul, le théologien favori du Vatican (surtout aujourd'hui ), d'écrire que « la femme est un corps sans tête », et à saint Jérôme de dire que « la volupté avec une femme est un crime à classer juste après l'homicide ». Même au cours du XIXe siècle, pourtant plus éclairé, le prêtre catholique Lamennais a affirmé que « la femme est une statue vivante de la stupidité parce qu'en la faisant d'un reste de limon, Dieu en a oublié l'intelligence »
St Jerome : Rien n'est plus infâme que le mari qui aime sa femme comme une maîtresse : il commet le péché d'adultère »
In English:
Saint Paul, favorite theologian of the Vatican (especially today), to write that "the woman is a body without a head", and St. Jerome said that ' the voluptuousness with a woman is a crime to classify just after the killing. Even during the 19th century, yet more enlightened, the Catholic priest Lamennais stated that "the woman is a living statue of stupidity because by of a rest of silt, God have forgotten intelligence". St Jerome: nothing is more infamous than the husband who loves his wife as a mistress: he commits the sin of adultery. Women take from God the love of her husband…

Now, you can say that these people who spoke and wrote Latin, and most of them Greek, were not as good as you are to define the real meaning of Christianity…
You might be right.
But the fact is the reason why during the Council of Trent the Catholic Dogma reinforced and imposed the Single Status of the priests, the fact that Women couldn’t give the Holly Sacraments and couldn’t be priest was based on their opinion and their analyse on the texts they were able (most of them) to read in the original copy in Greek or Latin.

We do know now that the Eve and the Snake story is a copy of a Sumerian Legend, Enki and Ninhursag, 1500 before the Bible. We do know now that Yahweh’s actions looked very similar to the one of the Goddess Ninhursag.
From the Encyclopedia Encarta, used by thousands students in France:
"The biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve differs only in a few details of many other similar myths of the ancient Middle East and elsewhere. Similar themes also appear in ancient Mesopotamian sources such as the epic of Gilgamesh, dating from about 1800-1700 BC.”

But they didn't.

you claim to have studied "religion" but even if true, what you got was a liberal atheist teaching clearly, not biblical or based on true history. I love claims like these

"aint Paul, favorite theologian of the Vatican (especially today), to write that "the woman is a body without a head","

and

"copy of a Sumerian Legend, Enki and Ninhursag, 1500 before the Bible. We do know now that Yahweh’s actions looked very similar to the one of the Goddess Ninhursag.
From the Encyclopedia Encarta, used by thousands students in France:
"The biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve differs only in a few details of many other similar myths of the ancient Middle East and elsewhere. Similar themes also appear in ancient Mesopotamian sources such as the epic of Gilgamesh, dating from about 1800-1700 BC.”


The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.
Proverbs -14.15

The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17


the rest is not supported by original sources and shows you have been clearly taught wrong, but i have know decided to do another thread on the supposed biblical parallel with other ane stories.





TR question is about the Bible. If the Bible appears to be more and more as a collection of Myths and Legends (and it is more and more likely) for the Mesopotamian Region and surroundings, with so-called Prophets who just put together a digest of all they could find in order to sustain their own beliefs, the question of the legitimacy of the Religions derived from it is on the table.

The bases of the Bible are de facto Pagan Myths, as later the annexation of Pagan Myths of the Medieval Ages Europe will be added to the liturgy. Nothing wrong with that until you claim that was the words of a God.


i agree with the conclusions above 100%, i just disagree and will show future thread, that the claims are true.

[Brenus]

"The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. " Says the guy who believe the Bible is true:laugh4:
You should try this method.

[total relism]

"The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. " Says the guy who believe the Bible is true:laugh4:
You should try this method.


lets assume i dont take this biblical demand and apply it. That does not make it any less true you dont.But i feel I have for many years, for example, i will let you take your best 2 reasons why the bible is false, why if i apply this to the bible it would prove it false. Than i will add both to my future thread topics, that will show it is not me, but your lack of getting the other side and applying this principle that you are guilty of,deal?, you can chose any 2.

[InsaneApache]

Brainwashing really is a remarkable thing.

[total relism]

Brainwashing really is a remarkable thing.

agreed

[Kadagar_AV]

Good, I guess we reached some kind of consensus then..

[total relism]

Good, I guess we reached some kind of consensus then..

lol,finally we agree.

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/TezRP4V.jpg (http://imgur.com/TezRP4V)

*Summary of what arguing with TotalRealism on these subjects feel like.

[Brenus]

“lets assume i dont take this biblical demand and apply it. That does not make it any less true you dont.But i feel I have for many years, for example, i will let you take your best 2 reasons why the bible is false, why if i apply this to the bible it would prove it false. Than i will add both to my future thread topics, that will show it is not me, but your lack of getting the other side and applying this principle that you are guilty of,deal?, you can chose any 2.”
Sorry, I really don’t understand your quest/ question.
The Bible as a book exists so t is a true object. Sometimes nice stories with plenty of sex, blood, and betraying and most of the time painfully boring…
A little bit like Tolkien.
It is the base of the 3 monotheistic religions, so that makes these 3 religions a little bit fairy tales if not in the application but in the “spirit”.

The stories in the Bible were (for some) just copied and adapted from others, some were just the story for the Jews by the Jews to celebrate their victories on others populations they either enslaved either slaughtered. Julius Caesar did the same. Or Napoleon…
Now, that doesn’t make the stories wrong, you know. A little bit of exaggeration, Hollywood style: God told me….

“you claim to have studied "religion" but even if true, what you got was a liberal atheist teaching clearly, not biblical or based on true history.” Ahhh, the good old methods: I am a liar, and even if not, deny the validity of the study… By the way, Biblical is antinomy of True Stories.
And yes, I got “a liberal atheist teaching”. We call the buildings where it is taught Universities. The difference is you can be a believer in Universities, but I still wait to see an atheist in Churches…

Quotes you ask for: St Paul: 1 Tim 2:9-15: “A woman [or, wife] should learn in silence with all submissiveness. I do not allow a woman [or, wife] to teach or to have authority over [or, dictate to] a man [or, her husband], but to keep quiet. Wives must be subject to their husbands (Col 3:18); Paul preference for Celibacy is that it avoids “distraction” (1 Cor 7:35): If this doesn’t make women a body without head…

I know you brush the following away, but I can’t resist:
Do note that the Sumerians were extinct when the Bible was written (and they have as well Flooding a Uruk's kings, a legendary figure in Sumerian literature, was warned about the flood by god and built an arch) so they were the first about Paradise, Creation from ribs and natural catastrophe…
About the warning before floding: Wrath of Enlil-Clamor, Warning- Utnapishtim, -Flood- 6 days & 6, nights,-Survivors- Utnapishtim and his wife, Covenant-Sacrifices and Ishtar's speech/immortality: remind you something? No? It should: Both stories have sacrifices at the end, flood is to destroy mankind, rain cover the land, gods tell the heroes beforehand, they are given specific dimensions, takes family and animals, releases three birds.
Sources: Gilgamesh, the Book.

[Kadagar_AV]

I lean more and more towards TR being more of a belieber than a believer.

