Less than half of Irish people consider themselves religious

Scanlas The 2nd

philologos wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I do believe our soul lives on after we die because our soul is the same as everyone else's. I also believe when Jesus referred to God and "the light" he is referring to my interpretation of the soul.

That's why " god is within us all". Meditation allows you to find "god" inside you more easily.

The soul living on after death is supernatural. It is a belief that isn't observed in nature. We can't see what happens after death in the world. Are you still sure you don't believe in the supernatural?

As for Jesus and what he understood by God the light and so on. I don't think there's any doubt from the New Testament that he did believe that God was real and the same as the Old Testament.

If you like we can walk through the passages. If not that's OK too.

I think your beliefs are fascinating but they are clearly supernatural.

I think a lot of what is in the bible has been made up and/or twisted by others over the years. I think there's a lot of nuggets of gold in there too from Jesus' original true message, but like Chinese whispers the message is lost.

I won't get into Bible passage quoting as I'm on my phone.

philologos

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think a lot of what is in the bible has been made up and/or twisted by others over the years. I think there's a lot of nuggets of gold in there too from Jesus' original true message, but like Chinese whispers the message is lost.

I won't get into Bible passage quoting as I'm on my phone.

Sure. But you know the Chinese whispers argument has no weight. We have 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. On comparison there is no evidence to suggest that it has been significantly changed. I walk through these reasons in the "Why trust the Bible?" links in my signature.

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Good news yeay \o/, nothing like a nice gory blood sacrifice to appease the gods.

< Heads off to find a puppy to slaughter, must keep Yahweh happy. >

The good news is that Christ took the penalty we should have so we can be forgiven. If anything it has been the main inspiration for self sacrificial living in the world ever since.

Scoff as you may there's a lot of substance in that.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

The good news is that Christ took the penalty we should have so we can be forgiven. If anything it has been the main inspiration for self sacrificial living in the world ever since.

Scoff as you may there's a lot of substance in that.

It's that your god actually needs/demands such sacrifices that I am scoffing at, love my arse. He/she/it wouldn't know the meaning of the word if it bit him/her/it on the divine backside.

The real basis of belief in this sacrifice.

Colmustard

Colmustard wrote: »

Religious people p1ss me off, but atheists p1ss me off even more.

What really annoys me about those atheists is how they believe things without evidence; force their faith on children in schools; lobby to have their own sect's morality imposed on civilisation as a whole; knock on your door to proselytise; preach on soapboxes in public; condemn homosexuals; viciously oppress women; think anyone who disagrees with their religion deserves to be tortured in hell forever; worship a god who admits to straight murder, infanticide, genocide and encouraging mass rape; slaughter apostates, non-believers and believers of other faiths; issue bounties against - and actually murder - cartoonists for exercising their right to freedom of expression; blow themselves up in public; crash planes into buildings; suppress scientific advancement and refuse life-saving medical treatment for themselves and their children.

On the other hand, all the religious do is write books, hold talks and engage in debates to express their opposition to the above.

Yeah, those damn atheists. You sure hit the nail on the head there.

ScumLord

philologos wrote: »

Thankfully Jesus came into the world to die in our place on the cross so we can be forgiven and come into a new relationship with Him.

That's so nonsensical. God turned into Jesus then Jesus died so that God (AKA Jesus) would forgive us? It makes absolutely no sense. And what was God planning to do that Jesus (AKA God) needed to take our place, kill the entire planet? I suppose it wouldn't be the first time he tried that according to the bible.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

It makes absolutely no sense.

What?! The Bible makes no sense?! STOP THE PRESSES. :pac::pac::pac:

General Relativity

ScumLord wrote: »

That's so nonsensical. God turned into Jesus then Jesus died so that God (AKA Jesus) would forgive us? It makes absolutely no sense. And what was God planning to do that Jesus (AKA God) needed to take our place, kill the entire planet? I suppose it wouldn't be the first time he tried that according to the bible.

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Dyr

philologos wrote: »

The Christian position is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We are guilty as a result. Thankfully Jesus came into the world to die in our place on the cross so we can be forgiven and come into a new relationship with Him. That's good news that I advocate sharing with all people.

Okay let's step through into the mentally unstable world of religious belief for a bit here:

God was going to kill us all, because our parents were riding each other? he fecking made it that way and yet he has a problem with it:eek:

So Jesus is like a planetary patsy, he was the only person on earth who was innocent but we're all in the clear so long as we go along with him taking the rap for all of us? Even though he was innocent

it's mental stuff to be sure

Pompey Magnus

philologos wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think a lot of what is in the bible has been made up and/or twisted by others over the years. I think there's a lot of nuggets of gold in there too from Jesus' original true message, but like Chinese whispers the message is lost.

I won't get into Bible passage quoting as I'm on my phone.

Sure. But you know the Chinese whispers argument has no weight. We have 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. On comparison there is no evidence to suggest that it has been significantly changed. I walk through these reasons in the "Why trust the Bible?" links in my signature.

The vast majority of those 20,000 manuscripts being written relatively late and so more or less irrelevant. The biggest variations are found in the earliest manuscripts and no one knows the changes that occurred between the earliest existing manuscripts and the original.

To get some idea of the changes that were going on in this dark period of Christianity we get some idea by looking at how "Luke" and "Matthew" altered the account of "Mark" in their own versions. The various characters of Jesus presented in these Gospels are in some ways unrecognisable from one another.

