96 posts
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 26, 2011I am 100% right and there are no respected scholars in the world that would agree with you in your assessment of the authorship in the gospels.
Ironic, since I simply supported one comment about Matthew which is THERE and is hard to interpret any other way. If I write something anonymously, and write that a particular story happened "at home" and someone else tells the same story and says it happened at Howie's house, I believe most people would believe that was an indicator that I WAS THE ONE who wrote the initial story. I gave you an example FROM THE BIBLE of why it made sense to believe that. But I'm not going to argue it, because it doesn't matter. If your whole premise is, the gospels aren't true because they weren't even written by who you think they were" then who wrote John?
Also, I haven't seen what they are teaching Jamie in school but I'd be glad to look at it. It won't change my initial remarks anyway. You go straight to this (as I knew you would). Want to dispute the authorship of all 66 books? :)
Hook, you keep believing in them vampires. Your remarks above about me learning or hearing things here are funny. I'd be careful about a complete change in religious beliefs that was accomplished by a couple of guys in an internet forum. You admitted you'd learned more here and changed your beliefs.... that's scary. Two or three guys in an internet forum can change you? Dude, I agree that you were never taught anything in church. ;) Don't assume everyone's experience parallels yours though.
Jamie actually has sent me his class notes on the authorship of the entire new testament. I'd be glad to go toe to toe with you because it matches up almost perfectly to my own research. The FACT my dear howie is that almost ALL the New Testament is written anonymously and no one knows whom wrote MOST of them. you are sticking to a name of a book because it's convenient for you. You'd like to think they were eyewitnesses but you'd be slaughtered by the hands that tell the story. No scholars agree with you.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim the entire New Testament is written by eye witnesses. If you think that then YOU would be considered heretical in CHRISTIAN scholar circles. I, the atheist, would have more authority to speak on the subject than you. that shouldn't even be the case. But you make it so.
I'll see if I can get that pdf here later tonight. gotta go eat.
"Hook, you keep believing in them vampires. Your remarks above about me learning or hearing things here are funny. I'd be careful about a complete change in religious beliefs that was accomplished by a couple of guys in an internet forum. You admitted you'd learned more here and changed your beliefs.... that's scary. Two or three guys in an internet forum can change you? Dude, I agree that you were never taught anything in church. Don't assume everyone's experience parallels yours though."
Funny? Not sure I understand.
What do these comments have to do with my question or questions?
Oh, you think Trip and company were the cause of my change to Atheism? I'm way more Agnostic, just for the record.
No, the religious change is on me, 100%. But they did help me, or advise me, on things I could read. But it was mostly concerning critical thinking, logic, stuff like that. I guess you could blame my change on that. ;)
I have "learned" more here about religion, indirectly, than anywhere else. I was forced to read and understand the Bible way more than I ever had before. My opinions were challenged and it took lots of reading and trying to debunk their arguments for me to finally understand "I" couldn't, Logically. The difference between me and you is that the more I learned the more I found out how silly it is to believe such mess, and the more you learn the more you believe. I can understand that as you seem to have a violent personalty.
Dude??? That tone of posting resembles the superiority tone of the Christians beliefs and judgement of those who don't believe.
So, other people in church have learned stuff? How do you know this? I know the same, if not more, about religion than most in a church, not all.....but most. So others experiences are the same as mine in order of importance and correctness, right? It's just another experience. Does it have to be right or wrong? Are you meaning my experience is wrong? I learned more away from church. You learned more in church, because you don't look outside that box. And if you did, you'd get in trouble, from you know...
(I think there's more proof that vampires exist, but I personally don't believe they do... ;) )
Howie,
Quote for me the passage in Matthew where it talks about Jesus having a meal at home and alos quote for me the OTHER quote about it being at Levi's house. I'll show you something if you do.
you seem to be making sweeping judgements based on one thing I said, and cited an example of why I thought it could be Matthew. Your sweeping judgements are, if someone writes a story but we don't know who wrote it, it's not true. Even if 3 or 4 others tell the same story. Stop debating WHO wrote them, (which was not part of my initial question) and address why you don't believe multiple accounts of the same story.
Hook, YOU were the one who said that your religious beliefs changed after coming here. I was just having some fun with that. It's called teasing, joking, ragging, pulling your chain, or whatever else you want to call it. Has nothing to do with any superiority issue of any kind. Just me having fun. Relax. Take your garlic necklace off.
Also, yeah, if you read the non-believers propaganda, THAT is what you are going to believe. It doesn't mean you've "discovered the truth." It means you took what one guy said and believed it as FACT, when it was no more (actually less of course ) fact that what the believer said. All the stuff you believe as truth now that "disproves" God or whatever, I can find a source to refute that. All you did was let one side influence you into believe, which ironically is what you claim I did without looking at the other side. Not true at all, but if it makes you feel better to believe that all people who believe in God only do because they were taught so and taught not to read anything that contradicts that, then you just pull the bag back over your head and keep pretending to see it all clearly. :)
Matt, I'll let you know when I get it. It's at home.
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 27, 2011you seem to be making sweeping judgements based on one thing I said, and cited an example of why I thought it could be Matthew. Your sweeping judgements are, if someone writes a story but we don't know who wrote it, it's not true. Even if 3 or 4 others tell the same story. Stop debating WHO wrote them, (which was not part of my initial question) and address why you don't believe multiple accounts of the same story.
