Why dont we all believe????

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

<> - could be because there are more teachers than priests?

God, are you serious? It was a joke on the way Rocketlaw wrote it. He meant: Way more teachers molest kids than priests molest kids.

Just a funny note as to his wording....

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

It isn't "blind faith" to believe it

Yes it is

How can it be anything but blind faith ????????

Blind faith is to believe in something when there is a complete and total lack of supporting evidence. If there was evidence then there would be no need for faith as the evidence would compel us to believe.

So YOUR beliefs are based on "blind" faith.....

If you don't agree, then its simple, prove otherwise...

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[shropshire 0]

Hi there,
<>

1st : I'm not God... so would you like me to pass on the message?

2nd : <> - Do you think so? Yes I understood your word play. Although the phase Way more is so high school

3rd : I replied to the wrong post. was answering Lawrockets initial assertion and for that I'm sorry(ish).

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hi there,
<>

1st : I'm not God... so would you like me to pass on the message?

2nd : <> - Do you think so? Yes I understood your word play. Although the phase Way more is so high school

3rd : I replied to the wrong post. was answering Lawrockets initial assertion and for that I'm sorry(ish).

.

Quote

1st : I'm not God... so would you like me to pass on the message?

You don't say...

Quote

2nd : <> - Do you think so? Yes I understood your word play.

Then why did you answer it literally?

Quote

Although the phase Way more is so high school

I didn't write it; I reposted Lawrocket's words - so is he high school now?

Quote

3rd : I replied to the wrong post. was answering Lawrockets initial assertion and for that I'm sorry(ish).

No need to apologize here, we're just having fun

[Erroll 80]

Quote

.... Although the phase Way more is so high school

When you phrase it like that, perhaps some more time in high school is in order?

[Mockingbird 0]

And my beliefs would be wrong.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Hi back, back.

I'm afraid so. It doesn't take much effort to make people doubt something that they don't really want to believe in the first place.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

And my beliefs would be wrong.

can you explain what you mean, this statement doesnt make sense???

Can you, or can you not show that belief in your God does not require "blind faith"?

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[Mockingbird 0]

Hi, narci. Sorry to be obtuse, but thanks for asking for clarification 'cos I don't want to leave the wrong impression.

I was just drawing a distinction between the trustworthiness or credibility of various ancient texts. For instance (this is taken from my notes on "The Reliability of the New Testament Text"):
1-Euripides wrote about 450 B.C.
The earliest copy (only 9 copies found in all) which exists was made in A.D. 1100, leaving a time span of 1500 years between the origin and the earliest existing copy.
2- Catullus wrote about 900 B.C.
The earliest copy (only 3 copies found in all) which exists was made in A.D. 1550, leaving a time span of 1600 years between the original and the earliest existing copy.
3- Homer's works were written around 900 B.C.
The earliest existing copy (there are 643 copies in all) was made in 400 B.C., leaving a time span of 500 years from the time he wrote to the earliest existing copy.
4- The New Testament was written between A.D. 40-80.
The earliest exisiting copy (and there are 24,000 copies found in all, tho' many are incomplete) was made about A.D. 125, leaving a time span of only 50 years from the original to the earliest existing copy.
5- I also mentioned Shakespeare. He wrote 37 plays in the 17th century-- all after the invention of printing. The originals of Shakespeare's plays haven't survived either. We're dependent on copies to reconstruct the text. In every play there are gaps in the printed text where we don't know what was originally written. Textual scholars attempt to fill in the gaps by making an educated guess as to what it originally said.

So if you compare the number of existing copies of ancient texts by these writers, you find that not only are there thousands more existing copies of bibilcal texts than other ancient works, but that the time span between the original biblical writings and the earliest found copies of these writings is overwhelmingly shorter-- much closer to the original date of writing.

No other ancient book has anywhere near the amount of manuscript evidence as the New Testament.

If you're interested, I can email you the Word document from which my notes came. (I think I got them from Pajarito.) It's really interesting stuff.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

I was referring to your last comment about how different it would be if I had been brought up being taught Islam.

Quote

Can you, or can you not show that belief in your God does not require "blind faith"?

Yes, I can show that my belief in God doesn't require "blind faith." There is good reason for me to believe what the biblical authors have written about God. There's good reason (evidence) to find the New Testament text adequately, if not perfectly, reliable. And there's good reason to believe in its historical accuracy. But I would hardly know where to begin; there is so much... which is why I certainly wouldn't mind emailing you the Word document.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

I was referring to your last comment about how different it would be if I had been brought up being taught Islam.

Quote

Can you, or can you not show that belief in your God does not require "blind faith"?