*YES, I just did that*

[Sigurd]

I know you brush the following away, but I can’t resist:
Do note that the Sumerians were extinct when the Bible was written (and they have as well Flooding a Uruk's kings, a legendary figure in Sumerian literature, was warned about the flood by god and built an arch) so they were the first about Paradise, Creation from ribs and natural catastrophe…
About the warning before floding: Wrath of Enlil-Clamor, Warning- Utnapishtim, -Flood- 6 days & 6, nights,-Survivors- Utnapishtim and his wife, Covenant-Sacrifices and Ishtar's speech/immortality: remind you something? No? It should: Both stories have sacrifices at the end, flood is to destroy mankind, rain cover the land, gods tell the heroes beforehand, they are given specific dimensions, takes family and animals, releases three birds.
Sources: Gilgamesh, the Book.
You can't use those arguments against a religion claiming originality. The only thing you accomplish is to give them more "evidence". Aha.. they say. This proves that the stuff in the bible really happened. By the voice of two or three witnesses shall truth be established.
And their logic isn't far fetched - and I have repeatedly mentioned this, IF we should assume that Adam was the original man, that Enoch and Noah were instruments of God, then naturally you would have accounts of these events in other literature than the Bible, the bible being texts that supposedly originated with Moses - several thousands of years after those events happened.
You have the son of Noah who is the originator of the Egyptians via his wife Egyptus and son Pharaoh. Pharaoh being a righteous man fashioned the Egyptian religion after the manner of Adam (so the lore states).

I have listened to a particular professor showing Mormonism to be true by referring to similarity in ancient Sumerian and Egyptian religious practices. "... See? this is what they did and we do it just the same. The same God who revealed religion to them is the same God who revealed religion in the latter days".

[total relism]

https://i.imgur.com/TezRP4V.jpg (http://imgur.com/TezRP4V)

*Summary of what arguing with TotalRealism on these subjects feel like.


would you be willing to debate me 1v1 on "is there any scientific evidence for evolution" I will let you say give your best 5-10 evidences.
are you signed up at twc? i have debate offer their in fight club
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?339-Garbarsardar-s-Fight-Club


I dont wish to get into creation/evolution here yet, as that is future topic.


"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it was happening."
Richard Dawkins in an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS, Dec. 3, 2004



“lets assume i dont take this biblical demand and apply it. That does not make it any less true you dont.But i feel I have for many years, for example, i will let you take your best 2 reasons why the bible is false, why if i apply this to the bible it would prove it false. Than i will add both to my future thread topics, that will show it is not me, but your lack of getting the other side and applying this principle that you are guilty of,deal?, you can chose any 2.”
Sorry, I really don’t understand your quest/ question.
The Bible as a book exists so t is a true object. Sometimes nice stories with plenty of sex, blood, and betraying and most of the time painfully boring…
A little bit like Tolkien.
It is the base of the 3 monotheistic religions, so that makes these 3 religions a little bit fairy tales if not in the application but in the “spirit”.

The stories in the Bible were (for some) just copied and adapted from others, some were just the story for the Jews by the Jews to celebrate their victories on others populations they either enslaved either slaughtered. Julius Caesar did the same. Or Napoleon…
Now, that doesn’t make the stories wrong, you know. A little bit of exaggeration, Hollywood style: God told me….

“you claim to have studied "religion" but even if true, what you got was a liberal atheist teaching clearly, not biblical or based on true history.” Ahhh, the good old methods: I am a liar, and even if not, deny the validity of the study… By the way, Biblical is antinomy of True Stories.
And yes, I got “a liberal atheist teaching”. We call the buildings where it is taught Universities. The difference is you can be a believer in Universities, but I still wait to see an atheist in Churches…

Quotes you ask for: St Paul: 1 Tim 2:9-15: “A woman [or, wife] should learn in silence with all submissiveness. I do not allow a woman [or, wife] to teach or to have authority over [or, dictate to] a man [or, her husband], but to keep quiet. Wives must be subject to their husbands (Col 3:18); Paul preference for Celibacy is that it avoids “distraction” (1 Cor 7:35): If this doesn’t make women a body without head…

I know you brush the following away, but I can’t resist:
Do note that the Sumerians were extinct when the Bible was written (and they have as well Flooding a Uruk's kings, a legendary figure in Sumerian literature, was warned about the flood by god and built an arch) so they were the first about Paradise, Creation from ribs and natural catastrophe…
About the warning before floding: Wrath of Enlil-Clamor, Warning- Utnapishtim, -Flood- 6 days & 6, nights,-Survivors- Utnapishtim and his wife, Covenant-Sacrifices and Ishtar's speech/immortality: remind you something? No? It should: Both stories have sacrifices at the end, flood is to destroy mankind, rain cover the land, gods tell the heroes beforehand, they are given specific dimensions, takes family and animals, releases three birds.
Sources: Gilgamesh, the Book.



first part

i offered you to be able to back up your claim that i did not apply these passages to bible or i would not believe it

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.
Proverbs -14.15

The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17


i said you can bring up any two reasons to prove me wrong, the offer still stands.




second
woman no mind?
as i said a liberal teaching of "religion" means take quotes out of context to make your own idol of the bible, than to reject it. First you did not even quote the right passages, than the very passages refute your earlier claim of no souls in woman.. Than it says nothing of what you claim to back up, it goes against the rest of the entire bible,including pauls own letters showing how liberals take out of context to create what they want from bible.


first these are specific letters to specific churches, if they applied to all, they would be in form to all believers. This does teach men are to be the head of the church/house. Does that mean woman are less than? not according to bible, difernt roles after fallen sin cursed state of world.

so how are men to have authority over woman?

42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
mark 10.

This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16.
So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
gen 1.27
Every person in the church has a role, and as is stated in 1 Corinthians 12, all positions become equally important to the mission of glorifying Christ and doing His will.

Read more: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp#ixzz2QdLDhw4g
http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp





than notice what paul says elsewhere, can woman teach?

The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).



as far as woman being helpers

Eve
she was created in the image of god 100%, created in the image and likeness of god gen 1 26-28 child birth was not punishment but gift,pain in childbirth was punishment#just as adam was punished. That eve was created second means nothing to importance, what is more important NT or OT?. When eve is called a helper, that word is only ever used of god in OT, this in no way means inferior to man, but godlike. God is not inferior to man neither is woman. Sutible helper means "like opisite him" a mirror image.


for more on "keep quiet"
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).




near east similarities
I am going to do thread on this in future, so keep an eye out, all i can can say is add a little skepticism to what you here before you believe my friend.

[InsaneApache]

You just don't get it do you?

We (atheists) don't have to prove anything as we are not espousing anything. Look up the definition of atheism.


Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

You are the one making a claim and so therefore it is incumbent on you to prove the point. As there is no possible way to prove,(or disprove), a living god, then all your claims are null and void.

[total relism]

You just don't get it do you?

We (atheists) don't have to prove anything as we are not espousing anything. Look up the definition of atheism.



You are the one making a claim and so therefore it is incumbent on you to prove the point. As there is no possible way to prove,(or disprove), a living god, then all your claims are null and void.


this is not part of thread, i have debated this and atheism meaning for probably 50 pages of thread with atheist it comes to no end. I was just saying people aspect evidence to believe in god [i agree] yet are just fine accepting without any proof or evidence that atheism is true. If atheism is lack of faith in god, than my belief in god, is lack of belief in the evidence in atheism.

[InsaneApache]

You still don't get it. Atheism is neither true nor false.

It is a lack of belief.

Truth-hood or falsehood doesn't come into it.

[Brenus]

“You can't use those arguments against a religion claiming originality.” That was not the purpose. The purpose was to show that the Bible is for a good part a copy and paste, so not the word of God…

“ take out of context” So, you do acknowledge that he said/wrote it… Good start...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).


The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).

Stop copy/pasting and think about what people are saying. How can you expect us to take the time to read your very lengthy posts when you obviously don't even read them yourself?

btw Brenus, I asked you for scriptural examples of manipulated doctrines, not whatever medieval Catholics thought.

