Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

philologos

Again, I'm not arguing that the Law passed at all, or the prophets. If you think that's what I'm saying, you've misunderstood what I've been saying. The covenant agreement, and its implications are different through Christ.

Let me give you an example, in Judaism prior to Christ, Jews brought animal sacrifices to make atonement for sin. In Christianity, such things are not necessary, as Jesus stood in our place on the cross once and for all (Hebrews 10:1-18) to bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18)

God's standards remain, their consequences differ as a result of Christ.


Also, if you think works alone will get you into heaven from what Jesus says, you should consult Mark 7, and then Mark 10. If good works get us to heaven, we're in trouble. Evil comes from the heart of man. Therefore we're all guilty and we've all fallen short of the glory of God, as both Paul and the Psalmist make abundantly clear. There's no other way to salvation than at the cross of Christ. The disciples rightfully recognise this in Mark 10 as Jesus speaks:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”
(Mark 10:25-27 ESV)

With us, it is impossible. We need to receive it as a free gift, or as a child receives it. Also, as Jesus makes clear in Mark:

Mark 10:14-15 wrote:

But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Our works are like filthy rags to God. They won't get us anywhere (Isaiah 64:6).

Just in case we were in any doubt, Mark makes it even more clear. We need a ransom to be saved:

Mark 10:45 wrote:

"For even the Son of Man came not to be served but uto serve, and vto give his life as a ransom for many.”

Oh, and by the by, anyone can isolate quotes. In that case that you've just shown, we need to look at the wider passages. The context of 7:21 is judgement, that is what will happen when Jesus returns. The context of Romans 10:13 is salvation through hearing the Gospel of Jesus.

Romans 10:9-10 make it clearer in context -

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
(Romans 10:9-10 ESV)

If people don't genuinely believe in Jesus, and shout to Him, that's right, they won't be saved. Also, Matthew 7 does not preach work's based salvation. It is consistent with other passages of Jesus which say that faith bears fruit. If we genuinely believe we will be transformed. Another theme in common with both Peter and Paul.

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

Let me give you an example, in Judaism prior to Christ, Jews brought animal sacrifices to make atonement for sin. In Christianity, such things are not necessary, as Jesus stood in our place on the cross once and for all (Hebrews 10:1-18) to bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18)

Both those sources are written after the fact and have very dubious origins. Again not quoting from the source.

With us, it is impossible.

Indeed, or you could also interpret it in isolation of later sources as simply "god can do anything and can save anyone". The "like a child" passage doesn't make any real addition to your point. Innocence = good and salvageable. Indeed an innocent child may have no clue of Jesus or anyone else and would be saved by virtue of innocence.

Our works are like filthy rags to God. They won't get us anywhere (Isaiah 64:6).

Again not quoting from the source. Plus what sort of daftness comes out with good works being thus. The Abrahamic god is full of this sorta thing through all the various versions of the original meme.

OK let's ask another question; would the Good Samaritan be saved? Jesus seems to hold him up as an example of humanity, even in contrast to his own chosen people. It would seem odd that such as he would be damned. In his case he would not have been a follower of Jesus, nor of mainstream Judaism. Actually Jesus seems to have a soft spot for Samaritans in general. IIRC he also chats to a Samaritan woman. Also IIRC he's accused of being one, but says nothing on the matter. Which is interesting. Anyhoo... the Samaritan's act is a "good work"

In the end, I stand by my original point that Christianity was and is a heavily tweaked version of an original and local faith on the edge of empire and that it's followers look to interpreters who came after much more than they regard the source.

smash

philologos wrote: »

If people don't genuinely believe in Jesus, and shout to Him, that's right, they won't be saved.

I believe in Thor... At lease all the powers he's associated with can be clearly identified and are real.

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

True. There does seem to something unusual going on when current equipment shows zero activity and the person is "dead".

I am not sure if there is or not. I am not expert in that area of science, and have much I can learn despite the fact I have read and studied much about it.

The only thing I do know is that when such machines declare a patient "Brain Dead" it is only based on the brain activity that that particular machine is measuring. They are not saying "Brain Dead" means that all activity in the brain has ceased. It _only_ refers to the specific activity they are measuring.

For example even when "brain dead" in this fashion the sound waves in the room still stimulate the ear. The ear still translates those waves into electrical impulses. Those electrical impulses are still sent to the brain, and some processing of them still occurs there. Regardless of the fact that there is no conscious part of the brain there to subjectively experience them.

That a patient can wake up and post-process such things, or find that those things factored into dreams they had while under, is not much of a surprise therefore and I do not see it as even remotely being evidence for consciousness existing in some way independent from the brain as Mickrock wants it to be.

Another thing that should be noted by users like Mickrock is that when a patient on an operating table is approaching death we proceed to pump them with all kinds of chemicals and electrical shocks and more. All of these things act on the brain and we should rather expect the patients to report all kinds of unusual subjective experiences during this time. So again I do not see it as evidence of Spirits, Souls or External Consciousness.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd also add that being/feeling disembodied is a very fcuking surreal experience. Even if it's a trick of the mind, bloody hell it's well effin odd looking down on your own body, even in the imagination.

Indeed. Such experiences can be attained through drugs too. Some scientists can also reproduce such experiences artificially too. I am fantastically interested in the work of VS Ramachandran for example. During his work with patients with both "phantom limb" and "alien limb" syndromes he has discovered parts of the brain that map to your body. Any part of your body has a corresponding mapped part of the brain dedicated to it.

Other parts of the brain maintain this map so you can "know" where any part of your body is in relation to any other, where "you" are in relation to the whole, and where all that is in relation to the outside world as measured by the eyes, ears, sense of balance, touch and so on.

