0
steveorino

Honest questions for God

By steveorino, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

Mockingbird    0

Mockingbird
Quote

OK, What OBJECTIVE proof do you have that an omnipotent supernatural being exists who has an interest in our daily lives, and who created the universe in the manner described in the Bible?

Calling it "Darwinism" isn't very clever - Darwin did not and does not have a personality cult like Mao or Jesus.



:o-- I only used a term from the dictionary which means:
Quote

Main Entry: Dar·win·ism
Pronunciation: 'där-w&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors.



If you ever get around to answering the questions I posed to you in separate posts this last week, I'll reply to your question above.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

vpozzoli    0

vpozzoli
Quote


I appreciate the thought you put into your argument. Concerning #1, Yes, there was only one original volume, but it consisted of 66 individual books. (Even tho' I'm really only concentrating on the New Testament writings in this discussion, I'll include the Old Testament in the count in order to be inclusive of the whole Bible.) As for the authors, there were at least 40. And as for the hand-copies, we've found over 5000 dating from about A.D. 150 up to the invention of the printing press (after which they were obviously printed instead of hand-copied. :S) The number and similarity (extremely few and inconsequential discrepancies, like an omitted word, misspelling, punctuation) of the hand-copies (i.e., manuscripts) for any other document or writing in history doesn't begin to compare with what we've found for the Bible.



Yes, I'm aware that the Christian Bible is not made up of the New Testament only, I targeted that specifically since, as I'm sue you'll agree, it's what's most specific to Christianity. For the old Testament things get even worse since the difference between the time when the events allegedly took place and the time when the earliest documents we have relating to those events (150 A.D. at the earliest as you said yourself) can only get bigger and bigger.

Quote


Well, it doesn't directly. But what it does do is tell us that the copies are reliable--- that what we find written in them is essentially what the authors of scripture actually wrote. This is certainly a crucial starting point!! Other criteria allow us to judge the trustworthiness of the content, such as: archeological discoveries and secular sources which confirm the existence of people and places... and even events... found in the Bible; the fulfillment of hundreds of prophetic statements found in the Old Testament, the internal unity of the message despite the diversity in background, writing styles, and locations of its authors who wrote anywhere from 1450 B.C. to about A.D. 70.



On this we agree, but only up to a point. If the earliest copies we have are admittedly just that, i.e. copies of documents of which the originals are forever lost in time, we can only show without a trace of doubt that the copying process was quite reliabale only up to the earliest copies. We have no direct evidence that the originals where not significantly different from what we have, actually we cannot even prove the existence of an original document. For all we know the earlist copy could be the original, in the sense that somebady made up its content out of thin air and attributed it to a different epoch and a probably not existent author.

Quote



Yeah, as I recall it was a somewhat pivotal time in Jewish history! :)http://theexodusdecoded.com/index1.jsp Also an honest evaluation of the quantity of existing evidence can be found here:
http://www.probe.org/content/view/494/157/ (I haven't finished reading that one yet.)



Thanks for those links, I'll check them out as soon as I can.

I cannot help but notice that you seem to have completely ignored the whole translations issue, which is IMHO really important as it deals directly with the issue of "meaning" and not just coherence and writing style.
Even if I were to accept that the original Bible was indeed the word of God on purely blind faith, what assurance do I have that after dozens of translations spanning over 2000 years of language evolution, the original messages hasn't been garbled out of all recognition?
I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this.
Cheers,

Vale

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    2,146

kallend
Quote

Quote

OK, What OBJECTIVE proof do you have that an omnipotent supernatural being exists who has an interest in our daily lives, and who created the universe in the manner described in the Bible?

Calling it "Darwinism" isn't very clever - Darwin did not and does not have a personality cult like Mao or Jesus.



:o-- I only used a term from the dictionary which means:
Quote

Main Entry: Dar·win·ism
Pronunciation: 'där-w&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors.



If you ever get around to answering the questions I posed to you in separate posts this last week, I'll reply to your question above.



