Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Pie eyed]

In all fairness, what Muhammad claims would then discount what Jesus claimed. They can't 'both' be right, therefore one has to be wrong. The fact that Muhammed seemingly changed his mind on topics he wrote about that coincided with changes to his own circumstance may (from my perspective) suggest a lack of final authority of his words. Add that to the fact he did not in fact perform any miracles, and a number of other differences, and it is pretty clear which one of the two would have a greater stake as the 'divine' character, and who would be your normal human being

In religion there is no "right" or "wrong".
One man's right is another man's wrong and both believe this passionately.
Changing ones mind would be totally normal for a human, which both claimed to be.

 

[timskul]

Not sure exactly what you're getting at. Most religion gives a framework for 'right and wrong' for its followers. Unless it is on our human level, where subjectivity on matters differs. On a theological level though, if you had to pick one of Christianity or Islam, you would have to say one is right and one is wrong, which is sorta what I was getting at.

 

[Tassieboy]

I am not a Muslim because the Islamic view on God is not consistent with an absolute God such as their beliefs that salvation is from human acts. As timskul said, Muhammad's acts far less suggest divinity than Jesus Christ, if any and it's not a hard option believing which of the two were truly divine, and therefore a Prophet of God.

Or it's because you we're born into a Christian culture. Don't fool yourself. Your brain has been infected by a Christian virus to disregard any other religion as insanity in an effort to help the virus manifest.

 

[tb_fanboy]

Or it's because you we're born into a Christian culture. Don't fool yourself. Your brain has been infected by a Christian virus to disregard any other religion as insanity in an effort to help the virus manifest.

no it's really not a hard choice for me to make from my own understanding

 

[timskul]

In fairness, you could say the same about anyone that isn't brought up in a Christian family, spending time at church etc, but instead has no grounding in faith as a kid growing up, in a public school that does not acknowledge any kind of God.
'Perhaps you were simply brought up by a secular culture. Don't fool yourself. Your brain has been infected by an atheistic virus to disregard any religion as insanity' etc etc. One's beliefs or affiliation to a group/religion shouldn't discount their thoughts on a topic. Says more about those discounting their opinions than those suggesting their own.

Everyone is brought up in some way, whether that be a Christian culture, Islamic culture, or one that does not acknowledge any God. Yes our upbringing influences our decisions, but our minds are not bound by what we grew up being taught. Everyone makes a call about their own beliefs, and that can't be forced, unless maybe you're in a hardline muslim family that'd kill you if they found out you converted to something else. In that case you're bound to a fair extent by fear.

 

[Bennett.]

There is one MAJOR distinctive that sets Christianity apart from other religions.
Brownie points for whoever guesses it!

 

[fishardansin]

Ok I'll take the last word here and sum up the facts!!

Jesus most probably did exist. The mythical elements of his life, virgin birth, 12 apostles, baptism by the most holy of the faith he was to "improve", miracles, torturous death and resurrection, were added later to sell his message around the the Roman empire. He had a simple message of living simply and defeating the Romans by not playing their economic and power games. This message was twisted a bit by followers as they moved around the empire to be in accordance with what would sell to people from each area, based upon their political and religious prejudices. For this reason the idea it was the Jews, rather than the Romans, who executed Jesus was the accepted story by the church as we know recognise it is because this is what Roman leadership in the 3rd and 4th centuries would have preferred.

Christianity became so popular in the Roman empire because it was the religion for the poor, the weak and the dispossessed, in my opinion similar to socialism/communism in the 20th century. However, the reason it still exists to this day is that society needs religion to reflect and justify itself. Rome was a republic and in other times and places lasting empires with one ruler were rare. So a college or pantheon of gods represented how they saw their lives run. Rome was now a dominating empire with one ruler, monotheistic religion was needed to reflect that. Christianity was the natural choice as it was new enough to be molded to suit the purposes of the Emperor.

So all scripture of the Christians was removed that didn't portray the message that suited Roman Emperors.

Science was never ever likely to disprove the claims of the bible. In fact for most of history the best scientists and mathematicians have been deeply religious and thought that reaching for deeper understanding was bringing them closer to "the mind of god". The beginnings of perhaps the most fascinating maths, set theory, and how it has unified nearly all of maths beginning the golden age of mathematics, which is still happening, is a good example of this. Cantor, one of my favourites, was deeply religious, as well as other mental fragilities, and thought that god lived in the infinite and to understand infinity was to understand god. Another example of this is the beginnings of modern biology from the work of a monk on hereditary.

The scientific research following on from this has slowly shown that while we may never prove that god doesn't exist there is certainly NO PERSONAL GOD and if anything he is something like a computer programmer that set a few rules for a random algorithm to run .... on an infinite loop!!

Archaeology has also shown that close to zero of the old testament is true, by true I mean exactly as was state in the bible. There was a great flood when the Black Sea and Mediterranean became on sea at the end of the last ice age, and perhaps a few slaves did escape Egypt with the plagues on Egypt sounding much like the destructive forces a massive volcano, perhaps the one that finished of Minoa, I won't go into that too much otherwise that is another "essay", but there was certainly no "exodus", no world wide flood and no way of fitting 1,000,000 species on a boat in pairs.

