Why dont we all believe????

[Mockingbird 0]

You read something into what I said. Why/how did you take as a threat what I, as a Christian, said????

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

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Broken, I'm not clear.

Just what in particular do you have against religion and those who are more spiritually inclined than you are?

I'm simply curious. Can you elaborate, give examples, facts?

Ciels-
Michele

Well seeing as you asked....

The fundamental problem I have with religion is that there is absolutely no need for it in the modern world. Now you might argue that its harmless and that it helps teach people to be nice to one another, and it gives people hope. But Religion is not only an insult to our dignity but fights to reverse centuries of human progress.

Religion teaches us that AIDS is ‘the wages of sin’, that homosexuality is sin and needs to be purged for us. It prevents the advance in stem cell research.

It’s a common complaint that atheism is bereft of a moral compass, but this idea can be disabused with a pretty cursory reading of the ethics and moral philosophy literature. Not only does morality not need God, it seems difficult to show how God could even be the basis for morality
.
We, well most of us, are a highly intelligent race, we have evolved over millions of years from living in caves and hunting with sticks, to putting people on the moon, and developing cures for all sorts of illnesses. Our knowledge of the world and universe through science is enormous and ever growing.

Science is about the setting up of hypothesis, the testing of models, and the collection of evidence, all of which could mean that we have to revise our thoughts. There’s no template to which all new facts have to be crowbarred into, like in the religious worldview. It’s an open-ended, relentlessly self-critical enterprise – if you won’t subject your pet theory to close scrutiny, you can bet the guy down the corridor will. Authority counts for little in science.

Religion teaches faith, teaches us that its ok not to ask questions, not to seek the truth, because if we do, it will only be a matter of time before science takes on all the responsibilities that once belonged to the gods.

As of today we still are unable to find a shred of proof that the stories of any of the world’s religions are indeed fact, why is that??? Why has no one found the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, Noah’s ark, or any other religious relic??

If we look at the Christian bible it is riddled with contradictions, inconstancies, errors, and historical inaccuracies.

There are about four billion people who are not Christians they look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.

A couple of facts
1. The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today
2. Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today
3. Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered

Bertrand Russell points out that there could be a teapot orbit the sun, yet we wouldn’t know because we couldn’t detect it, because it was too small. Our science couldn’t prove that the teapot didn’t exist, but that would scarcely provide for asserting that it did exist – you can’t prove a negative. Logically, this might mean we should only commit ourselves to agnosticism, but in the case of the teapot, would you really say, “Well gee, I’m just not sure if it’s there” – in practice you’d be an atheist towards the teapot, wouldn’t you, unless there was good evidence to suggest it existed? So instead of calling ourselves agnostic, we might call ourselves teapot atheists.

In any case, what is supposed to follow from the fact that we can’t disprove God’s existence? Do religious folk believe in anything whose existence can’t be disproved – pixies, goblins, unicorns, and mermaids? Of course not, nearly everyone on the planet is a teapot atheist with respect to most of the Gods that have ever been invented, from Thor to Aphrodite, and every member of a monotheistic religion is an atheist to every conception of God bar one. “Some of us,” “just go one God further.”

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

[Michele 1]

Hi, Broken. Great response. THanks for taking the time to outline your position.

First, let me say that I completely respect your position. I don't necessarily agree/disagree with it, but I respect it.

Quote

The fundamental problem I have with religion is that there is absolutely no need for it in the modern world. Now you might argue that its harmless and that it helps teach people to be nice to one another, and it gives people hope. But Religion is not only an insult to our dignity but fights to reverse centuries of human progress.

For you. In your life. And it's your right to hold that opinion. For me in my life, religion - actually spirituality rather than a formal, practiced religion - does help me to be nice to some folks I'd rather not be nice to. It does indeed give me hope. It is in no way an insult to my dignity, and does not try to reverse for me "centuries" of progress.

Rather, for me, as I said, it provides things I haven't found in science. It provides me with a fundamental aspect of the numinous that I never got from science. It allows me to have wonder and awe, whereas science doesn't allow that; rather, it insists on investigation and modeling, and doesn't allow for that which is not explainable.

In my world, small as it may be, there is a balance between science and spirituality. I pray, but I also use the oven. I notice and respect the environment, but I also watch the weather channel. I see God all around me, but have also had Lasik surgery to actually see. In other words, there is a balance in my world between both science and spirituality. That is a wonderful thing, no? There's room for both.

Quote

Religion teaches us that AIDS is ‘the wages of sin’, that homosexuality is sin and needs to be purged for us. It prevents the advance in stem cell research.

It’s a common complaint that atheism is bereft of a moral compass, but this idea can be disabused with a pretty cursory reading of the ethics and moral philosophy literature. Not only does morality not need God, it seems difficult to show how God could even be the basis for morality

I have not ever been present when a church body has presented AIDs as the wages of sin. Sorry. I have been in churches where consequence to action is taught, but it's not taught in reference to AIDs.