I already answered.

Now, what OBJECTIVE proof do you have of the accuracy of the current version of the Bible, its unchanging message despite being transcribed and translated countless times, or the existence of a God as described in the NT.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    2,146

kallend
Quote

Quote

Irony - the Bible is just historical fiction.


At least the Bible gets its history right, unlike you with the Council of Nicea legend.

Quote

The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and--as in fact happened--the spurious on the bottom.



:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
You kill me, Kallend. Where did you get this bunk? fairytales.org? or deceit.com? Oh gee, no joke I make about its source is half as funny as you posting such nonsense.

See Note E. at the bottom of this page for the punchline.

Get serious.



Ha ha - first you said it was from a novel, now you change your tune.:D

You have NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that this is any less accurate than any source you quote, and wow, it's a historical document 1100 years old!

Every single argument you use eventually grinds to a halt in subjectivism because NO proof exists. You don't seriously expect church historians to admit that the church was redacting this stuff, do you - a church that for centuries had a habit of torturing and executing "heretics". Or do you deny that too?

Even using pajaritos's example of Shakespeare, we now know that he changed his historical plays to avoid pissing off the Tudors.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mockingbird    0

Mockingbird
Quote

For the old Testament things get even worse since the difference between the time when the events allegedly took place and the time when the earliest documents we have relating to those events (150 A.D. at the earliest as you said yourself) can only get bigger and bigger.



The case for the OT texts is actually easier, in my mind, since the concept of them being "Scripture" is settled even before Christ was born. (The A.D. 150 date only refers to the earliest Greek manuscripts for the N.T.)

Quote

On this we agree, but only up to a point. If the earliest copies we have are admittedly just that, i.e. copies of documents of which the originals are forever lost in time, we can only show without a trace of doubt that the copying process was quite reliabale only up to the earliest copies.



I don't understand your point. Sorry.

Quote

We have no direct evidence that the originals where not significantly different from what we have,



By "what we have" I'm assuming you mean the extant manuscripts. It is generally accepted in textual criticism that you give documents the benefit of the doubt when you have no reason or evidence for doubting them.

Quote

actually we cannot even prove the existence of an original document. For all we know the earlist copy could be the original, in the sense that somebady made up its content out of thin air and attributed it to a different epoch and a probably not existent author.



Oh yes, we know there were original documents, because they are quoted in early church fathers' writings.

And something I found interesting is that apparently early church creeds were already being used in the churches before Paul even finished writing his letters, because he quotes them occasionally, such as in 1 Cor. 15. So even that early, he quoted early church creeds while early church fathers were quoting him in their writings.

Quote

I cannot help but notice that you seem to have completely ignored the whole translations issue,



You're right, that is an issue that concerns a lot of people, but it's entirely separate from the evidence gleaned from Greek manuscripts we were discussing.

Quote

Even if I were to accept that the original Bible was indeed the word of God on purely blind faith,



There's no reason for you to accept with "blind faith" the original autographs, because there's too much evidence for them! In fact, there's so much evidence that the 5000+ extant Greek manuscripts (*by comparing them*) contain what the original authors actually wrote, that it doesn't require "blind" faith!

(* I have a good illustration or analogy of this process of comparison, but I have to leave the house for a few hours, so I'll do that this evening.)

Quote

what assurance do I have that after dozens of translations spanning over 2000 years of language evolution, the original messages hasn't been garbled out of all recognition?



I understand your concern!!

I'll get back to you on this tonight, but before I do, are you referring to the varied translations into English ("versions") or the translations into hundreds (actually, around 2000 I think) of other languages?
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

pajarito    0

pajarito
Quote

actually we cannot even prove the existence of an original document. For all we know the earlist copy could be the original, in the sense that somebady made up its content out of thin air and attributed it to a different epoch and a probably not existent author.



