Debate - Validity of Christianity and Biblical teachings

[heretic888]

Read your book be it the Bible or whatever. Develop your conviction. When you talk to Jesus / God and he / she asks you why you drink, what are you going to say? My preacher / leader said it was OK? Or would you rather say “the Bible says…this that’s why”?

This is just replacing the "preacher/leader" of the 21st century with the "preacher/leader" of the 4th century. They're both fallacious Appeals to Authority, so it ultimately makes no difference.

I'm always intrigued by the curious lack of critical analysis directed at the Bible and similar texts. The books and teachings that eventually became accepted as canonical only became so because they were popular among one or more Christian communities in the fourth century. The notion that the text is the "Word of God" was simply an ex post facto rationalization given to, put it bluntly, stop all those annoying thinkers from asking questions.

And that really is the point here. The "morality" found in the Bible simply reflects the popular morality of the time it was written. Had the text been composed at a different time or in a different cultural environment, that "morality" would be decidedly different today.

Laterz.

 

[MA-Caver]

And that really is the point here. The "morality" found in the Bible simply reflects the popular morality of the time it was written. Had the text been composed at a different time or in a different cultural environment, that "morality" would be decidedly different today.

Laterz.

Morality is based on not what people say is right... but by what people FEEL is right. Man, I believe, is born with an inherient sense of right and wrong. That he may lean more towards one than the other or attempt to walk the fine line between the two he will always know one from the other from his inborn intutive sense. Even if the events of the (Christian) Bible were occurring today after 4000 years of man's existence on this planet (lets forget evolution for a second... talking about civilized man and written history), morality would still be dictated by a living God dispensing his word among his prophets and the popular morality will reflect the same as had they'd been written so long ago.
But that is my personal belief(s). I cannot deny the existence of a Living God and his Son. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

Morality is based on not what people say is right... but by what people FEEL is right. Man, I believe, is born with an inherient sense of right and wrong.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but this does not change the fact they have absolutely no semblance to reality. I would suggest reading some works on moral development from the psychological literature, beginning with Kohlberg's classic studies.

As to your notion that morality is "dictated" by the "Living God", I suppose its just coincidental that this "Living God" just happens to subscribe to a morality common to first century Jewish sectarians. I mean, imagine it. The timeless, transcendent, ineffable Godhead that existed before time begin just is in love with a system of ethics that didn't develop until the Bronze Age. Incredible!

Or, one could smell the roses and realize what is going on here. It's the age old propagandum ultimatum: if you want people to do what you say they should do, simply say that your god is telling them to do it. I mean, who can say no to that??

Puh-leeze.

 

[RED]

[/font]

This is just replacing the "preacher/leader" of the 21st century with the "preacher/leader" of the 4th century. They're both fallacious Appeals to Authority, so it ultimately makes no difference.

I'm always intrigued by the curious lack of critical analysis directed at the Bible and similar texts. The books and teachings that eventually became accepted as canonical only became so because they were popular among one or more Christian communities in the fourth century. The notion that the text is the "Word of God" was simply an ex post facto rationalization given to, put it bluntly, stop all those annoying thinkers from asking questions.

And that really is the point here. The "morality" found in the Bible simply reflects the popular morality of the time it was written. Had the text been composed at a different time or in a different cultural environment, that "morality" would be decidedly different today.

Laterz.

I hope I’m following you right….

