Ha, take that Ratzinger!

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

I agree. Tell us more about the lesbian sex Robin

Yes Robin, please tell us more. And also, may I sign up to your newsletter?

MrP

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

The full details are more complex since individual actors can and do use proxies, but broadly speaking, yes, that's about it.

Ok. There is actually a kernel of truth in your assertion, but it won't be something that you are aware of, or, as an atheist, have any affinity with.

What I mean is this: God put forth certain laws that He wishes us to follow for our own good. Even an atheist might agree that if God exists (which of course He does), He is all-knowing, and all-seeing, and as a result likely knows what is good for us and what is not good for us.

Let me put this to you: forgetting any perceived oppression by the Church, is it a good thing for people to be instructed to not cheat on their wives? (using the point you made about your neighbour fooling around with your wife). Also bear in mind that in asking this, I have no affiliation with any church.

Mistress 69

notallowedpostalink

Newsite

Dades wrote: »

Don't get the reference, but you will know a Christian 'by their fruits'. Could you take a vegetarian seriously if you saw them sitting down to a steak?

Mistress 69

Newsite wrote: »

Don't get the reference, but you will know a Christian 'by their fruits'. Could you take a vegetarian seriously if you saw them sitting down to a steak?

Tricks with fruit and Goats Head Soup and all that star star, sorry... i mean ..stuff!

The Mad Hatter

Newsite wrote: »

Dades wrote: »

Don't get the reference, but you will know a Christian 'by their fruits'. Could you take a vegetarian seriously if you saw them sitting down to a steak?

Yes, but no-one seems able to agree what the True fruity Christian is really like. The closest anyone has come is "a Christian who believes exactly what I do."

Newsite

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, but no-one seems able to agree what the True fruity Christian is really like. The closest anyone has come is "a Christian who believes exactly what I do."

The reason you don't know what one is really like is because it's very unlikely that you've ever met one.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

Ok. There is actually a kernel of truth in your assertion, but it won't be something that you are aware of, or, as an atheist, have any affinity with.

Newsite -- as you're a new (and welcome) poster here, can I suggest you drop the "look, you folks don't know jack" attitude here? Most of us have spent many years involved within religion in one way or another and as a group, we're probably far more knowledgeable about christian religious texts than the vast majority of religious believers. In fact, many people think that this familiarity is one of the main reasons why we're atheists and agnostics to start with.

Newsite wrote: »

Let me put this to you: forgetting any perceived oppression by the Church, is it a good thing for people to be instructed to not cheat on their wives?

No, because it's really quite obvious to most humans, that cheating is bad. What the church is doing is using that innate knowledge in order, as I said above, to legitimize its own political power base.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Also, over evolutionary time, most primates have been polygamous rather than polyandrous so at a very basic level, our brains think it's inappropriate for males to clump together within a single sexual grouping, while it's fine for women to group together in a single sexual unit

No, all those spare priks have to go somewhere. Into a bachelor herd of some kind, where they usually take out their frustrations by launching a war against "the other tribe". The surviving veterans then return and have a go at usurping the dominant male.

Newsite wrote: »

Don't get the reference, but you will know a Christian 'by their fruits'.

And you shall know a polygamous ape by its nuts.

The Mad Hatter

Newsite wrote: »

The reason you don't know what one is really like is because it's very unlikely that you've ever met one.

I've met a hell of a lot of people who claim to be.

Standman

Newsite wrote: »

The reason you don't know what one is really like is because it's very unlikely that you've ever met one.

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

Newsite

Standman wrote: »

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

I wouldn't class Catholicism as Christianity at all, but that'd be for another thread.

Newsite

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I've met a hell of a lot of people who claim to be.

What would you say their overriding characteristics are? Or to put it another way, would you say who they are and how they live their lives is consistent with Christian belief? Just interested.

marienbad

Newsite wrote: »

What would you say their overriding characteristics are? Or to put it another way, would you say who they are and how they live their lives is consistent with Christian belief? Just interested.

Just curious Newsite ,

how do you decide who or what is a christian ? You have already said that you would not class the Catholic Church as christian , how do you arrive at that conclusion . And if they are not Christian what are they ? I am
curious as on another thread you said you do not belong to any church , so I am wondering as to the how and why you can decide these things ?

