Restoring My Beliefs

[Pako]

[1] As described in the Bible? No.

As I said, I'm unaware of any other evidence about the existence of an actual man named Jesus of Nazareth (or any corruption of such - as no-one can quite agree on the last part), so I can't comment on that part.



[2] Though one thing it does cast doubt on is whether the Bible is the word of God. The explanation you linked to has one author "improving upon" another, and a third influenced by the dramatic style of the time... The authors can't seem to agree on the story of the resurrection either. It automatically raises at least two questions to my mind. How can the Bible be trusted as a source of information when supposed witnesses cannot agree on two fundamental events, and what other "improvements" and external influences went on?



[3] Americans who believe they were kidnapped by aliens: 4 million.
Idiots who believe Loose Change: Innumerable



[4] No, it was just the wording that made me laugh, not your meaning. After all, wouldn't a truely humble person know that they could be corrupted easily (just as a truely modest person wouldn't proclaim to be the best at being modest)? That was all - just the wording.

[1] Would you like some references to read? C.S. Lewis wrote something interesting, "Mere Christianity" I believe is what it's called. You could also check this site that I just found while googling some questions. I hate to just plop in links but they seemed to note their sources in stead of just "believe it because I said so".

[2] Don't know what to tell you. If one question of doubt discounts the entire Bible to you, then you haven't done any research on the subject.

[3] You mean you don't believe in luck? Alright, first you don't believe in the Bible, now this? I am starting to get really disappointed in you.

[4] For sure. Someone once said, "Humility without guidance is ignorance, humility with guidance is wisdom".

 

[Duke]

[2] Don't know what to tell you. If one question of doubt discounts the entire Bible to you, then you haven't done any research on the subject.

At the risk of putting this in the wrong thread, one question of doubt is more than enough to discount the entire theory of Evolution - which never claims to be unquestionable - to an extremely large number of people.

Should it not work both ways?

 

[Famine]

[2] Don't know what to tell you. If one question of doubt discounts the entire Bible to you, then you haven't done any research on the subject.

The central tenet of Christianity is that Jesus died ("for our sins") and was resurrected.

The four contemporary accounts of these two events present three different stories for each.

If the alleged eyewitnesses cannot even agree on these central, fundamental events, what trust can you put in the other events they chronicle having taken place as they say? What trust can you put in the Bible as the infallible Word of God, when the three accounts cannot possibly all be true simultaneously?

 

[Pako]

At the risk of putting this in the wrong thread, one question of doubt is more than enough to discount the entire theory of Evolution - which never claims to be unquestionable - to an extremely large number of people.

Should it not work both ways?

I guess it depends on the question. If I doubted Christ's resurrection, then my entire belief system would unravel.

 

[Pako]

The central tenet of Christianity is that Jesus died ("for our sins") and was resurrected.

The four contemporary accounts of these two events present three different stories for each.

If the alleged eyewitnesses cannot even agree on these central, fundamental events, what trust can you put in the other events they chronicle having taken place as they say? What trust can you put in the Bible as the infallible Word of God, when the three accounts cannot possibly all be true simultaneously?

Are you still referring to the different quotes of Jesus right before he died? If so, why do you make this out to be fundamental? Fundamental to what, my salvation, Christ being crucified by the Romans, Christ raising from the dead, Christ performing miracles of healing and raising others from the dead? Or perhaps you are speaking of something else? I will see if I can provided a more reasonable explanation...for the differences in Christ's last words before he died.

 

[Famine]

The central tenet of Christianity is that Jesus died ("for our sins") and was resurrected.

The four contemporary accounts of these two events present three different stories for each.

If the alleged eyewitnesses cannot even agree on these central, fundamental events, what trust can you put in the other events they chronicle having taken place as they say? What trust can you put in the Bible as the infallible Word of God, when the three accounts cannot possibly all be true simultaneously?

Are you still referring to the different quotes of Jesus right before he died? If so, why do you make this out to be fundamental? Fundamental to what, my salvation, Christ being crucified by the Romans, Christ raising from the dead, Christ performing miracles of healing and raising others from the dead? Or perhaps you are speaking of something else? I will see if I can provided a more reasonable explanation...for the differences in Christ's last words before he died.

As I said, the four contemporary accounts of the two fundamentals to the whole of Christianity - Christ's death AND resurrection - give three conflicting stories for both events.

What evidence do you have for anything else you mention about Christ's life? These four contemporary accounts. Since they cannot be trusted on the death and resurrection of Christ, why are you able to trust them for anything else they cover?

