tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1684108679652128593..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Evolving Moral Standards Are Evidence Against the God of the BibleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57834797658680465572007-07-25T10:22:00.000-04:002007-07-25T10:22:00.000-04:00Bravo, Mechphisto.Sorry about disappearing. Was a...Bravo, Mechphisto.<BR/><BR/>Sorry about disappearing. Was away this weekend helping my fiancee pack for her upcoming move. In any case, I don't think I could've contributed much more beyond what Mechphisto already said. It's been an enlightening exchange. Jennifer, Mechphisto, I look forward to reading more from both of you here at DC.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74823149007229717482007-07-25T09:14:00.000-04:002007-07-25T09:14:00.000-04:00True, but some people's agenda is to get at truth ...True, but some people's agenda is to get at truth without human bias, and not try to convert people to an ideology founded in fallacy and superstition.Mechphistohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132057358855155420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65753570254656535952007-07-25T00:23:00.000-04:002007-07-25T00:23:00.000-04:00Mechphisto,You have good points and we could back ...Mechphisto,<BR/>You have good points and we could back and forth and probably not convince each other of anything. I just have one last thing to say:<BR/><BR/>everyone has an agenda. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83878640487727286762007-07-24T00:38:00.000-04:002007-07-24T00:38:00.000-04:00No, I've not met Olson and I don't need to. Unsupp...No, I've not met Olson and I don't need to. Unsupported anecdotal evidence should be considered suspect on the surface of it:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy<BR/><BR/>But a brief Web search shows that Olson is a Christian missionary who has an agenda, and that as well should be treated as suspect when using what he says as evidence of cultural behavior. And the fact that all the books about Olson are less anthropological journal papers and supported research, but Christian press published sensationalist tellings of "a miracle in the jungle"--chances are...biased and likely embellished. <BR/><BR/>There are two ways to view Christianity: what is in the Bible as that's the ONLY source of what Jesus supposedly taught, and what people do with it. <BR/>First, if the godly believers that are supposed to be moved by the Holy Spirit primarily exhibit anti-exploration, anti-discovery, anti-science behavior at best, and cruel intolerance at worst, what's the difference? If what his followers do is what affects society and keeps societies in ignorance and superstition, then what does it matter what Christ taught when you're looking at whether a society is advanced by contact with Christianity (viz a vis, his followers.)<BR/>We're discussing societies as they're touched by Christianity. Since Jesus himself hasn't been seen in 2000 years, it's been his followers that are doing the touching. Making a distinction between the dogma they use and the teachings of Jesus becomes irrelevant in this case.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, Jesus didn't exactly have the most wonderful morality anyway. He was constantly petulant and intolerant of even his followers, (and fig trees), constantly calling them fools too stupid to understand his teachings (which makes me think, "Find a new way to teach!") He several times insults his mother, and even disowns her, and advises his followers to disown their own families (again, something that would have gotten them stoned according to Moses' Law). He stated he came to bring a sword, not peace, and set brother against brother. Just a few examples.<BR/><BR/>Then there's the Jesus Seminar, which was composed of dozens of historians, anthropologists, biblical and religious scholars, and after a decade of investigation came to the conclusion that only about 18% of what's printed in red in the NT was likely actually said by Jesus. And that 18% is very inconsequential stuff.Mechphistohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132057358855155420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68345099350438023182007-07-24T00:07:00.000-04:002007-07-24T00:07:00.000-04:00Three qualities Christian dogma from 4th century t...<I>Three qualities Christian dogma from 4th century to right to today strive to suppress, discourage, mistrust, corrupt.</I><BR/><BR/>This is what I am at odds with. Is Christian dogma what Jesus was teaching? I don't think Christianity should only be judged according to those who are dogmatic.<BR/><BR/>Have you met Bruce Olson?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62416992123907117562007-07-23T23:27:00.000-04:002007-07-23T23:27:00.000-04:00I'll try to keep it short and babble too much.Lite...I'll try to keep it short and babble too much.<BR/><BR/><EM>Literally, according to Bruce Olson</EM>...<BR/><BR/>Olson is rather significant Christian missionary. He has a very ideological agenda and anything he says I consider suspect. In the many years I was a Christian and around a lot of conservative Christians with a mission, I saw a lot of "ends justify the means." People wouldn't...lie...per se', but if some (or a lot) of embellishing the truth could lead to more people coming to Jesus--that's all that mattered! Anecdotal evidence from one person is not to be trusted at face value.<BR/><BR/><EM>I don't see the examples of diversity making a civilization stronger...what examples would you give?</EM><BR/><BR/>Well, yes, western Europe and the U.S. I would give as examples. How long does a civ' need to be around before it's considered "successful"?<BR/><BR/><EM>It seems that you are using education as the litmus test for success, is that right?</EM><BR/><BR/>No, I don't believe I ever said that.<BR/>Perhaps I implied it by indicating examples of where civilizations were more successful because of their level of technical, medical, philosophical, mathematical advancement--but that's not necessarily education. That's a society in which allows a freedom of exploration, experimentation, discovery. Three qualities Christian dogma from 4th century to right to today strive to suppress, discourage, mistrust, corrupt.Mechphistohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132057358855155420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85729418951340875082007-07-23T22:37:00.000-04:002007-07-23T22:37:00.000-04:00About unity of purpose; I don't mean an end goal, ...About unity of purpose; I don't mean an end goal, but an system of shared values and ethics.