So this claim of 20,000 copies is not as significant as is claimed. If the first copiest of a Gospel decided to change it to suit his own theological agenda (we know for a fact copiests did do this) and then his version became widely distributed then it doesn't matter how many copies exist today, they were spawned from a corrupted copy.

What a shame that God, going to the effort supposedly of inspiring the Gospels, didn't also go to the little extra effort of preserving those originals. He missed a trick there.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

What really annoys me about those atheists is how they believe things without evidence; force their faith on children in schools; lobby to have their own sect's morality imposed on civilisation as a whole; knock on your door to proselytise; preach on soapboxes in public; condemn homosexuals; viciously oppress women; think anyone who disagrees with their religion deserves to be tortured in hell forever; worship a god who admits to straight murder, infanticide, genocide and encouraging mass rape; slaughter apostates, non-believers and believers of other faiths; issue bounties against - and actually murder - cartoonists for exercising their right to freedom of expression; blow themselves up in public; crash planes into buildings; suppress scientific advancement and refuse life-saving medical treatment for themselves and their children.

On the other hand, all the religious do is write books, hold talks and engage in debates to express their opposition to the above.

Yeah, those damn atheists. You sure hit the nail on the head there.

If you're making the argument that there has been no violence with an atheistic justification, you're forgetting the legacy of state atheism - Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and Hoxha for a start.

The other question to that is where there has been "Christian violence" has it been in agreement with Jesus teachings, or is it as a result of the selfish nature of man pursuing other aims. If it is the latter, then this stuff happens in general. If we were to count the wars over political aims and ideologies I suspect we'd have a higher death count than anyone who was killed in the name of Christianity.

Forcing faith in schools - Nonsense. You know as well as I that even if people go to faith schools, ultimately they make their own decision. You did, and I did.

Viciously oppress women - where does Jesus advocate this?

Condemn homosexuals - Christianity doesn't condemn homosexuals. It says that sexual acts should be kept in a marriage between a man and a woman. That has the same implications for me as a single heterosexual male as it does for anyone else.

Says that anyone who disagrees deserves to go to hell - Not at all. What it says is that all have sinned, and fallen short of God's standard. As a result we're guilty before God. God has offered us His mercy through Jesus Christ.
That's for all people. It isn't because of non-belief, it's because of sin. If we don't repent, then we have to face the penalty for sin ourselves.

You've mixed up Christianity and Islam here, Christianity is not the same as Islam by any means and different faiths should be assessed differently. It's a logical fallacy to claim that Christianity is the same as Islam. That covers crashing planes into buildings.

Suppress scientific advancements - Christianity brought about the emergence of universities, and of science faculties (called natural philosophy originally). To claim that it has suppressed scientific advancements is nonsense.

Preaching in public - In the West we have the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. Of course people should be able to do this. Particularly if as Christians we believe that others desperately need to hear about Jesus to be saved.

Encouraging mass rape - What?

Worship a God who admits murder? - Murder in unlawful killing. God creates life, and has the right to take it away. I have no issue with that. God can justly take away someone who is living in rebellion against Him. 100% of people are going to die at some point or another. Jesus tells us this much:

And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, 17 and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ 18 And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ 21 So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”

(Luke 12:16-21)

ScumLord wrote: »

That's so nonsensical. God turned into Jesus then Jesus died so that God (AKA Jesus) would forgive us? It makes absolutely no sense. And what was God planning to do that Jesus (AKA God) needed to take our place, kill the entire planet? I suppose it wouldn't be the first time he tried that according to the bible.

God didn't turn into Jesus. That's not what Christians believe. Christians believe that the Son existed from the beginning (see John chapter 1, and Colossians chapter 1). The Son (Jesus) became flesh, and walked amongst us.

You should look into what Christians believe, before you criticise it. I find often that non-believers I know have just never looked into the subject.

I don't know where you get stuff like, "What was God planning to do that Jesus needed to take our place, kill the entire planet?" - What are you talking about? -

The point is, all have sinned. Our sin separates us from God, and as a result of intentionally disobeying God's standards. We are guilty before Him at the day of judgement. Rightfully, God could condemn everyone. However, in His mercy He sent His Son Jesus to pay the full price for sin so that we could truly repent and be forgiven, and receive eternal life with Him.

This is because God is just, and merciful. Jesus, shows us the immense cost of our sin and rebellion against God. The blameless one taken in the place of the unrighteous. We like Barabbas, although deserving eternal condemnation have been forgiven. If you reject God, you reject salvation also.

philologos

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The vast majority of those 20,000 manuscripts being written relatively late and so more or less irrelevant. The biggest variations are found in the earliest manuscripts and no one knows the changes that occurred between the earliest existing manuscripts and the original.

Provide some information that could be useful. What variations are you talking about? In Biblical scholarship it is largely in agreement that only 0.4% of the New Testament is in doubt (roughly 40 passages). Of which most actually back up what is written in other sections of the Gospels.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

To get some idea of the changes that were going on in this dark period of Christianity we get some idea by looking at how "Luke" and "Matthew" altered the account of "Mark" in their own versions. The various characters of Jesus presented in these Gospels are in some ways unrecognisable from one another.

