List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

Apocrypha changes nothing. Everyone (even the Christians who use it) recognize it as not the same as canonical books of the Bible. A look at the history of it, the manner in which Jerome and other early translator included with their translations of Scripture but not as Scripture only as other "good writings" as well as the exclusion of Apocrypha from lists of canonical books in the early church, not even to mention the contents of the Apocrypha, which I agree are not entirely harmonious with the Bible.

As far as the 99% commonality--I have studied the entirety of the Gospels in Greek and a majority of the Epistles in Greek, my studies in Hebrew are not as extensive, but I would estimate I have read 30-60% of the Old Testament in the original. I have found maybe 2 cases where the manuscript evidence was not clearly in favor of a specific reading of the original and where the difference changed the meaning of the passage (99% of differences are 1 letter, a past tense or present tense, the word 'said' vs the word 'speak' or other minuscule things that in a less important document would be totally ignored). Even in these cases, where the meaning of the specific passage could be changed, the unified teaching of Scripture was not affected by either possible text.

Secular work on the Bible usually has an axe to grind. But usually the difference isn't the translation of the text itself but rather the idea that there is a different, older text that we don't have that we have to get at through cutting and pasting the existing text. If I have missed your point, please provide specifics and I will be happy to respond to them.

Also, I followed your link. Is your suggestion simply to engage in discussion on that forum or was there a specific thread you felt would benefit me?

Bravo, togre. I don't read those languages, so I'm stuck reading other commentators, but what I've read verifies what you say. The number of extant NT texts in the original languages is exceeding large (either 1500 or 5500 - not near my source) and covering a short length of time (something like 50-100 years); whereas something like The Odyssey has far fewer texts over a much longer span of time. The larger the number over the shorter time span the more accurately a text can be checked and verified. As well, scholars have indicated that the texts agree 99.5% of the time, and the areas that do not agree have zero effect on the actual theology (i.e. minor variants in spelling, etc).

The OT is in just as good a shape: the rules for translating texts are exceedingly strict in the Jewish community - and the Dead Sea scrolls confirmed that the OT is also extremely accurate in its transmission through the centuries.

Secular scholars definitely have an agenda and axe to grind when it comes to criticizing the Bible - but it's cohesion and integrity stand up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Apocrypha changes nothing. Everyone (even the Christians who use it) recognize it as not the same as canonical books of the Bible.

---

Don't the Orthodox and RC churches have differing treatment of Apocrypha? I'll gladly retract that if I'm wrong, but I'm operating on memory of many years ago when I looked into it myself.

In terms of the harmony with the rest of the bible, I've seen arguments for and against what you're saying, but I have no idea, having only read translations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Secular work on the Bible usually has an axe to grind.

---

And religious ones don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Also, I followed your link. Is your suggestion simply to engage in discussion on that forum or was there a specific thread you felt would benefit me?

---

You'd need to talk to some of the people there - start a thread. When it comes to translations, I can only go with what I'm told.

I've probably muddied the waters with the Apocrypha comment, but the main issue with the bible is not what it says in the original texts, or even which texts are used, but how it's interpreted and re-written for 21st century readers & audiences. Even whether it's taken literally or figuratively isn't agreed on by any kind of consensus that I can see. (in number of churches, because the biggest by far - the RCC - is not biblically literalist)

Christianity's views on the same book range from liberal Anglicanism - which several Anglican bishops agree comes under the broad heading of agnosticism - through the RCC to fundamental bible literalists who insist the earth is 6012 (or some equally-absurd number) of years old to Fred Phelps to Jehovah's Witnesses and everything inbetween.

It interests me that you feel there's great consensus on the book. That being so, why isn't that consensus apparent? Different sects teach entirely different things about identical passages. Even whether Jesus own ressurrection was corporeal or not doesn't have a consensus, which I find a little surprising, him being god and all.

That's the problem, not what Josephus was rumoured to have said in 36 AD, or whether the Jews were really slaves in Egypt. The past is long gone, but the way the bible is interpreted by various churches often bears no relation to other sects, today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

Apocrypha changes nothing. Everyone (even the Christians who use it) recognize it as not the same as canonical books of the Bible.

---

I'm confused here.. How does the apocrypha change nothing?? Of course it is not regarded in the same way as the canonical books of the bible.. but many versions of the bible contain different apocryphal texts... Secondly, some of the books Eastern Orthodox Christians accept as Canonical, Roman Catholics and Protestants consider to be Pseudepigraphical... and the apocrypha varies by branch as well.. so I am not sure how you qualify your above statement that everyone agrees on what is canonical and what is apocryphal in the Scriptures... that is a completely unfounded statement...

Second, the New Testament took quite some time to take the form it has taken today.. It wasn't even the first set of Christian scriptures to appear... That distinction would belong to Marcion's Canon from the supposed heretic and gnostic Marcion of Sinope... and he entirely rejected the old testament, claiming it was not in the slightest compatible with the teachings of Christ (and I must say I agree to an extent)... It was emerging Proto-Orthodoxy that took a position againts Marcion and the other developing gnostic Christian branches...