By purposefully feeding bogus signals into those areas of the brain... which we can expect we are also doing while restarting a patients heart with electricity for example... people like Ramachandran have managed to manipulate it and bugger up the brains sense of where "you" are in relation to your body map.... essentially creating an out of body experience in the test subject.

Humans however suffer from what I like to call "lofty context bias". When something like "Out of Body Experiences" are explained that well then we understand what is happening when people have them under drugs or under experiment.

Put the exact same thing in the context of something emotionally lofty like death however and suddenly all bets are off and something more than the standard explanations are required. For no other reason than the context has changed to one humans treat with more reverence.

dark crystal

philologos wrote: »

Yeah, just as it is horrible for the State putting you in jail for breaking the law I guess. Free will, without responsibility and accountability would be dumb.

God is a just and a holy God. A good God would not let evil go unpunished. A good God wouldn't casually condone evil whether or not it is from "free will" or not.

This word 'evil' gets bandied about a lot by believers... what exactly constitutes evil in the eyes of God - Sex for reasons other than reproduction? Working on a Sunday? Telling a lie? Or just not having faith in an invisible deity?

Eternal punishment in hell.

The state puts lawbreakers in Jail both to punish the wrongdoers and protect the rest of society. It sends a message to the rest of society that bad deeds don't go unpunished. Many usually get released after a time, repentant or not.
Now, what purpose would it serve humanity for a non-believer to be incarcerated for an eternity in hell after their death? The living won't know anything about it. No messages getting through there.

Don't tell you the truth? - How heartless would it be if I knew that judgement was coming and I didn't warn people about it?

About as heartless as a God who wreaks vengeance on the very people he claims to love, simply for being human.

As for this second coming and the final judgement, it seems no religion actually has much of a clue when it's due or how it works and some aren't sure if it's coming at all. I guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right...and wait....and wait...

Pushtrak

dark crystal wrote: »

This word 'evil' gets bandied about a lot by believers... what exactly constitutes evil in the eyes of God - Sex for reasons other than reproduction? Working on a Sunday? Telling a lie? Or just not having faith in an invisible deity?

On evil...

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Lamentations 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

philologos

Wibbs wrote: »

Both those sources are written after the fact and have very dubious origins. Again not quoting from the source.

How are these texts "dubious"? Just curious?

The reason these texts are even in the New Testament is because there is historical evidence of their use in the early church, and that these formed early Christian belief. If they didn't they would be dubious, I agree.

Oh, and it is because Paul's letters and Peter's letters and so on come after the fact, that they are useful. Peter on the basis of His experience, applies what happened on Calvary to the lives that we now live as Christians. This is true for Paul also, and for the other Apostles. It is for this reason that these texts are abundantly useful. I would challenge you, or any other person to show me how they changed Christianity into something different.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed, or you could also interpret it in isolation of later sources as simply "god can do anything and can save anyone". The "like a child" passage doesn't make any real addition to your point. Innocence = good and salvageable. Indeed an innocent child may have no clue of Jesus or anyone else and would be saved by virtue of innocence.

Interpreting Mark in isolation from other New Testament texts still leaves us in a position where God can only save, and Jesus died as a ransom for mankind. Indeed, Jesus would be wounded for our transgressions, and would take the cup of wrath. All of this is in Mark's Gospel also.

We still come nowhere close to works based justification, rather than imputed righteousness. I.E - That we are all sinners, and we're justified through Jesus' death and resurrection.

Entirely consistent with the Apostolic writings.

Wibbs wrote: »

Again not quoting from the source. Plus what sort of daftness comes out with good works being thus. The Abrahamic god is full of this sorta thing through all the various versions of the original meme.

Quoting Isaiah is perfectly permissible since Mark's Gospel itself quotes from Biblical prophesy quite extensively. The whole Bible should be read as a whole. Christians pored over the pages of the Old Testament, as did the authors of the Gospels, and of the apostolic letters.

I don't advocate for ignoring Scripture and I won't on this forum either, I think we need to look at its overarching purpose.

Wibbs wrote: »

OK let's ask another question; would the Good Samaritan be saved? Jesus seems to hold him up as an example of humanity, even in contrast to his own chosen people. It would seem odd that such as he would be damned. In his case he would not have been a follower of Jesus, nor of mainstream Judaism. Actually Jesus seems to have a soft spot for Samaritans in general. IIRC he also chats to a Samaritan woman. Also IIRC he's accused of being one, but says nothing on the matter. Which is interesting. Anyhoo... the Samaritan's act is a "good work"

We have two sections of Scripture here:
Luke chapter 10:
Here's the passage:

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

This passage does not speak of justification. It speaks of the crucial importance of the law, and how one can live eternally. It doesn't say that man is justified by his works.

It is loving God with all our heart and strength and mind that motivates Christians to love their neighbour as themselves.

Luke 14:26-27 shows that there is no other way to salvation other than by grace. (Parallel passage to Mark chapter 10).

This is backed up again in Luke's Gospel by Luke 18:9-14 where he gives the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

John chapter 4:
Samaritan woman comes in the first set of signs in John's Gospel. From chapters 2 to chapters 4 we have a sandwich which begins with the wedding at Cana, and is matched with the healing of an officials son in Cana 4:46. John makes a clear note that this is the second sign in Cana, the first happens in 2:11.

What is interesting is what happens between chapters 2 and chapter 4.

Jesus is the bearer of good things. In the Wedding of Cana He manifests His glory (2:11) at a Jewish wedding.