<BR/><BR/>In the book I just finished, the Motilone tribe of Colombia didn't have any compassion for other Motilones outside of their own family. Literally, according to Bruce Olson, many families shared a community home but they would sometimes not even acknowledge each other. If a person from one family was dying right beside another family, nothing would be done to help. The Motilone did not reach out to other Motilones to help, they ignored each other. After the Motilone began to understand what Jesus did by "walking the trail to God", as they put it, their culture became stronger because they began to help each other and band together.<BR/><BR/>I don't see the examples of diversity making a civilization stronger...what examples would you give? A unified Europe has only existed in recent history and hasn't been around long enough to see if it is really successful. The most powerful civilizations in history were not diverse, but extremely exclusive. The countries you listed were exclusive and also very harsh in discipline. Take the Great Wall of China for example, that would have been a nightmare if you were a Chinese citizen.<BR/><BR/>I also agree that success is difficult to define because there are so many variables, but I think that success can be measured by how satisfied the inhabitants of a civilization are. I think you would agree..maybe.. that if a civilization is held captive by superstition that causes unrealistic fears, sickness, the inability to learn new things and grow, the oppression of the weak and other such devaluing behaviors, it is not successful. Yet every powerful civilization has used superstition to maintain it's power which has made it successful in the telling of history. I can hear you telling me that Christianity has been guilty of the same infractions and I agree. But I have also read, seen and experienced, the best of Christian teaching and living. I don't think anything else compares.<BR/><BR/>It seems that you are using education as the litmus test for success, is that right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1888886263243557522007-07-23T16:04:00.000-04:002007-07-23T16:04:00.000-04:00Mechphisto,There are too many points for me to tak...Mechphisto,<BR/>There are too many points for me to take at one time so I'll try to stick to the original concept of evolving morality through the teaching of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Looking at the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Middle_Ages" REL="nofollow">Middle Ages</A> I think you can see the the flow of Christian influence for the good. The Roman Catholic Church was the most powerful group associated with Christianity, but they did not represent all of Christianity. <BR/><BR/>In thinking about what is different about followers of Christ is that we are willing to sacrifice our way of life and our lives, if needed, in order to help others know God and be fulfilled. Not all people who claim to be Christians would say that, but the very word "Christian" was first used by those who observed the followers of Christ behaving like Him. He said He came to give life more abundantly.<BR/><BR/>Paul said he would give up his own "ticket to heaven" or salvation, in order that his fellows would be able to go instead. <BR/><BR/>Men like <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gibson_Paton" REL="nofollow">John G. Paton</A> brought betterment to people because of what he believed about God.<BR/><BR/>You may argue, as I once did, that missionaries ruined cultures, and some of that did happen in varying degrees of forceful inhabitation, but when weighing the good against the bad, I think the good is on the heavier side. Written language in "lesser" cultures is mostly as a result of Christian missionaries. There were and are many missionaries who did not seek to change a culture but only the heart. Hudson Taylor, Gladys Aylward, Evelyn Brand, Albert Schweitzer, Bruce Olson (who is still alive and in the jungles of South America), and many more. <BR/><BR/>Christianity as a religion has skeletons, literally, but Christianity as a way of living out the message of Jesus has brought about, through a long chain of events, the best in society. I stick to that.<BR/><BR/>My list of a successful society was not complete and not exclusive to the U.S. and U.K. I was using those two countries as modern day examples of what sociologists would point to as successful. Like you pointed out; other major civilizations are remembered because of their advanced systems and that is what I was comparing.<BR/> <BR/>Civilizations run into each other so much it's hard to tell where some of them begin and end and who influenced who. Without the Etruscans the Romans wouldn't have had aquaducts or bridges. <BR/><BR/>Gotta go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15482385953464611322007-07-23T09:32:00.000-04:002007-07-23T09:32:00.000-04:00Jennifer, another thoughtful reply.Buddhism does o...Jennifer, another thoughtful reply.<BR/>Buddhism does often focus on the self, because it's the self that you are in control of and have the most responsibility of. You can't control what other people do, but you can control how you react to people. And your behavior affects other people. Where do you star? With yourself.<BR/><BR/>Judeo-Christianity is also rather extremely focused on the self. More Judaism, admittedly. The goal is to avoid damnation and gain heaven. That's the most base level, but that's the level most people think about and most people try to convert others by. Implant fear of hell, offer gift of heaven.<BR/>On another level you have YOUR relationship with God as the focus. Still self focused. Once you do move into some of the lesser elements (I say "lesser" because the bottom line in Christianity really is: Will YOU get heaven or hell when you die?) you get "treat others as you prefer to be treated," and that's heavily focused on in Buddhism and Shinto.<BR/><BR/>As for a "prosperous civ'," that's a VERY subjective and western-centric list. I think you'd have a lot of cultural anthropologists disagree with you.<BR/>And the U.S. wouldn't qualify with your list.<BR/>We import a great deal of our goods. Food and oil. We CAN farm most of our own food if we had to--but it's unlikely the more land that gets used up for simple population support. Most of our oil comes from South America. And most of our scientific knowledge and students come from other countries. Every year less American students enter the scientific fields, and more are coming from other countries.<BR/><BR/>Other civilizations in the past did a better job at self-support. Also, some tribes in "primitive" areas do a find job supporting themselves. Wouldn't a "prosperous" nation also be one that has harmonious and fair trade with its neighbors?