Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question

Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Bear in mind that relying on the books themselves is worthless given the mass of translations, contradictions and the fact that these books are the product of men, not God.

Go.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 12:11:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

Depends on your interpretation of Christianity. Could you elaborate on this?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 2:14:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 12:11:48 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

Depends on your interpretation of Christianity. Could you elaborate on this?

How so?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 5:48:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 2:14:28 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/18/2011 12:11:48 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

Depends on your interpretation of Christianity. Could you elaborate on this?

How so?

Well you know, there are a lot of impossible feats, claims of people being god incarnate, etc, etc.

Explain how your interpretation makes something that is patently absurd more believable.

I could do it myself, and I have done it myself a few times on these forums, but I'm asking you.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 6:47:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 5:48:20 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/18/2011 2:14:28 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/18/2011 12:11:48 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

Depends on your interpretation of Christianity. Could you elaborate on this?

How so?

Well you know, there are a lot of impossible feats, claims of people being god incarnate, etc, etc.

Explain how your interpretation makes something that is patently absurd more believable.

I could do it myself, and I have done it myself a few times on these forums, but I'm asking you.

If you accepted the possibility of "A" God; which I think you probably could, without feeling dirty as an Atheist; the big problems with relgion are that of internal consistency, the fact that God does not really make any sense, and the fact that some things that the Bible says, if taken as the literal word of God are absolutely absurd.

Now, people could take the inerrant word of God approach and sweep this all under the carpet by invoking the standard intellectually dishonest "well, we can't know the mind of God," or you could understand that regardless of the nature of God's involvement (or not) in the world, the Bible was written by people about people, then edited by people; some of whom were undoubtedly stupid, misinformed, or not very nice; all of whom had their own Agenda.

While it doesn't proove God; or make a watertight argument, it makes it easier to "calibrate out" some of the moral zietgiest of the time; and allow you to build up more of an internally consistent religion. Obviously, if your religion becomes internally consistent, then it's implicitly more beleivable than one that isn't.

One example, it would allow you to put the real teachings of Jesus higher on the list of importance, and I really don't think that many Atheists (including myself) would take much issue with the Sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7, it's actually pretty good) than, say, the ramblings of St Paul.

Now, I still don't beleive in God; but it's very much the case that they would have far better arguments; and certainly ones that wouldn't be fundamentally at odds with reality.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 7:00:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 6:47:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/18/2011 5:48:20 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/18/2011 2:14:28 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/18/2011 12:11:48 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

Depends on your interpretation of Christianity. Could you elaborate on this?

How so?

Well you know, there are a lot of impossible feats, claims of people being god incarnate, etc, etc.

Explain how your interpretation makes something that is patently absurd more believable.

I could do it myself, and I have done it myself a few times on these forums, but I'm asking you.

If you accepted the possibility of "A" God; which I think you probably could, without feeling dirty as an Atheist; the big problems with relgion are that of internal consistency, the fact that God does not really make any sense, and the fact that some things that the Bible says, if taken as the literal word of God are absolutely absurd.

Now, people could take the inerrant word of God approach and sweep this all under the carpet by invoking the standard intellectually dishonest "well, we can't know the mind of God," or you could understand that regardless of the nature of God's involvement (or not) in the world, the Bible was written by people about people, then edited by people; some of whom were undoubtedly stupid, misinformed, or not very nice; all of whom had their own Agenda.

While it doesn't proove God; or make a watertight argument, it makes it easier to "calibrate out" some of the moral zietgiest of the time; and allow you to build up more of an internally consistent religion. Obviously, if your religion becomes internally consistent, then it's implicitly more beleivable than one that isn't.

One example, it would allow you to put the real teachings of Jesus higher on the list of importance, and I really don't think that many Atheists (including myself) would take much issue with the Sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7, it's actually pretty good) than, say, the ramblings of St Paul.

Now, I still don't beleive in God; but it's very much the case that they would have far better arguments; and certainly ones that wouldn't be fundamentally at odds with reality.

I like you.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 7:26:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

I get what you're saying, but before I get into that, let me outline my beliefs.

Concerning the Old Testament, books that deal with the law like leviticus or numbers were written by Moses. I don't believe God told Moses what to write. Moses made it up. (Besides, Jesus's teachings contradict Moses's laws. With the example of eye for eye and tooth for tooth which Jesus was against). Books like Genesis were old Jewish myths that Moses wrote. We should take the lessons from them, but they should not be taken literally.

Books like the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. were letters written by Paul. These letters are Paul's opinion. It's good advice but not the word of God.

And last are the Gospels. I believe that these books are four seperately written documents that outline Jesus' life. (John is a little different because he was on a more personal level with Jesus. I'll elaborate more if you ask).

Well, how do I know the Gospels are true? Well, that ties into what you're saying. The Bible was written in 375 AD at the Council of Nasea. Constantine was the leader of Rome at the time and he was putting together the Roman Catholic Church. He gathered all the world's religious leaders together and they started the first real organized Christian church.

What does this have to do with anything? The Christian leaders there wouldn't let Constantine just butcher the religion. They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true. This was a very thoughtout process that lasted a while. These guys weren't stupid. Even if these leaders wouldn't have been able to convince Constantine to not just destroy the religion for his own personal agenda, they would have died trying and there is no record of that happening.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 7:42:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 7:26:00 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

I get what you're saying, but before I get into that, let me outline my beliefs.

Concerning the Old Testament, books that deal with the law like leviticus or numbers were written by Moses. I don't believe God told Moses what to write. Moses made it up. (Besides, Jesus's teachings contradict Moses's laws. With the example of eye for eye and tooth for tooth which Jesus was against). Books like Genesis were old Jewish myths that Moses wrote. We should take the lessons from them, but they should not be taken literally.

Books like the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. were letters written by Paul. These letters are Paul's opinion. It's good advice but not the word of God.

And last are the Gospels. I believe that these books are four seperately written documents that outline Jesus' life. (John is a little different because he was on a more personal level with Jesus. I'll elaborate more if you ask).

Well, how do I know the Gospels are true? Well, that ties into what you're saying. The Bible was written in 375 AD at the Council of Nasea. Constantine was the leader of Rome at the time and he was putting together the Roman Catholic Church. He gathered all the world's religious leaders together and they started the first real organized Christian church.

What does this have to do with anything? The Christian leaders there wouldn't let Constantine just butcher the religion. They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true. This was a very thoughtout process that lasted a while. These guys weren't stupid. Even if these leaders wouldn't have been able to convince Constantine to not just destroy the religion for his own personal agenda, they would have died trying and there is no record of that happening.

The Bible was *compiled* at the council of Nicea; not written. No one is entirely sure when it was written. In fact, no one is in fact sure whether some or more of the synoptic gospels were in fact "re-writes" of an underlying document.

The big issue, and the main problem with religion and the stupidity that came with it; is the statement "They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true," as if every document came with an official Jesus stamp of approval. The Bible is a selection of texts that a bunch of people, with the moral compass of people who lived 1700, or so, felt best represented their "God".

How did they know what was important; after all, they did not have a Bible to guide them?
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 4:05:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 7:42:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/18/2011 7:26:00 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

I get what you're saying, but before I get into that, let me outline my beliefs.

Concerning the Old Testament, books that deal with the law like leviticus or numbers were written by Moses. I don't believe God told Moses what to write. Moses made it up. (Besides, Jesus's teachings contradict Moses's laws. With the example of eye for eye and tooth for tooth which Jesus was against). Books like Genesis were old Jewish myths that Moses wrote. We should take the lessons from them, but they should not be taken literally.

Books like the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. were letters written by Paul. These letters are Paul's opinion. It's good advice but not the word of God.

And last are the Gospels. I believe that these books are four seperately written documents that outline Jesus' life. (John is a little different because he was on a more personal level with Jesus. I'll elaborate more if you ask).

Well, how do I know the Gospels are true? Well, that ties into what you're saying. The Bible was written in 375 AD at the Council of Nasea. Constantine was the leader of Rome at the time and he was putting together the Roman Catholic Church. He gathered all the world's religious leaders together and they started the first real organized Christian church.

What does this have to do with anything? The Christian leaders there wouldn't let Constantine just butcher the religion. They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true. This was a very thoughtout process that lasted a while. These guys weren't stupid. Even if these leaders wouldn't have been able to convince Constantine to not just destroy the religion for his own personal agenda, they would have died trying and there is no record of that happening.

The Bible was *compiled* at the council of Nicea; not written. No one is entirely sure when it was written. In fact, no one is in fact sure whether some or more of the synoptic gospels were in fact "re-writes" of an underlying document.

The big issue, and the main problem with religion and the stupidity that came with it; is the statement "They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true," as if every document came with an official Jesus stamp of approval. The Bible is a selection of texts that a bunch of people, with the moral compass of people who lived 1700, or so, felt best represented their "God".

How did they know what was important; after all, they did not have a Bible to guide them?

First off, sorry, you're right. I meant compiled not written.

And come on, man. The gospels were written rougly around 30-75 AD. Most scholars agree on this. It's the contents that is debatable.

But whatever, I'll stick to this topic. These guys went through hundreds of books looking for the ones that accurately decpicted Jesus's life. You pointed out how they would know which ones did that. Well, back in these time periods people used their memory since a good portion of people didn't read or write. People wrote things with a specific meter like in poetry to make it easier to memorize. I know it sounds almost impossible for us, but the Pharisees and Sadducees were able to memorize their books of Law. The same principal applied to the gospel. The books were spread through word of mouth.

Besides, 375 AD isn't really that long after Jesus was here. I mean, relate that to today's times. We know what happened 400 years ago in the Renaissance era; it's not like it's this big mystery! We have books and records from the Elizabethan era in the 1600s that show how it was.

..But, wait. I forgot. All historic records and documents can't back up anythingto do with religion. Oops.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 4:16:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 4:05:30 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 7:42:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/18/2011 7:26:00 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

I get what you're saying, but before I get into that, let me outline my beliefs.

Concerning the Old Testament, books that deal with the law like leviticus or numbers were written by Moses. I don't believe God told Moses what to write. Moses made it up. (Besides, Jesus's teachings contradict Moses's laws. With the example of eye for eye and tooth for tooth which Jesus was against). Books like Genesis were old Jewish myths that Moses wrote. We should take the lessons from them, but they should not be taken literally.

Books like the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. were letters written by Paul. These letters are Paul's opinion. It's good advice but not the word of God.

And last are the Gospels. I believe that these books are four seperately written documents that outline Jesus' life. (John is a little different because he was on a more personal level with Jesus. I'll elaborate more if you ask).

Well, how do I know the Gospels are true? Well, that ties into what you're saying. The Bible was written in 375 AD at the Council of Nasea. Constantine was the leader of Rome at the time and he was putting together the Roman Catholic Church. He gathered all the world's religious leaders together and they started the first real organized Christian church.

What does this have to do with anything? The Christian leaders there wouldn't let Constantine just butcher the religion. They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true. This was a very thoughtout process that lasted a while. These guys weren't stupid. Even if these leaders wouldn't have been able to convince Constantine to not just destroy the religion for his own personal agenda, they would have died trying and there is no record of that happening.

The Bible was *compiled* at the council of Nicea; not written. No one is entirely sure when it was written. In fact, no one is in fact sure whether some or more of the synoptic gospels were in fact "re-writes" of an underlying document.

The big issue, and the main problem with religion and the stupidity that came with it; is the statement "They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true," as if every document came with an official Jesus stamp of approval. The Bible is a selection of texts that a bunch of people, with the moral compass of people who lived 1700, or so, felt best represented their "God".

How did they know what was important; after all, they did not have a Bible to guide them?

First off, sorry, you're right. I meant compiled not written.

And come on, man. The gospels were written rougly around 30-75 AD. Most scholars agree on this. It's the contents that is debatable.

But whatever, I'll stick to this topic. These guys went through hundreds of books looking for the ones that accurately decpicted Jesus's life. You pointed out how they would know which ones did that. Well, back in these time periods people used their memory since a good portion of people didn't read or write. People wrote things with a specific meter like in poetry to make it easier to memorize. I know it sounds almost impossible for us, but the Pharisees and Sadducees were able to memorize their books of Law. The same principal applied to the gospel. The books were spread through word of mouth.

Besides, 375 AD isn't really that long after Jesus was here. I mean, relate that to today's times. We know what happened 400 years ago in the Renaissance era; it's not like it's this big mystery! We have books and records from the Elizabethan era in the 1600s that show how it was.

..But, wait. I forgot. All historic records and documents can't back up anythingto do with religion. Oops.

Don't be ridiculous, writings don't prove anything at all. They give us a general idea.

Historic records and documents can't back up anything that CONFLICTS WITH REALITY.

By the standards used to determine the historicity of an event, most of what you see in the Jesus account is firmly in the realm of myth.

History isn't an exact science, but for something to be accepted as history, it must both be plausible and probable. It can't go against what we already know about how the world works. The explanation can't be built off of an Ad Hoc case.

Look at my debate about the Historicity of the Resurrection, I explain it all there.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 4:29:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago


Don't be ridiculous, writings don't prove anything at all. They give us a general idea.

Historic records and documents can't back up anything that CONFLICTS WITH REALITY.

By the standards used to determine the historicity of an event, most of what you see in the Jesus account is firmly in the realm of myth.

History isn't an exact science, but for something to be accepted as history, it must both be plausible and probable. It can't go against what we already know about how the world works. The explanation can't be built off of an Ad Hoc case.

Look at my debate about the Historicity of the Resurrection, I explain it all there.

I understand what you're saying, but you gotta remember that this is God you're talking about. If God exists, which I believe He does, He can do pretty much anything He wants. Jesus was God (God the Son, in the trinity) who came down to earth to die for us. Jesus could die and be ressurrected because he's God and God can do anything.

So, I guess that'll take you back to the debate about if God exists or not and then to why it's Christianity instead of any other monotheistic religion.

But, still, why can't the burden of proof ever be on the atheist?
Why was Jesus's tomb empty? Why did so many people claim to see Jesus? What made Paul, James, etc. convert? And most importantly, why don't you accept the Gospels as fact? Do you think the folks at the Council of Nasea said, "Ok. We've risked and dedicated our lives to Christianity, but now we're just gonna destroy it and make up some crazy religion because we feel like it."?
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 4:37:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 4:29:24 PM, Charles0103 wrote:


Don't be ridiculous, writings don't prove anything at all. They give us a general idea.

Historic records and documents can't back up anything that CONFLICTS WITH REALITY.

By the standards used to determine the historicity of an event, most of what you see in the Jesus account is firmly in the realm of myth.

History isn't an exact science, but for something to be accepted as history, it must both be plausible and probable. It can't go against what we already know about how the world works. The explanation can't be built off of an Ad Hoc case.

Look at my debate about the Historicity of the Resurrection, I explain it all there.

I understand what you're saying, but you gotta remember that this is God you're talking about. If God exists, which I believe He does, He can do pretty much anything He wants. Jesus was God (God the Son, in the trinity) who came down to earth to die for us. Jesus could die and be ressurrected because he's God and God can do anything.

So, I guess that'll take you back to the debate about if God exists or not and then to why it's Christianity instead of any other monotheistic religion.

But, still, why can't the burden of proof ever be on the atheist?
Why was Jesus's tomb empty? Why did so many people claim to see Jesus? What made Paul, James, etc. convert? And most importantly, why don't you accept the Gospels as fact? Do you think the folks at the Council of Nasea said, "Ok. We've risked and dedicated our lives to Christianity, but now we're just gonna destroy it and make up some crazy religion because we feel like it."?

You underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 4:46:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 4:29:24 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
But, still, why can't the burden of proof ever be on the atheist?
Why was Jesus's tomb empty? Why did so many people claim to see Jesus? What made Paul, James, etc. convert? And most importantly, why don't you accept the Gospels as fact? Do you think the folks at the Council of Nasea said, "Ok. We've risked and dedicated our lives to Christianity, but now we're just gonna destroy it and make up some crazy religion because we feel like it."?

Why did Hansel and Gretel find the gingerbread house? Why did the wolf eat grandma? Why did Woody go and help Buzz when Sid had him? Why does Spongebob love working at the Krusty Krab so much?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 5:06:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 4:46:51 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/19/2011 4:29:24 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
But, still, why can't the burden of proof ever be on the atheist?
Why was Jesus's tomb empty? Why did so many people claim to see Jesus? What made Paul, James, etc. convert? And most importantly, why don't you accept the Gospels as fact? Do you think the folks at the Council of Nasea said, "Ok. We've risked and dedicated our lives to Christianity, but now we're just gonna destroy it and make up some crazy religion because we feel like it."?

Why did Hansel and Gretel find the gingerbread house? Why did the wolf eat grandma? Why did Woody go and help Buzz when Sid had him? Why does Spongebob love working at the Krusty Krab so much?

I know the answer to these!
1) They were led into the forest to die by their evil step-mother, and instead of tracking where they'd been by rocks they used bread. School boy error.
2) Wolf eats Grandma because he's hungry. And has an old lady fetish. He's a pretty twisted wolf.
3) He learnt the power of friendship.
4) He's retarded, but in a good way.
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 5:14:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 4:37:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 3/19/2011 4:29:24 PM, Charles0103 wrote:


Don't be ridiculous, writings don't prove anything at all. They give us a general idea.

Historic records and documents can't back up anything that CONFLICTS WITH REALITY.

By the standards used to determine the historicity of an event, most of what you see in the Jesus account is firmly in the realm of myth.

History isn't an exact science, but for something to be accepted as history, it must both be plausible and probable. It can't go against what we already know about how the world works. The explanation can't be built off of an Ad Hoc case.

Look at my debate about the Historicity of the Resurrection, I explain it all there.

I understand what you're saying, but you gotta remember that this is God you're talking about. If God exists, which I believe He does, He can do pretty much anything He wants. Jesus was God (God the Son, in the trinity) who came down to earth to die for us. Jesus could die and be ressurrected because he's God and God can do anything.

So, I guess that'll take you back to the debate about if God exists or not and then to why it's Christianity instead of any other monotheistic religion.

But, still, why can't the burden of proof ever be on the atheist?
Why was Jesus's tomb empty? Why did so many people claim to see Jesus? What made Paul, James, etc. convert? And most importantly, why don't you accept the Gospels as fact? Do you think the folks at the Council of Nasea said, "Ok. We've risked and dedicated our lives to Christianity, but now we're just gonna destroy it and make up some crazy religion because we feel like it."?

You underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Could you elaborate?
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 5:26:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 4:05:30 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 7:42:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/18/2011 7:26:00 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

I get what you're saying, but before I get into that, let me outline my beliefs.

Concerning the Old Testament, books that deal with the law like leviticus or numbers were written by Moses. I don't believe God told Moses what to write. Moses made it up. (Besides, Jesus's teachings contradict Moses's laws. With the example of eye for eye and tooth for tooth which Jesus was against). Books like Genesis were old Jewish myths that Moses wrote. We should take the lessons from them, but they should not be taken literally.

Books like the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. were letters written by Paul. These letters are Paul's opinion. It's good advice but not the word of God.

And last are the Gospels. I believe that these books are four seperately written documents that outline Jesus' life. (John is a little different because he was on a more personal level with Jesus. I'll elaborate more if you ask).

Well, how do I know the Gospels are true? Well, that ties into what you're saying. The Bible was written in 375 AD at the Council of Nasea. Constantine was the leader of Rome at the time and he was putting together the Roman Catholic Church. He gathered all the world's religious leaders together and they started the first real organized Christian church.

What does this have to do with anything? The Christian leaders there wouldn't let Constantine just butcher the religion. They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true. This was a very thoughtout process that lasted a while. These guys weren't stupid. Even if these leaders wouldn't have been able to convince Constantine to not just destroy the religion for his own personal agenda, they would have died trying and there is no record of that happening.

The Bible was *compiled* at the council of Nicea; not written. No one is entirely sure when it was written. In fact, no one is in fact sure whether some or more of the synoptic gospels were in fact "re-writes" of an underlying document.

The big issue, and the main problem with religion and the stupidity that came with it; is the statement "They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true," as if every document came with an official Jesus stamp of approval. The Bible is a selection of texts that a bunch of people, with the moral compass of people who lived 1700, or so, felt best represented their "God".

How did they know what was important; after all, they did not have a Bible to guide them?

First off, sorry, you're right. I meant compiled not written.

And come on, man. The gospels were written rougly around 30-75 AD. Most scholars agree on this. It's the contents that is debatable.

But whatever, I'll stick to this topic. These guys went through hundreds of books looking for the ones that accurately decpicted Jesus's life. You pointed out how they would know which ones did that. Well, back in these time periods people used their memory since a good portion of people didn't read or write. People wrote things with a specific meter like in poetry to make it easier to memorize. I know it sounds almost impossible for us, but the Pharisees and Sadducees were able to memorize their books of Law. The same principal applied to the gospel. The books were spread through word of mouth.

Besides, 375 AD isn't really that long after Jesus was here. I mean, relate that to today's times. We know what happened 400 years ago in the Renaissance era; it's not like it's this big mystery! We have books and records from the Elizabethan era in the 1600s that show how it was.

..But, wait. I forgot. All historic records and documents can't back up anythingto do with religion. Oops.

You started off well, but are meandering off the point. Which is this.

The council of Nicea were a group of people; people with quite a lot of power.

The earliest complete set of texts that were put in the bible date to the 4th centuary; and before that Scholars have good estimates as to the dates that they were written, but are not sure.

Now; the whole point is, that with oral tradition, copying of scripts, arbitrary, or at least "opinion based rejection" of one peice of the bible over an another; all of which are at the whim of any one of a hundred or a thousand different people, who could have altered, changed or embellished a number of different things.

To assume with certainty that this did not happen to the Bible; is absolutely ridiculous and simply does not match up with reality.
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 7:01:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 5:26:05 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/19/2011 4:05:30 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 7:42:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/18/2011 7:26:00 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

I get what you're saying, but before I get into that, let me outline my beliefs.

Concerning the Old Testament, books that deal with the law like leviticus or numbers were written by Moses. I don't believe God told Moses what to write. Moses made it up. (Besides, Jesus's teachings contradict Moses's laws. With the example of eye for eye and tooth for tooth which Jesus was against). Books like Genesis were old Jewish myths that Moses wrote. We should take the lessons from them, but they should not be taken literally.

Books like the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. were letters written by Paul. These letters are Paul's opinion. It's good advice but not the word of God.

And last are the Gospels. I believe that these books are four seperately written documents that outline Jesus' life. (John is a little different because he was on a more personal level with Jesus. I'll elaborate more if you ask).

Well, how do I know the Gospels are true? Well, that ties into what you're saying. The Bible was written in 375 AD at the Council of Nasea. Constantine was the leader of Rome at the time and he was putting together the Roman Catholic Church. He gathered all the world's religious leaders together and they started the first real organized Christian church.

What does this have to do with anything? The Christian leaders there wouldn't let Constantine just butcher the religion. They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true. This was a very thoughtout process that lasted a while. These guys weren't stupid. Even if these leaders wouldn't have been able to convince Constantine to not just destroy the religion for his own personal agenda, they would have died trying and there is no record of that happening.

The Bible was *compiled* at the council of Nicea; not written. No one is entirely sure when it was written. In fact, no one is in fact sure whether some or more of the synoptic gospels were in fact "re-writes" of an underlying document.

The big issue, and the main problem with religion and the stupidity that came with it; is the statement "They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true," as if every document came with an official Jesus stamp of approval. The Bible is a selection of texts that a bunch of people, with the moral compass of people who lived 1700, or so, felt best represented their "God".

