mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[John 793]

I understand that prayer isn't meant for instantaneous gratification, however is it often used when frightened of an outcome. People pray that something will happen (or won't), and when it does, they often assume it is because of God's will acting on their prayer. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

When it is used does not influenced weather or not it works.  Stay on topic.  Yes, I know that correlation does not imply causation.  It would be equally as foolish to assume that miracles cant happen just because some are proven false.

 

If you wish to say that God works subtly to answer prayers, or in ways we do not understand, very well. However, since the explanation implies that his work is not observable, then I would question how this implies that God is immanent in an observable way.

 

Yes, that is what I'm getting at.  If God revealed himself to people, we would all believe in him 100% and act perfectly good and then he would have nothing to judge us off of.  Where did "in an observable way" come from?  We never said he had to be observable physically.

 

I think you've missed a key point with your apple metaphor. Green apples and red apples exist - if you trek far enough, you will find a red apple. It was observed, you understand it to exist because you can touch it, see it, eat it, and smell it. A miracle, by contrast, can not be truly observed. Assuming a miracle is a break in the laws of nature by divinity, then we come across a question: how can we know when the laws of nature have been broken?

 

I knew you would attack that point.  Let me complicate and rephrase the metaphor to include a man who was restricted to a room with only green apples.  Let us also say that this man is only aloud to talk with outsiders, but not to exchange visuals with them.  No matter what direction the man walks, all he will find are green apples.  Does it mean that red apples don't exist?  Not at all.

 

And this is where the metaphor fails. You don't have to make assumptions to think the red apple exists. You have proof that it is there, in your hand, or in your mouth, or on the tree. With a miracle, there is no proof that it broke the laws of nature, for we do not understand the laws of nature well enough to determine when they have been broken.

 

In the new metaphor, you would have proof that the red apple exists but you would not be able to convey this information to the man in the room.  If we do not understand the laws of nature enough to assume that they have been broken, what gives us the right to assume that they are not broken?

 

Though this leaves us with much ambiguity, Occam's Razor states that the solution with the least assumptions - basically, the simplest one -, is most likely the correct solution. From this we can conclude that a miracle can not exist, for it assumes that the laws of nature can be broken, that god exists, that He is immanent, and that He is willing to act on the physical world, amongst a host of other assumptions. The most likely solution is that we do not understand the laws of nature enough to know if they have been broken, since its only assumption is a lack of knowledge.

 

We're talking absolutes here.  There is no percent chance.  Either it is, or it isn't.  "Occam's Razor" applies to logical debates with more proof on both ends.  You still make many assumptions about the universe in assuming a God doesn't exist.  In fact, infinitely many assumptions on both sides of the argument.

 

Bolstering the assumption of lack of knowledge is history. How many miracles have been waved off as peculiar but explainable phenomenon as a result of man's understanding catching up with strange events? And at that, how much that we consider commonplace today would be considered a miracle in the past? Arthur C. Clarke's third law states that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, any sufficiently mind-boggling phenomenon is indistinguishable from a miracle.

 

Yes, but we did not always have significantly advanced technology to accomplish this.  You shouldn't assume that all miracles can be explained.

 

Also, bringing the Bible into this is a lofty position. As was explained by the Father, the Bible is meant to be interpreted in several different ways. These interpretations vary to the point that considering anything in the Bible more than an allegory is up to interpretation itself. 

 

Where did I specifically mention the Bible in the last relevant post?

I'm glad that you actually understand, to some degree, what they priest was talking about. And to reply to your previous comment, assuming that

A.) many sections of the Bible are clearly written differently.

B.) different sections tend to require different types of interpretation.

C.)  One different type of interpretation is a non-allegorical approach.

 

It would not be unreasonable to assume that some of the sections in the Bible are not allegories.

 

To address the side-topic, then he's shot himself in the foot. In the Ten Commandments, it is stated that, first, 'I am the Lord your God,' and secondly that 'you shall have no other gods before me'. If we are to interpret the Ten Commandments as the only literal thing in the Bible, then he is damning all those who do not believe him as their Lord and Savior. If he wanted nonbelievers so that he may see man's true actions, why damn them? Are the Ten Commandments perhaps a farce, to see if man would truly obey a book, and allow it judge their choices? Or will he damn them anyways, believing that to deny their belief in him is a sin without compare?

To answer your side question response, I would say that "you shall have no god's before me" applies to those who were aware at the time of his existence.  (The Jews who we're witness to his miracles in the stories.)  A Jew should never put an idol before the God of Israel.

 

Also, the Church usually has a final say on this and last time I checked, Atheists or non-believer's don't go to hell if they are truly good people.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wztUtzzBcY8

 

People tend to dance around the fact that he said this.  What the pope says becomes canon in the church.

The guy on the right is a dick head who looks like fucking Eric Spoelstra and tries to discredit what the pope said.

Careful. That's not what I said at all. I said the bible is factually incorrect about the creation of the universe. I never said that disproves god's existence, whether in the Abrahamic sense or whichever else and using that argument to say it is evidence is a mistake. And fyi, I'm perfectly content with being a heretic

Yes it is.  I would repost what you said but you'll have to check the previous page as will everyone else.  And I never said it was evidence, I just said that you can't use that to disprove God to Catholics who don't take every word in the Bible literally.

 

I don't care that you like being a heretic lol.  That point in me stating that that is heresy wasn't to offend you.  Don't get your underwear in a bunch when I'm just stating a fact that the church believes in something.

 

And no, first off I'm not showering anyone with any evidence one way or the other. Being agnostic, I'm open to the possibility, but I prefer to believe in what I see and can be proven with facts, not lore, saga, and storytelling. If you can prove me wrong, I will stand aside. As you said, however, there's no hard evidence that god does exist.  (You left out "or doesn't) There is only faith and the supposition that he exists due to a lack of understanding of the origins of nature and the universe. And I'm perfectly aware the bible is written by multiple people. I have read it, you know -__-

 

Based off of the field of science I am entering, I would hardly say that I lack significant understanding of the origin of nature and the universe... -.-

 

Read my comment above about the Big Bang.  I never reject science, I believe in evolution as well so DON'T throw that bullshit at me and act like I'm some archaic fool.  The point I was making was that if you INTERPRET the SAGA section of the Bible as SAGA, then there is no real contradiction with current science.

 

Erio pretty much hit the nail on the head. The priest in your video encourages each segment of the bible to be interpreted in a different manner based on its genre. You watched the video now.  Great.  The first difficulty with doing so is there's little to no indication what genre each part of the bible is in the first place.

 

Really?  There's not?  I mean when someone's speaking about an account, testament or witness to Jesus, I would assume that to be AN ACCOUNT, TESTAMENT, or WITNESS.   If someone's speaking poetically, or representively, It would not be unreasonable to assume that they are talking about LEGEND or SAGA.  It's not hard to figure out what is what.

 

The majority of it is stories when you consider there's a man returning from the dead, another who housed two of every living animal species in the world in one boat (one too small to do so to begin with), etc.

 

Yes, hand-pick the ones from LEGEND.  That's what all Atheists do when assaulting the Bible.

 

Some is historical recollection of events which can in fact be proven through other ancient records and archeology(altho this still would not prove god's existence as correlation is not causation, as I said before), poetical stories, and so on. Much of it is very nice and can teach readers moral values

 

, and I'll be honest that others are downright "sickening."

Oh what an exaggeration.  Grow up!  If you want to see sickening, learn about the holocaust or genocide in Africa.

 

Once more, no matter how you want to interpret it, nothing in the bible is evidence the abrahamic god actually exists.

When the FUCK was I trying to use the Bible as evidence?  (Besides the many accounts of Jesus's life, you can't really use it as any sort of evidence)  I merely stated that it cannot be used to disprove God.

Edited July 21, 2013 by John

[Galen 1,354]

Yes it is. I would repost what you said but you'll have to check the previous page as will everyone else. And I never said it was evidence, I just said that you can't use that to disprove God to Catholics who don't take every word in the Bible literally.

 

I don't care that you like being a heretic lol. That point in me stating that that is heresy wasn't to offend you. Don't get your underwear in a bunch when I'm just stating a fact that the church believes in something.

 

Here's what I said:

 

 

 

The bible claims the universe was created 6000 years ago. The truth is that the Earth itself is 4.54 BILLION years old. That's why using the Big Bang as evidence that the Abrahamic god exists is logically a mistake.

 

Now read that again and tell me where exactly did I say "the bible is wrong about when the earth was made, therefore god doesn't exist." That's right. You can't because I never did. I said it's not a valid argument to prove his existence. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

 

 

Based off of the field of science I am entering, I would hardly say that I lack significant understanding of the origin of nature and the universe... -.-

 

Read my comment above about the Big Bang. I never reject science, I believe in evolution as well so DON'T throw that bullshit at me and act like I'm some archaic fool. The point I was making was that if you INTERPRET the SAGA section of the Bible as SAGA, then there is no real contradiction with current science.

 

And the comment was meant in a general sense, I wasn't talking about you specifically. I even said "as you say, there's no hard evidence proving his existence" which should tell you I acknowledge the fact you're not taking the bible as the ultimate truth, somewhat ironically. There is no reason to be upset.

 

 

 

You watched the video now. Great.

 

I watched it before I made my reply to the video. You can stop making assumptions about me now.

 

 

 

Really? There's not? I mean when someone's speaking about an account, testament or witness to Jesus, I would assume that to be AN ACCOUNT, TESTAMENT, or WITNESS. If someone's speaking poetically, or representively, It would not be unreasonable to assume that they are talking about LEGEND or SAGA. It's not hard to figure out what is what.

 

Speaking about an account, testament or witness says nothing about the genre. An account can be speaking literally, poetically or as if retelling lore. The same goes for testaments and witnesses.

 

 

 

Oh what an exaggeration. Grow up! If you want to see sickening, learn about the holocaust or genocide in Africa.

 

Yes, those events are also quite sickening. It doesn't make god's act of killing thousands of Isrealites for seeking more knowledge about god any more excusable. Or giving men the authority to take the wives and virgin daughters of the men they killed as their own. Among other things. Killing one man is killing one man too many.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Freedan

[John 793]

I feel like the guy in the middle...

 

Here's what I said:

 

Now read that again and tell me where exactly did I say "the bible is wrong about when the earth was made, therefore god doesn't exist." That's right. You can't because I never did. I said it's not a valid argument to prove his existence. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

Show me where, in that comment you stated the "valid argument to prove his existence" part.  It would be very reasonable to assume that, based off of what you were responding to, you were making a statement about the existence of God based off of a Biblical reading. 

 

And the comment was meant in a general sense, I wasn't talking about you specifically. I even said "as you say, there's no hard evidence proving his existence" which should tell you I acknowledge the fact you're not taking the bible as the ultimate truth, somewhat ironically. There is no reason to be upset.

 

When your comment is a reply to MY post, I'm going to assume that you are addressing me UNLESS you explicitly state otherwise, which you didn't.  (Go check)  Its a bit upsetting when you keep changing who your comment was meant for.

 

 

I watched it before I made my reply to the video. You can stop making assumptions about me now.

Doesn't seem like it based off of your first reply.

 

 

Speaking about an account, testament or witness says nothing about the genre. An account can be speaking literally, poetically or as if retelling lore. The same goes for testaments and witnesses.

It makes it a lot easier to tell which category it falls in to.

 

 

Yes, those events are also quite sickening. It doesn't make god's act of killing thousands of Isrealites for seeking more knowledge about god any more excusable. Or giving men the authority to take the wives and virgin daughters of the men they killed as their own. Among other things. Killing one man is killing one man too many.

Once again, LEGEND, SAGA ;  it probably has metaphorical meaning.  For you to take it literally is a contradiction to you saying you understood what the video was about.

Edited July 21, 2013 by John

[Galen 1,354]

 

 

Show me where, in that comment you stated the "valid argument to prove his existence" part. It would be very reasonable to assume that, based off of what you were responding to, you were making a statement about the existence of God based off of a Biblical reading.

 

Here.

 

 

 

The bible claims the universe was created 6000 years ago. The truth is that the Earth itself is 4.54 BILLION years old. That's why using the Big Bang as evidence that the Abrahamic god exists is logically a mistake.

 

You may now stop pretending the burden of proof is on me.

 

 

 

When your comment is a reply to MY post, I'm going to assume that you are addressing me UNLESS you explicitly state otherwise, which you didn't. (Go check) Its a bit upsetting when you keep changing who your comment was meant for.

 

I never "changed" who it is meant for. "As you say" really tells you nothing? I guess we're only going to be at an impasse if you keep feeling like you're being attacked.

 

 

 

Once again, LEGEND, SAGA ; it probably has metaphorical meaning. For you to take it literally is a contradiction to you saying you understood what the video was about.

 

The issue is a first-time reader is unlikely to already know that.

[John 793]

I never "changed" who it is meant for. "As you say" really tells you nothing? I guess we're only going to be at an impasse if you keep feeling like you're being attacked.

 

I knew If I added that last sentence In you would avoid the first one.  When your comment is a reply to MY post, I'm going to assume that you are addressing me UNLESS you explicitly state otherwise, which you didn't.

 

I would rather be attacked myself than have others mock my beliefs.  (Not talking about you.)

 

 

The issue is a first-time reader is unlikely to already know that.

Yes, but if they have guidance from experienced readers, such as in the Church, they will be helped.  Also pretty sure on your intended meaning of the quote.