However, Jesus is profoundly angry at sin, and clearly shows His anger at what has happened in the Jewish Temple.

Skipping to 4 and let's come back to chapter 3, which is the core of the sandwich.

Chapter 4 Jesus speaks with a Samaritan woman, and demonstrates to her that He is the Messiah, and that one can only receive eternal life in His name.

Chapter 3 shows that salvation is for the whole world.

So chapter 2 we have Jesus dealing with the Jews, in chapter 4 we have Jesus dealing with Gentiles, and in chapter 3 we have the amazing truth that Jesus has come to rescue all.

Jesus' handling of the Samaritan woman shows that even while she is a sinner, she can come to the living water by coming to know Jesus. Much in the same way that we can today. Jesus also shows that the temple is soon to be redundant and man will worship both in Spirit and in truth.

Wibbs wrote: »

In the end, I stand by my original point that Christianity was and is a heavily tweaked version of an original and local faith on the edge of empire and that it's followers look to interpreters who came after much more than they regard the source.

I don't see how this position can be justified given what we have in the New Testament.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

How are these texts "dubious"? Just curious?

Authorship of Hebrews and 1st Peter and 2nd Peter are suspect.

Oh, and again I ought to bring up a general point about how the NT is not nearly as reliable as you'd like to present it as...

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

Authenticity is about there being more scrolls than there are for other textural documents. The issue is, though there are so many textural variants that it isn't as credible as you'd like to put forward.

philologos

Again, the New Testament manuscript evidence that we have shows it to be more authentic than any other ancient text. Therefore are you going to give up doing ancient history? Or are you not being consistent in your criticism?

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Again, the New Testament manuscript evidence that we have shows it to be more authentic than any other ancient text. Therefore are you going to give up doing ancient history? Or are you not being consistent in your criticism?

There are plenty of historical criticisms to be made of ancient texts that had to undergo the oral tradition for a long time before being committed to text. And when there are glaring inconsistencies, as per the NT these need to be acknowledged. I don't know precisely how accurate, say The Iliad is. I don't need to to be unsatisfied with the reliability of the NT.

philologos

Pushtrak wrote: »

There are plenty of historical criticisms to be made of ancient texts that had to undergo the oral tradition for a long time before being committed to text. And when there are glaring inconsistencies, as per the NT these need to be acknowledged. I don't know precisely how accurate, say The Iliad is. I don't need to to be unsatisfied with the reliability of the NT.

I think you do given that there is strong reason to:
A) Show that the vast majority (99.6%) of the New Testament is as it was when it was first written. Only 40 verses are in doubt.
Show that all of these texts were widely used in the early Christian church from when they were written.

You can see this image to show how the Iliad fares in comparison to the NT:
Iliad - 643 manuscripts, earliest manuscript 500 years from original
New Testament - 24,000 manuscripts, earliest manuscript 40 - 70 years from original.

So in short, we should give up looking at ancient texts. Or should we still do ancient history?

Wibbs

philologos wrote: »

Oh, and it is because Paul's letters and Peter's letters and so on come after the fact, that they are useful. Peter on the basis of His experience, applies what happened on Calvary to the lives that we now live as Christians. This is true for Paul also, and for the other Apostles. It is for this reason that these texts are abundantly useful. I would challenge you, or any other person to show me how they changed Christianity into something different.

The existing and first Judeao Christians in Jerusalem under James had quite a different angle on it. Namely that it was a Jewish faith, not a gentile one. The bickering about circumcision and food restrictions shows this. Things like the virgin birth and the supreme divinity of Jesus also come later. Even details of the resurrection varied. Both the Jewish church and Paul see it more as a spiritual resurrection than a physical one(and differ in the details). They even go some way towards abrogating the old testament (Romans 7:6).

Interpreting Mark in isolation from other New Testament texts still leaves us in a position where God can only save, and Jesus died as a ransom for mankind. Indeed, Jesus would be wounded for our transgressions, and would take the cup of wrath. All of this is in Mark's Gospel also.

We still come nowhere close to works based justification, rather than imputed righteousness. I.E - That we are all sinners, and we're justified through Jesus' death and resurrection.

Entirely consistent with the Apostolic writings.

Not quite. The epistle of James states salvation comes from good works. The same James who was Jesus' brother(though there are doubts on that score. Regardless it shows a divergence). There was all sorts of back and forward debates and disagreements until the council of Nicaea nailed it down to the faith we understand today.

This passage does not speak of justification. It speaks of the crucial importance of the law, and how one can live eternally. It doesn't say that man is justified by his works.

Neatly avoiding my point.

So chapter 2 we have Jesus dealing with the Jews, in chapter 4 we have Jesus dealing with Gentiles, and in chapter 3 we have the amazing truth that Jesus has come to rescue all.

Point: Samaritans weren't Gentiles. They were Jews, albeit a mistrusted and hated sect by the mainstream(among a few others). Plus Johns gospel IIRC is the last to be written and furthest from the source, so additions are far more likely. It has quite a few examples of sayings and doings not mentioned in the other three.

I don't see how this position can be justified given what we have in the New Testament.

See above. The original Christians were a Jewish sect. This evolved on the back of Paul to one for the rest of the world.

So in short, we should give up looking at ancient texts. Or should we still do ancient history?