[Brenus]

“I asked you for scriptural examples of manipulated doctrines, not whatever medieval Catholics thought.” I know what you asked, but that is not important. What was (is) important was what they did with it.

I am a little tired of the XXI Century “Christians” thinking they know better than their predecessors about the Bible and the Holly Writings. Most of the Clergy (Middle-Ages, Renaissance and Modern Ages) had huge debates about texts they were able to read in the original text in Latin or Greeks. Yes, they were as well children of their Period, but the writers of the Gospel as well.

Did you ever heard of the Anabaptists? Catharism? Gnomist? Montanism? Arianism? And I can carry on like this. All are interpretation of the Gospels; all were crushed by the Christians, by iron and fire. Is it enough as examples for “scriptural examples of manipulated doctrines”, or should I add some more? But the way, I picked the list in a Catholic site that considered Protestantism as Heresy.
The article ends on: Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
You will burn...:yes:

[Rhyfelwyr]

“I asked you for scriptural examples of manipulated doctrines, not whatever medieval Catholics thought.” I know what you asked, but that is not important. What was (is) important was what they did with it.

No, we were talking about the reliability of scripture - you are pulling off a classic total relism move here, and trying to completely switch topic.

Medieval interpretations of scripture are irrelevant to the reliability of the scripture itself. You gave a lot of rhetoric about the impact of murder, lust etc on manipulating scripture, as well as the less malicious things like grammar or punctuation errors.

But it was all rhetoric, and no examples.

You also seem to like naming different branches of Christianity, for some reason. And yes I am aware of the ones you listed, really Cathars were Gnostics btw, Gnostic is more an overall term that would also apply to the Eastern European Bogomil sects that the Cathars took their inspiration from. As I said above, varying interepretations of scripture can't always be necessarily ascribed to poor translations - indeed, the greatest variation comes from within Protestantism, where thousands of churches all use the exact same KJV!

[Beskar]

Job 38:11

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You still don't get it. Atheism is neither true nor false.

It is a lack of belief.

Truth-hood or falsehood doesn't come into it.

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

[InsaneApache]

Here we go again.

The World isn't round.


he shape of the Earth approximates an oblate spheroid

If you religious lot can't even get the basics right......

Hopeless the lot of you.

[InsaneApache]

The brainwashing is very effective.

[Kadagar_AV]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

Nope.

You have to balance the evidence presented Yourself.

With that said, You might come off as rather, well, stupid if You go completely against the norm in the more developed theories.


TR, I honestly don't think You got how science work. Shame on Your teachers.

[jirisys]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

That analogy doesn't work. The world has to be a shape. Whether that be a triangle or a square or a tesseract, it must be something, you can't say the world has no shape.

~Jirisys ()

[Ironside]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?

To expand on what Jirisys are talking about. An equivalent question to yours would be: "Since god exist, what is his nature?" Rather than "Does god exist?".

[Papewaio]

I thought atheist don't believe in a higher power whilst agnostics are the ones rejecting god on the basis of a lack of tangible credible evidence.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's a bit of a blurr, Pape... I am agnostic, but for most purposes, I am atheist.

[jirisys]

I thought atheist don't believe in a higher power whilst agnostics are the ones rejecting god on the basis of a lack of tangible credible evidence.

Oversimplifying:

Atheism = There is no evidence that any gods exist, so it is likely that no god exists.
Agnosticism = It is impossible to know or prove that any gods exist.

You can be an agnostic and still believe in a god (or many).

~Jirisys ()

[The Stranger]

Partly true.

If I refused to believe that the world was round, would truth or falsehood come into it?


its not partly true its completely wrong. the lack of belief is agnosticism (basically skeptical position in the religious debate). an absence of belief results in no answer to the question does god exist. to answer yes is "to have the belief that god exists", to answer no is "to have belief that god does not exist", its not, "not having the belief that god exists".

you have the position of the believer and the non-believer and then there is the third position of postponing judgment. for my part you can name these positions whatever you want.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought atheist don't believe in a higher power whilst agnostics are the ones rejecting god on the basis of a lack of tangible credible evidence.

It's roots are the term 'gnosticism' (belief in the separation of physical and spiritual, usually with the rejection of the physical in favor of the latter). and 'ab' meaning "away" or "not."

Thus, in its original form, the term meant someone who rejected the idea that the spiritual completely trumped the physical in value. From there the term grew to include those who doubted the spiritual while not out-and-out rejecting it. Today the term is also applied to those who believe in a higher power but reject religion.

[The Stranger]

It's roots are the term 'gnosticism' (belief in the separation of physical and spiritual, usually with the rejection of the physical in favor of the latter). and 'ab' meaning "away" or "not."

Thus, in its original form, the term meant someone who rejected the idea that the spiritual completely trumped the physical in value. From there the term grew to include those who doubted the spiritual while not out-and-out rejecting it. Today the term is also applied to those who believe in a higher power but reject religion.

wikipedia has a different etymology and its more in line with what ive learned at uni as well.


Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. [...] an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.


Etymology
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869[10] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.[11]
Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[12]
In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".[13] In technical and marketing literature, "agnostic" often has a meaning close to "independent"—for example, "platform agnostic" or "hardware agnostic."[14]

you are talking about Gnosticism it seems, but the term is not really related to it.

[total relism]

You still don't get it. Atheism is neither true nor false.

It is a lack of belief.

Truth-hood or falsehood doesn't come into it.

first i never said of it being true or not, i just asked for evidence to show it to be true or a reason why to believe it.



“You can't use those arguments against a religion claiming originality.” That was not the purpose. The purpose was to show that the Bible is for a good part a copy and paste, so not the word of God…

“ take out of context” So, you do acknowledge that he said/wrote it… Good start...


so because man copied and translated the orginal inspired bible, that makes it not from god? i dont follow. That is like me making copy of lotr and making a few mistakes,than claiming there is no jrr tolkien, there is no lotr. I never said any translation/version is the word of god, i said the original bible written, we have today in full.

[Kadagar_AV]

first i never said of it being true or not, i just asked for evidence to show it to be true or a reason why to believe it.


???

Again, we seriously don't think You get what science, NOR atheism is.

Atheism: Lack of belief.

Science: Making theories on observable phenomena, and to test these theories repeatedly.



You seem to mix up atheism and science, and You seem to have zero understanding for either. :wall:

*Can we please switch from 13 to 18 yo to access the political part of the forum?*

[The Stranger]

???

Again, we seriously don't think You get what science, NOR atheism is.

Atheism: Lack of belief.

Science: Making theories on observable phenomena, and to test these theories repeatedly.



You seem to mix up atheism and science, and You seem to have zero understanding for either. :wall:

*Can we please switch from 13 to 18 yo to access the political part of the forum?*

it seems you do not know what atheism is...

[total relism]

???

Again, we seriously don't think You get what science, NOR atheism is.

Atheism: Lack of belief.

Science: Making theories on observable phenomena, and to test these theories repeatedly.



You seem to mix up atheism and science, and You seem to have zero understanding for either. :wall:

*Can we please switch from 13 to 18 yo to access the political part of the forum?*


dont care to argue what people define atheism as, when i believe in god it just means than lack of faith in atheism. All i did was ask someone to debate me 1v1 and ask them why they ask for evidence in support of god and not of their own beliefs, oh sorry trier own lack of beliefs.


why science has come into play i have no idea?please show me were i have somehow mixed them up?.

[The Stranger]

dont care to argue what people define atheism as, when i believe in god it just means than lack of faith in atheism. All i did was ask someone to debate me 1v1 and ask them why they ask for evidence in support of god and not of their own beliefs, oh sorry trier own lack of beliefs.


why science has come into play i have no idea?please show me were i have somehow mixed them up?.

please try to distinguish between rejection of something and a lack of something.