Christians can’t seem to get along with each other long enough to build soundness within the religion itself. Just look up churches in the Yellow Pages. Now I am basing this post on Christianity because that was my back ground. I’m sure the points can fit all the worlds’ religions.
Basing ones beliefs on something as unstable and ever varying as someone’s opinion is leaving your own convictions unstructured with an unstable foundation be it the 4th or the 21st centuries. Yes the Bible was canonized by a group of people for the times. But the scripture has been unchanged. People have changed it with…you fill in the blank here… (Emotions, denial of the responsibility of faith, control, what ever you come up with). I don’t know if you have read / studied the Bible but the interesting thing about the scriptures isn’t for literature value, but for personal enlightenment. Human emotional structure has been constant throughout the ages. Therefore the scriptures are as relevant today as it was in the 1st century. The writers speak to personality traits of humans in general. But are you referring to Old Testament law being relative for today? That would need to be a whole new subject in a new post.
I chose to base my doctrine on the Bible not solely because it is the omnipotent “word of God”. This is something that has given me moral discernment that I chose to align myself with. One can choose to not align oneself with it too. I wish these people would simply admit it instead of turning the Bible into a farce. There is plenty of evidence to support the Bible’s validity. (Another subject) Until there is new verifiable evidence to change it I have nothing else to base the Christian God on. Now with the Gospel of Judas and Mary and all that “stuff” things hypothetically could be changing soon. (Once again, another subject). The difference between these possible changes and the plethora of Christian doctrines handed down throughout its history is a written foundation over men’s opinion. Plus the common person will be able to read them for themselves unlike the common man of the early churches who listened to teachings from a man’s theory from what he read.
Basically read your religious book and develop your doctrine on something steadfast. That is if you choose to have any religion at all.

My 2 ¥

 

[heretic888]

Basing ones beliefs on something as unstable and ever varying as someone’s opinion is leaving your own convictions unstructured with an unstable foundation be it the 4th or the 21st centuries.

It should be pointed out that it was just "someone's opinion" that the books now accepted as canonical were the Word of God. It is generally accepted as such today because, historically, everybody that said otherwise had their throats slashed.

Yes the Bible was canonized by a group of people for the times. But the scripture has been unchanged.

This claim is erroneous. I would suggest Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. The Bible was being edited and revised as recently as the Middle Ages, always to fit the sociopolitical needs of the scribe doing the editing.

I don’t know if you have read / studied the Bible but the interesting thing about the scriptures isn’t for literature value, but for personal enlightenment.

I don't know what you mean by "studied", but I have a feeling it doesn't have anything to do with critical scholarship or literary form criticism.

To answer you question, yes I have read the Bible cover to cover. And, as such, I personally see more "enlightenment" from contemporary philosophical tracts, such as those attributed to Plato and Plotinus, than I do the Bible.

I would also argue that the main value of the Bible is as a work of human literature.

Human emotional structure has been constant throughout the ages. Therefore the scriptures are as relevant today as it was in the 1st century.

With the exception of some of the Pauline material and perhaps Ur-Mark, none of the scriptures were written in the first century.

I chose to base my doctrine on the Bible not solely because it is the omnipotent “word of God”. This is something that has given me moral discernment that I chose to align myself with. One can choose to not align oneself with it too. I wish these people would simply admit it instead of turning the Bible into a farce. There is plenty of evidence to support the Bible’s validity. (Another subject) Until there is new verifiable evidence to change it I have nothing else to base the Christian God on.

Your claim that there is "plenty of evidence to support the Bible's validity" is, quite frankly, absurd. Unless, of course, you consider the unsupported opinions of conservative apologists to constitute "evidence".

I would suggest Israel Finkelstein and Neil Ash Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament?, G. A. Well's Who Was Jesus?, and the aforementioned work by Bart Ehrman.

The difference between these possible changes and the plethora of Christian doctrines handed down throughout its history is a written foundation over men’s opinion. Plus the common person will be able to read them for themselves unlike the common man of the early churches who listened to teachings from a man’s theory from what he read.

This "written foundation" didn't exist concretely until the fifth or sixth century. The four gospels considered canonical didn't even gain such status until the middle of the fourth century. Additionally, those texts that did gain canonical status were periodically altered and revised until well into the tenth century.

It's a whole different ballgame when you're dealing in history and not myth.

Laterz.

 

[DArnold]

I've been in a few small Christian churches in the American south and met congregation that had a view of alcohol that was as absolute as my own scriptures. No alcohol is permitted. The Holy Communion is consecrated grape juice instead of consecrated wine. One of my cousins goes to such a church.