[Galen 1,354]

I knew If I added that last sentence In you would avoid the first one. When your comment is a reply to MY post, I'm going to assume that you are addressing me UNLESS you explicitly state otherwise, which you didn't. I would rather be attacked myself than have others mock my beliefs. (Not talking about you.)

 

Well, unlike everyone else you've prolly spoken to, I'm not here to prove you wrong. I've even said on multiple occasions I'm open to the possibility, hence why I'm agnostic and not atheist, and that I'm not trying to prove anything one way or the other. I never added the "as you say" bit later either. It was there all along. I prolly edited the post but I do that typically to add something at the end of the post or correct grammar errors (which I do 90% of the time). I'm not trying to talk at you, I'm trying to talk to you. You can stop taking it so personally. Srsly, there is no reason to be upset.

 

Yes, but if they have guidance from experienced readers, such as in the Church, they will be helped. Also pretty sure on your intended meaning of the quote.

 

Not everyone is going to be reading it with the church's guidence. Some people are going to want to read it on their own and build their own opinion of it. The church will often teach it with its own bias. And before you or anyone else tells me that's not the case, I will say there wouldn't be so many Christian sects if that wasn't true.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Freedan

[John 793]

Not everyone is going to be reading it with the church's guidence. Some people are going to want to read it on their own and build their own opinion of it. The church will often teach it with its own bias. And before you or anyone else tells me that's not the case, I will say there wouldn't be so many Christian sects if that wasn't true.

 

Well it was our church first.  People just took our book and ran with it and then came up with these un-canon notions.  There shouldn't be so many Christians sects.

[Galen 1,354]

Well it was our church first.  People just took our book and ran with it and then came up with these un-canon notions.  There shouldn't be so many Christians sects.

 

But that's what happens when people are free to interpret any given text as they will. For one, there's no single absolute interpretation. Being the first interpretation doesn't necessarily make it the right one. It's the same for any scientific hypothesis too, as I'm sure you're aware. Hypotheses and assumptions are often proven wrong later through multiple experiments.

[John 793]

But that's what happens when people are free to interpret any given text as they will. For one, there's no single absolute interpretation. Being the first interpretation doesn't necessarily make it the right one. It's the same for any scientific hypothesis too, as I'm sure you're aware. Hypotheses and assumptions are often proven wrong later through multiple experiments.

 

Yes, but the book (The full Bible) was originally meant for the catholic religion, and thus it would seem to be a wise decision to use the Catholic interpretation of the Bible with respect to the Bible itself.

[Durandal 623]

Have I told you how frustrating the in-quote thing is? It makes it hard to re-quote. Damn you for stripping away my conveniences! *shakes fist*
 
 

Meanwhile-the-internet-discusses-religion.jpg
I feel like the guy in the middle...

 
If it makes you feel any better, I pointed my gun at Freedan too.
 

Yes, that is what I'm getting at.  If God revealed himself to people, we would all believe in him 100% and act perfectly good and then he would have nothing to judge us off of.  Where did "in an observable way" come from?  We never said he had to be observable physically.
 
I knew you would attack that point.  Let me complicate and rephrase the metaphor to include a man who was restricted to a room with only green apples.  Let us also say that this man is only aloud to talk with outsiders, but not to exchange visuals with them.  No matter what direction the man walks, all he will find are green apples.  Does it mean that red apples don't exist?  Not at all.
 
In the new metaphor, you would have proof that the red apple exists but you would not be able to convey this information to the man in the room.  If we do not understand the laws of nature enough to assume that they have been broken, what gives us the right to assume that they are not broken?
 
We're talking absolutes here.  There is no percent chance.  Either it is, or it isn't.  "Occam's Razor" applies to logical debates with more proof on both ends.  You still make many assumptions about the universe in assuming a God doesn't exist.  In fact, infinitely many assumptions on both sides of the argument.
 
Yes, but we did not always have significantly advanced technology to accomplish this.  You shouldn't assume that all miracles can be explained.
 
Where did I specifically mention the Bible in the last relevant post?

I'm glad that you actually understand, to some degree, what they priest was talking about. And to reply to your previous comment, assuming that
A.) many sections of the Bible are clearly written differently.
B.) different sections tend to require different types of interpretation.
C.)  One different type of interpretation is a non-allegorical approach.
 
It would not be unreasonable to assume that some of the sections in the Bible are not allegories.

 
Empirical = observable. For something to be empirical evidence, it must be observable in nature. I desire empirical evidence that he exists, or that he does not. In an objective debate such as this one, empirical evidence is imperiative. All other forms of evidence succeed it.
 
Ah, but if we are to assume this room is the observable universe, then that means, for our purposes, that red apples may or may not exist. This actually works against your point, because you're making the red apple God, not a miracle that bent the laws of nature. In this metaphor, consider a miracle some event that the red apple was capable of producing without being in the room.
 
I want empirical, observable proof that that red apple reached out through the wall and did something you could not explain. Not that that event you couldn't explain happened, but that the red apple was behind it. I want to be able to see the red apple's work. All I've been told is that phenomena might be happening where the apple might be behind it. Maybe.
 
So again, Occam's Razor. We can not say with certainty how the event happened, however we can eliminate less likely answers until we are left with the simplest. The simplest being that the apple was not behind the occurence, that it did not distort reality - that the occurence was misunderstood, or you lack the tools to understand it. Additionally, there may be a large amount of assumptions, but we can agree that God's existence and immanence add more variables, and therefore more assumptions. Again, a godless universe wins out as a result of less assumptions. The apple complicates things needlessly, therefore why do we assume it is there at all?
 
The law has no correlation to the situation itself. And who says they can't be? We may very well become the masters of the universe if we do not die in the process. We have done things today that people millenia ago would consider impossible. Do not doubt the human race's quest for knowledge.
 
You stated that the Bible did not say anything about God 'intervening in everything'. That's a lofty position, as much in the Bible is left to interpretation.
 
You fail to see the truth of what the Father said really is. He said that much of it must be interpreted many different ways, and there are more sects and views on Christianty than Catholicism, whether either of you like it or not. In a way, you suffer the exact opposite fate of fundamentalists - your position fails because it is too ambigious, not because it is too literal.
 

To answer your side question response, I would say that "you shall have no god's before me" applies to those who were aware at the time of his existence.  (The Jews who we're witness to his miracles in the stories.)  A Jew should never put an idol before the God of Israel.
 
Also, the Church usually has a final say on this and last time I checked, Atheists or non-believer's don't go to hell if they are truly good people.
 
People tend to dance around the fact that he said this.  What the pope says becomes canon in the church.
The guy on the right is a dick head who looks like fucking Eric Spoelstra and tries to discredit what the pope said.

 
It means all people. The Bible was meant to be spread, its wisdom shared. It followed that for any who were aware of its word, that bowing before any other god or idol was strictly prohibited. There are those untouched by the word, and perhaps they are forgiven. However, for people like me, who has seen the word of God and went against it, there is no excuse. I have still broken the first two-three commandments simply by rejecting his existence. He would still see that I rot in hell.
 
I fail to see what this changes. The Pope said that the blood of Christ redeemed all - yes, it did. He saved us all from original sin, and allowed us to choose our own path once again. This does not mean that a non-believer today shall go to heaven if he is truly good. This does mean that Christ has given all non-believers the chance to turn back to Christ. If they fail to do so, they're still boned, placing us back at square one.

 

Religions don't have to be organized to be deemed religions. There are personal religions which individuals adhere to, and organized religions that have tons of followers of a code of conduct and hierarchy. Yes, atheism doesn't fall under the latter despite having a large number of adherents, but tho it isn't organized the way christianity is, it is still a religion. If you say atheism is not an organized religion, then you are right.

 

Religion =/= Personal belief.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Durandal

[--Thunder Bolt-- 534]

 

 

Yes, that is what I'm getting at. If God revealed himself to people, we would all believe in him 100% and act perfectly good and then he would have nothing to judge us off of.

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing.   I don't want to dogpile on you in particular, but this bit did stand out for me.  I think it is interesting to compare Princess Celestia as a deity within the EquestriaVerse with ancient monarch-deities worshiped on Earth (Yahweh, Zeus, etc.), making note of the differences between her and the portrayed behavior patterns of the human deities...

[GottlosMann 221]

You, a mortal human, can't say that you know 100% that the God of the Abrahamic faith is a false god.  If your single human brain has the capacity to know 100% that a deity is non-existent, call yourself all-knowing and parade the streets with ultimate answers.

 

And you can't put the existence of a god of any sort into a "percent chance."  It exists or it doesn't.

 

Please. I respect your beliefs; just don't make massive claims like that.

"You, a mortal human, can't say that you know 100% that the God of the Abrahamic faith is a false god."

Just did.

 

"If your single human brain has the capacity to know 100% that a deity is non-existent, call yourself all-knowing and parade the streets with ultimate answers."

I don't know that no deity exists. Like I've said, a deist god may exist. I do know that the Christian god is fictional because the crap said in the Bible has been proven false.

 

"And you can't put the existence of a god of any sort into a "percent chance."  It exists or it doesn't."

Why can't I do that? I've analyzed the world in which I live, read the Bible, and said, "There's no way the Bible is a true story."I haven't ruled out the possibility of some god I've never heard of existing. I don't understand why that's wrong of me to do.

[Galen 1,354]

 

 

Yes, but the book (The full Bible) was originally meant for the catholic religion, and thus it would seem to be a wise decision to use the Catholic interpretation of the Bible with respect to the Bible itself.

 

Just because it's meant to be for the catholic church doesn't mean the catholic church is the true church. Again, it's a matter of which religious organization came out with its opinion first. Other sects arose with their interpretation, some out of a sense of belief and others for political reasons (see King Henry VIII). But all of them are based on faith. The Church doesn't have an exclusive rights over Christianity seeing as it doesn't have any more evidence than other sects.

 

 

 

Once again, LEGEND, SAGA ; it probably has metaphorical meaning. For you to take it literally is a contradiction to you saying you understood what the video was about.

 

Another thing I want to address regard this point that I forgot earlier is that even if you say they're metaphorical, then are you implying god actually didn't kill all those Isrealites or ordered those men to take the wives and virgin daughters of the men they killed? Seriously? -___-

[Xanatos 162]

Prayer isn't meant for "getting whatever you want instantly"

 

 

 

Side topic:

Just a theoretical.  If there is a God and he did reveal himself to us fully, what would people choose to do with their "free will?"  Wouldn't everybody act good just to get into heaven?  I think it is good that some doubt in God exists, for if he truly does exist then he will be able to see the true actions of all of his people.

 

Prayer insofar as I've seen is essentially talking to God. Then if what you want they want is provided, they thank God. If it doesn't, they say he works in mysterious ways, but still totally listens and cares and loves them. I've a similar view on prayer, only I allow for the possibility (and, indeed, it's a general tenet of my beliefs) that the gods just don't give as much of a fuck about us as people like to think.

 

If there is a God and he revealed himself, many would choose to bend the knee to him. I, secure in my knowledge that the god the Bible (and Christians in general) describes seems like a massively self-centered tyrannical douche, would spit at him and demand he justify his constant BS.

 

And if that scenario came and everyone acted good just to get into the pearly gates...So? If he's GOD, he can tell who's legitimately good and who's just after a free ticket.

 

 

Also, in that scenario, there is no free will.

 

If God exists and is omniscient, he sees all that ever will be and thus all eternity is bound to predestination. If it were not so bound, he could not see it. And even without omniscience, that god's existence denies free will. If he exists, and those who do wrong in his eyes are damned, then their will is not free but coerced. It's equivalent to robbing a man at gunpoint. Yes, he technically has the freedom to choose a bullet to the head over handing over his wallet, but who the hell wants a bullet to the head?

 

I'd also ask him why, if he created us, did he create that one little spot on my back that I can never scratch. That's just shoddy workmanship.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2013 by Xanatos

[NostalgicPony 310]

I'm actually curious to see a Protestant rebuttal of John's Catholic rhetoric about the Bible intending to be of the Catholic Church's as well as the follow up on how Catholicism accepts the Big Bang Theory as well as other scientific stances.

 

(No productive post here, just a suggestion since this is the debate pit).

[John 793]

"And you can't put the existence of a god of any sort into a "percent chance."  It exists or it doesn't."

Why can't I do that? I've analyzed the world in which I live, read the Bible, and said, "There's no way the Bible is a true story."I haven't ruled out the possibility of some god I've never heard of existing. I don't understand why that's wrong of me to do.

 

Watch and understand the video I posted earlier for the 10th time now.  Reading the entire Bible cover to cover with a literalistic approach to each section is not a good method for interpreting its vastly different sections.

 

That's not wrong of you to do.  Its wrong of you to assume that the God I believe in is a god deduced by taking poems, legends and saga from the Bible literally.  Then for you to make a generalization that all Christians believe in the same shit is wrong.

 

 

It means all people. The Bible was meant to be spread, its wisdom shared. It followed that for any who were aware of its word, that bowing before any other god or idol was strictly prohibited. There are those untouched by the word, and perhaps they are forgiven. However, for people like me, who has seen the word of God and went against it, there is no excuse. I have still broken the first two-three commandments simply by rejecting his existence. He would still see that I rot in hell.

 

Yes, he does mean all people.  And no you wouldn't because it is not unreasonable to assume (in modern times) that there may not be a God.  Just because you know about the first two/three commandments doesn't mean you're not ignorant of their significance.

Listen to the Pope's speech again.  You are interpreting what he said in a more complicated way that has more assumptions.

I'm actually curious to see a Protestant rebuttal of John's Catholic rhetoric about the Bible intending to be of the Catholic Church's as well as the follow up on how Catholicism accepts the Big Bang Theory as well as other scientific stances.

 

(No productive post here, just a suggestion since this is the debate pit).

 

"[Theistic evolutionism] is the official position of the Catholic church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, according to which God created, evolution occurred, human beings may indeed have been descended from more primitive forms, and the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul"^{[3]  -Wikipedia}

 

Also, according to Wikipedia, the Church Accepted the "Big Bang Theory" just a few years after it's discovery.

 

We don't deny science, and many of us are in science related fields.  I study science, so I don't understand why there's this widespread misconception that we hate anything that has to do with science.  It's those silly evangelical protestants that give us a bad image with their phobia of discovery.  :/

Edited July 22, 2013 by John

[Sky Warden 2,243]

Even though I'm getting sick of religion debate, I will jump in for a while and say that @@John has a strong point. I think the reason why people misunderstand and despise religions so much is because they interpret everything written in 'holy' books literally. The Bible, Quran, or other religion books are written with art. They're pieces of literature and they're decorated with figurative languages here and there. If you take metaphors literally, you will say that those words are bullshit, of course, but they actually aren't. You need to analyze and read them carefully to get the true meaning.

 

If you read "horned demons," for example, and translate it literally, you will say that it's a total bullshit and insane fantasy. The phrase itself is a metaphor. It can mean "horrible persons" or whatever. That's why the term "Science VS Religion" always makes me laugh. You battle IQ and SQ, but you forget the last one, EQ.

 

Religions are simply guides on how to live as a good people, and their guide books are written with art.

 

P.S. I'm not a Christian nor is a Catholic.

[GottlosMann 221]

 

Watch and understand the video I posted earlier for the 10th time now.  Reading the entire Bible cover to cover with a literalistic approach to each section is not a good method for interpreting its vastly different sections.

 

That's not wrong of you to do.  Its wrong of you to assume that the God I believe in is a god deduced by taking poems, legends and saga from the Bible literally.  Then for you to make a generalization that all Christians believe in the same shit is wrong.

Why wouldn't God be straightforward with us? 

 

"Its wrong of you to assume that the God I believe in is a god deduced by taking poems, legends and saga from the Bible literally."

So basically, it's wrong to not believe in your god. That's pretty much how most people come to the conclusion I have. If you don't believe what the Bible says, why even call yourself a Christian?

 

"Then for you to make a generalization that all Christians believe in the same shit is wrong."

That never happened. Stop trying to build a straw man. 

[Durandal 623]

Yes, he does mean all people.  And no you wouldn't because it is not unreasonable to assume (in modern times) that there may not be a God.  Just because you know about the first two/three commandments doesn't mean you're not ignorant of their significance.

Listen to the Pope's speech again.  You are interpreting what he said in a more complicated way that has more assumptions.

 

By this logic, it is unnecessary to believe in God to be a Christian - you must only strive to do good. I take no issue with this stance, but it seems off somehow. I can't put my finger on it.

 

In other words, I must concede this point. If we are to take the Bible's first three commandments figuratively, and assume that God meant to say 'believe in what is most reasonable', then perhaps we are all permitted into heaven.

 

However, I will not concede that he has shot himself in the foot, because even if that is not what he meant, he has allowed its interpretation to become so muddled that this could be perceived. If he truly wanted man to act as he would, to strive for good without incentive, he would have clarified this point. In fact, if you desire to see your subjects act without restraint, why notify them of your existence, or heaven's, at all? The act of revealing yourself itself botches results.

 

If he wanted cold, hard data, he would not interfere.

 

"Its wrong of you to assume that the God I believe in is a god deduced by taking poems, legends and saga from the Bible literally."

So basically, it's wrong to not believe in your god. That's pretty much how most people come to the conclusion I have. If you don't believe what the Bible says, why even call yourself a Christian?

 

You do realize he said taking the Bible literally, not disregarding it? And when did he say it's wrong to not believe in his god? He said it's wrong to assume he believes in his, personal God based on a literalistic approach in the Bible. You're putting words in his mouth.

 

 

 

Yes, but the book (The full Bible) was originally meant for the catholic religion, and thus it would seem to be a wise decision to use the Catholic interpretation of the Bible with respect to the Bible itself.

 

You sure? If memory serves, Christianity as a faith predates the Church, and again, if memory serves, not made with the Church in mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how exactly does that give the Church absolute authority on what interpretations are correct?

 

And honestly, I feel like this viewpoint lacks faith in humanity. Why can't one draw his own conclusions? Why are other sects invalid? Surely if it is meant to be interpreted, then it is meant to be interpreted in more ways than one.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Durandal

[Fhaolan 4,483]

I was raised Protestant (meaning my folks took me to a variety of the Protestant churches, allowing me to make my own decisions). My dad is Methodist, and my mum is Anglican.

 

I ended up Agnostic though, as I've studied a variety of different religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, Paganism, etc. and came to the conclusion that all of them have a kernel of truth that works for them, but the likelihood of any one of them being 100% right is pretty low.

[--Thunder Bolt-- 534]

I'm actually curious to see a Protestant rebuttal of John's Catholic rhetoric about the Bible intending to be of the Catholic Church's as well as the follow up on how Catholicism accepts the Big Bang Theory as well as other scientific stances.

 

(No productive post here, just a suggestion since this is the debate pit).

 

John is right.  The collection of books we call "the Bible" is a creature of the Catholic Church, not the other way around.  The four Gospels in the Bible were selected out of a pool of over 30 attributed to different early Christian sources (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc..) and offering different perspectives from one another.  There were also dozens of Epistles and Apocalypses and other books of Christian teaching (e.g. the Didache) that were revered as "Scripture" in Christian communities but ultimately did not "make the cut" when councils of high-ranking prelates under the auspices of a series of late Roman Emperors hammered the diverse versions of Christianity into a single, official, State-supported church.  Hence the "Roman" in Roman Catholic Church.  Their basis for doing this is the concept of Apostolic Succession: that the priests, Cardinals, and Popes of the Catholic Church represent the legitimate tradition of priestly succession passed down from Jesus and the Apostles, with Peter as the first Pope.

 

Protestants reject all of this, saying it is an example of what Jesus is portrayed condemning in Mark 7:8: “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”  For them, the "commandment of God" is the Bible.  The problem for Protestants is, it's "tradition of men" all the way down.  "The Bible" did not descend from Heaven on a beam of light to a soundtrack of angelic choirs.  Its books were all written by men, copied, re-copied, and re-re-copied by men by hand (and not without error--see the work of Bart Ehrman), translated, re-translated, and re-re-translated by men, to produce the selection of modern-language Bibles we have today.  Furthermore, even Protestants (especially the better-educated among them) rely on other materials like commentaries, study guides, lexicons, concordances, and so on in order to do things like understand the cultural context of a Biblical text, or the ancient idioms being used, or the shades of meaning of the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew words of the text.  Yet, none of those reference works can claim Divine inspiration and infallibility.  More "traditions of men."

 

So, the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone") has the effect of sawing off the limb the Protestants are sitting on.  If a Protestant rejects the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church with regard to interpreting "the Bible," why do they not also reject its authority when it comes to the canonization of "Scripture?"  Why can't a Protestant or Protestant church decide to accept the Gospel of Mary Magdalene as "Holy Scripture" and toss out the Book of Jude or Revelation?  "The Bible" simply cannot fulfill its appointed role as "the paper Pope of Protestantism."

 

On the other hand, once it is admitted that "the Bible" is a product of human authorship, human compilation, and human tradition, why should Catholic (and arguably, Eastern Orthodox) prelates be privileged as the legitimate heirs of Jesus and the Apostles, when their sources for what "Jesus and the Apostles" are supposed to have said, done, and stood for, are the very texts they are "canonizing" as "Scripture?"  Furthermore, the Protestants have a point: the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is repeatedly and consistently set in opposition to the very sort of wealthy, politically powerful, State-backed priestly establishment that the Catholic Church represented (outside of its monastic and ascetic orders) from its establishment as "the" Church by the Roman Empire until the time of the Protestant Reformation and for some time afterwards.  Why should we accept Catholic claims to spiritual authority, when they have their foundation in the merger of Christianity and Roman Imperial government that took place following Emperor Constantine's (somewhat dubious) conversion?

 

And so, Christians are left without any firm basis on which to establish any claims of "orthodoxy" for any particular version of Christianity, or "heresy" for their rivals.  From the earliest known Christian writings (the authentic epistles of Paul) we can see that Christianity (it might be more accurate to call it "Christianities") was theologically diverse from its beginnings.  In Galatians, Paul writes a fierce polemic against other Christians who believed that it was necessary for Gentile Christians to become circumcised and obey the commandments of the Torah.  His other epistles, and the rest of the corpus of early Christian writings spend far more words arguing against other "Christians" and Jews (especially prior to Christianity's formal split from Judaism) than against Gentile Paganism or atheism. 

 

One thing all Christians do seem to agree on: they can't gather all the leaders of the various sects and denominations together in a room, pray, and have any expectation that Jesus himself could or would straighten everyone out to the satisfaction of all.  Likewise for all the other gods and goddesses of all the other religions humans have ever professed to believe in.  Instead, all claims to knowledge of a One, True Religion and a One, True Priesthood and/or Holy Book(s) come out of the mouths or pens of plain old, ordinary human beings (usually men) who often stand to gain a great deal of wealth, power, and status if their claims are accepted. 

[John 793]

John is right.  The collection of books we call "the Bible" is a creature of the Catholic Church, not the other way around.  The four Gospels in the Bible were selected out of a pool of over 30 attributed to different early Christian sources (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc..) and offering different perspectives from one another.  There were also dozens of Epistles and Apocalypses and other books of Christian teaching (e.g. the Didache) that were revered as "Scripture" in Christian communities but ultimately did not "make the cut" when councils of high-ranking prelates under the auspices of a series of late Roman Emperors hammered the diverse versions of Christianity into a single, official, State-supported church.  Hence the "Roman" in Roman Catholic Church.  Their basis for doing this is the concept of Apostolic Succession: that the priests, Cardinals, and Popes of the Catholic Church represent the legitimate tradition of priestly succession passed down from Jesus and the Apostles, with Peter as the first Pope.

 

Protestants reject all of this, saying it is an example of what Jesus is portrayed condemning in Mark 7:8: “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”  For them, the "commandment of God" is the Bible.  The problem for Protestants is, it's "tradition of men" all the way down.  "The Bible" did not descend from Heaven on a beam of light to a soundtrack of angelic choirs.  Its books were all written by men, copied, re-copied, and re-re-copied by men by hand (and not without error--see the work of Bart Ehrman), translated, re-translated, and re-re-translated by men, to produce the selection of modern-language Bibles we have today.  Furthermore, even Protestants (especially the better-educated among them) rely on other materials like commentaries, study guides, lexicons, concordances, and so on in order to do things like understand the cultural context of a Biblical text, or the ancient idioms being used, or the shades of meaning of the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew words of the text.  Yet, none of those reference works can claim Divine inspiration and infallibility.  More "traditions of men."

 

So, the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone") has the effect of sawing off the limb the Protestants are sitting on.  If a Protestant rejects the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church with regard to interpreting "the Bible," why do they not also reject its authority when it comes to the canonization of "Scripture?"  Why can't a Protestant or Protestant church decide to accept the Gospel of Mary Magdalene as "Holy Scripture" and toss out the Book of Jude or Revelation?  "The Bible" simply cannot fulfill its appointed role as "the paper Pope of Protestantism."

 

On the other hand, once it is admitted that "the Bible" is a product of human authorship, human compilation, and human tradition, why should Catholic (and arguably, Eastern Orthodox) prelates be privileged as the legitimate heirs of Jesus and the Apostles, when their sources for what "Jesus and the Apostles" are supposed to have said, done, and stood for, are the very texts they are "canonizing" as "Scripture?"  Furthermore, the Protestants have a point: the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is repeatedly and consistently set in opposition to the very sort of wealthy, politically powerful, State-backed priestly establishment that the Catholic Church represented (outside of its monastic and ascetic orders) from its establishment as "the" Church by the Roman Empire until the time of the Protestant Reformation and for some time afterwards.  Why should we accept Catholic claims to spiritual authority, when they have their foundation in the merger of Christianity and Roman Imperial government that took place following Emperor Constantine's (somewhat dubious) conversion?

 

And so, Christians are left without any firm basis on which to establish any claims of "orthodoxy" for any particular version of Christianity, or "heresy" for their rivals.  From the earliest known Christian writings (the authentic epistles of Paul) we can see that Christianity (it might be more accurate to call it "Christianities") was theologically diverse from its beginnings.  In Galatians, Paul writes a fierce polemic against other Christians who believed that it was necessary for Gentile Christians to become circumcised and obey the commandments of the Torah.  His other epistles, and the rest of the corpus of early Christian writings spend far more words arguing against other "Christians" and Jews (especially prior to Christianity's formal split from Judaism) than against Gentile Paganism or atheism. 

 

One thing all Christians do seem to agree on: they can't gather all the leaders of the various sects and denominations together in a room, pray, and have any expectation that Jesus himself could or would straighten everyone out to the satisfaction of all.  Likewise for all the other gods and goddesses of all the other religions humans have ever professed to believe in. 

 

Yes.  This was a pretty good post in terms of content and analytically criticizing Christianity for its disorganization throughout history.  Keep in mind, however, that just because more than one section of something exist doesn't mean that all of those sections are then false.  The main reason that I trust Catholicism to be canon is because it was actually started by Jesus himself.  Jesus basically told peter to go to Rome and create the church (making peter the first pope).  In fact, peter was so convinced by Jesus that he chose to die a horrible death upside down on a cross.  (Historically documented)  I don't think Peter wanted "power" or mass influence if it meant taking his own life.

 

 

 Instead, all claims to knowledge of a One, True Religion and a One, True Priesthood and/or Holy Book(s) which come out of the mouths or pens of plain old, ordinary human beings (usually men) who often stand to gain a great deal of wealth, power, and status if their claims are accepted. 

 

This is a huge generalization.  I don't think that the writers of many sections of the Bible we're the power hungry bastards you make them out to be in this comment.  I don't see, looking at the accounts of Jesus from the apostles, anything they really had to gain in life from testifying to his life and divinity.   In fact, most of them had much more to lose than gain.  Many of them died horrible deaths.  Can't you just accept that maybe there were people who actually believed that Jesus was the sun of God instead of immediately counting them out as selfish unjustified ass holes who want nothing but their own personal gain?

Why wouldn't God be straightforward with us? 

 

Because God didn't write the Bible.  Man did in an attempt to interpret what God wanted.

You sure? If memory serves, Christianity as a faith predates the Church

 

This is debatable, however I would argue that because Jesus told peter to start the Church, it was as if Jesus started the Catholic church himself.  Its a question of when the Church started;  when peter got his orders or when the church began to erupt through Rome.

Edited July 22, 2013 by John

[Galen 1,354]

 

 

Yes. This was a pretty good post in terms of content and analytically criticizing Christianity for its disorganization throughout history. Keep in mind, however, that just because more than one section of something exist doesn't mean that all of those sections are then false.

 

Yet you're saying all the other Christian sects are less credible than the Catholic Church. I wonder what people would be saying if it was another sect that had built the Vatican. To me, all sects believe in the same god. Heck, Judaism and Islam believe in the same god as well and are merely different interpretations of that god. No John, I'm not saying one is more credible than the other here. What I'm saying is why can't all these guys just get along.

 

 

 

This is a huge generalization. I don't think that the writers of many sections of the Bible we're the power hungry bastards you make them out to be in this comment. I don't see, looking at the accounts of Jesus from the apostles, anything they really had to gain in life from testifying to his life and divinity. In fact, most of them had much more to lose than gain. Many of them died horrible deaths. Can't you just accept that maybe there were people who actually believed that Jesus was the sun of God instead of immediately counting them out as selfish unjustified ass holes who want nothing but their own personal gain?

 

They had every reason to want power. By presenting a religion different from the ones the slaves of the Roman Empire's days knew, the apostles would be able to gain support from the disillusioned masses and eventually overthrow the Empire. Ultimately, they did manage to break free of their grasp and settle in the Holy Land which to this day is still an area of contention between Jews/Christians and Muslims, altho the west doesn't have religions oversight over the area and those Muslims who bring up the crusades are generally extremists.

 

 

 

Because God didn't write the Bible. Man did in an attempt to interpret what God wanted.

 

If god was straightforward, we'd have no need to make attempts at interpreting his word. An omnipotent and omniscient being would be able to lay down his word well enough for anyone to understand.

[MLPForums Phanact 1,374]

 

We don't deny science, and many of us are in science related fields.  I study science, so I don't understand why there's this widespread misconception that we hate anything that has to do with science.  It's those silly evangelical protestants that give us a bad image with their phobia of discovery.  :/

 

 

I agree with you on this. I think that a few bad apples from the christian tree have spoiled the rest of the bunch which is a shame really. Usually, arguing that science and religion are incompatible is an atheist's main argument and I like meeting people who are religious but also agree with major scientific theories.

 

As an atheist myself, I sometimes do like to argue for the side of religion (blame my catholic upbringing ), and my main argument is that if God is believed to be Omnipotent (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnibenevolent (all loving) then why can't a Christian or Jew or Muslim believe that God set in motion the events for not only Evolution but also The Big Bang or which ever origin of the universe theory you like to follow? Science and Religion can co-exist if we allow them to do so. I do remember a great quote but I can't think where I heard it and it is that "Religion is the why and Science is the how."

Edited July 22, 2013 by Kaz

[--Thunder Bolt-- 534]

 

 

Yes. This was a pretty good post in terms of content and analytically criticizing Christianity for its disorganization throughout history. Keep in mind, however, that just because more than one section of something exist doesn't mean that all of those sections are then false.

 

This is true, in a logical sense.  However, from the perspective of Bayesian probabilistic reasoning, it does lower the probability of any particular Christian sect having The Truth.  Here's how: First of all, the prior probability for any particular sect being the One, True Religion is already very low.  "Prior probability" is what we can estimate from general background knowledge, such as the multiplicity of mutually contradictory religions and sects, which provide existence proof that there are very many false ideas about "the Divine Realm," however defined.  Now let's move on to the consequent probabilities of Bayes' Theorem, which ask us to analyze the probability of the hypothesis [insert preferred Christian sect here] being true on the basis of the evidence we have, and on the basis of the evidence we would expect to have if the hypothesis is correct.  Christian thinkers have had 2,000 years to marshal enough evidence to convince one another of the validity of whichever Christianity is the One, True version, which doctrines are true (Jesus present in the Eucharist, y/n?  Arminian free will, or Calvinist predestination?  Everlasting torture [for whom, and for what?] in Hell, y/n?), and so forth.  They have manifestly failed.  This doesn't prove that all Christian sects are false, but it does show that none of them has sufficient evidence to convince the others.  Therefore, the evidence in favor of [preferred Christian sect] is at best insufficient to shift the prior probability in [preferred sect's] favor.

 

So now we move on to anticipated consequences.  If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible intelligent entity that wishes to communicate certain ideas to humanity, and if this entity desires that humans understand and accept a correct interpretation of these ideas, we can anticipate that such an entity would do an excellent job of achieving its ends.  It has unlimited means at its disposal, unlimited intelligence with which to conceive its communication strategy, and unlimited knowledge about the humans with which it seeks to communicate.  How could it possibly fail? 

 

On the other hand, if [insert preferred Christian sect here] is just another human-created belief system like all of the other sects and religions, we would anticipate that it would have the same lack of convincing evidence they have, the same sorts of historical foibles and present human failings in its leadership, the same apparent lack of superhuman guidance for its leadership and/or devout following, and so on.  In terms of evidence, it would look much like all the other religions.

 

Which set of anticipated consequences most closely resembles observed reality?

 

Now, a Christian could argue that the "ifs" in the first set of proposed anticipated consequences are not claims they're making.  Perhaps Yahweh is not omni-everything, and is muddling through, making mistakes, and learning just like we are, or perhaps he is no so much a person as a process of spiritual growth and realization (Process Theology).  Perhaps Yahweh doesn't want to produce a clear communication: he wants people to choose out of devotion and faith rather than understanding, or perhaps he has predestined what each person will "choose" an eon or two prior to the Big Bang, so fidelity of communication is irrelevant.  Or perhaps "he" is willing to wear whatever masks people need to see "him" don (including female goddess masks), in order for them to perceive some facet of "him"/"her" through the lens of their culture and times.  Or something else.

 

If a given religious viewpoint has some other set of anticipated consequences, and its adherents want to convince anyone not already in the fold, they should be able to specify consequences which would falsify their hypothesis if present (or if not present) to the satisfaction of people who don't share their viewpoint.  In other words, if people of differing viewpoints on religion or anything else want to actually find out who's most likely to be right, they should get together and agree on sets of anticipated consequences that would validate or falsify their respective belief systems, so everyone can consult reality to see who's correct.  If one crafts one's religion so that the things they expect to see in reality are the exact same things an atheist expects to see in reality, they've defined their religion out of the field of potential truth.   

 

 

 

The main reason that I trust Catholicism to be canon is because it was actually started by Jesus himself. Jesus basically told peter to go to Rome and create the church (making peter the first pope).

 

This is a bit of a stretch.  Jesus is portrayed¹ saying, "You are Peter [Greek petros, a movable stone], and on this rock [Greek petra, a large, solid rock formation] I will build my church [Greek ekklesia, a congregation; not necessarily implying cathedrals and enduring priestly institutions]."  This says nothing about going to Rome or being a Pope or being the first of a long line of Popes.  Protestants interpret the phrase "this rock" (petra) to refer to Peter's confession (his triply-repeated statement of love for Jesus that comes just prior to this passage), rather than to Peter the man.  As evidence, they can point to the Book of Acts, where there is a proto-"church council" in Jerusalem over the relationship of Gentiles to Jews and the Jewish law within Christianity, and the fact that it is James, not Peter, who hands down the ruling.  Protestants can also point to the Book of Galatians, where Paul says that he rebuked Cephas (usually interpreted as Peter's name in Aramaic) to his face over the issue of conforming to Jewish ritual when "men from James" showed up.  He does not seem to be treating him as a specially-anointed spiritual leader who stands head and shoulders above him.  Nor does Peter himself (assuming "Cephas" = "Peter" = the same "Peter" from the Gospel stories) seem to be acting as one, rather than deferring to James.

 

And we're back into the realm of interpretation, and the question of how much these particular sources should be trusted in the first place.

 

 

 

This is a huge generalization. I don't think that the writers of many sections of the Bible we're the power hungry bastards you make them out to be in this comment. I don't see, looking at the accounts of Jesus from the apostles, anything they really had to gain in life from testifying to his life and divinity. In fact, most of them had much more to lose than gain. Many of them died horrible deaths. Can't you just accept that maybe there were people who actually believed that Jesus was the sun of God instead of immediately counting them out as selfish unjustified ass holes who want nothing but their own personal gain?

 

First of all, the key word in the part of my post you're referencing is "often," i.e. not every single person.  Furthermore, I was referring more to the people in later periods who were in a position to "canonize" the various texts as "Scripture" and order that the texts they did not canonize be destroyed.  In most cases we do not even know who the authors of the various Biblical texts were, much less have access to their motivations.  History is chock full of people who deeply and sincerely believe in their religions to the point of being willing to die for them (Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, Buddhist monks who immolate themselves in protest against various injustices, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc.).  There is also no shortage of cases where a mystic or ethical teacher attracts followers who later create a religion or ideology the teacher themselves would not recognize as their own.

 

If someone writes a text which they say is "divine revelation" (and we have no assurance that all or most Biblical authors even intended to do this) or claims that ancient texts written by other people are "divine revelation" but that they (the person) just happen to be the one with the correct interpretation, and make your check payable to...well, shouldn't people be skeptical?

 

As an atheist myself, I sometimes do like to argue for the side of religion (blame my catholic upbringing ), and my main argument is that if God is believed to be Omnipotent (all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnibenevolent (all loving) then why can't a Christian or Jew or Muslim believe that God set in motion the events for not only Evolution but also The Big Bang or which ever origin of the universe theory you like to follow? Science and Religion can co-exist if we allow them to do so. I do remember a great quote but I can't think where I heard it and it is that "Religion is the why and Science is the how."

 

One problem I have with this as a hypothesis is that if the deity's purpose in creating the Cosmos was to get humans, the Cosmic "big history" revealed to us by science is an inconceivably inefficient and wasteful way to go about it.  First, Yahweh would have to wait around for 14 billion years for the humans to show up.  Then, there's a hundred thousand years or so in which modern humans exist, but Heaven watches with folded arms while they live, struggle, suffer, and die in a world of inexplicable natural forces, diseases, and disasters before deciding about 3,000 years ago, that now is the time to get involved--in an isolated desert backwater of the world, by tinkering with a tiny assemblage of barbarian tribes in the hinterland of the Levant, far away from the great centers of literate civilization in India, China, Egypt or Mesopotamia.

 

If an omnimax deity wanted to create a Cosmos as a habitat for humans so it can interact with them, it could surely find some much more effective, efficient, and elegant way to do so, whether in seven days or an instant of Planck time.  Form follows function.  Waste is an indicator of poor design, limited ability, or both.

 

On the other hand, we can't rule out the idea of a Deity or Deities (or "super-advanced Aliens," if you prefer) triggering a Big Bang and "fine-tuning" a certain set of cosmological constants for some purpose that has nothing to do with the evolution of humans.  We could be like bacteria on one of the doorknobs in the Large Hadron Collider telling each other, "Hey!  This place has conditions of temperature, pressure, atmospheric content and available food that are just right for bacterial life!  Therefore, the Great Paramecium must have built this place just for us!" 

 

 

NOTE:

 

1. You will notice that I tend to use phraseology like "Jesus is portrayed saying/doing" or "as portrayed in the Gospels" and the like instead of "Jesus said/did."  This is because, for various reasons that are probably outside the scope of this post or thread, I think that that Jesus was most likely not a historical man who started Christianity.  I think he was originally viewed by the earliest believers as a wholly spiritual divine intermediary between the divine and human realms, a "divine man" conceived in the framework of the Mystery Schools, more like Osiris or Mithras than, say, Socrates or Diogenes.  The closest contemporary analogy would be a "channeled entity" like Ramtha or Seth or the "Jesus" who putatively dictated A Course in Miracles.  This is not a mainstream position, but in this case I do not think the mainstream is correct.  My idiosyncratic phraseology in this post is intended for clarity: I do not want to convey an inaccurate impression that I think that "Jesus said" this or that, when I think he probably didn't.