Christianity: Conservative or Socialist?

Rana said:
Actually in the Bronze Age, people would use the names of their mentors as their pen names in order to give their writings validity. There are still many unanswered questions as to who wrote the gospels.
Click to expand...

Their are still unanswered questions whether you have a kitchen sink.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't care if you need it or not, though I do consider it idiocy to claim anything about "mind manipulation".......I'm simply pointing out it isn't honest to pretend the Bible sprung forth out of the void in the 1600s......and there is a vast difference between saying one cannot prove the truth of what is in the Bible and saying that one cannot prove the Bible of today is virtually the same as the Bible of the 1st Century.....there is in fact a tremendous amount of evidence for that latter which WOULD stand up in a court of law....
Click to expand...

No one has said the bible sprang forth from any year. However the choice of what was included was an arbitrary one and the language used was that of 16C England. But how many times had the various clay tablets and papyri been translated and interpreted and by whom?
But let me tell you a little about the early days of mind manipulation.

Once upon a time, in a village in what is now southern England, lived a small group of villagers who toiled and struggled against the elements and seasons.
One day, one of their number, said:

'I think I know some stuff that will help us. Don't panic when the weather gets cold and all the trees die off because after the passage of a few moons all will be well again.'

'Wow', they said. 'He is one clever dude! We should reward him for that.'

The dude thought, 'that's cool. All I need to do is keep telling them stuff and they will give me chickens and stuff.' So he said: 'Get a load of big rocks and lay them in a circle. All of you assemble there once a week and I will tell you everything you need to know.'

Another guy, in the next village sussed him out. 'Hey man', he said when they met, 'I told my people the same as you. They gave me all their stuff too.
Do we have a business or do we have a business?'

'Tell you what', said the first guy, 'let's tell them that there is this magic guy up in the sky who tells us all this shit. Then if anything goes wrong we can blame him.'

'Kewl', said the second.
 
Lowaicue said:
No one has said the bible sprang forth from any year. However the choice of what was included was an arbitrary one and the language used was that of 16C England. But how many times had the various clay tablets and papyri been translated and interpreted and by whom?
But let me tell you a little about the early days of mind manipulation.

Once upon a time, in a village in what is now southern England, lived a small group of villagers who toiled and struggled against the elements and seasons.
One day, one of their number, said:

'I think I know some stuff that will help us. Don't panic when the weather gets cold and all the trees die off because after the passage of a few moons all will be well again.'

'Wow', they said. 'He is one clever dude! We should reward him for that.'

The dude thought, 'that's cool. All I need to do is keep telling them stuff and they will give me chickens and stuff.' So he said: 'Get a load of big rocks and lay them in a circle. All of you assemble there once a week and I will tell you everything you need to know.'

Another guy, in the next village sussed him out. 'Hey man', he said when they met, 'I told my people the same as you. They gave me all their stuff too.
Do we have a business or do we have a business?'

'Tell you what', said the first guy, 'let's tell them that there is this magic guy up in the sky who tells us all this shit. Then if anything goes wrong we can blame him.'

'Kewl', said the second.
Click to expand...

That is BS. Try proving that in a court of law.
 
Lowaicue said:
This has to be the silliest question of the week [weak? :)]. What evidence do you suppose is available to show that something does not exist?

Dear John,
Just a quick note to show you that this is not a real note and neither it nor I really exist.
Love Μᾶρκος


Now let's just consider one further point. Let's suppose for one minute that Mark actually lived at the time you believe and that he sat down one day to write what became known as his gospel. OK?
So one guy writes some stuff 2000 years ago and you believe it! If Hillary Clinton was pictured on TV actually writing something with a pen in her dainty mitt, you would not believe it!
Do you think that logic really forms any part of your belief mechanism?
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you which you could PROVE weren't primary sources, I know you couldn't do that......I asked you which ones you CLAIMED weren't primary sources......do you believe Paul wasn't around when the Pauline letters were written, for example?....

as to your last question, I am the first to acknowledge that my beliefs are faith choices......unfortunately, atheists are the last to admit that their choices are equally faith choices, rather than logic......in addition, I think I can honestly state that what I believe follows logically from the faith choices I have made......can you say the same about your beliefs?.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I didn't ask you which you could PROVE weren't primary sources, I know you couldn't do that......I asked you which ones you CLAIMED weren't primary sources......do you believe Paul wasn't around when the Pauline letters were written, for example?....
Click to expand...

Were you there when they crucified out lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Lowaicue said:
However the choice of what was included was an arbitrary one
Click to expand...
that of course is not true......the Council had specific criteria which the texts had to meet

and the language used was that of 16C England.
Click to expand...

???....uh, no....the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek....then it was translated into Latin......English came along centuries later.....in any event, all current versions are translated from the original, not from 16th Century English....

But let me tell you a little about the early days of mind manipulation.

Once upon a time, in a village in what is now southern England, lived a small group of villagers who toiled and struggled against the elements and seasons.
One day, one of their number, said:

'I think I know some stuff that will help us. Don't panic when the weather gets cold and all the trees die off because after the passage of a few moons all will be well again.'

'Wow', they said. 'He is one clever dude! We should reward him for that.'

The dude thought, 'that's cool. All I need to do is keep telling them stuff and they will give me chickens and stuff.' So he said: 'Get a load of big rocks and lay them in a circle. All of you assemble there once a week and I will tell you everything you need to know.'