Oh I have no great issue with the authenticity of the early texts. In so far as most were written at the time or soon after. That's not the same as saying they're historically accurate however, or even internally consistent, or without later additions to square the evolving church with it's theology.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

You can see this image to show how the Iliad fares in comparison to the NT:

What is that 40-70 years on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts#Distribution_of_Greek_manuscripts_by_century_and_category

philologos

Wibbs wrote: »

The existing and first Judeao Christians in Jerusalem under James had quite a different angle on it. Namely that it was a Jewish faith, not a gentile one. The bickering about circumcision and food restrictions shows this. Things like the virgin birth and the supreme divinity of Jesus also come later. Even details of the resurrection varied. Both the Jewish church and Paul see it more as a spiritual resurrection than a physical one(and differ in the details). They even go some way towards abrogating the old testament (Romans 7:6).

Not quite. The epistle of James states salvation comes from good works. The same James who was Jesus' brother(though there are doubts on that score. Regardless it shows a divergence). There was all sorts of back and forward debates and disagreements until the council of Nicaea nailed it down to the faith we understand today.
Neatly avoiding my point.

I'd love to see how the Apostolic writings deny that the Resurrection was a real physical event by the by. If you can please go through some passages bit by bit, I'd love to see it and have a chance to respond.

As for James, let's quote the section. I suggest that you do so if you're quoting Scripture as well, it makes it a lot easier:

James 1:19-26 wrote:

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith sby my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also aRahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

By the by, James is not preaching works based salvation. Rather, what James is saying is that we have been justified by faith, and that faith without works is dead. I agree with that, Paul agrees with that and Jesus agrees with that.

Paul notes very clearly in Ephesians 2:1-10 that good deeds will be manifest in the true believer. However, ones sins have been paid for by Jesus, and by Him alone. Good works don't save us. Faith does, and true faith is manifest in our actions. I couldn't agree more. Peter also backs this up.

Jesus makes this clear in Matthew 7, in saying that you will know them by their fruits. Indeed you will, you'll know the people who truly believe and trust in Jesus by their deeds. This does not mean that our deeds save us. That would be a fundamental misunderstanding.

James isn't saying that people are saved by works. People have been spared by the blood of Jesus, and this brings us to new life, I.E that we have been born again (John 3:7-18, 1 Peter 1:3), which is fundamentally differs from how we lived before. Jesus backs this up, John backs this up, James backs this up, Peter backs this up and Paul backs this up.

That looks like they are very much on the same page.

Paul would never agree that just because we are saved, that we can just go back to living the way we were before. Just as the other apostles did. He goes to great lengths to show the Galatians that just because they have been saved doesn't mean that they can abuse their new freedom in Christ (Galatians 5).

Works based salvation is inadequate insofar as it contradicts why Jesus needed to die. Jesus makes abundantly clear as to why He has to die. Indeed, his name means the LORD saves:

Matthew 1:21 wrote:

She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Even the Gospels alone can tell me that Jesus died to rescue people from their sins, and that works alone can save nobody. People are only able to come to God through Jesus (John 5 - 8, John 14:6). It is only through Jesus that we can ever be called children of God (John 1:12-13)

Wibbs wrote: »

Point: Samaritans weren't Gentiles. They were Jews, albeit a mistrusted and hated sect by the mainstream(among a few others). Plus Johns gospel IIRC is the last to be written and furthest from the source, so additions are far more likely. It has quite a few examples of sayings and doings not mentioned in the other three.

They were the offspring of Jews that mixed with Gentiles in Babylonian and Assyrian captivity. Therefore they weren't seen as being fully Jewish, and would have been considered as Gentiles to Jews.

The passage goes to great lengths to show this - verse 9, 20, 22.

The point still stands. John has clearly structured the whole section from chapter 2 to chapter 4 to ensure that we will understand who God is. The point of juxtaposing the Jews with the Samaritans was to show that all people could be saved through Him. To a Jewish audience at the time, if a Samaritan can be saved anyone can.

In the rest of John he's made another section from chapter 5 through to chapter 10 (concerning His identity), and a final section from 11 through to 21 (concerning new life and Resurrection).

Wibbs wrote: »

See above. The original Christians were a Jewish sect. This evolved on the back of Paul to one for the rest of the world.

Except that there isn't any good reason for this position. Jesus makes clear that the Gospel is for all, in every Gospel. I can show you passages from all 4 that back this up.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I have no great issue with the authenticity of the early texts. In so far as most were written at the time or soon after. That's not the same as saying they're historically accurate however, or even internally consistent, or without later additions to square the evolving church with it's theology.

I think that your interpretation of the texts is inaccurate and inconsistent. The Apostles are on the same page on this issue.

That's the problem of looking to the Gospels and ignoring that Jesus came into the world to rescue sinners, and we desperately need to believe in Him. There is really no way you can read the Gospels without realising that Jesus Christ died to save sinners as Paul (1 Timothy 1:15) and the Apostles back up.

Wibbs

Meh I could go through a very loooooong list of internal contradictions in the gospels. Names, places, events change all over the place. Then we could look at the historical theology of the time and how it evolved with time until we get the Roman christianity of today. BTW the Protestants inherited that just as much as they had only the documents the original Roman church deemed fit to print so to speak.

Most of all while Jesus generally comes across as a nice enough kinda guy, certainly when compared to some other faith founders, this is still a guy who goes around asking men to leave their wives and kids(not so good back then) and petulantly(and stupidly) cursing fig trees to wither because they're not fruiting in season, never mind a theology that seems to revel in sending people to hell for an eternity and still makes claims of mercy? Indeed cursing millions of souls to same just because they never heard of the guy? If that's the pure and shining example of a deity that created a universe, thanks but no thanks Ted. The old testament God is even worse. A homocidal, infant killing, egotistical and downright deceiving sadistic nutjob at times

Dboy85

I wouldn't be opposed to living in an Atheist culture. I'm more of an Agnostic but at least governments wouldn't hide behind religion when war mongering. Although the threat of being an Islamic culture in 20 odd years is more likely imo unfortunately.

philologos

Wibbs: As much as I would really like to get around to those points eventually, we still need a decent reason as to why Paul, and the other Apostles differ from Jesus, or as to how Christianity preaches a works-based-salvation, rather than substitutionary atonement.