All of the New Testament except for 11 verses can be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers. There are 19,368 citations of the four Gospels by the Church Fathers and that is but one line of evidence.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zenister    0

Zenister
"For being the "Prime Mover" and all, you've sure let alot of arrogant, ignorant fools destroy the rest of your creation while claiming 'your will'. Perhaps the "hands off' approach didn't turn out as well as you'd expected it to?"

ofc if by some ironic twist of fate it ends up that the Xtians are somehow correct it would be...

"why did you expect your creation to act in any other way than that which you designed it to do? ie. how can you hold individual souls responsible for YOUR inherent design flaws?"

My question would vary greatly by who's "Almighty" was conducting the interview...

i wonder how Xtians would react if suddenly faced with Odin/Allah/Vishnu for example.....?
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    2,146

kallend
Quote

Quote

actually we cannot even prove the existence of an original document. For all we know the earlist copy could be the original, in the sense that somebady made up its content out of thin air and attributed it to a different epoch and a probably not existent author.



All of the New Testament except for 11 verses can be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers. There are 19,368 citations of the four Gospels by the Church Fathers and that is but one line of evidence.



Why reply to me, I didn't write that?

However, writings of "the Church Fathers" hardly count as unbiased, impartial, or objective. Rather like believing Ollie North's account of Iran Contra.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

pajarito    0

pajarito
Quote

However, writings of "the Church Fathers" hardly count as unbiased, impartial, or objective. Rather like believing Ollie North's account of Iran Contra.



What would be your reason for not believing "all" of them? Doesn't sound very reasonable or objective.

Added: I thought Mockingbird was responding to you and that was your post. If not, I appologize. My mistake.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

br0k3n    0

br0k3n
Quote

Quote

Tell me exactly why you would believe that they were NOT written by who they say they're written by? Why look for conspiracy when there's no practical reason to? Don't fall for that DaVinci Code type stuff. Anyone who believes some of that stuff is just desperate for a reason not to take Christ and His claims seriously!



>Erm who do they say there where written by??????

>So you tell me who you think wrote them...



Now now-- I asked you first why you DON'T believe they are written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They have been the accepted authors for centuries. How did you arrive at the conclusion that they aren't?



Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.
-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

br0k3n    0

br0k3n
Quote

Quote

i wonder how Xtians would react if suddenly faced with Odin/Allah/Vishnu for example.....?



How are you going to react when you face Jesus?



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

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zenister    0

Zenister
Quote

Quote

i wonder how Xtians would react if suddenly faced with Odin/Allah/Vishnu for example.....?



How are you going to react when you face Jesus?



already answered above.. IF your cosmology happens to be correct.

but I HAVE met Jesus.. he lives in texas with his family...(when he's not on tour) and he owes me the next round actually :D
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

br0k3n    0

br0k3n
Quote

you should REALLY credit your sources...

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html



what just like every other poster on this forum,,, pleeeease.................:S
-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zenister    0

Zenister
i call them on it too, but "they do it to" is no excuse for plagiarism

if you arent making your own argument then post a link.. at Minimum use the quote buttons below the box.

you have zero creditably when you appear to 'steal' anothers thoughts and writings...
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mockingbird    0

Mockingbird
Quote

Quote

you should REALLY credit your sources...

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html



what just like every other poster on this forum,,, pleeeease.................:S



"Every other poster"??? Hey, I don't plagarize! :( I do sometimes get information from websites, but I don't copy and paste without saying so. I mostly use my books.

Thanks for your honesty, Zenister.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

sweetmoose    0

sweetmoose
Quote

Quote

i wonder how Xtians would react if suddenly faced with Odin/Allah/Vishnu for example.....?



How are you going to react when you face Jesus?



That's funny, you can't even say how you might react if you met some other god than yours when you die, but instead automatically revert to Jesus as fact with no possibility of any other religion being correct.
We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

unformed    0

unformed
Well, with other gods it wouldn't really matter ... since they only care if you lived a good life. Part of the Hindu doctrine is that while praying daily and performing the religious rituals is important, taking care of yourself and your family is far more important, and if it came down to praying or going to work so you could feed our family, well, the choice is obvious.

