Godless tribes, do they exist?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Well, yes, having an uncontacted jungle tribe show up as bible-holding christians would weird, but wouldn't suggest that christianity (or their particular variation of it) is true.

I agree.

Out of interest, if this tribe turned out to be uncontacted catholics, or uncontacted muslims, would that change your opinion about your own variation of christianity (protestant, if memory serves)? Or would you say there's an alternative explanation?

Firstly, I'm a non denominational Christian. i.e. I'm not a member of a religious organisation.

As for your question about my opinion regards it changing my views. Well no it wouldn't. Then again, my point hasn't been that it would be great evidence anyway. I originally answered Galvaseans point below:

galvasean wrote:

Well if they existed (without outside interference/influence by other people) that would go a long way to proving that Christianity is correct.

My point is that this wouldn't be evidence of such a thing to a non-believer. I know if I didn't believe, this wouldn't do an awful lot to convince me. Sure PDN has clarified that we recall the story wrong anyway. Though, the vision story may be a bit more convincing, depending on the content of the vision.

Soul Winner

Hagar wrote: »

Every now and again we hear of a new tribe being discovered in Borneo, the Amazon or some other isolated spot. Have any of these tribes been godless? If not, is godlessness an unnatural state for mankind? Is it perhaps that deep down we have a knowledge that there is a god but we don't know him so we fill in the blanks with various religions? Is it possible that god exists in spite of all the claptrap that the various religions spew forth? Are Atheists and Agnostics turning their backs on god because of issues with religion and not because of a real certainty that god is just a myth?

An excellent set of questions especially the last one. I believe that most atheists are turned off on religion not because they don't believe in God per se (I know a lot of them just don't) but because they have been disillusioned by organised religion, nutty religion and extremist religion. And I have to say that I don't blame them. I for one would be right in their with them if it were not for a sense in my heart that God is real. I believe in faith in God. I always had intuitive belief in God as a child, the kind that is not thought in school or church. You can't teach people to believe in God, you can only teach them what you believe to be true about God

This is what attracted me to God years ago more than all the mass going could ever do. Somebody with real faith in God actually sittting down and talking about it with me and telling me why they believe. I never got that from a priest. If Christianity is true then it is not a personal relationship with a religion, it is a personal relationship with a person. When I found out that I had as much access to God by faith as the local parish priest I was filled with glee and joy that I did not have to go through him first.

Most of what we call Christianity is a load of C**P. They substitute a personal relationship with a person, with rules and regulations which serves only to kill the spirit in true believer. If Christianity is true then God does not take us on the basis of our performance rather He takes us on the basis of our faith in Him and how we respond to the Good News that He sent His son into the world to die for our sins. We must give oursleves to Him and trust Him with our very lives daily. This is what real Christianity is, it is a lifestyle, you don't have to be a freak to be a Christian. Just trust God to see you through every trial and temptation you face in your walk with Him.

That is it, how you walk with God from the moment you first understand this is between you and Him only, nobody else's business. Every other religion including most of what people think Christianity is today is nothing but will worship self righteousness works of the flesh which to God is nothing but filthy rags no matter how good you think you are in performance to a moral code. As for the so called primitive tribes that keep turning up, all they need to know about Christianity is that Christ died for them too.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, I'm a non denominational Christian. i.e. I'm not a member of a religious organisation.

Fascinating. Really. No sarcasm. If you reject organised religion, then upon what do you base your belief in Jesus? Surely not the stories that have had such corrupt caretakers for centuries? If organised religion cannot be trusted then how can you trust any of the texts that they have written and maintained? Did Jesus contact you directly?*

*I know this sounds ridiculous, but...well he believes he has a personal relationship with this entity so I think its a sign of our culture's modern views on religion when the concept of Jesus personally contacting someone sounds laughable. Saints were once made in such ways.

seamus

Zillah wrote: »

I know this sounds ridiculous, but...well he believes he has a personal relationship with this entity so I think its a sign of our culture's modern views on religion when the concept of Jesus personally contacting someone sounds laughable. Saints were once made in such ways.

Without making any reference to JimiTime's belief, because I know nothing about it, I'd say you will find a lot of people who declare themselves as "Christian" without declaring subscription to any particular branch of Christianity.

I did it for a few years. Why? I'm not sure - probably because the entire ethos had been so ingrained in me from childhood that I had no problem deciding that the Church was nothing but a big pile of bull****, but I had trouble "letting go" of the whole Christian thing; That I would be betraying years of schooling, as well as family and of course God, if I even dared to question the whole Christian ideology.

