A WHOPPING 46% Of Americans Believe In Creationism According To New Gallup Poll

Duggys Housemate

Biggins wrote: »

...And fair play to them for doing it! Kudos to them!
Had they tried it later down the line, I suspect they might have been ordered to silence by Rome like our current lot under such punishment.

utter ****e, read the wikipedia entry. FFS, you live in a Catholic country where people learn evolution in school.

philologos

Biggins wrote: »

...And fair play to them for doing it! Kudos to them!
Had they tried it later down the line, I suspect they might have been ordered to silence by Rome like our current lot under such punishment.

I'm speaking from a Christian perspective, not from an explicitly Roman Catholic one.

Just trying to provide a bit of perspective to the discussion and hopefully a chance for a bit of dialogue around it. The reality seems to be that Young Earth Creationism is a very modern form of thinking on Genesis. That's all I'm trying to point out.

Biggins

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

utter ****e, read the wikipedia entry. FFS,

Aaa ok!

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

...you live in a Catholic country where people learn evolution in school.

Thanks for informing me of something I already know.
Have I said it wasn't anyway?

joseph brand

Ciaran0 wrote: »

I prefer to think that a whopping % of Americans are undereducated, rather then plain stupid. It gives me more hope that in the future things could change.

It might be more sinister than just being undereducated, although that is a factor of course. (Religious doctrine works fantastically well on the poor and uneducated around the world)

Religion is a form of control, and Americans have enjoyed being brainwashed and controlled in churches up and down their country (concentrated in the bible belt). But now they are being preached controlled by their politicians. Just what you'd expect from countries in the Middle East. Scary.

All the Rep Presidential nominees; Romney, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum and Gingritch claimed that god/ jesus had personally told them that they each would win the candidacy if they went for it. There's only Romney left, so was god taking the p1ss with the rest or were they just lying.

Also, as a poster said earlier, there is a lot of home schooling (brainwashing, child abuse )amongst evangelicals and even if a child goes to public school, there's religious nutcases deciding the curriculum.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

Just a though, maybe the religious are better prepared for military action? Seems to work on suicide bombers.

Biggins

philologos wrote: »

I'm speaking from a Christian perspective, not from an explicitly Roman Catholic one.

Just trying to provide a bit of perspective to the discussion and hopefully a chance for a bit of dialogue around it. The reality seems to be that Young Earth Creationism is a very modern form of thinking on Genesis. That's all I'm trying to point out.

Debate and balance is always good - better that than complete closed minds (NOT a go at yourself philologos.)

Biggins

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Nonsense, it was never hostile to Darwin.

REALLY! Seriously???

There was no official comment from the Vatican for several decades, but in 1860 a council of the German Catholic bishops pronounced that the belief that "man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith." This defined the range of official Catholic discussion of evolution, which has remained almost exclusively concerned with human evolution.[32]

Source - of which there is MANY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_Darwin's_theory

DOH!!!

O' LOOK!!!
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html

Just a quote from one section!!!

There was in fact a consistent, if relatively quiet, rejection of human evolution on the part of the See of Peter throughout the last three decades of the nineteenth century. Apart from the censures just mentioned, the Holy Office consultors Domenichelli and Tripepi both affirm that the anti-Darwinian decision of the German bishops at Cologne in 1860 was "approved" by Rome...

Come back on that when you know what the hell your talking about, will you!

Basically you are, as usual, doing your typical taxi driver rant, devoid of knowledge or facts. When called on your stupidity you double up your attack.

Right, so I never back my stuff up with links and further info - have you been on boards.ie long?

...And the truth shall set you free!

I repeat: Come back on when you know what the hell your talking about, will you!

Rented Mule

Gnobe wrote: »

From the article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

From the website itself:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx



So perhaps the hype about America and the world in general turning out to be more secular is a false one??

There's been a lot of threads on here recently about how religion will die out in 50 years etc, but gallup shows no evidence for it, infact the number of Americans believing in creationism has increased over the past 30 years.

Interesting I guess the concept of creationism is here to stay, at least in the most powerful country in the world it is.

The sample size is 1,012 out of 330,000,000 people. I have to say that this poll is pile of ****e.

planetX

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

utter ****e, read the wikipedia entry. FFS, you live in a Catholic country where people learn evolution in school.

Hmm, how old are you? I was educated in this country, and we were taught begrudgingly about evolution - as an unproved theory. We certainly had a good deal of creationism shoved down our throats, and any idea of religious freedom was stamped on. Good ol open minded catholicism.... the pope is still banging on about masturbation you know:rolleyes:

Duggys Housemate

Biggins wrote: »

Come back on that when you know what the hell your talking about, will you!

Selective quoting the article I linked you to won't help your case here. That was a group of German bishops in Cologne, not the Church in general. The official position was no position until ideas of theistic evolution, and the Church only has a special position on human evolution, the addition of the soul sometime in human evolution. That's all you can teach the rest. We evolved from monkeys in Catholic theology, the soul was added later. This isn't difficult for the Church as it does not have a literal view of the bible.

Right, so I never back my stuff up with links and further info - have you been on boards.ie long?

Long enough, and longer as a lurker. I have never seen you produce much worthwhile in your positions. Your postings are generally a modern taxi driver rant - a modern taxi driver hostile to the Church, FF and FG etc. But hostile, and ill-informed.

In this case you don't seem to understand the differences between bible bashing fundamentalism - long hostile to Catholicism, something clear on this Island - and the Catholic Churches more subtle ideas on evolution, you don't seem to understand the thread is about the US, and you linked to "what the vatican tells you to think" in the middle of all this. If there are vatican influenced, or Catholic schools in the deep south, the students there will be believers in evolution uniquely amongst their population.

I repeat: Come back on when you know what the hell your talking about, will you!

If you held that position you wouldn't post. All you did was read the link I posted, not understand it, and link to a bit you didn't understand was not the Churches position- the position was explained at the start of the article.

