08 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's impossible to project our assumed objectivity upon an age so disparate from ours, when the verbal carried so much weight in opposition to the written, which was considered--- at best--- secondary.
It's impossible to project our assumed objectivity upon an age so disparate from ours, when the verbal carried so much weight in opposition to the written, which was considered--- at best--- secondary.
That being said, we have more external support for the subjects written about in the first five books of the NT than any other book of antiquity. To say ...[text shortened]... temple made with hands and transfers Him into the Spirit-prepared heart/soul of man.
Which is why, at least in part, that Eastern Orthodoxy (and the RCC) asserts an oral tradition that ran parallel, from the beginning, to the written tradition; and that that oral tradition can be drawn upon as well. Sola Scriptura seems pretty much an invention of Luther (though that is undoubtedly an over-simplification, historically speaking); one also needs to recall that Luther started out in reaction purely to perceived error by the RCC, although his own thought (and that of his successors) led him further afield from that original project.
08 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhat does religion have to do with this type of attitude? In fact, I find it with athiesits as well.
"I am right! Therefore you must be wrong. And if I am right, then I am superior, and you are inferior. And if you are inferior then you have no value."
Something like this.
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by whodeyIn religious groups, ateistic, political, vegan, feministic, racist, soccer, and any groups I find fundamentalist fractions. People who think that their opinion is more important than others freedom and choice of life, even their very value of life.
What does religion have to do with this type of attitude? In fact, I find it with athiesits as well.
A agree, you can find fundamentalism anywhere.
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by finneganI was unintentionally unclear. We need some evidence, to be sure. We start off full of faith in all matters until such faith is replaced with experience... yet vestiges of faith remain throughout every morphing aspect of our lives up to the grave: the name we give the object of our worship is (temporarily) unimportant.
Nothing you say directly conflicts with what I say. Apparently, the solution you adopt is to assert divine inspiration and maybe that works for you. It does nothing for me.
To attribute arrogance to those seeking evidence is, however, a step in the direction of confusion and deceit. Whether it is or is not arrogant to apply Reason to any problem is in ...[text shortened]... y and refutation in a way that your humble (presumably?) assertion of divine inspiration is not.
On the basis of direct claims, I (on my own) can neither affirm nor deny veracity. However, I can test the ancillary issues surrounding the claims by way of testing references. If several, many or all of the references are in agreement; if the references for those references are also in agreement; if each time the dissenting voice is raised it is put to rest by confirmation for the first voice--- at some point, I start to see a pattern of faithfulness, of reliability.
This is what I have found for the claims of the Bible. I do not project divine authorship upon it and work backwards from there; I seek to eliminate any other possible impetus prior to realizing I am left with only that conclusion.
While in this process, I never, NEVER overlook the fact that, while evidence may be tainted, witnesses jaded, the last person I should ever trust is me.
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by vistesdPoint taken. However, as much as I eschew the man-made (or better, man-involved), I cannot help but see the construct of Scripture as the guardian angel of all who seek truth.
[b]It's impossible to project our assumed objectivity upon an age so disparate from ours, when the verbal carried so much weight in opposition to the written, which was considered--- at best--- secondary.
Which is why, at least in part, that Eastern Orthodoxy (and the RCC) asserts an oral tradition that ran parallel, from the beginning, to the written ...[text shortened]... is own thought (and that of his successors) led him further afield from that original project.[/b]
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou sound fundamentalist in your opinion of fundamentalists.
In religious groups, ateistic, political, vegan, feministic, racist, soccer, and any groups I find fundamentalist fractions. People who think that their opinion is more important than others freedom and choice of life, even their very value of life.
A agree, you can find fundamentalism anywhere.
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by whodeyDo you think I'm prepare to die for my opinion? Do you think I'm prepare to kill for my opinion? Do you think that your freedom is less worth that mine? You can have any opinion, but the very moment I hinder you to have yours then you can call me a fundamentalist.
You sound fundamentalist in your opinion of fundamentalists.
Do you still believe that I am a fundamentalist?
But I do believe that our world would be a better place to live in without fundamentalists, yes. Much less violence, much less wars, much less oppression.
