If one examines constructivist rationalism, one is faced with a choice: either reject precultural narrative or conclude that narrativity is elitist, given that Lacan’s model of conceptual theory is valid. In Naked Lunch, Burroughs examines constructivist rationalism; in Port of Saints, although, he denies constructivist subcultural theory. Thus, de Selby[1] (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo#fn1) holds that we have to choose between precultural narrative and textual theory.

Sartre suggests the use of conceptual theory to modify sexual identity. But Debord uses the term ‘postsemanticist Marxism’ to denote a self-justifying whole.

Lacan promotes the use of constructivist rationalism to attack capitalism. Thus, if the conceptual paradigm of consensus holds, the works of Burroughs are modernistic.

Lyotard suggests the use of constructivist rationalism to read and modify class. It could be said that Sontag uses the term ’subsemioticist discourse’ to denote not construction, but postconstruction.

If one is going to cut and paste stuff from some web page, it is advisable to make sure you understand what you are cutting and pasting and that it pertains to the discussion.

It also leads people to make simplistic dichotmous misrepresentations of others in order to convince themselves that their own ten-a-penny postmodernism makes them different and special.
Very true, but too subtle and the phrase "dichotomous misrepresentations" is pompous or meaningless or both.

If one examines constructivist rationalism, one is faced with a choice: either reject precultural narrative or conclude that narrativity is elitist, given that Lacan’s model of conceptual theory is valid. In Naked Lunch, Burroughs examines constructivist rationalism; in Port of Saints, although, he denies constructivist subcultural theory. Thus, de Selby[1] (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo#fn1) holds that we have to choose between precultural narrative and textual theory.

Sartre suggests the use of conceptual theory to modify sexual identity. But Debord uses the term ‘postsemanticist Marxism’ to denote a self-justifying whole.

Lacan promotes the use of constructivist rationalism to attack capitalism. Thus, if the conceptual paradigm of consensus holds, the works of Burroughs are modernistic.

Lyotard suggests the use of constructivist rationalism to read and modify class. It could be said that Sontag uses the term ’subsemioticist discourse’ to denote not construction, but postconstruction.Brilliant and irrefutable.

Well said indeed, Napster!

My best work yet!

the phrase "dichotomous misrepresentations" is pompous or meaningless or both.It's just up your street, then.

Where the stuff in the bible is????

Egyptian Chariot Wheel found on the bottom of the Red Sea, dated at time of Exodus.
http://wnd.com/images2/WheelHub2.jpg

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat, labeled the "Ararat Anomaly"

http://www.space.com/images/1949-f6_BIGAD.jpg

http://bibleprobe.com/noah-2003.jpg

http://www.wnd.com/images2/araratimage1.jpg

I know this doesn't prove much, it's just fun to think.. what if.

If one is going to cut and paste stuff from some web page, it is advisable to make sure you understand what you are cutting and pasting and that it pertains to the discussion. “Class is responsible for the status quo,” says Marx; however, according to Abian[4] (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo#fn4) , it is not so much class that is responsible for the status quo, but rather the fatal flaw, and hence the failure, of class. Any number of theories concerning a mythopoetical whole exist. However, Debord uses the term ‘the materialist paradigm of narrative’ to denote the bridge between sexual identity and class.

Marx promotes the use of constructivism to challenge and read sexual identity. Therefore, Long[5] (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo#fn5) holds that we have to choose between Batailleist `powerful communication’ and postcapitalist discourse.

Derrida’s analysis of dialectic subcapitalist theory suggests that the law is fundamentally meaningless. But the subject is interpolated into a preconstructive deconstructivism that includes art as a totality.

An abundance of theories concerning the semioticist paradigm of expression may be found. However, Lyotard uses the term ‘constructivism’ to denote a postcapitalist whole.

“Class is responsible for the status quo,” says Marx; however, according to Abian[4] (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo#fn4) , it is not so much class that is responsible for the status quo, but rather the fatal flaw, and hence the failure, of class. Any number of theories concerning a mythopoetical whole exist. However, Debord uses the term ‘the materialist paradigm of narrative’ to denote the bridge between sexual identity and class.

Marx promotes the use of constructivism to challenge and read sexual identity. Therefore, Long[5] (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo#fn5) holds that we have to choose between Batailleist `powerful communication’ and postcapitalist discourse.

Derrida’s analysis of dialectic subcapitalist theory suggests that the law is fundamentally meaningless. But the subject is interpolated into a preconstructive deconstructivism that includes art as a totality.

An abundance of theories concerning the semioticist paradigm of expression may be found. However, Lyotard uses the term ‘constructivism’ to denote a postcapitalist whole.That's all very well, Napster. But Marx also says “Class is intrinsically elitist." Foucault uses the term ‘constructivism’ to denote the role of the writer as artist. In a sense, the within/without distinction intrinsic to Gibson’s Virtual Light is also evident in Count Zero.

Debord uses the term ‘dialectic discourse’ to denote a mythopoetical whole. Thus, Baudrillard promotes the use of Lyotardist narrative to analyse sexual identity.

The main theme of the works of Gibson is the bridge between class and culture. In a sense, Lacan suggests the use of the neosemantic paradigm of reality to attack hierarchy.

It's just up your street, then.
Those who lack intellectual ability do tend to scorn it, don't you find?

Those who lack intellectual ability do tend to scorn it, don't you find?Yes, using words such as "pompous" and "meaningless" in my experience.

you are forgiven for the stupid green man. Good post.

Yes, using words such as "pompous" and "meaningless" in my experience.
Actually those words are not really understood by the pompous, meaningless people of the world. You might be an example, since all you seem to want is to be entertained, to avoid thinking at all costs and to try to mock any effort and learning.

Actually those words are not really understood by the pompous, meaningless people of the world. You might be an example, since all you seem to want is to be entertained, to avoid thinking at all costs and to try to mock any effort and learning.It is the intellectual insecurity and total lack of humour you display in such comments that make you far too amusing not to mock, Thislin.

It is the intellectual insecurity and total lack of humour you display in such comments that make you far too amusing not to mock, Thislin.
So you think; I think you just are out of your depth and try to hide this from yourself.

So you think; I think you just are out of your depth and try to hide this from yourself.
Blob out of his depth??? Hardly.

I've debated with Blob, and even though he hates fundamental Christianity, or at least dislikes it, I can say he's not out of his depth.

No. The events described in the New Testament are supported only by the New Testament.
Okay, the New Testament is 27 separate confirmations of the beliefs of the early church, not just one. Do you think these writers were all lying? If so, to what end, and what do you have as evidence that they are lying. I'm looking for writings from the first century saying things like, "These Christians are making the whole thing up," or "These apostles are crazy, there was never a Jesus the Christ.

It's laughable that you would cite Luke as an independent source, did you forget what the question was?
Luke wasn't a direct disciple of Christ, he was taught by Paul, Peter, or Matthew, I can't remember which, but why shouldn't his Gospel be a credible source? Why can't his Gospel be trusted...or, for that matter, any of the other New Testament books?

The account of Josephus is an obvious fraud (why would a Jew recognize Jesus as the Messiah and then not convert??).
First, do you have knowledge of a manuscript from Josephus that predates the existing oldest manuscript, that does not mention Christ?
Let's look at some of Josephus's work, first from the Antiquities and his discussion of how a high priest named Ananias took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus in order to have James killed:
"He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."
Josephus, The Antiquities 20.200. Cited by Edwin M. Yamauchi, PH.D. in The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, pg. 78
Now, in your view, this is "an obvious fraud"? Why?

and Pliny only confirm that Christians existed in the 1st Century which is something we already knew. I can just as easily fabricate a story of my own that is just as plausible (or implausible) as the one told in the New Testament.
I'm sure you can, but can you convince at least 12 guys to drop the religion that is the heart of their culture, go city to city, living in poverty, never gaining power, and getting beaten and finally martyred telling people that they saw you perform miracles and rise from the dead?

I really don't understand why some Christians insist on the historicity of Jesus.
I really don't understand why some people insist that Jesus never existed, I've not heard of one ancient historian (that's includes non Christian historians) that deny the existence of a man named Jesus. It's also accepted that Jesus died on the cross, and that the grave of Christ was empty. What the non Christian historians doubt is the resurrection of Christ. Many of them think that the disciples stole the body, or that dogs came and ate up the body...ridiculous if you think about it.

