Atheist experiences of religious apparitions

robindch

kylith wrote: »

So, why hasn't your god imbued us with the holy spirit? Does he want us to be atheist so that he can send us to hell?

The catholic belief is that while "god is everywhere" and therefore in some sense within everybody, non-believers don't accept this, and the deity in some sense respects this belief and refuses to allow the person to accept that the non-believer will believe whatever it is that they'd have believed anyway if they believed the first thing.

ie, you're only going to believe the second thing if you're going to believe the first thing, so it's unhelpful to say that it's foolishness - I'd have said it was much closer to "consistency", though calling it "foolishness" does provide believers with a biblical insult which they can wave at non-believers.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

So, why hasn't your god imbued us with the holy spirit? Does he want us to be atheist so that he can send us to hell?

Your use of the word "your" is a clue.

looksee

Well obviously, since he has not imbued us with the holy spirit, he is not 'our' god.

GritBiscuit

So, say, when Thor or Ganesha fails to imbue a christian with their particular brand of holy spirit that's proof those gods don't exist and there is only one true religion...but people who aren't imbued with christian holy spirit are closed minded/hearted and are going to be tortured for all eternity for their self-inflicted stupidity...do I have that right?

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

Well obviously, since he has not imbued us with the holy spirit, he is not 'our' god.

The onus is on you to take the next step towards God. He made the first step by sending his son to die on the cross so that we sinners could be reconciled with him. Only then can you receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You just need to talk to God and ask him to reveal himself to you. This verse from Isaiah was written about 600 years BC and it prophesies about Christ's redemptive sacrifice:

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

So, say, when Thor or Ganesha fails to imbue a christian with their particular brand of holy spirit that's proof those gods don't exist and there is only one true religion...

This whole 3000+ gods nonsense is a complete red-herring. There is one God in three persons.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

but people who aren't imbued with christian holy spirit are closed minded/hearted and are going to be tortured for all eternity for their self-inflicted stupidity...do I have that right?

I don't know anything about the extent of torture in hell. The CCC says this:

1035: The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

spacecoyote

kelly1 wrote: »

Hell is a place of separation from God and this separation is a personal choice. There is no "middle" final place between heaven and hell where atheists can spend their days complaining about God. Those in hell are deprived of God's grace and suffer the consequences.

So, is Earth today, in essence, Hell? Basically atheists can spend their day complaining about God, and on the face of things (famine, hurricanes, dictators, etc....) everyone appears to be deprived of Gods grace, irrespective of their beliefs. If that's the case, I don't think too many Atheists will be put out when end times kick off so, as nothing, in essence would change for them.

kelly1 wrote: »

An atheist cannot expect a place in heaven having denied his creator and denying that he sent his son to die in order to pay the price for the sins, which every one of us has committed.

I don't think a single atheist expects a place in heaven, as they don't believe such a place exists. That's not really the point that was being made. The point is, if a Christian lives a terrible life, but repents for their sins, they will, according to Christian beliefs be granted a key to the doors. But if an atheist lives their entire live in a manner that would be, in essence, the principals that Christianity are supposed to be founded upon, they'll have to suffer damnation, just because God has such a massive ego that he curses you for not believing in him

kelly1 wrote: »

As I've said before, atheists are not willing to seek God through prayer. Instead they wait for physical evidence, putting the onus back on God. But Jesus has told us, "seek and you will find". This is the real crux of the whole theist/atheist divide.

Pretty much 99% of the Christians I know do not pray, attend mass, go to confession, etc... does a person who is, basically, a Christian in name, but not in practice, get a free pass too?

kelly1 wrote: »

This whole 3000+ gods nonsense is a complete red-herring. There is one God in three persons.

I think that's one of the most hilarious statements I've ever read! All other Gods are nonsense, even though they've got their own holy books, with almost identical virgin birth, son of God, etc... stories, many pre-dating yours, but yours is the only correct one, because you believe its so.

You said that you came back to the Christian God after a life changing experience, when you prayed & got answers. How do you know it was the Christian God that answer, it may have been Vishnu listening in & answering your prayers

looksee

Ok Kelly1 this is getting a bit tedious. You just are not 'getting it' are you?

This is an Atheism and Agnosticism forum, you are not going to make any progress with us by quoting your holy book that we do not accept. Telling us

The onus is on you to take the next step towards God. He made the first step by sending his son to die on the cross so that we sinners could be reconciled with him. Only then can you receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You just need to talk to God and ask him to reveal himself to you.

is pointless, why do you expect anyone here to take a next step (what was the first step?) towards an entity they do not accept exists?