I haven't made a sweeping judgement. What you've done is confuse the issue. It's really simple.
You made the claim that the names of the books are ascribed to the people that wrote them. As if they actually wrote them. I stated what "Christian" scholars state and that is WE DON'T KNOW whom wrote most of them. The WAY they are written indicates that they are not written by the authors they are attributed to.
I do not believe in multiple accounts of the same story for several reasons.
1. They are different stories. In many cases they can be so different as to have characters of the same names but the story and the details are very different. In court, this would mean that the witnesses are just "witnesses" if you get my meaning. They SAY they saw something but did they all see something DIFFERENT when as YOU state, they were all right there.
2. The FACT that they were written so many years after Jesus died at a time when we had no other way to record historic events leads one to wonder just how much embellishing has been done. All I have to do is put the books in chronological order and see that the embellishment is GREATER over time. This my friend in any other religion, you would say was LEGEND. And legends aren't true stories.
Also, yeah, if you read the non-believers propaganda, THAT is what you are going to believe. It doesn't mean you've "discovered the truth." It means you took what one guy said and believed it as FACT, when it was no more (actually less of course ) fact that what the believer said. All the stuff you believe as truth now that "disproves" God or whatever, I can find a source to refute that. All you did was let one side influence you into believe, which ironically is what you claim I did without looking at the other side. Not true at all, but if it makes you feel better to believe that all people who believe in God only do because they were taught so and taught not to read anything that contradicts that, then you just pull the bag back over your head and keep pretending to see it all clearly. :)
I assume you are talking to hooky, but it's the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? After all YOU have let one side steer you down a path and you all but refuse to deal with all the information that is out there.
Of course you find sources to "refute" what is said. But have you REALLY read those refutations? They are normally really weak and take more faith to believe than your religion. Once in a whle they do come up with some good stuff that wins. I use it when I refute other atheists that are only feasting on half baked stuff.
Spend some time reading up and the churches positions on the birth of Mary and the geneology of JEsus and you get some really really weak arguements. The fact of the matter is that there is so much prophesy in the bible that proves Jesus can't be the messiah it can make your head swim. I'll be the first to admit that you can't believe everything you read.....whether it's christian or atheist. That's why I've been doing my own homework.
Matt, I'll let you know when I get it. It's at home.
please do.
The fact of the matter is that there is so much prophesy in the bible that proves Jesus can't be the messiah it can make your head swim.
Do tell...
Yes, I was talking to Hooky in that section. No pot/kettle. I believed what I was taught until years back some friends in college started telling me why they didn't agree with it. Then I started actually searching. As you sort of alluded too, that is a two edged sword. Everything they found, I found something to refute it. And your argument that the refutes are weak... that can go both ways as well.
And I'll have to look back but I don't believe I said "every book is written by the name attached too it." I said they were believed to have been when they were named and in some cases, later study made that more uncertain or possibly pointed at someone else, and in others later more thorough studies seemed to confirm the originally deemed author. Also, the dating on most of these is in ranges of 10-50 or more years. You always seem to take the position that these were all written MANY years later, when there is no way to be sure they weren't written right after, or a couple years after. There are also some cases where there seems to be strong indications that things WERE written then, (certain parts of a book for example) but were later done in "finished work" form. For lack of a better example and to stick to prior examples, it would be like me writing a chapter now on WHStock 1. But in doing so, I go back to The Watering Hole and re-read some things that were written right then and there, and I re-write them now in my finished book on the subject. You would then date the writing what, 10 years after the fact, but I'd be using some things that I wrote at the time and reprinting them in the new finished book. However, that too is not important. We could all tell stories about it now with great detail. And we would all tell different events without telling stories that conflict. And that's another area that we seem to differ on. I can always find an answer to your "conflicts."
"Also, yeah, if you read the non-believers propaganda, THAT is what you are going to believe. It doesn't mean you've "discovered the truth." It means you took what one guy said and believed it as FACT, when it was no more (actually less of course ) fact that what the believer said. All the stuff you believe as truth now that "disproves" God or whatever, I can find a source to refute that. All you did was let one side influence you into believe, which ironically is what you claim I did without looking at the other side. Not true at all, but if it makes you feel better to believe that all people who believe in God only do because they were taught so and taught not to read anything that contradicts that, then you just pull the bag back over your head and keep pretending to see it all clearly."
I didn't just read non-believers "propaganda". I read about critical thinking, how to think logically and what that means, I looked for evidence of Gods existence, read for hours and hours on what bible scriptures actually were saying that I didn't understand, (so that means I read the bible) so much of the stuff I read and can't even begin to tell you what it was....all kinds of stuff from believers to non-believers and everything in between I could find.
What I found is that you have a book, the bible, written by different people, at uncertain times describing events in different ways at times, mostly after events happened fucking years ago. As we know, descriptions of events told or written about years after certain event happened is not so precise, to put it mildly. Its subject to insertions, personal opinion additives( :o), and simply become inaccurate and exaggerated.
Explain these few verses for me,
"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD they God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straightness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:" (Deuteronomy 28:53)
"And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates." (Deuteronomy 28:57)
And what is the truth? By your post, one would assume that you think you have the truth. Why is it that your opinion is perceived to be better or more correct than anyone else's on this subject? The Fact is that there isn't any evidence of a God existing. So, I don't believe there is, or, there isn't a God. No "side" influenced me. I read as much as I could stand and I made the decision based on the lack of evidence of God existing to not believe. I also studied the Bible and its not worthy of serious evidence of anything, really.