It can't be proven and besides, Christian faith requires exactly that: faith, which is a conscious decision to suspend your disbelief.
Really now, is that a fair definition of faith?

It's fine by me if you want to believe things that can't be proven.
So are you suggesting that every thing you believe can be proven empirically?

I just think you look pretty foolish when you ask others to provide evidence for theirs.
I suspect you think I look pretty foolish for many reasons, but that aside, why do you still say there is no evidence?
By the way, why shouldn't I ask to see the evidence for someone's claim against Christianity. I've noticed that in these forums it's common for people to just throw out an accusation against Christianity, and I thought it would be interesting to call people on them. Mostly people don't supply any evidence that backs up their claim, which is what I usually suspect will happen when I ask. It's so easy to accuse, so easy to cut and paste Biblical "contradictions" from a website.
By the way, I in no way, am suggesting that you do that.

Invented? What reason, do you suppose, would the Apostles have for inventing what they insist really happened?
Why would Joseph Smith have gone to the herculean effort involved to write the Book of Mormon and then told all the stories?
Are you kidding? Joseph Smith gained great power and wealth by starting his religion. Joseph Smith was a con artist well before the starting of Mormonism.
And what makes you suggest that writing the Book of Mormon was an herculean effort?

I don't know how much you know about the history of Islam, but it is plain enough that Muhammad was a deliberate (and effective) charlatan.
Islam teaches that Jesus is not God's Son, and did not resurrect from the grave, that's enough for me to be convinced that it is wrong, but whether Muhammad was a "deliberate (and effective) charlatan" is between you and whatever Muslim wants to debate it with you.

People have all sorts of motivations--sometimes they think that by doing bad things they are achieving a greater good (indeed that is what Christianity's martyrdom complex is all about).
Is that what it's all about? So these Christian martyrs know that what they do is bad, but they go ahead and do it because it's for the greater good?
Well since you have the absolute truth in this matter, tell me, in the thinking of the first century Christian martyr, what, in their mind, is the greater good?

I am not sure that your statement that the Gospel authors claim to be eyewitnesses is correct. I would appreciate citations.
I would love to:
To cover the Book of John:
John 21:20-25 "Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."
Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
And from the Apostle John to Gaius:
3 John 1:12-14 "Demetrius is well spoken of by everyone-- and even by the truth itself. We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true.
I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink.
I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. Peace to you. The friends here send their greetings. Greet the friends there by name."

Here's an interesting exchange between Paul and Festus in Acts 26:
Acts 26:22-28 "But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen--that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."
At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane."
"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.
King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do."
Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"
Here's a passage written by Paul, who came to love Jesus a few years after the Lord's resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:1-9 "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

Here is how Luke opens up his Gospel:
Luke 1:1-4 "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Here are a couple of passages from Revelation written by John:
Revelation 1:1-2 "1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw-- that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ."
And:

Rev 1:9-10 "I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,..."

That's what I have off the top of my head, I'll look around for more later.

As you say, there are many passages where the authors take a "novelist's perspective" and tell us things no one would have known--such as Jesus' private prayers. How can this be?
Jesus could have told them in some cases.
As for the other cases, remember the teaching of from Jesus:
John 14:26 "But the Counselor, 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."
Christian belief is that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God.

Your answer is that Jesus might have told them--which rings false since they were intensely personal matters that would become trite if Jesus later talks about them.
Really? Trite? I don't think so. As for "rings false" the whole thing "rings false" for you doesn't it?

Your other answer undermines your argument--you claim they had to be eyewitnesses but when problems with this are pointed out, you resort to miracle to "explain" them. While the miracle is possible, you can't have it both ways--evidence when it suits and miracle when it doesn't.
I'm not certain what you are talking about, would you give examples where my other answer undermines my argument and when the problems are pointed out I resort to miracles to explain them?
The miracles are either there or they aren't.

Invented? What reason, do you suppose, would the Apostles have for inventing what they insist really happened?
To be a leader you must have a following.
Are you suggesting that the reason the apostles spent the rest of their lives, in poverty, going town to town, being hated, beaten, whipped, and never gaining power, was so that they could be a leader?
It must have been frustrating for them, especially when you see situations like the one the Apostle Peter found himself in, (Acts 10) when he went into the home of a Gentile, later (Acts 11) you find him standing before some unhappy "circumcised believers" having to explain his actions.

There is no question in my mind that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses or (as in the case of Luke) by those who personally knew the eye witnesses.
I don't see a problem with the authors knowing the private prayers of Jesus, because in some cases Jesus could have told them, and failing that, remember the teaching is that the Bible was written by men, inspired by God. Or as the Bible puts it "God breathed."
Well, the "god did it" argument can be overused. ;-)
I think that for those who say there is no God, any use of the "god did it" argument, is overuse.
But the real question is, in this case: is the God did it argument supported in the Bible?

John 14:26 "But the Counselor, 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."

I think so.

Wow, the Bible supports the argument that "God did it"?? ALERT THE MEDIA!

:rolleyes:

Wow, the Bible supports the argument that "God did it"?? ALERT THE MEDIA!

:rolleyes:
Ummm, you did read the post in context with Vile's post...right?

Did anyone notice that in Genisis that it say "Man was created in our image"

Also doesn't god need to be put on trial for crimes against humanity and genicide? Drowing everyone because he could not control them..killing people for complaining too much...hardening the pherohs heart so he could murder the first born of egypt?

hmmm..

Are you suggesting that the reason the apostles spent the rest of their lives, in poverty, going town to town, being hated, beaten, whipped, and never gaining power, was so that they could be a leader?

I would never suggest such a thing. You are the one who believes the account of the Apostle's lives as given in the Bible. You seem to accept the Bible stories as true and then try to understand why they happened the way they happened. Do you do the same with the Book of Mormon, or with any other book for that matter, or is the Bible the only book you read with an uncritical eye?


It must have been frustrating for them, especially when you see situations like the one the Apostle Peter found himself in, (Acts 10) when he went into the home of a Gentile, later (Acts 11) you find him standing before some unhappy "circumcised believers" having to explain his actions.


You have no trouble believeing that Joseph Smith had this motive for writing the Book of Mormon, but yet you claim it's unbelieveable for the Apostles to have been motivated by the same desire. Joseph Smith claimed divine inspiration was the impetus for his writing, just as the Apostles did, yet you doubt his word and accept unquestioningly whatever is written in your Bible.

It would seem on the face of it that you are willing to accept one book unquestioningly as completely true and you reject the other book as completely false, without having reason to do so.

Did anyone hear the book of "enoch" it is very intresting. Not only was this book found amoung the dead sea scroll many people verify is a true document of god yet many christians refuse to accept the book! Could it be that it shows gods sons(pure bred) not half breeds like Jesus came down to the earth and had sex with human woman create a race of Giants...remember david and galiath?
Many many christians have claimed this book was not inspired by god ROFLMAO..
please explain to me which books are inspired by god or from some wack job with a crazy imagination??

Did anyone notice that in Genisis that it say "Man was created in our image"

Also doesn't god need to be put on trial for crimes against humanity and genicide? Drowing everyone because he could not control them..killing people for complaining too much...hardening the pherohs heart so he could murder the first born of egypt?

hmmm..
That is another problem I will store for my list of things wrong with the Adam and Eve story--mankind is in God's image.

We can take that on many levels, but none of them are helpful--it is a bit of human self-flattery.

On one level it means God walks about and takes the evening air and even has to make rules to bury one's waste lest he step in it (Deut. 23:12-14).

Most people nowadays don't take this literally (often even while claiming to always take the Bible literally) but instead interpret it as meaning we are in "God's image" as willful, sentient, thinking beings.

But how can even that be? How can the finite reflect the infinite? God is not superman: He is infinite being: there are no limits on God. The idea that humanity reflects any aspect is a harmful teaching, creating a limited, puny God.