If you want to discuss theology on a basis that assumes belief then you are in the wrong place; why are you persisting? We are happy to discuss theology but it will not be a positive experience for you! If you considered our points as seriously as you expect us to consider yours, you might learn something.

I will just mention in passing that the last person who insisted on this kind of posting and quoting bible texts as though we were supposed to take them seriously ended up confined to his 'own' thread - a thread that has been going on for about 12 years now.

GritBiscuit

kelly1 wrote: »

This whole 3000+ gods nonsense is a complete red-herring. There is one God in three persons.


I don't know anything about the extent of torture in hell. The CCC says this:

1035: The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

Exactly - it's the hypocrisy of your disbelief in every other god and religion and espousing them as nonsense while simultaneously accusing atheists of some great moral and intellectual failure for doing exactly the same, simply with one more god...and taking offence at any less than flattering commentary regarding that god/religion to boot.

I'm never sure how I'm supposed to take bible quotes - thanks to the schisms, rewrites, translation issues, complete lack of consistency and most of all the chronic cherry picking employed by the vast majority of theist, particularly of the apologetic variety, it just comes across as meaningless babble desperately dressed up as rational discourse and a persuasive argument...a bit like all the proponents of other religions/gods must sound to you. I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp here?

1123heavy

spacecoyote wrote: »

I think that's one of the most hilarious statements I've ever read! All other Gods are nonsense, even though they've got their own holy books, with almost identical virgin birth, son of God, etc... stories, many pre-dating yours, but yours is the only correct one, because you believe its so.

Well this is it. How many Christians would like to accept that ancient Roman beliefs were full of Vrigin births? Or indeed that some of the major Gods like Mithra and Saturn celebrated their birthday on one particular day that is still a big celebration today

The writing is on the wall, but oh no, those terrible Romans with their virgin birth stories and celebrating son gods on December 25th!

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

Your use of the word "your" is a clue.

But he could imbue us with the spirit so we'd believe and accept. He could offer definite proof, so we'd believe and accept, but he doesn't. Is it because he's not real or because he wants to torture us?

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

Ok Kelly1 this is getting a bit tedious. You just are not 'getting it' are you?

I do get it, you don't believe. That's your own business.

I was responding to your asssertion: "...since he has not imbued us with the holy spirit, he is not 'our' god." I think I explained reasonably clearly why you won't find the Spirit of God as long as you continue to deny the Spirit.

kylith wrote: »

But he could imbue us with the spirit so we'd believe and accept. He could offer definite proof, so we'd believe and accept, but he doesn't.

I've already given a reason for this. Free will!

kylith wrote: »

Is it because he's not real or because he wants to torture us?

Neither.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

I do get it, you don't believe. That's your own business.

I was responding to your asssertion: "...since he has not imbued us with the holy spirit, he is not 'our' god." I think I explained reasonably clearly why you won't find the Spirit of God as long as you continue to deny the Spirit.


I've already given a reason for this. Free will!


Neither.

But it's not free will. how can it be free will if we don't have any proof? All we have is priests saying 'believe with no evidence, or else'.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

I've already given a reason for this. Free will!

But this isn't consistent.
First, it means that people he does give the holy spirit to don't have free will anymore. He is taking their free will by giving them this form of what is basically mind control.
Secondly, you have claimed that he heals people via miracles, which you then also said is a violation of free will. So apparently, using your own reasoning, he's got no issue violating free will.
And thirdly, it was pointed out to you much earlier in the thread that by your own rules, free will cannot exist with the idea of God.

You said you wanted to argue using reason, but when you are confronted with problems, you ignore them.
Doesn't that make you doubt? Why do you have to ignore all these problems if your faith is so based on reason?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I've already given a reason for this. Free will!

Again, most people here have attempted to be catholics in good faith when we were kids, teens or young adults.

And no matter how much we squeezed our eyes shut, clasped our hands, prayed till our tongues were dry, not once were we imbued with anything.

You're telling us that everything would be made clear if we just made an effort.

We've done that. Nothing happened.

The truth-claims you're making are therefore evidentially false - mainly because the holy book your quoting from is made up as well.

kelly1

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I'm never sure how I'm supposed to take bible quotes - thanks to the schisms, rewrites, translation issues, complete lack of consistency...

And you evidence for that I assume? Have you actually done any research into the reliability of the bible? Don't you know there's a very high degree of consistency across all the earliest available greek texts? Check Youtube for "reliability of the new testament manuscripts". Do the research, don't take the word of someone with an axe to grind.

kylith wrote: »

But it's not free will. how can it be free will if we don't have any proof? All we have is priests saying 'believe with no evidence, or else'.