There's no evidence for this whatsoever. The accounts are different because they have different authors who are trying to communicate a different aspect of Jesus, but they are all in agreement as to who He was, and why He came. The person is the same throughout.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

So this claim of 20,000 copies is not as significant as is claimed. If the first copiest of a Gospel decided to change it to suit his own theological agenda (we know for a fact copiests did do this) and then his version became widely distributed then it doesn't matter how many copies exist today, they were spawned from a corrupted copy.

It is relevant. We have the assurance that if someone changed the texts as we have them, then they would be caught red handed.

Your case above is based on your own speculation rather than manuscript evidence.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

What a shame that God, going to the effort supposedly of inspiring the Gospels, didn't also go to the little extra effort of preserving those originals. He missed a trick there.

Except he has preserved them, it's because the manuscript copies are in huge agreement with eachother, and are so widely dispersed that we can realistically trust that they are as they were when written.

I'd love it if you applied the same criticism to Hessiod, Aristotle, Plato or other classical writers which are a heck of a lot more dubious than the New Testament.

Of all the classical works in the world we have today, the reality is the Bible is the best preserved. So, should we give up doing classical history considering all of these works are well well more dubious than the New Testament?

philologos

Bambi wrote: »

Okay let's step through into the mentally unstable world of religious belief for a bit here:

I'm not sure if it is any more "unstable" than some of the misinterpretations you've made below.

Bambi wrote: »

God was going to kill us all, because our parents were riding each other? he fecking made it that way and yet he has a problem with it:eek:

Where the heck are you getting this from? Christians have no objection to the reality that children are born through sex, God made us that way.

I'm utterly confused as to where you pulled that out of.

Are you actually interested to find out what Christians believe rather than discussing something that is just made up?

Bambi wrote: »

So Jesus is like a planetary patsy, he was the only person on earth who was innocent but we're all in the clear so long as we go along with him taking the rap for all of us? Even though he was innocent

it's mental stuff to be sure

Planetary patsy?

Jesus took the penalty that we deserved to pay. If we truly repent and believe in Him, we are forgiven before God, because Jesus has took the penalty on our behalf. As a result we can come back to God and start afresh.

The good news is that although we've done what is wrong, we can still know the living God, and strive to live as we were created to.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

............

This is because God is just, and merciful. Jesus, shows us the immense cost of our sin and rebellion against God. The blameless one taken in the place of the unrighteous. We like Barabbas, although deserving eternal condemnation have been forgiven. If you reject God, you reject salvation also.

Yep, look how well he treated the Rwandans, Jews, Cambodians, Armenians....

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, look how well he treated the Rwandans, Jews, Cambodians, Armenians....

This has to do with whether or not God intervenes in every single thing we do. That's a completely different topic and I think you know it.

I find it peculiar the way that people who reject God and want to have nothing to do with Him insist that He cleans up the mess that people themselves have created?

I can think of a number of reasons why God mightn't intervene in every situation, and I've posted about it before on boards.ie. This is from earlier this year:

philologos wrote: »

Not particularly. Choosing to create people who are freely willed doesn't make you responsible for what they all do. Much in the same way that a parent isn't responsible for what their children necessarily do.

Simply put as I would understand it, God in making us free clearly set boundaries that we should follow, and legislates ultimately on the basis of these boundaries. We have no excuse if we disobey Him.

I don't think your argument is a particularly good one.



Not at all. God created us to be autonomous. You seem to think that knowing is the same thing as preordaining. That isn't particularly logical and one could give a number of examples where this doesn't make much sense.

God could control us entirely, but He has chosen not to because he desired for us to be free for the most part.



As much as I don't like breaking Godwin's Law on the thread: I don't think God is responsible for the Holocaust either. This isn't even referring to omnipotence and free will any more, this is referring to why doesn't God prevent every bad thing from happening.

Firstly, I think it is surprising that people who refuse to even acknowledge God would presume that if He were to prevent every evil thing from happening that they would believe. I would assume that you would still be as much in opposition to Him, or that you would attribute it to something else other than God.

Secondly, I think that evil can have a purpose. Biblically we have the example of Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. This was a bad thing. Ultimately at the end of the book of Genesis Joseph says the following to his brothers about his experience:

Evil can ultimately be worked for good purposes. Joseph's brothers did evil towards him, yet it ultimately turned out to be good. In my own life I can see how God worked what was bad in my life for good. It is partially the reason I follow Jesus today.

Thirdly, it is also possible that God doesn't intervene in every case of what is evil in the same way that our parents don't follow us around everywhere to make sure that we aren't heavily drinking, taking recreational drugs etc.

Fourthly, I also believe that in our Christian lives, God can punish us for disobedience against Him much in the same way that a father punishes his children.

Fifthly, I also don't believe that God doesn't act at all in our universe. I believe that God has intervened in terms of evil. Indeed, He came into the world Himself to conquer sin and death on our behalf. I also believe that God intervened in the case of nations in the past, and I believe that God can and does intervene in the world today on much the same level.

It depends on the circumstances as to whether or not God intervenes in every situation.

Again, I don't see what this part of your post has to do with the free will, divine foreknowledge, predestination theme we have going on here.

Indeed, the question is what is actually logical, and whether Christopher actually argued it while he was alive.

Full post can be seen here with what I responded to then:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76065614&postcount=514

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

This has to do with whether or not God intervenes in every single thing we do.