On top of this the Jews of the old testament were just Canaanites who rejected the life styles of the cities and began a simple life in small towns. Without even studying the new testament the contradictions between each gospel show that while a person called Jesus probably existed we can ascertain nearly nothing of what really happened in his life.

Judaism, can be discounted with my critique of the old testament and really just this and the fact that Christianity and Islam are nothing more than slightly altered plagiarisms of Judaism is enough to now that they are not "the irrefutable word of god" because if they were then god is an idiot who let people go around for a long time, with no intervention, telling much of the world that they have the "irrefutable word of god" only to have another person pop up with a different "irrefutable word of god".

So while we can never 100% discount that the whole of creation had a creator it certainly was not a personal god, no religion ever devised since has ever produced a theology that stands up to reality and things like quantum mechanics and random mutation show that it would have had no idea how the universe and even just the life on this particular planet would turn out. Given that we can say with close to 100% surety that god doesn't care what choices you make in your life so base your moral reasoning about what is the right thing to do from your understanding and take from the Jesus message of do unto others what you'd have done unto you, obviously with the hope that you're mature enough to put yourself in their shoes as well.

That's it, debate over.

 

[fishardansin]

Lane Craig is fantastic at rhetoric. However, his arguments are disingenous and can be disproven. When debating with Krauss he'll just ignore the greater understanding of cosmology and continue to espouse his rubbish on that and also attempt to befuddle him on other matters like history or biology, similarly with Erkman with science/statistics while ignoring his greater understanding of history. When debating others like Hitchens it is irrelevant because Hitchens is simply a rhetorist too.

Also Lane's claims on probability and proofs is incorrect.

 

[fishardansin]

 

[Upton Sinclair]

There is one MAJOR distinctive that sets Christianity apart from other religions.
Brownie points for whoever guesses it!

Ooh, ooh! I know!

Its the only one that was completely rewritten and reinterpreted as a Roman mystery cult by the empire that spent 300 years trying to crush it! Its scriptures have no semblance of their original meaning.

What do I win?

 

[timskul]

Now, I've never given this quoting thing a crack so hopefully it'll show up alright.

Jesus most probably did exist. The mythical elements of his life, virgin birth, 12 apostles, baptism by the most holy of the faith he was to "improve", miracles, torturous death and resurrection, were added later to sell his message around the the Roman empire. He had a simple message of living simply and defeating the Romans by not playing their economic and power games. This message was twisted a bit by followers as they moved around the empire to be in accordance with what would sell to people from each area, based upon their political and religious prejudices. For this reason the idea it was the Jews, rather than the Romans, who executed Jesus was the accepted story by the church as we know recognise it is because this is what Roman leadership in the 3rd and 4th centuries would have preferred.

Interesting turn of events you have there, that are proclaimed by such authority that you'd assume its all well and good. The claim that events were added later don't hold any more water than the claim that they were written that way originally. In the end, we're both choosing to believe whichever turn of events we want, from the same evidence. And it was the Romans who executed Jesus, sure the Jews wanted to and brought about the trial and all, but it was under Roman authority. Next bit is simply an opinion or interpretation of why/how all of that came about so not really a topic of discussion. Sams as origins of maths/science. Same deal, natural explanation for supernatural is impossible, etc. "Rules for an algorithm" is a bit rough, crucial component of the idea of 'free will' should run its course.

Archaeology has also shown that close to zero of the old testament is true, by true I mean exactly as was state in the bible. There was a great flood when the Black Sea and Mediterranean became on sea at the end of the last ice age, and perhaps a few slaves did escape Egypt with the plagues on Egypt sounding much like the destructive forces a massive volcano, perhaps the one that finished of Minoa, I won't go into that too much otherwise that is another "essay", but there was certainly no "exodus", no world wide flood and no way of fitting 1,000,000 species on a boat in pairs.

Another case of, same evidence, different interpretation. A bit of googling, and you'd find plenty of historical sites uncovered that were thought to be false or questionable, and who's to say that plagues did not have a natural element to it, eg a volcano. World flood claims will always be disputed amongst the science world for obvious reasons. Plus one million species on a boat weren't necessary. For each point there is though, there's a load of material, too exhaustive for a forum and time consuming, so if its of interest obviously you can do your own stuff there, and even then everyone will come to their own conclusions.

On top of this the Jews of the old testament were just Canaanites who rejected the life styles of the cities and began a simple life in small towns. Without even studying the new testament the contradictions between each gospel show that while a person called Jesus probably existed we can ascertain nearly nothing of what really happened in his life.

Haven't previously considered the origin of the Israelites, so no comment there, might be worth some of my own reading. And again, 4 gospels, some say contradictions, some say they complement each other into one 'finished work' to give a more complete picture of Jesus' life. That comes down to the individuals interpretation again. So not really something that can be argued so to speak.