Curious reasoning. When you turn to God where you don't have any proof that he exists, that is true free will. There is no coercion whatsoever. On the other hand, if we could prove that God exists, there would be some pressure to obey God's will. God wants us to love him totally freely.

Turning to God without *proof* of his existence is also meritorious i.e. it will be rewarded (John 20:29).

spacecoyote

kelly1 wrote: »

And you evidence for that I assume? Have you actually done any research into the reliability of the bible? Don't you know there's a very high degree of consistency across all the earliest available greek texts? Check Youtube for "reliability of the new testament manuscripts". Do the research, don't take the word of someone with an axe to grind.

[Me]sits back and waits for oldrnwisr to arrive[/me]

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Again, most people here have attempted to be catholics in good faith when we were kids, teens or young adults.

And no matter how much we squeezed our eyes shut, clasped our hands, prayed till our tongues were dry, not once were we imbued with anything.

You're telling us that everything would be made clear if we just made an effort.

We've done that. Nothing happened.

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit please? Were you genuinely seeking God or just going through the motions? Did you ask for help when your faith started to slide? Did you ask God to increase you faith? Or did you get washed away by a secular tide?

The reason I fell away from the Catholic faith is that I never took it seriously, because I didn't receive a good grounding. I was going through the motions. In all my years in school, I never understood the point of Jesus' crucifixion and it was only when I started studying for myself that I began to understand. Having said that, I never lost belief in God.

[Edit: I once asked on this forum what it was that lead to people losing belief in God, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a trend that people's faith began to slip when they found out Santa doesn't exist]

spacecoyote wrote: »

[Me]sits back and waits for oldrnwisr to arrive[/me]

I was referring to consistence across manuscript copies, not inconsistencies within the bible.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

Curious reasoning. When you turn to God where you don't have any proof that he exists, that is true free will. There is no coercion whatsoever. On the other hand, if we could prove that God exists, there would be some pressure to obey God's will. God wants us to love him totally freely.

Turning to God without *proof* of his existence is also meritorious i.e. it will be rewarded (John 20:29).

Of course there's coercion if the alternative is damnation. It's like a mugger saying they'll stab you if you don't give them your money; no jury would accept that you had then given him the money of your own free will.

As Robindch says; most of us were Christians. I sang in my church choir for more than a decade. I prayed earnestly with an open heart and... nothing. There was no answer, no voice from the sky, no feeling in my heart. Just the silence of no-one there. So I got over it, I learned about evolution, about humanity's in-built altruism being an evolved trait in herd species like ours. I learned about the thousands of other gods that people believed in before Yaweh arrived on the scene and considered that if those gods, which were believed in just as earnestly, were now myths then why couldn't Yaweh be a myth. I highly recommend Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, a wonderful book about how gods grow and die.

GritBiscuit

kelly1 wrote: »

And you evidence for that I assume? Have you actually done any research into the reliability of the bible? Don't you know there's a very high degree of consistency across all the earliest available greek texts? Check Youtube for "reliability of the new testament manuscripts". Do the research, don't take the word of someone with an axe to grind.

Universe created in 6 days, no to gays, one big boat and two of every species...entire global population from a single husband and wife - made in gods image but full of original sin and an appendix about 6000 yrs ago. That the jist of it? You're absolutely right, sounds waaaaaaay more reliable than any of those skeptic nutters with an axe to grind... Ehhhh...

spacecoyote

kelly1 wrote: »

The reason I fell away from the Catholic faith is that I never took it seriously, because I didn't receive a good grounding. I was going through the motions. In all my years in school, I never understood the point of Jesus' crucifixion and it was only when I started studying for myself that I began to understand. Having said that, I never lost belief in God.

Speaking of Jesus story, and the crucifixion, etc... how does poor old Krishna fit in with your beliefs.

Read number 9 on the attached list:

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

See any strange co-incidences (and that's just using Krishna as an example, never mind the rest on the list)?

looksee

That is fascinating! I was aware of enough bits and pieces of the various stories to suggest to me that this is a reasonably accurate rendition of them, I had never seen it put together like that though. I would be interested to hear if anyone has any dispute with any of those stories.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit please? Were you genuinely seeking God or just going through the motions? Did you ask for help when your faith started to slide? Did you ask God to increase you faith? Or did you get washed away by a secular tide?