Another guy, in the next village sussed him out. 'Hey man', he said when they met, 'I told my people the same as you. They gave me all their stuff too.
Do we have a business or do we have a business?'

'Tell you what', said the first guy, 'let's tell them that there is this magic guy up in the sky who tells us all this shit. Then if anything goes wrong we can blame him.'

'Kewl', said the second.
Click to expand...

is there supposed to be some merit to this story?.....if it were cleverly written it might have some entertainment value......unfortunately, it isn't and doesn't....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I didn't ask you which you could PROVE weren't primary sources, I know you couldn't do that......I asked you which ones you CLAIMED weren't primary sources......do you believe Paul wasn't around when the Pauline letters were written, for example?....

as to your last question, I am the first to acknowledge that my beliefs are faith choices......unfortunately, atheists are the last to admit that their choices are equally faith choices, rather than logic......in addition, I think I can honestly state that what I believe follows logically from the faith choices I have made......can you say the same about your beliefs?.....
Click to expand...

I would not class myself as an atheist since I am in agreement with you that atheism can be simply a 'substitute' religion. Apart from the occasional discussion, like the one we have had, religion does not impinge upon my life any more than the colour of the cheese that makes up the moon. So I guess you might say I am a 'Nothingist'.
I don't really have beliefs. There are things I know to be true and things that I know to be questionable and that is fine.
As far as 'my claims' are concerned I can only repeat what I have said before. There are NO primary sources that exist to show that any of the bible is or was true. There is, occasionally, a semi-logical explanation for an occurence that might or might not have happened and that is that.
As far as the Pauline letters are concerned I am, by no means, an expert but it would appear that scholars fail to agree on the genuiness of even the undisputed letters. Once again then we must fall back on belief.
I advised a friend the other day (she is a born again christian) that I would not argue with her beliefs and that if she valued the friendship of the many who did not share her views precisely, she should perhaps show a little more reticence in her evangelising.
The time has come for us to agree likewise. If you wish to believe what you believe then I trust it helps you through your life and makes you happy. In return I hope you will respect the views of others and restrict your proselitysing (sp?) to them.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that of course is not true......the Council had specific criteria which the texts had to meet



???....uh, no....the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek....then it was translated into Latin......English came along centuries later.....in any event, all current versions are translated from the original, not from 16th Century English....



is there supposed to be some merit to this story?.....if it were cleverly written it might have some entertainment value......unfortunately, it isn't and doesn't....
Click to expand...

I can assure you there was no attempt to give the story any 'merit'. If you get nothing from it then that's up to you.
 
Lowaicue said:
I would not class myself as an atheist since I am in agreement with you that atheism can be simply a 'substitute' religion. Apart from the occasional discussion, like the one we have had, religion does not impinge upon my life any more than the colour of the cheese that makes up the moon. So I guess you might say I am a 'Nothingist'.
I don't really have beliefs. There are things I know to be true and things that I know to be questionable and that is fine.
As far as 'my claims' are concerned I can only repeat what I have said before. There are NO primary sources that exist to show that any of the bible is or was true. There is, occasionally, a semi-logical explanation for an occurence that might or might not have happened and that is that.
As far as the Pauline letters are concerned I am, by no means, an expert but it would appear that scholars fail to agree on the genuiness of even the undisputed letters. Once again then we must fall back on belief.
I advised a friend the other day (she is a born again christian) that I would not argue with her beliefs and that if she valued the friendship of the many who did not share her views precisely, she should perhaps show a little more reticence in her evangelising.
The time has come for us to agree likewise. If you wish to believe what you believe then I trust it helps you through your life and makes you happy. In return I hope you will respect the views of others and restrict your proselitysing (sp?) to them.
Click to expand...

Thank you for creating a new religion.
 
Lowaicue said:
In return I hope you will respect the views of others and restrict your proselitysing (sp?) to them.
Click to expand...
wtf?.....when have I proselytized?......I did not start this discussion by stating my views regarding scripture and certainly didn't attempt to convince you of anything that the scriptures stated......you claimed something specific about the authorship of the scriptures and I proved you wrong....that's debate, not proselytation....
 
Lowaicue said:
As far as 'my claims' are concerned I can only repeat what I have said before. There are NO primary sources that exist to show that any of the bible is or was true.
Click to expand...

but that is NOT what you said before...

Lowaicue said:
You should also understand that the collection of writings compiled into what we now refer to as the Holy Bible contains no discernable primary source documentation
Click to expand...

it is one thing to say we can't prove what the primary source said was true, it is another to say there is no primary source....it is the latter we have been debating.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but that is NOT what you said before...



it is one thing to say we can't prove what the primary source said was true, it is another to say there is no primary source....it is the latter we have been debating.....
Click to expand...

Maybe we need deep throat to get to the bottom of this. The only way to find out the truth is to go to a parking garage.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that of course is not true......the Council had specific criteria which the texts had to meet

???....uh, no....the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek....then it was translated into Latin......English came along centuries later.....in any event, all current versions are translated from the original, not from 16th Century English....

is there supposed to be some merit to this story?.....if it were cleverly written it might have some entertainment value......unfortunately, it isn't and doesn't....
Click to expand...

The most literal english translation is the New American Standard Bible (NASB)

These idgits who attempt to argue against scriptures orgininality based on so called error only serve to highlight both their own ignorance and arrogance.

Here is a short response to translation critics
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top