I don't feel like spending too much time on this but you have the Muratorian Canon, the Diatessaron (which came from the syrian church and was the first real proto-orthodox development of a canon), the canons of those famed Christian scholars Origen and Irenaeus... Irenaeus' argument for a 4 gospel canon included the statement that because the world they lived in was divided into 4 zones it only made sense that there were 4 gospels, no more, no less... how compelling :p Clement of Alexandria freely accepted apocryphal gospels as scripture.. he practically made use of an open canon... and so on and so forth (Eusebius, The Synod of Laodicea, Amphilochius, Jerome, Augustine), and this doesn't even mention the development of the Eastern Canon, The Pe****ta, the Armenian Canon, the East African canon... also it wasn't even until the protestant reformation that the Roman Catholic Church even really officially defined the biblical canon... and I have only barely touched upon it all... I took several courses on this in University as I find it quite interesting to see how this incredible work(for the bible really is quite incredible) was developed, how it was molded and shaped and transformed over the centuries into what is commonly accepted today...

So, even neglecting translation issues which I find to be a much smaller fish to fry, there are huge differences between branches of Christianity on what is accepted as Canonical and what is not, and there is an immensely long progression of changes to the New Testament throughout the history of Christianity,.,

There's the translation issue, and the text issue. The text of the Old Testament was pastiched from various texts, and oral components over many years. there is no doubt some sort of "textual corruption" from the original. In fact, various books have been discovered containing older variations or older versions of the texts. The definitive Hebrew only exists because of, I would argue, Jewish Scholarship insisting it exists. We can thank Rabbi Akiva for the whole Torah fencing, insisting it be studied in the original.

The new Testament is stranger. I don't think you can get any serious theologian or historian to agree that the apostles were actually written by people who knew Jesus. The simple proof is that they aren't written in Aramaic, rendering any claims of "original words" unlikely, as Aramaic was the tongue of the land of Judah at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

The new Testament is stranger. I don't think you can get any serious theologian or historian to agree that the apostles were actually written by people who knew Jesus. The simple proof is that they aren't written in Aramaic, rendering any claims of "original words" unlikely, as Aramaic was the tongue of the land of Judah at the time.

---

I'm not quite sure it's so simple as this. During the medieval time-period in Europe, for example, Latin was the language of the educated/clerical people, and the vernacular the language of the "peasant" class. King Edward III of England spoke French to his advisors, not English. The original writers need not use the language of those they write about - they merely need be accurate in their portrayal of events/ideas. The issue is not that we have "original words" in terms of Aramaic, but that the writers who are writing had first-hand knowledge of their topic. Language is not the definitive argument against apostolic authority in the gospels.

They didn't - trust me. They couldn't possibly have written it in that language, and no historian today of any credibility would agree that the Gospels were written by the historic figure, if the figures ever existed. There is proof against, yet no proof for.

On that notion, the question can go further, Jesus could not have spoken the words in Greek, therefore automatically you are not hearing the word of Jesus.

Either way though, this wasn't the medieval times. People spoke and wrote in Aramaic around the land of Judah, not Greek, unless they were Greek, which the Apostles were not, and neither was Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

They didn't - trust me. They couldn't possibly have written it in that language, and no historian today of any credibility would agree that the Gospels were written by the historic figure, if the figures ever existed. There is proof against, yet no proof for.

On that notion, the question can go further, Jesus could not have spoken the words in Greek, therefore automatically you are not hearing the word of Jesus.

Either way though, this wasn't the medieval times. People spoke and wrote in Aramaic around the land of Judah, not Greek, unless they were Greek, which the Apostles were not, and neither was Jesus.

---

1. If the Gospels were not written by those who either were a) apostles, or b) close associates of apostles, then the original apostles and their followers would have challenged those writings; although the Gospels did not contain the names of their writers, all of them were accepted very early on as the teachings of the apostles. The authorship of the Gospels is attested to by Irenaeus (AD 180) who was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna) who had personally been a disciple of John. Here's what Irenaeus says:

"Matthew published his Gospel among Hebrews in their own language,while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia" (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, second series, The Church History of Eusebius, by Eusebius [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004], 222.)

2. That Jesus' Aramaic words were recorded in another language does not do irreparable violence to them; if that were so, no information could be passed from one language to another at all. That, we know, is absurd. While translation alters everything to a degree, it is specifically poetry where translation does the most "violence" to meaning.

3. Since the Gospels were written as - essentially - evangelistic tools - it makes perfect sense that they would be written in languages suited to their audience; hence Matthew written in Hebrew (who was writting primarily to Jews) and Luke writing in Greek (his primary audience Greeks/gentiles). I see no problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellsapoppin

''accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.''


Don't know why, but this has always been the pattern regardless of the religion involved. In fact, I have had this same difficulty with a pundit on this forum as well for the same reason.

Why religious pundits fail to demonstrate some measure of humility and admit that they cannot prove their contentions is beyond all reason. In fact religions like the various Christian denominations and Islam all require humility among its adherents above everything else. But ultimately, that problem is between them and their god. Or so I suppose.

---

If that were all it would take to convince someone, I myself will admit that I cannot prove anything. Faith and proof are not very harmonious, because what you can prove doesn't require faith. I risk everything upon things I cannot prove. Why would I do this? You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

If that were all it would take to convince someone, I myself will admit that I cannot prove anything. Faith and proof are not very harmonious, because what you can prove doesn't require faith.

---

Now I remember what it is about you I like so much - honesty.

:D

I dunno whether you're familiar with Rowan Williams, but I am a huge fan of the man. When theologians can combine common sense, honesty and faith, the result is a pretty damn good argument in favour of religion on its own right.

I suspect you and Rowan are kindred spirits.

In the end, if religionistas would stick to that kind of sentiment, and this kind of sentiment, I doubt many atheists would attack religion at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

---

C S Lewis? Who was it said that?