For the first 18 or so years of my life - as were many people born in the late 1960's in Ireland - I existed in a world where religion was part and parcel of society at every level. Discussions about it were common. Doubt was voiced but always in such a way as to minimize it and paper over it, providing the same kind of answers then as you have here. Yes, we spoke about it together as kids and much older people, offered each other support. Did everything as genuinely as we could.

And absolutely nothing happened. Not a sausage. And as the years rolled by, religious people become less and less sympathetic and more and more arrogant about their beliefs and excusing more and more of god's failure to lift a finger - telling me that the fault was mine, that there was something wrong with me, that I didn't do the right things, didn't "truly open my heart" - that kind of pious nonsense.

Turns out, of course, that almost everybody felt, and feels, exactly the same as I did/do - the only difference being that, in time, I recognized a scam for what it is - a pious, elegantly constructed, endlessly circular word game.

Nothing to do with "being washed away by a secular tide" - which, btw, suggests that you don't understand the word "secular" either.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

Of course there's coercion if the alternative is damnation. It's like a mugger saying they'll stab you if you don't give them your money; no jury would accept that you had then given him the money of your own free will.

I see the situation very differently now (compared to 2005). What I see and believe is that God has created us in order to share in his happiness/joy. We were created with free will so that we could respond freely to God's offer of everlasting life with him. We screwed up by sinning (just look at the world today) and then God threw us a life-line, a way out of the mess we created. Now you can either accept the sovereignty of God or you (the creature) can say no to the Creator. Personally I admitted that I was a sinner and turned back to God and repented of my former ways. Turning your back on this offer of salvation is just suicide. When judgment day comes, there will be no excuses.

kylith wrote: »

As Robindch says; most of us were Christians. I sang in my church choir for more than a decade. I prayed earnestly with an open heart and... nothing. There was no answer, no voice from the sky, no feeling in my heart. Just the silence of no-one there.

I went through something similar. I left the Catholic faith behind but I was still seeking the truth about God. I suppose I was going through the motions, my heart wasn't really in it, because I didn't understand why I was going to mass etc. It was only when I prayed for truth that God led me in, what I believe, is the right/true direction. Now that I've studied theology, I have a far better understanding of "salvation history".

looksee

What I see and believe is that God has created us in order to share in his happiness/joy.

I never really saw god as being someone filled with happiness and joy - even in my church-attending, Sunday-school teaching, bible class reading it never occurred to me that there was any happiness and joy involved - though I did enjoy singing hymns. For someone who wants to share happiness and joy he has had a lot of success with the opposite humours.

kelly1

spacecoyote wrote: »

Speaking of Jesus story, and the crucifixion, etc... how does poor old Krishna fit in with your beliefs.

Read number 9 on the attached list:

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

See any strange co-incidences (and that's just using Krishna as an example, never mind the rest on the list)?

Do you give any credence to this "Da Vinci Code" kind of nonsense? I'll take it seriously when you come back with a quote from a Hindu source saying that Krishna was crucified etc.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

.....
And absolutely nothing happened. Not a sausage. And as the years rolled by, religious people become less and less sympathetic and more and more arrogant about their beliefs and excusing more and more of god's failure to lift a finger - telling me that the fault was mine, that there was something wrong with me, that I didn't do the right things, didn't "truly open my heart" - that kind of pious nonsense.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm wondering what you were expecting to happen? I've never had visions or heard voices but I'm certain I have felt the effects of grace i.e. peace, happiness, a feeling that God was looking after me. I've had countless prayers answered in situations that appeared pretty hopeless.

robindch wrote: »

Turns out, of course, that almost everybody felt, and feels, exactly the same as I did/do - the only difference being that, in time, I recognized a scam for what it is - a pious, elegantly constructed, endlessly circular word game.

Did you discover this "scam" for yourself or were you nudged in that direction by others?

robindch wrote: »

Nothing to do with "being washed away by a secular tide" - which, btw, suggests that you don't understand the word "secular" either.

I know very well what secular means. What makes you think I don't?

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

I went through something similar. I left the Catholic faith behind but I was still seeking the truth about God. I suppose I was going through the motions, my heart wasn't really in it, because I didn't understand why I was going to mass etc. It was only when I prayed for truth that God led me in, what I believe, is the right/true direction. Now that I've studied theology, I have a far better understanding of "salvation history".

You make it sound like I didn't. I prayed and tried to talk to god many different ways, there's no-one there. Prayer is an echo chamber, all you hear is the reflection of your own voice.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you give any credence to this "Da Vinci Code" kind of nonsense? I'll take it seriously when you come back with a quote from a Hindu source saying that Krishna was crucified etc.