Substitutionary atonement is the position that Jesus died in our place on the cross. He took the punishment that we deserved. Pretty much the entire New Testament points towards this.

You've claimed that Paul radically differs from Jesus and other Apostles, yet we've not seen much to suggest this.

It seems like your backtracking by ignoring the topic now. I'm more than happy to look at both God's character in the Old Testament, and your objections to Jesus. However, I'm really keen to see a number of things from you:

1) How did Paul and the other Apostles change Christianity?
2) How did Jesus preach a Gospel which was to Jews only, (rather than one which was both to Jews and Gentiles) as you've implied?
3) What reason do you have for the Apostles not believing in a physical resurrection?

If you're happy to concede on any of these points let me know.

Pushtrak

Good ol' facebook...

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/522491_482704801756254_1995322559_n.jpg

philologos

Pushtrak wrote: »

What is that 40-70 years on about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts#Distribution_of_Greek_manuscripts_by_century_and_category

It means that the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament come 40 - 70 years after the authorship of New Testament texts. For example the John Rylands Fragment comes much earlier. It is 29 years after John's Gospel was actually written.

Either way, the New Testament fares a heck of a lot better than the Illiad - See more here as to manuscript evidence.

The quantity of them is also significant - There are over 20,000. This means that if people try and introduce changes, they will be caught red handed on comparison.

The scholarship of Bruce Metzger in particular is hugely significant. His argument is from looking at the New Testament manuscripts only 40 verses are in doubt in terms of their meaning. Where these verses are in doubt, generally it is repeated in another section of the Gospels. For example, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel from verses 16:9-20. Or others are consistent with other parts of the Gospel such as John 7:53-8:11. That means we can be confident that 99.6% of the New Testament was as it was when it was first written.

That is unprecedented.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Good ol' facebook...

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/522491_482704801756254_1995322559_n.jpg

Except for Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus?

It seems like you're really fighting with the wrong book. The New Testament fares far and beyond better than any other ancient text.

Doc Ruby

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The only thing I do know is that when such machines declare a patient "Brain Dead" it is only based on the brain activity that that particular machine is measuring. They are not saying "Brain Dead" means that all activity in the brain has ceased. It _only_ refers to the specific activity they are measuring.

Clinical brain death takes up to 24 hours to verify, and as such is not the kind of event normally associated with NDEs. It means the brain has ceased functioning but the body is more or less carrying on. Clinical death, what you're thinking of here, means the heart and lungs have ceased operation, as well as perforce the brain.

This is important because while most organs can remain viable for several hours after death, the brain has only three minutes typically before irreversible damage is done, although in situations of extreme cold that can be extended by up to an hour or so.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For example even when "brain dead" in this fashion the sound waves in the room still stimulate the ear. The ear still translates those waves into electrical impulses. Those electrical impulses are still sent to the brain, and some processing of them still occurs there. Regardless of the fact that there is no conscious part of the brain there to subjectively experience them.

That the brain can recover full function after "death" is no indication that it retains any function or cognition during "death", any more than a heart which is not pumping is secretly pumping.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That a patient can wake up and post-process such things, or find that those things factored into dreams they had while under, is not much of a surprise therefore and I do not see it as even remotely being evidence for consciousness existing in some way independent from the brain as Mickrock wants it to be.

Another thing that should be noted by users like Mickrock is that when a patient on an operating table is approaching death we proceed to pump them with all kinds of chemicals and electrical shocks and more. All of these things act on the brain and we should rather expect the patients to report all kinds of unusual subjective experiences during this time. So again I do not see it as evidence of Spirits, Souls or External Consciousness.

Surely in that case there should be a lot more of these NDEs? The resuscitation procedures do not vary from place to place, there isn't one concoction used one place and another in another place. The effects of these drugs on people are also not a mystery of any sort, and they don't include causing near death experiences.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed. Such experiences can be attained through drugs too. Some scientists can also reproduce such experiences artificially too.

I'm not aware of any double blind studies done on those who have had NDEs, have you got a link to some?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am fantastically interested in the work of VS Ramachandran for example. During his work with patients with both "phantom limb" and "alien limb" syndromes he has discovered parts of the brain that map to your body. Any part of your body has a corresponding mapped part of the brain dedicated to it.

Other parts of the brain maintain this map so you can "know" where any part of your body is in relation to any other, where "you" are in relation to the whole, and where all that is in relation to the outside world as measured by the eyes, ears, sense of balance, touch and so on.

By purposefully feeding bogus signals into those areas of the brain... which we can expect we are also doing while restarting a patients heart with electricity for example... people like Ramachandran have managed to manipulate it and bugger up the brains sense of where "you" are in relation to your body map.... essentially creating an out of body experience in the test subject.

I don't think anyone is claiming the brain is a magical grey goo, bits do link to control centres of the body. The bigger picture is not nearly as simple as that however.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Humans however suffer from what I like to call "lofty context bias". When something like "Out of Body Experiences" are explained that well then we understand what is happening when people have them under drugs or under experiment.

Put the exact same thing in the context of something emotionally lofty like death however and suddenly all bets are off and something more than the standard explanations are required. For no other reason than the context has changed to one humans treat with more reverence.

