Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Skittles!]

all you people who are saying "if god exists why do we have wars, why do people die, why this, why that" think about it, if you were god, would you make evrything perfect, and god's immortal, imagine keeping the whole universe in perfect shape for all eternity, god probably god really bored and decided to go vengeful maniac on the universe.

Yawn

[MeDeFe]

Based on nothing really more than (I’m paraphrasing) …but people actually believe the Bible. It’s an interesting point only the books you have an interest in refuting are admissible.

No, CA, no. But other books brought into the discussion should be comparable. Beowulf and the bible are not.

This is very convienient for you, isn't it? Never mind that a book is essentially a book, and the translation process is essentially the same with any of them. It was perhaps even more rigorous with the Bible.

That's what I said, isn't it? Ordinary (well, who could read and write) people who were given the task of copying it were likely to be more careful. Because they believed it was the word of god. It's hard to attack more importance than that to a book, most probably it's impossible, though I'm not speaking from personal experience here.
Someone striving to transfer his religious might into worldly might on the other hand... let's put it ironically: would be very careful in another way. I'm not saying that happened, but it's not impossible.

I’m merely stating that you cannot refute the validity of the Bible based on supposed alterations that probably did not occur. If you, or Guiscard, would like to get back to the point and show me where these alterations occurred, I’m all ears.

I don't. But you cannot implicitly ascribe complete faith and fear of god to people you never met and who lived in a completely different society than you do by denying them what you called "atheistic motives". By doing that and bringing up that anecdote you evoke an image of old sages who believed in god and were guided by his hand.
Sometimes the important things are between the words.

[dnucci]

There is a great Talking Heads song that goes "Heaven . . . is a place . . . where nothing . . . ever happens." Kinda sounds like your point.

I would add that the Universe can have Meaning and Intent with a Divine Plan and none of that is dependent upon us understanding it.

[dnucci]

Dearest BK, Maybe not added nor taken away, but what about . . . found later? There are 9 parables that appear in all 4 gospels. The first of the gospels that was written was Mark, but most biblical scholars agree that Matthew took from Mark and they both took from some unknown gospel called the Gospel Q.

In 1945, two brothers in egypt happened upon some ancient ewers that contained something that is now called the Gospel of Thomas and is believed to be the Gospel Q. However, of course, because it was found too late, it is not in the Bible. Interestingly, this Gospel contains all of the parables usually thought to be attributable to Q. Two interesting parts of this story: (1) clearly this is an important writing that has been left out of the Bible. What are the implications of its inadvertant exclusion? (2) (and I think more importantly) the Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic Gospel. It was created by the Essenes, a community with whom Jesus lived for some time. However, Gnosticism has been denounced by the church. Gnosticism is the belief that salvation can be achieved through study. The church has denounced this and taken the position that salvation can only be achieved through Faith and Grade (not even good works). Of course, the old Rabbinical tradition is one of study. Rabbi means "teacher" and it was a duty of the Jewish men of the day to study and debate intellectually scripture.

So, it is interesting to me that this Book and Way of Practice have been excluded from Catholicism given how closely their roots lie to Jesus himself.

Secondly (sorry for the long post), intent or conspiracy are not prerequisites to the corruption of the Grace or Word of Revealed Divinity. Whether ill-meaning is present or not, the Catholic Church is the biggest, wealthiest, and oldest organization on the planet. We all go to work when we aren't playing Risk. So, we all know that no matter how new or small an organization gets, politics evolve like mold in cheese. So, the politicism of the Church, which has inevitably warped the original message, must be acknowledged even if everyone had the best intentions in the world.

dnucci, much of your post sounds like you picked it up from some sensationalist source like chariots of the gods or whatnot. I have heard of the "gospel of Q", as i have heard of the "Aquarian Gospel" - neither are respected by any serious scholars. Antiquity alone does not give validity to a writer or writing. All the New Testament books had validation from the church fathers who passed treasured parchments through the underground church at the time, none of which mentioned the "Gospel of Thomas". The "gospel of Q" is a myth started by the gnostics of the 4th century, and never validated in any manner whatsoever. Jesus spent time with a colony of Essenes? How do you or anyone else know this? Since the only source we have documenting Jesus' life is the New Testament, and it mentions nothing of this, i have to wonder about your sources.