I don't agree with this at all - it's just scare tactics. It suggests that a vacuum of ideology creates a blank page for other, worse ideology.

It might do that, just as worship can encourage religious mania, but it isn't necessarily the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Tell me, if someone is mentality retarded, that is, has an IQ of, lets say, 50. Does that mean in heaven he has the same IQ?

What if someone is Blind in the real life? Can he see in heaven?

What if I have a wife, and I die, and she remarries? Do I get to be with her in heaven, or the other guy?

What about age? Does a dead infant ever grow up in heaven?

The concept of heaven is a little vague. It logically makes no sense, and I think most of us get our idea of it in one way or another from Dante. But what of the real questions?
Is a crippled person crippled in heaven? Is a person in pain his whole life in pain in heaven?

The theological oneness offers no real explanation. The oblivion I will end up in sounds more reasonable.

But I guess you can pray for an afterlife, though I guess one you cannot really understand. I'd rather sleep in on Sundays.

---

awsesome, this.

"suppose for a second one of us could have created an ephemeral being, and that "he" (that one of us) could have told him (the ephemeral being): creature of mine, adore-me! the poor little animal then ventured some thoughtless flights, died at the end of the day and a necromancer said to him : pour a drop of your own blood and i'll ressurect you.
the man pricks himself - we would all do the same thing in his place - and he is ressurected. what will the creator do? - what "he" will do, i'll tell you - says a faithful fanatic. since the ephemeral being, in his first life, didnt have the cleverness or foolishness to adore "him", "he" would light an incredible bonfire and in it "he" will throw the ephemeral one, lamenting not being able to keep him alive in the midst of the flames, so that "he" could burn him eternally! - well, then, everyone will say, there isnt such furious madness that could be so cowardly or evil as this! - i beg you pardon, vulgar christians, the creator in question couldn't have existed, i agree; however, he does, in your imagination only, you who are so cowardly and cruel. this is your god, just as you explain it to me, and is of him that proudhon was a million times correct to profess: god is evil."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iphas_levi.jpg

Or one could take it from the other side, and take the Leopardi approach.

Leopardi writes in his Zibaldone on the Christian morality of the after life, and how it relates to the role of the mother. The mother, if she wants her children to be good Christians, and to go to the afterlife, naturally must want her Children to die quickly. Sickness becomes a blessing, as it enables her Children to die quickly, and therefore lose any chance of sinning, and not making the cut to heaven. Naturally she will wish them to die, but realizes they cannot kill themselves. When they die, naturally she must rejoice, as they are then in paradise. If they recover, she must be saddened to an extent, because they are offered a chance at sinning again.


In other words, once you dunk em in the water, hope they die.

Morality - yeah right. To what extent can we push this? If a man is having an affair, does it become a blessing to the man if the woman dies, thereby relieving him of his desire for sin? If someone is rich, are they naturally less sinful, because they have no desire for their poor person's status? To what extent can we pursue these questions? To what extent is Christian morality moral?

God may not be evil, but according to Christianity, Evil is Good, and man is Evil.

good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")

---

Can't argue with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")

---

Easily said. And what might the motivation be for such behaviors? To what benefit is it to "manufacture" "relative concepts" about "good" and "evil," "morals" and "sins"? To what end? Why bother? Are you saying that things like "don't steal," "don't lie," "don't sleep with your neighbor's wife," "give to charity," "take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned," "lay down your life for your fellow man," etc are "vague," "manufactured" guidelines for moral living that aren't fairly clear in their moral content? I get rather tired of the charge that the morality offered by religion is a manipulative tool. If the morality offered is completely self-serving to the religion and not humanity, you might have a case; but who in their right mind would challenge the value of these tenants? Which part of your reality thinks these things are negative in nature?

Honestly Redzepplin you do realize how ironic your quote in your signature is, simply because the Sun Rise is a mere optical illusion - it doesn't actually rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Honestly Redzepplin you do realize how ironic your quote in your signature is, simply because the Sun Rise is a mere optical illusion - it doesn't actually rise.

---

My friend, do you really want to get into a discussion of the accuracy of language and the conventions of language we use in daily communication? Really? Who in this world says "Honey, let's go watch the earth rotation this evening?"? How utterly romantic. Come on - do you really wish to split this kind of hair with me?

The obvious: The term "sun rise" is an convention we use to describe what we see - it's not meant to be a scientific term. Relative to our position on earth, the sun appears to rise (are we really having this discussion?) and it's a convention of our language to refer to it thusly. Technically, since the earth is revolving at roughly 1000 MPH, I'm never really "standing still" either - right?

As such - though it makes me sound like a humorless bore (which I suspect I am), I will contend that Lewis's usage is non-ironic.

Thanks for noticing...

I know, but it is ironic, being that science has wiped out our belief in the rising of the ssun (Eos). I just couldn't help but find that funny, as this optical illusion transferring over to his belief, interpreted in one way, makes the line making him look utterly quixotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I know, but it is ironic, being that science has wiped out our belief in the rising of the ssun (Eos). I just couldn't help but find that funny, as this optical illusion transferring over to his belief, interpreted in one way, makes the line making him look utterly quixotic.

---

All this simply means that you bypassed everything I said about language. Lewis's line is only ironic if he actually believes the "sun rises" as opposed to knowing that the phrase "sun rise" is a convention. Your point is only ironic because you've decided to split hairs on how our language conventions work.

