Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Opine]

No it is not.

I'm not the one making a claim to truth. I'm asking how those who are making a claim to truth (for example the historicity of the resurrection) can claim it as truth.

It’s their truth; backed by several thousand years of predominant custom. It’s as simple as that. You’re not going to convince them otherwise and they wont convince you.

 

[Roylion]

It’s their truth; backed by several thousand years of predominant custom.

So was the worship of Ra by the Egyptians. Doesn't make it actually true.

It’s as simple as that. You’re not going to convince them otherwise and they wont convince you.

I'm not trying to convince them otherwise.

Rather we continue to push back the darkness of superstition by refuting and challenging unsupported and unfounded claims to truth (which for many is nothing more than proselytizing). These claims to 'truth' offer no evidence in support of such claims.

People are free to believe what they like on faith only (such as the resurrection), but when claiming such as 'truth' in order to proselytise, then their claims will be challenged.

 

[Opine]

So was the worship of Ra by the Egyptians. Doesn't make it actually true.



I'm not trying to convince them otherwise.

Rather we continue to push back the darkness of superstition by refuting and challenging unsupported and unfounded claims to truth (which for many is nothing more than proselytizing). These claims to 'truth' offer no evidence in support of such claims.

People are free to believe what they like on faith only (such as the resurrection), but when claiming such as 'truth' in order to proselytise, then their claims will be challenged.

Darkness? It’s a not insignificant foundation of your own nation. What’s this darkness nonsense?
.

 

[Roylion]

What’s this darkness nonsense?

The darkness of superstition.

A superstition is any belief or practice considered by non-practitioners to be irrational or supernatural, attributed to fate or magic, perceived supernatural influence, or fear of that which is unknown. Darkness is linked symbolically with evil, mystery, chaos and death.

It’s the foundation of your own nation.

Indeed.

When the Constitution was being drafted, several religious groups and denominations advocated for the recognition of God in the Constitution

But fortunately the Constitution also said

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth"

 

[Evolved1]

I'm not trying to convince them otherwise.

Rather we continue to push back the darkness of superstition by refuting and challenging unsupported and unfounded claims to truth (which for many is nothing more than proselytizing). These claims to 'truth' offer no evidence in support of such claims.

People are free to believe what they like on faith only (such as the resurrection), but when claiming such as 'truth' in order to proselytise, then their claims will be challenged.

I'd go a step further in my view that any claim can be challenged even if it's not being utilised to proselytise or packaged as 'truth'. The entire point of online discourse is to discuss, challenge, and debate ideas.

Some feel that religious beliefs should be afforded deeper respect and a level of protection from such challenges, though I don't agree with that. Faith is a choice, and any choice can be challenged. Sexuality and race aren't choices, so therefore should be afforded a level of respect that religious beliefs don't warrant.

Does Christianity respect non-believers? Clearly not. In that case, why should non-believers respect a religion that doesn't respect them?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Is not a question of who’s better. Even your own country’s Westminster legal system is predominately influenced by Christian doctrine.

Um, I'm not the one claiming anything's better.

 

[Opine]

The darkness of superstition.

A superstition is any belief or practice considered by non-practitioners to be irrational or supernatural, attributed to fate or magic, perceived supernatural influence, or fear of that which is unknown



Indeed.

…and yet, despite the darkness, superstition and irrationality that you keep referring to, we’ve ended up with a great country and decent set of ethics.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Well what would you call someone that has been dead for three days. Tri can mean three and dead together can make the new word Tridead (meaning dead for three days).

He was Tridead and then he resurrected.

Well, obviously, if he got up and moved around after three days he wasn't dead, was he? Not sure I can make this any clearer.

Dead means dead. You know perfectly well what it means.

Dead does not mean getting up and moving around after three days.

Conversely, if someone thought to be dead gets up after three days and moves around, then they weren't dead.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The burden is on you.

Um, no it isn't. Roy is not the one making the claim.

 

[Evolved1]

Well, obviously, if he got up and moved around after three days he wasn't dead, was he? Not sure I can make this any clearer.

Dead means dead. You know perfectly well what it means.

Dead does not mean getting up and moving around after three days.