Oh, BK. So, good to be back in touch. Despite my previous scathing comments, I really do like you.

Your point is a good one. I have studied the Bible and surrounding history privately for 15 years. I have no formal training in it, and with the number of books I have read, they all kinda swim in my head and I am not able to properly cite them. So, I will try to track down where I read about the Essenes, but there are also some misstatements in what you have written here:

-You say the Gospel Q is not respected by any serious scholars, and yet there are specific references to the Gospel Q in both the introduction and the footnotes to the New American Bible. This is of course where I heard of it and why I sought it out.
-You say that the Gospel of Thomas was "never validated in any manner whatsoever." This is a bit of a broad statement, for the book, although NOT validated by the Church, has been validated by anthropologists, theologians, and historians outside the Church.
-You say the only source we have to document Jesus's life is the New Testament, but that is patently false. All of the scrolls that didn't make it into the bible are still evidence of his life. There are scrolls such as the Gospel of Thomas, there are even scrolls named the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, etc. These scrolls have been carbon dated to the appropriate time and certainly discuss Jesus's life and his teachings. So, they are also sources that document Jesus's life even if they were not put into the bible. My only point here is that these scrolls do bear some relevance on the Historical Jesus. Now, there are a ton of current theologians who will argue that searching for the Historical Jesus is actually not relevant to a life of Faith, and I hear that argument, but for me, searching for the Historical Jesus is a hobby of great interest.

What is your take on gnosticism in general?

[Colossus]

All the New Testament books had validation from the church fathers who passed treasured parchments through the underground church at the time, none of which mentioned the "Gospel of Thomas".

Nothing was "thrown out".

bk, I do not understand how you, who seem to be a reasonable person, can argue that 2000-1500 years ago, the forefathers of the church (which was largely underground at the time, as you mention) passed ALL of the treasured documents along. The early Catholic church was persecuted just about everywhere it went! Masses were held in catacombs, for cryin' out loud, and were announced via secret coded messages! These guys were on the run from the fuzz, and LOTS of them were caught, tortured, and killed (Hell, St. Vincent was flayed and then burned at the stake!). First of all, can you really argue that NONE of the documents of that time could have been lost to the ages?

Secondly, the early church, once it was no longer under persecution, rose almost immediately to immense power. During the dark ages, the Catholic Church RULED much of Europe. Do you not agree that power corrupts (and absolute power as the Church had at that time corrupts absolutely)? I recently finished an excellent book called 'A World Lit only by Fire' that discusses the history of the dark ages through the renaissance, and what is clear from the history of that period is that the Church wielded absolute power for hundreds of years, and when that power was threatened, the Church lashed out violently against those that opposed it. Can you reasonably argue that the powers in the Church at that time would not have quashed writings about Jesus that would in any way undermine the power of the Church? The only way to reasonable draw such a conclusion is based on a firm belief in divine protection of scripture, so you would have to truly believe in the hand of God directing every scribe that ever copied scriptural scrolls, every translator that put the Bible into another language, every typesetter that put Bible to press. I've never understood how such a belief can be reconciled with the incredibly wide array of Bible versions out there. Which one is right? Which one did God really ensure is the proper continuance of His Word?

[dnucci]

In addition to the question of which books were put in the Bible, how about the related decision of which readings are read on Sunday? The Church has excluded part of the text from the pulpit. Are those passages less sacred? How did they decide as they did? If the Church can exclude passages from the pulpit that everyone will admit are sacred? Could it not be that the Church excluded texts from the bible that are also sacred?