People believe for different reasons. Many different reasons. And this is the part I'm interested in. I don't care much about the Bible and what it says. The good teachings in it are now known by 5th graders with no knowledge of the Bible at all. Its way outdated to say the least. ;D
And for the record, the fact that I don't "believe" their is a God doesn't make me right or wrong, correct or incorrect. I chose to base my thoughts on this matter on evidence and facts.
So you see, the lack of evidence for God existing in the first place influenced my stance, not any "man".
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 27, 2011Do tell...
And I'll have to look back but I don't believe I said "every book is written by the name attached too it." I said they were believed to have been when they were named and in some cases, later study made that more uncertain or possibly pointed at someone else, and in others later more thorough studies seemed to confirm the originally deemed author. Also, the dating on most of these is in ranges of 10-50 or more years. You always seem to take the position that these were all written MANY years later, when there is no way to be sure they weren't written right after, or a couple years after. There are also some cases where there seems to be strong indications that things WERE written then, (certain parts of a book for example) but were later done in "finished work" form. For lack of a better example and to stick to prior examples, it would be like me writing a chapter now on WHStock 1. But in doing so, I go back to The Watering Hole and re-read some things that were written right then and there, and I re-write them now in my finished book on the subject. You would then date the writing what, 10 years after the fact, but I'd be using some things that I wrote at the time and reprinting them in the new finished book. However, that too is not important. We could all tell stories about it now with great detail. And we would all tell different events without telling stories that conflict. And that's another area that we seem to differ on. I can always find an answer to your "conflicts."
You claimed the books were written by witnesses. You claimed the books were written by whom they are attributed too. Now you are having to back track to try and save face.
At any rate I'm still waiting on your "house/home" matthew/levi posts.
I will go ahead and give you just ONE prophesy that excludes Jesus from being the messiah. Now you have to understand where this comes from. I searched through those lovely genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke and found them to be very troubling. Besides the fact that they are both traced through Joseph whom doesn't even matter let's take it a step further. I'll even let slide the FACT that MOST modern scholars believe these genealogies to be nothing more than theological craftsmanship.
Matthew claims that the line of David extends to Jesus through Jeconiah. Luke of course contradicts this and says it comes through Nathan instead. But I'll let that go to make my point further.
Jeremiah talks about how God curses Jeconiah. It's a 3 part curse.
1. Jeconiah shall bear no seed.
2. HE shall never prosper again and no one from his line shall ever prosper.
3. No one from this line shall sit on the throne of David again or EVER rule.
Now I can answer a lot of this for you.
There are 2 common Jews thoughts on Exile. (it should be noted that Jeconiah was exiled). The first is that exile atones for all sin and when exile is over then you are good with god. The other is that exile only atones for PART of sin. Now it should be noted that it is believed that while in exile Jeconiah is THOUGHT to have repented simply because of the the fact that the first part of the curse is lifted. Jeconiah had 7 sons WHILE in exile.
Most Christians stop right there. To them if one is done then all is well.
But this is a 3 part curse. IT said that NO man of his seed shall ever prosper. And indeed no man did. Jeconiah was treated verywell by the babylonian king. But Jeconiah himself was never prosperous again. The Babylonian king was merely generous.
And the last part of the curse was that NO man of that line shall EVER sit on the throne of David. And indeed NO man EVER did. Jeconiah had a son or a grandson, I can't remember off hand which, that became a govenor. But NO kings. Christians make the claim that JESUS sat on the throne but the issue here is that he was only recognized by Christians as the King of the Jews. The Jews NEVER anointed him and he was NEVER their king.
All in all Jesus cannot be the messiah because the curse was only partially lifted at best. There are more. But I'm curious as to what you say. BTW....all of that is totally in the bible and is my only source of this material.
Jeremiah 22:24-30.
Your only real line here is to call Jeremiah a false prophet to save face for your messiah.....but then where do you draw the line. Why would your god allow the rantings of a false prophet ring through in HIS book?
DTR
Explain these contradictions.
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14
10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12
When God created man she was only joking. ;)
All of this "belief" nonsense still comes back to a very sound point that it is up to the believer to prove that god exists. As a non believer I cannot prove that god does not exist, however the very fact that no-one can prove (and never has proved) that god does exist only adds evidential weight to my position.
Hook, I only looked about 3 of these. Typical... I'll only cite the easiest one since I'm busy. Judges 1 19 does NOT say that God didn't have the power. It's taking about Judah. If it was talking about God, the H would be capitalized in he. You should have learned that in Sunday School in about 1st Grade. ;D
OK. I guess I can give you that. What about the other two you read? How about the other 9, in fact? I'll give you a few more also.
So, this is your ammo.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm#8
Cute.
Can you explain, or give your interpretation of these verses:
"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD they God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straightness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:" (Deuteronomy 28:53)
"And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates." (Deuteronomy 28:57)
God kills thousands throughout the Bible, human beings. He really likes animal sacrifice, according to the Bible, something you seem to want violent action against for humans, but I assume it's ok for God to do it and like it. I would like to have all the sick and wicked shit removed so that children couldn't read this crap.