[total relism]

please try to distinguish between rejection of something and a lack of something.


lol, i agree 100%, i am just using what they say to claim same for me. Really i reject atheism,not just lack faith in it.

[The Stranger]

thats not what i meant.

first and foremost atheism is the rejection of the belief in god or the existence of god. there are weaker versions that define atheism as lacking such a belief at all but imo such a position is so close to agnosticism or just plain indifference that its (almost) impossible to distinguish them.

now that being said, if IA and KAV claim their position is no a rejection of the belief but a lack of such belief (regardless of how the rightfully or wrongfully name that position) then it can be pointless indeed to ask for reasons for the lack of that belief. Its kind of hard to give your motivation for something that does not exist (within you). while its meaningful to ask someone what are your reasons for saying no to a certain proposition, it may not be meaningful to ask why someone does not have any judgment at all of such a proposition.

[Andres]

Why should anyone have to justify himself whether he believes in God or not?

Whether you believe in the teachings of a certain religion and wish to follow it or not, is something very personal and a matter of choice (unfortunately, this isn't always the case in some environments), which is why, in my humble opinion, discussing such questions is rather pointless. You have faith or you haven't and that's something each side (the religious folks vs. the non-religious folks) should respect.

Live and let live :shrug:

[Husar]

Why should anyone have to justify himself whether he believes in God or not?

Whether you believe in the teachings of a certain religion and wish to follow it or not, is something very personal and a matter of choice (unfortunately, this isn't always the case in some environments), which is why, in my humble opinion, discussing such questions is rather pointless. You have faith or you haven't and that's something each side (the religious folks vs. the non-religious folks) should respect.

Live and let live :shrug:

But if you let sinners live like that, you watch them go to hell.
It's the task of every single Christian to save souls from the devil.

[Brenus]

Just few translations available for 3 different passages: as you can see, it can lead to various guidelines…

Proverbs 18:24
- A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
- A man of many friends comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
- A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
- There are "friends" who destroy each other, but a real friend sticks closer than a brother.
Friends come and friends go, but a true friend sticks by you like family.

Romans 3:25
- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
- Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
- Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
- God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
-For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,
God sacrificed Jesus on the altar of the world to clear that world of sin. Having faith in him sets us in the clear. God decided on this course of action in full view of the public--to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured.

Colossians 2:9-10
- For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
- For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
- For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
- For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
- Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him.
When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything.

“i dont follow”: No, you don’t read. The Sumerian text is BEFORE the Bible. The Bible is NOT the oldest book known, even in the Western World.

“I said the original bible written, we have today in full.” You do, but you are making a mistake. No ORIGINAL text from the Bible is available, and if it was, you couldn’t read it as it would be in the Archaic Hebrew.
Just for anecdote, when the Israelis decided the revive Hebrew (and to train the Haganah) , they had to ask the few old Religious Rabin to create a vocabulary for it in pretending to write a new Hebrew Dictionary in order to have the weaponry parts in modern vocabulary. I don’t know if this story is authentic, but I like it. Before this, the most common vocabulary in the Jews Community was the Yiddish (German roots).

[total relism]

thats not what i meant.

first and foremost atheism is the rejection of the belief in god or the existence of god. there are weaker versions that define atheism as lacking such a belief at all but imo such a position is so close to agnosticism or just plain indifference that its (almost) impossible to distinguish them.

now that being said, if IA and KAV claim their position is no a rejection of the belief but a lack of such belief (regardless of how the rightfully or wrongfully name that position) then it can be pointless indeed to ask for reasons for the lack of that belief. Its kind of hard to give your motivation for something that does not exist (within you). while its meaningful to ask someone what are your reasons for saying no to a certain proposition, it may not be meaningful to ask why someone does not have any judgment at all of such a proposition.


agnostic


Just few translations available for 3 different passages: as you can see, it can lead to various guidelines…

Proverbs 18:24
- A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
- A man of many friends comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
- A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
- There are "friends" who destroy each other, but a real friend sticks closer than a brother.
Friends come and friends go, but a true friend sticks by you like family.

Romans 3:25
- Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
- Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
- Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
- God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
-For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,
God sacrificed Jesus on the altar of the world to clear that world of sin. Having faith in him sets us in the clear. God decided on this course of action in full view of the public--to set the world in the clear with himself through the sacrifice of Jesus, finally taking care of the sins he had so patiently endured.

Colossians 2:9-10
- For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
- For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
- For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
- For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body. So you also are complete through your union with Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
- Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him.
When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything.

“i dont follow”: No, you don’t read. The Sumerian text is BEFORE the Bible. The Bible is NOT the oldest book known, even in the Western World.

“I said the original bible written, we have today in full.” You do, but you are making a mistake. No ORIGINAL text from the Bible is available, and if it was, you couldn’t read it as it would be in the Archaic Hebrew.
Just for anecdote, when the Israelis decided the revive Hebrew (and to train the Haganah) , they had to ask the few old Religious Rabin to create a vocabulary for it in pretending to write a new Hebrew Dictionary in order to have the weaponry parts in modern vocabulary. I don’t know if this story is authentic, but I like it. Before this, the most common vocabulary in the Jews Community was the Yiddish (German roots).

I think were talking past each other,i never said any version/translation is inspired. There are many ways to say each verse in diffident languages though time,even the change in same language, king james to today for example. I thnik you need to actually read my op, than come back if you have any objections.


future thread.



original text
please read my op on how we do have original bible [not text] this could all be cleared up if you would be willing to read my op. No idea what your saying with Israelite reviving hebrew, as you admit its just a story you "like".

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.
Proverbs -14.15

[total relism]

sorry

[Kadagar_AV]

I've been thinking it was a bot all along to be honest..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's roots are the term 'gnosticism' (belief in the separation of physical and spiritual, usually with the rejection of the physical in favor of the latter). and 'ab' meaning "away" or "not."

Thus, in its original form, the term meant someone who rejected the idea that the spiritual completely trumped the physical in value. From there the term grew to include those who doubted the spiritual while not out-and-out rejecting it. Today the term is also applied to those who believe in a higher power but reject religion.

While you are correct about the Gnostic Creed- you've misunderstood the meaning of the word.

To expand upon The Stranger's Point: The Gnostics believed it was possible to have "Gnosis", as in actual spiritual knowledge, in this life while mainstream Christianity maintains that true knowledge remains obscured while we are alive and is only revealed when we ascend at the point of death and become one with God.

Historically the word "atheist" applied to what we today call "agnostics", it encompassed those who did no believe - but today it has become confined to those who believe there is not.

[InsaneApache]

it encompassed those who did no believe - but today it has become confined to those who believe there is not.

What is it with you lot?

Atheists have no belief. An absence of it. There's the clue.

It's as though you just cannot comprehend that anyone may not have any belief at all.

Brainwashing is extraordinary.

[InsaneApache]

dp.

[InsaneApache]

Good grief.

I fucking give up.

[LittleGrizzly]

I describe myself as an atheist, although I don't deny the extreme outside possibility of a god...

To give you a better idea my belief there could be a god is as strong as my belief that

1) We all live in the Matrix
2) I am the star of my very own Truman show (you guys would tell me right?)
3) 9/11 was an inside job.

I have very little belief in any of them (in fact 3 seems the most realistic to me but I am not at all a truther or believe that) in fact my belief in god and the matrix is about as close to 0 as you can get...

I would even say number 2 is more likely to me, in fact in thinking on it I even find number 1 a more realistic possibility than a God figure.