I would imagine that large swathes of Irish people would have a similar outlook - "Ah no, I don't really go to mass, but sure wasn't that Jesus fella great". The final revenge of Catholic guilt. Frightening really, the power of indoctrination.

5uspect

Baby and bath water perhaps?

On the slogan, what's interesting about it is that it seems to be opening debate on how Atheism and Agnosticism are actually defined.
Lots of people assume Atheism = belief that god doesn't exist,
while Agnosticism = uncertainty about God.

People seem to have great difficulty in understanding the idea that you can simply hold no belief regarding god(s) and this isn't the same as not believing.

There's about 100 posts on The Register alone.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

An excellent set of questions especially the last one. I believe that most atheists are turned off on religion not because they don't believe in God per se (I know a lot of them just don't) but because they have been disillusioned by organised religion, nutty religion and extremist religion.

Well of course as you said that is just a belief.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And I have to say that I don't blame them. I for one would be right in their with them if it were not for a sense in my heart that God is real. I believe in faith in God. I always had intuitive belief in God as a child, the kind that is not thought in school or church. You can't teach people to believe in God, you can only teach them what you believe to be true about God

Which God though SW? If you had been born in Pakistan do you think it would be Allah? Even with your proclamation of independence from one school/institution of thought you still seem to have chosen to live your life by one.

Soul Winner wrote: »

This is what attracted me to God years ago more than all the mass going could ever do. Somebody with real faith in God actually sittting down and talking about it with me and telling me why they believe. I never got that from a priest. If Christianity is true then it is not a personal relationship with a religion, it is a personal relationship with a person. When I found out that I had as much access to God by faith as the local parish priest I was filled with glee and joy that I did not have to go through him first.

Again same question why the Christian God and not Thor? Why not for example have faith in yourself to guide through each day?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Most of what we call Christianity is a load of C**P.

:pac: I got a kick outta that.

Soul Winner wrote: »

They substitute a personal relationship with a person, with rules and regulations which serves only to kill the spirit in true believer. If Christianity is true then God does not take us on the basis of our performance rather He takes us on the basis of our faith in Him and how we respond to the Good News that He sent His son into the world to die for our sins. We must give oursleves to Him and trust Him with our very lives daily. This is what real Christianity is, it is a lifestyle, you don't have to be a freak to be a Christian. Just trust God to see you through every trial and temptation you face in your walk with Him.

Previous questions apply.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is it, how you walk with God from the moment you first understand this is between you and Him only, nobody else's business. Every other religion including most of what people think Christianity is today is nothing but will worship self righteousness works of the flesh which to God is nothing but filthy rags no matter how good you think you are in performance to a moral code. As for the so called primitive tribes that keep turning up, all they need to know about Christianity is that Christ died for them too.

You follow the good book right? How about that being of the group of self righteousness works? SW I could possibly understand why you believe what you do, its funny how similar our paths to our respective positions are, but I don't understand why it absolutely has to be christianity and whether or not if you were born into different circumstances like 9th century Denmark* would it still be the Christian God that you knew in your heart to be true?

*The reason I mention the Norse Gods so much is because I think they're awesome

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well of course as you said that is just a belief.



Which God though SW? If you had been born in Pakistan do you think it would be Allah? Even with your proclamation of independence from one school/institution of thought you still seem to have chosen to live your life by one.



Again same question why the Christian God and not Thor? Why not for example have faith in yourself to guide through each day?



I got a kick outta that.



Previous questions apply.



You follow the good book right? How about that being of the group of self righteousness works? SW I could possibly understand why you believe what you do, its funny how similar our paths to our respective positions are, but I don't understand why it absolutely has to be christianity and whether or not if you were born into different circumstances like 9th century Denmark* would it still be the Christian God that you knew in your heart to be true?

*The reason I mention the Norse Gods so much is because I think they're awesome

Yeah I always thought Thor was deadly, he was the guy who threw the hammer right?

Seriously though in answer to your excellent questions, given that I had an inbuilt intuitive belief in what I would have called God from a very early age I suppose that I would have kept on that road without having any kind of personal relationship with Him no matter what culture I grew up in. I grew up in Catholicism. I was Christened, made my first Holy Communion and made my Confirmation. I went to Mass every week as a child. Stop going because I just wasn't interested in it. I still believed that there was a God but He was far removed from being central in my life. And Catholicism to me was just a big YAAAWWWNNN. So I would hazard to guess that if I had grown up in any other such culture which had different religious beliefs say Islam, then I would have just gone through the motions with that too, just to appease the people close to me in that culture. The thing that made me turn onto God can only be attributed to God Himself. My opinion of born again Christians, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and the like was that they were all the same. Hypocrites. Who do they think they are? What makes them think they’re so special? And why do they presumes that they are ok with God and I'm not? I hated when they knocked at my door and wanted to talk. They just seemed really weird and pompous and judgmental. I always wanted to catch them out on something or other.