Christianity was cobbled together from lots of different sources, this is not news. The NT was written 300 years after the events it purports to chronicle.

The sense of peace you talk about isn't god or holiness, it's just a feeling of wellbeing and contentment. People from all religions, and none, get that.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

Christianity was cobbled together from lots of different sources, this is not news. The NT was written 300 years after the events it purports to chronicle.

You really should do some research on the subject before making these claims.

Acts (written by Luke) has been dated to about 65AD, 35 years after Jesus' death. The gospels are of similar age.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm wondering what you were expecting to happen? I've never had visions or heard voices but I'm certain I have felt the effects of grace i.e. peace, happiness, a feeling that God was looking after me. I've had countless prayers answered in situations that appeared pretty hopeless.

Numerous people explained to me what I should be feeling, but I felt none of it. And the more I tried, the more and more it became obvious that people were lying to me - arguably from good motives, but they were still lying. They also explained what they were feeling and - Occam's Razor-like - I couldn't help but notice that one didn't need to posit the existence of an invisible, mysterious deity to feel like they claimed they were feeling.

They also made many truth-claims which were ostentatiously false, used philosophy in a sloppy, careless fashion, were clueless concerning epistemology, mistranslated and misquoted the bible, engaged in the most wilful misrepresentation of its origins and what it said. And so on to the extent that it became quite clear that these people were deluding themselves, and embarrassingly so, and I generally gave up speaking about religion - outside of here - with religious people as they don't like to have their pet religious theories shredded, don't wish to learn about philosophy, are careless about the Greek and Latin worlds which gave rise to the religions we know most well, and generally excuse the crimes and pain caused by religion, engage in the silliest sophistry, language and political game-playing and so on and so on.

kelly1 wrote: »

Did you discover this "scam" for yourself or were you nudged in that direction by others?

As it happens, it was generally by myself - I certainly wasn't pushed in that direction by anybody and I like to kid myself that I'd have a little more respect for myself than to decide what's true and false simply because it's fashionable, self-affirming, or socially convenient to do so - that's what religious people very often do (what else is the whole communion thing for every year in Ireland?) and I've no great wish to compromise my principles.

kelly1 wrote: »

I know very well what secular means. What makes you think I don't?

Because you use it in the same fashion as most hardline catholic commentators use it (ie, as a synonym for "anti-religious").

"Secular" means, roughly, "unconnected with religion" one way or the other, but that's quite different from "anti-religious" which implies an active objection to religion.

looksee

Did you discover this "scam" for yourself or were you nudged in that direction by others?

I was definitely nudged - by interaction with a number of Catholic priests, by witnessing the effects of the Catholic church in Ireland on politics and social affairs, and by my husband's religious beliefs.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

Christianity was cobbled together from lots of different sources, this is not news. The NT was written 300 years after the events it purports to chronicle.

The earliest texts of the NT - the four gospels - began to be written, it's generally agreed, between 30 and 80 years after the events they purport to describe. John was written last and it's the best piece of literature, and quite different from the other three in its continuous explicit referencing of contemporary and classical Greek philosophy. And it adds a lot that's simply not present in the other gospels. It's impossible to know whether any of it, or any of the additions, or any of the other three documents, are accurate. Nobody knows who the four gospel authors were.

The various religious texts were assembled into what we now refer to as the NT at some point probably in the third or perhaps fourth centuries. Plenty of other gospels, and other early religious writings were destroyed or otherwise removed from the list of approved writings and, over time, were forgotten. They're not really any less authentic though since they describe some of the same people doing some of the same things, just from a different viewpoint.

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

I was responding to your asssertion: "...since he has not imbued us with the holy spirit, he is not 'our' god." I think I explained reasonably clearly why you won't find the Spirit of God as long as you continue to deny the Spirit.

But according to 1 Cor 2:14:

The person without the [Holy] Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit

How are we supposed to find the spirit of god in us if we inherently find the idea of the spirit of god foolish and incomprehensible unless we already have the spirit of god in us.

I disagree with other posters who say you shouldn't quote the bible on this forum because atheists just don't accept it. You shouldn't quote the bible because you will invariable contradict yourself.

kylith

My mistake with the writing of the NT, parts were written around 30 years after the event, which is still hardly detailing current events; it's more than a generation removed and a record of oral stories.

The NT was then put together 300 years later and the books translated, cherry picked, edited, re-translated, re-edited, re-translated, re-re-edited, given to kings to pick the bits they liked, re-translated, and edited again.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

My mistake with the writing of the NT, parts were written around 30 years after the event, which is still hardly detailing current events; it's more than a generation removed and a record of oral stories.