I'm not sure I understand how an adult could learn anything from the Bible. I think in the old testament God was evil and violent, pissed at everyone, then in the new testament, he started smoking pot chilled out quite a bit. ;D
And do you know how many versions of the Bible are sold today? Many. And the different interpretations of not only verses, but sometimes the entire bible. On top of that, as I've said, we don't even know who wrote half the damn thing for sure. That's even up for interpretation and debate. The Bible is simply a complex rewards program that really means little. It's not evidence of God existing and then you have to figure out if you want to believe in God, singular, or God, Jesus and the holy ghost. The holy ghost. ;D ;D ;D Hey, it's almost Halloween, right. ;D How would one dress up as the holy ghost for halloween? ;D
Its so ridiculous talking about the bible....I'm out. 8-)
But I'd love to read your response to the 2 verses posted. Your interpretation.
I just want to say, I never try to get people to shed their religion.
I just want them to think critically and use facts and reason to form their opinions instead of "I just believe this because it's what I believe". If their opinions change because of it, that's fine, but the point is to approach everything with a critical eye so as not to allow unfounded bullshit to shape your view of the world, because coming from a place of empirical reality has more benefit to society as a whole. Every major advance in understanding of the world and everything in it has been a result of experiencing the tangible and comparing notes with others who experience it to better understand that experience.
Hook came in guns blazing with a bunch of unsupported nonsense and a few of us said, "you really should read this because maybe it'll help you think about things in a more rational way.
Reading this discussion, it's clear that the history-based, scholarly tradition of studying the bible isn't something that the people in the "Paul knew Jesus and all the gospels agree" church are real fans of, because they'd rather accept their unsupported-by-facts take that those things are true.
In discussions where facts can be demonstrated to make points, once you separate yourself from a factual base in making your argument, you've lost the argument and there's no point in continuing the discussion, because you're functioning in abject and willful ignorance of reality.
It was fun and a little sad to watch, I have to admit.
Tripper
I just knew DTR wouldn't care much for a real discussion involving facts. He doesn't care about the other side of the coin. So, I threw some relatively easily dismissed stuff out, like the list of contradictions, in hopes of getting into a real debate or discussion on the subject. Although I would like a interpretation of a few verses for my personal amusement.
I'm passed considering the belief in God and the bible stories thing. I'm more interested in the reasons people believe than what this book of lard says or means.
Howie has never engaged in a real debate about religion and when the fire gets hot he usually exits pretty quick. I never expected a real discussion so I kept the discussion on his level. Pretty much a waste of time. I did hope for a decent intelligent discussion to evolve.
I'm with Trip. I don't give a shit if you believe in God. I am interested in individuals reasons for that belief though.
Hookbender — Oct 02, 2011 I don't give a shit if you believe in God. I am interested in individuals reasons for that belief though.
I give a shit if that other person has the attitude that all people who do not believe what they do should be killed... :(
Why? That belief isn't any more credible than the belief in God. It's just another superstitious belief.
Although, that belief has proved very dangerous, as in the middle east. So I can see your concerns.
I also don't particularly like the superior mindset that the religious have. All doors are shut and locked. Any other persons thoughts on the subject are looked down on and seen as wrong. Dismissed entirely. Thats another very hurtful teaching from religion. I can't believe how long I was in that trap. I'm very glad I came to this forum for that very reason. I credit Trip, especially, and others, for opening my mind to a new way of thinking. And I credit myself for actually taking in the info and reading about different stuff. Being from the south, it's pretty hard to do.
Trip....what unsupported nonsense are you talking about?
Holy war did not originate with the twin towers and Islam... look up the Crusades some time...
Reading this discussion, it's clear that the history-based, scholarly tradition of studying the bible isn't something that the people in the "Paul knew Jesus and all the gospels agree" church are real fans of, because they'd rather accept their unsupported-by-facts take that those things are true.
And this is why these "dscussions" are a waste of time. You are at least the third person who has mis-quoted or assumed something that I didn't say. ;) I haven't mentioned the word "Paul" once. And, I asked for examples of the gospels actually "contradicting" and not just different stories, or different points of view. ONCE AGAIN, you all assume you have it all figured out, and anyone who doesn't come in with proof that meets your standards is just not as educated as you are.
I quoted a GROUP of noted Christian scholars above, and said that I didn't necessarily agree with them on one thing because there is evidence to support a different point of view (which I shared). It is WAY too long to type it all out, but the Norton Study Bible is ONE place I've read about the thing I mentioned about Matthew saying that they had supper "at home." That would indicate, perhaps more strongly than anything that YOU believe, that perhaps Matthew DID write the Gospel of Matthew. But if there's info that REALLY supports that he didn't, I'd like to see it. But, if he didn't, that doesn't disprove anything the book of Matthew says, does it? You guys seem to collectively take a point of view that "it wasn't written by Matthew so it's not true." I have said several times that even if it's not written by Matthew, it doesn't disprove anything that was said.
Rather than address that, you make sweeping statements such as I quoted above, and assume another unfounded belief. I think I said this but let me make it clear. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS. Neither do any of you. Back to my simple example: If we all took all kinds of notes about WHStock and nobody signed any of them, would you not believe anything that was told just because you don't know who told it? My point is and has been, you have to have more basis than that for not believing a story that was told by multiple writers. 4-5 guys making up the same story is rather unlikely, isn't it?
charger — Oct 03, 2011Holy war did not originate with the twin towers and Islam... look up the Crusades some time...