Conversely, if someone thought to be dead gets up after three days and moves around, then they weren't dead.

Mate, he was just like a phone that needed to be recharged. There was a wireless charger in the tomb.

See, god is technologically advanced. More proof for the validity of Christianity.

Why wont you accept this obvious truth? Turn or burn.

 

[Roylion]

…and yet, despite the darkness, superstition and irrationality that you keep referring to, we’ve ended up with a great country and decent set of ethics.

The Enlightenment was wonderful wasn't it. Locke, Montesquieu, Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau amongst others were advocates of reason and logic and condemned irrationality and superstition.

Voltaire. "The superstitious man is to the rogue what the slave is to the tyrant. Further, the superstitious man is governed by the fanatic and becomes fanatic."

“Superstition sets the whole world in flames.."

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Mate, he was just like a phone that needed to be recharged. There was a wireless charger in the tomb.

See, god is technologically advanced. More proof for the validity of Christianity.

Why wont you accept this obvious truth? Turn or burn.

Yes but what I wnat to get to the bottom of is how can someone "come back from the dead". Either "dead" is meaningless (and you and I and old mate know perfectly well it has a very specific meaning), or Jesus wasn't dead. My definition of dead is not alive. If Jesus was seen alive three days after being believed dead, he can't have been dead unless "dead" no longer means dead.

 

[Evolved1]

Yes but what I wnat to get to the bottom of is how can someone "come back from the dead". Either "dead" is meaningless (and you and I and old mate know perfectly well it has a very specific meaning), or Jesus wasn't dead. My definition of dead is not alive. If Jesus was seen alive three days after being believed dead, he can't have been dead unless "dead" no longer means dead.

There's no boundaries to faith. For one who accepts a belief without substantiating evidence, what couldn't they accept as true? They'll come up with any elaborate story to justify their beliefs in the supernatural rather than accept the cold hard logic than dead people don't come back.

That's why I equate faith to conspiracy theories. In fact, I'm being nice there. Organised religion is more like a Nigerian scam with their endless promises of streets of gold and virgins, but no evidence you'll ever receive any of the goodies.

 

[Total Power]

I think the burden falls on you to identify the relevant circumstancial obstacles to your contention; which by the way seems firmly atheist, not agnostic as I think you’ve written.

I will tell you why the need arose for 'saviours' starting from OT. (Copy pasting my older post in this thread). I will tell you why and how YWH came into existence and why Moses was a required character. You can then extend this to Jesus (the god).

if you read history, there is a purpose to con people. The hebrew babel is a complete fabrication by a small group of Isrealites who wanted to exalt themselves over everyone else. While they were exiled in Babylon, they discovered all the Sumerian myths of creation, the epics of Gilgamesh where their Noah flood story is copied from. The Legend of Sargon the Great they fabricate part of the Moses story. Sargon s birth story that his mother had a secret pregnancy and could not keep him so she tugged him in a basket safely and he floated down the Euphrates river where a gardner of the king finds him.

The book of lamentations they plagerize from the Laments of Ur and 4 other cities after being conquered or destroyed. Their code of laws and code of rules were taken from king Ur Namme tablets of law and his code of rules similar to the Hammurabi code of laws. None of this existed before they were taken captive to Babylon. It was all fabricated in Babylon and with a covenant that named them god s chosen people. TOTAL fabrication.

Lament for Ur - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was after they returned to Jerusalem that they edited and finalized their colossal creation. They re invented themselves as superior to all others. When they return from Babylon, they find that the yahweist isrealites they had left behind were back to polytheistic worship so they decided to bring back the pantheon of lesser gods making them into a hierarchy of angels and demons. This is the other part of the moses story. When he comes back from mt sinai and finds the people worshipping a cow. Moses breaks the tablets. They just edit n accomodate the pantheon of gods so they would have more appeal to the polytheistic population.

Abrahamic faiths that have a poor understanding of myth in ancient society. Yahweh was merely a nationalistic God, the God of Israel. Adherents to the Abrahamic faiths don't understand that.