<BR/><BR/>Harmonious family relationships is encouraged all over the world in all cultures, past and present. The "family values" seen in the bible are pretty cruel and atrocious. "Harmony" in the bible was basically "behave or I have the right to take you to be stoned by the city gates. On my way to selling my daughter. Or handing her off to a mob to be raped in order to protect my houseguest."<BR/><BR/>The ancient Greeks were at the forfront of medical knowledge. And respect! The Hippocratic Oath, with its appeal to pagan gods for guidance by the way, came from Greece. The Romans and the pre-Muslim Arabia, and ancient China all also had pretty advanced concepts of anatomy and medicine for the time.<BR/><BR/>Sanitary, again, ancient Greece and Rome were at the forefront of sanitation. By contrast, the Christian dominated Middle Ages actually destroyed and eschewed the lessons of sanitation the Romans attempted to spread across Europe. The Christian dominated Middle Ages were plagued, literally, with filth and disease, and The Church looked down upon medical and anatomical research and education.<BR/><BR/>Good defenses is also found all over the world regardless of culture and religion. <BR/><BR/>Unified in purpose, with respect, and kind of an absurd element. It's way too subjective to be considered. What purposes? How grand or small? To what degree is unified?<BR/>From a general standpoint, the U.S. and modern west fail miserably at this, as democracy and free nations encourage and support plurality and difference in opinions. In a truly free and thriving nation, you have a mix of opinions and beliefs and dissent as well. You have questioning of politics and policies.<BR/>The best examples of truly unified purposes can be seen in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China....Mechphistohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132057358855155420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55904320765274223302007-07-23T03:33:00.000-04:002007-07-23T03:33:00.000-04:00OK, now I know how Lee feels when he's got two peo...OK, now I know how Lee feels when he's got two people coming at him!<BR/><BR/>Mechphisto,<BR/>I'll get into some of your points later today, or tomorrow for sure. <BR/><BR/>Benny,<BR/>I think e-mail would work well for a discussion about redshift. I will send an e-mail later today..I'm up too late. No worries about being rude, I honesly don't remember. I think you are wise to not give out a real e-mail!<BR/><BR/>Here goes a bit:<BR/><BR/><I>I agree that certain moral values have enabled people to thrive and achieve high moral standards. What I challenge is the claim that they are exclusively biblical. Can you point to a single "good" moral value and demonstrate that it is exclusively biblical?</I><BR/><BR/>I am not claiming that good values are exclusively biblical as I believe in the imprint of God on all humanity. BUT..the only group of people who I observe consistently aiding their enemy and historically have demonstrated unequalled acts of compassion are Christian. It may be hard to believe, but I don't say that lightly or smuggly. I'm thinking; Red Cross, George Mueller, Franciscan Health Care, World Vision etc.. I am aware that there are many, many other organizations who help around the world, but historically it SEEMS that Christians led the way in philanthropy.<BR/><BR/>About Buddhism..<BR/>Those are excellent values. The observation that kept me from Buddhism was the emphasis on self. Being kind is good, but I don't see a genuine love of all peole coming from Buddhists. It seems they are more interested in reaching nirvana than in helping others to reach it too.<BR/><BR/>A prosperous civilization is:<BR/><BR/>1) able to support itself with it's own resources.<BR/><BR/>2) working toward harmonious family relationships.<BR/><BR/>3) knowledgeable of anatomy and physiology with advancing medical practice administered with respect.<BR/><BR/>4) sanitary.<BR/><BR/>5) able to put up a good defense against invasion.<BR/><BR/>6) unified in purpose.<BR/><BR/>That is my list of important basics, but for the argument above I was referring to the U.S. and U.K.. I do not admire every aspect of our lifestyle and am opposed to some aspects, but overall I think these two countries would be seen as the most successful.<BR/>Putting defense on that list is a double edged sword because ideally there would not be a need for defense. In reality I think there will always be a need for defense because there will always be dark hearts.<BR/><BR/>That's all I have time for!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79752878897692315212007-07-22T21:29:00.000-04:002007-07-22T21:29:00.000-04:00Mechphisto,Good, then at least we agree there's am...Mechphisto,<BR/><BR/>Good, then at least we agree there's ample evidence/Biblical proof the new law is on place. :)<BR/><BR/>As for freewill, what part of this don't you agree with: Deu 30:19 <I>"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."</I><BR/><BR/>Joshuah 24:15-22 is also relevant. The decision is still the same today: who to serve, God or man?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20798803007017585872007-07-22T13:01:00.000-04:002007-07-22T13:01:00.000-04:00More nonsense from Christians. The bottom line is ...<I><BR/><BR/> More nonsense from Christians. The bottom line is that your God can do whatever he damn well he pleases because he's God. God wants to sodomize a 12 year old girl and he gets to do it. Why? Because he's God! Hot damn!<BR/></I><BR/>At least you understand what it means for God to be God.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90596193738131983002007-07-22T02:00:00.000-04:002007-07-22T02:00:00.000-04:00More nonsense from Christians. The bottom line is ...More nonsense from Christians. The bottom line is that your God can do whatever he damn well he pleases because he's God. God wants to sodomize a 12 year old girl and he gets to do it. Why? Because he's God! Hot damn!mdf1960https://www.blogger.com/profile/05788079868613957995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43519787547703208802007-07-21T11:53:00.000-04:002007-07-21T11:53:00.000-04:00So he says, "I'm giving you free will! Isn't that ...<I><BR/>So he says, "I'm giving you free will! Isn't that great? I'm so wonderful. You have the ability to make your choice about the afterlife. You can choose (a) your way, and suffer eternity of punishment for your flicker of a life of sin, or (b) my way and get eternal paradise. Aren't I wonderful for giving you free will?!"