As to stem cell, I believe that there are some churches who are against it. However, I've also been in the delivery room with my sister-in-law who, while in labor, was asked if she'd donate the placenta towards research. She is very very christian...and she donated, no questions at all.

If there are enough stem cell lines to do research with, I don't see a need to increase them. If there is not enough, I see the need to increase them. But how? Where do they come from? The donated placenta (which is what I assumed they were doing with it, but I've been very wrong in the past, and it wouldn't surprise me if I was wrong on this), or from another source? And from where does that source come?

I do think that on occasion, science sprints ahead of ethics. I also think that law sprints ahead of ethics, as well...but I don't know that I'd rather have a group of ethicists sitting in a research lab saying "nope, don't clone a sheep, because eventually we'll have armies of clones invading Russia" or whatever. I am not sure of the solution; only that there is one, and it's not knee-jerk prevention or full steam ahead...it's somewhere in the middle.

I think that some people, who do the reading and the introspection - and that is by all means not all atheists, to be honest - do find a moral compass in ethical and philosophical reading. I don't think a lot of them do, frankly; they have not undertaken an examination of the human psyche and/or the ramifications of certain acts and their impact on society as a whole. They have not done the reading, and because of that, I am not at all sure where their moral code stems from.

Some do...and those that have come to an atheistic belief through the hard work of introspection and analysis have my respect. It's the same way I came to a solid belief in God...and I expect the same respect as I give. It doesn't happen that way, though, does it?

Quote

We, well most of us, are a highly intelligent race, we have evolved over millions of years from living in caves and hunting with sticks, to putting people on the moon, and developing cures for all sorts of illnesses. Our knowledge of the world and universe through science is enormous and ever growing.

Science is about the setting up of hypothesis, the testing of models, and the collection of evidence, all of which could mean that we have to revise our thoughts. There’s no template to which all new facts have to be crowbarred into, like in the religious worldview. It’s an open-ended, relentlessly self-critical enterprise – if you won’t subject your pet theory to close scrutiny, you can bet the guy down the corridor will. Authority counts for little in science.

Religion teaches faith, teaches us that its ok not to ask questions, not to seek the truth, because if we do, it will only be a matter of time before science takes on all the responsibilities that once belonged to the gods.

Scientific examination of an hypothesis is a wonderful thing; it is also a wonderful thing that it is peer-reviewed, and the flaws (if any) exposed. Science is a great tool to explain why there's thunder, or why gravity works; and it springboards ideas from the littlest observation (an apple) to the most amazing thing (gravity, and the earth's relationship to other planets). At no point have I ever said science is bad.

And I've never heard science denigrated in church, either. Nor is it denigrated in the Bible, I don't think. The pastors and preachers I've heard over my life do not talk about science; I have, however, heard many scientists talk about religion. Did you know Albert Einstein believed in God? That Stephen Hawkins does (at least, according to quotes I've heard attributed to them...)?

Religion does teach faith, but it's not a blind faith. I've been told to ask, ask, ask. To seek, search, and read. To explore, adventure, and inquire. And I have. For me, that yielded a far deeper understanding of what faith is - and is not - and how faith works, and why it works as well as it does. Religion teaches to look for truth, to look at all available possibilities, and to question that until one is satisfied with the answer. It doesn't usurp science's explanations...it adds to them a level that has only recently begun to be explored - namely, that part of quantum physics wherein all atoms behave as the viewer expects them to, which in turn intimates a sentientality that was not expected...and hasn't yet, frankly, been explained. But when an explanation does come, I suspect it will confirm, for me at least, that God is, literally, in the details.

Quote

As of today we still are unable to find a shred of proof that the stories of any of the world’s religions are indeed fact, why is that??? Why has no one found the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, Noah’s ark, or any other religious relic??

If we look at the Christian bible it is riddled with contradictions, inconstancies, errors, and historical inaccuracies.

There are about four billion people who are not Christians they look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.

Sure. Except, there really was a "Santa." Granted, he didn't fly all over the world, in one night, handing out gifts to those good children, but the origination of that story is based in fact. There was a man who did give out gifts to those around him...

As for the way I see the Mormon story or the Muslim story, I've not ever stated anything about those two. How would you know how I feel about them?

You're right - there is no concrete evidence that the great flood occurred and Noah built an arc. Nor is there any proof that the Ark survived. Or that the Holy Grail exists - or even what, in fact, the Holy Grail is.

And yes, there are "inconsistencies" and "inaccuracies" in the Bible, as well as conflicting stories (what happened to Judas, for example). There are parts that I take literally; and there are parts that I don't take literally. There are parts, in fact, that I believe have a scientific explanation...(don't fall off your chair, now...LOL!).

None of that, however, conflicts with my belief in God. I believed in God before I read the Bible, as I had benefitted from science before I knew they had developed the items I used daily or had developed the vaccines I received in infancy.