[b.k. barunt]

Colossus, i agree that the chance of no parchments being lost is highly improbable, given the persecution at the time, which is why copies were made, and different churches in different cities passed the copies along. The problem with long posts full of different questions, is that i don't have your post sitting here in front of me while i am typing, so forgive me for missing things. Dnucci, you will get no defense from me for the organized church - especially for the shitstorm that is Roman Catholicism. So as to what is read in the services by and to the hypocrites, God only knows.

[Jolly Roger]

Colossus, i agree that the chance of no parchments being lost is highly improbable, given the persecution at the time, which is why copies were made, and different churches in different cities passed the copies along. The problem with long posts full of different questions, is that i don't have your post sitting here in front of me while i am typing, so forgive me for missing things. Dnucci, you will get no defense from me for the organized church - especially for the shitstorm that is Roman Catholicism. So as to what is read in the services by and to the hypocrites, God only knows.

Well, for starters, the RC's believe that the power granted to Peter by Jesus (what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven) has been handed down from Pope to Pope through the centuries so that, in essence, God has to go along with whatever crazy rules laid out by the papacy. In short, they can do all the shitstorming they want and if you don't go along with it, I'm afraid you're going to hell. Sorry.

[dnucci]

So, BK, by this I am gathering that you (a) have studied theology in some formal context and (b) have discarded organized Christianity. Am I correct on both counts?

[b.k. barunt]

No dnucci, like you, all my study has been on my own, but it was my life until i threw up my hands in disgust at the hypocrites and walked away from it all. I used to spend all of my time after work in either ministry or study, and had several seminary students coming to me for counsel when their seminary studies had their minds so confused they couldn't see straight. My youngest brother received a degree from a major seminary (in spite of my warnings), and he made the comment to my father that if he studied the Bible for the rest of his life, he wouldn't catch up with me. Seminaries stifle learning - they do not in any way enhance it. I have nothing but disdain for the organized church and its "formal" teaching. If you look at the life of Jesus, and his response to the church leaders of the day, i think you'll see that he felt the same way. Unfortunately i let bitterness and frustration at these wankers destroy my faith - which makes me nothing but a rather pissed off old man.

[Colossus]

bk, the argument you seem to be advocating is that one need only read the Bible in its current form if one wants to get the truth. Two questions: Which version should one read? And Why is study even necessary?

If the Bible contains the wisdom of truth spelled out for us, why would you need to study it? Doesn't study imply hidden or subtle meaning? If there is hidden and subtle meaning, doesn't it raise the possibility that the literal meaning as not the true meaning? If literal meaning is the point of the Bible, why did Jesus use parables and metaphor so much? If the Bible is the literal truth and the word of God, why did his Son speak so often in riddles?

[b.k. barunt]

Cmon Colossus, you're smarter than that, so i can only assume that's some kind of trick question. Why study? Hell, i see where you're going with this, and it's too much for me to get into. I don't walk the walk, and i'm not comfortable talking the talk past a certain point. We just passed it. Dnucci i just realized i never answered your question on gnosticism - our modern day equivalent would be existentialism, i.e. believe whatever feels good.

[2dimes]

The papal preisthood is crazy talk. Right up there with getting your own planet and breeding to inhabit it.

[Colossus]

Ok, bk, I'll admit the why study question was a bit rhetorical. I read the Bible, and I think it contains great wisdom, but I find it impossible to believe that the ancient writings of any faith are the literal truth. Every faith has a Creation story, and they all vary in the details. I just wonder how you justify the creation story of the Bible as being the literal truth. And I would like an answer to the question of the different versions of the Bible that are presented by various faiths. Which is right and how does one know?

[2dimes]

Unfortunately i let bitterness and frustration at these wankers destroy my faith - which makes me nothing but a rather pissed off old man.

Good work.

So "Don't let your love grow cold." "I could speak with the tounge of angels, if I have not love, I have nothing." all that kind of thing?

[b.k. barunt]

Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's a bitch to get back in (H.R. Haldeman).

[2dimes]

Ok, bk, I'll admit the why study question was a bit rhetorical. I read the Bible, and I think it contains great wisdom, but I find it impossible to believe that the ancient writings of any faith are the literal truth. Every faith has a Creation story, and they all vary in the details. I just wonder how you justify the creation story of the Bible as being the literal truth. And I would like an answer to the question of the different versions of the Bible that are presented by various faiths. Which is right and how does one know?

I have some quick questions for you.

What literal truths are you seeking from the bible?

That there was a man named Zecheriah that was too old to have a kid then his wife got pregnant with John the baptist.

Or something that a person interpreted like the rapture or the age of the earth?

As far as the difference in translations, unless you are trying to do some calculations on things you are interpreting like the date of the rapture. It pretty much comes down to differnt ways of saying the same things.

The only translations I have personally seen altered as to have things intentionally changed to meet an agenda are the ones by the watch tower society.

Usually diferences in the translations are like this.

The King James version says "The text hath thusly been colored a vibrant shade of navy."
The New Internation version says"This text is coloured blue."

[2dimes]

Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's a bitch to get back in (H.R. Haldeman).

I agree but.

For a couple of old men that used to like me and now post bitterness on a non hasbro stratagy based turn game forum it is impossble. For God nothing is impossible. (Jesus)

Paraphased from the 2dimes blue letter addition bible not published or copy protected.

[dnucci]

BK, I totally hear you on your personal history. To me, the message of Jesus is simple: Love God, and Love your Neighbor. A tree will be judged by its fruits. However, just because it is simple, doesn't mean it is easy.

In addition, I totally agree with your take on how Jesus felt about the church of his day. "Beware the traditions of the elders," he said. So, when one looks at the church, one has to wonder how much of this is 2000 years of tradition and how much of it is Truth.

As for the Gnosticisim to Existentialism comparison. I have a different take on it I think, and I am wondering if you might elaborate. I don't take Gnosticism to mean "believe whatever you want." So, please explain.

[b.k. barunt]

In all honesty i never studied it, or about it. I've looked at cursory definitions, and it seemed to me to be the olden days existentialism. I am curious as to a more in depth examination of it, so let's have your take on it.

[b.k. barunt]

Ok, bk, I'll admit the why study question was a bit rhetorical. I read the Bible, and I think it contains great wisdom, but I find it impossible to believe that the ancient writings of any faith are the literal truth. Every faith has a Creation story, and they all vary in the details. I just wonder how you justify the creation story of the Bible as being the literal truth. And I would like an answer to the question of the different versions of the Bible that are presented by various faiths. Which is right and how does one know?

Interesting thing about the creation story - at the end of each day's account (all 6 of them) He clearly states "and the evening and the morning was the __ day". Why would He specify here if he wanted to leave it open to metaphorical interpretation? Parables are metaphorical and analogous, and Jesus clearly indicates when He is speaking such, but other than that, i take it literally - isn't that how you want to be taken? The different Bibles for different faiths? The Catholics use the Douay version, which is from the Latin Vulgate. The difference is the added Old Testament books of the appocrypha, which i've already addressed. Until the 20th century, the King James Bible was the one the Protestants used (also from the Vulgate) - now we have a bunch of updated english versions. The Catholic Bible (aside from the appocrypha) and the Protestant Bibles say the same things. The only bible that is printed for a particular sect is the New World Translation, which is published by the Watchtower Organization. This is the only bible which changes the text to conform to the doctrine of the sect. Interestingly, none of the "translators" of this version ever had a greek class in their life.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hi Guiscard,

I’d like to start by stating the position I will defend as clearly as I can. I am not interested in whether you believe that the information in the Holy Bible is true or not. It is your right to accept or reject it for any reason, or for no reason at all. I do, however, assert that the Holy Bible is reliable and valid. Reliable in that it can’t be shown to have been altered any more than any other document over time. Valid in that it is an authoritative text that effectively fulfills its stated purpose. These will be the definitions I’ll be using to avoid misunderstandings.
Translating any text into different languages is a daunting prospect. Humans, being fallible, screw it up from time to time. This is actually very well documented in many Bibles (I mentioned the NIV, as it is the one that I have read). I attribute no motive to any translator, whether you continue to assert negative motives to them or not is, of course, your choice. To attribute any motive, without documentation, is to assume that you can reliably know what another person was thinking (omniscience). Unless you can produce a credible diary or letter in which someone confesses to having falsified scripture, there other crimes or frailties are irrelevant (ie. so what if I’m a thief that doesn’t make me a murderer). All that we are left with is what is in the text. What you think of the people can have no relevance.
Again, my challenge remains the same as it has for the last few days. Demonstrate a part of the Bible that has been altered by departing from the text beyond an error in translation. It should be a simple matter to show this, if it occurred, we would have two versions of the same text with a radical departure in one. I have already offered the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence that those parts of the scripture that predate Christianity are very similar to those in the canon. Christianity sprang from a similar tradition, and unless you can present evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to think that the New Testament books were treated any differently. Therefore the Bible is a reliable text, whether you embrace its message or not is completely your own choice.
As to the validity of the Bible, I submit the following. It is the central religious text of the single largest religion in the world. In its circulation it surpasses any other book religious or not. This, of course, states its popular appeal not its effectiveness as a religious text, but it is relevant in that the central message of that faith is contained in the Bible. Unlike other civilizations, the Jewish people retained their culture and identity, without a homeland, due largely to the religious writings of their people. Many of these same texts are found in the Old Testament. By the addition of the New Testament, and the tireless efforts of many people, Christianity went from being a radical sect in a rebellious Roman province to the official religion of Rome, an unprecedented occurrence. Later it would be the dominant religion of Europe and then the largest religion in the world. The central message of Christianity, contained in the Bible, strikes a cord with an incredibly large group of people. In the end, the effectiveness of a book, can be seen in the number of people who print, buy, read, and talk about it. The fact that you and I are having this conversation, over a Risk website, on a thread that has been viewed nearly 7,000 times and replied to over 500 times seems to indicate that its pretty effective for a two thousand plus year old text.

I realize I ignored your post, which wasn't my original intent. It just seemed more important to clarify and assert my position at this point.

[genius6]

Hi Guiscard,

I’d like to start by stating the position I will defend as clearly as I can. I am not interested in whether you believe that the information in the Holy Bible is true or not. It is your right to accept or reject it for any reason, or for no reason at all. I do, however, assert that the Holy Bible is reliable and valid. Reliable in that it can’t be shown to have been altered any more than any other document over time. Valid in that it is an authoritative text that effectively fulfills its stated purpose. These will be the definitions I’ll be using to avoid misunderstandings.
Translating any text into different languages is a daunting prospect. Humans, being fallible, screw it up from time to time. This is actually very well documented in many Bibles (I mentioned the NIV, as it is the one that I have read). I attribute no motive to any translator, whether you continue to assert negative motives to them or not is, of course, your choice. To attribute any motive, without documentation, is to assume that you can reliably know what another person was thinking (omniscience). Unless you can produce a credible diary or letter in which someone confesses to having falsified scripture, there other crimes or frailties are irrelevant (ie so what if I’m a thief that doesn’t make me a murderer). All that we are left with is what is in the text. What you think of the people can have no relevance.
Again, my challenge remains the same as it has for the last few days. Demonstrate a part of the Bible that has been altered by departing from the text beyond an error in translation. It should be a simple matter to show this, if it occurred, we would have two versions of the same text with a radical departure in one. I have already offered the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence that those parts of the scripture that predate Christianity are very similar to those in the canon. Christianity sprang from a similar tradition, and unless you can present evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to think that the New Testament books were treated any differently. Therefore the Bible is a reliable text, whether you embrace its message or not is completely your own choice.
As to the validity of the Bible, I submit the following. It is the central religious text of the single largest religion in the world. In its circulation it surpasses any other book religious or not. This, of course, states its popular appeal not its effectiveness as a religious text, but it is relevant in that the central message of that faith is contained in the Bible. Unlike other civilizations, the Jewish people retained their culture and identity, without a homeland, due largely to the religious writings of their people. Many of these same texts are found in the Old Testament. By the addition of the New Testament, and the tireless efforts of many people, Christianity went from being a radical sect in a rebellious Roman province to the official religion of Rome, an unprecedented occurrence. Later it would be the dominant religion of Europe and then the largest religion in the world. The central message of Christianity, contained in the Bible, strikes a cord with an incredibly large group of people. In the end, the effectiveness of a book, can be seen in the number of people who print, buy, read, and talk about it. The fact that you and I are having this conversation, over a Risk website, on a thread that has been viewed nearly 7,000 times and replied to over 500 times seems to indicate that its pretty effective for a two thousand plus year old text.

I realize I ignored your post, which wasn't my original intent. It just seemed more important to clarify and assert my position at this point.

Kudos to you for writing a long post, which I don't have time to read. Unless you copy and pasted it.

[CrazyAnglican]

I'm afraid this whole issue is tempered by my Atheism, and I can't get away from that, but then on the other hand your view is tempered by your Christianity.

Absolutely, We both admit to having a bias. I think admitting your bias lends you credibility as it shows your realism.

I know I haven't met the scribes or the Bishops who agreed on canonisation, but I have extensively studied medieval history (I am currently a research student at University), and in the same way you have a greater knowledge of science I do have a pretty good knowledge of the Early Christian and Medieval church. It was intensely corrupt, there was power politics, infighting, intensive disagreements about dogma...

Do you mean that the Early Christian Church was run by people, and that those people had all of the flaws that any other group of people would have? If so I agree, completely. I would, of course, add that they had all of the same virtues that any other group of people would have as well.

The canonisation itself was, obviously, a move which suited those in power at the time best. It allowed them to outlaw those groups who were 'rebel' and didn't want to fit in with the general church (e.g. gnostics and arians) and label them as blasphemers.

I’d like to reserve the right to come back to this as it’s a considerably different topic and would take up a lot of time and space to go into.

"You automatically ascribe the Bishops of the early church the same pious faith as you have. I know for a fact that some of them were greedy black-mailing misogynist paedophiles from extensive source material that I have studied. I really am not trying to attack anyone's faith here, but just to show what my atheistic point of view is.

Actually I wasn’t trying to assign any motive to them. You had ascribed some negative motives to them, So I argued a hypothetical. Then I stated, from my own experience, my reasons for believing that they had positive motives too. It sounds as if you are ready to impugn the character of one or more early Christians. I have already stated that this is largely irrelvant, if you can't provide evidence of any appreciable departures in the extant texts (ie. essentially if you can't prove the crime existed, It doesn't matter how nasty the suspect might seem). Also, If you do not attribute negative motives to them, because you can't really know what they are thinking, the translation errors remain translation errors common to any translated text, nothing more.

To be honest, I think we should move on now because your faith will always tell you that no-one would change the Bible and my atheism and historical study show me that people are corrupt and apply their own political motives to religion just as they do to law and economics.

I thank you for your kindness here, but I think that it would be a shame. I’m quite enjoying the conversation. I also believe that, while we have an admitted bias on the issue, we’re probably both able to detach enough to recognize a strong relevant argument when we see it.

[CrazyAnglican]

Kudos to you for writing a long post, which I don't have time to read. Unless you copy and pasted it.

Thanks. I'll take 'em where I can get 'em