</I><BR/>It is no different than governments telling people to obey the law or go to prison. <BR/><I><BR/>It's the equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head and telling them, "I'm going to follow you around the rest of your life with this gun pointed to your head. You're free to do anything you want, you have that choice. Just know that if you don't choose to eat a creame bagel at the 5th street deli every 3rd morning, I'm killing you. But hey, it's your choice."</I><BR/>It is only equivalent if the person holding the gun is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. <BR/><I>Yahveh loves us SO much, his special creation that he loves, that he's going to torture us forever.</I><BR/>God, by virtue of His position as Lord of Lords and King of Kings, has decreed that the punishment for sin is eternal torment with fire and brimstone in the lake of fire.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22794327020626172782007-07-21T02:39:00.000-04:002007-07-21T02:39:00.000-04:00Why? Because God gave us freewill?That's the only ...<EM>Why? Because God gave us freewill?</EM><BR/><BR/>That's the only thing I'm responding to because everything else has been gone over ad nauseum.<BR/><BR/>Free will, eh? Let's look at this supposed free will.<BR/><BR/>So, God creates the universe, man, the capacity to sin, our "weak character," and eternal punishment and paradise, right? He set up the rules as to why we're all damned unless we accept the one true religion, and he's in complete control of this supernatural result of the human condition he created.<BR/>So he says, "I'm giving you free will! Isn't that great? I'm so wonderful. You have the ability to make your choice about the afterlife. You can choose (a) your way, and suffer eternity of punishment for your flicker of a life of sin, or (b) my way and get eternal paradise. Aren't I wonderful for giving you free will?!"<BR/><BR/>It's the equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head and telling them, "I'm going to follow you around the rest of your life with this gun pointed to your head. You're free to do anything you want, you have that choice. Just know that if you don't choose to eat a creame bagel at the 5th street deli every 3rd morning, I'm killing you. But hey, it's your choice."<BR/><BR/>God can keep his stinking false gift of "free will" via terrorism.<BR/><BR/>Your religion of default hell unless saved via a human written book is and then calling God merciful and fatherly is like this:<BR/>Imagine you had a huge family, many siblings. And they're spread all over the world with their families. And your father comes to you one day and says, "Jason, let me tell you something. If you or any of your siblings lies down when they sleep, I will cut off your legs and rip out your eyes. But, I'm ONLY telling just YOU! You are the only one privy to my plan. Now, go tell the rest."<BR/>And now you know that EVERYONE by default lies down in their sleep, so you have to try to reach all your siblings before nightfall to warn them what your psychotic father is going to do.<BR/><BR/>This is the salvation and free will of your religion. Yahveh loves us SO much, his special creation that he loves, that he's going to torture us forever.<BR/>Except! He gives this secret, special knowledge of salvation to a teeny tiny group of people in a remote part of the world, and they have to write it in a book, and try to spread this information about the only way out of God's demented love for us by hand. God is so smart, and so loving, and so merciful, that he gleefully tortures us unless his unworthy creation gets a book around to everyone.<BR/><BR/>Your idea of a merciful and loving god and his gift of free will is a sick f**king joke.Mechphistohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132057358855155420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86405843517202643532007-07-20T23:54:00.000-04:002007-07-20T23:54:00.000-04:00Mechphisto, I appeal to you on the basis of the sh...Mechphisto, I appeal to you on the basis of the sheer weight of Biblical evidence regarding the new law. Here are just a few verses talking about the new law and what Christ accomplished through his death:<BR/><BR/>Jer 31:31, Mat 26:28, Luk 5:38, Jhn 1:29, Rom 3:21-25, Rom 8:3, 2Cr 3:6, Col 1:14, Col 2:16, Gal 3:24-25, Eph 1:7, Hbr 8:6-7, Hbr 8:13, Hbr 9:14-18, Hbr 9:28, Hbr 10:8, Hbr 12:24, Hbr 13:20, 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 3:18, 1Jo 2:2, 1Jo 3:5<BR/><BR/>There are more but I think you get the idea. The point of this is to plainly show you that my/Christian beliefs have nothing to do with “cognitive biases”. The beliefs regarding the new law are based purely on Biblical evidence, of which there is plenty to prove the new law is valid and in place.<BR/><BR/><I>“The discongruity between a loving and merciful god, and providing the ONLY means of salvation for people for the last 2000 years and the future contained in a book that is not clear, not decisive, not without debate and controversy, and prone to translation errors.”</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t see what the “discongruity” is. It’s an opinion that the Bible isn’t clear or decisive (as many others have differen perspective) and debate and controversy stems from man trying to push his own brand of religion (or lack thereof). I’ve asked a number of times for evidence of translation errors that have affected entire doctrines.<BR/><BR/><I>"Why is it, if Jesus was so clear in what he said, and the proof so obvious and rampant about his existence, there was HUGE strife and disagreement among even the Christians of the 1st-4th centuries?"</I><BR/><BR/>I’m not aware of there being a general misunderstanding of the validity of the new law in the 1st-4th centuries...? For a Christian to argue the old law is still in place, then by extension they must also admit that the only means of being saved is if one were Jewish.<BR/><BR/><I>"You have the Gnostics who were a large "denomination" who didn't even believe Jesus existed in the flesh. (Many biblical scholars believe Paul didn't either.)"</I><BR/><BR/>I’m not sure what this has to do with the new law…? People can believe anything they want but just because someone says, “I don’t believe Paul existed” doesn’t mean we should simply take their word for it. Wouldn’t you agree?<BR/><BR/><I>"You do realize that there were a LOT of gospels aside from the four canonized ones, yes? Mary, Timothy, Judas, Nicodemus, and scores more. Each with some very different ideas about Jesus and his message."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I’m well aware of this. But again, what does this have to do with the old and new law?