That's about the height of it - the sheer distance in time is not a point, like so many others, which the religious dwell upon very easily.

Who here can remember conversations they had back in 1987, word for word?

kylith

robindch wrote: »

Who here can remember conversations they had back in 1987, word for word?

Who can remember a conversation that they were told about that someone else had in 1987?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

The gospels are divinely inspired, but to non believers this is nonsense. There is no point in debating between believers and non believers. It is a waste of time on both sides.

smacl

khpmlj7y9adu2w wrote: »

The gospels are divinely inspired, but to non believers this is nonsense. There is no point in debating between believers and non believers. It is a waste of time on both sides.

So what exactly brings you over to an atheist forum then?

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

The NT was then put together 300 years later and the books translated, cherry picked, edited, re-translated, re-edited, re-translated, re-re-edited, given to kings to pick the bits they liked, re-translated, and edited again.

It's very hard to take you seriously when you come out with something like this. The original greek is still available, or didn't you know that?

There are no extant original greek manuscripts available but there is very good agreement between the existing copies that were made since that time. And the differences that do exists make no theological difference.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

It's very hard to take you seriously when you come out with something like this. The original greek is still available, or didn't you know that?

There are no extant original greek manuscripts available but there is very good agreement between the existing copies that were made since that time. And the differences that do exists make no theological difference.

Actually it was originally written in Hebrew. The many translations it has gone through over the years, through Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and English, to name a few will have altered the meaning of the text; this is unavoidable and is still found with translations of modern novels into different languages for international sale.

As for editing; the fact that the most commonly used one today is the King James version should tell you something. You really can't do more than take their word for it on how accurate the modern bible is unless you can read Aramaic and get your hands on the original text.

ETA: Hang on. You say that the 'original Greek' is still available, then you say that there are no original Greek manuscripts available. Which is it?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

The original greek is still available [...]
There are no extant original greek manuscripts available [...]

As kylith enquires, which one do you believe it is?

For the record, most scholars generally agree that there's nothing significant extant - going from memory here - from before about the year 110/120 so we're talking perhaps 80/90 years after the purported events took place, and well after the death of all the eye-witnesses.

Your comment that 'things after the earliest texts agree' is not credible, since (a) it's not true and (b) the same comment applies to Lord of the Rings.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's very hard to take you seriously when you come out with something like this.

*cough*

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Numerous people explained to me what I should be feeling, but I felt none of it.

I don't think anyone should have an expectation any particular feelings, except maybe peace. What you will find is that you start to think differently if you attempt to do God's will (as taught by Jesus).

If you read the biographies of the saints, they say God often withdraws "consolations" in order to test whether a person is more interested in God's consolations than God himself. You'll have heard of the "dark night of the soul" I'm sure.

robindch wrote: »

They also made many truth-claims which were [ostensibly?] false, used philosophy in a sloppy, careless fashion, were clueless concerning epistemology, mistranslated and misquoted the bible, engaged in the most wilful misrepresentation of its origins and what it said. And so on to the extent that it became quite clear that these people were deluding themselves, and embarrassingly so, and I generally gave up speaking about religion...

I think both sides of the debate are guilty of that e.g someone claiming that Jesus is a rip-off of Krishna.

robindch wrote: »

As it happens, it was generally by myself - I certainly wasn't pushed in that direction by anybody and I like to kid myself that I'd have a little more respect for myself than to decide what's true and false simply because it's fashionable, self-affirming, or socially convenient to do so....

Fair enough but "birds of a feather flock together" and all that. Would you consult as many theistic sources and atheistic sources when forming an opinion or doing research? Do you spend more time discussing these matters with atheists or theists?

robindch wrote: »

"Secular" means, roughly, "unconnected with religion" one way or the other, but that's quite different from "anti-religious" which implies an active objection to religion.

It's also mean worldly/temporal.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How are we supposed to find the spirit of god in us if we inherently find the idea of the spirit of god foolish and incomprehensible unless we already have the spirit of god in us.

If you were baptized at any time, you would have had the Spirit within you. But the Spirit can be "evicted" through mortal sin. So you won't find the Spirit within if it isn't there! You have to be reconciled with God before he will again give the gift of the Spirit:

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

robindch wrote: »

Who here can remember conversations they had back in 1987, word for word?