Well it is funny you bring that up. "Man was made in our image"
Image does not mean exact likeness. It does not mean reflection in a mirror. We have made god to be this warm hearted grampa figure that we can sit on his lap.
Really I mean image can mean many things. Two legs..two arms a head but this being could be green, purple, no hair, skinny totally bald, scaly, ect..





That is another problem I will store for my list of things wrong with the Adam and Eve story--mankind is in God's image.

We can take that on many levels, but none of them are helpful--it is a bit of human self-flattery.

On one level it means God walks about and takes the evening air and even has to make rules to bury one's waste lest he step in it (Deut. 23:12-14).

Most people nowadays don't take this literally (often even while claiming to always take the Bible literally) but instead interpret it as meaning we are in "God's image" as willful, sentient, thinking beings.

But how can even that be? How can the finite reflect the infinite? God is not superman: He is infinite being: there are no limits on God. The idea that humanity reflects any aspect is a harmful teaching, creating a limited, puny God.

The prophesy has nothing to do with virgins and only indicates you are reading a translation by people who believed the virgin birth and their views distorted how they translated.

The New Testament claim that Jesus was born from a virgin, is a fulfillment of the
Isaiah 7:14 passage that says:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

I understand that many people claim that the word translated virgin in the Old Testament really means young woman, but there's a couple of problems with that:
1.) A young woman getting pregnant wouldn't be much of a sign.

2.) If a young woman getting pregnant is what the verse means, then who would be able to tell which one gave birth to the Messiah; there are young woman giving birth all over the world, all the time.

3.) When the ancient Greeks had the seventy Jewish scholars translate the Old Testament in Greek, the Jewish scholars used the Greek word for "virgin" when they came to this verse.

I would never suggest such a thing. You are the one who believes the account of the Apostle's lives as given in the Bible. You seem to accept the Bible stories as true and then try to understand why they happened the way they happened. Do you do the same with the Book of Mormon, or with any other book for that matter, or is the Bible the only book you read with an uncritical eye?
Uncritical eye. To be truthful, it would be hard for me to look at the Bible with a critical eye (looking for errors) because, I'm already convinced that it is the Word of God.
That is one of the reasons I'm here, because I'm aware of my bias for the Bible, and by being here I'm allowing others to point out what I'm missing. Of course they (the unbeliever) has to be able to explain and defend the problem, just making an accusation is weak.

This brings up something you said at the end of your post:
It would seem on the face of it that you are willing to accept one book unquestioningly as completely true and you reject the other book as completely false, without having reason to do so.
It's interesting that after what I've written about Mormonism and all I've written defending the Bible, you say: "without having reason to do so." Of course, you aren't expected to remember what I've written, or to even have read it.

I'll give some of my reasons why I don't believe the Book of Mormon is from God, but since I'm not here to tear at Mormonism, without a Mormon here to defend it, I'll just say that the Book of Mormon is not correct archaeologically, or historically, or prophetically, but the big reason is that the teaching of Mormonism completely contradicts the teachings of the Bible. In the Bible when someone was sent by or came from God with a message for the people, there were miracles to support their authority. Joseph Smith had none.
The Book of Mormon itself has under gone around 3,913 changes since it was first published in 1830, these changes corrected the mistakes, (major and minor) that Joseph Smith claimed could not be in it because of the manner in which he translated it.

You have no trouble believeing that Joseph Smith had this motive for writing the Book of Mormon, but yet you claim it's unbelieveable for the Apostles to have been motivated by the same desire.
Joseph Smith gained wealth and power, the Apostles did not, yet they died making their claims of having seen Jesus resurrected from the dead.

Joseph Smith claimed divine inspiration was the impetus for his writing, just as the Apostles did, yet you doubt his word and accept unquestioningly whatever is written in your Bible.
Like I mentioned earlier, the disciples had the miracles of Jesus and their own miracles to support what they said, Joseph Smith had none.

funny cause to the Muslims you are the unbeliever and when god comes it will be you that is destroyed and burned forever in hell.

hmm
perspective

funny cause to the Muslims you are the unbeliever and when god comes it will be you that is destroyed and burned forever in hell.

hmm
perspective
Yes, and...?

All "doctrine," let alone "dogma," is superficial and man-made disputation. They are shibboleths people use to make themselves feel superior to others.
Thislin is that your official doctrine in this matter?
I ask because you seem extremely dogmatic about it.

The real core of a religion is not its doctrines but its morality and its behavior.[
Which is why Christians should emphasize the more important relational aspect of Christianity, and not the religious aspect.
By "relational" I mean that because of Jesus' death on the cross, as payment for our sins, he has bridged the distance that existed between God and man; this distance existed because of men's sin. The reason Christ came was not to set up a religion, but out of Love for us people, he came to bring eternal life to men.
God loves you Thislin, and gave his Son to pay the penalty for your sin.

In this Christianity is good in some ways and not good in others.
Some of the good things: human equlity and fraternity; the concept of a loving, forgiving God; the harmfulness of hypocrisy and show-religion.
The best thing of all is; Salvation.

Some of the not so good things: The idea of a divine "king;" the subordination of women and animals in the ethical system; the claim to have the only truth and, even worse, the only way to salvation; the teaching that all are cursed sinners; the very concept of "sin."
I understand you believe this, but a couple of things: define "subordination" and define sin.

Yes, and...?

and...how do you prove who is right? I mean they claim thier books were divined from your god!? Muhammad was a prophet and gabrille directly spoke to him.

I mean honestly..why are the muslims wrong but the Christians are right? What proof do you have that thier book the Koran is any less valid than your bible?

Thislin is that your official doctrine in this matter?
I ask because you seem extremely dogmatic about it.


Which is why Christians should emphasize the more important relational aspect of Christianity, and not the religious aspect.
By "relational" I mean that because of Jesus' death on the cross, as payment for our sins, he has bridged the distance that existed between God and man; this distance existed because of men's sin. The reason Christ came was not to set up a religion, but out of Love for us people, he came to bring eternal life to men.
God loves you Thislin, and gave his Son to pay the penalty for your sin.


The best thing of all is; Salvation.


I understand you believe this, but a couple of things: define "subordination" and define sin.

Savation.. yes the wonderful place in heaven where you will be safe and never feel pain or have problems ever again and live in bliss and happiness forever.

Great sell and if you don't follow the bible the alternative is holding your soul as hostage burning in hell forever in torment and death of your soul.

yet neither of these things have been proven.

it is a gimmick..to sell this religion and because humans are so superstitious and cannot face the fact of death and death we cease to exist this fantacy is made up to sooth them and make them feel safe like everything will be ok in the end yet not one shed of proof that anything exist beyond our own death.

A "scientific" approach to things realizes that no measurement is absolutely exact, no theory will ever reach the status of being proven, and that no such thing as proven fact can exist. That doesn't mean, however, that we can't make progress. The claim by religions that they have "Truth" (revealed to them via supernatural means) must be rejected out of hand, since any such revelation will itself be subject to interpretative misunderstanding and distortion.
Why would it be "subject to interpretative misunderstanding and distortion?
Your bit about the "virgin" is a good example.
In the case of the "Virgin" word it was you that misunderstood and distorted, so my question still stands.

In the case of the "Virgin" word it was you that misunderstood and distorted, so my question still stands.

With the "virgin" mary either two things happend.

1) there are aliens who claim to be god and bonded thier dna with human Dna and artificailly inseminated Mary

or and more likely

2) Mary got raped and got pregnant and in those times a woman who was raped and got pregant was sentenced to death by stoning. Josoph wanted to protect mary and they made up her becoming pregant by god to save her life.

Jesus thought he was gods sone because he was taught all his life he was he began to believe it.

if Mithraism hadn't been a competitor to Christianity, the early Christians would not have gone after them.
What do you mean by "gone after them"?
What do you think I mean? I mean killed them, converted them, spread lies about all pagan religions, etc...
Are you saying this took place in the first, second, and/or third centuries?
I really would like to see your answer on this.
Of course it may be that you have already answered this and I just missed it.

I really would like to see your answer on this.
Of course it may be that you have already answered this and I just missed it.
I'm not sure if I did. I believe I said I was not sure. It began happening as soon as Christianity had a foothold as a more or less major religion and powerful people began converting to Christianity. When exactly this happened on a large scale I am not sure.