<BR/><BR/><I>"One of the reasons for the Nicaean Councils in the 4th century was to get some stuff straight and create one set dogma and put an end to all the conflict and disagreement. And this was only 300 years after Jesus was supposedly there!"</I><BR/><BR/>There were conflicts and disagreements during Christ’s ministry as well. This is the nature of man - refusal to accept authority. But again, I’m a little confused as to where you’re going with this… Let’s say you and I had a disagreement about whether Adam & Eve ate a forbidden orange or a forbidden pineapple. Who’s fault is it we’re having this disagreement: the ‘confusing’ Bible or the stubborn man? <BR/><BR/><I>"All the evidence points to a god who really doesn't love us, is in fact slanted the field against us, or doesn't exist."</I><BR/><BR/>Why? Because God gave us freewill? Because we have to voluntarily chose between right and wrong?<BR/><BR/><I>"As for the ending of Mark: in one version you have the women commanded to go and tell people, but it ends with them running in fear. With a definitive end there, it implies that the message didn't get out and the events that followed weren't important..."</I><BR/><BR/>I’m not arguing the existence of translation errors. I’m arguing that regardless of the number of translation errors, real or supposed, Bible doctrine has remained exactly the same for at least 2000 years. For example, even with a short ending in Mark, all of the events mentioned in the ‘long version’ can be backed up in the other Gospels. Jesus was still raised from the dead. He still appeared to Mary. The disciples were still skeptical. Etc. Etc. God's message remains unchanged. And it’s been that way for thousands of years even with hundreds of people translating it from one language to another to another to another.<BR/><BR/><I>"Your interpretation of Jesus statement was said only days, weeks at best, before he was to be crucified, and he knew it..."</I><BR/><BR/>Almost. In the verses that follow Matthew 5:18, Jesus gives his disciples the ‘new’ law, one that is based on the spirit of the old law instead of on the letter (2 Cor. 3:6). And that’s really all there is to it.<BR/><BR/><I>"You're saying that God found it so very important that 0.00000000001% of the population at the time know in no uncertain terms that the Old Law should be observed for another few days, and that 99.999999999999...% of all the people who would ever live on this planet, it doesn't matter because he will have "fulfilled the law" by the time they read about it? That's patently absurd."</I><BR/><BR/>Jesus was teaching his disciples about the new law because they were the ones given the responsibility to carry on his work after his ascension. Mat 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…”Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20494226712736176392007-07-20T17:50:00.000-04:002007-07-20T17:50:00.000-04:00Jennifer,Doh, I just saw that you and Mechphisto h...Jennifer,<BR/><BR/>Doh, I just saw that you and Mechphisto have posted while I was composing this. And it looks like Mechphisto has already made some of the points I wanted to make. But I'll post this anyway, in hopes of still being able to contribute something...<BR/><BR/><I>My point is not that a successful civilization cannot happen outside of biblical influence, but that biblical influence has brought about the very best in successful civilization.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think this claim has evidential support. To begin with, please explain your definition of a successful civilization, or list the civilizations you consider successful. The next part, the hard part, is to prove that biblical influence is the chief factor in these civilizations' success. As Mechphisto puts it, it is a mistake to believe that the collation of biblical influence and success proves that biblical influence causes success. I'm not aware of any sociological studies that come anywhere close to establishing something like that, and without such studies, I don't think there is sufficient reason to accept your claim.<BR/><BR/><I>Is the idea that we should love one another as much as we love ourselves, to the point of sacrificing our preferences for the sake of bettering someone else found in other religions? Maybe it is, but I haven't read it yet.</I><BR/><BR/>Values like love, compassion, and altruism were around long before the advent of Christianity. They are most certainly not exclusive to Christianity! For instance, Buddhism (which pre-dates Christianity by centuries) extolls its believers to cultivate the Four Immeasurables:<BR/><BR/>Metta/Maitri: loving-kindness towards all; the hope that a person will be well; loving kindness is "the wish that all sentient beings, without any exception, be happy."<BR/><BR/>Karuna: compassion; the hope that a person's sufferings will diminish; compassion is the "wish for all sentient beings to be free from suffering."<BR/><BR/>Mudita: altruistic joy in the accomplishments of a person, oneself or other; sympathetic joy, "is the wholesome attitude of rejoicing in the happiness and virtues of all sentient beings."<BR/><BR/>Upekkha/Upeksha: equanimity, or learning to accept both loss and gain, praise and blame, success and failure with detachment, equally, for oneself and for others; equanimity means "not to distinguish between friend, enemy or stranger, but regard every sentient being as equal. It is a clear-minded tranquil state of mind - not being overpowered by delusions, mental dullness or agitation."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara" REL="nofollow">Wiki page</A><BR/><BR/>And I hope you do not buy into the stereotype that atheists do not have compassion for fellow human beings?<BR/><BR/><I>I don't think a person shoule believe in a god just because it is a good idea, but like C.S. Lewis found, all people seem to have a propensity for belief in a deity.</I><BR/><BR/>A propensity for belief in a deity does not prove the existence of a deity. Nor does it prove that such a propensity is good or useful. And in any case, atheists such as myself would seem to be perfect counter-examples dis-proving C.S. Lewis' claim.<BR/><BR/><I>Russia and China didn't do very well with their anti-god based ideology.</I><BR/><BR/>As far as I know, most atheists do not promote an anti-religion ideology, a la communism. We prefer secularism, such as found in most western European nations. Who seem to be doing just fine, scoring higher than more religious nations (including the US) on most measures of quality-of-life (I used to have some links for this, but can't locate them at the moment; if you want, I'll dig them up this weekend).