Similarly the character of Jesus evolved from Mark to Matthew to John. It wasn't until John (the youngest of all Jesus) that Jesus was fully God, telling people he is God, making miracles life right and center. Very little in Mark (the oldest of gospels) tells us that Jesus is indeed the same guy as John. Why? cause John been rewritten over centuries. In Mark Jesus says : Why you call me Good, only God is good, for this reason. OT states, God cannot be appearing as a Man and no mortal will see 'my face'. Mark, Matthew were on the right lines, till John came along. I will more later on on how Greek translations originally suggested John 10:30 is not what most Christians made it out to be.

 

[Boston tiger]

And that seems to be not the case at all.

Here's how it very likely was without all the fictitious supernatural additions to present Jesus as the messiah and the morrtal son of God.

A Yeshua ben-Yosef in Roman Judea who was some sort of seer / teacher very possibly lived sometime in Roman Judea before AD 40 and was perhaps was arrested for blasphemy and sedition, and was subsequently executed.

Certainly by the time the Gospels came to be written, the writers of the Gospels took pains to interpret Jesus through the Jewish scriptures: indeed they presented Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish scriptures. In the opening verse, Mark wrote: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it in written in the prophets."

For example, the "Gospel according to Mark" is dated to have been written somewhere between AD 70 - 135. The first reference to that particular Gospel as being written by "Mark" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340).

And why possibly as as late AD 135? The majority of recent scholars believe Chapter 16 Verse 8 to be the original ending of the Gospel and this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome. But that means Mark's Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus would be seen in Galilee. That's it. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Mark 16:9–20, (a later ending of Mark) with accounts of the resurrected Jesus, the commissioning of the disciples to proclaim the gospel, and Christ's ascension was possibly written in the early 2nd century and added later in the same century.

Who "Mark" might have been is essentially unknown, but the two main candidates in the Early Christian tradition were:
- John Mark: the companion of Peter
- Mark the cousin of Barnabas

According to Eusebius the Church historian (AD 260–340), Papias claimed that John “the Elder” (believed to be the apostle John) told him (Papias) that John Mark had written it. So....

• Eusebius (fourth century) tells us that
• Papias (first–second century) said that
• John the Elder told Papias that
• Mark wrote this gospel based on
• The Apostle Peter’s reminiscences

Unfortunately none of Papias's writings have survived and indeed what is known of his writings are recorded in the later "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus in about AD 180 and much later by Eusebius in "Ecclesiastical History" finished about AD 324. It was in fact Eusebius who wrote that Papias wrote the following "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered." However the consensus is that this is not historically accurate.

The early Church fathers weren't beyond altering or bending the evidence to suit their own doctrine.

One of them even says that it was his duty to do so, to convince the unbelievers or enemies of the truth of their message.

The Gospel according to Matthew was probably written anywhere from AD 80 – 145 and originated in in Antioch and was clearly wqritten after Mark's and further embellished. The Gospel of Matthew was largely written to present Jesus's ministry as largely the fulfilment of messianic prophecies from Isaiah and to a lesser extent other Biblical prophets and is part of the process to transform Jesus from executed criminal to divine Messiah and to base it in a solid foundation in existing Jewish and Greek doctrine.

Matthew includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses with further additions. Now we have a vast earthquake, and instead of a mere boy standing around beside an already-opened tomb (Mark), an angel - blazing like lightning - descended from the sky and paralysed two guards that happened to be there, rolled away the stone single-handedly before several witnesses - and then announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. Not to mention the rising of the saints who rose from their graves and walked around the city at the time of the crucifixion. All new.

Nowhere does the author of Matthew claim to have been an eyewitness to events, which seems strange if the author was the apostle Matthew.

Then “the Gospel according to Luke” appears. Most experts date the composition of Luke (and Acts of the Apostles which is generally believed to be written by the same author as Luke) to around AD 80-90, although some suggest AD 90-110 . There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century and the supernatural aspects are greatly enhanced from Mark and Matthe.. Suddenly what was a vague and perhaps symbolic allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance, complete with a dramatic re-enactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and seeing the empty death shroud for himself. As happened from Mark to Matthew, other details have grown. The one young man of Mark, who became a flying angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become two men, this time not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment. And to make the new story even more suspicious as a doctrinal invention, Jesus goes out of his way to say he is not a vision, and proves it by asking the Disciples to touch him, and then by eating a fish. And though both Mark and Matthew said the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the story, and places this particular experience in the more populous and prestigious Jerusalem.