...a few things would be nice for those involved though. I'm guessing the victims of mass murder would be glad of an appearance.

philologos wrote: »

I find it peculiar the way that people who reject God and want to have nothing to do with Him insist that He cleans up the mess that people themselves have created?

You can back up there a bit - I don't reject God because I don't accept that there is one.

philologos wrote: »

I can think of a number of reasons why God mightn't intervene in every situation,

Funny that he never seems to intervene. I can think of a good reason for that which covers all eventualities.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

...a few things would be nice for those involved though. I'm guessing the victims of mass murder would be glad of an appearance.

See below.

Nodin wrote: »

You can back up there a bit - I don't reject God because I don't accept that there is one.

It's peculiar that one of the first objections you raise is that God isn't a vending machine. I agree, He isn't a vending machine. He's someone with His own will, and as the Creator of the universe according to Christianity, He knows what's best.

I've given you a number of reasons in that last post as to why God mightn't intervene in every circumstances.

Nodin wrote: »

Funny that he never seems to intervene. I can think of a good reason for that which covers all eventualities.

Naturally I really disagree. Claiming that God doesn't intervene in every case doesn't mean that He doesn't at all. Besides, there are other logical issues that arise out of atheism that make wholly unconvincing from my perspective, particularly in respect to morality, and to causation at Creation.

Dyr

philologos wrote: »

Planetary patsy?

Jesus took the penalty that we deserved to pay. If we truly repent and believe in Him, we are forgiven before God, because Jesus has took the penalty on our behalf. As a result we can come back to God and start afresh.

That's a classic patsy my man, it also implies that god's okay with a fairly massive miscarriage of justice
[/QUOTE]

Where the heck are you getting this from? Christians have no objection to the reality that children are born through sex, God made us that way.

So are you pulling the idea that we've all sinned out of your hole? How have we all sinned? If someone manages to go through life without sinning then jesus is not their saviour as they did not require saving as this person is already in god's good books and will get a ticket to heaven without having to worship jesus, correcto?

omgitsthelazor

What an ungrateful country after god gave Katie that gold medal.

philologos

Bambi wrote: »

That's a classic patsy my man, it also implies that god's okay with a fairly massive miscarriage of justice

Jesus willingly went to the cross on our behalf. By the by, the Gospel isn't fair. The idea that the righteous went to the cross to spare the unrighteous isn't fair at all (1 Peter 3:18), but God did that out of His love for us. God spared His wrath and indignation as a result, and we can be forgiven.

I agree that it isn't fair at all. What would be fair is that we'd all be condemned.

Bambi wrote: »

So are you pulling the idea that we've all sinned out of your hole? How have we all sinned? If someone manages to go through life without sinning then jesus is not their saviour as they did not require saving as this person is already in god's good books and will get a ticket to heaven without having to worship jesus, correcto?

Only one man has lived and has got through life without sinning. That's Jesus. We've all ignored and disobeyed God's standards intentionally myself included. Thanks to Jesus, we can repent, and we can know Him.

How have you all sinned? - have you done evil rather than what is good at all in your life? Have you lied? Have you stolen? Have you lusted after someone (Jesus said this is adultery in your heart)? Have you committed adultery? Have you coveted anyone's possessions? Have you coveted anyone's wife? Have you blasphemed? Have you worshipped other things in the place of God? Or worshipped other gods even? Have you dishonoured your parents? Have you ever been angry without cause (Jesus said this is murder in your heart)?

I've broken the vast majority of those, and that's only a small subset of what standards God has given us to live by in this Creation? If you claim that you've never sinned, I'd hazard a guess and say that you're probably lying.

Where did you get the weird idea that Christians think that all sex is a sin? - Why don't you try and find out what Christians believe rather than making it up?

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

I find it peculiar the way that people who reject God and want to have nothing to do with Him insist that He cleans up the mess that people themselves have created?

Folks like you will never really understand the simple concept of non-belief will you.
Not believing something exists is not rejection of the thing, it is the rejection of the very idea of the thing.
We don't reject God, because to us there is no god to reject. Get it?

As for "wanting nothing to do with him", it would be rather tricky to want to have something to with something that doesn't exist, don't you think?
People who don't believe could indeed want to believe, but they literally can't want to have something to do with nothing.

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Folks like you will never really understand the simple concept of non-belief will you.
Not believing something exists is not rejection of the thing, it is the rejection of the very idea of the thing.
We don't reject God, because to us there is no god to reject. Get it?

As for "wanting nothing to do with him", it would be rather tricky to want to have something to with something that doesn't exist, don't you think?
People who don't believe could indeed want to believe, but they literally can't want to have something to do with nothing.

The argument - why doesn't God intervene? - presumes God's existence. As a result we're assuming God exists for the purposes of that argument.
In offering possible reasons why God doesn't intervene in every situation, I have to assume His existence to properly answer that question. The question also presupposes that God has a burden to intervene in everything that goes wrong in Creation.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

See below.

It's peculiar that one of the first objections you raise is that God isn't a vending machine. I agree, He isn't a vending machine. He's someone with His own will, and as the Creator of the universe according to Christianity, He knows what's best.

I've given you a number of reasons in that last post as to why God mightn't intervene in every circumstances..

Theres no evidence of any intervention in any circumstance.

philologos wrote: »

The argument - why doesn't God intervene? - presumes God's existence..

Actually its just made to highlight the complete lack of intervention and thus the lack of a god.