So, actually, if everybody believed in Christianity and followed Jesus' teachings, they'd be fine. Because, if Christianity is right, they'd be fine, and if the other religions are right, well, they lived a good life, so they'd be fine as well.

I think fundamentalist Christianity is perfect for masochists who want to feel like they're really evil, naughty people and need to be constantly told that.
This ad space for sale.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zenister    0

Zenister
Quote

Well, with other gods it wouldn't really matter ... since they only care if you lived a good life. .



hardly.. perhaps you should do more research into the Actual tenets of Religions other than your own before you make such ignorant sweeping statements..

additionally the idea you are referring to(aka Pascal's Wager) fails as well because by default you exclude all the options that care nothing for 'worship' as such as well as the possibility that Divinity could actually be offended by all the groveling and begging so often present in the 'prayers' of many world religions.

[edit] to add one of my favorite cartoonists version
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

unformed    0

unformed
Quote

hardly.. perhaps you should do more research into the Actual tenets of Religions other than your own before you make such ignorant sweeping statements..



I shouldn't have said 'all'/. But the religion I was raised in (not Christianity) and those that I have studied are not.

Quote

additionally the idea you are referring to(aka Pascal's Wager) fails as well because by default you exclude all the options that care nothing for 'worship' as such as well as the possibility that Divinity could actually be offended by all the groveling and begging so often present in the 'prayers' of many world religions.



Doesn't make a difference to me ..... I'm quite against all organized religions.
This ad space for sale.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mockingbird    0

Mockingbird
Hi, vpozzoli. I wanted to give you that analogy I was reminded of this afternoon that illustrates how comparing all those Greek manuscripts help scholars to know exactly what was contained in the original autographs.

(This is an illustration a favorite teacher of mine uses.)

OK. Suppose I write an entry in my journal, tear out the page and give it to you and ask you write a copy of it. When you're done, pass the original to someone else and ask them to copy it. And so on, until 10 handwritten copies (manuscripts) have been made. More than likely, every person will have made a mistake in copying. Perhaps an error in punctuation, omission of a word such as "the", a misspelling, or something. However, probably none of the copiers will have made the exact same mistake. If you were to take those 10 manuscripts and compare them, do you think you could reconstruct the original journal entry? Of course; if you run across an omitted word in one copy, all you have to do is look at the other 9 to see what word was omitted.

This is why textual criticism can say that there is less than 1% unresolved variation among the thousands of Greek manuscripts, yet none of the differences are significant; they don't effect the doctrine taught in the bible.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

dorbie    0

dorbie
Quote

Quote

Irony - the Bible is just historical fiction.


At least the Bible gets its history right, unlike you with the Council of Nicea legend.

Quote

The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and--as in fact happened--the spurious on the bottom.



:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
You kill me, Kallend. Where did you get this bunk? fairytales.org? or deceit.com? Oh gee, no joke I make about its source is half as funny as you posting such nonsense.

See Note E. at the bottom of this page for the punchline.

Get serious.



Why would you object to this? Selections were made, and it seems that some system involving random chancewould at least give some avenue for divine selection if you believe in that sort of thing.

I mean if you believe in divine guidance and the canonical "Word" including the translation process then why on earth would you get hot and bothered about the specifics of the mechanism.

The faithful pick the strangest battles to fight. I think the trees are obscuring the forrest for you.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

pajarito    0

pajarito
Quote

Quote

The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and--as in fact happened--the spurious on the bottom.



Why would you object to this? Selections were made, and it seems that some system involving random chancewould at least give some avenue for divine selection if you believe in that sort of thing.

I mean if you believe in divine guidance and the canonical "Word" including the translation process then why on earth would you get hot and bothered about the specifics of the mechanism.



Criteria for Biblical Canon

1. Apostolic authority
2. Age of text
3. Orthodoxy
4. Widespread acceptance

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
0
Go To Topic Listing