With the "virgin" mary either two things happend.
...... more likely..........Mary got raped and got pregnant and in those times a woman who was raped and got pregant was sentenced to death by stoning. Josoph wanted to protect mary and they made up her becoming pregant by god to save her life.

Jesus thought he was gods son because he was taught all his life he was he began to believe it.

Hey!

I'd never considered that, but that is a very good (and very compelling) theory.

It is a logical and plausible explanation for how the whole "virgin birth" nonsense may have come to be invented.

Congrats.

With the "virgin" mary either two things happend.

1) there are aliens who claim to be god and bonded thier dna with human Dna and artificailly inseminated Mary

or and more likely

2) Mary got raped and got pregnant and in those times a woman who was raped and got pregant was sentenced to death by stoning. Josoph wanted to protect mary and they made up her becoming pregant by god to save her life.

Jesus thought he was gods sone because he was taught all his life he was he began to believe it.
The theme of a male god impregnating a female human and producing a demi-urge was very common in the Hellenistic world. That the Christian myth makers took up this theme follows the pattern.

The verse in the OT that Matthew cites is misapplied. All it means is "young woman." Spark here is reading too much propaganda and accepting it.

The whole field of Christian "apologetics" consists not of research but of finding ways to rationalize Christianity. It is tiresome and it amazes me he cannot see the fundamental flaw in the approach. The blind leading the blind.

The verse in the OT that Matthew cites is misapplied. All it means is "young woman." Spark here is reading too much propaganda and accepting it.
So are you suggesting that the Christian apologists got to the seventy Jewish scholars? They were the ones who translated the Old Testament into Greek, which we now call the Septuagint.

The theme of a male god impregnating a female human and producing a demi-urge was very common in the Hellenistic world. That the Christian myth makers took up this theme follows the pattern.

The verse in the OT that Matthew cites is misapplied. All it means is "young woman." Spark here is reading too much propaganda and accepting it.

The whole field of Christian "apologetics" consists not of research but of finding ways to rationalize Christianity. It is tiresome and it amazes me he cannot see the fundamental flaw in the approach. The blind leading the blind.

leads me to ask again is anyting in Christianity a original idea?

So are you suggesting that the Christian apologists got to the seventy Jewish scholars? They were the ones who translated the Old Testament into Greek, which we now call the Septuagint.
Are you sure the LXX word cannot be translated "young woman?" In the context of the passage itself (not as reinterpreted in Matthew), the word "virgin" would make no sense.

leads me to ask again is anything in Christianity a original idea?

Very little.

The bulk of it is absurd susperstitions lifted from prior (sometimes as much as 800-1000 years prior) religions and slightly changed as the ones inventing the tale saw fit.

Are you sure the LXX word cannot be translated "young woman?" In the context of the passage itself (not as reinterpreted in Matthew), the word "virgin" would make no sense.
Why does the word "virgin" make no sense?

Why does the word "virgin" make no sense?
It predicts the birth of a real person; if that person had been born of a virgin the OT would have made a point of it.

(I don't remember who the person was and I don't want to have to look it up. Do some objective research for once).

Very little.

The bulk of it is absurd susperstitions lifted from prior (sometimes as much as 800-1000 years prior) religions and slightly changed as the ones inventing the tale saw fit.
I have had the opportunity to learn a good deal about Caodaism in Vietnam. To the outsider it looks like an amalgamation of Taoism, Buddhism, native Vietnamese ideas and French Spiritualism.

Interestingly, out of that has arisen something quite new and fresh. In other words, putting pieces of different religions together often produces a very different stew from what one might otherwise expect.

I've debated with Blob, and even though he hates fundamental Christianity, or at least dislikes itlol. I promise you I'm much more laid back these days, Stark.

Okay, the New Testament is 27 separate confirmations of the beliefs of the early church, not just one. Do you think these writers were all lying?The New Testament records what later Christians desire for us to believe; namely, that Christ is the Messiah. Aside from Josephus and the New Testament itself there is no corroboration of this assertion. If so, to what end, and what do you have as evidence that they are lying. I'm looking for writings from the first century saying things like, "These Christians are making the whole thing up," or "These apostles are crazy, there was never a Jesus the Christ.There is a paucity of First Century writings that refer to Christians as it is so I doubt you'll find any. And had there ever been any such writings, do you think they would have survived the middle ages when such heresy was punished by burning to death?Luke wasn't a direct disciple of Christ, he was taught by Paul, Peter, or Matthew, I can't remember which, but why shouldn't his Gospel be a credible source? Why can't his Gospel be trusted...or, for that matter, any of the other New Testament books?Again you seem to have forgotten what we are discussing. I am simply stating that the only confirmation of the events described in the New Testament is the New Testament itself. The Book of Luke, being a part of the New Testament does not meet the criteria of being other than the New Testament.First, do you have knowledge of a manuscript from Josephus that predates the existing oldest manuscript, that does not mention Christ?
Let's look at some of Josephus's work, first from the Antiquities and his discussion of how a high priest named Ananias took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus in order to have James killed:
"He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."
Josephus, The Antiquities 20.200. Cited by Edwin M. Yamauchi, PH.D. in The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, pg. 78
Now, in your view, this is "an obvious fraud"? Why?Here is the passage to which I referred:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

Again, why would a Jew recognize Jesus as the Messiah and not convert?I'm sure you can, but can you convince at least 12 guys to drop the religion that is the heart of their culture, go city to city, living in poverty, never gaining power, and getting beaten and finally martyred telling people that they saw you perform miracles and rise from the dead?I probably can't but I've no doubt that others can. History is replete with examples of deluded fanatics convinced of their cause.I really don't understand why some people insist that Jesus never existed, I've not heard of one ancient historian (that's includes non Christian historians) that deny the existence of a man named Jesus. It's also accepted that Jesus died on the cross, and that the grave of Christ was empty. What the non Christian historians doubt is the resurrection of Christ. Many of them think that the disciples stole the body, or that dogs came and ate up the body...ridiculous if you think about it.First of all, I don't insist that there never was a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans. In fact, I think there probably was. It's the Son of God part that stretches my credulity. Second, I don't know which historians you are referring to here and I really don't care. Whether or not Jesus actually lived is only a mildly interesting point of debate for me. It is far more consequential to the world I live in that people believe he existed.Really now, is that a fair definition of faith?Yes.So are you suggesting that every thing you believe can be proven empirically?No.

It sounds as if you are saying that you are not interested in my explanation of what you consider a contradiction.

Your explanations are kind of irrelevant.
Yes, to someone with a world view that there is no God, and that the Bible contradicts itself, any explanation is an irrelevant explanation.

I could make up technically coherent stories to explain away contradictions in the Bible, or in Star Wars for that matter. The problem is these stories become ever more elaborate, ever more improbable and ever more whimsical - technically coherent though they might be.
The claim is that the Bible is filled with contradictions, most recently the claim is that the resurrection accounts contradict each other; well it does or it doesn't. I look at the problem, break it down, and offer up an explanation as to why the problem is not a contradiction, what I have not received back is an explanation as to how and why the problem breaks the law of non contradiction. Naturally, since it's the Bible that we are talking about, any explanation defending it has to appear improbable and whimsical, (to the unbeliever), because the Bible is just a book of fairy tales made up by men.

We all known there comes a point when one must just admit "Well, okay. Maybe that was just an oversight on the part of George Lucas". The same is true of the authors of the Bible.
Sure, that point comes when a contradiction is clearly demonstrated but, be sure, just because some people claim a problem, is no reason to believe a problem exists.

I do ask myself; why do so many reject Christ and the Bible? I think the answer comes from Ravi Zacharias he said that many of our perceptions are distorted by our prejudices.

Quote:
In short, I am not interested in debating fine details of what might have been meant so that you can reinterpret things to avoid the appearance of contradictions.


I see the fallacy in your approach, something which you are not willing to even imagine.

The whole point about lawyers quite went over your head; I will repeat--a smart lawyer can find "interpretations" in almost anything to get around what the contract actually says. That is what you do with the obvious contradictions.
Can I write this post of yours off as just a demonstration of your meme?