In any case, it is bible literalism - which the Catholic Church does not do - which produces young earth evolution.

Duggys Housemate

planetX wrote: »

Hmm, how old are you? I was educated in this country, and we were taught begrudgingly about evolution - as an unproved theory. We certainly had a good deal of creationism shoved down our throats, and any idea of religious freedom was stamped on. Good ol open minded catholicism.... the pope is still banging on about masturbation you know:rolleyes:

I am 37 and was thought evolution in a school in Tipperary by a Jesuit. I have yet to find anybody, except on the internet, who was taught anything else. And I do ask.

Biggins

Dear Duggys Housemate,

I'm choosing to ignore you from now on.

Why?

1. You have broken (it seems to me) the forum rule of not attacking a poster.

2. Your choosing to totally ignore simple, well known established facts that even a google search can prove alone.

Have a good day.

Duggys Housemate

Biggins wrote: »

2. Your choosing to totally ignore simple, well known established facts that even a google search can prove alone.
.

Dear Biggins,

I won't be ignoring you, as I am not a child who has had my opinion opposed on the internet and have therefore removed my toys. I will be pointing out your inconsistencies, as threads move on. If any.

p.s. the facts are that Catholicism teaches evolution, with some modification, and this poll is about young earth evolutionists in the US, the vast majority of whom would be protestant.

planetX

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I am 37 and was thought evolution in a school in Tipperary by a Jesuit. I have yet to find anybody, except on the internet, who was taught anything else. And I do ask.

Jesuits have traditionally been more scientifically minded - I don't think you can make sweeping statements about catholic education when you didn't experience the full spectrum. I can only speak for my school - evolution was nearly a dirty word (Nuns... always looking for dirty words;))

philologos

Ellis Dee wrote: »

It doesn't matter what style it was written in, or how much has been lost - or added - in translation. The bible is a book, just like the Lord of the Rings or a million other titles. No one can know how much of it is founded on fact, actual events, how much is derived from oral stories passed down and much embellished and garbled in the course of centuries or millennia, how much is the fruit of over-active imaginations and attempts to explain - using the limited knowledge and technological understanding of the time - all sorts of things that could not be explained in any rational way within the framework of the scientific understanding that people then possessed. And, of course, politics and propaganda and censorship and selective presentation and interpretation of facts have played a big role as well.

By all means, if that's what gets you off, believe that it is a message from some sort of creator, but you could say the same, with equal validity, about the Beano for that matter.

As Nietzsche famously said. "A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith proves absolutely nothing."

And on the subject of creationism and how many Americans believe in it, if I recall correctly, a very significant proportion of the total population in that benighted country firmly believe that they have at some time been abducted by aliens!

I'm more than happy to be called a lunatic, a fundamentalist, a nutjob, a bible basher and so on. I'm told that people will treat Christian faith with derision, that's what I signed up to when I accepted the Gospel.

As for you however, I won't be doing anything of the sort. I'm just going to try and respect you as much as God wants me to. I regard you as a sojourner through life just as much as I am. Exploring in Creation and trying to figure out our place in it.

The question you're hitting on is "Why trust the Bible?" - I think we can trust the Bible for a number of reasons:

1. The Biblical text isn't written as fiction -
People often make the claim that the Bible is written as fiction. This couldn't be any further from the truth, its authors are explicit as to what the intention of it is. For example look to the opening of Luke's Gospel. Or the ending of John's Gospel. There's no evidence anywhere within the Bible that it was ever intended to be taken as fiction. From what John says, and from what Luke says the explicit intention is that the reader might believe.

Luke 1:1-4 wrote:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
(Luke 1:1-4 ESV)

Luke was written on the basis of eyewitness testimony, and it was written so that Theophilus who it was addressed to might have certainty in the Gospel.

John 20:30-31 wrote:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.
(John 20:30-31 ESV)

John was clearly written so that the readers would believe that Jesus is the Christ (the Jewish Messiah) and that He was the Son of God, and that by believing people would have life in His name. John's pretty clear about that.

We can't compare it to the Lord of the Rings merely on genre alone. The Bible is explicitly written as non-fiction. There are of course questions as to whether or not we should believe Biblical claims, and I'm happy to discuss that at length with you if you'd like, but the reality is that there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Bible is written in a fiction genre.

So, to anyone who claims that the Bible is akin to fiction or fairystory on boards.ie I have to ask why do you say that? What textual evidence backs that up?

I'm interested to hear.

2. The Biblical text encourages questioning -
Belief systems which are clearly fictional do not encourage you to seek out the eyewitnesses for yourself and ask them. Some skeptics seem to forget that if people were making specific claims about Jesus, and clear events that took place in Galilee and Jerusalem that there would be eyewitnesses. If you don't want people to ask questions about your belief system, you don't point them to witnesses. Paul clearly does this in 1 Corinthians which is dated to around 54AD. Witnesses of Jesus' resurrection would have been alive when Paul wrote these things. People could have gone to Jerusalem or Israel themselves to find out:

1 Corinthians 15:3-7 wrote:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
(1 Corinthians 15:3-7 ESV)

If the Gospel were fiction, why would Paul do this if he wanted to cover up a lie as atheists suggest that Christianity is?

3. There simply wasn't enough time for the New Testament to be conjured together -

Here's something I've presented on why I think that the New Testament couldn't have been cobbled together as some skeptics would like to suggest on boards.ie. Here's an argument on the dating of Paul's letters to the Galatians (dated to 54AD) and the fact that he is a convert to Christianity.

If you see what I've argued concerning Galatians and the historicity of Paul and his conversion to Christianity it becomes rather difficult to argue that the Gospels are forgery considering that:
1) Paul was a convert to Christianity and received the Gospel from others,
2) His timeline leaves us (54 - (17 + years between the events he describes and Galatians being written). Subtracting that time from the commonly accepted date for the authorship of Galatians leaves us with very little time for a Gospel to be concocted.
3) Galatians and other writings of Paul including 1 Corinthians affirm the Gospel.
4) Therefore we must conclude that central teachings of the Gospel were established long before Paul was converted, and soon after Jesus returned to the Father.