I know that inconsistencies and inaccuracies and conflicting stories have been used to rip the Bible apart. To me, that's simply the same as when Einstein first published a paper; his peers thumped him, he went back and refined his process, published again, got less thumped, refined again, and finally it was accepted. The problem is in the Bible we're dealing with a set of tenents that have, frankly, evolved over time but in such a subtle manner as to be inadvertantly overlooked by those who haven't studied the past of a religion and it's present form. We are also dealing in something which cannot be re-demonstrated; i.e., the time for the great flood was 6,000 years ago (give or take...I'm not positive...). Because it's history and generally an oral tradition, one must expect inaccuracies and inconsistencies...do you tell a story the same way each and every time? No...but that doesn't change the major events/emotions of the story...

Quote

A couple of facts
1. The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today
2. Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today
3. Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered

What miracles did you expect to leave behind evidence? The only ones I can think of is the great flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah (although that's not really a miracle). There's evidence of huge regional flooding around that time...some of our local posters who are of a scientific bent even agree to that. So what sort of evidence are you looking for?

As for statistically analysing prayer, I've had prayers answered...which takes your "never" right out of the game. Sorry...but it's true. While they might not have been "God, please change that mountain over there" sort of emperical data, I have indeed experienced prayers said in sincerety and answered with sincerety.

In response to Jesus not appearing today, I've read reports that he has...as has Mary. And, honestly, as has the devil. So who's to say those folks are mistaken? Because you didn't see it? Are you really saying you should be the arbiter of all that which appears to folks as real or not real? True or not true? I don't think you're saying that, but your post seems to be saying that in one regard.

I've heard the argument "God appeared to many people eons ago. He doesn't appear today. That means he doesn't exist." I find that a spurious argument at best. If you don't see things as miraculous, then you will never see a miracle. You don't believe anything happens that cannot be scientifically explained, so you will always look to science to explain it. But does it always explain it? Can it explain why a prayer of mine was answered (literally)? No...the best that can be arrived at is anecdotal evidence.

Faith, in the end, is about choice (man, I'm on that today...!!) I think. Choice to see that which is miraculous, a choice to see that which is numinous. A choice to respect and worship something Higher, Greater, than I am or ever will be. It's a choice to realize that I do not know everything, that no man ever can explain absolutely everything, and discover absolutely everything...and to be humble enough to know that.

Quote

Bertrand Russell points out that there could be a teapot orbit the sun, yet we wouldn’t know because we couldn’t detect it, because it was too small. Our science couldn’t prove that the teapot didn’t exist, but that would scarcely provide for asserting that it did exist – you can’t prove a negative. Logically, this might mean we should only commit ourselves to agnosticism, but in the case of the teapot, would you really say, “Well gee, I’m just not sure if it’s there” – in practice you’d be an atheist towards the teapot, wouldn’t you, unless there was good evidence to suggest it existed? So instead of calling ourselves agnostic, we might call ourselves teapot atheists.

See, I don't understand why one can't say "well, there just might be a teapot circling the sun...I can't see it, I can't explain how the hell it managed to get there without melting, but since I can't see it with my own two eyes, and can't touch it with my own two hands doesn't mean it's not there, either...there just might be."

I can't see why folks can't live with that uncertainty. Scientists tend to be very certain that God does not exist. The Faithful are pretty sure God exists. Neither can prove nor disprove the other...therefor, both are teapots circling the sun. So why can't people live with the uncertainty, and be open enough to say "well, maybe there is a teapot...who am I to know for sure?"

Maybe it's just that I can live easily with uncertainty. Maybe I'm rare. Maybe people really want to know something, when all that there is to know is that we just don't know for certain there is a teapot...and I think it's possible there is a teapot, even if I can't touch it.

What's wrong, then, with being agnostic, and not taking it to the far extreme of atheism? Because humans don't really like uncertainty, perhaps...

{quote]In any case, what is supposed to follow from the fact that we can’t disprove God’s existence? Do religious folk believe in anything whose existence can’t be disproved – pixies, goblins, unicorns, and mermaids? Of course not, nearly everyone on the planet is a teapot atheist with respect to most of the Gods that have ever been invented, from Thor to Aphrodite, and every member of a monotheistic religion is an atheist to every conception of God bar one. “Some of us,” “just go one God further.”
And I'll go one God further than that...I believe in a God who is the most amazing scientist there is.

My thoughts are simply summed up this way: there is room for both science and religion. There are needs served by both, and there is an ultimate Cause for both...and I believe that the ultimate god is God.

Great debating with you!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

your limited understanding of the "Central Message" of the character of Christ was written, edited and translated BY MAN. There is no questioning this fundamental fact.

If this is what you wish to believe... It's obvious that you have read a lot of the anti-christian, anti-bible propaganda and bought it. I hope that you'll consider the other side rather than dismiss it out of hand. Of course, if you have ever read any research from the other side, I'd be interested in your reason for dismissing it, or what proof you've seen that it's wrong.

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

[billvon 2,435]

>>of the "Central Message" of the character of Christ was written, edited
>>and translated BY MAN. There is no questioning this fundamental fact.