Didn't say it did. Nothing remotely close to that. It was just an easy example. ;)
Notice, I didn't say Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel, time in history, etc.
"Rather than address that, you make sweeping statements such as I quoted above, and assume another unfounded belief. I think I said this but let me make it clear. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS. Neither do any of you. Back to my simple example: If we all took all kinds of notes about WHStock and nobody signed any of them, would you not believe anything that was told just because you don't know who told it? My point is and has been, you have to have more basis than that for not believing a story that was told by multiple writers. 4-5 guys making up the same story is rather unlikely, isn't it?" .........NO
Ridiculous. The information can be used, tried and tested from the notes, but that doesn't prove some higher beings existence. And all you fuckers could have been stoned, drunk, or both at that time. :D
yep, that must be it. The 90% of the country that believes in God must be drunk and stoned all the time. I think you've finally figured it out. :)
Makes sense since the figure sure isn't 90%... ;)
what is it? A survey last year said 87%. 87 is pretty close to 90.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx
Can you explain the few verses I posted? What are your top 5 reasons for believing in God?
Do you think God really means in the verse to actually eat your own children? ;D
ironsheep — Oct 04, 2011http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx
Wow... That's definitely NOT the numbers I saw when I did my googling. In fact, THOSE numbers are hard to believe!
(In related news, Gallup created a new survey that showed 68% of the people polled previously did not believe the findings... ;) )
64.9% of all statistics on the internet are made up.
;)
LOL
Craig, I've checked this many times in the last few years. The lowest one I've seen was 82%. Not that it matters. I realize surveys can be off because it's a small sample, etc.
My position is still this. I don't care what you believe and I'm not going to actively try to change anyone. What pisses me off is the people with a PROVEN minority opinion who sling one insult after the other at someone who believes differently from them. Any Christian who constantly insults the intelligence of a non-believer for what they believe, is not following the principles of Christianity. Yes, I know there are some. But what is it about non-believers that seems to make them feel they have to justify their position by insulting a believers intelligence?
Hey, we all tease each other here from time to time. That's what friends, buddies, or whatever you want to call this group do to each other! But this has gone on since conversation one despite repeated requests from Christians to stop it. And, as you can see the end result, all the Christians leave the threads and many times the entire forum because of it. As I said before... look at the very title of the thread right below this one. Still wonder why there are so few active members here? After a while, it gets old. Nothing seems to even slow it down though. I have tried more than once to come in and answer questions, and it's almost immediately turned into an insult fest.
If you REALLY want to discuss this with someone and see why they believe differently than you, then why is that? I've voiced my amusement before at even having a "religion thread" when all that ever come here don't believe in God.
DreamTheaterRules — Oct 05, 2011LOL
Craig, I've checked this many times in the last few years. The lowest one I've seen was 82%. Not that it matters. I realize surveys can be off because it's a small sample, etc.
My position is still this. I don't care what you believe and I'm not going to actively try to change anyone. What pisses me off is the people with a PROVEN minority opinion who sling one insult after the other at someone who believes differently from them. Any Christian who constantly insults the intelligence of a non-believer for what they believe, is not following the principles of Christianity. Yes, I know there are some. But what is it about non-believers that seems to make them feel they have to justify their position by insulting a believers intelligence?
Hey, we all tease each other here from time to time. That's what friends, buddies, or whatever you want to call this group do to each other! But this has gone on since conversation one despite repeated requests from Christians to stop it. And, as you can see the end result, all the Christians leave the threads and many times the entire forum because of it. As I said before... look at the very title of the thread right below this one. Still wonder why there are so few active members here? After a while, it gets old. Nothing seems to even slow it down though. I have tried more than once to come in and answer questions, and it's almost immediately turned into an insult fest.
If you REALLY want to discuss this with someone and see why they believe differently than you, then why is that? I've voiced my amusement before at even having a "religion thread" when all that ever come here don't believe in God.
Since you won't answer my questions, which insults me, I'll just respond to your post when I feel inspired. ;D
Ok, who insulted your intelligence sweetheart? Was is that damn Fenderbender, or that asshole Hookbender? Or was it ole Craig, that son of a bitch? You don't worry Howie, when I find out, we'll beat the heck out of him with a baseball bat. So, dab your little tears off and we'll double your lunch money next week.
Who insulted your intelligence? And, what exactly is the definition of that?
Do you think your not doing the same damn thing at times? So your without fault and all those damn non-believers are all guilty as hell of insulting your intelligence? Things don't go as the good ole Christian wants and he cries foul? Superior christian mindset.
I would argue that your not following christian principles by not actively trying to change someone, not to mention being here talking to non-believers in the first place. You also should care what people think about Religion and God if your a Christian. What should scare you is the alleged fact you brought up. If non-believers are in the minority by simply not believing in God or if a God exist.....well.....that should scare the heck out of you.
I think it's a pretty well known general fact that politics and religion, no matter where the conversation is or who it's with or where it is, is a heated topic of discussion even among friends. These topics are "enter at your own risk topics". Period. Now, add to that some here are atheist or agnostic, you can now probably turn up percentage of arguments or debate by at least 50%. So, I would think all your disappointment experienced on either topic can be blamed on you, yourself. Wouldn't you?