 

[Pako]

As I said, the four contemporary accounts of the two fundamentals to the whole of Christianity - Christ's death AND resurrection - give three conflicting stories for both events.

What evidence do you have for anything else you mention about Christ's life? These four contemporary accounts. Since they cannot be trusted on the death and resurrection of Christ, why are you able to trust them for anything else they cover?

Thanks for being patient as I look for a better explanation. Just a little setup knowledge of the gospels:

There's obvious congruity between Mark and Matthew. Mark was the first
gospel written down after existing as oral tradition for a few years.
Matthew, we know, depended pretty heavily on Mark, as did Luke. About 75%
of Mark appears virtually verbatim in those other two gospels. There's also
a significant word-for-word overlap between Matthew and Luke that doesn't
appear at all in Mark, indicating a possible other source document which
Biblical scholars have designated the "Q" document (I have no idea what that
stands for.) Because of these similarities, Matthew/Mark/Luke are referred
to as the Synoptic (Greek for "to see together" or "to see the same way")
Gospels. John, on the other hand, shows no textual signs of overlap or
dependence upon the other gospels. His gospel is very different than the
others.

In Matthew and Mark, the time line would suggest that after Jesus had the sponge lifted to him his last words were a yell. While in John his last words were more sober and quite. The difference could be explained simply enough that John heard something that Mark didn't. Technically, Mark probably wasn't at the crucifixion at all, but depended on Peter's account of the event. Peter, if you are familiar with the story, was still estranged from Jesus at this point because of his denial that same morning. John on the other hand was summoned by Jesus on the cross. he came close enough for Jesus to speak to him "Take care of my mom....". Perhaps John could hear Jesus' dying breath when Peter, who stood at a greater distance, could not.

Here's what wiki has to say on the "Q" Document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus'_sayings_according_to_the_Christian_Bible

 

[Famine]

That's two versions taken care of. What about the third, in Luke, which has no similarity to either of the others? And the three versions of the resurrection?

All this, of course, leads to the obvious conclusion that the Bible was written by men acting on their eyewitness experiences, and not dictated through them by God. And it does rather beg the question that if they conflict over the central tenet of Christianity, what other events do they describe which didn't take place quite as they say?

 

[Pako]

I thought we were just talking about the three versus I listed prior in Matthew, Mark, and John. What specific other accounts are you talking about? Do you have list or a link that you would like to share as I am not familiar with what you're talking about.

 

[Famine]

Last words of Jesus:
Matthew (27:46)/Mark (15:34): Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani? (God, God, why have you forsaken me?)
John (19:30): It is finished.
Luke (23:46): Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.

The last two are interesting...
John (19:30): When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Luke (23:46): And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

In one he speaks "It is finished" and in another he cries out loud... A very distinct incongruity.

The resurrection...

Luke says that two men "in shining garments" (one presumes angels) appeared to those going to anoint the body, to tell them of the resurrection (24:4). According to John it was also two angels, but they appeared to Mary Magdalene, along with Jesus, later and not to the women who went to anoint the body (20:12). According to Mark it was a youth dressed in white (again inside the tomb, to the people going to anoint him) (16:5). According to Matthew it was a single angel, who rendered the Roman guards unconscious and spoke to Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" at the tomb (28:2).

So there's one or two angels, or a youth, at the tomb or later on, telling Mary Magdelene alone or some other people about the resurrection.


I should note that I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, or cure you of them in any way - just pointing out why, from my point of view, the Bible is nothing more than a storybook.

 

[Pako]

Yeah, not sure. I'll have to read into it. I'll let you know what I find out if I found out anything. One thing that should be noted and something that you have also referenced is "inspired by God" although true (maybe not to non-believers) but there are also summarizes of eye witness accounts as well, that although the event may be inspired by God, the documentation of the event is just that....documentation of an event as the writer saw it. You can see how these events can be 'different' in some details, but the end result is the same as they saw it. Let me use this real world example to show what I'm trying to say. Lets say there are two witnesses to a murder. A man got shot. Witness 1 saw a male shoot another male and run away down the street. Witness 2 say the same male as well as another shooter in the bushes also shoot the man and they ran the other way. There were actually two shooters. One witness saw just one, the other saw both shooters. The fact that really matters here is that a man was shot and killed and both witnesses can confirm that the victim did in fact get shot and died. For me, it could have been one angel, or ten angels.....it wasn't until Christ actually walked among the disciples after his resurrection and talked with them that they all truly believed what had happened. I will still see what I can find to address your questions as this has intrigued me as well....