Glad you got a laugh out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

good and evil and morals and sins are completely vague and relative concepts, manufactured and used by self-proclaimed leaders to gather and manipulate flocks according to their own view of "reality" (which could be translated "vain ambitions")

---

As far as I can tell the basis of morality is empathy. I know it's painful to be insulted, and so I don't insult- I know the pain of being pricked with a pin, so I don't want anyone else to be pricked either. Someone who's never been pricked doesn't know what the feeling is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Easily said. And what might the motivation be for such behaviors? To what benefit is it to "manufacture" "relative concepts" about "good" and "evil," "morals" and "sins"? To what end? Why bother? Are you saying that things like "don't steal," "don't lie," "don't sleep with your neighbor's wife," "give to charity," "take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned," "lay down your life for your fellow man," etc are "vague," "manufactured" guidelines for moral living that aren't fairly clear in their moral content? I get rather tired of the charge that the morality offered by religion is a manipulative tool. If the morality offered is completely self-serving to the religion and not humanity, you might have a case; but who in their right mind would challenge the value of these tenants? Which part of your reality thinks these things are negative in nature?

---

First of all, there are different degrees one can take in every single one of those commandments. From there, a leader can use many tactics to scare his "flock."
Three words: Pope Innocent III.
They may not be negative in nature, but I would agree that they are vague in nature.
I like you defence of religion, I think you do a very good job of it.

However, if I were to discredit Bible based religions I would have to start with the Bible. I believe I can discredit it a great deal. I would gladly elaborate on how much of the Old Testament is a derivative of the Mesopotamian religion which the Sumerians practiced before the Israelites even had a relgion.

Then, I would talk about the Council of Nicea in 400 CE. Which banned certain books from the Bible in order to make Christianity more appealing for the declaration that Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. This declaration was made sometime after Constantine died.

Next, I would explain why the Middle East needed a national identity. Historically before the coming of the Prophet Muhammed in 650 CE (I might be a little off here) they had been pushed around by whatever empire occupied the region, and needed a solid unifying religon. Isllam provided that. (I would go into more detail).

I couldn't forget to mention the 4th lateran council called into session in the 13th century by Pope Inncent III. Which I would highly urge you to wikipedia if nothing else. Here is where Christianity first got its notion of transubstantiation (the wine transforming into blood). And many other silly (I need to use this word in order for emphasis, I greatly apologize if anyone here is offended) technicalities. You must be aware that Innocent III was a mad man and was in desperate straits to sustain the power of the church. He did it through (yes it was him who delcared it) the Inquisition and the Albergincian Crusade.

I could go into even more detail. But I don't know if it calls for it.
I brought this to your attention because I know your sick of baseless attacks on Christianity specifically. I just thought I'd provide a historical backbone and as scholarly an argument I can put fourth.

Quote:

---

don't steal

---

Define theft. We steal inadvertently, through inequities in distribution of value. Wealth by merit is little different than taking what you can.

Quote:

---

don't lie

---

But we are often asked to lie when the truth hurts.

Quote:

---

don't sleep with your neighbor's wife

---

There is nothing moral in this, even if we ignore the misogyny. What if the neighbor likes to watch?

Quote:

---

give to charity

---

And allow the money to be used for what, exactly? The state should offer support for disadvantaged classes in professional and equitable ways, with the goal of bridging the social gap, not doing good deeds.

Quote:

---

take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned

---

In particular cases, such responses are natural, we would help those we care about, but generally... see previous point.

Quote:

---

lay down your life for your fellow man

---

...and he would do the same, not letting me sacrifice my life for his. Where does that lead? Coin flipping?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

Define theft. We steal inadvertently, through inequities in distribution of value. Wealth by merit is little different than taking what you can.

But we are often asked to lie when the truth hurts.

There is nothing moral in this, even if we ignore the misogyny. What if the neighbor likes to watch?

And allow the money to be used for what, exactly? The state should offer support for disadvantaged classes in professional and equitable ways, with the goal of bridging the social gap, not doing good deeds.

In particular cases, such responses are natural, we would help those we care about, but generally... see previous point.

...and he would do the same, not letting me sacrifice my life for his. Where does that lead? Coin flipping?

---

Do you just wish to argue for the sake of arguing? What exactly is your list of objections supposed to do? Suggest that the commands of scripture aren't good? That you can create exceptions only proves that exceptions exist - but they don't negate one bit the positive aspects of the scriptural injunctions to act in a way that benefits one's community - which all of these commands, obeyed, do. Could you please find a point worth protesting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Tell me, if someone is mentality retarded, that is, has an IQ of, lets say, 50. Does that mean in heaven he has the same IQ?

What if someone is Blind in the real life? Can he see in heaven?

What if I have a wife, and I die, and she remarries? Do I get to be with her in heaven, or the other guy?

What about age? Does a dead infant ever grow up in heaven?

The concept of heaven is a little vague. It logically makes no sense, and I think most of us get our idea of it in one way or another from Dante. But what of the real questions?
Is a crippled person crippled in heaven? Is a person in pain his whole life in pain in heaven?

The theological oneness offers no real explanation. The oblivion I will end up in sounds more reasonable.

But I guess you can pray for an afterlife, though I guess one you cannot really understand. I'd rather sleep in on Sundays.

---

Paradise or heaven has its different rules. We are judged by the deeds of heart, not by the color not by age. Hearts are the only means of judgement. Hearts who manage to see God here, will see Him there, if the Heart is blind here it will be blind there and so on.

As for marriage, everyone will be given the choice who to marry, you will not just bump into anyone.