>If this is what you wish to believe...

It's what most Christians believe. While many believe the original Bible was divinely inspired, not many people believe that the New International version, the New Living Translation, the English Standard version, the 21st Century King James version, the New King James version, the American Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation, the Darby translation, the New Life version, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the New International Reader's Version, and the Wycliffe translation were done by anyone other than fallible, mortal men. Since errors have been found in several of those translations, it would be hard to make an argument that they are all the exact word of God.

[Michele 1]

Just curious...and addressed to whomever wants to answer.

What part of the message that Jesus gave was translated inaccurately? Or Moses' story? Or Abraham's story? How about Job? Or...you get the idea.

What part of the mistranslation changed the message?

Ciels-
Michele

Edited to ask the question more completely...

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

What, primarily, do you disagree with concerning conscience?

That it is given by god.
That everyone carries the same uniform blueprint of conscience.
That it is born, not learned.
That everyone has one.

Can you honestly tell me that everyone, from every culture, is born with the same ideas about what is and is not acceptable treatment of other people?

To take an extreme example, what about sociopaths? People clinically unable to tell that hurting others is wrong - what happened when god was making them?

I didn't say that every person in the world was born with a cookie-cutter conscience. But I believe that very human being has conscience, before he or she has ever been taught the particulars of moral behavior. This, however, is my opinion.

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

[Mockingbird 0]

Definitely.

God most certainly used man to write, copy, and translate. Who else was there to do it? ("Thing" was busy, or he would've been a good choice.)(That was a joke.)

Actually, I was replying to this statement by Zenister:

Quote

see what you fail to grasp is that "Christ" did not mention anything.. any more than Hamlet mentioned anything...

... but I accidentally deleted that part of what Zen said. He doesn't believe that the bible records any actual statements/claims of Christ. I completely disagree, but if all he wants to believe is what critics of Christianity claim, he's entitled to.

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

[Zenister 0]

Quote

... but I accidentally deleted that part of what Zen said. He doesn't believe that the bible records any actual statements/claims of Christ. I completely disagree, but if all he wants to believe is what critics of Christianity claim, he's entitled to.

apparently not.. because by the difference of your belief, and that is all it is, all the "Evidence" you have that the character 'Christ' (your God Incarnate) as described in the present day Bible, one of the most translated, retranslated, edited, censored and tailored for content by the "Church" actually spoke the words in Red in your sacred text is YOUR BELIEF.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

your limited understanding of the "Central Message" of the character of Christ was written, edited and translated BY MAN. There is no questioning this fundamental fact.

If this is what you wish to believe... It's obvious that you have read a lot of the anti-christian, anti-bible propaganda and bought it. I hope that you'll consider the other side rather than dismiss it out of hand. Of course, if you have ever read any research from the other side, I'd be interested in your reason for dismissing it, or what proof you've seen that it's wrong.

actually you still dont get it.. i can quote scripture as well (but perhaps better as i'd imagine you are more 'current' than i) as you. I was raised and formally educated by a number of recognized "Christian" Schools, in three separate sects Catholic, Methodist and Baptist. In point of fact, i'm willing to bet a jump ticket i've more bibles in the room i'm typing this from than you have ever owned in your entire life.

however I also have copies of every other major, minor, living and dead religious related text i've been lucky enough to acquire in here as well, and I have read all of them, some nearly as many times as I have read the Bible you may not have completed yet. In addition, I continue to participate in, discuss in depth, learn and study from the majority of the worlds actively practiced religions (as i can arrange) in my time orbiting the sun.

never pretend i've dismissed anything out of hand, unlike you I am not limiting my experience of Life, of Love and Divinity to the confines of a single of MAN's religions.

an analogy i quite enjoy is that of Pie.

I understand you live and die for Apple pie.
some feel the same about Pumpkin

there exist more types of Pie than you will ever taste, ever hear of, ever even imagine or dream and forget about.....

you only miss the true wonder and variety of life (and therefore Divinity) by limiting yourself, your imagination and experience to the Worship of Apple Pie.

they are all still Pi.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

In point of fact, i'm willing to bet a jump ticket i've more bibles in the room i'm typing this from than you have ever owned in your entire life.

REALLY??!?!?!?! Try me! (I'm practically broke.) How many bibles DO you have in the room with you?

Quote

and I have read all of them, some nearly as many times as I have read the Bible you may not have completed yet.

Quote

In addition, I continue to participate in, discuss in depth, learn and study from the majority of the worlds actively practiced religions (as i can arrange) in my time orbiting the sun. never pretend i've dismissed anything out of hand, unlike you I am not limiting my experience of Life, of Love and Divinity to the confines of a single of MAN's religions.

This is a good thing? To follow many of the world's man-made religions? You definitely have me beat, since I don't even consider my faith in Christ to be a "religion." (I don't even belong to a church! )

Do you know the story of the apostle Paul visiting Athens? Forgive me for the following long quotation; I hope you'll read it, anyway. I can see you as one of these philosophers at Mars Hill:

Acts 17:16-33 (New International Version)
16While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

32When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." 33At that, Paul left the Council. 34A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

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

[Mockingbird 0]

Hi Michele. I'll quote from the document I referred to at the beginning. Hope that's OK.