 

[Danoff]

You can see how these events can be 'different' in some details, but the end result is the same as they saw it. Let me use this real world example to show what I'm trying to say. Lets say there are two witnesses to a murder. A man got shot. Witness 1 saw a male shoot another male and run away down the street. Witness 2 say the same male as well as another shooter in the bushes also shoot the man and they ran the other way. There were actually two shooters. One witness saw just one, the other saw both shooters. The fact that really matters here is that a man was shot and killed and both witnesses can confirm that the victim did in fact get shot and died. For me, it could have been one angel, or ten angels.....it wasn't until Christ actually walked among the disciples after his resurrection and talked with them that they all truly believed what had happened. I will still see what I can find to address your questions as this has intrigued me as well....

That's a bit of a misleading example considering that the event didn't change between the two witnesses, just the amount of the event observed. Both witnesses were right in your example. In the quotes Famine provided it isn't possible that both people were right. They're conflicting accounts.

The equivalent in your example would be witness number 1 saying the man was shot and silent, and witness number 2 saying the man was stabbed and screamed. There's no reconciliation, but in the end they agree that he died.

 

[Pako]

[1] That's a bit of a misleading example considering that the event didn't change between the two witnesses, just the amount of the event observed. Both witnesses were right in your example. In the quotes Famine provided it isn't possible that both people were right. They're conflicting accounts.

[2] The equivalent in your example would be witness number 1 saying the man was shot and silent, and witness number 2 saying the man was stabbed and screamed. There's no reconciliation, but in the end they agree that he died.

[1] According the the scriptures

a) Christ was Crucified and
b) Christ rose from the dead.​

They're not conflicting accounts.

[2] I would have to disagree. See point [1].

 

[Danoff]

[1] According the the scriptures

a) Christ was Crucified and
b) Christ rose from the dead.​

They're not conflicting accounts.

[2] I would have to disagree. See point [1].

um... see Famine's post? I don't understand how you can honsetly not see what I'm getting at.

 

[Pako]

um... see Famine's post? I don't understand how you can honsetly not see what I'm getting at.

I must be really getting slow in my old age....I guess I just don't catch on to things as I used to. In my example, it could have been a female in her 40's running away and not a young male in his 20's. Like I said, those details really don't matter. They are just personal observations of events, and in some cases...re-written accounts of someone else's observation of an account as in Mark and Luke's writings who relied heavily on Matthews writings. Some scholars think that perhaps Luke just didn't like was Matthew wrote so he 'altered' it. This raises additional questions and even concerns, if Luke is willing to 'alter' his writings to fit his opinion, then why would they allow his gospel into the Bible? The discrepancies where not material enough to omit, nor did they want to alter the integrity of the writings by 'editing' what was written. Not sure if there were some issues of Languages being used as some sites suggest that the dialect could be confused as Eli Eli or Elijah Elijah and that is why Luke explains such a different account. Because John was actually called up to speak with Christ while on the cross, his account is the most widely accepted perspective of "The final word" of Christ because he was actually close enough to hear him say, "Take care of my mom.....". I still have not found nor had time to look into the different perspectives of the appearances of the angels at the tomb of Christ.

 

[Duke]

I must be really getting slow in my old age...

[snip]

Some scholars think that perhaps Luke just didn't like was Matthew wrote so he 'altered' it. This raises additional questions and even concerns, if Luke is willing to 'alter' his writings to fit his opinion, then why would they allow his gospel into the Bible? The discrepancies where not material enough to omit, nor did they want to alter the integrity of the writings by 'editing' what was written. Not sure if there were some issues of Languages being used as some sites suggest that the dialect could be confused as Eli Eli or Elijah Elijah and that is why Luke explains such a different account.

Pako - see, this is precisely what we're getting at! Forest and trees, no disrespect intended.

How can the Bible be the infallible Word of God when there is so much in it that is entirely dependent upon who wrote it and when?

 

[Swift]

Pako - see, this is precisely what we're getting at! Forest and trees, no disrespect intended.

How can the Bible be the infallible Word of God when there is so much in it that is entirely dependent upon who wrote it and when?

The question is not whether it has a different perspective, the question is whether there are contradictory statements. That would make it false.

We get different perspectives on the same facts from science all time. It doesn't make them any less true.

 

[The Uncreated]

Afterwords, I did voice my concerns with her, and told her that man restore my beliefs. But not in Christianity, instead in Atheism. She said however, that there are different teachers, and I will be going back next Wednesday, and hopefully seeing if the views of that church have changed.
[/FONT]

Good thing you chose to get away from that nutcase. Next time any Christian offers you the idea that anyone goes to heaven, ask them to point to where this heaven is. If they point skyward, have them demonstrate to you where the rest of the world ends and heaven begins. That'll fix 'em.