For the record, I don't try to change anyone's beliefs, I just want them to have actually THOUGHT about them before blindly following. I'm willing to bet (according to current surveys) that about 80% of Americans haven't really thought about them. ;)
Oh they thought about it. They just don't know how to think. Something school systems conveniently leave out of the classroom. That should start in the 1st grade.
But, I guess the worlds much better thinking some magic dude in the sky is our saviour. And we should judge people because that's what God did. And some are poor little hopeless fucks that think differently than the MAJORITY of us people. So, they are inferior to our great way of thinking and how dare anyone question the almighty. By God.
And for the record Howie, that first small paragraph describing people that are ignorant isn't an insult, it's just reality. I was in that little category for about 40 years. So if you consider that a insult to your intelligence, it is more an insult to "ME" personally, which I consider more hurtful than a pop to your intelligence.
I think Christians beliefs should be changed if possible. The problem is they get so damn mad about the factual absence of what they believe that when questioned they say it's an insult or something. I got mad before I saw the "light" myself.
stay on topic. If you have questions, post them in your own thread and see who answers. In my thread, stay on the topic. ;)
Ok, who insulted your intelligence sweetheart? Was is that damn Fenderbender, or that asshole Hookbender? Or was it ole Craig, that son of a bitch? You don't worry Howie, when I find out, we'll beat the heck out of him with a baseball bat. So, dab your little tears off and we'll double your lunch money next week.
You continue too. You've gone off the deep end. Had a few too many tonight?
Who insulted your intelligence? And, what exactly is the definition of that? This is really not that hard. If I say "yes" and you say "no" we disgree. If I say "here's why I believe" and you say "here's why I don't, we disagree. But when I say "I believe" and you say "you are an uneducated, ignorant, sheep, etc.... that is insulting. There's not really anything hard to understand about that, given the SLIGHTEST level of social skills
Do you think your not doing the same damn thing at times? So your without fault and all those damn non-believers are all guilty as hell of insulting your intelligence? Things don't go as the good ole Christian wants and he cries foul? Superior christian mindset.
once again, BULL! You call me superior minded, yet you are the one claiming to have vast knowledge of something I can't understand or am too dumb to believe. Who has the superior attitude???
I would argue that your not following christian principles by not actively trying to change someone, not to mention being here talking to non-believers in the first place. You also should care what people think about Religion and God if your a Christian. What should scare you is the alleged fact you brought up. If non-believers are in the minority by simply not believing in God or if a God exist.....well.....that should scare the heck out of you.
But we've already established that you don't know much about real Christianity. I'm not going to beat someone over the head because they don't believe what I do. And if you knew anything about the Bible, there's nothing wrong with me being here and talking to you about it. And, again, I play left field, and I don't even have a clue what your last sentence means.... I'm not scared because non-believers are the minority. I think it's a pretty well known general fact that politics and religion, no matter where the conversation is or who it's with or where it is, is a heated topic of discussion even among friends. These topics are "enter at your own risk topics". Period. Now, add to that some here are atheist or agnostic, you can now probably turn up percentage of arguments or debate by at least 50%. So, I would think all your disappointment experienced on either topic can be blamed on you, yourself. Wouldn't you?]
Enter at your own risk? Yes. What part of that makes you think anyone is interested in constant insults as part of the discussion. Again, it really is this simple. Look around. There are NO Christians in this thread any more, and barely any in the forum as a whole. "The Gang" has run them off. That doesn't mean every non-believer does it. But you know who does. You know you are one of them. And you've seen what the religion threads have done to the forum.
34% of Conservative Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim. Only 40% of Americans believe in evolution. Facts and science mean nothing to us, we choose to believe in fairy tales and debunk science when it doesn't make implicit sense to us. So it should be no surprise that 80% believe in a god, I'm sure 50% also believe standing in front of a microwave gives you cancer, or that if you swallow gum it stays in your body forever.
DTR
"Given this, how can you say that there is NO evidence of Jesus, God, or any of the events in the Bible, when many of them were written by 3,4,5 or more different people?"
My questions are completely relevant to the discussion. Name 5 reasons you believe in God? How is that not relevant? Its a good question, in fact. You've been around here how many years now? Have you ever know any subject to stay on topic? Fuck the topic, and you of course. ;D
Uneducated and ignorant are pretty much the same thing and not really an insult.
What did I say I had vast knowledge of?
So, what is "real christianity"? It should scare you that few religious people know little about the bible. The majority of Americans believe in God, that should scare you. It takes very little thought to choose religion. It takes much thought to reject it.
Doesn't matter if you want insults or not. Do like you said and stay on topic. Ignore it. What insult are you referring to?
Now, back to this topic thing. You've been responding to some of my post throughout this thread, that haven't been on topic since page 2. You didn't answer any of my questions though. So you are the only one who can get off topic? Why did you suddenly decide you wanted to make a rule to stay on topic and at the same time respond to only stuff off topic in this post of yours? I don't mean to hurt your feelings but....fuck your topic. ;D
I think the religion thread, or section, whatever....has shown that logic, reason, facts and evidence, which happen to be pretty damn important to some of us, has proven to hold it's water in a debate over religion. If your in a debate and losing, you can concede or just get mad and leave. By your comparison, Christians seem to be very sensitive.
it has nothing to do with being sensitive. It has to do with you guys (if the shoe fits, blah blah) ACTING like you want a serious discussion, but those who do it, can't go two post without saying something insulting about the other side. Your insults don't "bother" me. I often ask why you keep insulting, just to see how many more posts certain people make before they are insulting again.