Oblivion is not much more reasonable, because, you cannot bear the heat of a hot day, how will you ever bear the heat of hell, or of a volcano or of the sun that does not rise, but emerges or let me translate to you Quranically. In Arabic the sun(rise) is called shoroq and sun(set) means ghorob, and very very precisely that would be translate, the sun easts and the sun wests if I would change the east and west into verbs.

when the sun comes from the east then, it appears, and when it goes to the west in disappears, but still exists somewhere else.

THis was a very important point and you asserted to me how accurate Quranic terminolgy is.

Back to Paradise, it is the eternal final phase of our life. Before we came here we were in our mom's wombs where we lived another phase and had other characteristics as well, like swimming not breathing and so on. Before delivery we did not know how we would live with lungs and breathe and so on. But when we arrived we knew how it works.

THere are mysterious facts about heaven, but that is what it makes it very appealing. It is the place of ecstacy, and the utmost is that we will be meeting our Creator, and only and only then will we understand what everything was all about.

Quote:

---

...all of these commands, obeyed...

---

Thank you for making weltanschauung's point. Ask yourself if such a thing is possible and what it would imply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

Thank you for making weltanschauung's point. Ask yourself if such a thing is possible and what it would imply.

---

1. What point?
2. If what "thing" is possible?

Might you be a little bit more forthcoming with your points?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

1. What point?
2. If what "thing" is possible?

Might you be a little bit more forthcoming with your points?

---

I think he is asking, fairly enough, if these commandments can be obeyed. Without question, we all break many if not all of them on a daily basis. Refer to the Sermon on the Mount for how Jesus explained the way people break the adultery commandment all of the time. Ask yourself if you are doing all these things or simply endeavoring to do so. A hard check-up never hurt anyone who really has Faith. Honesty is better than anything when dealing with God and/or religion.

God Bless

Pen

Pendragon got a good part of it. You said scripture teachings would benefit societies if everyone obeys them, but that doesn't really happen. In some cases, I would say rightfully so, which underlines their relativity, in others not so much, but it happens because humans cannot stop themselves. Furthermore, in the light of your denial of the church being a manipulative tool promoting one's version of reality, it was rather ironic that you mentioned the necessity of enforcing said precepts for them to have positive effects. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

Pendragon got a good part of it. You said scripture teachings would benefit societies if everyone obeys them, but that doesn't really happen. In some cases, I would say rightfully so, which underlines their relativity, in others not so much, but it happens because humans cannot stop themselves. Furthermore, in the light of your denial of the church being a manipulative tool promoting one's version of reality, it was rather ironic that you mentioned the necessity of enforcing said precepts for them to have positive effects. ;)

---

If I tell you "Brush your teeth- it is good for you", then you might or might not brush your teeth... you only get the good benefit from brushing if you do brush, however. The same thing with the commandments. Of course you don't get the benefit of following the commandments if you don't follow them. Or am I missing something here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Easily said. And what might the motivation be for such behaviors? To what benefit is it to "manufacture" "relative concepts" about "good" and "evil," "morals" and "sins"? To what end? Why bother? Are you saying that things like "don't steal," "don't lie," "don't sleep with your neighbor's wife," "give to charity," "take care of the sick, the widowed, the orphaned," "lay down your life for your fellow man," etc are "vague," "manufactured" guidelines for moral living that aren't fairly clear in their moral content? I get rather tired of the charge that the morality offered by religion is a manipulative tool. If the morality offered is completely self-serving to the religion and not humanity, you might have a case; but who in their right mind would challenge the value of these tenants? Which part of your reality thinks these things are negative in nature?

---

well, i see it as this, man:
if i have to explain it to you, its simply because you will never get it.
the kings will always be kings, the slaves shall serve. and as long as there is a throne, there will be people fighting to sit on it and order everyone else around. all rules are arbitrary and manipulative.

i'll tell you this: rules are negative in nature simply because it denies the right of behaving as you wish, and giving your right to decide to third parties who will forever control your thoughts. this is not even a problem for the most part of humankind, since everyone simply dreads thinking for themselves.

Quote:

---

If I tell you "Brush your teeth- it is good for you", then you might or might not brush your teeth... you only get the good benefit from brushing if you do brush, however. The same thing with the commandments. Of course you don't get the benefit of following the commandments if you don't follow them. Or am I missing something here?

---

You are. Brushing teeth is individual practice with individual benefit. Scriptural laws are individual practice with (assumed) community benefit. Some individuals may be better off if they don't obey them, while others will have a direct interest in their application. We can argue in the same way that a dicatorship is good for the society, if everyone adheres to the tyrant's personality cult and no one makes choices that may potetially be repressed. Of course, that nonsensical.

Commandments on sexuality are particularly weak, because psychological consequences to sexual acts come from the involved parts' view on sexuality, not from the acts themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

You are. Brushing teeth is individual practice with individual benefit. Scriptural laws are individual practice with (assumed) community benefit. Some individuals may be better off if they don't obey them, while others will have a direct interest in their application. We can argue in the same way that a dicatorship is good for the society, if everyone adheres to the tyrant's personality cult and no one makes choices that may potetially be repressed. Of course, that nonsensical.

Commandments on sexuality are particularly weak, because psychological consequences to sexual acts come from the involved parts' view on sexuality, not from the acts themselves.

---

There is individual benefit to be gained from not stealing.

There is spiritual benefit to be gained from following some rules. And great individual benefit to be gained from things like not smoking. That was my take on the issue. Of course there's community benefit from some of these as well, but individual was my first gist of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I think he is asking, fairly enough, if these commandments can be obeyed. Without question, we all break many if not all of them on a daily basis. Refer to the Sermon on the Mount for how Jesus explained the way people break the adultery commandment all of the time. Ask yourself if you are doing all these things or simply endeavoring to do so. A hard check-up never hurt anyone who really has Faith. Honesty is better than anything when dealing with God and/or religion.

God Bless

Pen

---

Of course they can be obeyed - perhaps not consistently, but God does not ask us for what we cannot do - especially if we ask Him to help us do them. The question is whether or not we wish to obey them. The discussion wasn't how feasible the Bible's injunctions are - it's about questioning the moral value of the things the Bible commands us to do. They're all feasible because many people manage to follow them - not perfectly, but a willing heart is what pleases God - not perfect moral performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

Pendragon got a good part of it. You said scripture teachings would benefit societies if everyone obeys them, but that doesn't really happen. In some cases, I would say rightfully so, which underlines their relativity, in others not so much, but it happens because humans cannot stop themselves. Furthermore, in the light of your denial of the church being a manipulative tool promoting one's version of reality, it was rather ironic that you mentioned the necessity of enforcing said precepts for them to have positive effects. ;)

---

That all people wouldn't obey the scriptural guidelines doesn't negate their value - that's like saying if nobody wanted to eat vegetables that they wouldn't be healthy food. The thing has value whether or not people choose to think so.

You're shifting ground here; the assertion was made that churches merely attempt to "manipulate" the flock, but I asked if the moral precepts of the Bible are not worth following; now you've changed the position to say that the moral precepts aren't valid because people won't follow them. That's a different argument. How is it manipulation to tell people that behaving in "x" ways will benefit the world around them? If the statement is true, how is it manipulation?

If you think the church's message is just a manipulative tool, then tell me what it should be preaching that you would approve of.

I'm sorry - but I couldn't understand your third sentence above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

well, i see it as this, man:
if i have to explain it to you, its simply because you will never get it.

---

A stunningly arrogant statement - one that can only be made by one who assumes his/her clarity to be beyond question. Might you condescend to make yourself clear instead of assuming that you are - since there is a chance [if only a slight one] that you think you're clear and really aren't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

the kings will always be kings, the slaves shall serve. and as long as there is a throne, there will be people fighting to sit on it and order everyone else around. all rules are arbitrary and manipulative.

---

A cynical assertion that sounds poetic and visionary but is merely cynicism. All rules are not arbitrary. All societies the world around accept certain values (courage, loyalty, generosity, love) and reject others (murder, lying, cowardice, rape). Laws are only arbitrary if they are based upon nothing higher than human will.

Saying all rules are arbitrary simply means that no law has any meaning whatsoever. Sounds cooly nihilist, but essentially such statements themselves become meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

i'll tell you this: rules are negative in nature simply because it denies the right of behaving as you wish, and giving your right to decide to third parties who will forever control your thoughts. this is not even a problem for the most part of humankind, since everyone simply dreads thinking for themselves.

---

Believe as you wish; there is not much historical precedence to support the idea that living without guidelines, rules, or laws have benefitted humanity much. Societies/communities cannot function properly without rules and laws because unfettered freedom involves me stepping on others in the act of living out my freedom - the only way to guarantee the freedom of all is for all of us to limit our freedom enough so that others can live as freely as I without being oppressed by my use of freedom. That's basic political theory - something I'm sure you understand.

Quote:

---

That all people wouldn't obey the scriptural guidelines doesn't negate their value - that's like saying if nobody wanted to eat vegetables that they wouldn't be healthy food. The thing has value whether or not people choose to think so.

You're shifting ground here; the assertion was made that churches merely attempt to "manipulate" the flock, but I asked if the moral precepts of the Bible are not worth following; now you've changed the position to say that the moral precepts aren't valid because people won't follow them. That's a different argument. How is it manipulation to tell people that behaving in "x" ways will benefit the world around them? If the statement is true, how is it manipulation?

If you think the church's message is just a manipulative tool, then tell me what it should be preaching that you would approve of.

I'm sorry - but I couldn't understand your third sentence above.

---

Red, I think it's a mistake to believe societal rules are not arbitrary. You will forgive me my obsession for the subject of sexuality, but let's take this:

Quote:

---

don't sleep with your neighbor's wife

---

This is good advice. It prevents a situation of suffering, jealousy, conflict and family dissolution which is very wise. Maybe millenia ago the problem of unwanted bastards would have been more poignant, but not so much today. Now assume the scripture said something like:

Quote:

---

do not be jealous if your wife sleeps with another man

---

This precept, if obeyed, will bring similar benefits, and I would say is more mature because it invites reasoning with a problem rather than shying from it. The same with "Do not lie" - "Accept that everything is relative", and so on.

You say they will be good if everyone obeys them, but a seemingly contrary commandment can be just as helpful, again, if obeyed by the majority.

This notion of obedience brings forth the necessity of an institution that would make sure, through propaganda, force or any other means, that these laws are respected. Church would in most cases assume this role, hence it being called a tool of control. You deny the idea, but support it through your claims. That's the irony I was talking about in my nonsensical phrase.