This doesn't even make any sense.

Its all very fashionable and convenient to wave away near death experiences as the last spasms of a dying organism, but there are a few facts I can't brush off so easily.

People blind from birth have experienced sensations that could only be described as seeing colours during NDEs. Rather than muddled and panicky imagery during NDEs, most if not all people have experienced greater lucidity than normal as well as heightened awareness. Remember at this point the body is clinically dead, its paradoxical. Near death experiences don't happen to people who are physically traumatised, they also happen to people who believe they are going to die imminently, such as during near miss car accidents, which would seem to go against induced chemical effects or oxygen starvation. In all cases, NDEs have had profound effects on those who go through them, often leading to increased spirituality.

As with many controversial and politically loaded areas of study, its basically impossible to find one that hasn't been prejudiced one way or the other, and the mainstream medical community is very leery of even talking about it, but to my mind there are still far too many inconsistencies to draw final conclusions. Even the term "near death" is somewhat misleading as studies are mostly in controlled clinical environments where the subjects are definitively dead.

Short version, yes it could be evidence of souls. Doesn't mean science won't one day figure out what exactly that is however, so that's not in fact a blind religious viewpoint.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

It means that the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament come 40 - 70 years after the authorship of New Testament texts.

Which is significantly after the death of Jesus, and surely that is the pertinent point, no?

philologos

Pushtrak wrote: »

Which is significantly after the death of Jesus, and surely that is the pertinent point, no?

Not really.

Look to this link, and read my point which is looking from the POV of Galatians. Even before the Gospels were written, we have Paul writing about Christianity, focusing on many details that are in the Gospels. Paul is a convert, this means that this teaching was present in Christian communities long long before it was in written form.

Wibbs

I'm knackered, so by your leave I'll get back to you on the points you raise in the morrow.

philologos wrote: »

Except for Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus?

Nope. Pushtrak's link is still correct. In the first Christian century he's not referenced by an outside source. Pliny and Tacitus are writing in the early part of the second century. Josephus' references while earlier(just. Late 90's IIRC) are heavily debated and debatable concerning their authenticity, or at least there may well be additions. Now in favour of your position that's a helluva lot better then Buddha and indeed Mohammed, who most historian will claim is more real than Jesus, though pretty much nada about him comes from non Muslim sources and even Muslim sources are at least a century, more like two later.

Good post from the Doc. I can certainly say my NDE/OOBE thingy was hyper real and not at all like a drug induced experience and I've had a couple of them back in the day with various drugs that mimic such. DMT being one of the biggies. I have some interesting links somewhere about NDE's and some of them are interesting, even compelling with regard to some area of life/consciousness we've not quite gotten a handle on. As an aside I don't really buy the drug/medically induced explanation for the reasons Doc gives.

nozzferrahhtoo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Clinical death, what you're thinking of here, means the heart and lungs have ceased operation, as well as perforce the brain.

Thanks but it was not me thinking it, it was the user I was replying to originally. I am aware of the different meanings of words like "Brain dead". The point is that it does not quite mean what users like Mickrock want it to. They want it to mean the brain is totally dead in every way and hence any experience the patient has in this time has to have supernatural explanation.

The points I made in response were that:

1) Brain dead does not mean what he thinks it does and the brain can still process events, input and more during this time and
2) The user has not established that the experiences DID happen during the time the patient was "out". As with dreams many experiences can happen on the way into and out of that time period.

The clue for these people really is in the N of NDE. It means "Near" which tells you the patient was not dead. If a patient has a DE then we have something worth discussing. NDE not so much.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Surely in that case there should be a lot more of these NDEs?

Why? We are pumping patients with unpredictable and varied inputs, for varied reasons, to deal with varied causes of illness and near death, while the patients are in varied states. I would not expect anything therefore. It is a host of unpredictable scenarios with unpredictable inputs and outputs.

Even with something as "normal" as dreams we find a vast array of subjective reporting from people. Some remember none at all. Some remember 1 every so often. Some have one dream which appears to reoccur a lot. Some people report remembering their dreams every night. It is massively subjective and varied and that is while being normal and healthy.

Add in the massive unpredictably of reasons why a patient might be dying and the stuff we pump them with to resuscitate them and I would expect even more variety of subjective reporting on it, not less. I am unclear as to why you would expect the opposite.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm not aware of any double blind studies done on those who have had NDEs, have you got a link to some?

That was not what I was talking about... you may have misread what I was saying. I was not talking about NDEs in what you quoted. I was talking about research into things which are ALSO experienced during NDE, such as the sensation of floating outside ones own body.

However having said that if you are interested in studies on NDE... which I reiterate was not what I was referring to here... then I believe there is one due to be released this year and I am waiting for it with keen interest myself. From what I know of it it involved placing things in random operating rooms that the patient, the doctors and even many of the researchers do not know what it is. If a patient reports an NDE they are asked what they saw.

As I said the results are still being awaited, as far as I know, but I have not yet heard any reports of a patient saying anything like "Oh I floated above the room, I could see myself and the doctors..... oh and by the way did you know there is a big unmissable digital read out on top of that cupboard over there with the number 66677 written in big red numerals on it???"

I would certainly love to read ANY study myself with results of that nature.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

People blind from birth have experienced sensations that could only be described as seeing colours during NDEs.

I am not surprised and again I do not think we need anything like NDEs or supernatural explanations to explain it. Many people think of "sight" as one thing and if you are "blind" then that is it, you are 100% totally blind.

It does not work that way.

There are actually areas of the brain designed for many things such as seeing objects, recognising and processing colors, judging distances, and much more. The optic nerve for example feeds input into those areas of the brain and they process them.