Again, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts or anyone elses on this. It's definitely worth thinking about though.

4. The New Testament isn't written as propaganda -
What I mean by this is that the New Testament wasn't written in a manner that glorified the Apostles who would later go out into the Gentile world to preach the Gospel.

A - The first witnesses of the Resurrection were women -
Women were the first witnesses of the Resurrection (Mark 16:1-8) when in Middle Eastern culture the testimony of a woman in court would have been half of that of a man. If you were writing propaganda you wouldn't include this detail in your writing, because simply put it would have been regarded as embarrassing.

B - The Gospels include embarrassing details about the Apostles -
The Gospels don't include flattering details about the Apostles, something which you would expect if you wanted to make Christianity into a personality cult. For example Peter denying Jesus (Mark 14:66-72), Peter not getting that Jesus had to suffer and die (Mark 8:31-37), the Apostles arguing over who was going to sit at the right hand of Jesus (Mark 10:35-45), Thomas' skepticism and initial unbelief (John 20:24-29), Peter's lack of trust in Jesus in walking on water (Mark 6:45-52)

5. The New Testament is the most authentic ancient text in the world - - Look at this link for example. (large image) We have over 20,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and by comparison of these manuscripts only 40 passages in the New Testament are in doubt. That means that 99.6% of the New Testament was exactly as it was when it was first written. Of the 40 verses that are in doubt, many of them merely repeat what was originally in other Gospels or back up the message that was presented in other verses which aren't in doubt.

No other ancient text in the world compares to the New Testament on the number of manuscripts. The sheer agreement in the manuscripts that we do have tells us a number of things, firstly that there were texts which preceded the copies, and that the copies of these texts largely agree with eachother, it also tells us that if a scribe were to introduce serious changes they would be caught red handed because there would be so much manuscript evidence against them.

It also presents a problem for the atheist / agnostic / skeptic. If you are to doubt the New Testament, you must also be willing to doubt every other ancient text we have in due measure. For example the earliest manuscript of Aristotle that we have in the world dates 1000 years after Aristotle. The earliest manuscripts that we have concerning Jesus come 70 years after his death. We can have confidence that there were manuscripts in existence that predated these, because all the copies we have are in agreement with eachother.

The question is, are you really judging the New Testament fairly on this basis, and why are you not judging every other ancient text in the world that we have with equal vigour?

6. There is evidence that the Old Testament hasn't been changed -
The archaeological finds of Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1948 are evidence that the Old Testament is authentic. The Isaiah scroll that was found in one of the caves in Qumran in Jordan. The meaning of the Isaiah scroll that was found at Qumran matched with the scrolls that we were previously using from Isaiah. Meaning that there has been no significant changes in the book of Isaiah. Other scrolls which were found such as commentaries on Habakkuk and texts on the Psalms can give us confidence in the authenticity of the Old Testament.

One of the advantages in respect to the Old Testament is that Jewish scribes were so scrupulous in their copies of the Tanakh that we have so many copies of the Old Testament to work with. Looking to my previous argument similar logic can be drawn. There were so many copies of the Old Testament in synagogues right across Israel and further afield that if someone did introduce significant changes they would be caught red handed.

7. The Biblical text is supported historically -
From a previous post of mine:

Figures such as Xerxes (if you have seen 300 this is the same Xerxes), Nebuchadnezzar, Hezekiah, Sennachera, Balthasar, Darius, Cyrus, and so on have been substantiated in secular historical sources of the age. Likewise, the construction of the walls of Jerusalem, the construction of the 2nd Temple, the captivity of the Judeans and the Israelites, and so on are also backed up historically. Archaeological sites such as the Zedekiahs Cave underneath the city of Jerusalem, King David's Tower, and Biblical sites such as Herod's palace, Temple coins from Jerusalem, Pilates residence in Caesarea, the ruins of the city of Capernaum and so on have all been found, and there are many more promising archaeological projects in the future which may substantiate the Biblical record more over the first few years. I have also mentioned the likelihood of the occurrence of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it's citation by many geologists, if you take a look at Google Scholar or JSTOR you will find information on these.

Writers such as Josephus, Tactius, Pliny the Younger, and so on reference the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian community in their works. If you take a read of Josephus' - Jewish Antiquities in particular it has references to both Jesus of Nazareth and the Crucifixion, Christians, and James the Righteous and his stoning to death. There is also a broad historical consensus with slight disagreement that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was the site where Jesus was crucified. This gives credence to me that Jesus was indeed crucified. This in particular is a problem for Islam stating that Jesus was not crucified at all.

There are more reasons as to why I trust in Jesus wholeheartedly, but this is just on the level of why I can trust the Bible as being authentic.

Imagination, fiction, or truth? It's not as simple as you or other atheists / agnostics and skeptics think Ellis Dee. There are questions to be thought about here. The reality is, there's good evidence to suggest that the Bible is not equivalent to Beano, or the Lord of the Rings or anything else you might want to compare it to.

I guess what I'm asking you is, am I really an idiot? Should I really be locked in a lunatic asylum or are these valid questions to ask you?

biko

Please be civil, don't let Eris rule your words.

Gran Hermano

"And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best"

Sony 16:9

Far too many quotes in this thread

Biggins

We might differ on various aspects philologos but your post 115 is certainly interesting and not to be sniffed at!

Kudos to you.
Thats called intelligent debating! Long may it live. Well done.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I'm told that people will treat Christian faith with derision

Yes, quite. If I made up something that ridiculous I would likely build in a few warnings of that sort into the text too. It is a bit like "Emperors New Clothes" when before the Emperor is sent out stark naked he is warned that everyone will probably laugh at him... but it is just because they are jealous of course... so pay it no mind.