Yes, to someone with a world view that there is no God, and that the Bible contradicts itself, any explanation is an irrelevant explanation.That's unfair. That was me back then when we had a big debate. Not so long ago did you not remember me accepting an explanation of yours? I can't remember which verses it was.
The claim is that the Bible is filled with contradictions, most recently the claim is that the resurrection accounts contradict each other; well it does or it doesn't. I look at the problem, break it down, and offer up an explanation as to why the problem is not a contradiction, what I have not received back is an explanation as to how and why the problem breaks the law of non contradiction.You haven't from me, fair enough. Firstly I'm far too busy for deep forum engagement these days. Secondly I'm a bit bored of theology these days.
Naturally, since it's the Bible that we are talking about, any explanation defending it has to appear improbable and whimsical, (to the unbeliever), because the Bible is just a book of fairy tales made up by men.Well that latter is a solid alternative possibility. But you got it back to front: The book is man-made fiction because its content is improbable and whimsical.

Not impossible, I don't know etc etc... But hey, you don't know you're not a brain in a jar on an alien spaceship and it's all a slippery slope to nihilism.
I do ask myself; why do so many reject Christ and the Bible?lol. Switch "reject" for "accept" and I know what you mean. ;)

You base your chronology on writings of unknown date by unknown authors that record fanciful and miraculous events and are inconsistent with each other (without all sorts of elaborate and dishonest rationalization). Such material cannot be trusted regarding what they claim about themselves.
Dishonest?
You discount the miraculous because your paradigm, of how the universe runs, does not include the miraculous, and you have yet to demonstrate a contradiction, you have only made accusations. But that aside: why can't the Biblical accounts be trusted, why can't the apostles be trusted to have written down truth?

The chronology I offer is based on real history and on critical (not skeptical or cynical) analysis of the early Christian sources. It is based on comparative religion (not looking at Christianity in isolation) in the context of its times and in the context of how religions develop and evolve.
I disagree

I have pretty much given up trying to explain it to you, though. Maybe one day the light will dawn on your head what you are doing, maybe not. You do not even seem to understand what is said, since your responses are so unresponsive.
A bit of a trick there, but I'll leave it up to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves whether I understand or don't understand your particular definition of "the light."

Can I write this post of yours off as just a demonstration of your meme?
You find some way to write off anything anyone says to you, so why not? Any excuse will serve.

Yes, to someone with a world view that there is no God, and that the Bible contradicts itself, any explanation is an irrelevant explanation.
That's unfair. That was me back then when we had a big debate. Not so long ago did you not remember me accepting an explanation of yours? I can't remember which verses it was.
Sorry about that Blob, I haven't debated with you very much since our last big debate, and am used to the "old days."
But there are some on these forums for whom it would still apply.
To be fair, as much as anyone can be biased against the Bible, I am biased for the Bible, the question is: is my bias misplaced?
Well, it feels great to me.

Well that latter is a solid alternative possibility. But you got it back to front: The book is man-made fiction because its content is improbable and whimsical.
Improbable and whimsical is a point of view based on a particular world view, it doesn't have to follow that because it appears improbable and whimsical that it has to be fiction.

Not impossible, I don't know etc etc... But hey, you don't know you're not a brain in a jar on an alien spaceship and it's all a slippery slope to nihilism.
I had that discussion with Vile, only I suggested that it may be that I'm really in a coma in some hospital, and there is no such thing as allforums or the internet,... or earth for that matter.

You find some way to write off anything anyone says to you, so why not? Any excuse will serve.
I find a way because there is a way.

I find a way because there is a way.
Of course, there always is a way. Every religious sect on the earth does this, every pseudo-scientist, and every crackpot with a perpetual motion machine.

Of course, there always is a way. Every religious sect on the earth does this, every pseudo-scientist, and every crackpot with a perpetual motion machine.
Okay, and sometimes there is a way.

I don't believe in Christ, no, and I probably shall never. So yes, it would be fair to say that my mind is not open to change, but it is misleading to say that is the reason why I don't believe. I have seriously considered the Christian religion and I do indeed wish I could find a religion that I felt fit me, that inspired me. I am certainly open to change. I am not an atheist and I believe in god, I just haven't found a religion that inspires me enough to want to commit to it. Your mind is not open to change because you have already found the perfect religious views for you. Thislin as well has found what he truly believes in, I think. I have not.
Tell me what was the greatest failing of Christianity, that led you to reject it after you "seriously considered" it.

By the way, good post. It just seems to be very honest.

Also, you may be right on about me, that my mind is not open to change, whether the reason is that I've found the perfect religious view for me, or I've just found the perfect religious view, period, doesn't matter. What does matter is whether my mind is closed on to the truth or is it closed from the truth?

That question goes for every closed mind in this forum...or in the world, for that matter.

Tell me what was the greatest failing of Christianity, that led you to reject it after you "seriously considered" it.

I was not inspired. It seemed silly to join a religion (any religion) if that religion did not give me strong feelings.

I can be a Buddhist and still be an atheist, or an agnostic, or a Taoist, or a Christian, or a Hindu, or even a Muslim (although they would probably kill me if I tried).
Someone can be a Christian and a Buddhist if they are the hip, culturally "with it," type of Christian that doesn't really believe in Christ as Lord, and doesn't really believe the Bible is the Word of God.
But a true follower of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior, the Creator, cannot be a Buddhist, the teachings contradict each other.

Wow, I left this thread for a long time heh.

Pope Leo X, was Pope from 1513-1521 and made this statement during his reign: "It has served us well, this myth of Christ."

Thought Id just throw that one out there.

I was not inspired. It seemed silly to join a religion (any religion) if that religion did not give me strong feelings.
Can you put your finger on what it was about Christianity that didn't inspire you?
It's very possible I'm not asking the right question, or I'm not asking it in the right way.

I try not to "believe" in things. Beliefs get in the way of mindfulness--they are part of us and we desire to keep anything that is part of us. Besides, we can never really be sure enough of anything to make believing in anything other than an act of hubris.
A casual reading of your posts suggest that you do "believe" in many things.
But that's just human nature, and logical.

A casual reading of your posts suggest that you do "believe" in many things.
But that's just human nature, and logical.
The language does not distinguish between "belief" and "opinion" well--it conveys a hint of what is going on--but I have to use the words the language provides.

"Belief" is different from holding an opinion. One can hold an opinion with different levels of confidence, ranging from virtual certainty downward. One does not hold a belief that way--a belief is part of the furniture and something we are not even aware we have.

You obtain an opinion through education; you obtain a belief through indoctrination (most commonly during childhood). Beliefs are intuitive; knowledge is conscious. Many people almost automatically internalize their opinions into beliefs rather than keeping them at arm's length.

The example I use most often is the difficulty people have with understanding that "up" and "down" are local phenomena. Every child has had to deal with the idea that people at the antipodes do not fall off the planet. "Turtles all the way down" expresses the basic discomfort we all experience.

This is because we obtain the notions of up and down as beliefs; later we obtain the idea that they are only local as opinions. We are not aware of our belief here--it is just that when we learn about the antipodes we experience discordance, which we all eventually resolve to one degree or another, usually with jokes.

I have come to understand the difference through my meditative practice, since the tradition warns (rightly) that one can meditate oneself into a belief if one is not careful--by thinking about a teaching while meditating, it can be internalized into an intuitive belief.

This is how it is that irrational things, such as ideologies and religions, come to have their power. We acquire them as beliefs rather than opinions; they lurk in the background outside our conscious awareness, part of our intuitive and automatic mentality.

How this evolved into what it is is not difficult to see--we cannot consciously handle all the things we need to get about: we need to believe in things like up and down without having to handle them consciously any more than we can afford to have our heart beat by direction of our conscious mind.

The side effect is that many people obtain religious belief intuitively--so that it becomes something that they do not see as opinion but only see as truth.

Someone can be a Christian and a Buddhist if they are the hip, culturally "with it," type of Christian that doesn't really believe in Christ as Lord, and doesn't really believe the Bible is the Word of God.
But a true follower of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior, the Creator, cannot be a Buddhist, the teachings contradict each other.
Yes, that is the problem with Christianity and its offshoots such as Islam and Communism. It is intolerant and even makes a virtue of intolerance.

