NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
i find they way you flippantly pass off your opinion as truth amusing, sorry if that offends you.
and are you a school teacher ?
‘the major discovery of Christian history’?
- Thread starter Nick the Pilot
- Start date
i find they way you flippantly pass off your opinion as truth amusing, sorry if that offends you.
and are you a school teacher ?
Amergin
Well-Known Member
Science is a growing process of learning the real material world. Galileo's Textbook is obsolete now. But in his time it was a radical leap in knowledge of our Earth, Sun, and planets from beliefs of Semitic Tribes 4000 years ago. Science is ongoing, and self correcting. It is merely the best explanation NOW based on the best examined evidence. Many things that we know about the Universe and Neuroscience will be challenged by new information. Theories will be reconstructed.
The problem with religion is that it cannot change since it claims it already knows absolute truth. Changing Christianity to debunk the questionable deity of Jesus would make it no longer Christianity.
We read the Bible because Christians claim it as the basis for their belief system. One cannot demonstrate Christianity in a lab or on a field dig. The only think we have in which to evaluate Christianity is to read the book which Christians claim is inerrant. If we find errors in a claimed inerrant book, it implies that Fundamentalistic beliefs are false...superstition.
If it is metaphor, and I agree somewhat, then the spin on that metaphor can have different interpretations. Those who take it literally are easily shown to be irrational thinkers. Those who take it as a metaphor put their personal spin on it based on emotion, experience, family history, childhood environment, and authority. It is often the Pastor who infuses his own set of beliefs (meme complex) into you as a child, or into your parents who infuse it into you. I cannot argue with or debate a belief in a metaphorical story and its meaning to another person. I do not even try.
My only mission is to point out that the dangerous part of Christianity or Islam is in the minds whose inserted meme complex is undiluted literal mythology. Those unfortunate people with rigid irrational meme circuits are the ones who carry suicide bombs, shoot doctors and nurses, burn churches or synogogs, kill blasphemers, kill witches, and desire to censor freedom of thought. It is the source of hatred for those who believe differently or fail to believe in a supernatural.
If Christians believe in metaphor but separate it from the harmful effects of scriptures, they can be healthy people. Over in America, literalism is about 50% of the population and it makes people hate, fear, and if stressed enough, to kill the objects of their fear.
It is not easy. My lack of Theistic belief is considered a sin by many Christians especially by Fundamentalists/Evangelicals. Those with certain mental alterations by memes can be pushed by stress to kill us. They do occasionally kill Muslims or Sikhs mistaken for Muslims. Muslims kill Christians in Pakistan, Iraq, and Sudan. Southern Baptists have often killed African Americans on the mere delusion that they are evil and desire white women. There have been many killings of Homosexuals in America, when they display any hints of same sex affection.
I am safe if I travel to America because of the luck that we Celtic Atheists look almost identical to Scots-Irish American Fundamentalists in the American South. We are the invisible minority if we do not talk about it.
Guess how long I would live if I wore a T-shirt with Atheist in large letters on the front while walking the streets of an Alabama or Texas city? People can wear gaudy Christian paraphenalia without fear of physical attack.
Forums are the only place where I can discuss my arguments against theism without fear of being shot or beaten to death as gays, Muslims, or blacks whose appearance puts them in danger.
Amergin
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Passing off one's opinion as truth, isn't that what you do?
I don't think your statement about me is accurate. I flippantly pass of my opinion as my opinion regarding what I consider to be important. I don't actually make claims about "truth." In a world where people consider their limited perspective to be "truth," truth becomes somewhat arbitrary. Truth becomes a question of what point someone else is missing or hasn't considered.
I involve myself in a continual process of asking questions and finding answers. I am continually discovering new ways of seeing things, so what I do here is criticise people's thoughtlessness. When everyone else is thoughtful, I have nothing to say.
I'm an engineer.
Engineering is the process of analysing the relationships between components in a system and designing improvements. Attention to detail is important. As a hobby, I spend a lot of time thinking about how religion works and ways of improving community. That is my interest here.
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Were you refering to me? I didn't know we were "knocking off."
If someone is going to say that I am "passing off my opinion as truth," then to be fair I should be able to argue (1) why that isn't true or (2) why the same might be true of that person.
This is actually a common argument used against people -- to say your views aren't "truth," that it's just opinion. The way I see it, pretty much every idea we might have of God is an opinion, even those backed by Scripture. That's because Scripture itself is open to interpretation. Psalms 82:6 says we are gods but does that mean we are really gods or is the author just saying that to make a point?
I therefore believe that prior to any debate or discussion, that all opinions are equal and can be regarded as "truth" until shown to be unworkable through debate/discussion. But even if an idea is shot down once in a debate/discussion, there is always a chance to re-establish its validity, if it can be shown that the other person missed the point.
Life isn't black and white. If there is "truth," it doesn't fit in a neat box.
Nobody's views are absolutely "true" or "false" until others have exhaustively demonstrated that they are. If nobody wins and nobody loses, then nothing is true or false. There has to be a clear winner or loser. If something is true (or false), then you must be able to reach a consensus. If you cannot, for all intents and purposes, it isn't true (or false).