It is a joke, you are the victim/target of that joke, and the jokers are sending you out espousing total nonsense and warning you people will laugh at you... but pay it no mind it's just their jealousy... or Satan at work... or some other excuse to basically cover the fact that the joke is on you.

And where the Emperor could have, but did not, simply look down and see he was naked... you somehow manage not to look at your god claims and realise there is no evidence, argument, data or reasons to even suggest there is such an entity.

jmayo

philologos wrote: »

I'm more than happy to be called a lunatic, a fundamentalist, a nutjob, a bible basher and so on. I'm told that people will treat Christian faith with derision, that's what I signed up to when I accepted the Gospel.

As for you however, I won't be doing anything of the sort. I'm just going to try and respect you as much as God wants me to. I regard you as a sojourner through life just as much as I am. Exploring in Creation and trying to figure out our place in it.

The question you're hitting on is "Why trust the Bible?" - I think we can trust the Bible for a number of reasons:

1. The Biblical text isn't written as fiction -
People often make the claim that the Bible is written as fiction. This couldn't be any further from the truth, its authors are explicit as to what the intention of it is. For example look to the opening of Luke's Gospel. Or the ending of John's Gospel. There's no evidence anywhere within the Bible that it was ever intended to be taken as fiction. From what John says, and from what Luke says the explicit intention is that the reader might believe.



Luke was written on the basis of eyewitness testimony, and it was written so that Theophilus who it was addressed to might have certainty in the Gospel.



John was clearly written so that the readers would believe that Jesus is the Christ (the Jewish Messiah) and that He was the Son of God, and that by believing people would have life in His name. John's pretty clear about that.

We can't compare it to the Lord of the Rings merely on genre alone. The Bible is explicitly written as non-fiction. There are of course questions as to whether or not we should believe Biblical claims, and I'm happy to discuss that at length with you if you'd like, but the reality is that there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Bible is written in a fiction genre.

So, to anyone who claims that the Bible is akin to fiction or fairystory on boards.ie I have to ask why do you say that? What textual evidence backs that up?

I'm interested to hear.

2. The Biblical text encourages questioning -
Belief systems which are clearly fictional do not encourage you to seek out the eyewitnesses for yourself and ask them. Some skeptics seem to forget that if people were making specific claims about Jesus, and clear events that took place in Galilee and Jerusalem that there would be eyewitnesses. If you don't want people to ask questions about your belief system, you don't point them to witnesses. Paul clearly does this in 1 Corinthians which is dated to around 54AD. Witnesses of Jesus' resurrection would have been alive when Paul wrote these things. People could have gone to Jerusalem or Israel themselves to find out:


If the Gospel were fiction, why would Paul do this if he wanted to cover up a lie as atheists suggest that Christianity is?

3. There simply wasn't enough time for the New Testament to be conjured together -

Here's something I've presented on why I think that the New Testament couldn't have been cobbled together as some skeptics would like to suggest on boards.ie. Here's an argument on the dating of Paul's letters to the Galatians (dated to 54AD) and the fact that he is a convert to Christianity.



Again, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts or anyone elses on this. It's definitely worth thinking about though.

4. The New Testament isn't written as propaganda -
What I mean by this is that the New Testament wasn't written in a manner that glorified the Apostles who would later go out into the Gentile world to preach the Gospel.

A - The first witnesses of the Resurrection were women -
Women were the first witnesses of the Resurrection (Mark 16:1-8) when in Middle Eastern culture the testimony of a woman in court would have been half of that of a man. If you were writing propaganda you wouldn't include this detail in your writing, because simply put it would have been regarded as embarrassing.

B - The Gospels include embarrassing details about the Apostles -
The Gospels don't include flattering details about the Apostles, something which you would expect if you wanted to make Christianity into a personality cult. For example Peter denying Jesus (Mark 14:66-72), Peter not getting that Jesus had to suffer and die (Mark 8:31-37), the Apostles arguing over who was going to sit at the right hand of Jesus (Mark 10:35-45), Thomas' skepticism and initial unbelief (John 20:24-29), Peter's lack of trust in Jesus in walking on water (Mark 6:45-52)

5. The New Testament is the most authentic ancient text in the world - - Look at this link for example. (large image) We have over 20,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and by comparison of these manuscripts only 40 passages in the New Testament are in doubt. That means that 99.6% of the New Testament was exactly as it was when it was first written. Of the 40 verses that are in doubt, many of them merely repeat what was originally in other Gospels or back up the message that was presented in other verses which aren't in doubt.

No other ancient text in the world compares to the New Testament on the number of manuscripts. The sheer agreement in the manuscripts that we do have tells us a number of things, firstly that there were texts which preceded the copies, and that the copies of these texts largely agree with eachother, it also tells us that if a scribe were to introduce serious changes they would be caught red handed because there would be so much manuscript evidence against them.

It also presents a problem for the atheist / agnostic / skeptic. If you are to doubt the New Testament, you must also be willing to doubt every other ancient text we have in due measure. For example the earliest manuscript of Aristotle that we have in the world dates 1000 years after Aristotle. The earliest manuscripts that we have concerning Jesus come 70 years after his death. We can have confidence that there were manuscripts in existence that predated these, because all the copies we have are in agreement with eachother.

The question is, are you really judging the New Testament fairly on this basis, and why are you not judging every other ancient text in the world that we have with equal vigour?

6. There is evidence that the Old Testament hasn't been changed -
The archaeological finds of Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1948 are evidence that the Old Testament is authentic. The Isaiah scroll that was found in one of the caves in Qumran in Jordan. The meaning of the Isaiah scroll that was found at Qumran matched with the scrolls that we were previously using from Isaiah. Meaning that there has been no significant changes in the book of Isaiah. Other scrolls which were found such as commentaries on Habakkuk and texts on the Psalms can give us confidence in the authenticity of the Old Testament.