Would I really be defined as anything but an Atheist with such a small small window of possibility I am leaving open, I can't know for sure that I am not going to spread my wings and turn into an Eagle (through some kind of magic I assume) but I would also take the Atheism (Atheism = can't Agnostic = possibly Believer = will in this example) position on my ability to turn into an Eagle... that basically it isn't going to happen though if pressed there is no way I can 100% say I am not going to turn into an Eagle..

So I have always thought Atheist, would that be accurate in your eyes?

[LittleGrizzly]

Is it so hard to wrap your head around the idea that believing in God is a rational, normal, human thing to do?
................................................................

In the most polite and respectful way, no from me.

Human and normal I wouldn't disagree with though, seen as most humans do it so it is pretty normal for a human.

I will never be able to see belief in a god as any more rational than somebody telling me we all live in the matrix.

Your belief aside you have no more proof for your god than the above man has for his matrix, yet I am sure you would have no trouble in also identifying that Matrix believer as someone who is not rational...

At least not in that one belief.

I believe religious people are perfectly capable of rationality outside of their religion.

[InsaneApache]

If I was about to die the last thing I would do is pray.

I might think 'oh shit this is it'.

It'd be much more pleasant in bed rather than a foxhole though.

As an aside.

I had an heart attack four years ago. It hurt. A lot.

The last thing on my mind was some great sky pixie.

I just wanted the pain to stop.

Praying wouldn't have helped, the morphine did.

[Beskar]

What's that old saying... "There's no Atheists in a Foxhole." Or a car crash, or a school shooting, or a tsunami, or whatever. When your life is directly threatened, and death is imminent, you'll probably pray. That's not scientific and you're right its probably not rational, but it is very human.

It is because you really wish in those situations there was a god or higher power to believe in (or even lower power, sell soul and stuffs), and like some fairytale mystery, you are magically saved. Unfortunately, reality is a cruel mistress and end up failing regardless. Been certain times in my past I were on my knees in prayer begging, there was no guiding hand or saving light. If there were, I would probably have been one of the most devout members of this forum.

[Kadagar_AV]

What's that old saying... "There's no Atheists in a Foxhole." Or a car crash, or a school shooting, or a tsunami, or whatever. When your life is directly threatened, and death is imminent, you'll probably pray. That's not scientific and you're right its probably not rational, but it is very human.

In my opinion though, we live in a beautiful and complicated universe that just begs further investigation and understanding. Every new discovery is another inkling of God's intent. Every new challenge is another test. But that is very much a choice and a belief. Just as flat-out rejecting the possibility would also be a belief.

There are plenty of atheists in foxholes.

You are however right that people grown up with, but refused, religion at times pray in extreme situations. Logic dictates it's cause they see no other way out, and desperately hope for something, no matter how far fetched it is.

I have been in situations where I truly feared for my life, praying to some God was the last thing I thought of.

But to try and use the fact that people do extreme or crazy things in extreme or crazy situations - as some "proof" that there is a God?

Rubbish.

[Papewaio]

Contracts signed under duress are not enforceable.

Likewise prayers...

[Brenus]

I am atheist. I went in foxholes. I am still atheist. However, when I occasionally hit a finger with a hammer, I really swear, using the name of God in vain that’s it (main one being “vain dieu”, normally followed by “M…e”. It can be translated a useless God. No need to translate the second one). That is tradition, and nothing to do with belief..

[Brenus]

sorry dp

[Kadagar_AV]

The scientific way to look at it would be: "Might be a god, might not be -- But the odds of the religion You adhere to having it right is laughable."

Superstition is to many degrees logic. Your knock on wood example can also be seen as a cultural meme, not to get too comfortable in Your own ability...

Skier 1: I haven't fell all day!
Skier 2: ... Knock on wood.
Skier 1: *knocks wood*

Is this two superstitious guys, or one guy getting too comfortable in his ability, and the other one reminding him not to do anything stupid?

Don't put keys on the table... They are important, don't lose them, mind where You put them.




The list can go on.

What You see as superstition I see as cultural memes... And I completely fail to see Your reasoning when You try to use cultural memes as a "proof" of human religiosity. :shrug:

[Sigurd]

I am the definition of agnostic. If you disagree with this, you are either a theist or an atheist.

OMG @LittleGrizzly (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?4351-LittleGrizzly). Loooooong time no see. How are you m8?

[The Stranger]

I'm not trying to give you proof of anything. Why am I even in this thread? I hate these threads. :bomb2:

yup. some people can only see the scientific method and jargon of proof as the only way to talk about things in the "world". but ye its hard to get out of your box.

[The Stranger]

What is it with you lot?

Atheists have no belief. An absence of it. There's the clue.

It's as though you just cannot comprehend that anyone may not have any belief at all.

Brainwashing is extraordinary.


LOL what is it with you? you just take a definition of a word and completely twist it. look it up, it is a REJECTION of belief, first and foremost. read my post. Then read up about SKEPTICISM, and the fact that REJECTING TRUTH is just as DOGMATIC and as much a BELIEF as ACCEPTING TRUTH. Having no belief is SKEPTICISM.

Do not confuse the neutral use of belief, with the more coloured and day to day use of belief, which is better defined as religious faith or a religious wordlview.

Yes, it seems brainwashing is almost as extraordinary as stubbornly walking through life making up things as you go.

[The Stranger]

I describe myself as an atheist, although I don't deny the extreme outside possibility of a god...

To give you a better idea my belief there could be a god is as strong as my belief that

1) We all live in the Matrix
2) I am the star of my very own Truman show (you guys would tell me right?)
3) 9/11 was an inside job.

I have very little belief in any of them (in fact 3 seems the most realistic to me but I am not at all a truther or believe that) in fact my belief in god and the matrix is about as close to 0 as you can get...

I would even say number 2 is more likely to me, in fact in thinking on it I even find number 1 a more realistic possibility than a God figure.

Would I really be defined as anything but an Atheist with such a small small window of possibility I am leaving open, I can't know for sure that I am not going to spread my wings and turn into an Eagle (through some kind of magic I assume) but I would also take the Atheism (Atheism = can't Agnostic = possibly Believer = will in this example) position on my ability to turn into an Eagle... that basically it isn't going to happen though if pressed there is no way I can 100% say I am not going to turn into an Eagle..

So I have always thought Atheist, would that be accurate in your eyes?

my first thought would be Agnost. But after rereading its probably a very very weak position of Atheism (because you are just playing a trick on yourself, you don't actually have real doubt and thus you do not really believe in the possibility of turning into an eagle or there being a god, you are pretending, whether to yourself or to other people i dont know). In general, rejection = atheism, acceptance = theism, postponing judgment = agnosticism and there is another one, indifference = apatheism

in the end the debate about whether or not god exists is mostly an epistemological problem, so all the problems about justification, skepticism, induction and deduction apply.

[a completely inoffensive name]

LOL what is it with you?

LOL What is it with you asking what it is to be is it? Belief is the opposite of atheism man. Go read God Delusion and 420 blaze it every day if you want to know what enlightenment actually is. Go live in your Dark Age mentality bro, the only brainwashed are the theists who think that Jesus actually existed. :daisy: the free world, science can explain everything cuz Carl Sagan did just that on Cosmos. Maybe there is no tv besides Bible TV Channel in your house?

[The Stranger]

LOL What is it with you asking what it is to be is it? Belief is the opposite of atheism man. Go read God Delusion and 420 blaze it every day if you want to know what enlightenment actually is. Go live in your Dark Age mentality bro, the only brainwashed are the theists who think that Jesus actually existed. :daisy: the free world, science can explain everything cuz Carl Sagan did just that on Cosmos. Maybe there is no tv besides Bible TV Channel in your house?

read my post please? There is a neutral version of the word belief, that is the word i am using. Atheism is not "not having a belief that there is a god" it is "having the belief that there is no god".