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
don't I make that clear too?
At this point I am not sure if you meant "passing off opinion as truth" was something I did in general or if you were talking about my earlier posts in this thread.
Going back to what I said ....... in the process of contemplating the divine will, many will fall onto the wrong path and many will find the right path. Whatever path we take, we must think of something when there are gaps.
If you meant in general that my last reply to you was a response to that. If you were referring to my earlier posts in this thread, then "passing off opinion as truth," is something we have to do all the time as we "fill in the gaps" in the "words of God."
God said what He said to light the path before us, so for all intents and purposes, if we are to fill in the gaps, our opinion must be regarded as "truth" for the time being until someone else (giving their own opinion) thinks of something better. If the situation changes, then we discard our "truth" because our "truth" is no longer relevant.
As we continue our walk towards God, the cycle repeats itself.
God lights the way, but His people must fill in the gaps (form their opinions).
Truth is never constant. Like the cloud that led the Israelites through the desert, it is continually moving. Your truth is not my truth because you and I have our own clouds.
EDIT: correcting typo
Last edited:
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
i disagree, truth is the only constant IMO
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
The words of God don't change. They have been written down.
But what is truth? You have mentioned "truth" a number of times, but haven't defined it. How can we agree or disagree on something that hasn't been defined? How do we even know we are talking about the same thing?
It seems more than that is being called into question - makes for interesting reading, not least because questions are being asked.
Are you able to contribute to discussions rather than drop one liners and single word replies?
Because to be honest, I don't find the way you flippantly pass off your opinion as truth amusing, especially when it's to disparage other members.
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
i am talking about absolute truth, ultimate truth whatever you want to call it, its beyond definition, its beyond conceptual thought IMO.
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
I think it started when I was talking to Amergin and "dropped a line" about what I was saying about "made-up theology" with NiceCupOfTea in another thread.
My concept of absolute and ultimate truth is that it is something on which everyone has a universal consensus. There is no need for debate on it, it just is. There is no argument on it. If there is disagreement, then it isn't absolute or ultimate truth.
See, yet again, only the fundies and the atheists believe what you do.
Biblical Scholars are aware there were four authors of the gospels, and it is likely that none of them were eyewinesses. Even if they were we know today from countless court cases that eye and ear withness testimony is completly unreliable. What we do have is accounts of a life decades after his crucifiction by four authors each with a different agenda, each writing to a different audience and some trying to correct errors (as they saw it) in the texts that were written before them.
That is just four books. The remaining 66 books are cannonized by the powers that were out of hundreds of books Christians and Jews were using as spiritual references prior to the canon. And the majority of the NT is Paul's letters, which if organized and read and compared by when they were written, one can see the change of viewpoints that Paul had as he traversed the land and his beliefs.
No truth is easily defined. Personal belief on the other hand has issues. That is what you are discussiong, your personal belief, what you personally believe to be truth.... that is why it is tough.
Bang on ... Dawkins, Hitchens et al argue from a very weak theological position, preferring to sell 'populist' books based on populist and often unscientific assumptions.
Little correction there, it is likely that one of them was an eyewitness. It's more likely that the source material for the Gospel of John was an eye-witness testimony, than not.
Then you've just rendered the whole of Scripture unreliable, which makes Amergin's point ... ?
(It also begs the question of why you place any credence in a document you deem to be unreliable?)
By the same measure, taking Buddhism for example, nothing was written down for at least 400 years, so by the general notions covering word-of-mouth transmission, if Scripture is unreliable after 40 years, the Buddhists texts probably say the complete opposite of what the Buddha said?
Indeed, all the great texts coming out of India would fall by the same judgement?
I challenge that:
I think the agenda was the same (although the audience differs)
And who's correcting what errors?
Hundreds? I don't think so.
I can see a maturing insight ... but change of belief? You'll have to demonstrate that one.
1 Corinthians 2:11-15
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man."
+++
Yes it is ... it's just not necessarily easily accepted.
Yep ... but personal belief is not the yardstick of truth.
I tend to disagree.
What staggers me is how often those, who make such a fuss about the infallible veracity of the scientific method, ignore that method completely when seeking to undermine the fundamental tenets of Christianity, and spout the same unfounded populist nonsense that any journal worthy of its title would deplore.
God bless,
Thomas
I believe the conjecture amongst many is the 'source' material was from an eyewitness, but the author was not, nor was the material reviewed by the source.
unreliable as in a court of law which is requiring the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...you know historical facts. What we have is a collection of stories, if we are just talking the NT the stories of the creation and bolstering of church congregations as well as the stories of Jesus life... all of which contains, parables, metaphor, additions, subtractions, misquotes, mistranslations and embellisments...to what degree we can argue till the sun burns out...but we know they are there.
I love that you never change.... your reaction is always peace or the nuclear option, no middle ground.
Scripture isn't unreliable after 40 years, memories are. Have you brothers or sisters? Take a few major occurences from your youth, things you all have first hand knowledge of and discuss what you believe to be the realities of the situation....
But in general...of course. As historical fact, as direct quotes, all have their shortcomings.