Dyr

philologos wrote: »

Jesus willingly went to the cross on our behalf. By the by, the Gospel isn't fair. The idea that the righteous went to the cross to spare the unrighteous isn't fair at all (1 Peter 3:18), but God did that out of His love for us. God spared His wrath and indignation as a result, and we can be forgiven.

I agree that it isn't fair at all. What would be fair is that we'd all be condemned.

So the only guy who didnt si,n died for everyone sin's. Your god doesn't sound like a very just entity, showed us how much he cared by killing one person instead of killing everyone, Actually he sounds like a dick.

Only one man has lived and has got through life without sinning. That's Jesus. We've all ignored and disobeyed God's standards intentionally myself included. Thanks to Jesus, we can repent, and we can know Him.

Have we now? Prove it.

How do you know that every human that ever breathed on this earth has not lived up to your concept of being without sin. Or do you take your god's word for that?

Shaunie306

I believe there is something there, but its not what we have been told, the real story has been bent and twisted so much to suit the catholic church, I dont see the Irish catholic church as a representative, they are lying rapists who only repented or gave any kind of apology when there are was twisted, The majority of priests in the last genertion didnt even want to be priests but were forced into priesthood into the greasy slimeball hands of the Irish priesthood, All those people who knew it was going on and kept there mouths shut for fear of the priest should hang there heads in shame, The reason why the number has dropped is directly lined to how the church is run, I only go to mass for weddings/christenings/funerals, It all feels like a cult.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

The argument - why doesn't God intervene? - presumes God's existence. As a result we're assuming God exists for the purposes of that argument.
In offering possible reasons why God doesn't intervene in every situation, I have to assume His existence to properly answer that question. The question also presupposes that God has a burden to intervene in everything that goes wrong in Creation.

I have been reading many of your posts for quite a while now and you believe non-believers have rejected your God, you have used the phrase numerous times, I am not going to trawl through your previous posts right now to prove this unless you insist, will you be so petty?

philologos

Bambi wrote: »

So the only guy who didnt si,n died for everyone sin's. Your god doesn't sound like a very just entity, showed us how much he cared by killing one person instead of killing everyone, Actually he sounds like a dick.

Jesus died for the world - willingly. He also was resurrected 3 days later according to Christian belief.

So Christians believe that Jesus died in our place on the cross, and rose again. By dying, we died to sin, and by rising again we come to new life in Him. (Romans 6). Jesus willingly came to conquer sin and death on our behalf.

Bambi wrote: »

Have we now? Prove it.

Proof lies in the realm of mathematics. I can't prove this to you. I can only offer my reasons for believing in Jesus and I'm trying to respond to your posts with respect even if you think that the God who I serve is a dick.

Bambi wrote: »

How do you know that every human that ever breathed on this earth has not lived up to your concept of being without sin. Or do you take your god's word for that?

I know because I see the stuff that happens in the world on a daily basis. If I pick up a newspaper today I can see the screwed up things that people have done. I look into my own life, and I can see all the things that I have done that are completely immoral. If I look to Jesus' standard, I think even more that if it weren't for His grace, I'd be rightfully condemned to hell.

And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.
(Mark 7:18-23 ESV)

If I'm honest about myself, if that's God's standard for my life. Then in and of myself, I'm definitely guilty. It is only by a loving Saviour that I can ever hope to be justified.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I have been reading many of your posts for quite a while now and you believe non-believers have rejected your God, you have used the phrase numerous times, I am not going to trawl through your previous posts right now to prove this unless you insist, will you be so petty?

Why are you surprised? - That's because I believe that God is real. If God is real, and you disbelieve in Him, you've rejected Him. I don't accept the assumption that God doesn't exist. If you deny God's existence, you've rejected God as far as I can tell.

I'm here to challenge misconceptions about Christian belief. If you want to convince me that God doesn't exist, you'll need to try harder.

Dyr

philologos wrote: »

Proof lies in the realm of mathematics. I can't prove this to you. I can only offer my reasons for believing in Jesus and I'm trying to respond to your posts with respect even if you think that the God who I serve is a dick.

Proof lies in the realm of logic. Your reason for jesus believing has nothing to do with proving that every human ever on this planet has sinned according to your faith, your proof is coming up very short.

Unless, of course, you have a handy catch all sin that all humans can be guilty of

I know because I see the stuff that happens in the world on a daily basis. If I pick up a newspaper today I can see the screwed up things that people have done. I look into my own life, and I can see all the things that I have done that are completely immoral. If I look to Jesus' standard, I think even more that if it weren't for His grace, I'd be rightfully condemned to hell.

Ah I see so you don't know you just assume based on your own bias. Unsound assumpion is not a great foundation for an absolutist belief now is it?

I'm here to challenge misconceptions about Christian belief. If you want to convince me that God doesn't exist...

I don't.

philologos

Bambi wrote: »

Proof lies in the realm of logic. Your reason for jesus believing has nothing to do with proving that every human ever on this planet has sinned according to your faith, your proof is coming up very short.

Unless, of course, you have a handy catch all sin that all humans can be guilty of

I've provided you what Jesus said about sin in Mark chapter 7. I can tell you now, there's no human that ever walked the face the earth that is not guilty of it. The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 are another excellent example which can demonstrate how we've all sinned.