If a person is born with a buggered up optic nerve then clearly they do not get that input. That does NOT mean the areas of the brain involved in processing those inputs do not exist or are non functional. If something throws random input into those areas of the brain then those areas of the brain WILL process that input and the person WILL get subjective experience from that.

At the risk of saying the same name too many times VS Ramachandran is doing some really interesting work on this. He is studying people who have what people call "Blind sight". He has patients who are entirely "blind" but somehow can still walk around a room avoiding randomly placed objects.

Another interesting case is a guy who can not "see" anything. He can not tell you what is in front of him, what it looks like, what shape it is or anything. However if that object moves he can tell you in which direction it moved.

What this tells us is that, like what I was saying about "brain dead" above the word "sight" is not a simple word describing one thing, but a massive sequence of things, all with brain parts dedicated to it, and even if a patient is "Blind" many parts of the faculty of "sight" can still technically function.

Add in the massive complexity associated with the stresses, random activity and electrical cascades involved in dying or being near death or being resuscitated and I find no mystery at all in the idea that unusual and counter intuitive subjective experience are afforded such people.

And that is before I even point out that their subjective description is, like what you said in your own words "can only be described as being color". We have to remember that we are listening to patients describe near indescribable experiences.... they are doing it in a language that has been designed and written by sighted people.... and their descriptions are then being parsed by people who can see things like colour. Perhaps what they are experiencing is nothing like color at all, how can we know, but by the time they translate that experience into our language and we parse it we are just viewing it in terms of things WE understand, like color.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

heightened awareness.

One wonders if the awareness is actually heightened or is it simply that some of the filters and distractions our brain normally puts in place have been stripped away.

I remember a debate between Sam Harris and (forgive me this is from memory, I can check it if you want but I think I am right) Rabbi Bradley Artson Shavi. Shavi describes having an autistic son who is able to recount the content of conversations that happened 2 or 3 rooms away from him.

We can certainly ask if that son has heightened awareness, or is it simply the brain tends not to process sounds far away or muffled but his does. We can similarly ask the same thing about NDE patients.

I would hasten to add here that even if the answer is not so simple, what we still have here is an open, and interesting, question. Questions are not evidence of something we simply just made up. Even if I had NO explanation at all on why blind patients would see color or why unconscious patients would have heightened awareness, this does not afford us the luxury of "X of the gaps" style arguments of saying "Well we can not explain it, therefore a spiritual/Supernatural explanation gains credibility". Our lack of explanation is evidence of nothing save our lack of explanation.

Wibbs

On the changes made after Paul I can't see us ever agreeing, as with the vast majority of Christians groups that survive to today you're Paulian in doctrine. This was not always the case as the early Gnostics, Nazerenes and others show. The early back and forth issues that survive between the Jerusalem Christians and the Greek/Roman adherents give some hint of the divisions involved. One was very much a Jewish sect, the other a "Gentile" one. Why do you as a Christian not observe the Jewish sabbath and other religious dates as Jesus did(repeated references to same in the Gospels), why do you as a Christian not circumcise your sons as Jesus was, why do you not follow the dietary(and other) Jewish codes that Jesus did? The people "on the ground" that knew him followed all these. Paul introduced these novelties. Can you show me where any of the original apostles suggested these changes before Paul? My contention is this; if Paul hadn't existed Christianity would have had a very different flavour and it would have been rooted not in the Grecoroman world but in the Jewish.

philologos wrote: »

The quantity of them is also significant - There are over 20,000. This means that if people try and introduce changes, they will be caught red handed on comparison.

Changes? Never mind changes how come with all this cross referencing they vary so much on detail? The resurrection has come up so let's look at that.

The four gospels can't agree on the number of women who show up to the tomb - one to many(more than 4 IIRC), they can't agree on how many angels were there - one or two, inside or outside the tomb(and in one it's a man). Then we have Jesus appearances and where these happen. He appears first to Mary Magdelene, then depending on who you read to another Mary, then to Simon, then the apostles[delete as applicable]. If you take Mark's the earliest and look at the earliest copies he doesn't seem to appear to anyone or it's not mentioned until the later additions and as we see they can't even be consistent with those. His appearances themselves are odd. In some accounts they don't recognise him, some doubt it was him which is a tad odd for men who have lived with the man and saw him as their saviour. Where the various characters meet him varies too. From beside the tomb, or nearby to many miles away. In one account after meeting him he simply vanishes into thin air, so more a spiritual encounter than a physical one. In one account he tells Mary M not to touch him as he's not fully ascended or somesuch, yet later in the same account he's all for Thomas sticking his finger in his wounds.

His ascension into heaven that follows also varies by account. In one he does so when in a room with the disciples, in another outside the same room, in another he ascends from a mountain and one doesn't mention it at all.

The list of inconsistencies surrounding this event is pretty long given the passages themselves are quite short and it's the most important event in the Christian story and a cornerstone of the faith. One would think that this event above all others would be solidly laid down. About the only consistency is that he appears to women first(well not quite but..). This is unusual for the time as women were considered bad witnesses, so that's actually a plus point in it's favour as if you were looking to copperfasten the event you'd have primarily male sources for the witness.

That's at the end, the birth of Jesus is just as inconsistent and vague. Only two gospels describe it and details vary there too, never mind the later changes that were added in to give us the nativity we think of today. EG No three wise men, the number of whom is never stated, plus they reached him when he was a toddler not a newborn. Throw out the cribs folks

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Add in the massive unpredictably of reasons why a patient might be dying and the stuff we pump them with to resuscitate them and I would expect even more variety of subjective reporting on it, not less. I am unclear as to why you would expect the opposite.