Matthew and Luke both use the virgin birth (or more accurately the divine conception that precedes it) to mark the moment when Jesus becomes the Son of God. Matthew uses Isaiah 7:14 to support his narrative, but scholars agree that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah, almah, signifies a girl of childbearing age without reference to virginity, and was aimed at Isaiah's own immediate circumstances. The earlier Mark, dating from around AD 70, has no birth story and states that Jesus's mother had no belief in her son as if she had forgotten the angel's visit. This in itself places considerable doubt on the story. Then even later John never mentions it. And neither does Paul.

Finally along comes the Gospel of John. John is usually dated to AD 90–110, so after Luke, most likely written in AD 80-90, 40-60 years after the events it purports to describe.. By now the legend has grown considerably, and instead of one boy, or two men, or one angel, now we have two angels at the empty tomb. John now has Jesus prove he is solid by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the Doubting Thomas by letting him put his fingers into the very wounds themselves. Like Luke, the most grandiose appearances to the disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee as Mark originally claimed. In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrate of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrate of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. It is obvious that John is trying very hard to create proof that the resurrection was the physical raising of a corpse, and at the end of a steady growth of fable, he takes considerable license to make up quite a few details. To reinforce that notion the story of the raising of Lazarus was added, a totally new 'miracle.'

The number 7 features also prominently. Seven signs. Seven "I am" discourses. Jesus does not work "miracles", but "signs" which unveil his divine identity. John also contains metaphorical stories or allegories rather than parables. As history or the recording of an actual event its is virtually worthless. What it does show is how Christians of the early 2nd century were beginning to view Jesus.

Even Clement of Alexandria implied that the Gospel of John should not be taken as a literal biography.

By the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified the author of the Gospel with John the Apostle. Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it.

Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship, are that the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation. The Synoptic Gospels, however, are united in identifying John as a fisherman and refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered".

So whoever wrote the “the Gospel according to John” he/they lived sixty years after Jesus, in a different part of the world, in a different cultural context, speaking a different language - Greek rather than Aramaic - and had a completely different level of education. It certainlu cannot have been the apostle John and was thus certainly not an eyewitness to any of the purported miracles including the resurrection.

The 'Gospel according to John' also appears to have been composed in two or three stages. The earliest surviving New Testament manuscript with parts of what appear to be from the Gospel according to John is a Greek papyrus fragment discovered in Egypt in 1920.

While “the Gospel according to John” identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", the text does not actually name this disciple. By the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle. Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it. Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland list the probable date for this manuscript as c. AD. 125, indicating that at least one stage of John was in existence at this time.

Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship are that the Gospel of John is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life, and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation. The Synoptic Gospels, however, are united in identifying John as a fisherman and refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered". So whoever wrote the “the Gospel according to John” lived sixty years after Jesus, in a different part of the world, in a different cultural context, speaking a different language - Greek rather than Aramaic - and with a completely different level of education and cannot have been the apostle John.

Whatever the case, it's pretty clear that the consensus is that none of the authors of the Gospels, whoever they were, were eyewitnesses of the events they described and they were writing at the very least forty odd years after said events.

So the Gospels were clearly written to push an agenda that Jesus was supposedly the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. The Gospels are works that are theological and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize. As Ive said the character and many of the deeds of Jesus are effectively a theological and literary construct. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. So too is any description in the gospels that alludes to the nature of god.

Authors such as Raymond Brown point out that the Gospels contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details. W.D. Davies and E.P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus' early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could

It was quite common for books to be written anonymously in antiquity than it is today. Just within the pages of the New Testament alone, nine of the books – fully one third of the writings – were produced by authors who did not reveal their names. When the early church fathers were deciding what books to include in “Scripture” however it was necessary to "know" who wrote the books since only writings with clear apostolic connections could be considered authoritative Scripture.