Bambi wrote: »

Ah I see so you don't know you just assume based on your own bias. Unsound assumpion is not a great foundation for an absolutist belief now is it?

Not at all. Sin is clear. I've done stuff that is evil rather than what is good. I think any person who is really honest will admit that.

Unless you're saying you're perfect?

amadain17

philologos wrote: »

Sure. But you know the Chinese whispers argument has no weight. We have 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. On comparison there is no evidence to suggest that it has been significantly changed. I walk through these reasons in the "Why trust the Bible?" links in my signature.

There absolute IS evidence that the bible has been changed over the years. Have you ever heard of Bart Ehrman. He is a new testament scholar who looked into the historicity of the New Testament and because an atheist because of what he found. He wrote 'Misquoting Jesus' among other books to show the results of his research. Even the most well known bible stories were changed and added to over the years. Have you ever heard of the 'let he is without sin cast the first stone' story? Well that one was added. It was not in the earlier versions that are still around. The 4 gospels even differ from each other and contradict each other. Someone fed you with a whole lot of crap to keep you onside or you know that the bible was changed and you are just another christian liar

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Sure. But you know the Chinese whispers argument has no weight. We have 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. On comparison there is no evidence to suggest that it has been significantly changed. I walk through these reasons in the "Why trust the Bible?" links in my signature.

There absolute IS evidence that the bible has been changed over the years. Have you ever heard of Bart Ehrman. He is a new testament scholar who looked into the historicity of the New Testament and because an atheist because of what he found. He wrote 'Misquoting Jesus' among other books to show the results of his research. Even the most well known bible stories were changed and added to over the years. Have you ever heard of the 'let he is without sin cast the first stone' story? Well that one was added. It was not in the earlier versions that are still around. The 4 gospels even differ from each other and contradict each other. Someone fed you with a whole lot of crap to keep you onside or you know that the bible was changed and you are just another christian liar

If you have some examples of this present some.

The vast majority of Biblical scholarship and manuscript comparison show that the New Testament is the most authentic ancient text in existence. The work of Bruce Metzger and other theologians have shown this on many occasions. If you even take a casual google you'll see that Ehrmans work is widely criticised.

I'm interested if you can prove me wrong though.

There's no need to be rude by the way. I'm looking for a good discussion.

Edit: I agree that John chapter 8 was not in the earliest manuscripts. That section is part of the 40 verses in doubt. The longer ending of Mark forms the rest.

Can you show me where any of the other 99.6% has been altered? It is by comparison of the manuscripts that we know of John 8 and the longer ending of Mark 16. Both are consistent with other areas of Scripture.

This is consistent with what I said earlier. The New Testament fares much better in comparison to any other text in ancient history in this regard.

amadain17

There is Ehrman in a lecture about how the bible was changed. Watch it its fascinating:
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLGNZPokevc
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5WyM_Jt9Q&feature=watch_response
Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QYKucGA8yY&feature=watch_response
Part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_hsSFcZf7E&feature=watch_response
Part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XE_K04ZPt8&feature=watch_response
Part 6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myKrKkunWcM&feature=watch_response
Part 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McYXGXTdOFQ&feature=watch_response
Part 8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udwcP34i1v8&feature=watch_response
Part 9 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVXSGMCgvAs&feature=watch_response
Part 10 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR6ZO9OPOxQ&feature=watch_response

He states what he found out about biblical changes over the ages and gives sources

A

Please view these before you comment further

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

There is Ehrman in a lecture about how the bible was changed. Watch it its fascinating:
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLGNZPokevc
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5WyM_Jt9Q&feature=watch_response
Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QYKucGA8yY&feature=watch_response
Part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_hsSFcZf7E&feature=watch_response
Part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XE_K04ZPt8&feature=watch_response
Part 6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myKrKkunWcM&feature=watch_response
Part 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McYXGXTdOFQ&feature=watch_response
Part 8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udwcP34i1v8&feature=watch_response
Part 9 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVXSGMCgvAs&feature=watch_response
Part 10 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR6ZO9OPOxQ&feature=watch_response

He states what he found out about biblical changes over the ages and gives sources

A

I'm not going to watch 10 videos now. Explain in your own words and we can discuss it.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

Why are you surprised? - That's because I believe that God is real. If God is real, and you disbelieve in Him, you've rejected Him. I don't accept the assumption that God doesn't exist. If you deny God's existence, you've rejected God as far as I can tell.

You are telling me I am actually doing something, engaging in an action you might say, whereas I am only appearing to do something from your perspective.
I personally am not rejecting your god because I do not believe he exists, it is not actually possible for me to knowingly reject, turn away from, or engage in any action with something that from my perspective is not there.
I am however rejecting the concept of your god, because that is real irrespective of one's beliefs.

I now ask you to turn your back on the unicorn I believe is standing in the room you are presently sitting in, can you do that?
You can turn away from where I imagine the unicorn is, but from your perspective you are not turning away from anything, except my idea.

Dyr

philologos wrote: »

Explain in your own words and we can discuss it.

Coming from a fella who just came up with "marks says that jesus said" as an argument that's a bit rich :P

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

I'm not going to watch 10 videos now. Explain in your own words and we can discuss it.

*asks for evidence*

*ignores it*

Not the first time we've seen this Phil :pac:

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

I'm not going to watch 10 videos now. Explain in your own words and we can discuss it.