We had the following conversation earlier today

Cousin: "Have a great time, hope you won't drink and drive"

Me: "Nah, I largely don't drink."

Cousin: "Oh that's good. We think its as sin"

Now......excessive drinking, drunkenness, some sort of alcohol-related gluttony....I can see that as being a sin in the Christian church.

However, it was harder for me to grasp how any drinking is a sin to a Christian, given that Jesus is seen serving wine at Cana and at the Last Supper. It's not that I think such a stance is wrong....I just don't quite understand it yet.

On the other hand...

My faith forbids alcohol completely. Usually around this time of year, I see someone asking online "Can't we have a glass of Champagne at New Years?" The answer has always come back.....no. Drinking takes one away from remembering God, therefore it can't be permitted.

I agree with the rule. In the context of the scriptures, and spirit of my faith, the reasoning is sound. I'll admit that whiule I largely don't drink, I cannot say that I NEVER drink. But, I don't think the rule should be changed because of my own personal non-compliance.

What about your path? Is a bit of responsible holiday cheer permitted? Or forbidden?

Being agnostic I find that what I believe to be man made dogma, is based on what a persons free will allows them to believe.

More importantly how does your belief feel about plurality of beliefs on this subject. (Since most Christian faiths are parallel lines that do intersect on the horizon)

For example, some divisions of Christianity belive that if you are not actully, physically emersed in water (baptised) then you are going to hell. Reguardless of the circumstances. Kind of leaves out the possibility of an all loving, all forgiving God!

You may be interested in the "The Gospel of Thomas" (Not part of the Bible) which follows some of the posts above that God is everywhere!

 

[RED]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RED
Basing ones beliefs on something as unstable and ever varying as someone’s opinion is leaving your own convictions unstructured with an unstable foundation be it the 4th or the 21st centuries.

It should be pointed out that it was just "someone's opinion" that the books now accepted as canonical were the Word of God. It is generally accepted as such today because, historically, everybody that said otherwise had their throats slashed

**This sounds like your Opinion. I chose to not have that opinion. I accepted the teachings as a good way to live, not because I would have my throat slit. Times are different now we have the choice to not believe the Bible without ridicule. People, i.e. popes priests, preachers and the like, have twisted (teaching half truths and the like) the Scriptures to suit their needs throughout history. The basic messages within the Bible have gone unchanged since 1,400 B.C. This is the foundation I’ve been referring to for a structure doctrine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RED
Yes the Bible was canonized by a group of people for the times. But the scripture has been unchanged.

This claim is erroneous. I would suggest Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. The Bible was being edited and revised as recently as the Middle Ages, always to fit the sociopolitical needs of the scribe doing the editing.

**Without going into specific scripture quotes; one can read the Bible and realize that the environment in which the Bible was written and the culture is different but the message that gives you a way of dealing with emotional level issues of living in any environment throughout history.

**A Friend left me with a couple books. “True and Reasonable”, “More than a Carpenter” and “Prepared to answer”. I wish I still had these so I could reference you. Sorry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RED
I don’t know if you have read / studied the Bible but the interesting thing about the scriptures isn’t for literature value, but for personal enlightenment.

I don't know what you mean by "studied", but I have a feeling it doesn't have anything to do with critical scholarship or literary form criticism.

**The Bible wasn’t written by scholars. What I mean is to Study out how people throughout the Bible have dealt with happenings of everyday life.


To answer you question, yes I have read the Bible cover to cover. And, as such, I personally see more "enlightenment" from contemporary philosophical tracts, such as those attributed to Plato and Plotinus, than I do the Bible.

I would also argue that the main value of the Bible is as a work of human literature.

**Once again this is simply a difference of opinion and I’m good with that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RED
Human emotional structure has been constant throughout the ages. Therefore the scriptures are as relevant today as it was in the 1st century.