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadto twhitehood
I thought most of them were obvious - and you are quite well aware of them.
Lets start with the first sentence:
[b]...given to mankind, by past rulers, in an attempt to have power over the masses...
I am sure that you are quite well aware that the origins of Christianity are far more complicated than that.
I am also not sure what on earth you me ...[text shortened]... recently, the bible has changed that...[/b]
Surely the Bible is a fairly old set of documents?[/b]
after jesus died, the people who followed in his name, were always trying to be wiped out by the establishment of the time, because chriistianity wasnt back then, established like it is today.
anyhow, they couldnt stop the followers of christ growing, so instead of fighting them, they joined them, and thats when the bible was written, under the governaance of King Constintene.
now this King had a large influence over how the bible was written, and he had it written in a way, that gave power to the church, and gave the people a hell of a fright, by having the bible declare that it was gods word, and could not be refuted, and that those who did not follow would be punished in the after life.
now for 2000 yrs the ten comandments, have always said, thou shalt not kill, and now if you go and buy a bible, it will say, thou shalt not murder, and this is direct proof, that man makes up whats in the bible.
look my friend, your better off without it, because it doesnt give truth, and understanding god is all about truth seeking
cheers vishvahetu
09 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuSo you admit your original claim was false?
after jesus died, the people who followed in his name, were always trying to be wiped out by the establishment of the time, because chriistianity wasnt back then, established like it is today.
anyhow, they couldnt stop the followers of christ growing, so instead of fighting them, they joined them, and thats when the bible was written, under the governaance of King Constintene.
Surely you don't believe that? Where did you get that information, and why did you believe it? Or did you make it up?
now this King had a large influence over how the bible was written, and he had it written in a way, that gave power to the church,
Oh? Where in the Bible is that?
now for 2000 yrs the ten comandments, have always said, thou shalt not kill, and now if you go and buy a bible, it will say, thou shalt not murder, and this is direct proof, that man makes up whats in the bible.
You seem to believe that the English language is 2000 years old. So either you are unusually ignorant of history, or you are a liar.
look my friend, your better off without it, because it doesnt give truth, and understanding god is all about truth seeking
I am not Christian. But neither would I take advice from someone who thinks that the Bible was written in English 2000 years ago.
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadto thwitehead
So you admit your original claim was false?
[b]anyhow, they couldnt stop the followers of christ growing, so instead of fighting them, they joined them, and thats when the bible was written, under the governaance of King Constintene.
Surely you don't believe that? Where did you get that information, and why did you believe it? Or did you make it u ...[text shortened]... uld I take advice from someone who thinks that the Bible was written in English 2000 years ago.[/b]
obviously you are a contetious person, and way back in the beginning of my first posting, when i said Quote: (you must admit defeat).....that was meant for people likeyou.
your contetious nature, makes you look silly, not clever
you see a gentleman will have the balls, to know when an anwser is an answer, and concede, and then move on
cheers vishvahetu
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuSo do you concede that you are mistaken, or do you admit to being a liar? Which is it?
you see a gentleman will have the balls, to know when an anwser is an answer, and concede, and then move on
And do you concede all my points or just some? Why the vagueness?
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuAny of it. I made several lists of false claims you made, the question is whether you now realize you were mistaken, or whether you knew when you posted them that they were false.
to twhiteheaa
a liar about what?
Lets start with this one:
now for 2000 yrs the ten comandments, have always said, thou shalt not kill
Did you know when you posted it that the Bible was not written in English, and that there are no English translations of it that are 2000 years old?
09 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell there you go. I am willing to die for some of my "opinions". In fact, the famous quote comes to mind, "Give me liberety or give me death". So there you have it, Whodey is an out of control fundamentalist.
Do you think I'm prepare to die for my opinion? Do you think I'm prepare to kill for my opinion? Do you think that your freedom is less worth that mine? You can have any opinion, but the very moment I hinder you to have yours then you can call me a fundamentalist.
Do you still believe that I am a fundamentalist?
But I do believe that our world would ...[text shortened]... ive in without fundamentalists, yes. Much less violence, much less wars, much less oppression.