Another interesting aspect to these reports is even with the variety of "inputs" the results tend to be quite consistent in narrative. That said I didn't get the tunnel of light part, only the "out of body" thang with a side order of "I'm not alone here" but that part was nebulous, though I distinctly "heard" the "it's not your time yet, you're not ready" thang. I also had the plunging back into my body and it not feeling like mine and it was very cold. The hyper real aspect was there too. Very undreamlike(and I'm one of those you mention who remembers my dreams pretty much nightly). NOt like a drug either. I dunno how to describe it, kinda like trying to describe being in love, you'd kinda have to be there Fascinating stuff. For me personally as I experienced something like the NDE's that are reported. Fascinating in the sense of the levels of physical consciousness that may exist, rather than the spiritual aspect. I leave that for others. Shít on one of those guided Ayahuasca(sp) shamanistic things I "met god". Nice fella/entity too. Asked loads of questions and got answers too. I asked "what is love?" as you do. The answer? Complete acceptance of yourself and others. I replied that's not exactly easy, the reply I got back was a laughing "no shít sherlock". Class act Human consciousness is a helluva gift and one that can keep on giving. Like I say I leave any spiritual explanations to others and good luck to you. Whatever gets you through the night.

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Another interesting aspect to these reports is even with the variety of "inputs" the results tend to be quite consistent in narrative.

I find that interesting too yes, but probably for different reasons than people who think NDEs are supernatural. I find it interesting from a human psychology perspective, and from a study methodology perspective.

The latter is because I have read some pretty awful studies in the past. Not just of NDEs either. Everything from Alien abduction to interviewing children about suspected sexual assault fall prey to the same issue. That issue is that often questioners and studies lead interviewees to the answers that people want, rather than the actual answers. People have all kinds of disjointed images in their mind after an NDE and if you ask the right questions you give form to those images. "Was it a white shape with wings on a horse do you think" "Why yes, yes I think that must have been what it was" "Wow another one!".

The former is interesting because of a human tendency to interpret things in the context of the religion or superstitions or popular culture they were brought up with. People in the west see what they expect, people in the east see what they expect. Again interpreting those experiences in these contexts gives form to disjointed images for much the same reasons as leading questions do. Popular culture also has much to do with it. Since the release of Stephen Spielberg's alien movies, many reports of alien abduction have involved little grey men with big black bug eyes. Something similar happens in many other contexts too. If, therefore, popular culture is consistently mentioning a tunnel of white light it is quite likely that is what patients will experience and/or interpret disjointed imagery as having been retrospectively.

Take meditation for example. People disappear into solitude in caves for a few years and come out espousing many things. They tend to interpret those experiences in the contexts of the religion they were brought up with. Someone in the west may take them to confirm god really did impregnate an under age virgin in order to give birth to himself and bring the world magic crackers.... someone in the east however might take it to confirm that an illiterate paedophile with cynophobia went into a cave and wrote a book dictated to him by voices over his shoulder. Both complete non sequiturs, and both diverse conclusions despite it being quite likely what they actually experienced in the cave was pretty similar to each other.

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I say I leave any spiritual explanations to others and good luck to you. Whatever gets you through the night.

Clearly, as your rather enviable experience shows, there is a whole range of human experience possible that is outside the "norm" for the common joe on the street. There are different ways to achieve them, such as what you went through, drugs, meditation and contemplation, or in things like the "God Chair" or some of VS Ramachandran's contraptions.

I think many such experiences are worth pursuing and worth having. I also think discussing and exploring such experience is a worthy scientific pursuit, as is divorcing such discourse from the metaphysics that normally accompany it.

Sappa

From this thread it comes across that the atheists are a crowd of fanatical cranks who deplore anyone with differing views and will not tolerate anyone questioning their beliefs.
They were often the guys in my school/uni years who wore long trench coats,had nirvana t-shirts and smoked rollies with an opinion on everyone and a negative outlook.

Corkfeen

Sappa wrote: »

From this thread it comes across that the atheists are a crowd of fanatical cranks who deplore anyone with differing views and will not tolerate anyone questioning their beliefs.
They were often the guys in my school/uni years who wore long trench coats,had nirvana t-shirts and smoked rollies with an opinion on everyone and a negative outlook.

Such an exceedingly sweeping statement .

nozzferrahhtoo

Sappa wrote: »

From this thread it comes across that the atheists are a crowd of fanatical cranks who deplore anyone with differing views and will not tolerate anyone questioning their beliefs.

I have followed the thread since the beginning and have seen little that matches your interpretation.

I do not think most of the "atheists" on here have a problem with differing beliefs. Differing beliefs are great, the world would be boring if we all believed the same thing.

I think the issue people have is actually with entirely baseless and unsubstantiated beliefs. A massively different thing.

Even then I do not think the issue is with people HAVING those unsubstantiated nonsense beliefs. Few, if any, here seem to have issues with what peoples private faith is. The issue is when such people do not keep faith private and try to implement it in our society or our halls of power, education and science.

If people want to think there is a god in their own time, in their own heads I am not seeing many people here who have an issue with that.

shizz

Sappa wrote: »

From this thread it comes across that the atheists are a crowd of fanatical cranks who deplore anyone with differing views and will not tolerate anyone questioning their beliefs.
They were often the guys in my school/uni years who wore long trench coats,had nirvana t-shirts and smoked rollies with an opinion on everyone and a negative outlook.

If that is your belief, I'm gonna have to ask that you back it up with some evidence there... :pac: