CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[ArcadiaGP]

Virgins don't have babies. Men don't rise from the dead. No one lives forever after death.

It isn't the age of the story that makes it unbelievable, it is it's content.

Not a religious person, nor do I subscribe to any teams at the moment (I don't consider myself educated enough on the subject)... but I always thought the literal argument against the Bible wasn't really the point? The way I understood it, it was what the stories taught, and not actually pushing the specificity about virgin birth, etc.

 

[T.Lex]

"Checkmate Atheists"

Not really funny, to me, although I totally agree that anything can be a source of humor.

Virgins don't have babies. Men don't rise from the dead. No one lives forever after death.

It isn't the age of the story that makes it unbelievable, it is it's content.

Now THAT'S funny.

 

[hog slayer]

Virgins don't have babies. Men don't rise from the dead. No one lives forever after death.

It isn't the age of the story that makes it unbelievable, it is it's content.

What you pointed out here is sorta the interesting part. None of it can be proven. So, what can be proven? Was there a Jesus?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Where do you get the idea that these people were eyewitnesses? This is factually incorrect, as the earliest gospels weren't recorded until after the fall of the second temple in ad70.

70 years is a long time in a place where word travels by face-to-face contact.

The gospels were falsifiable at the time they were written. Eyewitnesses were alive. It's not a debateable point.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Virgins don't have babies. Men don't rise from the dead. No one lives forever after death.

Even you know that you have no basis to say that. You witnessed every conception ever? You've been at all graves simultaneously? You've been dead and seen that there's no afterlife?

 

[2A_Tom]

It takes much more faith to be atheist than a believer.

 

[PaulF]

The gospels were falsifiable at the time they were written. Eyewitnesses were alive. It's not a debateable point.

The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. That is not debatable.

Eyewitness were alive? Maybe, maybe not...they weren't the ones writing the story down.

If Jesus was here, and he was really God, he could have written something himself...but he didn't, and neither did any of his supposed disciples. Narratives are subject to subversive influence, even today...look at our competing "news" outlets.

Michael brown was a good boy, just getting his life together...and Jesus was really the messiah. I'm not interested in what people say about the incident...I'd rather look at the facts and make my own decision.

 

[JettaKnight]

Virgins don't have babies. Men don't rise from the dead. No one lives forever after death.

It isn't the age of the story that makes it unbelievable, it is it's content.

Next you'll be trying to tell me this chair I'm sitting on is solid.



Once you acknowledge the existence of a creator, suddenly those things you bristle at, become somewhat trivial.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Not a religious person, nor do I subscribe to any teams at the moment (I don't consider myself educated enough on the subject)... but I always thought the literal argument against the Bible wasn't really the point? The way I understood it, it was what the stories taught, and not actually pushing the specificity about virgin birth, etc.

Nope. Literal interpretation is necessary.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Nope. Literal interpretation is necessary.

That's where my defense starts to fall apart. I'm happy to defend religion to the end when it comes to the morals and values it teaches... but if we're starting to say it's literal, I can't really follow the conversation anymore and respond with any authority and knowledge.

I like studying religion as a whole.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. That is not debatable.

Eyewitness were alive? Maybe, maybe not...they weren't the ones writing the story down.

If Jesus was here, and he was really God, he could have written something himself...but he didn't, and neither did any of his supposed disciples. Narratives are subject to subversive influence, even today...look at our competing "news" outlets.

Michael brown was a good boy, just getting his life together...and Jesus was really the messiah. I'm not interested in what people say about the incident...I'd rather look at the facts and make my own decision.

Lol what? Facts!? Traditionally, the titles of the gospels are the authors. Some modern scholars today think maybe not. You have NO CLUE who wrote the gospels. I don't either. Neither of us were there. Don't push your opinion as fact. How do you know Jesus didn't write the gospels? You're picking and choosing what facts sooth your conscience.

 

[foszoe]

Only 15 pages? You must be busy today.

Well, it wasn't quite finished.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

That's where my defense starts to fall apart. I'm happy to defend religion to the end when it comes to the morals and values it teaches... but if we're starting to say it's literal, I can't really follow the conversation anymore and respond with any authority and knowledge.

Was George Washington literally the first President? Of course he was. It happened. People were there. They wrote it down. How does that affect us today? That's up to you.

 

[PaulF]

It takes much more faith to be atheist than a believer.

Lol.

Like Pascal's wager this is just something believers say to make themselves feel better about the uncertainty inherent in their own position.

If you want to think that, it's fine with me...but if you dig any deeper than the surface you will find your claim to be largely baseless.

 

[2A_Tom]

There was plenty written by unbelievers after his death. The revelation was the last book written that is in the cannon. Matthew, Mark, John and Peter were His diciples and James and Jude were his half brothers. The entire cannon of the bible was penned within 27 years of his death.

Edit: Add verse.

1 John 1:1 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

 

[hog slayer]

Lol.

Like Pascal's wager this is just something believers say to make themselves feel better about the uncertainty inherent in their own position.

If you want to think that, it's fine with me...but if you dig any deeper than the surface you will find your claim to be largely baseless.

A lot of folks will get fired up about this. I hope they can resist the urge to type their emotions and consider that this may just be the most important conversation they ever have with themselves or others. You present a very common position. I will do my best to provide you with all of the necessary facts you request and deserve.

While I compile the information about authorship for your previous comments about the gospels, may I ask what your position is on Jesus?

Blue Falcon's post above really simplifies the gospels answers

 

[foszoe]

Where do you get the idea that these people were eyewitnesses? This is factually incorrect, as the earliest gospels weren't recorded until after the fall of the second temple in ad70.

70 years is a long time in a place where word travels by face-to-face contact.

Where are you getting your facts?

Specifically about Matthew and John could not have been eyewitnesses?

Mark, I'll let slide on eyewitness accounts HOWEVER there is evidence Mark was written BEFORE the end of the second temple era as in prior to 70ad.

Your non-debatable position is untenable unless one simply chooses not to in which case, I suppose it is.

70 years? That's anachronistic. There is evidence that several well known "written" works started out as oral poems. There is also evidence that in a world with no writing, the passing of oral tradition was just as accurate as the written form.

In a society where not all things are written down, there is also strong evidence that things pass through generations will no substantial changes.

What Does It Mean To Say That The Iliad Is An Oral Poem? > Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

 

[PaulF]

Lol what? Facts!? Traditionally, the titles of the gospels are the authors. Some modern scholars today think maybe not. You have NO CLUE who wrote the gospels. I don't either. Neither of us were there. Don't push your opinion as fact. How do you know Jesus didn't write the gospels? You're picking and choosing what facts sooth your conscience.

Thats my whole point...neither of us have access to the facts. We only have access to other people's stories, and people regularly lie, obscure, and mislead to advance their own agenda. I believe that is what happened with the Jesus story...

I don't believe the version of events put forth in the Christian bible, you do. This isn't a matter of proof, it is a matter of faith...I don't have faith that the Bible was not manipulated to suit the agendas of its editors and publishers...you do.

There is no reason to get upset...we are only discussing our viewpoint here, right?

 

[indiucky]

Like Pascal's wager this is just something believers say to make themselves feel better about the uncertainty inherent in their own position.

Not me....

My earlier Atheism required a lot of Faith....I had to believe that something as rich and complex as the universe can come from nothing without a cause...I had to believe that morality was a product of Darwinism and natural selection rather than something written on our hearts by a Creator.....I found myself having to get dangerously close to Richard Dawkins "Ancient Alien" theories regarding the beginnings of life on earth or life hitchhiking "on the backs of crystals"....None of it made any sense....It's like I had to grasp at straws to maintain my Atheistic (Probably more Agnostic) Faith....The more I delved into science and history the more I felt myself pulled towards a creator....

I don't say anything to make myself 'feel better about the uncertainty inherent in my position"...I say things because I believe them and I believe in the truth...The truth is Agnosticism/Atheism required (speaking of myself and not others) more faith than I was able to muster....The odds of all of this coming together in such a perfect fashion to allow the complexity of life here on earth is off the charts....The "odds" point to a creator.....That proves nothing but as a long time Churchill Downs supporter I do pay attention to chance, odds, and handicapping....

I do not think I am smarter than those who don't believe...I do not think I am better than those that don't believe....I do believe that something that begins has a cause and I do believe the universe began so it has a cause...I believe that cause is God and others believe that cause is (in the words of Dawkins) a very complicated form of "nothing".....

Both sides say things to "make themselves feel better about the uncertainty inherent in their own position".....That's hardly just the realm of believers is it?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Was George Washington literally the first President? Of course he was. It happened. People were there. They wrote it down. How does that affect us today? That's up to you.

Like Paul is saying... no one here has the capability to verify the things written down are exactly as stated. But that's where "faith" comes in, I guess? Again, not smart enough to follow this like some of you.

Personally, I live a moral life. It was probably influenced by Christian values. I like to see the Christian teachings as a guideline for living a good life. I simply don't see the significance in reading into it ultra-literally, though.