Also, you may be right on about me, that my mind is not open to changeheh. It's exactly that sort of frank and open reflection on a sometimes hostile forum that makes you stand out from many online Christians.

Can you put your finger on what it was about Christianity that didn't inspire you?
It's very possible I'm not asking the right question, or I'm not asking it in the right way.
None of it inspired me. The point is, I think if I was meant to be a Christian I'd feel God's love or Jesus' love or something like that. You seem to be very into your faith, why is that? How does it make you feel? Is "inspired" the right word?

When assessing an ancient writing, you cannot take it as history if it contains miraculous material. Otherwise we would take Homer and Hesoid and Virgil as history. The only reason we do not is their mythical base.
The Bible is not entitled to be treated any different. Basic historical procedure is to treat any such material skeptically.
That only works when your world view holds that there is no God: with God in existence, the miraculous is reality.
Just because Homer, is false doesn't mean that the Bible is false.

There is in fact far more material supporting what Homer says about the Archaic Greeks and the city of Troy than there is supporting what the Bible says about Jesus. No end of archaeological digs have confirmed the historial accuracy of his geography and cultural descriptions and so on.
Coincidently, "no end of archaeological digs have confirmed the historical accuracy of" the Bible's "geography, and cultural descriptions" and, I might add, rulers, cities, nations, and people.

Still, we do not take Homer as dependable history. When it says Achilles could not be killed except by an arrow to his heel, we do not believe it just because he behaves as we would expect a Greek of that time to behave.
I'll let defenders of Homer, take care of him.
The Apostles claim they experienced the resurrected Christ, they claim that Jesus came so that all people would come into a right relationship with God. The accounts are not written as fiction, but as history.

Similarly, you do not have the right to make such claims of the Bible just on the basis that miracles are possible.
Out of all the posts you and I have exchanged, is this all that you have been able to see...that I make claims that the Bible is dependable history "just on the basis that miracles are possible"?
I'm very interested in your answer on this.

You are engaged in the entirely incorrect business of trying to force the terrain to suit you map.
I'd like to see a demonstration of how I am trying to force the terrain to suit my map.

I never said that the Bible is "wrong". You are twisting my meaning. I just said that it is not entirely right.
Well, the Bible is, at least, so wrong about "things" that when I said:
The Bible is correct historically, archaeologically, prophetically, and scientifically, it took 1600 years to make using many different authors yet doesn't contradict itself in doctrine, theology, or thought. With credentials like that, to step out and say that it is also correct about its teachings on Spiritual matters, is not much of a leap.
You answered with:
That literally made me laugh out loud.
What, do you suppose, is the Bible's greatest error?

Apparently the Red Sea was never parted (unless god went and did some little magic that would erase the evidence of the parting of the Red Sea, I suppose you would believe that...).
So what kind of archaeological evidence would you expect the parting of the Red Sea to leave behind?
Magic? I don't recall ever attributing the miracles of God to magic.

And then there is all the other archaeological evidence that sheds doubt upon other small details of the Bible.
"All the other..."? You've got my attention with your accusation, now let's see some of those "evidences" you speak of.

What I was saying is that you are wrong in making the absolute statement that the Bible is "correct historically, archaeologically,...and scientifically".
You'll understand if I don't just take your word for it?

Oh, and the Pope eliminating limbo is another good example of a point I made like, 20 pages ago about how religion changes as time goes on to make itself better.

I really don't understand why some Christians insist on the historicity of Jesus. It can't be proven and besides, Christian faith requires exactly that: faith, which is a conscious decision to suspend your disbelief. It's fine by me if you want to believe things that can't be proven. I just think you look pretty foolish when you ask others to provide evidence for theirs.
This is a flaw that permeates Western thinking--that "truth" is some sort of singular, absolute thing. It leads to people like fundamentalist Christians on the one hand and the materialist atheist on the other.

It is kinda funny that this derives from Aristotle--who of course had immense influence on Christianity--but who nowadays is seen, by both the scientist and the theologian, to have had it wrong. Ordinary people, however, have their thinking steeped in Aristotelian categores--so much so that they cannot see how approximate and unreliable they are.

I have had exchanges on this already, and met with total incomprehension. It is thought, for example, that if the resurrection is not a literal, historical "fact," then it didn't happen and Christianity is necessarily false. "Something cannot be both true and false at the same time."

There are, of course, many ways to attack that kind of thinking--how approximate our knowledge necessarily always is; how "fuzzy" our mental forms are; and how the words we use to express "truths" automatically disqualify our attempts to express truth as being anything of the sort.

The approach I usually take has to do with the limts and distortions of our perspective. We interpret what we think we know in terms of other things we think we know. Indeed, it can be argued that understanding consists of nothing more than expressing one thing in terms of another. (I "understand" the distance from Seattle to Tacoma in terms of how long it takes me to drive from one to the other). In the end, seen that way, all knowledge becomes one huge tautology.

The Buddhist concept of Enlightenment consists of knowing everything that is important, and it turns out (we are told--I am not enlightened) that this comes down to knowing nothing except that we know that there is nothing to be known. In order to achieve this state, however, one must learn a great deal.

I find the notion of the historicity of mythical figures such as Jesus of intellectual interest, but I am fully aware that it is not important--I see very easily how trivial such questions really are--and I think it sad that Christians can't see it (nor their enemies). The historical fact is only one aspect of the question.

I'll let your other posts tell me what you think of "truth", but as for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ; the Bible teaches that if it didn't happen, the faith of the Christian is useless, and we (Christians) should be pitied.

As for the Book of Mormon, there are no archaeological findings or historical evidence that support any part of it.
You are sure of that? The Mormons have all sorts of stuff they claim is proof of the book. It is better, in fact, than your evidence for King David.
So easy to make a claim

Now, let's look at some of the evidence...which is...?

I know that when I'm talking to a Mormon, and I bring up the lack of evidence they, instead of listing the evidence, tell me that they don't need or want evidence because their faith is so great.

Oh, and I'm still looking for the evidence that the Apostles were practitioners of fraud...

So easy to launch an accusation.
As you say, "So easy to make a claim." Your claim about the Mormons does not jibe with my experience.
Still waiting on the "all sorts of stuff" that the Mormons claim is proof of their book.

We can go around and around.
I'm just interested in the facts that back up your claims.

The fact is there is no archaeological evidence for anything in the Bible that might be called extraordinary.
Name an extraordinary event and tell me what you're looking for in archaeological evidence.

There is more evidence for Achilles than there is for David.
Really? What outside evidence is there for Achilles?

What is your evidence the Gospels were written early.
Apart from the evidence that I spoke of in post #438 on page 30 there is also the fact that the early church fathers quoted from the New Testament.
Clement writing from Rome (around 95 A.D.) quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, 1Corinthians, Ephesians, 1Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, and 1Peter.
The question is; how much time did it take for the Christian message to gain in popularity, (in Jerusalam), get written down, spread through out the middle east, and end up in Rome?
By the way, Ignatius (107A.D.) and Polycarp (110A.D.) quoted from many more of the New Testament books.
Of course, at the time, the New Testament, as a collection of books, did not exist but the individual books themselves did.

Keep in mind that the earliest complete MSS date from the Middle Ages. You have no way to prove they were written earlier.
Complete? Why complete? Why not fragments such as the fragment from the Book of John (John 18: 31-33, 37-38) dated to around 117-138 A.D. There are other much earlier fragments but they are disputed by some.

My view of when they were written is that held by most scholars on the subject--genuine scholars, not Bible propagandists.
Bible propagandist? Do you have to label them propagandist because they disagree with you?
Would you name some of those scholars who date the Bible as much later. What century do you date the New Testament, 400's 300s?

Bible propagandist? Do you have to label them propagandist because they disagree with you?Yes. He does.

It's Thislin's favorite rebuttal tactic. :)

Did anyone notice that in Genisis that it say "Man was created in our image"
Sure, and also in Genesis you find God saying "let us go down and..." This is one of the Old Testament confirmations of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Also doesn't god need to be put on trial for crimes against humanity and genicide?
A few questions for you:
What were the crimes against humanity
Against what nation did He commit genocide?
And why, in each case, does He say, was the reason?