How did they know what was important; after all, they did not have a Bible to guide them?

First off, sorry, you're right. I meant compiled not written.

And come on, man. The gospels were written rougly around 30-75 AD. Most scholars agree on this. It's the contents that is debatable.

But whatever, I'll stick to this topic. These guys went through hundreds of books looking for the ones that accurately decpicted Jesus's life. You pointed out how they would know which ones did that. Well, back in these time periods people used their memory since a good portion of people didn't read or write. People wrote things with a specific meter like in poetry to make it easier to memorize. I know it sounds almost impossible for us, but the Pharisees and Sadducees were able to memorize their books of Law. The same principal applied to the gospel. The books were spread through word of mouth.

Besides, 375 AD isn't really that long after Jesus was here. I mean, relate that to today's times. We know what happened 400 years ago in the Renaissance era; it's not like it's this big mystery! We have books and records from the Elizabethan era in the 1600s that show how it was.

..But, wait. I forgot. All historic records and documents can't back up anythingto do with religion. Oops.

You started off well, but are meandering off the point. Which is this.

The council of Nicea were a group of people; people with quite a lot of power.

True, but they were Christian leaders, still. I don't think every single one of them would have had their own agenda.

The earliest complete set of texts that were put in the bible date to the 4th centuary; and before that Scholars have good estimates as to the dates that they were written, but are not sure.

Now; the whole point is, that with oral tradition, copying of scripts, arbitrary, or at least "opinion based rejection" of one peice of the bible over an another; all of which are at the whim of any one of a hundred or a thousand different people, who could have altered, changed or embellished a number of different things.

To assume with certainty that this did not happen to the Bible; is absolutely ridiculous and simply does not match up with reality.

I like your way of thinking, but you need to consider this.
The Old Testament with books like Genesis were myths and folk tales. They won't be lost. They're kinda like the Tortoise and the Hare and stuff. They stick around. Books like Leviticus are their laws. They aren't exactly gonna forget laws that are supposedly from God.

Now, with the Gospels. So many people saw Jesus, Jesus only came roughly 400 years before the council, that it would have been very difficult to change history so dramatically. I would hope that at least one person at the council would say, "Hey. This ain't how the religion goes." The fact that they all basically all agreed despite being from different parts of the world says quite a lot.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 7:25:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 7:01:34 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
True, but they were Christian leaders, still. I don't think every single one of them would have had their own agenda.

The earliest complete set of texts that were put in the bible date to the 4th centuary; and before that Scholars have good estimates as to the dates that they were written, but are not sure.

Now; the whole point is, that with oral tradition, copying of scripts, arbitrary, or at least "opinion based rejection" of one peice of the bible over an another; all of which are at the whim of any one of a hundred or a thousand different people, who could have altered, changed or embellished a number of different things.

To assume with certainty that this did not happen to the Bible; is absolutely ridiculous and simply does not match up with reality.

I like your way of thinking, but you need to consider this.
The Old Testament with books like Genesis were myths and folk tales. They won't be lost. They're kinda like the Tortoise and the Hare and stuff. They stick around. Books like Leviticus are their laws. They aren't exactly gonna forget laws that are supposedly from God.

Now, with the Gospels. So many people saw Jesus, Jesus only came roughly 400 years before the council, that it would have been very difficult to change history so dramatically. I would hope that at least one person at the council would say, "Hey. This ain't how the religion goes." The fact that they all basically all agreed despite being from different parts of the world says quite a lot.

The main reason that the council of Nicea was called was because there was so much contention, and disagreement about what the word of God was,d meant. If everything was absolutely crystal clear; then there wouldn't be any need.

I even did a little more research; and it seems that the early church was just as I suggested; disparate, with multiple different sects and cults believing different things; wanting their way to gain acceptance.

Interestingly, even St Paul and the remaining Disciples couldn't agree on some aspects of their Faith and what it mean.

Now you're right, not every member would have their own agenda; but is this to say "none" of them did? 300 Bishops, and the emporer?

Now, talking about their own Agenda doesn't even have to a negative, machiavelli connotation. For example they may have believed that Jesus was fully divine and so decided against including scripture that was factually true, but did not meet *their* expectations of what Jesus should be.

Moreover, out of all of the different variations of what people believed at the time; what's to say that they didn't chose a watered down "comprimise" version? Or reached a Consensus that wasn't correct?

Do you expect ANY sane person to beleive that in all these human interactions, in these sitatuations not once, in one single way, did the Bible, or faith that they come up with Deviate with Gods own intention?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 7:38:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As an Adendum, it seems that we are both mistaken; that Nicea was more about what faith means, than establishing the Bible;

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning
, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So, this kind of backs up my point quite significantly, really.
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 7:51:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 7:25:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/19/2011 7:01:34 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
True, but they were Christian leaders, still. I don't think every single one of them would have had their own agenda.

The earliest complete set of texts that were put in the bible date to the 4th centuary; and before that Scholars have good estimates as to the dates that they were written, but are not sure.

Now; the whole point is, that with oral tradition, copying of scripts, arbitrary, or at least "opinion based rejection" of one peice of the bible over an another; all of which are at the whim of any one of a hundred or a thousand different people, who could have altered, changed or embellished a number of different things.

To assume with certainty that this did not happen to the Bible; is absolutely ridiculous and simply does not match up with reality.

I like your way of thinking, but you need to consider this.
The Old Testament with books like Genesis were myths and folk tales. They won't be lost. They're kinda like the Tortoise and the Hare and stuff. They stick around. Books like Leviticus are their laws. They aren't exactly gonna forget laws that are supposedly from God.

Now, with the Gospels. So many people saw Jesus, Jesus only came roughly 400 years before the council, that it would have been very difficult to change history so dramatically. I would hope that at least one person at the council would say, "Hey. This ain't how the religion goes." The fact that they all basically all agreed despite being from different parts of the world says quite a lot.