<BR/><BR/>P.S. When you get a chance, I would like to know what you think of my proposal about taking the red shift discussion to email...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30686437710272330612007-07-20T17:37:00.000-04:002007-07-20T17:37:00.000-04:00Mechphisto,We could go on and on! You have so man...Mechphisto,<BR/>We could go on and on! You have so many good points that I'll have to mull and then organize my mulling to give an appropriate response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13539814899928696932007-07-20T17:31:00.000-04:002007-07-20T17:31:00.000-04:00Sorry, more...No, loving each other and sacrificin...Sorry, more...<BR/><BR/>No, loving each other and sacrificing for each other is the best was to live! But that's not a concept that's unique to Christianity. In fact, you find that kind of behavior all over the world and even in places untouched by Judeo-Christiandom. It's an evolved behavior that can even be seen in the animal kingdom--moreso the closer you get to the primates, and more so in the primates that form social groupings.<BR/><BR/>I counter that biblical influence has brought about the worst in society. Continued slavery through centuries, intolerance for all people not like themselves (a concept rare in non-Abrahamic religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, and animism.) It's encouraged ignorance and subjugation to religious leaders at the expense of human rights and liberty.<BR/><BR/>Look at the forming of the US 200 years ago. They set out to create a secular government free from the religion that the founding fathers observed as the source of political despotism and murder and corruption in Europe. Under secular government, America has flourished. Until starting about the 1950's when we sought to strike a greater difference between us and the USSR. We started seeing God inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance, on our money, and the beginnings of fundamentalism. Until over the last 50 years as America has become more religious and "faithful," we've fallen and fallen in education and risen in crime, abortion, teen pregnancy, and drug use. Meanwhile, countries like the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, have become increasingly secular and eschewing religion, and their education levels are higher, their GNP's are growing, they have less crime, abortion, and pregnancies. Greater tolerance among the races and sexes and sexual preferences.<BR/>(All this is with the exceptions of where fundamental Islam is starting to create strife and discord.)Mechphistohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132057358855155420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11456478952394141442007-07-20T17:10:00.000-04:002007-07-20T17:10:00.000-04:00Jennifer, thank you for the thoughtful reply.The b...Jennifer, thank you for the thoughtful reply.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line, is "very best society" is VERY subjective. Being raised in a western culture, we're inclined to think of "the best society" from our point of view.<BR/>China had an amazingly advanced society with completely no contact with Judaism for centuries.<BR/>While the Roman Republic came about during a height of Judaism, Judaic influence upon the Romans was minuscule at best. And mainly in Judea. Their influence in Rome and southern Italy, Egypt, and Greece where nearly non-existent. In any case, Rome was on a course to their height long before Hebraic height.<BR/>In any case, while Rome's sense of equality of the sexes may be lacking by today's standards, it was FAR advanced by contemporary standards. Women owned property, they had a say in legal affairs (to a degree), thier sexual equality was even moreso.<BR/>Compare that to biblical treatment of women! In the bible, women did not own property, they were treated AS property! Daughters were sold, wives were considered the property of the husband. And that didn't change in the new testament. Paul said explicitly that women were to be subjugated by the men. They were not to speak in church. They were a tool for offspring and a release for men who could not choose celibacy for life--which was preferred, according to Paul. Revelations indicated that only 144,000 men who have not been "defiled" by women would be immediately taken to heaven. What kind of ethics is that to go by?<BR/><BR/>Speaking of slavery, Rome isn't the only culture guilty of it--ever read the OT? Yahveh heavily condones slavery. And Jesus never says a thing against slavery in the NT. In fact, he compares God to a slave master in several places.<BR/><BR/>The biggest defenders of slavery over the last few hundred years in America, and then opponents of racial equality, have been Christians using biblical examples. The biggest opponents to women's suffrage and women's rights have been Christians using biblical examples.<BR/><BR/>The bible is a horrendous source for moral guidance. Most Christians who think the bible, especially the NT, is full of good moral examples, haven't actually read it and are only going by what religious authority tells them. Jesus many times instructs his followers to leave their families, abandon them as useless. He many times shows his own mother the kind of disrespect he'd be stoned for under OT Law. For centuries, people have been using the bible as rationalization for some of the worst crimes. At risk of enacting Godwin's Law, I point to Nazis and Hitler as just one example.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the problem with past "anti-god based ideologies" haven't been the anti-god, but have been the anti-reason and rationality. They supplanted religion in a supernatural god with religion in Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. They just substituted one religion for another. Is that any worse than Europe throughout the Dark Ages when pro-god based ideology stopped growth and progress? While ancient China's non-Christian ideology brought it great growth--until emperors came to power that basically formed religions around themselves.<BR/><BR/>The fact that most humans, more and more the further back into superstitious times you go, believe in some sort of god does not necessarily prove there's (a) god(s), but does prove the imagination and curiosity and ingenuity of the human mind. As sentient beings we realize we exist, we see phenomenon (such as weather) which we don't understand, so we make up reasons as best we can from our experience: Humans affect the world around us, so there must be super-humans who make bigger effects, and these become gods. The more we understand what causes earthquakes, how life evolves, tornadoes, how seasons affect crops, what causes disease...the need for gods to explain these things (be it Baal, Zeus, The Great Spirit, or Yahveh,) becomes increasingly unnecessary. We've discovered biological, neurological components to how and why we believe that C.S. Lewis wasn't privy to. Not to mention the fact that every year more and more people revert back to the ideology they were born with: atheism. No one is ever born with a belief in Allah, or Yahveh, or Odin, or Mithra. We're all born atheists, until we're indoctrinated into a religion by the chance of where and when we're born.Mechphistohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132057358855155420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17665001765031421732007-07-20T15:25:00.000-04:002007-07-20T15:25:00.000-04:00I agree that there has been morality in every cult...I agree that there has been morality in every culture, of sorts. Romans had slaves, conquered by the sword, were not known for mercy and I wouldn't hold them up; in any stage of cultural development, as promoting gender equality.<BR/><BR/>The Roman Republic came about after years of the Roman Empire and interestingly enough was during the time of the highest Jewish population in the Republic.<BR/><BR/>The burning of the library of Alexandria has not been conclusive so it remains a bit of a mystery with several possibilities. While Christians, in name, may have been involved...I don't know...there are too many variables that are unknown. But it is well documented that it was Christian monks who copied books day and night. This was around the same period as the Book of Kells is thought to have been written.<BR/><BR/>Not a scholarly source, but a summary:<BR/><A>Irish Scribes</A><BR/><BR/>My point is not that a successful civilization cannot happen outside of biblical influence, but that biblical influence has brought about the <B>very best</B> in successful civilization.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Is the idea that we should love one another as much as we love ourselves, to the point of sacrificing our preferences for the sake of bettering someone else found in other religions? Maybe it is, but I haven't read it yet. <BR/><BR/>Another interesting thing to note about your examples is that the cultures listed all believed in some sort of god or gods and even if the leaders did not actually believe themselves, they saw the benefit of having a god to believe in. I don't think a person shoule believe in a god just because it is a good idea, but like C.S. Lewis found, all people seem to have a propensity for belief in a deity.<BR/><BR/>Russia and China didn't do very well with their anti-god based ideology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74808062870093362922007-07-20T11:03:00.000-04:002007-07-20T11:03:00.000-04:00If I may interject on the conversation, I've some ...If I may interject on the conversation, I've some feedback:<BR/><BR/><EM>Yes, there have been horrible things done too, but overall the influence of Christianity which has it's roots in the God of the Bible, has brought the world to a better place.<BR/><BR/>If not; why is it that the only countries that can boast of prosperity (I challenge the definition of prosperity as we know it, but that's a different topic) descended from a biblical heritage, even if it is a loose one?</EM><BR/><BR/>Confusing collation with causality is a common logical error. Because Western culture has seen more "progress" than other areas of the world may not be because of the predominate religion, but because of cultural elements that caused it to keep a hold of one religion IN ADDITION to the "progress" it saw.<BR/><BR/>Take ancient Greek culture circa 400 BCE. Thriving and modern! The earliest, best working example of democracy in action! Philosophy, medicine, cultural equality, science. And they had a large pantheon of "pagan" gods.<BR/><BR/>Then the Romans, and empire built heavily on the Hellenistic example. Irrigation, sanitation, thriving economy, also (for much of the time) a working and fair representative government. And a huge pantheon of gods.<BR/><BR/>Then what happens? Constantine makes Christianity one of the official religions. Then a later emperor makes it the official religion. And here's the rub: unlike 99% of the other Middle Eastern and lower European religions, Christianity was about one god only, and converting people. Mix that with the most powerful empire in history (which got that way BEFORE Christianity,) and all of a sudden you have the official religion spread out around Europe at the point of a spear.<BR/><BR/>So, you have a continent that already had the tradition and mindset of progress and improvement and assimilation. (The Romans were a lot like The Borg.) And a religion that was intolerant and selfish and hated competition. It's only natural then that as the West continued to "progress" that religion that got its tendrils intertwined in with it, came along too.<BR/><BR/>Ethical moral behavior has been around LONG before Christianity (even the Hebrews--just look at Hammurabi's Laws for one example), and in places untouched by Christianity. If anything, it can be said that Christianity has hindered progress in many ways. The Dark Ages were a time of intellectual stagnation due to The Church's desire to stifle science, innovation, and curiosity. The greatest collection of knowledge the world had ever seen, the Library of Alexandria was burned down by Christians.<BR/><BR/>During this same period, the Arabian lands were in the middle of a HUGE renaissance of sorts, developing algebra and art and social reforms. And they were moderate Muslims. Until the Crusades, thank you The Church, sparked a war that basically hasn't ended.<BR/><BR/>If you were to sort the bible and put in one column all the "good morals" (don't steal, don't lie...) and the "bad morals" (slavery, sell daughters, offer daughters to be raped by a mod, genocide,) you'll find two things: There is FAR more god-encouraged immorality than morality, and all the "good stuff" isn't unique to Christianity and can be found in most every culture.Mechphistohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132057358855155420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78025585470760157772007-07-20T10:51:00.000-04:002007-07-20T10:51:00.000-04:00Jennifer,I just found the old thread where we talk...Jennifer,<BR/><BR/>I just found the old thread where we talked about red shift and other cosmology issues.<BR/><BR/>First, I would like to apologize to you. By the end of that exchange, I was incredibly rude and disrespectful to you! I'm truly sorry about that.