With the exception of some of the Pauline material and perhaps Ur-Mark, none of the scriptures were written in the first century.
**They have been taught since the first century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RED
I chose to base my doctrine on the Bible not solely because it is the omnipotent “word of God”. This is something that has given me moral discernment that I chose to align myself with. One can choose to not align oneself with it too. I wish these people would simply admit it instead of turning the Bible into a farce. There is plenty of evidence to support the Bible’s validity. (Another subject) Until there is new verifiable evidence to change it I have nothing else to base the Christian God on.

Your claim that there is "plenty of evidence to support the Bible's validity" is, quite frankly, absurd. Unless, of course, you consider the unsupported opinions of conservative apologists to constitute "evidence".

I would suggest Israel Finkelstein and Neil Ash Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament?, G. A. Well's Who Was Jesus?, and the aforementioned work by Bart Ehrman.

**Once again I suggest the fore mentioned books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RED
The difference between these possible changes and the plethora of Christian doctrines handed down throughout its history is a written foundation over men’s opinion. Plus the common person will be able to read them for themselves unlike the common man of the early churches who listened to teachings from a man’s theory from what he read.

This "written foundation" didn't exist concretely until the fifth or sixth century. The four gospels considered canonical didn't even gain such status until the middle of the fourth century. Additionally, those texts that did gain canonical status were periodically altered and revised until well into the tenth century.

It's a whole different ballgame when you're dealing in history and not myth.

Laterz.


**In closing. The Bible has been debated over for thousands of years. What I said it comes down to is a personal belief for it or against it. Millions of people world wide have made personal decisions to not believe it, millions have decided to live according to its teachings. One isn’t better of than the other unless the Christians are correct. We all know the ending. What you consider good literature with out historic proof, I have considered good theology to live by despite the lack of archeological findings, its called Faith.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams: “ 2000 years ago a man stood up and said wouldn’t it be nice if we all got along, and he was immediately put to death”.

Thanks for the debate!!!


And yes I cut and paste this from the board to write it out because of time restraints and other inconveniences.

Happy New Year.

Just my 2¥

 

[Kreth]

Please learn to use the quote system properly. Your posts are incomprehensible.

 

[RED]

Please learn to use the quote system properly. Your posts are incomprehensible.

Like I said in the post I cut and paste the post from the board to write it out because of time restraints and other inconveniences.

Sorry if I offended you or anyone else becuase of not using the quote system established.

 

[shesulsa]

Like I said in the post I cut and paste the post from the board to write it out because of time restraints and other inconveniences.

Sorry if I offended you or anyone else becuase of not using the quote system established.

You will find a button in the bottom right of every post here that says ...

"QUOTE"

That is the button you push to quote that post.

 

[donald]

Heretic888,

I suggest that you read a book by Josh McDowell called, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, it is quite informative.

1stJohn1:9

 

[heretic888]

I suggest that you read a book by Josh McDowell called, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, it is quite informative.

Cripes. If you're gonna suggest McDowell you might as well suggest Strobel while you're at it....

McDowell is a conservative apologist that suggests, among other things, that the four canonical Gospels can be dated to the middle of the first century. This view is as radical as the view that they date to the end of the second century (as put forward by the archaic Dutch Radical school and the modern day Hermann Detering). It has almost no support from contemporary critical scholarship.

McDowell's views are informed by his a priori religious beliefs, not from any historical evidence. As with other apologist historians, his paradigm can be summed up as: "Every word of the Bible is true, dangit, and now I'm gonna prove it!" This is poor scholarship and it permeates his work.

If you want examples of contemporary majority scholarship views, I would suggest the works of Burton Mack, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Gerhard Ludemann, and Bart Ehrman. I don't agree with everything (or even most of the things) that these scholars write, but at least you can claim academic consensus when citing them.