I'm not even a theist, so I do not know what dark age mentality you are talking about, except what you are showing now, denouncing other people as heretics and ignorants basically because they say something you havent heard of. And jumping to conclusions you know nothing about. I'm an atheist in the strict sense of the word, though it doesnt matter in this discussion what my personal convictions are.

I'm writing a thesis on this subject, i know what i am talking about. Instead of being a jerk, maybe you should read some stuff, i can recommend wikipedia to start with, its easy and clear and you dont need to read past the first chapter to see you are wrong. Then if you are still interested I can give you some more advanced lecture.

[Kadagar_AV]

"I'm writing a thesis on this subject, i know what i am talking about."

If everyone writing a thesis would have a clue, the world would look very different.

That was just a horribly bad argument.

[The Stranger]

"I'm writing a thesis on this subject, i know what i am talking about."

If everyone writing a thesis would have a clue, the world would look very different.

That was just a horribly bad argument.

it would be if this was not a matter of definitions. but yes, i agree that the knowing part does not follow from the writing part.

[a completely inoffensive name]

read my post please? There is a neutral version of the word belief, that is the word i am using. Atheism is not "not having a belief that there is a god" it is "having the belief that there is no god".

I'm not even a theist, so I do not know what dark age mentality you are talking about, except what you are showing now, denouncing other people as heretics and ignorants basically because they say something you havent heard of. And jumping to conclusions you know nothing about. I'm an atheist in the strict sense of the word, though it doesnt matter in this discussion what my personal convictions are.

I'm writing a thesis on this subject, i know what i am talking about. Instead of being a jerk, maybe you should read some stuff, i can recommend wikipedia to start with, its easy and clear and you dont need to read past the first chapter to see you are wrong. Then if you are still interested I can give you some more advanced lecture.

Dude, I'm so sorry but I was just joking with you. My post was so over the top, I thought it was obvious.

[Hax]

Yeah, science is just another opinion!

[The Stranger]

Dude, I'm so sorry but I was just joking with you. My post was so over the top, I thought it was obvious.

lol i had a feeling when i reread it that it might be a joke, but in my defense ive heard similar responses before so i wasnt too surprised. i dont visit the backroom too often so i dont really know what many peoples views are.

[a completely inoffensive name]

lol i had a feeling when i reread it that it might be a joke, but in my defense ive heard similar responses before so i wasnt too surprised. i dont visit the backroom too often so i dont really know what many peoples views are.

Other people have legitimately told you that Jesus wasn't real and to smoke pot every day?

[The Stranger]

Other people have legitimately told you that Jesus wasn't real and to smoke pot every day?

when did you tell me to smoke pot :O i missed that part. and i dont care if jesus was real or not, just don't fk up your definitions is all i ask for :P

[Kadagar_AV]

when did you tell me to smoke pot :O i missed that part. and i dont care if jesus was real or not, just don't fk up your definitions is all i ask for :P

420 blazer ~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

I am the definition of agnostic. If you disagree with this, you are either a theist or an atheist.

OMG @LittleGrizzly (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?4351-LittleGrizzly). Loooooong time no see. How are you m8?

Well at this very moment terrible, the ravages of man flu are taking me down. This combined with having a new carpet fitted from this morning, which involves far too much hitting of things with heavy objects for me liking means I have a lovely headache as well...

In the long run okay though, still alive and all my limbs are fully functional. How about you?

[LittleGrizzly]

my first thought would be Agnost. But after rereading its probably a very very weak position of Atheism (because you are just playing a trick on yourself, you don't actually have real doubt and thus you do not really believe in the possibility of turning into an eagle or there being a god, you are pretending, whether to yourself or to other people i dont know).
...........................................................................

The Eagle one is possibly to extreme to get my point across, if I were to change it to a football (soccer) one then for example San Marino winning the world cup. Nobody can say with 100% certainty that San Marino will never win the world cup but with the possibility remaining so slim that you would almost call it a certainty..

[The Stranger]

i guess ur in a grey area, but probably closer to a weak version of atheism than to agnosticism, so you would be an agnostic atheist and leave open the possibility that if we could find out more about the matter than you or others could be proven wrong.

[Kadagar_AV]

i guess ur in a grey area, but probably closer to a weak version of atheism than to agnosticism, so you would be an agnostic atheist and leave open the possibility that if we could find out more about the matter than you or others could be proven wrong.

You actually spend brain power on this non-issue? If You go back a load of posts You will see me writing something along the lines of "I am probably technically agnostic, but for all intents and purposes You might as well view me as atheist".

Kind of summed it up AGES ago.

Why are we spending brain power on this absolute NON-issue? I don't think ANYONE here say that there are absolutely no possibility for some sort of god. The worst You will find on this forum is people asking You to prove the existence of YOUR god before trying to change their lives and thinking in his name.

[The Stranger]

You actually spend brain power on this non-issue? If You go back a load of posts You will see me writing something along the lines of "I am probably technically agnostic, but for all intents and purposes You might as well view me as atheist".

Kind of summed it up AGES ago.

Why are we spending brain power on this absolute NON-issue? I don't think ANYONE here say that there are absolutely no possibility for some sort of god. The worst You will find on this forum is people asking You to prove the existence of YOUR god before trying to change their lives and thinking in his name.

was it a response to you? no. littlegrizzley actually asked a serious question, so he got a serious answer. and Insane Apache just used the entire wrong definition of atheism so if you are so clever that you can read a dictionary and use the words atheism and agnosticism correct, then good for you, here is a cookie.

[HoreTore]

This is just like a discussion of who is the true communist; Stalin, Mao or Trotskij.

Thank you for bringing up bad memories from my radical days.

Bastards.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is just like a discussion of who is the true communist; Stalin, Mao or Trotskij.

Thank you for bringing up bad memories from my radical days.

Bastards.

Result: They were all less communist than You?

[LittleGrizzly]

Thanks for the answer, I kind of imagined my position as a weak atheist one just wanted to know what others would class it as.

[HoreTore]

Result: They were all less communist than You?

When did we start capitalizing the word "you"?

Also, leftist discussions have no result, they never end. No true leftie will ever admit to agreeing with a fellow leftie. Ever.

[Kadagar_AV]

When did we start capitalizing the word "you"?

Also, leftist discussions have no result, they never end. No true leftie will ever admit to agreeing with a fellow leftie. Ever.

Good question....

Lets face it. English is a stupid language.

There is no egg in the eggplant
No ham in the hamburger
And neither pine nor apple in the pineapple.
English muffins were not invented in England
French fries were not invented in France.

We sometimes take English for granted,
But if we examine its paradoxes we find that:
Quicksand takes you down slowly
Boxing rings are square
And a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

If writers write, how come fingers don't fing.
If the plural of tooth is teeth
Shouldn't the plural of phone booth be phone beeth
If the teacher taught,
Why didn't the preacher praught.

If a vegetarian eats vegetables
What the heck does a humanitarian eat!?
Why do people recite at a play
Yet play at a recital?
Park on driveways and
Drive on parkways
How can the weather be as hot as hell on one day
And as cold as hell on another

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy
Of a language where a house can burn up as
It burns down
And in which you fill in a form
By filling it out
And a bell is only heard once it goes!

English was invented by people, not computers
And it reflects the creativity of the human race
(Which of course isn't a race at all)

That is why:
When the stars are out they are visible
But when the lights are out they are invisible
And why it is that when I wind up my watch
It starts
But when I wind up this poem
It ends.