But really, it applies to about anything, doesn't it? If a guy posts some guitar playing here in the FNJ section or otherwise, and guys respond by constantly insulting his playing, how many times do you think that guy is going to put up a jam? ;) Is that guy too sensitive if he leaves the threads after a few insults? Or is he just not interested in having his playing bashed?
My feelings aren't hurt when you bash God or people who believe in him, as much as they would be hurt if you bashed my playing. :) But the facts are simple: Nobody wants to do much of anything in a group where WHATEVER they are doing, or believe, is constantly insulted. It doesn't hurt my feelings. Doesn't make me mad. Yeah, it might make me challenge you to a game of dodge ball or something, but that's all just in fun. ;)
But, you win. I renounce my kingdom.
;)
DreamTheaterRules — Oct 10, 2011it has nothing to do with being sensitive. It has to do with you guys (if the shoe fits, blah blah) ACTING like you want a serious discussion, but those who do it, can't go two post without saying something insulting about the other side. Your insults don't "bother" me. I often ask why you keep insulting, just to see how many more posts certain people make before they are insulting again.
But really, it applies to about anything, doesn't it? If a guy posts some guitar playing here in the FNJ section or otherwise, and guys respond by constantly insulting his playing, how many times do you think that guy is going to put up a jam? ;) Is that guy too sensitive if he leaves the threads after a few insults? Or is he just not interested in having his playing bashed?
My feelings aren't hurt when you bash God or people who believe in him, as much as they would be hurt if you bashed my playing. :) But the facts are simple: Nobody wants to do much of anything in a group where WHATEVER they are doing, or believe, is constantly insulted. It doesn't hurt my feelings. Doesn't make me mad. Yeah, it might make me challenge you to a game of dodge ball or something, but that's all just in fun. ;)
But, you win. I renounce my kingdom.
;)
I would first have to see where I insulted you to respond.
See, I would say that someone telling me, that's great, rather than that sucks, would be an insult about my playing when it sucked. Again, I'd rather hear truth rather than a lie. I'd want to hear an explanation as to why though. Otherwise it means nothing. So yeah, that person would be a little sensitive too.
Why don't you answer my questions?
Your off topic.
What's hilarious about this thread, in a sad kinda way, is that Howie is calling Hooky to the carpet about staying on topic and then talking only about "off topic" things in his post.
Gentlemen.....I think the conversation both of you are having could be it's own fucking thread. It should be titled, "What Constitututes An Insult?" and then you should both get to the bottom of it.
I think that Howie, to some degree, actually would like to talk about this stuff on some level, but keeps allowing himself to get derailed. PART of that is the fact that he is dodging the questions and not seeing how Hooky's questions are connected to the conversation. Howie you are deliberately trying to punish Hooky by being purposely obtuse with him. I think you should be the good Christian you say you are and have a bit more poise.
Hooky, I understand you have a lot of questions you would like Howie to answer. However, you are taking issues with Christianity as a whole and not really addressing the topic in the original post. In your zealousness to find truth, you've shot yourself in teh foot a bit with aggressive lines of questions. It's not that you are asking bad questions. It's that they don't really belong in this thread.
For example, you've raised some seriously good questions about contradictions in the bible. Which you and I understand contribute to your disbelief and you bring these things up because to you and I we understand how that creates uncertainty in their divine inspiration which leads to complete doubt in the Christian authoritarian position on how correct it is. I understand that you do this to make your case as to why YOU don't believe and you want Howie to get that. But Howie's original post is about how you can discredit the authors as not eye witnesses. That is really what you need to address. I get that you are saying that their hobbled together contradictory writings is all the evidence you need to shoot down any authority they authors have or how accurate they are. But you never presented it in that light it was just "HOwie explain this" You gotta give Howie some context as to why you bring it up or it just seems out of place to Howie.
DreamTheaterRules — Sep 14, 2011There are many things that are taught as part of history, that are based on ONE persons account of the story or event. These items are taught as FACT in our schools and many aren't questioned at all unless there is another written account that varies somehow. There are standards for what we believe and teach. In many cases, what was written by ONE person is the only story told and much of history is from one persons account, or compiled from several persons accounts of different events of a major event, time, etc.
Given this, how can you say that there is NO evidence of Jesus, God, or any of the events in the Bible, when many of them were written by 3,4,5 or more different people? Even Charger believes that Jesus lived, because there are too many reasonable accounts written of his life to deny that. Even Jews who didn't think he was Gods son (and killed him for saying that he was) wrote of his existence. Heck, there are even accounts where Jews who didn't believe IN him wrote of his miracles.
How do you refute all of this as fairy tails, given the amount of information there is recorded on the subject?
Discuss...
This is actually to Fender....
Ok. I got it Fender.
But.... ;D... DTR is asking why someone wouldn't believe in God considering 5 or so people wrote about him in the Bible. I happen to think that if DTR answered my question by giving us a list of reasons he believed in God himself, if would give insight as to why he ask this question to begin with. And the fairy tell really gets questionable when you start talking about Jesus rising from the dead and talking to people and stuff, after his death. There are many known contradictions that haven't been completely resolved even by scholars. If there are many contradictions in the bible, why should we believe to be true any of it. And why would this question of Howies be worth serious discussion without first, showing that said question and passages are accurate accounts of the event, they aren't contradicted elsewhere in the bible, etc. Non-believers think differently than Christians. I don't think it's fair to assume what Howie believes to be true, and debate with him based on assumption and speculation. I'd like to know entirely why he would consider this to be true before continuing to discuss his questions.