As for my own views, I would suggest the works of G. A. Wells, Earl Doherty, Robert Price, and the online work of Michael Turton (who essentially dismantled any claims to "history" within the Markan gospel). Joe Atwill's book is interesting, as well, and while I don't agree with his central thesis the parallels he demonstrates between the gospels and Josephus' writings are damning (pun intended).

Laterz.

 

[Martial Tucker]

Hey Heretic,

I'm curious if you've read "Disappearance of the Universe", by Gary Renard,
and if so, your thoughts.......

(Edit) If you've read the above book, then you're at least somewhat familiar with ACIM , and I also would love to read your thoughts on it....

 

[heretic888]

Hey Heretic,

I'm curious if you've read "Disappearance of the Universe", by Gary Renard,
and if so, your thoughts.......

(Edit) If you've read the above book, then you're at least somewhat familiar with ACIM , and I also would love to read your thoughts on it....

I'm not familiar with that particular book, actually, although it does seem interesting.

 

[zDom]

As with other apologist historians, his paradigm can be summed up as: "Every word of the Bible is true, dangit, and now I'm gonna prove it!" This is poor scholarship and it permeates his work.

As opposed to, "Every word of the Bible is a recycled myth, damnit (pun intended), and now I'm gonna prove it (every time a discussion on Christianity comes up)!" ?

 

[heretic888]

As opposed to, "Every word of the Bible is a recycled myth, damnit (pun intended), and now I'm gonna prove it (every time a discussion on Christianity comes up)!" ?

Your post is rather presumptive and indicates little more than a Straw Man argument of my actual position, which may owe as much to my inability to express said position as to anything else.

For the record, I do not believe "every word" of the Bible is a "recycled myth". I am only going to address the New Testament here (as the Old Testament is a whole can of worms unto itself), but many of the events described --- John the Baptist, the census of Quirinus, the reign of Pontius Pilate, the allusion to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple --- are most definately historical. Furthermore, the seven or so authentic Pauline letters can be viewed with a fair degree of historical legitimacy (barring the odd interpolation here and there), although Paul doesn't actually tell us much about historical details himself.

However, much of the New Testament is definitively ahistorical, reflecting both anachronisms of a later age (such as positing people actually inhabited Nazareth in the first century) as well as outright historical fictions (such as positing there was an annual custom of releasing criminals in Jerusalem on Passover). More to the point, virtually all of the Gospel of Mark (the earliest gospel and the primary source for the other three) appears to be a Pauline midrash on Old Testament tales and motifs (please see Michael Turton's study of the Markan gospel for specifics). I believe the Markan author was aware he was writing religious allegory, not actual history. Furthermore, as evidenced by Joe Atwill's work, all of the gospels are heavily dependent on events described by the Jewish historian Josephus circa 95 CE.

I do not maintain, as a few popular mythicist authors often do, that the New Testament tale in its totality is simply recycled Dionysian myth or some such. I maintain it is a complex literary composite of Old Testament motifs, Mystery School godman elements, Platonic philosophy, and a few historical details that developed gradually over the course of at least 100 years.

The difference between myself and somebody like McDowell is that I approach this subject from the vantage of a social scientist. I am merely interesting in elaborating on where the available evidence takes me. McDowell, by contrast, is an unabashed apologist --- his goal is to convert your to his worldview. He's not just concerned with the historical inerrancy of the Bible, but also the truth of creationism over evolution, the banning of gay marriage, and inclusion of prayer in public schools, and a number of other issues he has championed over the years.

I am not concerned with converting you to my worldview. I doubt you could even tell somebody what my worldview is. All that concerns me here is a subject of historical interest. If it turned out there was a historical Jesus or that the gospels were essentially mythologized history, my world wouldn't be blown away. That is the difference between McDowell and myself.

I hope you can appreciate the differences here.