"...We mentioned that there were only about fifty passages where variants affect the meaning. We will now consider some of these disputed passages. The passages where the readings are disputed can be broken down into two different categories. First, there are passages that are questionable as to whether they belong in the New Testament. These passages are not found in some important manuscripts of the N.T. Whether or not they belong, no Christian doctrine stands or falls on any of these passages. Second, there are verses that everyone agrees belong, but there is a question as to exactly how the verse should be worded.

First, the ones that are questionable as to whether they belong in Scripture or not:
Matthew 6:13 the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer.
Mark 16:8-20 a passage concerning Christ's appearances to the disciples after His resurrection.
John 5:3,4 a parenthetical explanation of why people were waiting at the pool to be healed
John 7:53-8:11 the famous story of the woman who was discovered in the act of adultery and brought before Jesus
Acts 8:37 this verse contains the answer of Philip to the Ethiopian after he asked Philip if he could be baptized.
1 John 5:7 this passage has a clear statement of the Trinity; however the doctrine of the trinity is not based on this verse.

Second, a group of passages where it is certain that the verse belongs; yet the particular reading of that verse is in doubt. Here are some examples of this type of variant.

John 1:18 The question is whether the Greek text reads "Son" or "God." KJV says "...the only begotten Son..." The NIV says "...God the One and only..." NASB says "...the only begotten God..."
John 7:8 Did Jesus say "I am not going up" or "I am not yet going up"?
1 Timothy 3:16 The question is this passage concerns the reading of one word. Is it "God" or "He"? KJV says "God was manifest in the flesh." NIV says "He appeared in a body." NASB says "He who was revealed in the flesh."

Summary: We can summarize the evidence of the variant readings in the following manner: 80-85% of the text reads exactly the same, no matter what manuscript tradition is followed. Of the 15-20% that has any variations, 99% of these variations are meaningless and do not affect the translation of the text. Thus, there are about 400-600 places in the the entire N.T. where translation is affected by a variant reading. Of these only 50 have importance, but no Christian doctrine is affected one way or the other in these fifty variants. Thus the variants have no real affect on the meaning of the text."

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

[smiles 0]

Quote

---translated inaccurately?

Interpreted accurately????

John 7:53-8:12
The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery-
it made it's way into The Passion of the Christ.
It was not originally part of any of the Gospels.
Other scribes inserted the account in different locations...after John 21:25, after Luke 21:38...
If this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible?

Is it important for you to know whether Jesus was said to feel compassion or anger in Mark 1:41; whether he was calm and collected or in deep distress in Luke 22:43-44; whether he was said to die by God's grace or "apart from God" in Heb. 2:9???

Modification of scripture in the early Christian church- modified words to make them more clearly support orthodox Christianity and more vigorously oppose heretics, women, Jews, and pagans.

Changes have real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. In some instances the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem. Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers. Texts are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of the texts only by explaining them in light of their own knowledge.

Mark portrays Jesus as in deep agony in the face of death, telling his disciples that his soul was "sorrowful unto death," falling on his face in prayer, and beseeching God three times to take away the cup of his suffering; on his way to be crucified he is silent the entire time, and he says nothing on the cross when mocked by everyone, including both robbers, until the very end when he calls out in anguish, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" He then utters a loud cry and dies.

Luke had this version of the story available to him, but he modified it significantly. He removed Mark's comment that Jesus was highly distraught, as well as Jesus's own comment that he was sorrowful unto death. Rather than falling on his face, Jesus simply kneels, and instead of pleading three times to have the cup removed, he asks only once, prefacing his prayer with "if it be your will." He is not at all silent but asks God to forgive those responsible, "for they don't know what they're doing." While on the cross he is not silent: when one of the robbers mocks him (not both as in Mark), the other asks for his help and Jesus replies in full assurance of what was happening, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." And at the end, rather than asking God why he had beem forsaken- there is no cry of dereliction- he instead prays in full confidence of God's support and care: "Father, into your hands I commend my Spirit."

Luke has changed the account- he wanted to teach a different lesson- for him Jesus was not in despair. He was calm and in control, knowing what was happening to him, why it was happening, and what would occur later. The idea that Luke changed the text before him- in this case the gospel of Mark- does not put him in a unique situation among the early Christain authors. This is what all the writers of the New Testament did- along with all the writers of the Christain literature outside the New Testament. They modified their tradition and put the words of the tradition in their own words.

John's gospel is quite different from each of the other three (he never has Jesus tell a parable, or cast out a demon; and in his account, unlike theirs, Jesus gives long discourses about his identity and does "signs" in order to prove that what he says about himself is true.) The message of James differs from the message of Paul; the message of Paul differs from the message of Acts; the message of Revelation of John differs from the message of the Gospel of John.