It wasn't until I was in my late teens that I had a met a guy from my childhood that I hadn't seen for years whom I considered to be somewhat of ‘bad’ person showed up. After a sort of re-introduction he started to tell me about his new found faith in God and specifically Jesus. He was going on about Jesus like he knew Him personally or something and I actually thought he was a bit weird. But I listened to him and found to my amazement that he was a genuinely changed person. Full of kindness and generosity and love for everyone, again this made me feel a bit uncomfortable as it bordered on nutty fringe. But I never met anyone like this before. Somebody who genuinely loved God from the heart. Now some of the things he was saying didn't make any sense to me at all but it switched something on in me that hasn't turned off. An interest in Jesus as a person not a deity. Until that point He was just an abstract object that MUST be worshipped or else. So I got myself a little Bible and started to read it. Again a lot of it didn't make sense to me. But I read the Gospel of John one day and it blew my mind. The Jesus that I came across in those pages was one that I had never known before until then. It was like I was transported back to those times in my mind. There was power in what I was reading. It was as if scales were dropped from my eyes and for the first time in my life the real Jesus did in fact stand up. The Jesus that I knew from Mass and Church was a far cry to the one that I was reading. Something just grabbed hold of me that to this day still grips me. A wonder and an amazement that just won’t go away.

From that point on I started reading other books of the Bible, especially the letters of Paul and the book of Acts. I also started buying books that pertain to the Christian faith and just kept learning and learning. I was then brought to the teaching of Dr Gene Scott and heard his message on the resurrection. That blew my mind as for the first time the resurrection could be scrutinized as an historical fact just like any other historical fact. It wasn’t strictly a theological issue anymore or a religious issue. The more I learned about Jesus the more convinced I became that He was God Himself incarnate in flesh who took on Himself the penalty for our sins. No other culture or religion could have produced the regeneration of life inside of me like that did. So it wouldn't have mattered where I grew up, I would have just gone through the religious motions of that culture like I did with the Catholic one here just to please the crowd, and eventually I would just have stayed away from it altogether and lived a “normal” life.

I have learned about other respected religious leaders and none of them can hold a candle to Jesus. That is not slur on them, they never claimed to be anything special in the first place. Jesus did though, and that is what sets Him apart from the rest. His claims about Himself which if true means He was the Messiah that was prophesized in the Old Testament, who dwelt amongst us and who promised that to return in the future. So my advice to anyone who is curious about Jesus is to just read the New Testament yourself. Start with the Gospels. See what pops out at you. There is life changing power in those pages.

oeb

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dr Gene Scott

His title is even misleading. Does he write books under the title Dr? Eugene Scott had a doctorate alright, but it was in Education.

I may be wrong, but am I thinking of the same guy? He got prostate cancer, declined treatment and said his faith would heal him. Then he, ummm died when the cancer spread all around his body and he suffered a stroke because of the related complications.

By what evidence does he claim the resurection of jeasus is a historical fact and not hersay/dogma?

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

No other culture or religion could have produced the regeneration of life inside of me like that did. So it wouldn't have mattered where I grew up, I would have just gone through the religious motions of that culture like I did with the Catholic one here just to please the crowd, and eventually I would just have stayed away from it altogether and lived a “normal” life.

Firstly thanks for the open and long reply. Secondly I'm not convinced with what you say above it still prompts me to ask more questions but all due respect I think we may have reached a cul-de-sac with this because you're taking things on faith that I by nature cannot. See highlighted above.

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

If you reject organised religion, then upon what do you base your belief in Jesus?

Well the very book they preserved is where I get my information about God and of Christ. Look upon it this way, Christ himself rejected the religious leaders of the day. He targetted these Pharisee's etc more than anyone. These Pharisee's had the books that would should have showed them the error of their ways, but they were more interested in their traditions and rules etc.
Now the New testament is a similar sceario. Just like the people back in Christs day had the old testament to use as a tool to reason their faith, and see the error in the ways of the Pharisee's, we today have the New testament to reason our faith and show us the errors in the religions which have actuall preserved it. God has said man cannot govern themselves, in fact they will govern themselves to their injury. If there was actually a religion that governed itself flawlessly, the irony would be clear. Paul tells us falsehoods were happening during his time. Revelation is a message to 7 congregations who had certain things right and certain things wrong.

Surely not the stories that have had such corrupt caretakers for centuries?

Same as above, just like the Pharisee's. Even old testament shows the corruption in Israel. At one point, they didn't even know the mosaic law. It was a certain King that rediscovered the faith of his fore-fathers. Man is corrupt, if he wasn't, there would have been no Christ.

If organised religion cannot be trusted then how can you trust any of the texts that they have written and maintained?

These very texts condemn alot of their preservers. It can start very honourable and faithful etc, then corruption can enter with different men etc. At the end of the day, Fred Phelps uses practically the same bible as I do. David Koresh the same. If I was a member of their religious group, I would still have a tool (the bible) which would educate me to the fact that they were in error. As I said, even in the days of the prophets there was corruption. God never said, Man will govern himself to his injury....except for my followers. The amount of time he reprimanded Israel. The amount of time Israel went completely against him and were Baal worshipping etc. Yet their texts condemned their behaviour.

To conclude, true Christianity is in the hearts of people, not within the walls of the places where they worship. There are Christian catholics, protestants, methodists, pentecostals, baptists etc. There are also un-christian catholics,protestants etc etc. As SW said, its a lifestyle. There are Christians who never read the bible, and there are non-christians who know it chapter and verse. That is the big difference between religion and faith.

CerebralCortex

Bam! I just hit the wall of the cul-de-sac.

PS Sorry for the off-topicness.

Soul Winner

oeb wrote: »

His title is even misleading. Does he write books under the title Dr? Eugene Scott had a doctorate alright, but it was in Education.

I may be wrong, but am I thinking of the same guy? He got prostate cancer, declined treatment and said his faith would heal him. Then he, ummm died when the cancer spread all around his body and he suffered a stroke because of the related complications.

By what evidence does he claim the resurection of jeasus is a historical fact and not hersay/dogma?

Well yes he had a doctorate in Philosophies of Education from Stanford University. And an Under Graduate Major in Geology amongst other degrees. He wrote his thesis on the Theology of the Neo Orthodox Theologian Reinhold Neighbour. Did a 3 and half year study of the resurrection of Christ. Came to the conclusion that there was no other explanation other than He Rose. From there He studied the Bible, Bible History, and Church History. He was an Historic Churchman and an ordained Minister, by Cannon Brain Green. After 50 years in Ministry preaching God's Word first as a travelling Teacher then as the resident Pastor/Teacher of the University Cathedral in Downtown L.A. until February 2005. He was diagnosed with prostrate cancer in 2000 where he was given 6 months to live. He believed that God would heal him with a miracle and within the 6 months that He was given the all clear from the all Doctors who were treating him. Miracle? Well the doctors thought so. Contrary to what you have heard he did receive and accept medical treatment. He oft quoted Olive Cromwell "Trust in God but keep your gun powder dry" so no he was not against nor did he refuse medical treatment for his ailments. After five more years of healthy living - post medical death sentence - he became ill again due to major internal bleeding of the kidneys, a stint operation which didn't work out exasperated the problem and after a relatively short sickness period he succumbed to two strokes whereby he gave up the ghost. He was 75 years old fro crying out loud. That is a good age to have lived considering the work he put into during those 75. 2/3rds or which was spent teaching God's Word. It was his time to go. Nothing mysterious about that.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well yes he had a doctorate in Philosophies of Education from Stanford University. And an Under Graduate Major in Geology amongst other degrees. He wrote his thesis on the Theology of the Neo Orthodox Theologian Reinhold Neighbour. Did a 3 and half year study of the resurrection of Christ. Came to the conclusion that there was no other explanation other than He Rose....

Can I stop you there Christ rising although quite amazing(this can easily be explained away with many ideas as plausible or more so than Christianity can provide) even if that is exactly what happened imo it would not necessarily prompt scientist to become a as religious as this guy. Did he have a history before hand as believer?

oeb

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well yes he had a doctorate in Philosophies of Education from Stanford University. And an Under Graduate Major in Geology amongst other degrees. He wrote his thesis on the Theology of the Neo Orthodox Theologian Reinhold Neighbour. Did a 3 and half year study of the resurrection of Christ. Came to the conclusion that there was no other explanation other than He Rose. From there He studied the Bible, Bible History, and Church History. He was an Historic Churchman and an ordained Minister, by Cannon Brain Green. After 50 years in Ministry preaching God's Word first as a travelling Teacher then as the resident Pastor/Teacher of the University Cathedral in Downtown L.A. until February 2005. He was diagnosed with prostrate cancer in 2000 where he was given 6 months to live. He believed that God would heal him with a miracle and within the 6 months that He was given the all clear from the all Doctors who were treating him. Miracle? Well the doctors thought so. Contrary to what you have heard he did receive and accept medical treatment. He oft quoted Olive Cromwell "Trust in God but keep your gun powder dry" so no he was not against nor did he refuse medical treatment for his ailments. After five more years of healthy living - post medical death sentence - he became ill again due to major internal bleeding of the kidneys, a stint operation which didn't work out exasperated the problem and after a relatively short sickness period he succumbed to two strokes whereby he gave up the ghost. He was 75 years old fro crying out loud. That is a good age to have lived considering the work he put into during those 75. 2/3rds or which was spent teaching God's Word. It was his time to go. Nothing mysterious about that.

I know wikipedia is not an infalible source of information but his page states:

Originally diagnosed with a small but aggressive type of prostate cancer in 2000, Gene Scott declined surgery and chemotherapy. Four years later and consistent with the known pattern of its cell type, the cancer had spread unchecked to all the major systems of the body. Rigorous combined regimens of conventional treatment were implemented and were unable to stop the metastatic terminal cancer. Complications of the cancer and treatments set in, leading to heart failure, fluid in the lungs, and abnormal blood clotting; all of which Scott described to his congregation during several months of continued live broadcasts.

That sounds more like the expected behaviour of cancer rather than an act of god.

Also, you did not answer my question. What evidence did he have that jesus rose from the dead. It's all very well saying that he came to that conclusion, but is there more reliable evidence than a 2000 year old book that has very questionable historicial acuracy?

Edit:
A google search seems to indicate wikipedia is correct about the cancer :
http://www.rickross.com/reference/gene_scott/scott3.html
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=11341823

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well the very book they preserved is where I get my information about God and of Christ. Look upon it this way, Christ himself rejected the religious leaders of the day. He targetted these Pharisee's etc more than anyone. These Pharisee's had the books that would should have showed them the error of their ways, but they were more interested in their traditions and rules etc.
Now the New testament is a similar sceario. Just like the people back in Christs day had the old testament to use as a tool to reason their faith, and see the error in the ways of the Pharisee's, we today have the New testament to reason our faith and show us the errors in the religions which have actuall preserved it. God has said man cannot govern themselves, in fact they will govern themselves to their injury. If there was actually a religion that governed itself flawlessly, the irony would be clear. Paul tells us falsehoods were happening during his time. Revelation is a message to 7 congregations who had certain things right and certain things wrong.

Yes but the New Testament is the product of a religion, and an organized one at that.

As Zillah points out Jesus didn't write the New Testament, the New Testament was written by a group of followers. Compare this to the Jewish belief that Moses wrote the early chapters of the Old Testament.

To apply your analogy with the Pharisee to Christianity you actually need to compare the New Testament to what Jesus actually said, which you obviously can't do because Jesus didn't write anything down.

In the analogy the New Testament is comparable to the teachings of the Pharisee (ie a product of a later religion) and what Jesus said is comparable to the Old Testament (ie from the horses mouth).

Just as you say (probably rightly from a theological point of view) that the Pharisee or the Jews at the time should have looked at what they were saying and compared it to what is actually in the Old Testament, likewise ideally you would look at the New Testament and compare that to what Jesus actually said. The issue is that you can't do that because there is no first source of what Jesus said. There are only later claims of what he said produced by the early religion.

So basically you are just picking a particular point in the time line of the organized religion that is Christianity to follow and rejecting the more modern ones.

Just something to think about.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

...I'm not convinced with what you say above it still prompts me to ask more questions but all due respect I think we may have reached a cul-de-sac with this because you're taking things on faith that I by nature cannot.

I don't expect conversions to come due to the telling of mine. Just that's the way it happened for me give or take a few forgotten minor details. I believe God had a hand in my coming to Him because I was just like you, not to bothered with the whole Christianity thing at all and not seeking it either, it just sort of landed on me. But once it piqued my attention I have found it to be an inexhaustible source of amazement.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Can I stop you there Christ rising although quite amazing(this can easily be explained away with many ideas as plausible or more so than Christianity can provide) even if that is exactly what happened imo it would not necessarily prompt scientist to become a as religious as this guy. Did he have a history before hand as believer?

Dr Scott was not a Scientist, I never said He was. He was the son of Preacher who was brought up in the faith but who lost his faith in college. He was made to think that he could not get his academic wings until he abandoned a faith in Christ supernatural resurrection as a fact of history but it in its place it was quite ok to respect Jesus as a good and wise teacher. Well he knew enough about Jesus to know that Jesus could not say the things that He said and still be considered both good and wise if the supernatural claims were not true. If the supernatural claims were not true then he was either a liar or a lunatic. If a liar then He could not be good and if a lunatic then He could not be wise. The only thing that could verify His supernatural claims would be whether or not His supernatural resurrection from the dead actually happened or not. And as Paul says, If Christ be not risen then our faith is vain”. Read here for a summary of how Dr Scott came to the conclusion that He rose.

oeb wrote: »

I know wikipedia is not an infalible source of information but his page states:

That sounds more like the expected behaviour of cancer rather than an act of god.

Your tone suggests that somehow this illness proves something? God did not heal him therefore ………. something. You’re tip toeing round something that you seem to want to say. Just say it. As far as I understand it he was cured from his first diagnosis in 2000. Doctors were baffled. He wanted to do another biopsy and they said that he didn’t need one that the PSA levels suggested he was completely clear. It wasn’t until late 2004 that he succumbed to more sickness. Whether this was a relapse of the cancer I don’t know. This is probably the time when He said that He will leave it to God without any medical help. All that proves is that God didn’t heal him. Everyone has their time to go, this was his. 75 years with only the last 5 five having medical problems is a good life if you ask me.

oeb wrote: »

Also, you did not answer my question. What evidence did he have that jesus rose from the dead. It's all very well saying that he came to that conclusion, but is there more reliable evidence than a 2000 year old book that has very questionable historicial acuracy?

Can I refer you to the response I gave to CerebralCortex above? Plus may I add this. If a newspaper came out tomorrow and started reporting on events which took place inside Berlin at the end or WWII that didn’t match exactly the reports that came out from a newspaper the day after the events, which one would you side with? The earlier newspaper reports or the one tomorrow? The more reliable option is the earlier one as it was closer to the events being described.

oeb

Soul Winner wrote: »

Your tone suggests that somehow this illness proves something? God did not heal him therefore ………. something. You’re tip toeing round something that you seem to want to say. Just say it. As far as I understand it he was cured from his first diagnosis in 2000. Doctors were baffled. He wanted to do another biopsy and they said that he didn’t need one that the PSA levels suggested he was completely clear. It wasn’t until late 2004 that he succumbed to more sickness. Whether this was a relapse of the cancer I don’t know. This is probably the time when He said that He will leave it to God without any medical help. All that proves is that God didn’t heal him. Everyone has their time to go, this was his. 75 years with only the last 5 five having medical problems is a good life if you ask me.

I'm not tip-toeing around anything. I just find it a little ironic that someone who claimed that his faith in a supreme being would heal him and rejected the care of qualified medical professionals. Of course once the cancer had spread it's course, exactly as that particular type of cancer is known to do, he heartily embraced medical science. That kind of behavior sets a scary precedent. What kind of example is that to set for a leader of any kind? Rejecting lifesaving medical care and leaving it up to faith?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can I refer you to the response I gave to CerebralCortex above? Plus may I add this. If a newspaper came out tomorrow and started reporting on events which took place inside Berlin at the end or WWII that didn’t match exactly the reports that came out from a newspaper the day after the events, which one would you side with? The earlier newspaper reports or the one tomorrow? The more reliable option is the earlier one as it was closer to the events being described.

Well if it was a subject that interested me I would look into it more, and I would make up my own mind. I am not naive enough to think that every newspaper is objective and impartial in it's reporting.
And you know what? If more evidence came up indicating that my position was wrong, I would check that too, and if it checked out I would happily change my mind and my position. (And have in the past)

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the New Testament is the product of a religion, and an organized one at that.

The New Testament as a “collection” of documents is the product of the very early church. The documents themselves are not. They are the oldest records we have about Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, the acts of the first disciples, some of their letters and some of the Pauline letters. If you can come up with more reliable documents than these then I want to see them. To say that they are not reliable because Jesus didn’t write them is like saying every biography ever written is not reliable because they are not autobiographies. The idea that the New Testament documents are a later fabrication of the church is just Danbrownimsm.

Instead of the Da Vinci Code-esque material may I suggest these:

The New Testament Documents – Are they reliable? - FF Bruce

The Canon of Scripture – FF Bruce

The Evidence for Jesus - RT France

The Testimony of the Evangelists - The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence – Professor Simon Greenleaf

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the New Testament is the product of a religion, and an organized one at that.

I wont get semantical (is that a word? it is now:)) about this, but I wouldn't consider it this way. The new testament is the testimonies of people about the ministry and message of a guy named Jesus. The organised religion like we know today came from this rather than the other way round.

As Zillah points out Jesus didn't write the New Testament, the New Testament was written by a group of followers. Compare this to the Jewish belief that Moses wrote the early chapters of the Old Testament.

But Moses wasn't the subjest matter, Yehovah was. Moses was the follower who wrote the texts, just like John, Peter etc were the followers writing down.

To apply your analogy with the Pharisee to Christianity you actually need to compare the New Testament to what Jesus actually said, which you obviously can't do because Jesus didn't write anything down.

And God did not write down the Law, Moses did.

In the analogy the New Testament is comparable to the teachings of the Pharisee (ie a product of a later religion) and what Jesus said is comparable to the Old Testament (ie from the horses mouth).

See above. The analogy stands. Moses was not on a par with Jesus, he was on a par with the apostles. They were representing God, and testifying about him.

Just as you say (probably rightly from a theological point of view) that the Pharisee or the Jews at the time should have looked at what they were saying and compared it to what is actually in the Old Testament, likewise ideally you would look at the New Testament and compare that to what Jesus actually said. The issue is that you can't do that because there is no first source of what Jesus said. There are only later claims of what he said produced by the early religion.

Again, you are making Moses the subject when he isn't. As I said, Moses was giving a message, like the apostles were. The reason the OT was authoritive is that people believed what Moses etc said and wrote about God. Just like the NT.

So basically you are just picking a particular point in the time line of the organized religion that is Christianity to follow and rejecting the more modern ones.

Just something to think about.

Hpefully I've clarified things for you above.

Soul Winner

oeb wrote: »

I'm not tip-toeing around anything. I just find it a little ironic that someone who claimed that his faith in a supreme being would heal him and rejected the care of qualified medical professionals. Of course once the cancer had spread it's course, exactly as that particular type of cancer is known to do, he heartily embraced medical science. That kind of behavior sets a scary precedent. What kind of example is that to set for a leader of any kind? Rejecting lifesaving medical care and leaving it up to faith?

Well as someone who tuned in regularly to Dr Scott up until his departure from this life I never heard him say that he would not accept medical treatment and trust only that God will heal him. He did oft say that when sick one should trust in the Lord to heal you first. But that does not suggest that you don't seek medical advice or treatment. He was a strong believer that medical advances were the result of getting closer to God's knowledge and healing power. He never once advocated non use of medical treatment to anyone including himself, he'd say make your first step toward healing be to whisper a prayer to God for healing first. The scripture does say that we should acknowledge Him in all our ways. Dr Scott was doing just that. God healed him once miraculously and he lived five more years, when he became sick again God decided to take him home. He had PSA test after PSA test, biopsies, blood tests, multiple opinions from a variety of Surgeons and Doctors. Funny way of rejecting medical treatment if you ask me.

oeb

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well as someone who tuned in regularly to Dr Scott up until his departure from this life I never heard him say that he would not accept medical treatment and trust only that God will heal him. He did oft say that when sick one should trust in the Lord to heal you first. But that does not suggest that you don't seek medical advice or treatment. He was a strong believer that medical advances were the result of getting closer to God's knowledge and healing power. He never once advocated non use of medical treatment to anyone including himself, he'd say make your first step toward healing be to whisper a prayer to God for healing first. The scripture does say that we should acknowledge Him in all our ways. Dr Scott was doing just that. God healed him once miraculously and he lived five more years, when he became sick again God decided to take him home. He had PSA test after PSA test, biopsies, blood tests, multiple opinions from a variety of Surgeons and Doctors. Funny way of rejecting medical treatment if you ask me.

He refused chemotherapy and surgery to remove the cancer when it was still small. That's pretty text book 'refusing treatment'. Every source I can find online claims that he decided to 'Give god the first shot'. Do you have a source for stating that it came up all clear during the tests? (Mind you how many women came up all clear for breast cancer in the latest HSE scandle. Act of God? Incompetence? We will never know.)

Soul Winner

oeb wrote: »

He refused chemotherapy and surgery to remove the cancer when it was still small. That's pretty text book 'refusing treatment'. Every source I can find online claims that he decided to 'Give god the first shot'. Do you have a source for stating that it came up all clear during the tests? (Mind you how many women came up all clear for breast cancer in the latest HSE scandle. Act of God? Incompetence? We will never know.)

I’m your source. Like I said, I tuned in regularly and listen to the man talk about it right up until God took him home. He reported every single PSA test that he got, each one with a higher number than the last. He then wanted to get a biopsy done in order to establish for sure that it was cancer. This was confirmed by multiple medical sources. He then trusted it to the Lord and after his next PSA test the numbers started to decrease. It got so low that the Doctors refused him another biopsy as to do one was a stupid risk to take. He remained healthy until 2004 (4 years later) when he became ill again. I got all this from the horse’s mouth to use Wick's phrase. You're only reading unconfirmed Internet reports after the events, I heard it from the man's lips as it was happening. If incompetence can be found in the halls of medical science then I'm sure there might be just a tiny bit inaccurate reporting floating around on the Internet.

oeb

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m your source. Like I said, I tuned in regularly and listen to the man talk about it right up until God took him home. He reported every single PSA test that he got, each one with a higher number than the last. He then wanted to get a biopsy done in order to establish for sure that it was cancer. This was confirmed by multiple medical sources. He then trusted it to the Lord and after his next PSA test the numbers started to decrease. It got so low that the Doctors refused him another biopsy as to do one was a stupid risk to take. He remained healthy until 2004 (4 years later) when he became ill again. I got all this from the horse’s mouth to use Wick's phrase. You're only reading unconfirmed Internet reports after the events, I heard it from the man's lips as it was happening. If incompetence can be found in the halls of medical science then I'm sure there might be just a tiny bit inaccurate reporting floating around on the Internet.

I'm sorry if you feel I am calling you out on this unjustly, but it's part of what being a skeptic is about. I do not doubt your memory, I just want you to verify your sources (And he said it on his radio show is not an unbiased resource)

After searching google, I can not find a single news story that relates to him being cured of cancer before it re-appeared. Every single one of them gives the same story as the one I have already posted. (Or at least indicates he battled cancer for 5 years)

Some examples :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1484410/Gene-Scott.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/24/BAG69BG0P01.DTL
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Eugene_Scott

I'm sure something as hight profile as a very well known controversial televangelist claiming prayer had cured his cancer must have received some media attention?

the_syco

Hagar wrote: »

Strange all the same that they all come up with a similar rationale for everything.

You see, there are two ways to go about the god thing. One, that as the god was before them, you can talk to them, thus people must please you, or the god punishes them. Thus you get power by association. This is how most of the large religions do it these days.

The other way is to say that you are a god, and you must be worshipped. Egyptian Pharaohs said that they themselves were gods, and got people to worship them. Good idea, but as only one can get all the glory, not many do this, and also once the dude who claims their god dies, so does the power.

Galvasean

oeb wrote: »

He got prostate cancer, declined treatment and said his faith would heal him. Then he, ummm died when the cancer spread all around his body and he suffered a stroke because of the related complications.

BURN! :cool:

Im sorry, that's terrible.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well as someone who tuned in regularly to Dr Scott up until his departure [...]

I believe that this is Gene Scott in this undated video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3cc6qRfZ3Q

Question -- to you, does this sound like a well-balanced guy?

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

I believe that this is Gene Scott in this undated video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3cc6qRfZ3Q

Question -- to you, does this sound like a well-balanced guy?

Haha, that was wonderful.

Dave!

Kind of makes me want to be a Christian......

Dades

No wonder Jimmy Saville never speaks about his twin brother.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The New Testament as a “collection” of documents is the product of the very early church. The documents themselves are not. They are the oldest records we have about Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, the acts of the first disciples, some of their letters and some of the Pauline letters.

Written by the first followers of Jesus, ie the early church.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you can come up with more reliable documents than these then I want to see them. To say that they are not reliable because Jesus didn’t write them is like saying every biography ever written is not reliable because they are not autobiographies.

I didn't say they weren't reliable, I said that they were a product of an organized religion.

Christianity belongs to a grouping of religion (a minority I would imagine) where everything about the doctrine and dogma of the religion is based on the perceptions of the early members, rather than the writings of specific leaders or founders. The New Testament is the work of the early followers attempting to record what they believed.

Whether they are reliable or not is up to you guys. I would point out though that just because they are the only record we have of what Jesus taught and said that is largely irrelevant to how reliable they are. Not having anything better doesn't make something reliable.

This goes back to the point Jimi made about needing to go back to the original source of a religion to verify if what is being taught is correct. This works in Christianity only up to a specific point because there is no direct source of what Jesus meant because he didn't write anything down.

So in a hypothetical case where the early Christians were acting like Jimi's example of the Pharisee, presenting a version of the religion that is contrary to the actual source, Jesus' statements, you have nothing to verify that against.