Just to give a simple example, in the third and fourth centuries there was a book in circulation called "Against All Heresies", which we still have today and which gives a description of thirty-two individuals or groups which held beliefs that the anonymous author considered false. One of the great "heresy hunters" of the early Christian centuries was Tertullian from the early third century. Some readers of Against All Heresies” came to think that even though the book was anonymous, it must have been written by him. So scribes who copied the book identified Tertullian as the author and the book was added to the collection of Tertullian’s works, even though it never claims to be written by him. Modern scholars are convinced on stylistic grounds that Tertullian did not write the book. Some have argued that "Against All Heresies", was written by an unknown author some seventy years earlier in Greek rather than Tertullian’s Latin so the book we now have is a translation into Latin of an originally anonymous work.

Why be anonymous? In some instances an ancient author did not need to name himself because his readers knew perfectly well who he was and did not need to be told. This is almost certainly the case with 2 and 3 John. These were private letters sent from someone who called himself "the elder" to a church in another location.

Some scholars, such as Bart Ehrman for example, have argued the Gospels were like that – written by leading persons in congregations who did not need to identify themselves because everyone knew who they were. But then as books and writings were copied and circulated, names were still not attached to them. As a result the identities of the original author (or authors) were soon lost. And importantly in support of this the Church fathers writing in the second century AD allude to or quote from the Gospels but do not name them. Justin Martyr, writing about AD 150-160, quotes verses from the Gospels but does not indicate what the Gospels were called. For him the books are collectively known as the “Memoirs of the Gospels”.

As I said earlier, the first reference gospel being assigned to “Mark” and “Matthew" is by Papias of Hierapolis who is believed to have lived about c. AD 60-135 as reported by Eusebius a Church historian (AD 260–340). Irenaeus, another church father, also assigned names to them in his work "Against Heresies" written sometime between AD 174 and 189, approximately one hundred years after the gospels had gone into circulation. At one point in his writing he insists that “heretics” (false teachers) have gone astray because they use Gospels that are not real Gospels or because they use one or the other of the four that are legitimately Gospels. Some heretical groups used only Matthew, some only Mark and so on. For Irenaeus, just as the Gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be only four gospels and they are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Eusebius:

It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

The point is that there were many "gospels" in circulation at the time. Christians who wanted to appeal to the authority of the Gospels had to know which ones were "legitimate". For orthodox Christians, legitimate Gospels could only be those that has apostolic authority behind them – either an apostle himself or a close companion of an apostle who spoke with his authority. So the Church fathers ascribed the chosen manuscripts they regarded as canonical to apostles or close companions of Church figures.

The actual writers of the Gospel are unknown....i.e. 'anonymous'. and in any case they are not historical works. The Jesus of the Gospels is a literary, theological construct, likely wrapped around a kernel of a minor historical figure, whose earthly remains quite likely to this day lie mouldering somewhere under the city of Jerusalem.




See above.



That is just another unsubstianted claim.

What extraordinary evidence do you need from 2000 years ago ? If he appeared to Caesar ? Wouldn’t you just say he didn’t die on the cross.?
Your extraordinary evidence is the power of the Holy Spirit( you can’t get more extraordinary than that ) This is Christianity Roy .. this is big time… this is communing with the creator Roy . You don’t need to take the word of anyone Roy . These aren’t claims now Roy the following are directives. Go and pray Roy and come back and tell me if you felt the Holy Spirit. Then we can move on find your elusive extraordinary evidence.
Christianity… it has all the answers .

 

[Boston tiger]

The Enlightenment was wonderful wasn't it. Locke, Montesquieu, Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau amongst others were advocates of reason and logic and condemned irrationality and superstition.

Voltaire. "The superstitious man is to the rogue what the slave is to the tyrant. Further, the superstitious man is governed by the fanatic and becomes fanatic."

“Superstition sets the whole world in flames.."

“The slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things.”

 

[Rosscoe]

Um, no it isn't. Roy is not the one making the claim.

Opine is right.

Christianity has already been accepted.

 

[Rosscoe]

Mate, he was just like a phone that needed to be recharged. There was a wireless charger in the tomb.

See, god is technologically advanced. More proof for the validity of Christianity.