Not in a position to respond to specifics without some research of past readings but a quick websearch finds from religioustolerance.org
Oral Theory: The three gospels were written independently and all based on "structured and durable oral traditions."
Augustinian Theory: The three gospels were written in the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; each author had access to the earlier gospels
Two Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q.
Four Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q. In addition, Matthew includes some material from a third source, often called "M". Luke similarly includes passages from another source, often called "L". Both L and M were probably oral traditions.
Two Gospel theory: Matthew was written first. Luke was written later and based on Matthew. Mark was written last, and based on Luke and Matthew.
Theory of Markan Priority without Q: Mark was written first. Matthew was written later and based on Mark. Luke was written last, and based on Mark and Matthew.
The Augustinian Theory was accepted by the Christian church for most of its history. The Four Source Theory is supported by most mainline and liberal theologians today. One source estimates that over 90% of contemporary Gospel scholars accept this theory and the existence of the Gospel of Q. 4
Hundreds? I don't think so. [/QUOTE]Well if you take just the NT apocrypha (books that didn't make the grade of the canon) you'll end up with over a hundred. And then by definition those books that didn't make the grade lost their popularity and were less likely to be preserved. IN the past fifty years we've uncovered more books to add to the list...I think between Jewish books and 'Christian' readings that didn't make the canons....hundreds is not hyperbole.
I would agree...
Hi Wil —
But seriously ... you discount the miracles, you discount the miraculous, you discount the sacramental ... so you discount those elements of Scripture that set Scripture apart from, say, a work of speculative philosophy or humanist philanthropy, and you speak of it as nothing more than a collection of fireside tales that have grown in the telling.
You don't accept the message of a theistic deity, you don't accept the idea of the Incarnate Word, you scoff at the notion of God as 'Father' but, an utter contradiction on many levels it seems to me, you make the idea of divine sonship a central tenet of your creed.
My point is, after you have argued that Scripture is so unreliable, so full of fantastic and fabulous exaggeration, not to mention out-and-out myth-making, what is there for anyone to believe in, and why?
On what possible basis has anyone got any reason to believe in anything written in Scripture, as you present it?
Explaining Scripture away simply puts a distance between yourself and the text, between yourself and the incarnate Word, and the Holy Spirit that inspired it.
God bless,
Thomas
Hey, dude, don't blame me, I'm just following your logic!
But seriously ... you discount the miracles, you discount the miraculous, you discount the sacramental ... so you discount those elements of Scripture that set Scripture apart from, say, a work of speculative philosophy or humanist philanthropy, and you speak of it as nothing more than a collection of fireside tales that have grown in the telling.
You don't accept the message of a theistic deity, you don't accept the idea of the Incarnate Word, you scoff at the notion of God as 'Father' but, an utter contradiction on many levels it seems to me, you make the idea of divine sonship a central tenet of your creed.
My point is, after you have argued that Scripture is so unreliable, so full of fantastic and fabulous exaggeration, not to mention out-and-out myth-making, what is there for anyone to believe in, and why?
On what possible basis has anyone got any reason to believe in anything written in Scripture, as you present it?
Explaining Scripture away simply puts a distance between yourself and the text, between yourself and the incarnate Word, and the Holy Spirit that inspired it.
God bless,
Thomas
For you maybe. For me and millions like me, exploring, investigating, questioning scripture's origin and intent opens it up to 'the major discovery of Christian History!'
No sweeping under the rug, no don't ask that question, no that's blasphemy, looking critically (vs being critical), to me and others it is freeing.
Heck Thomas maybe the issue is that I play with so many recovering catholics, and recovering baptists on a regular basis...
from chabad.org a quote which is quite representative of my beliefs.
This Christmas, let the Christ be born anew in you. This Easter, die to your old self and let the Christ within resurect a new you, and find the major discovery of Christian History.....Thomas the Christ.
You argue just like an atheist, the implication being that the orthodox don't explore, investigate or question ... in fact I and millions of other orthodox do, and some of the most renowned Biblical scholars amongst them ... it's just that we don't come to the same conclusions you do.
And it's the logic of those conclusions I question. By your own words, all texts are unreliable, and the greater the distance in time between the events happening, and their being written down, the greater the divergence between the two.
As a matter of interest, a court does not accept unreliable testimony, and rule out any testimony deemed so ... yet a court will ask people to swear on a Bible ...
You just explain it away ... I see no difference between your reading of Scripture, and a non-theist humanist manifesto.
Again, the old accusation of accusing good philosophy of being fundamentalist — 'if you don't think like I do, you don't think at all'. I'm not the one sweeping Scripture under the rug of "old mens' fireside tales", nor am I the one making sweeping and unsupported generalisations.
I take lit crit and the historical method head on, but I take it with all the criticisms it's subject to, I don't just buy it carte blanche ... so my theology is quite balanced, whereas yours is all one-sided.
Ah, the old straw-man argument. Maybe you seek them out to convince yourself you're right?
But you don't believe that Wil ... that's all supernatural claptrap, as you insist often ... so why spout it at me?
Tell me: Why should I believe anything in Scripture?
God bless,
Thomas