One of the advantages in respect to the Old Testament is that Jewish scribes were so scrupulous in their copies of the Tanakh that we have so many copies of the Old Testament to work with. Looking to my previous argument similar logic can be drawn. There were so many copies of the Old Testament in synagogues right across Israel and further afield that if someone did introduce significant changes they would be caught red handed.

7. The Biblical text is supported historically -
From a previous post of mine:




There are more reasons as to why I trust in Jesus wholeheartedly, but this is just on the level of why I can trust the Bible as being authentic.

Imagination, fiction, or truth? It's not as simple as you or other atheists / agnostics and skeptics think Ellis Dee. There are questions to be thought about here. The reality is, there's good evidence to suggest that the Bible is not equivalent to Beano, or the Lord of the Rings or anything else you might want to compare it to.

I guess what I'm asking you is, am I really an idiot? Should I really be locked in a lunatic asylum or are these valid questions to ask you?

Me thinks you have to much time on your hands.

Wibbs

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

In any case, it is bible literalism - which the Catholic Church does not do - which produces young earth evolution.

Pretty much. The Catholic church has been clever enough to evolve with the times it lived in and has pretty much always had a two tier theology, one based on original scripture and another based on evolving theology(kinda had to as there's quite a bit missing or vague in the original texts so you need to fill in some of the blanks). A couple of hundred years ago you'd have been put to the torch for suggesting humans were apes, but today they incorporate it into their theology. Ditto with stuff like astronomy. Hell the vatican has it's own observatory that is plugged into the rest of the scientific community, whereas go back a bit and Galileo was under house arrest.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I am 37 and was thought evolution in a school in Tipperary by a Jesuit. I have yet to find anybody, except on the internet, who was taught anything else. And I do ask.

Ditto(and I've a few years on you). Hell one of my teachers who was a priest encouraged me personally in my childhood interest in palaeontology and loaned me various books on the subject. Books that would be defo frowned upon in some sections of the Bible Belt. I find it odd to hear any different TBH. I've never heard of anyone who was educated by Catholic clergy into belief in the literal 7 days of creation. Maybe they exist, but IMHO it's more likely a case of what we would like to believe about the evil church than anything based in reality.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I won't be ignoring you, as I am not a child who has had my opinion opposed on the internet and have therefore removed my toys. I will be pointing out your inconsistencies, as threads move on. If any.

Yea I never got folks doing the whole "I'm now putting you on ignore" thing. Seems terribly petulant even if not meant in that way.

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

There are more reasons as to why I trust in Jesus wholeheartedly, but this is just on the level of why I can trust the Bible as being authentic.

Imagination, fiction, or truth? It's not as simple as you or other atheists / agnostics and skeptics think Ellis Dee. There are questions to be thought about here. The reality is, there's good evidence to suggest that the Bible is not equivalent to Beano, or the Lord of the Rings or anything else you might want to compare it to.

Oh I'd broadly agree with you on the authenticity of the gospels. As far as the chain of transmission goes. Not being a believer I'll leave the miracles and the faith to others. I would also agree that there is a laziness among some non believers to dismiss the texts as imaginary and invented way later. As you point out judging by the sheer quantity of texts that come down to us today whatever about the supernatural elements involved the texts themselves can be nailed down pretty close to the times they report on. For me they would still contain an element of chinese whispers and embellishment and some downright inaccuracies(IE Jesus and Mary taking part in an imperial census. No record of any such census exists).

The idea that the historical Jesus never existed is equally bogus IMHO. Most of those who would support this view would be pretty positive that Muhammed existed as a concrete historical figure, yet the only evidence for his existence and life come from Islamic sources*, some of which are written centuries after his death. In the very earliest texts he isn't mentioned at all, which given his later central importance is decidedly odd. It would be like Christianity minus Jesus until 300 AD. Even the earliest Quran is a couple of centuries after it was supposed to have been collected(though Quranic inscriptions exist before this on coinage and the Dome of the rock). Mecca which according to Muslim texts was a major trading city doesn't appear in any writings or maps of the area until the Islamic empire starts to grow(not surprising as it's quite literally in the middle of nowhere(tm) and far away from any trade routes).





*there may be one reference to him in a Greek text, but it's very vague and makes no mention of a new religion attached to him. Given the Muslim sources talk about him engaging with both the Greeks and other socities in an official capacity it seems odd out of the thousands of extant records no further mention is made.

Biggins

For the record, I stated:

The Vatican previously was long hostile to Darwin (for over 150 years!!!) because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.
(They finally had to submit and make a statement in 2008 about how Darwin might be right!)

In amazing example of convenient timely blindness and or un-education, the following was posted:

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Nonsense, it was never hostile to Darwin.

A statement by Duggys Housemate that was and still is completely wrong.

Do I lie?

I have already given previous example but here is a few more - of which there is thousands on the internet alone to VERIFY that the Vatican was indeed HOSTILE to Darwin.

* http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14751-vatican-says-it-does-not-owe-darwin-an-apology.html

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.
Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

* http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-103491.html

Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his theory appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis, Archbishop Ravasi argued yesterday that biological evolution and the Christian view of Creation were complementary.

* http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/16/us-vatican-evolution-idUSLG62672220080916

The Vatican said on Tuesday that the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held in March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

* http://www.theroadtothehorizon.org/2008/09/news-church-states-darwins-theory.html

Today, the Vatican said the theory of evolution is compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception they gave him 150 years ago.

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation. Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain. The Vatican has no intention of apologising for earlier negative views, though.

* http://www.religioustolerance.org/news09jul.htm

Monsignor Sergio Pagano, head of the Vatican's secret archives, in a startling, unprecedented move, said that today's church should learn from their past mistakes and abandon their diffidence towards science...

"Christian Churches were long hostile to the evolutionist theories of Charles Darwin because they conflicted with the literal biblical account of God creating the world in six days."