Why wont you accept this obvious truth? Turn or burn.

I thought tridead explained it better.

 

[Rosscoe]

“The slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things.”

This is poetic.

 

[Roylion]

Your extraordinary evidence is the power of the Holy Spirit( you can’t get more extraordinary than that )

I see no evidence for the existence of ghosts or spirits. This so called "Holy Spirit" that you refer to is merely the product of human imagination. What dod the Greeks call it again? Pneuma?

This is Christianity Roy .. this is big time… this is communing with the creator Roy .

Your proselytizing remains ineffective.

These aren’t claims now Roy the following are directives.

Directives by who? You? And why should I follow these so called "directives"?

Christianity… it has all the answers .

I don't see that at all. It does have have a great deal of invention and story-telling. Your proselytizing is really quite amusing but it's breathtakingly ineffective. Can't you do better than what you've served up so far? Your efforts to proselytize your unsupported beliefs has really has been quite underwhelming.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Opine is right.

Christianity has already been accepted.

I just mentioned a few posts back how the Enlightenment blew the religious explanation for the origins of the universe out of the water. In particular the theory of evolution propounded by the devoutly Christian Charles Darwin.

Huge swathes of Christianity are inappropriate to the modern societies we have evolved into. Much of it is downright detrimental to peace and justice in the modern world. If it has been “accepted” (and I’ve just shown it’s been anything but) that is a mistake.

 

[Roylion]

“The slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things.”

Ahh..Thomas Aquinas....that philosopher beyond compare.

For all his supposed logical prowess, he was constrained by the fact that no part of his reasoning could bring him into disagreement with the Scripture, and he often supposedly trumped opposing arguments by simply throwing a quotation from the Bible or one of the Church Fathers at the problem. Sounds exactly like the tactics of some on here.

Some of his gems....

Strictly speaking, however, the father should be loved more than the mother."

"...a man ought to love his father more than his children, because, to wit, he loves his father as his principle, in which respect he is a more exalted good and more like God."

"With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death."

"On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion [torture], that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received."

"In disputing about the faith, two things must be observed: one on the part of the disputant; the other on the part of his hearers. On the part of the disputant, we must consider his intention. For if he were to dispute as though he had doubts about the faith, and did not hold the truth of faith for certain, and as though he intended to probe it with arguments, without doubt he would sin, as being doubtful of the faith and an unbeliever."

...Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice whatever. In like manner adultery is intercourse with another's wife; who is allotted to him by the law emanating from God. Consequently intercourse with any woman, by the command of God, is neither adultery nor fornication. The same applies to theft, which is the taking of another's property."

...That the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned."

"This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that he should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good." (Surely infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist.)


Betrand Russell in his A History of Western Philosophy said of Aquinas.

"There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. "

 

[Tyberious Funk]

It’s their truth; backed by several thousand years of predominant custom. It’s as simple as that. You’re not going to convince them otherwise and they wont convince you.

Not true. Atheists are completely willing to change their opinion, they simple ask for evidence.

Most theists are completely unwilling to change their opinion, despite the evidence.

 

[Rosscoe]

I just mentioned a few posts back how the Enlightenment blew the religious explanation for the origins of the universe out of the water. In particular the theory of evolution propounded by the devoutly Christian Charles Darwin.

Huge swathes of Christianity are inappropriate to the modern societies we have evolved into. Much of it is downright detrimental to peace and justice in the modern world. If it has been “accepted” (and I’ve just shown it’s been anything but) that is a mistake.

I have been looking at primary schools lately. The Christian school has 3 classes of students while the state school has a composite class with year 1.

People are turning to Christian education in their droves. The Christian schools outnumber the state schools three to one in the area. And Christmas is celebrated at the state school too.

That modern society stuff is media advertising paid for by people with an agenda.

 

[carltonchelsea]

There were plenty of people that witnessed the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross.

I am sure when someone is sentenced to the death penalty; they make sure the person is dead. I do not believe that soldiers who were that brutal; do not know how to carry out a death penalty especially in front of an audience.

You are free to believe what you want though.

We’ll then, it shouldn’t be too difficult to provide the evidence if that’s the case?!