I doubt you'll like this answer but this is how the writers of the Gospel remembered Jesus' words:

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

kylith wrote: »

Actually it was originally written in Hebrew. The many translations it has gone through over the years, through Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and English, to name a few will have altered the meaning of the text; this is unavoidable and is still found with translations of modern novels into different languages for international sale.

I was referring to the new testament which was written in Greek. The OT was Hebrew. The english versions we have today were translated from the greek.

kylith wrote: »

ETA: Hang on. You say that the 'original Greek' is still available, then you say that there are no original Greek manuscripts available. Which is it?

Sorry, to clarify, I mean the original greek text is available from the numerous greek copies that were made from the original.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

I was referring to the new testament which was written in Greek. The OT was Hebrew. The english versions we have today were translated from the greek.


Sorry, to clarify, I mean the original greek text is available from the numerous greek copies that were made from the original.

Ah, please be more specific in future

However, there's reason to believe that the NT wasn't originally written in Greek either:

A comment by a second-century bishop named Papias:

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

And from Josephus:

I—Josephus, son of Matthias, a Hebrew by race, native of Jerusalem and a priest, who at the opening of the war myself fought against the Romans and in the sequel was perforce an onlooker—propose to provide the subjects of the Roman Empire with a narrative of the facts, by translating into Greek the account which I previously composed in my vernacular tongue and sent to the barbarians in the interior.

(emphasis mine)

Though he claims to have translated his own text at least.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

Ah, please be more specific in future

However, there's reason to believe that the NT wasn't originally written in Greek either:

A comment by a second-century bishop named Papias:


And from Josephus:

(emphasis mine)

Though he claims to have translated his own text at least.

Yes, I'm aware of the theory that Matthew was originally written it Aramaic and later translated into Greek. But the others gospels and epistles were written in Greek, afaik.

1123heavy

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of the theory that Matthew was originally written it Aramaic and later translated into Greek. But the others gospels and epistles were written in Greek, afaik.

So Mark, Luke and John could speak and write Greek?

Hotblack Desiato

Deusexmachina wrote: »

No. I wrote that the parents should decide. 'Bodily autonomy' (another new trendy term) surely applies to both parents? Two people create a child, not one.

One, the female party, has to bear it. And often, in practice, one the female party is left to rear it too.

Seeing as though she is the one who has to put her health and indeed life on the line during pregnancy and birth, and then is literally left holding the baby when relationships go wrong, it's only right that she has control over what happens inside her uterus.

If any man is unhappy with the decision of his sexual partner, I suggest he find some other willing party to impregnate.

Hotblack Desiato

kelly1 wrote: »

I tried politeness at first until I was met with statements like "What's the harm in a few hours on a cross" and something about burying the bas***d [Jesus] in concrete. And nobody said a word about it. Hardly the language of civilized people, is it?

You didn't answer though. What is the harm in a few hours on a cross when eternal paradise, and not just any oul' paradise, but sittin' at the right hand of god (who is your dad, and you, and you know for a fact that your dad/you will deliver) is the reward.

If you gave me a guarantee of that I'd sign up myself.

Gave up his only son? If he magicked up one, why couldn't he magick up another? Ain't no thing for a god worthy of the name.

So, no loss to the father, no loss to the son, but we're expected to worship this 'sacrifice'? What a joke.

You went off looking for an easy answer to unanswerable questions and, quelle surprise!, it turned out Jesus was the answer! Lucky for you, because if you were born in the middle east it would have been islam, further east hinduism buddhism or shinto, etc... you 'found' the right answer. It's just a coinky-dink that it's what this society imprints upon you from birth. Quite the spiritual 'journey' :rolleyes:

spacecoyote wrote: »

You said that you came back to the Christian God after a life changing experience, when you prayed & got answers. How do you know it was the Christian God that answer, it may have been Vishnu listening in & answering your prayers

Someone looks for answers and finds a set of non-answers they're pre-programmed with, but accepts them on the basis of familiarity and the need for something to explain things.

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

I was definitely nudged - by interaction with a number of Catholic priests, by witnessing the effects of the Catholic church in Ireland on politics and social affairs, and by my husband's religious beliefs.

At the age of about 8 I was nudged by my sister's big nature book which explained evolution, so they're lying to us about Genesis, they might be lying about everything else. Not that I found silly stories convincing to begin with.

Shortly after I discovered my half-brother's Philips electronics kit, which was a bigger influence on my life but I'm yet to kindle that sense of discovery with my own kids with Raspberry Pis and the like, it's harder to impress kids these days

robindch wrote: »

Doubt was voiced but always in such a way as to minimize it and paper over it, providing the same kind of answers then as you have here. Yes, we spoke about it together as kids and much older people, offered each other support. Did everything as genuinely as we could.