Telling people "x is helpful" is very manipulative when you imply that non-x is destructive, which in some cases is simply not true or is a self-fulfilling theory. It is a lie to claim you hold truth about something relative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

Red, I think it's a mistake to believe societal rules are not arbitrary. You will forgive me my obsession for the subject of sexuality, but let's take this:[don't sleep with your neighbor's wife]

This is good advice. It prevents a situation of suffering, jealousy, conflict and family dissolution which is very wise. Maybe millenia ago the problem of unwanted bastards would have been more poignant, but not so much today. Now assume the scripture said something like: [do not be jealous if your wife sleeps with another man]

This precept, if obeyed, will bring similar benefits, and I would say is more mature because it invites reasoning with a problem rather than shying from it. The same with "Do not lie" - "Accept that everything is relative", and so on.

---

I don't follow this logic. There is a huge difference between having sex with my neighbor's wife and my being jealous of my wife having sex with my neighbor. Adultery is a violation of a relationship - pure and simple. If people were faithful those those they married, how would that be a negative thing? Telling me not to experience a reasonable emotion (jealousy) in response to a violation of a very intimate and personal relationship is indeed arbitrary and virtually meaningless. That would solve nothing - because the injunction to not "feel" something is very different from the command to not DO something. The Bible's restriction against adultery protects relationships - your suggestion merely seeks to change how we respond - but what if we're "wired" to respond that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

You say they will be good if everyone obeys them, but a seemingly contrary commandment can be just as helpful, again, if obeyed by the majority.

---

Example, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

This notion of obedience brings forth the necessity of an institution that would make sure, through propaganda, force or any other means, that these laws are respected. Church would in most cases assume this role, hence it being called a tool of control. You deny the idea, but support it through your claims. That's the irony I was talking about in my nonsensical phrase.

---

I'm sorry - I understand that people have big "bones of contention" with the church and that many people don't like being told what to do. What I don't understand is how the Bible's commands in terms of moral behavior are wrong. At their most basic level, the moral commands of the Bible protect relationship - that's what morality is ultimately about - protecting relationship. The Bible does not make salvation a result of moral behavior - churches that preach that are misleading and do not understand the New Testament. God encourages moral behavior because that behavior is reflective of His character - and believers are commanded to be like God in that they make moral choices. By acting in accordance with the character of God, the believer comes to better know Him - which is His primary desire - that we know Him. We are commanded to act morally to reflect God's character to the world. Sometimes we do so imperfectly, but this merely reinforces our humanity rather than God's perceived "shortcomings."

It is no more manipulative to tell people that moral behavior will make their lives and the lives of their community better than it is to tell smokers that smoking will cause cancer. How is it in the church's "selfish-self-interest" to tell people to give to the poor, respect your neighbor's marriage, don't take what's not yours, and tell the truth?

Moral behavior improves society - argue against that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

Telling people "x is helpful" is very manipulative when you imply that non-x is destructive, which in some cases is simply not true or is a self-fulfilling theory. It is a lie to claim you hold truth about something relative.

---

But adultery, lying, selfishness, stealing, gossip, etc ARE destructive. Come on - are you really going to take that position? How can you do so with a straight face? There may be legitimate gripes about how the church communicates its message, but how can you argue with the validty of moral behavior and the benefits it bestows upon a community?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petronius

You are. Brushing teeth is individual practice with individual benefit. Scriptural laws are individual practice with (assumed) community benefit.

---

How is that? Being a Christian is all about having a personal relationship with God--why else would I fetter myself to all these rules and regulations unless I really believed in them?

Quote:

---

Some individuals may be better off if they don't obey them, while others will have a direct interest in their application. We can argue in the same way that a dicatorship is good for the society, if everyone adheres to the tyrant's personality cult and no one makes choices that may potetially be repressed. Of course, that nonsensical.

---

How would they be better off if they don't obey them? If you are referring to Old Testament laws for sacrifice and the stuff inside the Temple, one of the reasons Jesus died was to make those obsolete. Other than that I do not see how not following scriptural laws can actually be good.

I concede your parallel to a dictatorship -- most Christians/religious people can be trusted to follow the principles of their beliefs, and yet it's not a dumb adherence to idiot rules here; we may be idealistic yet we believe in them and thus, we actually try to follow them from a sense of love, not necessity.

Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so. You're so closed minded - you don't know that polygamy has existed for thousands and thousands of years. Is it ok, lets say, for a man to have 4 wives? To have affairs? What about an open relationship? Is that less functional, or less moral than a closed one? The whole point of the law is the effect - as pointed out, the don't commit adultery is a relative law. As pointed out, if the law was changed, and you weren't supposed to get mad, then it wouldn't be a violation of the rules of the relationship anymore, and it would cease to be "immoral".

You are essentially equating everything to the "Morality" of scripture, yet you fail to realize half the commandments, if not more than half are silly and dated, and relative to the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Adultery isn't a violation of a relationship, if you don't think it so. You're so closed minded - you don't know that polygamy has existed for thousands and thousands of years. Is it ok, lets say, for a man to have 4 wives? To have affairs? What about an open relationship? Is that less functional, or less moral than a closed one? The whole point of the law is the effect - as pointed out, the don't commit adultery is a relative law. As pointed out, if the law was changed, and you weren't supposed to get mad, then it wouldn't be a violation of the rules of the relationship anymore, and it would cease to be "immoral".

You are essentially equating everything to the "Morality" of scripture, yet you fail to realize half the commandments, if not more than half are silly and dated, and relative to the case.

---

Yes, polygamy has existed for thousands of years. Why else would there be a commandment against it?

Furthermore, just because something wrong is being done openly and on a grand scale today means that the Bible is "silly," "dated," and "relative to the case?"