<BR/><BR/>Second, I see that our discussion had nothing to do with the opening article of that thread. In lieu of reviving an old and off-topic discussion, would you be interested in taking our cosmology discussion to email? If you're ok with that, just send an email to bitsai@hotmail.com (and please post here to let me know if/when you do, because it's a throw-away account I check very infrequently), and I'll respond from my real email account. This way, neither of us have to leave our real email addresses here. This will probably sound silly to you, but unfortunately, there are some people here whom I have no wish to expose my email address to.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54906269330381911912007-07-20T10:24:00.000-04:002007-07-20T10:24:00.000-04:00Hi Jennifer,Don't worry, you're not interrupting m...Hi Jennifer,<BR/><BR/>Don't worry, you're not interrupting much of anything :)<BR/><BR/>I'm very happy to hear that the move went well! Regarding red shift, I would love to pick up where we left off. But the most appropriate place would probably be the thread where that discussion was taking place, and I can't find it :(<BR/><BR/><I>I'm fairly confident that you will find that the influence of biblical morals has allowed people groups to thrive...not follow the biblical blueprint perfectly, but to attain to a high moral standard which has resulted in the state of relative peace and prosperity we enjoy today in our country.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree that certain moral values have enabled people to thrive and achieve high moral standards. What I challenge is the claim that they are exclusively biblical. Can you point to a single "good" moral value and demonstrate that it is exclusively biblical?<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, there have been horrible things done too, but overall the influence of Christianity which has it's roots in the God of the Bible, has brought the world to a better place.<BR/><BR/>If not; why is it that the only countries that can boast of prosperity (I challenge the definition of prosperity as we know it, but that's a different topic) descended from a biblical heritage, even if it is a loose one?</I><BR/><BR/>I think before we go any further down this path, it would be best if I asked you exactly what your defintion of prosperity is.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your compliment Jennifer, the feeling is mutual.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91332259465530424882007-07-20T09:01:00.000-04:002007-07-20T09:01:00.000-04:00Why can't I leave well enough alone?Everything you...Why can't I leave well enough alone?<BR/>Everything you've mentioned, Jason, I've addressed except your cognitive biases won't accept it. And you have still to address the most important question of all: The discongruity between a loving and merciful god, and providing the ONLY means of salvation for people for the last 2000 years and the future contained in a book that is not clear, not decisive, not without debate and controversy, and prone to translation errors.<BR/><BR/>I really should ignore you now, but I have two follow-ups and one new comment.<BR/><BR/>Why is it, if Jesus was so clear in what he said, and the proof so obvious and rampant about his existence, there was HUGE strife and disagreement among even the Christians of the 1st-4th centuries? You have the Gnostics who were a large "denomination" who didn't even believe Jesus existed in the flesh. (Many biblical scholars believe Paul didn't either.) You do realize that there were a LOT of gospels aside from the four canonized ones, yes? Mary, Timothy, Judas, Nicodemus, and scores more. Each with some very different ideas about Jesus and his message.<BR/>One of the reasons for the Nicaean Councils in the 4th century was to get some stuff straight and create one set dogma and put an end to all the conflict and disagreement. And this was only 300 years after Jesus was supposedly there!<BR/><BR/>Also, thanks btsai for speaking in my defense. I don't have any respect for the idea that is created from the fundamental conflict between a loving and just god, and one who sets his creation up to be damned by default unless you come in contact with a book that's the sole keeper of the knowledge of salvation from eternal torment for a flicker of a lifetime of potential sin. And not even your OWN sin, but the supposed sin of Adam no less. A book written during a time of extreme superstition and scientific ignorance and rampant cults. An omniscient god would have known this would be a problem for thousands of years of future supposedly loved humans. All the evidence points to a god who really doesn't love us, is in fact slanted the field against us, or doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>As for the ending of Mark: in one version you have the women commanded to go and tell people, but it ends with them running in fear. With a definitive end there, it implies that the message didn't get out and the events that followed weren't important. The latter additions imply humans didn't like that message, and so added an ending. but the point is this: That's proof the scripture is subject to editorial changes and adjustments, and that's an absurd way for an omniscient and omnipotent god to chose to get out the most important message of all time!<BR/><BR/>Finally, back to the ridiculous details of minutia: your interpretation of Jesus statement was said only days, weeks at best, before he was to be crucified, and he knew it. So, in essence, you're saying Jesus said: "Hear this, for it's very important: Every word of the Old Law stands until the end of time...or a few days. I know which it will be, but for you 30 or so people listening to me, just know that you follow the Old Law, period until one or the other happens. Which will be in just a few days by the way."<BR/><BR/>You're saying that God found it so very important that 0.00000000001% of the population at the time know in no uncertain terms that the Old Law should be observed for another few days, and that 99.999999999999...% of all the people who would ever live on this planet, it doesn't matter because he will have "fulfilled the law" by the time they read about it? That's patently absurd.<BR/><BR/>OK, everything important addressed, I know you won't ever address the most important and over-reaching question I've posed which ALWAYS gets dismissed by every believer I've ever asked it of (even though it's more important of a question than anything else said here), and nothing I can say will possibly get through your wall of cognitive bias. I will finally take btsai's wise advice and leave now.Mechphistohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132057358855155420noreply@blogger.com