Galvasean

Could Newsite be the only true Christian in the village?

Dades

Newsite wrote: »

What would you say their overriding characteristics are? Or to put it another way, would you say who they are and how they live their lives is consistent with Christian belief? Just interested.

The vast majority of Christians (i.e. people who would describe themselves as Christian - including Catholics) are almost exactly like those of us who don't. They give a bit to charity, probably don't go to mass, use contraception, don't think twice about co-habiting and watch Sex and the City without any moral issues.

They simply live under an imaginary umbrella of "Christianity", when they're not really Christians - they're just people.

So I'd imagine in your book "actual" Christians are slim to non-existent.

sensibleken

Dades wrote: »

The vast majority of Christians (i.e. people who would describe themselves as Christian - including Catholics) are almost exactly like those of us who don't. They give a bit to charity, probably don't go to mass, use contraception, don't think twice about co-habiting and watch Sex and the City without any moral issues.

They simply live under an imaginary umbrella of "Christianity", when they're not really Christians - they're just people.

So I'd imagine in your book "actual" Christians are slim to non-existent.

whoah there, speak for yourself. I have moral objections to exploiting the elderly

Skrynesaver

Newsite wrote: »

Ok...Let me put this to you: forgetting any perceived oppression by the Church, is it a good thing for people to be instructed to not cheat on their wives?

That is a very old argument, but as Robin points out above the immorality of that which harms or deceives another is apparent to all but psychopaths (and they tend to ignore instruction anyway).

So in order for the churches preaching to be essential to this moral environment the question becomes is cheating wrong because God says so or does God outlaw it because it's wrong?

I think we can all agree (bar the psychopaths) that God allowing indiscriminate killing would not make it a moral act and in that way it becomes obvious that morality has its source in human thought and that God is just an artificial veneer of authority for the credulous.

Newsite

Dades wrote: »

The vast majority of Christians (i.e. people who would describe themselves as Christian - including Catholics) are almost exactly like those of us who don't. They give a bit to charity, probably don't go to mass, use contraception, don't think twice about co-habiting and watch Sex and the City without any moral issues.

They simply live under an imaginary umbrella of "Christianity", when they're not really Christians - they're just people.

So I'd imagine in your book "actual" Christians are slim to non-existent.

Yes exactly, and that was my point in saying that you've never met one (or if you did, you might not have known it). If you stopped an Irish guy or gal on the street on a Saturday morning leaving the scene of last night's one night stand and asked them if they went to mass, they'd probably say no. If however you asked if they were a Christian, they'd probably puff out their chest slightly and say 'yeah of course'.

Newsite

Skrynesaver wrote: »

That is a very old argument, but as Robin points out above the immorality of that which harms or deceives another is apparent to all but psychopaths (and they tend to ignore instruction anyway).

So in order for the churches preaching to be essential to this moral environment the question becomes is cheating wrong because God says so or does God outlaw it because it's wrong?

God outlaws it because He knows it won't serve us well.

Skrynesaver wrote: »

I think we can all agree (bar the psychopaths) that God allowing indiscriminate killing would not make it a moral act and in that way it becomes obvious that morality has its source in human thought and that God is just an artificial veneer of authority for the credulous.

An interesting point. There is God's morality (which true Christians follow), and human morality (which everyone else follows.

Human morality is flawed by its very nature. It is subject to relativism and personal interpretation. Some people say it's cool to cheat on your spouse as long as no finds out - that way 'no-one gets hurt'. Others will say it's wrong to do so, but because they're relying on their own willpower/on themselves to not do it, they are subject to all sorts of justifications for doing same in moments of weakness. This is reinforced by the fact that they are answerable only to themselves. When you are a believer, you see the glory in doing God's will and the reward He has prepared for faithful servants.

Even objectively speaking, I would say that even you would agree that since human behaviour is fundamentally and unarguably motivated primarily by incentive, this is a far greater deterrent to doing that which is morally wrong.

ShooterSF

Gods morality is not subject to relativism? Though it's almost always asked, Newsite what is your opinion on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 so?

Also have you not gotten around to selling your computer (and all your other possessions) and given it to the poor yet?

Skrynesaver

Newsite wrote: »

God outlaws it because He knows it won't serve us well.

So you cannot determine that cheating on a partner is wrong without an imaginary deterrent?

Why should I listen to you on any issue of morality when you are clearly morally flawed?

Newsite wrote: »

An interesting point. There is God's morality (which true Christians follow), and human morality (which everyone else follows.


Human morality is flawed by its very nature. It is subject to relativism and personal interpretation. Some people say it's cool to cheat on your spouse as long as no finds out - that way 'no-one gets hurt'.

Those people are called assh*les and they exist within and without reference to deities. All morality is relative, black and white moral judgements ignore reality

Newsite wrote: »

Others will say it's wrong to do so, but because they're relying on their own willpower/on themselves to not do it, they are subject to all sorts of justifications for doing same in moments of weakness. This is reinforced by the fact that they are answerable only to themselves. When you are a believer, you see the glory in doing God's will and the reward He has prepared for faithful servants.

Even objectively speaking, I would say that even you would agree that since human behaviour is fundamentally and unarguably motivated primarily by incentive, this is a far greater deterrent to doing that which is morally wrong.

If you need a bogeyman to behave in a moral fashion I suspect you are incapable of behaving in a moral fashion

Galvasean

ShooterSF wrote: »

Gods morality is not subject to relativism? Though it's almost always asked, Newsite what is your opinion on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 so?

Also have you not gotten around to selling your computer (and all your other possessions) and given it to the poor yet?

Perhaps God explicitly told him to keep his computer and provided him with free broadband so he could fight the good fight against the atheists on the internet?

recedite

Newsite wrote: »

There is God's morality (which true Christians follow), and human morality (which everyone else follows.....When you are a believer, you see the glory in doing God's will and the reward He has prepared for faithful servants.

If God instructed you to kill someone, or blow yourself up in a crowded train station, would you do it?

Newsite

marienbad wrote: »

Just curious Newsite ,

how do you decide who or what is a christian ? You have already said that you would not class the Catholic Church as christian , how do you arrive at that conclusion . And if they are not Christian what are they ? I am
curious as on another thread you said you do not belong to any church , so I am wondering as to the how and why you can decide these things ?

Well great question, and would be even better if more people asked it.

The answers actually lie with Scripture and the Word of God itself!

Just a quick verse snippet - 'salvation is of the heart'. This is a beautiful and really important verse. And what it means is that true repentance, true salvation and faith in God is 'of the heart', not merely professing 'I believe', as even the devil can do that. He knows God exists and so can say 'I believe'. That doesn't mean he believes in the way that acts to secure salvation.

To answer specifically your question 'how do you decide' - it is not that I decide, in the sense of 'determine', but to 'ascertain'. To take a worldly example, if someone proclaimed to be a socialist, and talked about lofty topics such as 'sharing the wealth' and 'not championing material goods', and the next day you saw them spinning around in a 2011 Merc, would you take them to be a true Socialist?

Likewise, if someone professed to be a Christian, but frequently had affairs, or other things, would you take them to be a Christian?

The essence of faith (i.e. someone who believes, a Christian) is this:

"He who credits it to be true, and acts as if it were true."

So, someone who is 'born again', both professes the Word to one and all, is not ashamed of it, but rather seeks to spread it far and wide. AND they act in accordance, i.e. acting as if it were true.

Fundamentally, you know Christians because they have changed their minds, and changed their behaviour. But this is NOT through anything they have themselves worked to achieve, rather it a free gift - Grace.

Which, funnily enough, leads me to my favourite verse in the whole Bible, Paul's second letter to the Ephesians ('prince of the power of the air = Satan):

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

robindch

ShooterSF wrote: »

Also have you not gotten around to selling your computer (and all your other possessions) and given it to the poor yet?

I think that bit changed was repealed.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

Human morality is flawed by its very nature. It is subject to relativism and personal interpretation.

And religious "morality" is not subject to personal interpretation?

You're aware that there are perhaps 30,000 differing versions of christianity out there?

Dades

robindch wrote: »

And religious "morality" is not subject to personal interpretation?

You're aware that there are perhaps 30,000 differing versions of christianity out there?

Yes, but only Newsite's version is the correct interpretation.

marienbad

Newsite wrote: »

Well great question, and would be even better if more people asked it.

The answers actually lie with Scripture and the Word of God itself!

Just a quick verse snippet - 'salvation is of the heart'. This is a beautiful and really important verse. And what it means is that true repentance, true salvation and faith in God is 'of the heart', not merely professing 'I believe', as even the devil can do that. He knows God exists and so can say 'I believe'. That doesn't mean he believes in the way that acts to secure salvation.

To answer specifically your question 'how do you decide' - it is not that I decide, in the sense of 'determine', but to 'ascertain'. To take a worldly example, if someone proclaimed to be a socialist, and talked about lofty topics such as 'sharing the wealth' and 'not championing material goods', and the next day you saw them spinning around in a 2011 Merc, would you take them to be a true Socialist?

Likewise, if someone professed to be a Christian, but frequently had affairs, or other things, would you take them to be a Christian?

The essence of faith (i.e. someone who believes, a Christian) is this:

"He who credits it to be true, and acts as if it were true."

So, someone who is 'born again', both professes the Word to one and all, is not ashamed of it, but rather seeks to spread it far and wide. AND they act in accordance, i.e. acting as if it were true.

Fundamentally, you know Christians because they have changed their minds, and changed their behaviour. But this is NOT through anything they have themselves worked to achieve, rather it a free gift - Grace.

Which, funnily enough, leads me to my favourite verse in the whole Bible, Paul's second letter to the Ephesians ('prince of the power of the air = Satan):

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

So if it such a great question Newsite why don't you answer it ? As far as I can see you have only defined what a christian is (in your opinion) , I asked how can you define WHO is a christian. Unless unlike St Thomas More you do have a window to look into others men's souls , how do you know? And not alone for individuals but for whole groups as you have already stated Catholics are not Christian ?

recedite

"I'm glad you asked me that question"........ (continues preaching a preset agenda)

Mistress 69

recedite wrote: »

"I'm glad you asked me that question"........ (continues preaching a preset agenda)

Could it be a born again thing?

Newsite

marienbad wrote: »

So if it such a great question Newsite why don't you answer it ? As far as I can see you have only defined what a christian is (in your opinion) , I asked how can you define WHO is a christian. Unless unlike St Thomas More you do have a window to look into others men's souls , how do you know? And not alone for individuals but for whole groups as you have already stated Catholics are not Christian ?

If you knew 'what' a Socialist was, could you tell 'who' a Socialist is?

I've highlighted it all above. How do you identify anyone in terms of what they believe?

marienbad

Newsite wrote: »

If you knew 'what' a Socialist was, could you tell 'who' a Socialist is?

I've highlighted it all above. How do you identify anyone in terms of what they believe?

Absolutely not ! Newsite , a person could take the minimum wage and say,dress, and do all the right things and still be a killer in his heart !

As I said I have no window to look into other men's souls but you seem to.

By your own standards are you not breaking the 9th commandment ''Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour''

and dos'nt it say ''Judge not lest ye be judged'' somewhere else ?

Newsite

marienbad wrote: »

Absolutely not ! Newsite , a person could take the minimum wage and say,dress, and do all the right things and still be a killer in his heart !

As I said I have no window to look into other men's souls but you seem to.

You are just after answering your own question! If nobody has a window into other men's souls, then what earthly way could you possibly have of seeing someone's true colours, if not by their words and deeds? Do you have any other method ascertaining their true nature? Am I, as a human, any different in terms of these mechanisms?

As I said before, 'you will know them by their fruits'.

The answer to your question is this:

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (the Lord's words)

Meaning, if you see someone who professes to be Christian, but they willfully commit sin (e.g. murder, in your example, or adultery, or fornication, or preach false doctrine etc), then wouldn't you doubt that they were Christian to begin with?

marienbad wrote: »

By your own standards are you not breaking the 9th commandment ''Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour''

How so?

marienbad wrote: »

and dos'nt it say ''Judge not lest ye be judged'' somewhere else ?

That's a whole other topic, but it doesn't mean what you and the vast majority of people think it does

Sarky

More metaphor? Couldn't god inspire just ONE sentence to be written down clearly without room for interpreting it however you like to fit your own preconceptions and prejudices?

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Couldn't god inspire just ONE sentence to be written down clearly without room for interpreting it however you like

Reading this thread and the other one, John 11:35 springs unaccountably to mind:

John 11:35 wrote:

Jesus wept.

Sarky

Is that actual weeping?Was that actual weeping though? Or is it a poetic way of saying "Shoot the gays"?

Genghiz Cohen

Sarky wrote: »

Is that actual weeping?Was that actual weeping though? Or is it a poetic way of saying "Shoot the gays"?

It's obviously talking about abortion!

mascaput

recedite wrote: »

Yes, AIDs often starts in the bottom alright.

I may do indeed...but sometimes it's by intravenous drug use or straight sex.....;)

mascaput

Sarky wrote: »

More metaphor? Couldn't god inspire just ONE sentence to be written down clearly without room for interpreting it however you like to fit your own preconceptions and prejudices?

Indeed it would be nice for a change, "but that would be a euchemenical matter" LINK

MrPudding

This is one of the things I find really funny about religion. I work in IT and I frequently have to write documentation for various things. I am a mere human, yet I am expected to write documentation that is understandable and does not require any interpretation. In the grand scheme of things my documentation is not particularly important, no one will die over it, yet I am held to very high standard regarding its quality.

Then we have the bible. it is a "manual" for life. It explains how we need to live in order to attain eternal life, pretty important stuff. It was inspired by an all powerful all knowing super sky wizard who is, one would expect, of at least reasonable intelligence. And we find that, despite the importance of the book and the fact that a god had a hand in writing it, its quality, as a manual, is fcuking sh1t.

God is luck he isn't a freelance contractor, cos I don't think he would last very long.

MrP

Peregrinus

Ah, see, there's your problem. Somebody has told you that the bible is like an IT manual, only for human life, and for whatever reason it has never occurred to you to question this.

See, the thing is, IT manuals had not been invented when the bible texts were written, and that particular genre of literature did not exist. You might as well try to read Homer's Illiad, or Newton's Principia Mathematica, or Austen's Pride and Prejudice, as if they were something like an IT manual. You won't get very far.

The bible does not "explain how we need to live in order to attain eternal life", and does not pretend to explain this. Someone in whom you evidently place implicit faith has told you this, but I'm afraid your faith is misplaced. You need to become a bit more critical, a bit more sceptical. A bit more thoughtful even; given what we know about the bible texts and the culture that produced them, how likely is it that they would function like, or read like, IT manuals? I mean, c'mon! Do any other texts from that periopd of human history read like manuals? No? And why do you think that might be?

The only way to decide how to read the bible texts, I'm afraid, is actually to read them, and to do it with some thought. There's a variety of texts written in a variety of genres, some of which are familiar to us and some of which are not - history, fiction, fable, poetry, philosophy, song, apocalyptic literature, rhetoric, polemic, and more besides. But operating manual isn't there. (Neither is newspaper, for all you biblical literalists out there.)

If you're not interested in the bible, that's fine. But not being interested in it because it doesn't read like an operating manual is a bit like not being interested in your computer's operating manual because it doesn't rhyme or because it lacks a love interest and all the characters are, you know, just so badly drawn.

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're not interested in the bible, that's fine. But not being interested in it because it doesn't read like an operating manual is a bit like not being interested in your computer's operating manual because it doesn't rhyme or because it lacks a love interest and all the characters are, you know, just so badly drawn.

Where exactly did you get notion that MrP isn't interested from? You're address some point that wasn't made.

What is the purpose of the Gospels etc. if not "spread the good word", and to document the life of Jesus for mankind?

You've suggested what the bible is not - but been very vague on what it actually is.

Newsite

MrPudding wrote: »

This is one of the things I find really funny about religion. I work in IT and I frequently have to write documentation for various things. I am a mere human, yet I am expected to write documentation that is understandable and does not require any interpretation. In the grand scheme of things my documentation is not particularly important, no one will die over it, yet I am held to very high standard regarding its quality.

Then we have the bible. it is a "manual" for life. It explains how we need to live in order to attain eternal life, pretty important stuff. It was inspired by an all powerful all knowing super sky wizard who is, one would expect, of at least reasonable intelligence. And we find that, despite the importance of the book and the fact that a god had a hand in writing it, its quality, as a manual, is fcuking sh1t.

God is luck he isn't a freelance contractor, cos I don't think he would last very long.

MrP

It's not a 'manual for life', first of all.

The reason it is so difficult to understand for you is not because it is of poor quality in terms of its writing or the way it expresses terms - it is because an understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself. In other words, it's not because it's hard to understand that you don't get it - but in fact the opposite is true. It's because you don't 'get it' (believe) that it's hard to understand.

God is 'all powerful, 'all knowing', even by your admission. Do you really think a sovereign God would make it easily understandable to someone who views it in such a way that you do? Why would you deserve that?

Matthew 13:13 'Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand'.

Deuteronomy 29:4 'Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day..'

And as Isaiah prophesied hundreds of years before Jesus and Matthew were even born:

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Delirium

Newsite wrote: »

It's not a 'manual for life', first of all.

The reason it is so difficult to understand for you is not because it is of poor quality in terms of its writing or the way it expresses terms - it is because an understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself.

Sounds like catch 22. You can't understand the bible if you aren't a Christian, to become a Christian you must truly understand the bible.

Newsite

koth wrote: »

Sounds like catch 22. You can't understand the bible if you aren't a Christian, to become a Christian you must truly understand the bible.

It is somewhat. But ask yourself this - are you more likely to come to an understanding if you have an open heart and genuinely want to - or if you harden your heart and refer to it in the terms above?

Delirium

Newsite wrote: »

It is somewhat. But ask yourself this - are you more likely to come to an understanding if you have an open heart and genuinely want to - or if you harden your heart and refer to it in the terms above?

Neither, as I'm not a Christian therefore the meaning will be hidden from me.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

The reason it is so difficult to understand for you is not because it is of poor quality in terms of its writing or the way it expresses terms - it is because an understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself.

I've read a lot of the NT in Ancient Greek and believe me, in comparison to what else is out there in that language and from around that time, the NT is unforgivably poor quality prose.

The reason that you think there's more in there than meets the eye is because you desperately want there to be more there. The psychological term, as I pointed out somewhere else recently, is Pareidolia.

Additional meaning is missing, not because we are "blasphemous unbelievers" or haven't an "open heart", but for the rather simpler reason that it's not there.

Newsite

robindch wrote: »

I've read a lot of the NT in Ancient Greek and believe me, in comparison to what else is out there in that language and from around that time, the NT is unforgivably poor quality prose.

The reason that you think there's more in there than meets the eye is because you desperately want there to be more there. The psychological term, as I pointed out somewhere else recently, is Pareidolia.

Additional meaning is missing, not because we are "blasphemous unbelievers" or haven't an "open heart", but for the rather simpler reason that it's not there.

On the contrary, it is rich and replete in meaning, and interwoven with verses which back up other parts of the Bible, spaced hundreds and even thousands of years apart.

Jesus spoke in more obscure terms to the crowds, but with his apostles he spoke plainly and simply. A classic example is the parable of the workers in the Gospel of Matthew - to an unbeliever it may make little sense - to a true Christian it perfectly explains the core message.

Also - I think Pareidolia refers more to sounds and images

swampgas

Newsite wrote: »

The reason it is so difficult to understand for you is not because it is of poor quality in terms of its writing or the way it expresses terms - it is because an understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself. In other words, it's not because it's hard to understand that you don't get it - but in fact the opposite is true. It's because you don't 'get it' (believe) that it's hard to understand.

This is self-fulfilling - what religion preaches is that if you have "faith" - i.e. pretend to believe X, then suddenly X will make sense.

This bypasses any sort of logical or rational analysis.

Jumping straight to belief (i.e. using "faith") is simply irrational. It's not that I'm not open to the message, it's that I refuse to believe something blindly "just because".

I like to have beliefs that are internally self-consistent. If the bible is inconsistent with the real world as I see it, then I will assume that the bible is at fault, not the real world. What religious believers seem to do instead is to build a mental model in their heads, where there is a new reality which goes beyond the physical world about us. Hence transubstantiation can somehow make sense, because an additional "reality" has been created as a conceptual holding space for it.