There isn't one! There is only one against women having more than one partner. The standard Christian doctrine used to condemn men marrying many women, actually comes from Saint Augustine, and from interpretations, and not from scripture. The Jewish Equivalent comes from the teachings of Gershom Ben Yehudah, in the 11th century. In other words, men can have more than one wife, but if a woman steps out of a relationship, according to scripture, she is to be stoned to death. Enjoy. Great morality. But it makes no difference - after that she is to rot in hell forever anyway.

By case, what I mean is, adultery is not necessarily bad. There is no general rule. You must go case by case. It is not unlawful, because people realized eventually that committing adultery has nothing to do with the law. The "immorality" of someone committing adultery then, can only be examined on a case by case basis - for instance, if the woman is beaten by her husband, and decides to have an affair, or if he is impotent, and she is a nymphomaniac, or some other such situation. A general rule of anything cannot be arrived at, simply because it is in one religion's scripture.

Quote:

---

I don't follow this logic. There is a huge difference between having sex with my neighbor's wife and my being jealous of my wife having sex with my neighbor. Adultery is a violation of a relationship - pure and simple. If people were faithful those those they married, how would that be a negative thing? Telling me not to experience a reasonable emotion (jealousy) in response to a violation of a very intimate and personal relationship is indeed arbitrary and virtually meaningless. That would solve nothing - because the injunction to not "feel" something is very different from the command to not DO something. The Bible's restriction against adultery protects relationships - your suggestion merely seeks to change how we respond - but what if we're "wired" to respond that way?

---

And we're also wired to be aroused and want to breed, regardless of social masquerades such as marriage. Why control one impulse and not the other? Jealousy is not a reasonable emotion. It's an ugly, bitter, harmful one. Much like hate and spite. What you don't seem to understand is that there would be no betrayal involved if sex outside marriage would be accepted by society and practiced in the open. You would know about it, not care about it or even delight in the idea. We are only jealous because we think we're etitled to.
Relationship is not a contract of ownership over one's body. It's a manifestation of trust. Can you explain to me how trust is broken if both parties agree to accept adultery?
Can you consider the situation when a man imerses himself in his career or some other activity after marriage, and becomes quite a different person from the attentive, lovingly obsessive guy he was before? If he feels safe with the rights of propriety given by the contract of marriage and starts to ignore his mate's needs so much that she is driven to seek love from another man, who truly betrayed the relationship's trust? No doubt the adulterous whore, nope?

Quote:

---

Example, please.

---

Utopian communism, of course. If all wealth is shared, there is no idea of private ownership, and everyone respects this precept, the concept of theft becomes utterly nonsensical.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry - I understand that people have big "bones of contention" with the church and that many people don't like being told what to do. What I don't understand is how the Bible's commands in terms of moral behavior are wrong. At their most basic level, the moral commands of the Bible protect relationship - that's what morality is ultimately about - protecting relationship. The Bible does not make salvation a result of moral behavior - churches that preach that are misleading and do not understand the New Testament. God encourages moral behavior because that behavior is reflective of His character - and believers are commanded to be like God in that they make moral choices. By acting in accordance with the character of God, the believer comes to better know Him - which is His primary desire - that we know Him. We are commanded to act morally to reflect God's character to the world. Sometimes we do so imperfectly, but this merely reinforces our humanity rather than God's perceived "shortcomings."

It is no more manipulative to tell people that moral behavior will make their lives and the lives of their community better than it is to tell smokers that smoking will cause cancer. How is it in the church's "selfish-self-interest" to tell people to give to the poor, respect your neighbor's marriage, don't take what's not yours, and tell the truth?

Moral behavior improves society - argue against that one.

---

Your problem is that you put God and your/my relationship with him to the forefront. I don't believe in God, and even if I did, the very idea that an entity more profound than our entire Universe would need to be pimped to us pathetic lifeforms by an organized institution and a dusty philosophy is at best amusing. If God truly existed, religion would be as absurd as the Church of Walking that preaches the word of Gravity.
As human-made philosophy, christianity becomes more interesting, and I can accept a great deal of wisdom and good intentions were, and still are, placed into it. But it is, after all, thousands of years old, and it is painfully obvious for some of us that we can do better.

How does being a moral authority help the church? Well, it gives its members acknowledgement (very treasured by humans, we all want to be right and be praised), respect, protection and means of survival for being nothing more than a billboard with principles.

Moral behavior can help, but it all depends how you define morals. Prejudice for example isn't moral. Ignorant, absolutist, "divine laws" that pretend us to obey and blame us if we're not happy with it are actually detrimental... they may not cause conflict, but will still prevent us from thinking through and finding better ways of life.

Quote:

---

But adultery, lying, selfishness, stealing, gossip, etc ARE destructive. Come on - are you really going to take that position? How can you do so with a straight face? There may be legitimate gripes about how the church communicates its message, but how can you argue with the validty of moral behavior and the benefits it bestows upon a community?

---

There is nothing more destructive than not thinking, and that's what you seem to expect people to do... just accept stuff that are "good for them". Are you saying that trying to shape morals that are more acceptant and less possesive is a bad thing?



Andave, see my points about sexuality. Also, if people are kind and naive, some oportunistic elements of the society will take advantage of that: people may seek charity although they could work, for example. Also, there are people like me who would not "lay their life for their fellow man" unless they truly cared for that life, which would put me in the situation of either dying for some random person or being considered a bad guy, which could hurt my feelings. ;)