[Sigurd]

This last discussion reminded me of something we did back in the good old days (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?27047-Atheism-why&p=412418&viewfull=1#post412418)... about 10 years ago. (Damn I have been on these boards a long time)
Also, did you notice that we discussed these things in the entrance hall?

The thread is gone from the backroom.. as the link in my post is dead. We quite exhaustedly debated theism vs atheism vs agnosticism and would be a great source for you Stranger.
Maybe it could be salvaged from some old backup? its way back in 2003.

[The Stranger]

what was the link with communism? :P

[Brenus]

"No true leftie will ever admit to agreeing with a fellow leftie. Ever." Part of the job description.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do not expect to get an answer on these boards, as the more religious patrons seem to avoid these topics.
IMO there are too many heavy guns on one side.
But hey, you never know. One full blood believer might wander unawares into this Lion’s den, where BIG dark figures armed to the teeth with heavy calibre weaponry lurks, waiting for the perfect prey.

I was going to make a quip about failing to see the value in a topic on atheism/theism I hadn't contributed to.

Seems the Backroom was waiting for me even then.

(I jest, but it says something about the change in make up of the forum).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do not expect to get an answer on these boards, as the more religious patrons seem to avoid these topics.
IMO there are too many heavy guns on one side.
But hey, you never know. One full blood believer might wander unawares into this Lion’s den, where BIG dark figures armed to the teeth with heavy calibre weaponry lurks, waiting for the perfect prey.

I was going to make a quip about failing to see the value in a topic on atheism/theism I hadn't contributed to.

Seems the Backroom was waiting for me even then.

(I jest, but it says something about the change in make up of the forum).

[Kadagar_AV]

I was going to make a quip about failing to see the value in a topic on atheism/theism I hadn't contributed to.

Seems the Backroom was waiting for me even then.

(I jest, but it says something about the change in make up of the civilized world).

FIFY

[Sigurd]

what was the link with communism? :P
Yeah.. you guys moves too fast over to other topics...

I did however find the Entrance Hall version of the What are your Beliefs? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?26823-What-are-your-Beliefs) thread.

[HopAlongBunny]

what was the link with communism? :P

As a faith system, along with Milton Friedman economics (or most "pure" economic theories) it belongs in any discussion of theism.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah.. you guys moves too fast over to other topics...

I did however find the Entrance Hall version of the What are your Beliefs? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?26823-What-are-your-Beliefs) thread.

Wow, we have come a long way. Today a poll like that would be seen as retarded, with the underlying assumption of everyone having a stake in the Jewish God.

With that said, we need more buddhists on here... PRETTY PLEASE CA, make a Asian set game, so we can get some actual THINKERS in here.

[Sigurd]

Wow, we have come a long way.
Actually...

IMO the debates were of better quality 10 years back.

[Hax]

What makes you think Buddhism isn't as prone to prejudiced and knee-jerk thinking?

[Kadagar_AV]

What makes you think Buddhism isn't as prone to prejudiced and knee-jerk thinking?

Nothing.

However, the basics of the Asian religions I read up on are way more based on thinking, and not dogma. And I honestly believe their memes would create a better world than the monotheistic memes we in the west transfer.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not hardly. That's just the language/cultural barrier making you think its more cerebral. Buddhism was twisted to suit the purposes of the authorities all over Asia for centuries and centuries. Any philosophy can be twisted. Even the practical philosophy of science can be twisted by hubris without even the aid of government, as when people presume to know how the universe works beyond what we've already discovered.

I'm not so sure you are right. Remember that Swedish is what I read the majority of texts in, so it's as much a language barrier between the different religions original texts.

I would say Daoism is the official religion that most touched my soul.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Daoist by any means. However, going through their texts and tales brings a peace to my heart that no other scripture has.

For each his own? I'm just saying I wish we had more of those thinkers around here :shrug:


EDIT: As to your edit, my reply about "might be a god.... ... ..." I was solely answering the topic. Thus, nah, no bias towards it.
And I don't "believe" in Daoism, I have just said that those are the religious texts that touch my heart and mind the most, and make me think about my life choices the most :book2:

[Kadagar_AV]

see edit :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Buddhists have their moments. Look at what's going on in Sri Lanka these days. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21973292)

Attacking Muslims with stones, calling for racial purity and a boycott of Muslim businesses...

And I have to agree the quality of the debate here looks poorer than what it was 10 years ago, though I wasn't around then. I mean, consider the OP and his following posts in this thread...

[Kadagar_AV]

I guess what I mean is:

I have read ALL of the bigger scriptures, and Daoism is the closest I could find that both enlightened me and gave me peace of mind.

I don't care about how the religions have been USED, the practical implications, or anything like that. I am just saying that Daoism is what make me read the texts with a smile on my face and sunshine in my heart.

It sure as **** beat reading about the walls of Jericho, or gang rapes - that is the Bible.

[Kadagar_AV]

And what I mean is that all of these texts are out of context, re-translated, and only as good as you make them. :wall:

... And what I mean is that you are wrong.

A text is created in symbiosis between the text and the reader. I am not saying the reader is unimportant, but to hear you say the text is unimportant is laughable.

However, time for me to go... "Last day of skiing" party... I will get roaring drunk and quite possibly have sexual intercourse with a girl or two :)

[Kadagar_AV]

I didn't say the text was unimportant, I said your understanding of the text is false.

And I said that a text is made in symbiosis between reader and writer, so how can my understanding of it be false?

It's my understanding, aaaiiiight?

[The Stranger]

dont let the pope hear you :P

[Kadagar_AV]

Your understanding of your understanding is just fine. Your understanding of Daoism is another thing entirely. :bounce:

I guess you have deeper insights than me, then :bow:

I'm just a stupid ski instructor living on the mountain I love, spending my days doing the things I like. Speaking of that, I am REALLY late for a night of fun.

Have a nice evening, I sure intend to :2thumbsup:

[Ironside]

I did. You missed my mark. English to Swedish doesn't work too well either, I guess.

You're familiar with the Scientific Method right? Surely nobody needs a lesson in that? The practical language of science has no bias. Thus the purely scientific approach to God is "Might be, Might not Be, can't prove it either way." That isn't my opinion, that's fact. My opinion (or, better yet, my Beliefs) are something else entirely.

The scientific approach is also to reject everything that can't be proven either way. "Can't be proven either way, yet" works though.

That's because can't be proven either way puts God at the same position as the Lord of Nightmares, the Flying Spagetti Monster or an invisible garden gnome guardian. And it has to be rejected that way, since you can never prove or disprove that the laws of physics suddenly act differently when you aren't watching for no reason.

So the scientific answer is that the god-hypothesis has to be rejectd due to lack of correlating data. Come back when new data has been found.

[The Stranger]

nvrmind. misread.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's right. Scientifically. And Science is just a proven method of observing the universe and drawing conclusions from your observations. We all have beliefs that go beyond what we've measured and observed. If you say otherwise you're a liar or a robot. Worst of all are those who use Science as a belief system and don't even realize they are doing it; for they ruin both belief systems and science in the process.

**** yes, it is right SCIENTIFICALLY.

That is the tool we humans have to separate facts from madness, ill founded ideas from well founded ideas. In ANY manner I might add.

If, oh pretty pretty PRETTY PRETTY please (with sugar on top) one of the multitude of religions come forthright and explain and SOMEWHAT prove why the rest of the world should adhere to their version, I would be the first one to :hail:

As it is, I just go :rolleyes:

[Greyblades]

**** yes, it is right SCIENTIFICALLY.

That is the tool we humans have to separate facts from madness, ill founded ideas from well founded ideas. In ANY manner I might add.