Laterz.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Morality is based on not what people say is right... but by what people FEEL is right. Man, I believe, is born with an inherient sense of right and wrong. That he may lean more towards one than the other or attempt to walk the fine line between the two he will always know one from the other from his inborn intutive sense. Even if the events of the (Christian) Bible were occurring today after 4000 years of man's existence on this planet (lets forget evolution for a second... talking about civilized man and written history), morality would still be dictated by a living God dispensing his word among his prophets and the popular morality will reflect the same as had they'd been written so long ago.
But that is my personal belief(s). I cannot deny the existence of a Living God and his Son. :asian:

Man is not born with a sense of right or wrong. There is an old saying, "If you want god to laugh, tall him your plan" Nature naturaly over-rides nurture; because man is generaly self serving. You must be taught what is best for you and your family based on current contextual reality.
Sean

 

[tellner]

Take a look at Misquoting Jesus or Professor Ehrman's other books like Lost Christianities and The Gospel of Judas. He's particularly interesting first because he's passionate enough to make the dullest material in the world - textual analysis of biblical apologetics - actually interesting. Second, he's a committed Christian who went to a fundamentalist Bible college and Wheaton before attending graduate school. He started off as a scriptural literalist and gradually had to change his opinion when confronted with the evidence.

Among the points he makes...

Contrary to what the fundamentalists say, the older the manuscripts, the more they vary, the more obvious mistakes, and the less certainty about what should and shouldn't be there.

The early scribes were almost completely illiterate and were absolutely lousy copyists.

Even what was allowed in, and that's a bloody political story in itself, is muddled and contradictory.

There are many instances of the text being changed and the changes becoming canonical for political and personal reasons.

Much was suppressed - Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas, dozens of apocalypses (John the Divine's was only one), early Church Fathers other than Saul the Murderer and more.

This isn't an atheist trying to "disprove the Bible". It's a very intelligent Christian with a deep and abiding interest in the truth about the Book.

 

[heretic888]

Take a look at Misquoting Jesus or Professor Ehrman's other books like Lost Christianities and The Gospel of Judas. He's particularly interesting first because he's passionate enough to make the dullest material in the world - textual analysis of biblical apologetics - actually interesting. Second, he's a committed Christian who went to a fundamentalist Bible college and Wheaton before attending graduate school. He started off as a scriptural literalist and gradually had to change his opinion when confronted with the evidence.

Among the points he makes...

Contrary to what the fundamentalists say, the older the manuscripts, the more they vary, the more obvious mistakes, and the less certainty about what should and shouldn't be there.

The early scribes were almost completely illiterate and were absolutely lousy copyists.

Even what was allowed in, and that's a bloody political story in itself, is muddled and contradictory.

There are many instances of the text being changed and the changes becoming canonical for political and personal reasons.

Much was suppressed - Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas, dozens of apocalypses (John the Divine's was only one), early Church Fathers other than Saul the Murderer and more.

This isn't an atheist trying to "disprove the Bible". It's a very intelligent Christian with a deep and abiding interest in the truth about the Book.

I would also recommend Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, as well as Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament? and Robert Price's Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. They are all excellent works that flesh out much of what is known and not known within Biblical scholarship today.

A few points, however....

To call Ehrman a "commited Christian" is not quite accurate. Recently on The Colbert Report, he publicly stated he was an agnostic and expressed doubt as to whether there was even a historical Jesus. While he does admit he began as a fundamentalist Christian (and the same can be said of John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg, as well), he did answer "I don't know" when asked directly if God exists.

I have also noticed this is the third occasion you have implied Paul was a "murderer" or some such. Do you have any historical evidence to corroborate this claim?? All that can be gleamed from Paul's own letters is that he "persecuted" Christians for a time before converting to their sect. That hardly constitutes "murder".

While I agree that many texts were interpolated and edited to fit the views of the scribes, the truth is that Christian texts weren't really "suppressed" until the fourth century. Prior to that time, there was no established canon (although Marcion made a failed attempt in the second century). The texts that were finally accepted were done so by virtue of the fact that they were popular at the time. Majority rules and all that.

Laterz.