*asks for evidence*

*ignores it*

Not the first time we've seen this Phil :pac:

It's fair to say that if a poster wants to discuss something that I shouldn't have to watch 10 videos first. People would object if I told them to do that first.

I've conceded that John 8 and the end of Mark 16 weren't in the originals. These doubtful passages forms 0.4% of the entire text. Meaning 99.6% is as it was at first authorship which is the most authentic amongst ancient texts.

If anyone else has anything they can quote on thread I'm happy to consider it.

You know that that's only fair Sonics2ks.

Dyr

I can tell you now, there's no human that ever walked the face the earth that is not guilty of sin

Im not asking you to tell me, I'm asking you to prove it. It's an extraordinary claim given the scope and scale of human existence over the last few millenia that only one person has managed to avoid a certain set of circumstances. I want proof.

Just for fun: How about people who are born and live their lives in vegetative states, how are they going to sin? Do they require jesus as a saviour or can they ignore jesus and still go straight through those pearly gates when they die?

I've provided you what Jesus said about sin in Mark chapter 7.

I don't care what Marks says Jesus says. If you're reduced to playing "simon says" in a rational debate, then you're bust.

philologos

Bambi wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Explain in your own words and we can discuss it.

Coming from a fella who just came up with "marks says that jesus said" as an argument that's a bit rich :P

Does it take you as long to read that as watch 10 videos?

Not rich at all. I've quoted and provided my own argument.

If I asked you to watch 10 videos on thread I'm very sure that you'd say the same to me.

amadain17

philologos wrote: »

I'm not going to watch 10 videos now. Explain in your own words and we can discuss it.

Its over one and a half hours worth of spoken evidence. Do you need it transcribed? It goes through many instances of biblical errors and changes and cites sources. Bart Ehrmans credentials are not in question either. He is a noted scolar and currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The thing is there is soo much evidence of tampering with the bible written in aramaic, translated to greek, retranslated to english and altered all along the way. You really don't want to hear evidence do you? You asked me not to be rude when I presented that you were either a liar or you didn't know that the bible was altered all along. I could only be rude if I was calling you a liar so you must have known about the alterations. You also said that you wanted honest discussion. Why should all the honesty come from you opponents? Wouldn't you like to add some honesty of you own to the discussion too? For a change

A

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

It's fair to say that if a poster wants to discuss something that I shouldn't have to watch 10 videos first. .

I have to agree with that, I feel it's having someone else make your argument for you.

philologos

amadain17: all scholars are agreed that John 8 and the end of Mark 16 are in doubt. Earlier I made it clear that 40 verses were in doubt. So your accusation of lying is silly.

I've claimed that on the basis of manuscript comparison mainly from Bruce Metzgers work on the subject 99.6% of the New Testament is as it was at first writing.

I also made the point that there is significantly more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient text. All of which is true.

amadain17

philologos wrote: »

amadain17: all scholars are agreed that John 8 and the end of Mark 16 are in doubt. Earlier I made it clear that 40 verses were in doubt. So your accusation of lying is silly.

I've claimed that on the basis of manuscript comparison mainly from Bruce Metzgers work on the subject 99.6% of the New Testament is as it was at first writing.

I also made the point that there is significantly more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient text. All of which is true.

So will you also agree that the earliest gospel (Mark) was written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus and that nobody wrote a thing about jesus during his lifetime?

amadain17

philologos wrote: »

I also made the point that there is significantly more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient text. All of which is true.

Most manuscripts are from the middle ages. There are very few manuscripts from within 200 years of Jesus death. The copies of copies manuscripts have no significance. In fact I would say that if it wasn't written as it was happening and if it was based on hearsay (which it all obviously was) then its worth nothing as a truth story but possibly loads as a timecapsule of the sentiment of the time. A lot of the originals were written during the Roman Jewish was of the late 60s early 70s when the romans sacked the temple of Jerusalem. This was a hard time for the people and peddlars of false hope sold their wares. The bible was not decided upon until the council of nicea and then a lot of conflicting books were thrown out. In fact the tale of Jesus was all over the place and completely contradictory until the editors of Nicea got hold of it and decided upon a book for the empire that the emporer could stand behind and would help his rule.

ScumLord

philologos wrote: »

How have you all sinned? - have you done evil rather than what is good

Good and evil are man made concepts and of course we've all sinned, God made rules for humans that directly contradict the natural kingdom he supposedly made.

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

So will you also agree that the earliest gospel (Mark) was written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus and that nobody wrote a thing about jesus during his lifetime?

Of course. The earliest writings were Paul's letters. Galatians was written in 54AD. Galatians tells us of Paul's conversion to Christianity, and it and 1 Corinthians also written around that time are useful indicators as to what Christians believed before the Gospels were codified. Paul mentions specific details from the Gospels such as the last supper, the crucifixion and the resurrection.

What's interesting about Paul is, as a convert to Christianity, he received the Gospel. Paul documents his story to conversion in Christ in Galatians chapter 1. I've made this argument on another thread. The posts are entitled Why trust the Bible:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79064805&postcount=115
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79461715&postcount=110

The section that's useful for this post is:

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.

The advantage of the Gospels also is that they present specific details, people, places and things. So much so that people could very easily debunk the Gospel by simply finding these people out.