Yes, I can show that my belief in God doesn't require "blind faith." There is good reason for me to believe what the biblical authors have written about God. There's good reason (evidence) to find the New Testament text adequately, if not perfectly, reliable. And there's good reason to believe in its historical accuracy. But I would hardly know where to begin; there is so much... which is why I certainly wouldn't mind emailing you the Word document.

Reason even "good reason" is most certainly not evidence....

To date there is not a shred of evidence that can authenticate the bible depiction of God and the stories of a chap called Jesus, no one has found Noahs ark, the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, etc etc etc.

Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations.

There simply is no evidence what so ever to support you belief in your god……

No matter what you believe, you are unable to prove that belief in your god does not require blind faith, you simply can’t.. that’s fact…..

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

2- Catullus wrote about 900 B.C.
The earliest copy (only 3 copies found in all) which exists was made in A.D. 1550, leaving a time span of 1600 years between the original and the earliest existing copy.

Possibly a typo but you're a long way out on that one. A long way out.

Quote

3- Homer's works were written around 900 B.C.
The earliest existing copy (there are 643 copies in all) was made in 400 B.C., leaving a time span of 500 years from the time he wrote to the earliest existing copy.

Homer may not be a great example to use here. You would find very few people that believe Homer's works are known to us in their original form. It's doubtful if they were written by one person at all and may well have undergone significant transformations before settling on a solid form.

With your other example, Euripides and Shakespeare - bear in mind that these are just entertainment, designed to win awards, impress the audience and maybe send out a topical political message. What is to be gained by major alterations in the script? I think it's difficult to compare such an influential and controversial work as the Bible, a book of religious doctrine, with plays.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I think that's very true; in a way we are 'wired' to believe, and to be able to have the sort of mystical experiences that saints, mystics, shamans etc have. There's a good overview of this in the book "Why God won't go away" - it goes over some of that wiring and how/why it evolved

I have not read this book but I cannot see how "religion" or any other outside influence can be "wired" in us. I believe that the "God" of any religion is learned, not wired. If some one were to be isolated from all of the world religions at birth through death, they would have no concept, whatsoever, of any form of a god. IMO, god is learned, not wired.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[narcimund 0]

Quote

IMO, god is learned, not wired.

Did you come to that opinion after reading the research in the field or does it just feel right to you?

It's really too bad English doesn't have different words for those two types of opinions.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,110]

>I have not read this book but I cannot see how "religion" or any
>other outside influence can be "wired" in us.

Lots of behaviors are wired into us. Mating behavior - one need only watch pigeons going after mates to see the parallels between guys in bars. Pack behavior - becomes very obvious in group dynamics when one person 'dominates' a group of people.

These behaviors have evolutionary advantages, which is why they have been retained. An important distinction is that they do not code for SPECIFIC behaviors, only a TYPE of behavior. For example, mating behaviors might result in guys buying powerful cars and racing them to impress chicks in one culture, or working out and getting big muscles, or wearing the biggest, gaudiest earrings. The theme is the same (demonstrating superiority over other males) even if the details are different.

Likewise, there's no specific programming for Jesus, or for Allah or whatever. There is a basic desire to understand cause and effect; animals that can do this are better able to survive. In more intelligent animals that can understand abstract concepts, the cause is often a more abstract idea like "low pressure causes rainy weather" or "God sent the locusts because you were bad." Once we learned the rigor that must be applied to science, we started to understand the difference between the two, but that took a while.

Note that even today people confuse religion and science, and indeed some apply the same fervor to both beliefs.

>I believe that the "God" of any religion is learned, not wired. If some
> one were to be isolated from all of the world religions at birth
> through death, they would have no concept, whatsoever, of any form
> of a god.

Nearly every culture has developed their own vision of what God is, even when they had no contact with other cultures who believed something similar. That's pretty strong evidence for a basic desire to do so. People everywhere tend to ascribe supernatural behavior to things they don't understand - just look at the cargo cults of the Southern Pacific.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

For example, mating behaviors might result in guys buying powerful cars and racing them to impress chicks in one culture, or working out and getting big muscles, or wearing the biggest, gaudiest earrings.

Or hanging patents on their walls...

[hairyjuan 0]

put your money where your mouth is and send me your e-mail. i'll gladly send you a copy of Who Is This- a critical study of the Christos-Messiah Tradition for free!!!! you owe it to yourselves and your posterity to BECOME INFORMED.

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[hairyjuan 0]

the bible is absolutely not history

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[wmw999 2,584]

There is a lot in the Bible that does, in fact, appear to reflect history. Whether that's exactly how it happened is very debatable, especially considering that even the gospels aren't completely in synch.