The main reason that the council of Nicea was called was because there was so much contention, and disagreement about what the word of God was,d meant. If everything was absolutely crystal clear; then there wouldn't be any need.

Exactly. They met because Constantine wanted one organized form of Christianity which we know of as the Catholic Church.

I even did a little more research; and it seems that the early church was just as I suggested; disparate, with multiple different sects and cults believing different things; wanting their way to gain acceptance.

Yeah, that's because there weren't organized sects. Everyone believed the basic stuff and then added their own beliefs in.

Interestingly, even St Paul and the remaining Disciples couldn't agree on some aspects of their Faith and what it mean.

Well... yeah. Not everyone in the same church is gonna agree on everything. Even Jesus's disciples had some dumb moments. We're only human.

Now you're right, not every member would have their own agenda; but is this to say "none" of them did? 300 Bishops, and the emporer?

I agree. Some did. But the few that were sincere would have given their lives. We don't see that happening. All of them lived.

Now, talking about their own Agenda doesn't even have to a negative, machiavelli connotation. For example they may have believed that Jesus was fully divine and so decided against including scripture that was factually true, but did not meet *their* expectations of what Jesus should be.

That probably happened several times, but again, there wasn't a major dispute. The few sincere Christians would have raised heck about it. Besides, Constantine was trying to stabilize the Roman Empire. If he included ANYTHING that could be proven wrong in the Bible, then that meant the Empire would collapse.

Moreover, out of all of the different variations of what people believed at the time; what's to say that they didn't chose a watered down "comprimise" version? Or reached a Consensus that wasn't correct?

This ties in with the meaning I said above.

Do you expect ANY sane person to beleive that in all these human interactions, in these sitatuations not once, in one single way, did the Bible, or faith that they come up with Deviate with Gods own intention?

Yes. Because people would have died for the truth, and Constantine wanted truth or his empire would collapse.

And, about your last post, I think you're looking at it the same way. Of course people disagreed with bits of theology about the new Catholic Church. Hello? I'm Greek Orthodox! We were the first people to break off from the Catholics because of this.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 11:20:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 7:51:35 AM, Charles0103 wrote:

Well... yeah. Not everyone in the same church is gonna agree on everything. Even Jesus's disciples had some dumb moments. We're only human.

Do you expect ANY sane person to beleive that in all these human interactions, in these sitatuations not once, in one single way, did the Bible, or faith that they come up with Deviate with Gods own intention?

Yes. Because people would have died for the truth, and Constantine wanted truth or his empire would collapse.

This is the only relevant bit of your post to the real issue of our discussion; and you contradict yourself a little.

My whole point is that people are only human, and with the best intentions in the world, because there were so many people involved in the guidance and formation of christianity (and a lot of whom, including the apostles thesmelves to some extent were in disagreement with each other).

Moreover as I have shown with my last post; the Bible wasn't written, it evolved; bits were added, bits were removed, and subject to changing whims and tastes in religion.

There were just too many people involved in the formation of the Bible, and it's interpretation for it not to have been distorted at some level.

The only way you can suggest otherwise is if God somehow "guided" everyone personally; and that has even more logical flaws in it when you think about this in detail; and to a certain extent just makes it look as if you are trying to dig yourself out of the logical hole.

At the end of the day, is it that big a deal if the Bible was in peoples interpretation about Gods word, and understandably fallable? I would say not, simply for the fact it would, and should make people think more about what they beleive. Importantly, it does not change God, nor does it change his message; just makes it less idiotic.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 8:02:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 7:26:00 PM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 3/18/2011 9:51:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2011 8:12:50 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Because if It isn't, then the foundation of the divine source of the book is wrong.
If that is the case, why call it a holy book?

What gets me, is the sheer stupidity of the assumption that even though humans saw, wrote, copied, edited and tweaked the Bible, over thousands of years, and even though no one can be certain of who wrote the Bible, when it was all written, or even how close the people who wrote it were to the real events, and even though humans have a history of distorting reality at every opportunity, that the Bible is the unaltered word of God.

The Bible does not to be inerrant to be holy; it could represent a very close approximation of what God wants and who he is; but with the bias, prejudice and backwardness of it's human writers. That does not make Christianity any more, or less wrong.

Just more beleivable.

I get what you're saying, but before I get into that, let me outline my beliefs.

Concerning the Old Testament, books that deal with the law like leviticus or numbers were written by Moses. I don't believe God told Moses what to write. Moses made it up. (Besides, Jesus's teachings contradict Moses's laws. With the example of eye for eye and tooth for tooth which Jesus was against). Books like Genesis were old Jewish myths that Moses wrote. We should take the lessons from them, but they should not be taken literally.

Books like the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. were letters written by Paul. These letters are Paul's opinion. It's good advice but not the word of God.

And last are the Gospels. I believe that these books are four seperately written documents that outline Jesus' life. (John is a little different because he was on a more personal level with Jesus. I'll elaborate more if you ask).

Well, how do I know the Gospels are true? Well, that ties into what you're saying. The Bible was written in 375 AD at the Council of Nasea. Constantine was the leader of Rome at the time and he was putting together the Roman Catholic Church. He gathered all the world's religious leaders together and they started the first real organized Christian church.

What does this have to do with anything? The Christian leaders there wouldn't let Constantine just butcher the religion. They went through hundreds of documents and selected the ones that are true. This was a very thoughtout process that lasted a while. These guys weren't stupid. Even if these leaders wouldn't have been able to convince Constantine to not just destroy the religion for his own personal agenda, they would have died trying and there is no record of that happening.

Pffft. Are you kidding me? Who is to say these guys didn't have their own agenda? The religion was used for so long to justify persecution, wars, discrimination, divine right, and many other horrible things. Why you think the all religious leaders of back then are so much better than the corrupt ones you see today. Not all are today, but is it so unbelievable that they made thee things up to keep power, keep others out of power, keep people doing as they wanted, but also to get people to obey laws and be more civilized?
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 8:18:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 11:20:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/20/2011 7:51:35 AM, Charles0103 wrote:

Well... yeah. Not everyone in the same church is gonna agree on everything. Even Jesus's disciples had some dumb moments. We're only human.