Judaism, can be discounted with my critique of the old testament and really just this and the fact that Christianity and Islam are nothing more than slightly altered plagiarisms of Judaism is enough to now that they are not "the irrefutable word of god" because if they were then god is an idiot who let people go around for a long time, with no intervention, telling much of the world that they have the "irrefutable word of god" only to have another person pop up with a different "irrefutable word of god".

Simplistic here, but how bout the outrageous suggestion that these people have their own free will, and are not always right. My few comments aren't gonna make much of a difference, so guess we'll just have to go the old 'agree to disagree'. I simply suggest is its not all as cut and dried as you'd suppose it to be.

 

[Bennett.]

Ooh, ooh! I know!

Its the only one that was completely rewritten and reinterpreted as a Roman mystery cult by the empire that spent 300 years trying to crush it! Its scriptures have no semblance of their original meaning.

What do I win?

your prize, sir...

 

[Upton Sinclair]

your prize, sir...

I'll give you points for wit, if nothing else...

 

[Monniehawk]

I'll give you points for wit, if nothing else...

I give him half points.
It's only fair.

 

[cancat]

There is one MAJOR distinctive that sets Christianity apart from other religions.
Brownie points for whoever guesses it!

Communion. The act of eating your Messiah is unique - and kind of f*cked up.

 

[Pie eyed]

There is one MAJOR distinctive that sets Christianity apart from other religions.
Brownie points for whoever guesses it!

They're right and their Godis the one true God.
These beliefs are very particular to Christians.

 

[Bennett.]

nope and nope!

 

[Upton Sinclair]

nope and nope!

So do you want to have a crack at rationalizing the fact that modern Christianity is a Roman mystery cult that bears very little resemblance to the teaching of Jesus and that the scriptures were all rewritten by Romans hundreds of years after the man supposedly died?

 

[Monniehawk]

So do you want to have a crack at rationalizing the fact that modern Christianity is a Roman mystery cult that bears very little resemblance to the teaching of Jesus and that the scriptures were all rewritten by Romans hundreds of years after the man supposedly died?

The OT was the base with Jesus issuing the New Covenant. The current NT was compiled well after JC (it is actually an anthology rather than a single book), but the four Gospels, in particular, are widely accepted as being written between between 37-100 years after him. Paul's epistles were probably written about a century after JC.
Most of these were recorded or translated into an early Greek dialect which was the dominant language of the Eastern Mediterranean (certainly for scholars).
Although most book's authors are anonymous, those ascribed to Luke are beautifully crafted texts. Obviously a scholar and his didactic prose is superb, which contrasts with the proselytising of Paul, imho. Scary guy, that one! John (who claims to have been part of JC's inner circle) could also be off the planet. Try working through Revelations without tripping out.
The final 27 books of the NT were selected from many texts, with the Apocrypha collection being a most notable exclusion. Even so, The Apocrypha still holds some relevance in many xian churches and amongst Theologians.
While there is cause for some concern about the veracity and direction of much of the scriptures, I think there really is some great stuff in it. That is, if you want to discard the dross and take the overall concept with a grain of salt.

 

[holy diver]

 

[holy diver]

New improved christmas mythology.

 

[Bennett.]

Actually, Pauls letters were written within a couple of years of his conversion, which was no more than a few years after the crucifixion. I wish that people
who appear to espouse knowledge about biblical history and dating actually did some more research. The oldest fragment of scripture we have at the moment
is from John and is no older that 120AD. This fragment was found in Egypt. Yup, within these mysterious hundreds of years of christian scriptures being doctored, somehow the scriptures had already made their way down to Egypt. The implications of this is that the entire collection of NT scriptures that we have were all written and completed in the first century. In fact, the first gospel written by Mark, has been dated to about no more than 15-20 years after the crucifixion. As far as the apocryphal books, they went against the teaching, character and person of Jesus written in the other gospels etc. I.e, they were not right and therefore rejected as being man-made.
Please know what you are talking about friends.

 

[skilts]

Actually, Pauls letters were written within a couple of years of his conversion, which was no more than a few years after the crucifixion. I wish that people
who appear to espouse knowledge about biblical history and dating actually did some more research. The oldest fragment of scripture we have at the moment
is from John and is no older that 120AD. This fragment was found in Egypt. Yup, within these mysterious hundreds of years of christian scriptures being doctored, somehow the scriptures had already made their way down to Egypt. The implications of this is that the entire collection of NT scriptures that we have were all written and completed in the first century. In fact, the first gospel written by Mark, has been dated to about no more than 15-20 years after the crucifixion. As far as the apocryphal books, they went against the teaching, character and person of Jesus written in the other gospels etc. I.e, they were not right and therefore rejected as being man-made.
Please know what you are talking about friends.

I'll bet you have perfected that smug, all-knowing christian smile. Your second-last paragraph is proof of nothing, other than the contortions you are prepared to endure so you don't have to examine your precious, and irrelevant, beliefs.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I was referring to the council of nicea...

 

[tb_fanboy]

Actually, Pauls letters were written within a couple of years of his conversion, which was no more than a few years after the crucifixion.

Yeah, this is most accurate to my understanding. The book of 1 Thessalonians of Paul's epistles were probably written AD 52 -ish.