But rejecting it entirely is being as absolute as saying every word (except maybe for the ones about mixing linen and wool and owning slaves) is true.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Did you come to that opinion after reading the research in the field or does it just feel right to you?

The only research that I can reference is that of my 46 years of life. I cannot recall any knowledge of a god untill about age 6 or 7 and that came from bible school and a southern baptist preacher. As a child listening to how you will burn in hell if you do not believe, I saw it as the same as "the bogeyman will get you if you don't go to sleep" type of threat. Forced to believe or pay the price. As a child you tend to trust what an adult tells you. As an adult and able to come to conclusions on my own, I have no knowledge of a god.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Nightingale 0]

Sure. We've even got some scientific evidence that the plagues of Egypt may have been caused by a volcanic erruption. The bible speaks of some things that may have actually happened, but it may or may not be accurate about why those things happened. It also speaks of things that, in light of scientific evidence, could not possibly have happened.

I think the biggest issue I have with the bible, especially KJV, is that we're reading a translation, and a translation, by definition, is the opinion of the translator. They make their best guess as to what the text actually says. For example, how would you translate the word "shalom"? It means so much more than just "peace", which is how it's often translated. The word "aloha" is another example. It means far more than just "hello". In Spanish, the word "meja" means far more than just "my daughter". In English, how would you explain the word "love" to someone who doesn't speak the language? Do you talk about the affection between adults, the care for a parent for their child? It's one word with so many meanings.

Writing a translation isn't just about substituting English words and grammar. There has to be a conscious decision about which words to select, and often it comes down to a matter of opinion.

Looking at the bible specifically, the Vulgate translation in 2 Corinthians, chapter 3, verse 14, the line is translated as "their senses were made dull." Whereas the NRSV translation translates that same line as "their minds were hardened." They were both looking at the same Koine Greek text, but the meanings are vastly different. The first translation implies that the senses of the people in question were diminished to the point where they could not understand, while the second translation implies that, while they were capable of understanding, they refused to do so.

As for much of the old testament: Scholars claim its origins in the oral tradition of the hebrew people. However, many Israeli archaeologists now look at much of the old testament as story rather than history, as it blatantly contradicts modern archaeological (and paleontological) findings. With regards to the accuracy of the stories themselves, have you ever played a game of telephone?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

As a child listening to how you will burn in hell if you do not believe, I saw it as the same as "the bogeyman will get you if you don't go to sleep" type of threat.

It's not that God is "out to get you." It's all about justice for having broken God's moral law. It is completely justified for you and I to be sent to hell based on our lives. Sin will not be allowed into heaven. Does it makes sense that it would? You & I have broken God's moral law and will be held to account one day. His provision for you & I is through Jesus. He paid the fine for your transgression. However, it requires more than belief as you stated above. It requires repentance (turning away) from sin and trust in your savior. Don't believe you've broken God's moral law? Take the test in my sig line.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Reason even "good reason" is most certainly not evidence....

Possibly so, but evidence certainly gives one reason to believe!

Quote

To date there is not a shred of evidence that can authenticate the bible depiction of God and the stories of a chap called Jesus, no one has found Noahs ark, the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, etc etc etc.

Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations.

There simply is no evidence what so ever to support you belief in your god……

OK, Br0k3n, if that's what you want to believe, then you go ahead. I know that I can't change your mind; but I wish that I could get you to seriously look for the evidence.

I can't say that this (the following quotation) is true of you, because I honestly don't know; I can't see inside you, but don't forget the old saying that "there are none so blind as those who will not see." I really hope that you will look at the evidence that is presented by those on my side who have researched it instead of just reading what atheists and skeptics present to counter Christianity.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Possibly so, but evidence certainly gives one reason to believe!

Well done, exactly… because if you had evidence then there would be no need for faith……

Quote

OK, Br0k3n, if that's what you want to believe, then you go ahead. I know that I can't change your mind; but I wish that I could get you to seriously look for the evidence.

Believe me my mind can be changed. If an angel flew down and shook my hand, if someone dug up the Holy Grail, my mind would be changed…

Quote

I can't say that this (the following quotation) is true of you, because I honestly don't know; I can't see inside you, but don't forget the old saying that "there are none so blind as those who will not see." I really hope that you will look at the evidence that is presented by those on my side who have researched it instead of just reading what atheists and skeptics present to counter Christianity.

MC all the evidence so far that I have seen, is endless quoting of passages from the bible, this is not evidence, how can it be… where is the physical evidence, do you have it??????

So one more time, please show me this evidence that you speak of..

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+