Do you expect ANY sane person to beleive that in all these human interactions, in these sitatuations not once, in one single way, did the Bible, or faith that they come up with Deviate with Gods own intention?

Yes. Because people would have died for the truth, and Constantine wanted truth or his empire would collapse.

This is the only relevant bit of your post to the real issue of our discussion; and you contradict yourself a little.

My whole point is that people are only human, and with the best intentions in the world, because there were so many people involved in the guidance and formation of christianity (and a lot of whom, including the apostles thesmelves to some extent were in disagreement with each other).

Moreover as I have shown with my last post; the Bible wasn't written, it evolved; bits were added, bits were removed, and subject to changing whims and tastes in religion.

There were just too many people involved in the formation of the Bible, and it's interpretation for it not to have been distorted at some level.

The only way you can suggest otherwise is if God somehow "guided" everyone personally; and that has even more logical flaws in it when you think about this in detail; and to a certain extent just makes it look as if you are trying to dig yourself out of the logical hole.

At the end of the day, is it that big a deal if the Bible was in peoples interpretation about Gods word, and understandably fallable? I would say not, simply for the fact it would, and should make people think more about what they beleive. Importantly, it does not change God, nor does it change his message; just makes it less idiotic.

I agree with everything you said except for this last part. If the bible is obviously so inaccurate, why should we believe in God at all? His message has often not been a good one: sending those who are raised badly and make mistakes to Hell for eternity, punishing an entire race for one person's mistake, killing his own son to appease his anger at people disobeying him, forcing someone to kill their own son just to test their faith in God, I could go on and on.

Religion has done more bad than good. It starts wars, discrimination, tells one to suspend all logic, reason, and analysis, and many other awful things. Marx was right: Religion is the opioid of the masses. We have advanced enough to be civilized, loving, good people without the fear of hell or reward of heaven.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2011 8:35:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 8:18:51 PM, rogue wrote:
At 3/20/2011 11:20:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/20/2011 7:51:35 AM, Charles0103 wrote:

Well... yeah. Not everyone in the same church is gonna agree on everything. Even Jesus's disciples had some dumb moments. We're only human.

Do you expect ANY sane person to beleive that in all these human interactions, in these sitatuations not once, in one single way, did the Bible, or faith that they come up with Deviate with Gods own intention?

Yes. Because people would have died for the truth, and Constantine wanted truth or his empire would collapse.

This is the only relevant bit of your post to the real issue of our discussion; and you contradict yourself a little.

My whole point is that people are only human, and with the best intentions in the world, because there were so many people involved in the guidance and formation of christianity (and a lot of whom, including the apostles thesmelves to some extent were in disagreement with each other).

Moreover as I have shown with my last post; the Bible wasn't written, it evolved; bits were added, bits were removed, and subject to changing whims and tastes in religion.

There were just too many people involved in the formation of the Bible, and it's interpretation for it not to have been distorted at some level.

The only way you can suggest otherwise is if God somehow "guided" everyone personally; and that has even more logical flaws in it when you think about this in detail; and to a certain extent just makes it look as if you are trying to dig yourself out of the logical hole.

At the end of the day, is it that big a deal if the Bible was in peoples interpretation about Gods word, and understandably fallable? I would say not, simply for the fact it would, and should make people think more about what they beleive. Importantly, it does not change God, nor does it change his message; just makes it less idiotic.

I agree with everything you said except for this last part. If the bible is obviously so inaccurate, why should we believe in God at all? His message has often not been a good one: sending those who are raised badly and make mistakes to Hell for eternity, punishing an entire race for one person's mistake, killing his own son to appease his anger at people disobeying him, forcing someone to kill their own son just to test their faith in God, I could go on and on.

Religion has done more bad than good. It starts wars, discrimination, tells one to suspend all logic, reason, and analysis, and many other awful things. Marx was right: Religion is the opioid of the masses. We have advanced enough to be civilized, loving, good people without the fear of hell or reward of heaven.

I'm not trying to start anyrthing, but did you ever read the ending of that story?...
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 1:03:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 8:35:38 PM, Denote wrote:
At 3/20/2011 8:18:51 PM, rogue wrote:
At 3/20/2011 11:20:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/20/2011 7:51:35 AM, Charles0103 wrote:

Well... yeah. Not everyone in the same church is gonna agree on everything. Even Jesus's disciples had some dumb moments. We're only human.

Do you expect ANY sane person to beleive that in all these human interactions, in these sitatuations not once, in one single way, did the Bible, or faith that they come up with Deviate with Gods own intention?

Yes. Because people would have died for the truth, and Constantine wanted truth or his empire would collapse.

This is the only relevant bit of your post to the real issue of our discussion; and you contradict yourself a little.

My whole point is that people are only human, and with the best intentions in the world, because there were so many people involved in the guidance and formation of christianity (and a lot of whom, including the apostles thesmelves to some extent were in disagreement with each other).

Moreover as I have shown with my last post; the Bible wasn't written, it evolved; bits were added, bits were removed, and subject to changing whims and tastes in religion.

There were just too many people involved in the formation of the Bible, and it's interpretation for it not to have been distorted at some level.

The only way you can suggest otherwise is if God somehow "guided" everyone personally; and that has even more logical flaws in it when you think about this in detail; and to a certain extent just makes it look as if you are trying to dig yourself out of the logical hole.

At the end of the day, is it that big a deal if the Bible was in peoples interpretation about Gods word, and understandably fallable? I would say not, simply for the fact it would, and should make people think more about what they beleive. Importantly, it does not change God, nor does it change his message; just makes it less idiotic.

I agree with everything you said except for this last part. If the bible is obviously so inaccurate, why should we believe in God at all? His message has often not been a good one: sending those who are raised badly and make mistakes to Hell for eternity, punishing an entire race for one person's mistake, killing his own son to appease his anger at people disobeying him, forcing someone to kill their own son just to test their faith in God, I could go on and on.