There's very little time if you take into account the simple equation:
54 - (Pauls account from conversion + Y years until Galatians written) = X

Pauls conversion account in Galatians - (After his conversion 3 years he met Peter and James (Galatians 1:18), and 14 years (Galatians 2:1). That gives us 14 years. for Pauls account from conversion field.

54 - (14 + Y years until Galatians written) = X

Now 54 - 14 gives us 40.
Jesus is commonly accepted to have died in 33AD.
That leaves us with 7.

Depending on how long Y years until Galatians written is, we only have a few years until Paul was converted. We know from other accounts that the Christian church was active before then.

The idea that Christianity was conjured together a long long time after Jesus seems false.

There are plenty of reasons to question the Chinese whispers theory concerning the Gospel accounts.

Sarky

So when WILL you have time to watch those videos? I can remind you in a day or two, if you'd like. I'm sure you wouldn't want to just forget about them.

philologos

amadain17 wrote: »

Most manuscripts are from the middle ages. There are very few manuscripts from within 200 years of Jesus death. The copies of copies manuscripts have no significance. In fact I would say that if it wasn't written as it was happening and if it was based on hearsay (which it all obviously was) then its worth nothing as a truth story but possibly loads as a timecapsule of the sentiment of the time. A lot of the originals were written during the Roman Jewish was of the late 60s early 70s when the romans sacked the temple of Jerusalem. This was a hard time for the people and peddlars of false hope sold their wares. The bible was not decided upon until the council of nicea and then a lot of conflicting books were thrown out. In fact the tale of Jesus was all over the place and completely contradictory until the editors of Nicea got hold of it and decided upon a book for the empire that the emporer could stand behind and would help his rule.

They do have significance. If the copies are the same as the previous that would strongly indicate that those copies weren't introducing changes to the codex.

As I've said already, there's significantly more evidence for the New Testament being reliable than the works of Homer, or Plato, or Aristotle, or any other work that was present in the classical world. These copies help us to see that there is a consistent thread of material throughout a long period of time that present the same Gospel in 99.6% of cases. That's really reassuring to know as a Christian.

Are you going to be consistent and apply the same scepticism you hold to the New Testament - despite being much better evidenced than anything else of that era, and apply it to all studies of classics?

As for the Bible and Nicea. This isn't a good argument. We know from the church fathers that all of the New Testament texts were in use in the early Christian church during the second century. We know that the Gnostic Gospels were written roughly 200 - 300 years after Christ, if not more. The criteria were which texts were used from the first century, which materials are Apostolic, and which materials are likely to have been written by eyewitnesses. You're right a formal canon was codified, but that canon was with very good reason.

amadain17

philologos wrote: »

Of course. The earliest writings were Paul's letters. Galatians was written in 54AD. Galatians tells us of Paul's conversion to Christianity, and it and 1 Corinthians also written around that time are useful indicators as to what Christians believed before the Gospels were codified. Paul mentions specific details from the Gospels such as the last supper, the crucifixion and the resurrection.

Paul spearheaded the religion. There are no sources for the last supper, the crucifixion and the resurrection. The last supper supposedly had only 13 participants so do you really think that there could possibly be an accurate representation of what happened during it from sources outside of the event? The resurrection story differs in the 4 accounts in all 4 gospels and the gospels that didn't come out of Nicea victorously had everything from floating crucifixes to simply visions. There is no reliable data here. Nothing remarkable happened at the crucifixion (Matthew 27 is laughable - if zombies walked around among the living I'm sure the romans and their historians would have noticed.)

The advantage of the Gospels also is that they present specific details, people, places and things. So much so that people could very easily debunk the Gospel by simply finding these people out.

There's very little time if you take into account the simple equation:
54 - (Pauls account from conversion + Y years until Galatians written) = X

Pauls conversion account in Galatians - (After his conversion 3 years he met Peter and James (Galatians 1:18), and 14 years (Galatians 2:1). That gives us 14 years. for Pauls account from conversion field.

54 - (14 + Y years until Galatians written) = X

Now 54 - 14 gives us 40.
Jesus is commonly accepted to have died in 33AD.
That leaves us with 7.

Depending on how long Y years until Galatians written is, we only have a few years until Paul was converted. We know from other accounts that the Christian church was active before then.

The idea that Christianity was conjured together a long long time after Jesus seems false.

There are plenty of reasons to question the Chinese whispers theory concerning the Gospel accounts.

So read back what you said above. Pauls conversion acccount and hearsay from Paul leaves 7. There is nothing written from anybody with nothing to gain from this religion. Don't you think its unusual that someone doing miracles would go unnoticed by the worlds greatest military force? Jesus might have existed and he might have been the elvis of his time but he was no god. Since noone who ever met him wrote anything he ever said down the direct quotes from Jesus can be thrown out or credited to Pauls overactive imagination. How could Paul know what jesus said? He never met him and never heard of his deeds while he was alive. Pauls writing were in 54ad. Can you write down stories from 20 years ago in accurate detail about yourself nevermind about someone you never even met? The story of Jesus was embesllished so that he might meet the standards of the prophecies of the messiah. They wanted to deify jesus even if he wasn't the messiah.

A

amadain17

philologos wrote: »

As I've said already, there's significantly more evidence for the New Testament being reliable than the works of Homer, or Plato, or Aristotle, or any other work that was present in the classical world.

And I gave you one and a half hours worth of spoken testimony from a noted biblical scolar to seriously question that reliability.