* http://markhumphrys.com/science.religion.html

Mainstream church opposition to Darwin in the 19th century. See the quote from the ignorant Pope Pius IX, who calls the descent of humans from non-humans "a tissue of fables".

Pope Pius IX, 1877 -- Declared evolution “repugnant”, “depraved” and called it “this tissue of fables

* http://books.google.ie/books?id=N1l59sp8aQoC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Pope+Pius+IX+a+tissue+of+fables&source=bl&ots=MIqc2w3mT-&sig=pFypSc6OWhjX-dFfQRfwXUCNETg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C4fQT_W_MsuLhQe8zbCCDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Pope%20Pius%20IX%20a%20tissue%20of%20fables&f=false

* https://www.google.com/search?client=aff-maxthon-newtab&channel=t2&q=a%20tissue%20of%20fables%20#q=Pope+Pius+IX+a+tissue+of+fables&hl=en&client=aff-maxthon-newtab&channel=t2&prmd=imvnsb&ei=C4fQT_W_MsuLhQe8zbCCDA&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=50e01a6936966f69&biw=1440&bih=748

I could go on.

But wait!!!

Originally Posted by Duggys Housemate
Nonsense, it was never hostile to Darwin.

Right!!!
Sorry - Duggys Housemate was wrong - but when I say this, I'm the one that is stupid and gets insulted from the get-go!
...And I was accused of being devoid of facts?

At least I know them!

Go figure!

kowloon

Always found the USA to be a strange place. Founded on such a strong secular foundation but to be an atheist would be detrimental to a politicians career.

Then you have the UK where the head of state is head of the national religion, yet politicians can't get overzealous.

Does Ireland lean in any direction? We don't seem to have many extreme Catholics, but the Fianna Fail/Gael crowd need to keep holy to please the voting majority.

squod

philologos wrote: »

I'm more than happy to be called a lunatic, a fundamentalist, a nutjob, a bible basher and so on. I'm told that people will treat Christian faith with derision, that's what I signed up to when I accepted the Gospel.

People on here will continue to try to make a monkey out of you. Darwinists and scientitians prefer to believe they're big bleedin' apes and not masterpieces hand crafted by God.

They can put themselves down all day long and back up their crap with vague stories and long-shots. Each to their own.

Nuttzz

There is no way that man is created by intelligent design, after all what intelligence would put hair around your a*sehole?

Wibbs

Biggins wrote: »

Come back on that when you know what the hell your talking about, will you!

I repeat: Come back on when you know what the hell your talking about, will you!

Biggins wrote: »

In amazing example of convenient timely blindness and or un-education,

Maybe ye should put each other on ignore

Sorry - Duggys Housemate was wrong - but when I say this, I'm the one that is stupid and gets insulted from the get-go!
(..and he gets away with it too!)

Go figure!

Well he was partially correct and one could well argue more correct than the other argument. There was church hostility to the theory at the time, but it was almost covert hostility, rather than setting out it's stall for good. A tradition the Catholic church has long had. There was far more open hostility among various Protestant groups. There was even open hostility from Protestant scientists. Indeed around the same time one could find someone like Gregor Mendel, a catholic priest who is often described as the father of genetics happily doing his experiments with the full support of his monastery and the church. Experiments that were going along with proving Darwin. Scientist clerics are a common feature of the history of the church. Ditto for Protestant scientists(though far less so among actual clerics). Newton wrote more musings on theology than he did on physics.

...And fair play to them for doing it! Kudos to them!
Had they tried it later down the line, I suspect they might have been ordered to silence by Rome like our current lot under such punishment.

Maybe, maybe not. More likely the latter. There has long been a theological trend in the church regarding literalism with regard to the texts. Hence those folks philologos mentioned were able to speak of such things, indeed were lauded and considered very highly within the organisation. They weren't the only ones either.

I'd very much agree with philologos when he says young earth creationism is a much later invention(and not one driven by the mainstream Catholic hierarchy). Many of the various protestant sects in places like the US are traditionally conservative and wary of anything seen as an attack against them and God. After all much of the countries history is based on more extreme religious sects going there to escape persecution. I'm not so shocked that some of that theological siege mentality may remain.

Like I said in Ireland because of our history and the (natural)backlash against the church it's often more a case of what we would like to believe about the "evil" church than what may actually be true historically.

Nuttzz wrote:

There is no way that man is created by intelligent design, after all what intelligence would put hair around your a*sehole?

Helps with chaffing and likely has a role with pheromones. :D

hooradiation

squod wrote: »

People on here will continue to try to make a monkey out of you. Darwinists and scientitians prefer to believe they're big bleedin' apes and not masterpieces hand crafted by God.

If we're his masterpiece then your god is a very shitty craftsman.

Biggins

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe ye should put each other on ignore
Well he was partially correct and one could well argue more correct than the other argument. There was church hostility to the theory at the time, but it was almost covert hostility, rather than setting out it's stall for good. A tradition the Catholic church has long had.

The hostility was clear-cut open from the mouth of popes and covert via their communications alone.
Duggys Housemate simply stated

Nonsense, it was never hostile to Darwin

He was wrong - But I'm the one that was/is called stupid!
...Anyway, he now has got a warning about his behaviour so least said about that further, the better for the continuing discussion.

Wibbs wrote: »

There was far more open hostility among various Protestant groups. There was even open hostility from Protestant scientists...

Indeed there was and there is still sections in the states that maintain this position.
Its a sad state of affairs.

hooradiation

A cold reception to a new theory?

THOSE MONSTERS!

Pushtrak

squod wrote: »

People on here will continue to try to make a monkey out of you. Darwinists and scientitians prefer to believe they're big bleedin' apes and not masterpieces hand crafted by God.

They can put themselves down all day long and back up their crap with vague stories and long-shots. Each to their own.

There is the common argument raised by christians that atheists are arrogant. Thank you for demonstrating the opposite so fantastically.

ixoy

Not only was I never taught anything approaching creationism, I recall that the nun who came in (around 1989) would even give a more realistic slant to Moses parting the waves, mentioning it was the tide that came in instead.

Having said that, wasn't it only in 1992 that the Vatican officially agreed that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe? They wouldn't have preached otherwise, but it can take time for the official truth to catch up.

Ciaran0

Nuttzz wrote: »

There is no way that man is created by intelligent design, after all what intelligence would put hair around your a*sehole?

I laughed a lot at that! Reminded me of this

What a legend

Ouchette

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The multiverse could/must contain a God somewhere, if you assume that the different universes within it don't necessarily have to follow the same laws of physics as our universe, then one of them must have a God if there are an infinite amount. It does depend on whether the multiverses are bound by the same laws as this one - are merely deviations from it because of quantum fluctuations - and the type of infinite series we are talking about.

Even accepting your interpretation of the multiverse having different laws of physics then

Number of universes containing a God (in your own words) = 1
Number of universes in the multiverse = infinity

Therefore, Chance of God existing in this universe = 1/infinity = roughly 0
Chances of Earth being carried by giant turtles through space = 1/infinity too.


This was an argument for atheism, wasn't it?

Johro

bizmark wrote: »

isnt a american thing nor is fighting wars this sort of chip on the shoulder is rather pathetic while you enjoy what is essentially an american life style knowing for certiancy we will have peace due massively to the american military

*cough*

c_man

Not happy about it, but with such a big proportion of our population subscribing to crazy Catholic teachings I don't think we're in any position to point fingers.

Wibbs

Few enough these days C. I remember people traipsing to watch moving bloody statues back in the 80's. Big crowds too. For me it was one of the disturbing death rattles of the old stylee peculiarly Irish catholic church in this country, even if many retain some vestige of a personal catholicism and fair enough, so long as they're not imposing same on others like in the past.

nozzferrahhtoo

jmayo wrote: »

Me thinks you have to much time on your hands.

Oddly having not enough time on his hands is the excuse he gives for not answering questions that he normally runs away from.

philologos wrote: »

1. The Biblical text isn't written as fiction -
People often make the claim that the Bible is written as fiction. This couldn't be any further from the truth, its authors are explicit as to what the intention of it is.

I have quite a number of fiction and science fiction books which are written as "not fiction" in that the narrative claims it all to be true. A lot of fiction is written in this way, especially but not only when it is written in the first person. It is a very common narrative tool to try and help the reader suspend his disbelief in a text... which is what you have to do when reading fiction anyway.... by writing it in a style that itself claims to be real.

I know you hate to hear this son, but a book does not become more true because it claims within its pages to be true. If that is enough for you to shut down your critical faculties then I have some pretty bizarre story books on my book shelf you really need to stay well away from. It is so comical to hear you using common narrative tricks of fiction to try and prove one piece of fiction is actually not fiction at all.

Wibbs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have quite a number of fiction and science fiction books which are written as "not fiction" in that the narrative claims it all to be true. A lot of fiction is written in this way, especially but not only when it is written in the first person. It is a very common narrative tool to try and help the reader suspend his disbelief in a text... which is what you have to do when reading fiction anyway.... by writing it in a style that itself claims to be real.

I know you hate to hear this son, but a book does not become more true because it claims within its pages to be true. If that is enough for you to shut down your critical faculties then I have some pretty bizarre story books on my book shelf you really need to stay well away from. It is so comical to hear you using common narrative tricks of fiction to try and prove one piece of fiction is actually not fiction at all.

Oh very much so. You also see this in histories of the time. Pliny and Tacitus both sprinkled with fantastical "facts", depending on how you approach them could be seen in a similar light. Whatever about the old testament, the new testament while equally sprinkled with fantastical "facts" likely has some actual history/non fiction in it's pages. Naturally to tease these out you have to look to other sources and what is known of the time in general.

Take a figure like Pontious Pilate as an example. Historically he's not that dissimilar to Jesus. Brief mention by Josephus(IIRC), but the majority of what comes down to us is in the gospels. Until the 1960's when the Pilate stone and inscription was dug up, his historicity was debated and dismissed by some as no record of him existed in what Roman records we had at the time.

While I have no truck with the supernatural aspects of the gospels, I'd equally have no truck with those at the other extreme who claim it's all a fabrication. IMHO Jesus was a historical figure and at least some if not most of his life and sayings has come down to us*. Pretty impressive for a apocalypse preaching carpenters son at the edge of empire. Chances are locals were bemused at what the fuss was, yet the idea behind him(fostered by Paul) went on to take over said empire. Funny how things go down.






*linguistic evidence may shed light on this too. The lord's prayer is unwieldy in english, but in Aramaic it rhymes

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Whatever about the old testament, the new testament while equally sprinkled with fantastical "facts" likely has some actual history/non fiction in it's pages.

Quite a lot of fiction does. Take the Bourne books for example. They are fiction but many of the people, places, events, companies, products and more within the pages are all real. Even fiction, 2000 years from now, will contain much that is real and true and of use to a historian.

People like Jakkass a.k.a. Philologos however will take that in the Bible to mean the Bible is real and true however. Yet somehow despite all that is real and true in the Bourne books he does not think that a super soldier called Jason Bourne actually existed or the events in the book actually happened. It seems one standard of evidence applies in one case, and another in another.

What historians will likely do is check what claims in the book map to reality, can be verified from other stories and texts and data, and more. Many buildings and people in the Bible existed for example and can be verified. Does that mean Jesus must have? No.

Yet when the Bible claims many of the graves open and the dead walked the earth... do we see even a single extra biblical source mentioning this... it being an event that must have impacted a lot of peoples lives and been more than a little noticeable.... no we do not. Yet half decaying walking zombies coming into the market to buy fruit is something you think someone might have noticed.

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty impressive for a apocalypse preaching carpenters son at the edge of empire.

Odd how often that happens though. Sathya Sai Baba for example came from lowly enough a background too I hear, yet one of his birthday parties saw upward of one million attendees.

Wibbs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What historians will likely do is check what claims in the book map to reality, can be verified from other stories and texts and data, and more. Many buildings and people in the Bible existed for example and can be verified. Does that mean Jesus must have? No.

True but incredibly likely that he did, given the closeness in time to the earliest references of him. The evidence that some bloke called Jesus who was apparently notable for religious reasons existed in Palestine at that time is pretty strong. If he was a made up figure too many people alive when he was would have called shenanigans and would have had ample reason to do so if they were Jewish, given here were these gentiles fiddling about with their thing.

Yet when the Bible claims many of the graves open and the dead walked the earth... do we see even a single extra biblical source mentioning this... it being an event that must have impacted a lot of peoples lives and been more than a little noticeable.... no we do not. Yet half decaying walking zombies coming into the market to buy fruit is something you think someone might have noticed.

Yea it's not exactly something you'd miss.

Odd how often that happens though. Sathya Sai Baba for example came from lowly enough a background too I hear, yet one of his birthday parties saw upward of one million attendees.

+1. Seems very random alright. I mean at the time of Jesus there were an awful lot of sects and preachers knocking about in Judea, never mind in the rest of empire. Flip a coin time. Paul was the major catalyst though. He had a foot in both camps, local and Roman and access to Romans and Greeks throughout the eastern empire. Paul was Christianity's "killer app".

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

True but incredibly likely that he did, given the closeness in time to the earliest references of him.
...
I mean at the time of Jesus there were an awful lot of sects and preachers knocking about in Judea, never mind in the rest of empire.

One wonders how many of these preachers were the same person. Given the lack of tele, radio and internet most things were done by word of mouth. I sometimes wonder if the story of Jesus may actually be the story of quite a few preachers at the time amalgamated.

That thought is further fueled by the fact that much of the Jesus story is not contemporary but plagiarized for much older stories. Being the "lamb" of god, a Resurrection after three days, human scapegoats dying for our sins, and crucifixion between two thieves are all tales that were around long before the time of Jesus.

So while there is little reason to doubt there really was a single preacher at that time who the Bible was aimed at talking about.... much of his story is likely amalgamated from stories of other preachers at that time mixed up with his.... and much older stories that long predated his life.

philologos

It seems that some have missed my point. My point was that there is no evidence to suggest that the Bible was written as fiction. There is textual evidence to suggest it wasn't. There's also sound and good reason on the basis of manuscript evidence to back up that the New Testament is the most reliable ancient text in existence.

There's no reason to suggest that it was intended to be fiction at all. That leaves us with two options. The Bible was intended to be non-fiction but it is false. Or it is abundantly true.

That's what we're left with. If people want to believe that it was intended to be fiction the reality is there isn't a pick of evidence to back that up.

The discussion concerning the truth of the Bible can still be had, but why trust that it hasn't been changed or corrupted is what I've outlined.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

It seems that some have missed my point. My point was that there is no evidence to suggest that the Bible was written as fiction.

Nor do we require any. If you want to claim something is true then the onus of proof/evidence is on you. Not us. Shifting the burden of proof is something you try and pull often and this is just another in a long line of examples.

Not agreeing with your point is not the same as missing your point, so probably best to stop pretending it is.

philologos wrote: »

There is textual evidence to suggest it wasn't.

Oh goodie. Will you be presenting any of it or is this your usual "I'm saying there is evidence but not giving any of it" trick?

mach1982

I'm a Catholic and I believe in evaluation, the big band etc.

Wibbs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One wonders how many of these preachers were the same person.

True, and/or a collection of one sect focused through one of it's members.

That thought is further fueled by the fact that much of the Jesus story is not contemporary but plagiarized for much older stories. Being the "lamb" of god, a Resurrection after three days, human scapegoats dying for our sins, and crucifixion between two thieves are all tales that were around long before the time of Jesus.

Links, properly researched ones at that? Because that sounds all too similar to that old one of Osiris and Krishna stories being the same as the Christ one. Popular in the 70's with the completely unsourced book "the Christ conspiracy" and resurrected(no pun) in the naughties by such guff/terrible scholarship in the likes of Zeitgeist. This theory is oft repeated, often by atheist folks, but it doesn't make it true. Not even close, but like religion if you repeat a mistruth long enough people believe it.

IE The "crucifixion between two thieves" is linked to Krishna, but the Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata don't agree. Krishna was killed by a hunter with an arrow while meditating under a great tree. No thieves around. Krishna decent sod that he was forgave and comforted the hunter before he died. He didn't rise again either. He ascended to heaven and his body was cremated on a huge pyre. Don't recall any of that around easter, though coming back from a cremation would convince even me of someone's godlike powahs.

The Osiris/Dionysus/Mithra links are even more tenuous.

c_man

philologos wrote: »

There's no reason to suggest that it was intended to be fiction at all. That leaves us with two options. The Bible was intended to be non-fiction but it is false. Or it is abundantly true.

Both equally likely eh? :pac:

Of course you need to prove it was non fiction not the other way around

good luck to you going off to prove that bourne wasnt intended as non fiction and that yer man never existed

ScumLord

In some ways I'd like to see religion enforced on those that claim to be believers. I think if people in Ireland that claimed to be Catholics where forced to live their life's as the Catholic church actually demands we wouldn't have many Catholics left in this country.

philologos

bluewolf: I've already pointed to 7 reasons to show why the New Testament clearly wasn't written as fiction.

Ciaran0

I actually do agree with philologos on this one point. I really doubt the bible was intended to be written as fiction. Given that people back then would have actually believed in such fairy nonsense it's perfectly feasible that the authors of the bible genuinely believed it to be fact. That doesn't make it fact though. To say the events described in the bible are fact requires proof, because frankly, it's all a bit ridiculous...