Drowing everyone because he could not control them..
Is that the reason the Bible gives for God's flooding of the world?

killing people for complaining too much...
What people? What was the situation? Who were the people to God, and what had they experienced?

hardening the pherohs heart so he could murder the first born of egypt?
hmmm..
Who hardened Pharaoh's heart first and most, Pharaoh or God?

A lot of questions, but the research that is required to answer these questions, explains the actions.

Did anyone hear the book of "enoch" it is very intresting. Not only was this book found amoung the dead sea scroll many people verify is a true document of god yet many christians refuse to accept the book!
Which book of Enoch? There's a bunch of them.
Do you believe that the Book of Enoch is inspired by God?

Could it be that it shows gods sons(pure bred) not half breeds like Jesus came down to the earth and had sex with human woman create a race of Giants...remember david and galiath?
Actually Jesus wouldn't be a half breed: the teaching is that he has two natures he is fully man and fully God.

Many many christians have claimed this book was not inspired by god ROFLMAO..
please explain to me which books are inspired by god or from some wack job with a crazy imagination??
For the Old Testament, here are some rules for a book being recognized as coming from God:
1. It had to be written by a spokesman or prophet of God.
2. The writer had to be confirmed by acts of God, (miracles).
3. The message had to tell the truth about God...it couldn't contradict the other books inspired by God.
4. The book had to come with the power of God...the power to change lives.
5. It had to be accepted by the people of God.

The test for inclusion in the New Testament:
1. Inspiration
2. The Rule of Faith. The rule of faith. The writing could not contradict already accepted scripture, or Church doctrine.
3. Apostolic Authority. A writing must have been authored by an Apostle or an immediate follower of an Apostle.
4. Church Usage. Had to already be in use in the early Church.
One final criteria we will consider that may have acted for inclusion of certain books is usage in the church.

Yes. He does.

It's Thislin's favorite rebuttal tactic. :)
Propaganda is the use of dishonest or misleading debating tactics, relying on prejudice and emotion rather than on accurate evidence and reason to persuade people. It is perfectly appropiate for me to point out propaganda when that is what is being presented.

Propaganda is the use of dishonest or misleading debating tactics, relying on prejudice and emotion rather than on accurate evidence and reason to persuade people.
Sorry to say this, but this quote, from your post, fits your debate tactics more then anyone else's that I've debated with in a long time.
But, as I've said, debate the way you want, I'm fine with it.

Sorry to say this, but this quote, from your post, fits your debate tactics more then anyone else's that I've debated with in a long time.
But, as I've said, debate the way you want, I'm fine with it.
To the contrary. Your main tactic is rationalization, and this is propaganda.

Frankly I have given up trying to discuss things with you since your approach is completely propagandistic and based on absurd deck stacking tactics.

To the contrary. Your main tactic is rationalization, and this is propaganda.

Frankly I have given up trying to discuss things with you since your approach is completely propagandistic and based on absurd deck stacking tactics.
For you to debate or not to debate is up to you.
But as for my debate tactics...they stand for the reader to examine themselves.

Sure, and also in Genesis you find God saying "let us go down and..." This is one of the Old Testament confirmations of the doctrine of the Trinity.


A few questions for you:
What were the crimes against humanity
Against what nation did He commit genocide?
And why, in each case, does He say, was the reason?


Is that the reason the Bible gives for God's flooding of the world?


What people? What was the situation? Who were the people to God, and what had they experienced?


Who hardened Pharaoh's heart first and most, Pharaoh or God?

A lot of questions, but the research that is required to answer these questions, explains the actions.

For god sakes read your bible. God could have changed Pharoahs heart but instead he hardened his heart.
and it does not matter if god actually hardened pharoahs heart or not murdering innocent children and babies because the pharoh would not listen is sick!! What did the kids do wrong to deserve that? Being born an egyption? Jesus christ that is just fucking sick and anyone who follows a god like that is sick.

As for genocide flooding the entire earth for anyone and drowing millions of humans to "cleanse" the earth because he gave us free will and we did not follow him is a crime against Humanity.

I am sorry but the Judeo christian form of god is one sick serial killing wack job!!

How many has God killed?


I kill ... I wound ... I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. -- Deuteronomy 32:39-42
How many people did God kill in the Bible?
It's impossible to say for sure, but plently. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? There's just no way to count them all.

But sometimes the Bible tells us exactly how many were killed by God. Here's a list of those that I can find. (If you find any that I've missed, let me know and I'll add them to the list.)

So far I come up with a total of 2,270,365 (not inlcuding, at least in some cases, women and children). SAB, Brick Testament Number Killed Cummulative Total
Lot's wife for looking back Gen.19:26, BT 1 1
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" Gen.38:7, BT 1 2
Onan for spilling his seed Gen.38:10, BT 1 3
For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf Ex.32:27-28, 35, BT 3000 3003
Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord Lev.10:1-3, Num.3:4, 26:61, BT 2 3005
A blasphemer Lev.24:10-23, BT 1 3006
A man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath Num.15:32-36, BT 1 3007
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) Num.16:27, BT 12+ 3019+
Burned to death for offering incense Num.16:35, 26:10, BT 250 3269+
For complaining Num.16:49, BT 14,700 17,969+
For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" Num.25:9, BT 24,000 41,969+
Midianite massacre (32,000 virgins were kept alive) Num.31:1-35, BT 90,000+ 131,969+
God tells Joshua to stoned to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing. Joshua 7:10-12, 24-26, BT 5+ 131,974+
God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone). Joshua 8:1-25, BT 12,000 143,974+
Joshua kills 5 kings and hangs their dead bodies on trees Joshua 10:24-26, BT 5 143,979+
God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites Judges 1:4, BT 10,000 153,979+
Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly Jg.3:15-22, BT 1 153,980+
God delivered Moabites Jg.3:28-29, BT 10,000 163,980+
God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other. Jg.7:2-22, 8:10, BT 120,000 283,980+
The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson Jg.14:19, BT 30 284,010+
The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson Jg.15:14-15, BT 1000 285,010+
Samson's God-assisted act of terrorism Jg.16:27-30, BT 3000 288,010+
"The Lord smote Benjamin" Jg.20:35-37, BT 25,100 313,110+
More Benjamites Jg.20:44-46 25,000 338,110+
For looking into the ark of the Lord 1 Sam.6:19 50,070 388,180+
God delivered Philistines 1 Sam.14:12 20 388,200+
Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death 1 Sam.15:32-33 1 388,201+
"The Lord smote Nabal." 1 Sam.25:38 1 388,202+
Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 2 Sam.6:6-7, 1 Chr.13:9-10 1 388,203+
David and Bathsheba's baby boy 2 Sam.12:14-18 1 388,204+
Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord 2 Sam.21:6-9 7 388,211+
From plague as punishment for David's census (men only; probably 200,000 if including women and children) 2 Sam.24:13, 1 Chr.21:7 70,000+ 458,211+
A prophet for believing another prophet's lie 1 Kg.13:1-24 1 458,212+
God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands 1 Kg.20:28-29 100,000 558,212+
God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers 1 Kg.20:30 27,000 585,212+
God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet 1 Kg.20:35-36 1 585,213+
Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god. 2 Kg.1:2-4, 17, 2 Chr.22:7-9 1 585,214+
Burned to death by God 2 Kg.1:9-12 102 585,316+
God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24 42 585,348+
Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah 2 Kg.7:17-20 1 585,349+
Jezebel 2 Kg.9:33-37 1 585,360+
God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners 2 Kg.17:25-26 3+ 585,363+
Sleeping Assyrian soldiers 2 Kg.19:35, 2 Chr.32:21, Is.37:36 185,000 770,363+
Saul 1 Chr.10:14 1 770,364+
God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah 2 Chr.13:15-17 500,000 1,270,364+
Jeroboam 2 Chr.13:20 1 1,270,365+
"The Lord smote the Ethiopians." 2 Chr.14:9-14 1,000,000 2,270,365+
God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out 2 Chr.21:14-19 1 2,270,366+
Ezekiel's wife Ezek.24:15-18 1 2,270,367+
Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:1-10 2 2,270,369+
Herod Acts 12:23, BT 1 2,270,369+


Posted by Steve Wells at 8/02/2006

Labels: Bible, God


83 comments:
MonkeyLover said...
so in california God would DEFINITELY be sittin on death row.