Hundreds, or even thousands of ways people interpret the book of Revelation- all the different Christain denominations, filled with intelligent and well meaning people who base their views of how the church should be organized and function on the Bible, yet all of them coming to radically different conclusions...

What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own? re: what is moral intelligence and it's essential virtues? One strong characteristic of morally intelligent children is that they are empathic and concerned about others. I was taught empathy, conscience, self-contol, respect, kindness, tolerance, fairness...without the bible.

SMiles

eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

***Religion teaches us that AIDS is ‘the wages of sin’, that homosexuality is sin and needs to be purged for us. It prevents the advance in stem cell research.

It’s a common complaint that atheism is bereft of a moral compass, but this idea can be disabused with a pretty cursory reading of the ethics and moral philosophy literature. Not only does morality not need God, it seems difficult to show how God could even be the basis for morality

I have not ever been present when a church body has presented AIDs as the wages of sin. Sorry. I have been in churches where consequence to action is taught, but it's not taught in reference to AIDs.

That is because you live in a developed country where that kind of bullshit just doesn't fly any more.

You are an intelligent person so I am sure you are aware that the church's greatest efforts in breaking down the barriers that slow the spread of AIDS are in those countries where 1) The general populace is too ill educated to know any better, 2) they are in the greatest need of protection. Big Religion is very powerful in many central and southern African republics, and they are preaching death on a huge scale with their antiquated non-sensical dogma. I don't know how anyone can fail to be sickened by the global corporations (sorry, religious organisations) that they are part of.

Quote

Sure. Except, there really was a "Santa." Granted, he didn't fly all over the world, in one night, handing out gifts to those good children, but the origination of that story is based in fact. There was a man who did give out gifts to those around him...

So you can see how myths can spring up from mundane reality? Its kinda how I feel about Jesus, there really was a guy who talked to people - but thats it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Rather, for me, as I said, it provides things I haven't found in science. It provides me with a fundamental aspect of the numinous that I never got from science. It allows me to have wonder and awe, whereas science doesn't allow that; rather, it insists on investigation and modeling, and doesn't allow for that which is not explainable.

If science hasn't found it, it's probably a fair bet that it doesn't exist. Personally, I find an almost endless source of wonder in science. The only sense of wonder I get from God on the other hand is what the hell were they thinking when they came up with this crap?

Quote

I have, however, heard many scientists talk about religion. Did you know Albert Einstein believed in God? That Stephen Hawkins does (at least, according to quotes I've heard attributed to them...)?

As I undertand it, neither Einstein nor Hawking believed in god.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Quote

Religion does teach faith, but it's not a blind faith.

According to Christianity, faith doesn?t mean you don?t reason. It means you ground your reasoning on the trustworthiness of God. But the very concept of god doesn't even make logical sense so baseing anything on it is absurd. In my book, believing in that is about a blind as it gets.

To know requires proof.
To believe requires evidence.
To have faith requires neither.

You say faith is not blind, I can't see that there is any other kind.

Quote

It doesn't usurp science's explanations...it adds to them a level that has only recently begun to be explored - namely, that part of quantum physics wherein all atoms behave as the viewer expects them to, which in turn intimates a sentientality that was not expected...and hasn't yet, frankly, been explained.

This is the sort of thing that gets repeated by appologists and bears no resemblance to fact. Quantum particles do not "behave as the viewer expects them to", their behaviour is very well understood and does not need the god hypothesis to explain.

If god actually did exist, I wish he'd fix it so people better understood their subject matter before verbalising it.

Quote

Scientists tend to be very certain that God does not exist. The Faithful are pretty sure God exists. Neither can prove nor disprove the other...therefor, both are teapots circling the sun. So why can't people live with the uncertainty, and be open enough to say "well, maybe there is a teapot...who am I to know for sure?

To this scientist, god is such an incoherent concept it has no meaning at all. I can't search the entire universe looking for a square circle, but I'm 100% sure they don't exist.

[billvon 2,435]

>God most certainly used man to write, copy, and translate.

Cool, we agree on something!

>He doesn't believe that the bible records any actual
> statements/claims of Christ. I completely disagree, but if all he
>wants to believe is what critics of Christianity claim, he's entitled to.

While I don't think the many translation steps have resulted in an exact record of what happened, I think they got the gist of it correct. Which is why I think it's a great moral guide, but not such a good history book or science book.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Which is why I think it's a great moral guide, but not such a good history book or science book.

Well said. I never believed it was intended to be a history book or science book.

steveOrino

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

>God most certainly used man to write, copy, and translate.

Cool, we agree on something!

>He doesn't believe that the bible records any actual
> statements/claims of Christ. I completely disagree, but if all he
>wants to believe is what critics of Christianity claim, he's entitled to.

While I don't think the many translation steps have resulted in an exact record of what happened, I think they got the gist of it correct. Which is why I think it's a great moral guide, but not such a good history book or science book.

What, no comment on my great "Thing" joke? Rats.

I agree that what we hold in our hands today in the way of versions or translations contain the "gist" of the message. The essentials of that message are that:
Jesus is the "Son" of God, sent by God, to reconcile mankind to God; and there is no other way to be reconciled to God except through Christ.

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

[Alias 0]

So, it always gets to if there is a God or not. Do the non believers out there (me included) believe that there was a Jesus? I do. And that the teachings of Jesus (ingrained in the American culture, whether you like it or not) are positive? Do you think it is possible that Christians, through studying the teachings of Jesus Christ, might develop a larger capacity to love others.

I mean, I see it every day. Look at the world wide charitable organizations that are Christian based.

Go to your local church, regardless of denomination, and ask if they are engaged in charitable programs. You know the answer. Yes. Then ask how involved they are. I think you would be surprised at the amount of energy, funding and organization that is in place to give to others.

I guess what I'm again saying is that you do not have to "believe" that "God" is responsible for everything. But believing that Jesus Christ spread the word of love and everything that comes with it isn't a bad philosophy to follow.

These are the values that built America. Like it or not.

Having faith is one thing. Living by Christian teachings is another. It does no good to "wish" the best for a person in a horrible situation. The good comes when you feed and cloth them. Acting on the "word" That's what it's all about to me.

It's all good.

Carpe Diem

[billvon 2,435]

>What, no comment on my great "Thing" joke? Rats.

Wouldn't Thing just translate it into sign language anyway?

>The essentials of that message are that . . .

That's one of the messages. I think the more important message for our everyday lives is through an example of how to live one's life. I don't think that people born before Christ had no way to be reconciled to God.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Do you think it is possible that Christians, through studying the teachings of Jesus Christ, might develop a larger capacity to love others.

Yes. But they might also develop a larger capacity to irrationally hate another group of people too. It cuts both ways.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Michele 1]

Quote

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

Fair enough. As I said, had I remembered properly, Einstein believed in God.

Deciding to see if memory failed me, I came up with the following quotes that, to me at least, indicate Einstein believed in God...
~God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean.
~God doesn't play dice.
~Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
~"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.
~I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details
~God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
~Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind
~I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings." Telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929
~Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
~I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.
~The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

Upon further research, then, I have discovered I was somewhat incorrect. And yet, you too, Jack, seem to be somewhat incorrect.

It seems to me that Einstein believed in God in a way not represented by conventional religions; i.e. catholicism, buddhism, pantheism, christianity, judeism, and so on. Those establishments did not fit with his personal view of God...and yet, I am hard pressed to say he did not believe in God. The last quote, frankly, is a glorious one, one that I hadn't read before. And it describes the numinous sense I get when looking at all that God created, and all that man has accomplished with God's creation.

Let's go on to Hawking...
~if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.
~We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God. There's not much personal about the laws of physics.
~"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

I will say that I don't believe that Hawking believes in God. My memory failed me there!

And just for reference, here is a Link that has some quotes from other incredible minds in cosmology, astrophysics, rocket engineers, microbiologists, et cetera, with a comment that somewhere on the order of 40% of scientists believe in God. Take a look and tell me what you think...tells me that far fewer scientists than commonly thought believe in a diety...which I think is neat!

Quote

If science hasn't found it, it's probably a fair bet that it doesn't exist.

I really don't know what to say about that, other than apparently your imagination gene was neutered somehow. LOL! (yes, I'm teasing you...). There is tons of stuff that has not yet been discovered; does that mean it doesn't exist? No, it only means it hasn't been discovered just yet. Have hope, man! There are things yet to be explored, yet to be understood, and yet to be experienced...and that is magical.

Quote

This is the sort of thing that gets repeated by appologists and bears no resemblance to fact. Quantum particles do not "behave as the viewer expects them to", their behaviour is very well understood and does not need the god hypothesis to explain.

If god actually did exist, I wish he'd fix it so people better understood their subject matter before verbalising it.

It's not God's failing that I don't understand it completely...it's simply and only mine. I haven't taken the time to research it more fully, but I'd like to. Have you got any links where a neophyte like me can begin to understand quantum particles and why it was once thought they behaved in a sentient manner but now don't? I'd really appreciate it...

Quote

According to Christianity, faith doesn?t mean you don?t reason. It means you ground your reasoning on the trustworthiness of God. But the very concept of god doesn't even make logical sense so baseing anything on it is absurd. In my book, believing in that is about a blind as it gets.

To know requires proof.
To believe requires evidence.
To have faith requires neither.

You say faith is not blind, I can't see that there is any other kind.

Sorry to hear that you have such a rigid perspective on what faith is. You and I will have to agree to disagree about faith being blind.

Quote

To this scientist, god is such an incoherent concept it has no meaning at all. I can't search the entire universe looking for a square circle, but I'm 100% sure they don't exist.

I am sorry you believe it's an incoherent concept...I don't. But I can appreciate your position nonetheless.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you think it is possible that Christians, through studying the teachings of Jesus Christ, might develop a larger capacity to love others.

Yes. But they might also develop a larger capacity to irrationally hate another group of people too.

From Jesus???

[Michele 1]

Mockingbird said:

Quote

Hi Michele. I'll quote from the document I referred to at the beginning. Hope that's OK.

Thanks. Interesting data, there. However, Smiles has a different take on things...and she has some interesting points, too.

Smiles, in re: the differences between the two crucifixion stories...it seems to me that if two people observe a third person, say in an accident, that the stories are identical and without difference whatsoever? You and I both know that doesn't happen...

The fundamental part of the story, however, is the same. That Jesus was crucified. That much people writing stories about it can agree...that the man Jesus was indeed hung on a cross. Jesus' frame of mind? Well, how often do we see people on this very board claim "don't put words in my mouth" or "don't tell me what I think!"...and thus my contention is that both are correct, from the position of the writer. And honestly? It's nice to see the Son of God in doubt, in fear, with dread of the event that had "been put before his lips." Demonstrates the duality of Jesus nicely. I mean, who would want to be crucified? Who wouldn't say "hey, this is gonna hurt...Dad, you sure you want me to go through this? Positive? 'Cause you know, I'm not exactly looking forward to it..."...and then to have the determination and strength of character to actually go through with it...and, if the story is to be believed, assist another man who was facing his death...well, the duality and complexity of a human's mind, capacity for strength, and ability to transcend circumstances is a mighty fine example to follow.

I don't know enough about the adultress to comment effectively, sorry. Maybe, if I've got some time this weekend, I'll do some reading up on it. A perfect opportunity to expand my understanding, you know? Thanks.

As for the rest of the divergence which you speak; I haven't read the Bible in enough detail to know if you're right, wrong, or what. However, I can say this...perhaps they were telling the story the way they percieved it...but taken together, it's a great story about an interesting man, and teaches great lessons about the human condition, don't you think?

***What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own? re: what is moral intelligence and it's essential virtues? One strong characteristic of morally intelligent children is that they are empathic and concerned about others. I was taught empathy, conscience, self-contol, respect, kindness, tolerance, fairness...without the bible[/quote}
Me too. My family was not religious, nor even particularly spiritual. I was raised very well, and love my parents for what they did for my brother and I, among many other things.

And you know what? I'd believe and act the way I do irrespective of the "promise" of an afterlife. I did before I believed in God; perhaps there is a deepening of compassion, or a deepening of empathy...but maybe it's also just in me to be that way. Overall, it's all good...you know?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Michele 1]

Hi, Jakee!

Quote

That is because you live in a developed country where that kind of bullshit just doesn't fly any more.

You are an intelligent person so I am sure you are aware that the church's greatest efforts in breaking down the barriers that slow the spread of AIDS are in those countries where 1) The general populace is too ill educated to know any better, 2) they are in the greatest need of protection. Big Religion is very powerful in many central and southern African republics, and they are preaching death on a huge scale with their antiquated non-sensical dogma. I don't know how anyone can fail to be sickened by the global corporations (sorry, religious organisations) that they are part of.

I completely abhor the problems you discuss...except...I don't necessarily lay them at the feet of any particular church nor religion. Rather, I think it's more a combination of factors, wherein religion *may* play a part in one aspect, to the spread of AIDs and other sexually transmitted disease. I think the spread is less here in the US not because of religion, but because sex ed is taught; medical facilities are easily available; our communications networks are far better; our quality of life is higher...and so on. We, in the US and other "first world" nations (is that a term? Not sure...) are less reliant on cultural myths, including the one if you have AIDs, sleeping with a pure child will cure you. We do not mutilate the genitalia of girl children...but that in no way is advocated by Christianity, nor Judaeism (which, in this thread, is generally what we're discussing).

In other words, I think there are many more factors than just a church's influence on a culture to create circumstances wherein devastating illnesses such as AIDs contribute to the problems you're discussing.

Quote

So you can see how myths can spring up from mundane reality? Its kinda how I feel about Jesus, there really was a guy who talked to people - but thats it.

See, I agree with that. It's what he talked about that's become important...Jesus spoke of many things; compassion, empathy, taking care of each other, judgments and hatred, love and grace...all that is great stuff to lecture a willing audience on.

I remember talking to my brother several years ago. He is a born again Christian, very devout and studies the Bible on a daily basis. We were talking about what Jesus said, and I asked him "would it mean less if it came from a child? A retarded person? A decrepit old bagperson reeking of alcohol?" My brother looked at me, and said "well, yes, I think it would be different." My response was "why? Isn't wisdom wisdom from whereever it comes?" He still tells me how much that impacted him...LOL.

And that, perhaps, is the best way I can phrase it. It doesn't matter where the wisdom comes from, as long as it's accepted, and as long as it comes. If it comforts a person to find that wisdom in nano-particles, fine...from gathering in a church to worship God, fine...in the glorious balance that occurs in nature, fine...as long as it's seen for what it is, and accepted for the same.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~