Religion has done more bad than good. It starts wars, discrimination, tells one to suspend all logic, reason, and analysis, and many other awful things. Marx was right: Religion is the opioid of the masses. We have advanced enough to be civilized, loving, good people without the fear of hell or reward of heaven.

I'm not trying to start anyrthing, but did you ever read the ending of that story?...

Yes, in the end God doesn't make him kill his son. But still, isn't that extreme and sadistic?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 5:37:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 7:29:56 PM, Veridas wrote:
This is a question for anyone who follows an abrahamic religion.

Why does God HAVE to be the way your holy book says he is?

Bear in mind that relying on the books themselves is worthless given the mass of translations, contradictions and the fact that these books are the product of men, not God.

Go.

If you take away the circular 'reasoning' of reliance on scripture, then we may dispense with reason itself as you have to reason that reason is trustworthy.. you have to reason that reason evolved reasonably reasonably..

However.. Scripture is inspired by God, not dictated by Him.. Just as Lois Lane's diary is inspired by and obsessed with Superman..

The Bible is the record of God's personal dealings with men.. so God IS proved good, faithful and just thru that record ONLY because He always keeps His promises: He tells Abraham he'll have a son; he does.. He tells Moses He'll lead the Jews out of captivity into a promised land; He does.. He promises the Jews a Messiah.. He gives them (and the world) Jesus Christ.. etc etc..

Hope this helps..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 8:26:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/21/2011 1:03:19 AM, rogue wrote:
At 3/20/2011 8:35:38 PM, Denote wrote:
At 3/20/2011 8:18:51 PM, rogue wrote:
At 3/20/2011 11:20:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/20/2011 7:51:35 AM, Charles0103 wrote:

Well... yeah. Not everyone in the same church is gonna agree on everything. Even Jesus's disciples had some dumb moments. We're only human.

Do you expect ANY sane person to beleive that in all these human interactions, in these sitatuations not once, in one single way, did the Bible, or faith that they come up with Deviate with Gods own intention?

Yes. Because people would have died for the truth, and Constantine wanted truth or his empire would collapse.

This is the only relevant bit of your post to the real issue of our discussion; and you contradict yourself a little.

My whole point is that people are only human, and with the best intentions in the world, because there were so many people involved in the guidance and formation of christianity (and a lot of whom, including the apostles thesmelves to some extent were in disagreement with each other).

Moreover as I have shown with my last post; the Bible wasn't written, it evolved; bits were added, bits were removed, and subject to changing whims and tastes in religion.

There were just too many people involved in the formation of the Bible, and it's interpretation for it not to have been distorted at some level.

The only way you can suggest otherwise is if God somehow "guided" everyone personally; and that has even more logical flaws in it when you think about this in detail; and to a certain extent just makes it look as if you are trying to dig yourself out of the logical hole.

At the end of the day, is it that big a deal if the Bible was in peoples interpretation about Gods word, and understandably fallable? I would say not, simply for the fact it would, and should make people think more about what they beleive. Importantly, it does not change God, nor does it change his message; just makes it less idiotic.

I agree with everything you said except for this last part. If the bible is obviously so inaccurate, why should we believe in God at all? His message has often not been a good one: sending those who are raised badly and make mistakes to Hell for eternity, punishing an entire race for one person's mistake, killing his own son to appease his anger at people disobeying him, forcing someone to kill their own son just to test their faith in God, I could go on and on.

Religion has done more bad than good. It starts wars, discrimination, tells one to suspend all logic, reason, and analysis, and many other awful things. Marx was right: Religion is the opioid of the masses. We have advanced enough to be civilized, loving, good people without the fear of hell or reward of heaven.

I'm not trying to start anyrthing, but did you ever read the ending of that story?...

Yes, in the end God doesn't make him kill his son. But still, isn't that extreme and sadistic?

I haven't really looked into responses on the subject as of yet. I was just making the point that you were being sort of misleading.
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2011 5:27:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/20/2011 11:20:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/20/2011 7:51:35 AM, Charles0103 wrote:

Well... yeah. Not everyone in the same church is gonna agree on everything. Even Jesus's disciples had some dumb moments. We're only human.

Do you expect ANY sane person to beleive that in all these human interactions, in these sitatuations not once, in one single way, did the Bible, or faith that they come up with Deviate with Gods own intention?

Yes. Because people would have died for the truth, and Constantine wanted truth or his empire would collapse.

This is the only relevant bit of your post to the real issue of our discussion; and you contradict yourself a little.

My whole point is that people are only human, and with the best intentions in the world, because there were so many people involved in the guidance and formation of christianity (and a lot of whom, including the apostles thesmelves to some extent were in disagreement with each other).

Moreover as I have shown with my last post; the Bible wasn't written, it evolved; bits were added, bits were removed, and subject to changing whims and tastes in religion.

There were just too many people involved in the formation of the Bible, and it's interpretation for it not to have been distorted at some level.

The only way you can suggest otherwise is if God somehow "guided" everyone personally; and that has even more logical flaws in it when you think about this in detail; and to a certain extent just makes it look as if you are trying to dig yourself out of the logical hole.

At the end of the day, is it that big a deal if the Bible was in peoples interpretation about Gods word, and understandably fallable? I would say not, simply for the fact it would, and should make people think more about what they beleive. Importantly, it does not change God, nor does it change his message; just makes it less idiotic.

Ok, dude. Listen. The whole point of the Council was to UNITE Christians. I doubt every single guy at the Council of Nicea had their own personal agenda, and i highly doubt every single one of them had a common corrupt agenda. Since there wasn't too much disagreement, that shows that they were serious about doing the right thing.

Besides, you're saying that humans are soooo stupid. Well, how do you believe that science has all the answers? We're only human beings! Come on, man. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing because you're too afraid to accept the fact that what these men put together at the Council of Nicea is truth.

Besides, these are 400 of the smartest, most spiritual people alive then. I'm pretty sure they knew what they were doing.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10