Now, as to the events written about and believed to be true, vs the Bible, :D, one would have to consider the entire book and all that is said in that book, the bible, not only the believable things. Christians love to speak about the reasonable passages in the bible but over look stuff like God telling people to eat their young, and shit even.
I think that my post or questions indirectly were related to the topic. They were just thoughts and questions needing to be answered before I got to the initial question asked by DTR. Sometimes people need to qualify or clear some things up that leed to the questions asked in this original post by DTR.
DTR seems not to mind asking questions and expecting answers but he is exempted from returning the favor, it seems.
Simply put, as I've stated before, Howie doesn't know how to think. He wants someone to prove the bible isn't accurate. That's not how it works. As you know. His first burden is to show evidence that the bible verses are true. It would seem that that fact, or lack of, needs to be addressed first before the debate can really start.
Yes hooky your lines of thought is why I stated Howie is being purposely obtuse. You have some totally fair questions.
It seems like Howie wants to raise a point and then we all talk about it without him. He's not really contributing to the conversation. He's more worried about being a tad too defensive.
I also understand your frustration at his actions. Try to remember when you started thinking about batting for the other team and how frustrating those new facts that were staring you right in the started to be a real pain in the ass. He doesn't want to really have to deal with that stuff. Hence he never really addresses those things when we bring them up. I can't wait for him to deal with what I've revealed about old Paul in the other thread.
FenderBender has ruined changed the Chicken Dance for me forever... ;D
EVERY time I read one of his posts I leave with that song going through my head! :D
DreamTheaterRules — Oct 03, 2011Reading this discussion, it's clear that the history-based, scholarly tradition of studying the bible isn't something that the people in the "Paul knew Jesus and all the gospels agree" church are real fans of, because they'd rather accept their unsupported-by-facts take that those things are true.
And this is why these "dscussions" are a waste of time. You are at least the third person who has mis-quoted or assumed something that I didn't say. ;) I haven't mentioned the word "Paul" once. And, I asked for examples of the gospels actually "contradicting" and not just different stories, or different points of view. ONCE AGAIN, you all assume you have it all figured out, and anyone who doesn't come in with proof that meets your standards is just not as educated as you are.
I wasn't talking about you or making any claim other than people who hold those sorts of beliefs (without challenge or question) tend to ignore evidence to the contrary, or invent "evidence" to support their claims that may or may not actually be evidence.
I quoted a GROUP of noted Christian scholars above, and said that I didn't necessarily agree with them on one thing because there is evidence to support a different point of view (which I shared). It is WAY too long to type it all out, but the Norton Study Bible is ONE place I've read about the thing I mentioned about Matthew saying that they had supper "at home." That would indicate, perhaps more strongly than anything that YOU believe, that perhaps Matthew DID write the Gospel of Matthew. But if there's info that REALLY supports that he didn't, I'd like to see it. But, if he didn't, that doesn't disprove anything the book of Matthew says, does it? You guys seem to collectively take a point of view that "it wasn't written by Matthew so it's not true." I have said several times that even if it's not written by Matthew, it doesn't disprove anything that was said.
And it doesn't PROVE anything, either.
Rather than address that, you make sweeping statements such as I quoted above, and assume another unfounded belief. I think I said this but let me make it clear. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS. Neither do any of you. Back to my simple example: If we all took all kinds of notes about WHStock and nobody signed any of them, would you not believe anything that was told just because you don't know who told it? My point is and has been, you have to have more basis than that for not believing a story that was told by multiple writers. 4-5 guys making up the same story is rather unlikely, isn't it?
Not really, if they're all starting from the same ideas or stories. There's no way to know that the stories written after the earlier stories are just embellishments of the earliest tellings of the tales. There's just not enough actual, tangible, demonstrable evidence in the historical record, because it all happened thousands of years ago.
You have faith to reconcile this conflict and fill this gap. People without it need more than that.
Sorry if it seemed like I was lumping you in. I wasn't trying to...
Tripper
Fenderbender — Oct 15, 2011Yes hooky your lines of thought is why I stated Howie is being purposely obtuse. You have some totally fair questions.
It seems like Howie wants to raise a point and then we all talk about it without him. He's not really contributing to the conversation. He's more worried about being a tad too defensive.
I also understand your frustration at his actions. Try to remember when you started thinking about batting for the other team and how frustrating those new facts that were staring you right in the started to be a real pain in the ass. He doesn't want to really have to deal with that stuff. Hence he never really addresses those things when we bring them up. I can't wait for him to deal with what I've revealed about old Paul in the other thread.
When I was going through the change, ;D, I read all kinda stuff as a Christian trying to show I was right and found that I couldn't.....time and time again. So, the more I tried to verify and defend the the Bible and it's stories, the more I became convinced it was not defendable. It was horse-shit.
Howie, on the other hand, ignores anything anyone says or questions and continues to produce a few pages of scripture as if that has any effect. My point is, he doesn't want to discuss religious subjects, he wants to show how factual it is using the Bible as proof. Thats why I say he doesn't know how to think. Or, doesn't want to think.
And then of course, he bitches about questions ask of his absolutely true book of love, the bible.