If, oh pretty pretty PRETTY PRETTY please (with sugar on top) one of the multitude of religions come forthright and explain and SOMEWHAT prove why the rest of the world should adhere to their version, I would be the first one to :hail:

As it is, I just go :rolleyes:
Agnostics don't have to go to church.

Welcome to the fold, maybe, brother

[Kadagar_AV]

Where in any of my posts did you get the idea that I was trying to convert you Kad?

I didn't.

I just met your arguments on a forum, with my own way of reasoning :)

[Sigurd]

interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.



Maybe we have a language barrier somehow, but for me, the first three do not show any difference on whether salvation would be an event or a process.

The last three though, I will grant.

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.

[total relism]

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.


i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups. Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.


I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.

[Sigurd]

i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups.

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.
I can link the post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143902-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible&p=2053520206&viewfull=1#post2053520206).



I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.
Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.

[total relism]

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

I can link the post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143902-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible&p=2053520206&viewfull=1#post2053520206).


Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.


i have been drinking so well see how this goes.



I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.


acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.


romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.


translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.


jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.


yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

[Hax]

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.

This explains so much​.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This explains so much​.

Pah, I can post coherent theology drunk - it's no excuse.

[Papewaio]

Pah, I can post coherent theology drunk - it's no excuse.

Coherent while drunk is possible. Much like playing pool after a couple of drinks.

Coherent theology on the other hand ...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Coherent while drunk is possible. Much like playing pool after a couple of drinks.

Coherent theology on the other hand ...

Yeah, you can't come into my shop and tell me how to run it when I'm a grocer and you're a butcher.

For obvious reasons.

[Sigurd]

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.
*cough* :sneaky:



I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.

Right... I guess one of those debates with your pastor goes along the dogma of baptism. Since you was baptised as an infant and not the proper way (according to them). They don't believe in infant baptism and that a baptism must be done by immersion.


acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.

romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.

I don't think you understand the subtleties in the differences of dogma that I am pointing to. Question: Do you consider yourself saved?



translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.

jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.

Not saying that you have bias... just saying that evangelists have bias against any bible not supporting their dogma. I have encountered this many times. Even here when I pulled verses from the New World Translation in a discussion.
I do like the KJV because of its beautiful English.
About the JW and Mormons being christian or not. I don't think you qualify to make any judgement on this. I do know the Mormons claim to be christian but I am unsure if the JW do so.



yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

Right... so how are we to be inspired or enlightened by the original bible - if it does exist, but is not available to us?

[Kadagar_AV]

Well you'll never understand my point of view on religion if you think I'm trying to convert you.

I don't.

Doesn't make you a very good christian though ;)

[Hax]

In this thread: non-religious people telling religious people how their religion works.

[total relism]

*cough* :sneaky:


Right... I guess one of those debates with your pastor goes along the dogma of baptism. Since you was baptised as an infant and not the proper way (according to them). They don't believe in infant baptism and that a baptism must be done by immersion.

I don't think you understand the subtleties in the differences of dogma that I am pointing to. Question: Do you consider yourself saved?


Not saying that you have bias... just saying that evangelists have bias against any bible not supporting their dogma. I have encountered this many times. Even here when I pulled verses from the New World Translation in a discussion.
I do like the KJV because of its beautiful English.
About the JW and Mormons being christian or not. I don't think you qualify to make any judgement on this. I do know the Mormons claim to be christian but I am unsure if the JW do so.


Right... so how are we to be inspired or enlightened by the original bible - if it does exist, but is not available to us?


sneaky?

no i agree with baptist on baptism. I had no choice but to be Baptized as baby, not much i could do lol.


yes i believe i am saved, but as i stated their is no differences in "dogma" or theology.Wording and english language through the years from 1600 yes.



what bible dont support " evangelists" what do " evangelists" believe anyways? your suppose to evangelize?. tell me what bible says not to?. I think you misunderstand greatly,there is no entire diffident bibles that teach different theology. There is debates about proper theology. You make much of catholic/Evangelist act like they have diferent bibles. Please watch debates as i do, they dont argue text on bit,they argue meaning. Here is conservative evagalist and catholic debating on many subjects.
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apologetics/roman-catholicism-91/roman-catholicism.html


they both do claim to be christian, but what qualifies you?i base chritian on who jesus/bible,not modern sects created recently that change bible/jesus. Acording to jesus/bible they are not, so i go with that.


but it is, read my op for more on this, its been their since,well the op of this thread lol.

[drone]

In this thread: non-religious people telling religious people how their religion works.

Also in this thread: religious people telling non-religious people how their non-religion works.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Can't have a non-religion

ERGO - the people claiming not to be religious, in fact, are.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I...I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all....

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics. (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/if-im-baptized-as-a-catholic-does-that-mean-im-catholic-forever-even-if-i-marry-outsi)

[Kadagar_AV]

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics. (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/if-im-baptized-as-a-catholic-does-that-mean-im-catholic-forever-even-if-i-marry-outsi)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVnArp9ZE0

[Papewaio]

In this thread: non-religious people telling religious people how their religion works.

I was raised in a religious environment. Rejected it at seven. Tried it again in my twenties. Fully rejected it again.

One can be very well informed about a religion without being a practitioner. In fact it might be easier to stay a practitioner if not so fully informed.

[Papewaio]

I have a lack of data points on God. I'm not hostile to something i can't prove exists.

My lack of data doesn't mean God(s) don't exist. They could be a black swan event. Until Europeans came to Australia they had only observed white swans.

Of course the lack of data points also means I can't adequately decide who, what, where, when, how this God is. Is he an old man, young woman, neither either both? Are they part of a pantheon? Does God have a mum? Is our universe just a simulator and we the sprites?

Don't know. Not enough testable data points. So I'm not about to run my life on a lack of actionable data. I get enough of that from stakeholders...

[Kadagar_AV]

Religion is like a penis.

It is ok to have one.
It is ok to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And if you try to shove it down a children's throat you are SICK.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.

There is no reason that religion should be seen as inappropriate in the public sphere when other beliefs are not.

Why, for example, is handing somebody a Gospel track regarded as being somehow out of line, or harassing them, when handing out political leaflets is OK?

Why is it not seen as acceptable (in the sense of being contrary to secular ideals) to only vote for Christian Presidents, whereas it is perfectly fine to only vote for socialist/capitalist/whatever Presidents?

Humans are a social species and community life is an essential part of our existence. If you tell me to leave my religion at home, to never express it in public life, and to never allow it to influence my political ideas, then you are in effect asking me to be excluded from society, and as such oppressing me.

[Kadagar_AV]

There is no reason that religion should be seen as inappropriate in the public sphere when other beliefs are not.

Why, for example, is handing somebody a Gospel track regarded as being somehow out of line, or harassing them, when handing out political leaflets is OK?

Why is it not seen as acceptable (in the sense of being contrary to secular ideals) to only vote for Christian Presidents, whereas it is perfectly fine to only vote for socialist/capitalist/whatever Presidents?

Humans are a social species and community life is an essential part of our existence. If you tell me to leave my religion at home, to never express it in public life, and to never allow it to influence my political ideas, then you are in effect asking me to be excluded from society, and as such oppressing me.

Politics is about facts and figures, not about "belief".

Why, oh why, would you think you are secluded from society, just because I would see it as rude if you start trying to convince others that you know what happens after death and thus like to control their life choices?

I live in a rich community life, haven't heard religion mentioned once.