That is another problem I will store for my list of things wrong with the Adam and Eve story--mankind is in God's image.

We can take that on many levels, but none of them are helpful--it is a bit of human self-flattery.
Does "in God's image" have to mean look, move, and think exactly as God does? That would be impossible. The teaching concerning this is that "in God's image" means we are beings with the ability to think, reason, have emotion, and be creative.

On one level it means God walks about and takes the evening air and even has to make rules to bury one's waste lest he step in it (Deut. 23:12-14).
Now why is it, Thislin, that you felt a need to add "takes in the evening air" and "lest he step in it" when the text does not say it?
Could it be that it makes your point seem more valid?

Most people nowadays don't take this literally (often even while claiming to always take the Bible literally) but instead interpret it as meaning we are in "God's image" as willful, sentient, thinking beings.
I can't say what "most people nowadays" do or don't do concerning this idea of God walking about, but the word that is used when ever there is the discussion of God walking, having wings, arms legs, or drawing back His bow, or some other such thing is called anthropomorphic language.

But how can even that be? How can the finite reflect the infinite? God is not superman: He is infinite being: there are no limits on God. The idea that humanity reflects any aspect is a harmful teaching, creating a limited, puny God.
First of all your definition of image is not the definition that fits this passage, and second you yourself are limiting God.

Well it is funny you bring that up. "Man was made in our image"
Image does not mean exact likeness. It does not mean reflection in a mirror. We have made god to be this warm hearted grampa figure that we can sit on his lap.
Really I mean image can mean many things. Two legs..two arms a head but this being could be green, purple, no hair, skinny totally bald, scaly, ect..
Who has "made god to be this warm hearted grampa figure that we can sit on his lap"?

funny cause to the Muslims you are the unbeliever and when god comes it will be you that is destroyed and burned forever in hell.

hmm
perspective
Well Christianity and Islam cannot both be right, the evidence points to Jesus as Lord, dying for our sins, and rising bodily from the grave...Islam teaches that Jesus was just a prophet from God, and never even died on the cross.
The founder of Islam grew rich and powerful, spreading his religion, the Apostles of Christ suffered physically, never grew powerful or rich, and died, claiming they saw the resurrected Christ, and that only he was the way to salvation.

Christians do and drawing of god inviting people into heaven and what not.

Christians do and drawing of god inviting people into heaven and what not.
Nope

Well Christianity and Islam cannot both be right, the evidence points to Jesus as Lord, dying for our sins, and rising bodily from the grave...Islam teaches that Jesus was just a prophet from God, and never even died on the cross.
The founder of Islam grew rich and powerful, spreading his religion, the Apostles of Christ suffered physically, never grew powerful or rich, and died, claiming they saw the resurrected Christ, and that only he was the way to salvation.

Umm hate to tell you this but Jesus was delusional and thought he was god son because everyone told him as a small child that he was from birth on.

So you are saying that Buddhist, Hinduist, and other religions are all wrong? I mean really how arrogent to think the way you believe is the one true way.

Prove that your religion is the right religion? You can't because no one knows for sure. Your guess is just as good as the Islams guess. Muhammad said he was the prophet and that god laid down laws and technically you should be listening to those laws.

Sorry but I do not believe christ died on the cross for our sins. I think christ was scapegoat and was killed to make a point to the people fromt he Romans. HE was nothing but a man who was murdered for his beliefs that he was god which I think is delusional.

Nope

Yes
http://www.helwys.com/books/mason.html
written by a christian

http://lazyeights.net/Avion/god.jpg

Drawn by a christian

http://www.myclassiclyrics.com/artist_biographies/God_biography.jpg

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/2-God.jpg

I find it funny that god is white... LOL
I find it halarious that jesus is white with blue eyes when the woman who birthed him was middle eastern.

and...how do you prove who is right? I mean they claim thier books were divined from your god!? Muhammad was a prophet and gabrille directly spoke to him.
Muhammad himself wasn't sure if he was talking to an angel or a Jinn (demon), but Khadijah 9his wife) told him it was from God and to go with it. No one else experienced what Muhammad did, and any follower of his could only take his word for it. He grew richer and more powerful as he gained followers. He did no miracles, matter of fact the only claimed miracle is the Qur'an.

I mean honestly..why are the muslims wrong but the Christians are right? What proof do you have that thier book the Koran is any less valid than your bible?
Their book had so many mistakes that they had to change the rules of grammar to fit it. An Islam scholar recently wrote about this problem, but he is unavailable for interviews...he's disappeared.
I must, however, add that if Christianity is right, Islam has to be wrong, but if Islam is right Christianity has to be wrong, and if Buddhism is right Christianity and Islam have to be wrong.

Savation.. yes the wonderful place in heaven where you will be safe and never feel pain or have problems ever again and live in bliss and happiness forever.
Yes, a place were we can experience the full presence of God.

Great sell and if you don't follow the bible the alternative is holding your soul as hostage burning in hell forever in torment and death of your soul.
Follow the Bible? Actually the teaching is that if you "confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The components here are confession and faith. Whether you get to read the Bible or not isn't part of the salvation requirement. It's not how good you are or what you can or can't do, salvation comes by what God did out of love for you, and all other people.

yet neither of these things have been proven.
What would you accept as "proof?"

it is a gimmick..to sell this religion...
Let's go back to the founders, the apostles. If this is a gimmick to sell this religion, what did they want back...power, wealth? Why did they travel the land telling people that they saw the resurrected Jesus, that he loves all people, he died on the cross for our sins, and rose physically from the dead? What did they gain, not wealth or power, but they did get beaten, stoned, hated, and rejected, by many. That's the question that needs to be asked.

and because humans are so superstitious and cannot face the fact of death and death we cease to exist this fantacy is made up to sooth them and make them feel safe like everything will be ok in the end yet not one shed of proof that anything exist beyond our own death.
What would convince you that the supernatural exists?

With the "virgin" mary either two things happend.

1) there are aliens who claim to be god and bonded thier dna with human Dna and artificailly inseminated Mary
And what evidence do you have to support this?

2) Mary got raped and got pregnant and in those times a woman who was raped and got pregant was sentenced to death by stoning. Josoph wanted to protect mary and they made up her becoming pregant by god to save her life.
If a woman was raped and got pregnant she was sentence to death??? I suspect you're thinking of certain Islamic nations.

Jesus thought he was gods sone because he was taught all his life he was he began to believe it.
Jesus thought he was God's son, but was mistaken. How do you account for the miracles he performed, and his bodily resurrection?

Stark there is nothing you could say that would make me believe the crap written in that book called the bible.

I'm not sure if I did. I believe I said I was not sure. It began happening as soon as Christianity had a foothold as a more or less major religion and powerful people began converting to Christianity. When exactly this happened on a large scale I am not sure.
Yes, when Christianity became politicized, many used it to become powerful and do evil things, but even within that culture there were those who followed Christ and lived as he would want them to.

Stark there is nothing you could say that would make me believe the crap written in that book called the bible.
That's between you and God.

there is no god!

leads me to ask again is anyting in Christianity a original idea?
Christianity and pagan religions match exactly perfectly when an unbeliever on a forum is writing about it, but when research is done I find they are not even close...unless it is a pagan religion that came after Christianity.

there is no god!
Should I believe that because you say it?

Are you sure the LXX word cannot be translated "young woman?" In the context of the passage itself (not as reinterpreted in Matthew), the word "virgin" would make no sense.
The question is why did the 70 Jewish scholars, before Christ, translate it "virgin"?
And it doesn't make sense in that context, translated "young woman."

Very little.

The bulk of it is absurd susperstitions lifted from prior (sometimes as much as 800-1000 years prior) religions and slightly changed as the ones inventing the tale saw fit.
This is a very hip accusation against Christianity, but falls apart when researched.