Uncreated

 

[Swift]

Good thing you chose to get away from that nutcase. Next time any Christian offers you the idea that anyone goes to heaven, ask them to point to where this heaven is. If they point skyward, have them demonstrate to you where the rest of the world ends and heaven begins. That'll fix 'em.

Uncreated

The next time someone asks you to point to "life" the part of you that keeps you actually alive and they point inside. Ask them where does the flesh stops and the life begins. That'll fix em.

 

[Danoff]

The next time someone asks you to point to "life" the part of you that keeps you actually alive and they point inside. Ask them where does the flesh stops and the life begins. That'll fix em.

Uh, Swift? What are you getting at here?

 

[Swift]

Uh, Swift? What are you getting at here?

I'm just saying that there is no specific part of your body that is the life. You can't point to your heart and say, "that's where my life comes from". Because without blood it's useless. The same can be said for many of the major ograns. Since they all work together.

I was going to go to Genesis and explain the difference of heaven and earth, but I felt this way would make more sense to people that don't believe in God.

Basically I just reversed his analogy into something none spiritual.

 

[Danoff]

I'm just saying that there is no specific part of your body that is the life. You can't point to your heart and say, "that's where my life comes from". Because without blood it's useless. The same can be said for many of the major ograns. Since they all work together.

I was going to go to Genesis and explain the difference of heaven and earth, but I felt this way would make more sense to people that don't believe in God.

Basically I just reversed his analogy into something none spiritual.

I don't think it's really parallel to what Uncreated was saying. You're saying that most of your bodily organs are necessary to keep you alive. That's all fine and good and I think it helps bolster the evolutionary claim. But if you want me to point to the part of my body that I represents me best - that holds my sense of self - I'd point to my head. I can lose and arm, a leg, or even take some serious damage to internal organs and still be me as long as my brain isn't damaged.

But Uncreated's point, which was a fairly weak one, was that creationists tend to think of heaven as up and hell as down. He was pointing out that we know that's not the case - that space and planets are up, and molten rock is down. So he's basically just pointing out that we can't find, visit, and observe heaven while we're alive... which most creationists would agree with.

If a creationist thinks that heaven is up and hell is down, they need to stop for a moment and think about the origins of those thoughts. They came from a time when people didn't know what the inside of the earth looked like, or what happened on top of clouds. That's why you always see renaissance paintings of angels on top of clouds and demons down inside caves... because people literally thought that you could see heaven - that it was on top of the clouds and that's where you went when you died. When you read Genesis, you have to read it from that point of view. Not the point of view of what we know today about the nature of the universe.

But I've gone off topic. Uncreated's point was that you cannot find heaven in our world. I don't think any religious person today would disagree.

 

[Swift]

I don't think it's really parallel to what Uncreated was saying. You're saying that most of your bodily organs are necessary to keep you alive. That's all fine and good and I think it helps bolster the evolutionary claim. But if you want me to point to the part of my body that I represents me best - that holds my sense of self - I'd point to my head. I can lose and arm, a leg, or even take some serious damage to internal organs and still be me as long as my brain isn't damaged.

Right, but my point was to make Uncreated's point pointless, see ?

But I've gone off topic. Uncreated's point was that you cannot find heaven in our world. I don't think any religious person today would disagree.

And I wouldn't disagree. If heaven were a part of our world it wouldn't be the ultimate reward, it would be a vacation

 

[Danoff]

Right, but my point was to make Uncreated's point pointless, see ?

I guess. He pretty much did that on his own.

 

[Swift]

I guess. He pretty much did that on his own.

I know, but not everyone can see that

 

[The Uncreated]

But Uncreated's point, which was a fairly weak one, was that creationists tend to think of heaven as up and hell as down. He was pointing out that we know that's not the case - that space and planets are up, and molten rock is down. So he's basically just pointing out that we can't find, visit, and observe heaven while we're alive... which most creationists would agree with.

You so missed my point. I was establishing that people draw divisions, create boundaries where there aren't any. That's part of the great big joke religion tends to play on people not keen enough to see through it all. Up and down mean nothing in deep space, so even that kind of classification is a contrivance that means nothing in objectivity.

And I assure you, if you think you've "observed" heaven when in fact this heaven is not apart from your own essence, it isn't heaven you're looking at. The kingdom is not a place, it's a state of mind -- rather it's the state before mind. As such, it cannot be observed nor can it be thought about because it's a paradigm that supercedes consciousness and thought. Neither can approach the immensity of it. I won't get into details because this sort of thing is beyond even the most discerning intellects, including mine. The better part of ninety-nine point nine percent of people aren't capable nor ready of breaking out of their deeply-entrenched conceptual prisons to see through all the nonsense they take for reality. That's the problem with religion.

And that's all I choose to say on the matter.

Uncreated

 

[Danoff]

You so missed my point.

And who's fault do you think that is?

I was establishing that people draw divisions, create boundaries where there aren't any.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It can be an excellent visualization technique provided that people remember that it's artificial.

That's part of the great big joke religion tends to play on people not keen enough to see through it all.

Religious people are not stupid. Let's get that out of the way first and foremost. And calling someone stupid in a discussion with them is not going to help you reach an understanding with them. Religious folks have been instilled with a false sense of trust in their "gut". They might call it a soul, you might call it emotion or instinct. Religious folks trust their instinct over their head, and that more than anything is their flaw. It doesn't mean they're "not keen enough". It means that they've learned to do something (trust their instinct) that's self-reinforcing. Once they're trapped in that cycle at an early age, there's little hope of escape.

Up and down mean nothing in deep space, so even that kind of classification is a contrivance that means nothing in objectivity.

It's pretty useful here though.

And I assure you, if you think you've "observed" heaven when in fact this heaven is not apart from your own essence, it isn't heaven you're looking at. The kingdom is not a place, it's a state of mind -- rather it's the state before mind.

Let me assure you, the "kingdom" doesn't exist.

As such, it cannot be observed nor can it be thought about because it's a paradigm that supercedes consciousness and thought. Neither can approach the immensity of it.

Why not? The "kingdom" is a thought, originating in man's mind to act as a carrot on a stick held out as the reward for heading a certain direction. All of religion is contrived by man, and therefore all of the constructs within religion can neither supercede conciousness or thought.

The better part of ninety-nine point nine percent of people aren't capable nor ready of breaking out of their deeply-entrenched conceptual prisons to see through all the nonsense they take for reality. That's the problem with religion.

Agreed.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's part of the great big joke religion tends to play on people not keen enough to see through it all.

Religion or organized religious groups? Saying religion does something to someone is like saying an idea does something to people. It is the orgamnized groups that create these thinsg while trying to play politics and protect their own belief structure of what should and shouldn't be.

Up and down mean nothing in deep space,

Read "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card. He makes a good argument for creating a self-defined up and down even in a gravity free vacuum. By doing this it allows for proper guidance and an ability to achieve your object without diorientation. But that wasn't your point.

And I assure you, if you think you've "observed" heaven when in fact this heaven is not apart from your own essence, it isn't heaven you're looking at.

How can you assure me of that? I'm intrigued, especially since you then said this:

I won't get into details because this sort of thing is beyond even the most discerning intellects, including mine.

The better part of ninety-nine point nine percent of people aren't capable nor ready of breaking out of their deeply-entrenched conceptual prisons to see through all the nonsense they take for reality. That's the problem with religion.

And emotion and fear and science and politics and pretty much life in general. I know people who had nervous breakdowns when graduating from high school and then others that purposely changed majors to stay in college. People don't want to leave their comfort zone and they fear change but that does not mean they are imprisoned by nonsense. Especially when you consider that many religious people have the ability to live normal daily lives without having any kind of negative effects on the world around them. If they were imprisoned by their religion they would become zealots and either hide away from all the "temptation" or try and destroy it through violent acts (aka terrorism in the name of religion). But these people are a select few and are sick or confused, just as those who can't handle a common change, such as graduating high school, or finding a new job, or moving to a new town.

 

[The Uncreated]

Let me assure you, the "kingdom" doesn't exist.

Existence and non-existence. No difference. Both are affirmative statements that rely one one another for context. Those terms scratch one another's back, so to speak, and to say the kingdom exists or doesn't is to say the same thing. Both statements miss the point by a million miles when set against absolute truth.

Whether we say existence or non-existence, that absolute truth escapes us. And to qualify what I mean by absolute truth, that's distinctionless non-dual truth beyond all thought, time, space and matter -- not some fleeting relative truth one might find in books or somesuch.

Think I'll dilly-dally back off into the Tourist Trophy forum now.

Uncreated

 

[The Uncreated]

Read "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card. He makes a good argument for creating a self-defined up and down even in a gravity free vacuum.

Full circle. I don't speak of localized personal truths. They mean nothing. Give me an example of a truth that's identical for everybody, everwhere and at every point in time throughout history. For more on that, read anything by Jiddu Krishnamurti, Buddha, Jesus (Gospel of Thomas), Dogen and anyone else that have seen things beyond this finite manifestation of a universe. All else pales in comparison.

Uncreated