There was a time at a very young age when I wanted it to be true - and feck knows my mother did her best to mould me into the perfect catholic boy - blessing any of my schoolmates who crossed the threshold from the holy water font behind the front door - but priests always gave me a bad vibe and I didn't want to be near them and utterly refused to be an altar boy - I don't even know why but this was 1978 - anyway I was a great disappointment to my mother, I think she hoped I'd be a priest but I was too inquisitive for that sort of nonsense.

Later we went as a family to mass on holiday (there were no more depressing words than 'we're going to mass' when on holiday in the late 70s/early 80s) and in the wonderful parish of Fethard-on-Sea we went to a mass celebrated by the one and only Fr. Sean Fortune! Again my spidey sense activated and I felt there was something very creepy about him and the early-teens 'folk mass group' he was close to...

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of the theory that Matthew was originally written it Aramaic and later translated into Greek. But the others texts and epistles were written in Greek, afaik.

Just to clarify: as regards what we refer to as "the gospels", we know either close to nothing, or nothing at all, about the following items:

• Who wrote the texts
• Where the texts were written
• When the texts were written
• In what language the texts were written
• For what purpose the texts were written
• How the texts moved about the place
• What other texts were written but discarded
• What political/religious/other pressures were on the people who wrote the texts
• What political/religious/other pressures were on the people who looked after the texts after they were written, and how this might have affected what was written
• What changes were made to the text between their first writing and the versions we have today
• Whether the texts refer in any way to real events and/or real people

To suggest that the texts are in some sense "inerrant" or indisputably accurate records of events of first century Palestine, really is the wildest and most unhinged speculation imaginable.

Nothing is known about these texts. Zip. Nada. Never did. Never will.

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

If you were baptized at any time, you would have had the Spirit within you. But the Spirit can be "evicted" through mortal sin. So you won't find the Spirit within if it isn't there! You have to be reconciled with God before he will again give the gift of the Spirit:

How can you reconcile with a god that you inherently find foolish and incomprehensible if you inherently find that god foolish and incomprehensible because you haven't already reconciled with that god?
And what about atheists who were never baptised?

You've moved the goalposts, but you haven't really answered my question.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

If you read the biographies of the saints, they say God often withdraws "consolations" in order to test whether a person is more interested in God's consolations than God himself. You'll have heard of the "dark night of the soul" I'm sure.

So god is a liar when he says that he'll help you and instead resorts to "testing" you in the same way a small-minded, low-self-esteem ex-partner might?

I'm very familiar with the argument and find it idiotic. You might believe that your deity is a small-minded twit, but I'd think something more elevated would be in keeping wiht the alleged creator of the universe. If on the other hand, your deity is a small-minded twit, then frankly, I've no wish to have anything to do with it.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think both sides of the debate are guilty of that e.g someone claiming that Jesus is a rip-off of Krishna.

Equating one side of a debate with another is a disingenuous debating tactic beloved of people like the 45th man to win the electoral college vote. It has no place in honest debate.

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you consult as many theistic sources and atheistic sources when forming an opinion or doing research? Do you spend more time discussing these matters with atheists or theists?

In order to find out what catholics are supposed to believe, I consult exclusively catholic-originated sources. As you should know by now since I quote them here often enough.

kelly1 wrote: »

robindch wrote:

"Secular" means, roughly, "unconnected with religion" one way or the other, but that's quite different from "anti-religious" which implies an active objection to religion.

It's also mean worldly/temporal.

No, it doesn't. It means exactly what I have said it means. Though, as I have pointed out previously, many fundamentalists misuse the word for political gain amongst people who don't care to find out what it does mean.

kelly1 wrote: »

If you were baptized at any time, you would have had the Spirit within you. But the Spirit can be "evicted" through mortal sin. So you won't find the Spirit within if it isn't there! You have to be reconciled with God before he will again give the gift of the Spirit:

Rubbish. Most (all?) christians believe that their god is everywhere. Therefore they believe that he is "within" me too. What you're saying is that your deity isn't within me, which means that he/she/it isn't everywhere. Please let me know which opinion you have on this one.

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, to clarify, I mean the original greek text is available from the numerous greek copies that were made from the original.

No, it wasn't. See above.

I note that you haven't made much of an attempt to answer any of the questions I've asked of you in previous posts.

And the above shredding is just from one post. And, yet, you expect your viewpoint to be taken seriously?

Puuuuleaazzzze :rolleyes: