Rational religion.

[Elijah John]

For debate.

Is there any reasonable way to approach religion and the Bible?

If so, how if not "picking and choosing"

Also.

Is the Bible entirely evil and irrelevant? A complete anachronism?

[William]

CONCLUSION: "By the close of the second century, . . . a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia." - Bible scholar Bruce Metzger


If there is anything that I have posted that you contend is not factually sound, feel free to present a counterargument, preferably with similar rational, evidence and references.

In relation to the above, does this process not clearly show that this is exactly how religions are organised by humans, and that the process of fitting very diverse and scattered individual congregational beliefs into an overall manuscript they could all agree to does not in itself mean that such is therefore 'The Word of (any) God'?

This is the idea of a god being shaped into something that those doing the shaping could all agree to, and does not in any way prove that it is not politically motivated or inspired and ordained by any actual God.

This is all about shaping the idea of a God into something politically useful to human beings who literally lord it over other humans beings with their created systems of disparity.

The history of the cultures where the bible is clearly shown to be the champion of those cultures (the holy book as it were) clearly shows that the ripple effects on other cultures was significant in its brutality and agenda and much evil was done in the name of tha book and of the God.

Therefore if indeed the argument is correct regarding the bible being the inspired word of this God, all justified under the supposition that some event in the future will make all of this 'okay' iow - the ends justifies the means - then it has to be said that the God is not entirely 'good' as he employs evil as part of the 'means'.

Which of course is a contradiction in relation to the same idea of GOD been espoused as purely good.

Perhaps, intentionally good, or heading for that overall attribution, but certainly not there yet.

Of course, all this 'the ends justifies the means' presumes that the end is definitely going to be GOOD, and this relies on the belief that what is written re that, is actually from any God rather than simply as something invented by diabolical human beings for political reasons who require the willing support of the believers to achieve their agenda.

[William]

.
EJ, the Ethic of Reciprocity (Golden Rule) is common to many sources / ideologies, some of which likely predate the Bible. Judaism has no copyright on the 'rule' and Christianity has even less claim since it admittedly borrowed the rule from Judaism.

If the GR / ER is the 'message' of the Bible WHY carry the baggage of nearly a million words that are 'just commentary'? The 'fluff' and tall tales seem to detract from and contradict the message . . .

This is a relevant question.

If one were to compare the words attributed to Jesus and the words attributed to Paul, are any notable contradictions between the two which are able to be clearly shown?

Which of the two do Christians generally use to support their arguments?

I see that generally Christians use Jesus is to produce guilt (and subsequent repentance and Paul is used to produce obedience to organised doctrine.

Seems like a pattern employed int the creation of organised religions.

Was organised religion something that Jesus was attempting to steer people away from as part of the recipe for gaining connection with the idea of God as a Father-figure and the individual as the 'child'?

Paul was attempting something else perhaps?

If so, the answer might be found in the contradictions, if there are contradictions.

Why would God need to organize religions using human beings who adopt positions of authority which support systems of disparity to do so?

Isn't that something which can be accomplished solely by human beings without the idea of GOD being involved? Yes it can. Many godless systems of disparity are created without any GOD being invoked.

So what is the difference between a godless system of disparity and ones which claim some idea of GOD as the overall authority?

Did Jesus promote the support of systems of disparity?

Did Paul promote the support of systems of disparity?

Questions, questions.

Is the answer "rather than doubt, have faith" a logical or relevant position to assume in relation to such inconsistencies? Or simply 'the blind leading the blind?'





In answering those two questions is there any contradiction between what Jesus promoted and what Paul promoted?

[JehovahsWitness]

CONCLUSION: "By the close of the second century, . . . a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia." - Bible scholar Bruce Metzger


If there is anything that I have posted that you contend is not factually sound, feel free to present a counterargument, preferably with similar rational, evidence and references.

In relation to the above, does this process not clearly show that this is exactly how religions are organised by humans, and that the process of fitting very diverse and scattered individual congregational beliefs into an overall manuscript they could all agree to does not in itself mean that such is therefore 'The Word of (any) God'?

Is there a reason this has been posted in answer to me? I was presenting documentation regarding the development of the bible canon, not in relation to proof of inspiration, much less in relation to belief systems.

How is your comment in any way a response to something I posted.


JW

[William]

CONCLUSION: "By the close of the second century, . . . a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia." - Bible scholar Bruce Metzger


If there is anything that I have posted that you contend is not factually sound, feel free to present a counterargument, preferably with similar rational, evidence and references.

In relation to the above, does this process not clearly show that this is exactly how religions are organised by humans, and that the process of fitting very diverse and scattered individual congregational beliefs into an overall manuscript they could all agree to does not in itself mean that such is therefore 'The Word of (any) God'?

Is there a reason this has been posted in answer to me? I was presenting documentation regarding the development of the bible canon, not in relation to proof of inspiration, much less in relation to belief systems.

How is your comment in any way a response to something I posted.


JW

The response is aligned with the belief that the bible is the inspired word of a God. In this case, the God of many names, one of which you use as a title for him.

Your producing the documentation in answer to whether Catholicism had anything to do with the formation of the Bible as a book, to show that 'no it did not' and also show that the book was the creation of a variety of human interactions, does not in itself show that therefore it must have been inspired by the god in question...or indeed that Catholicism (or an early version thereof) was not involved.

I have queried this in other posts between my original question to you and the last post to which you have deemed to comment in query as to how that post 'responds' to something you have posted.

If you are interested, perhaps you need take a look at my other replies and this should at least allow for some answer to your question. I have been responding.

[JehovahsWitness]

does not in itself show that therefore it must have been inspired by the god in question...

What have I said in this thread that implied otherwise?

[William]

does not in itself show that therefore it must have been inspired by the god in question...

What have I said in this thread that implied otherwise?

In context, what I said was;

"Your producing the documentation in answer to whether Catholicism had anything to do with the formation of the Bible as a book, to show that 'no it did not' and also show that the book was the creation of a variety of human interactions, does not in itself show that therefore it must have been inspired by the god in question..."

So are you saying that you are implying through your posts in this thread that just because the bible exists as it does, does not mean it is inspired by the idea of the god in the bible? I think you would refer to that god as Jehovah.

If not, then what do you mean by your answer here?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 35 by William]

I was not discussing the bible as it is, I was discussing how the bible canon came to be. My understanding of debating is that the response must be based on what has been said, not by what has not been said. I have made no statement regarding inspiration and I don't think I have even mentioned God. Therefore your question is irrelevant.

... then what do you mean by your answer here?

I usually try and make clear the point I am making by posting a question as a heading...

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

# QUESTION Did the Catholic church compile the bible?

If you have a counterargument to the documentation presented, or if you feel I have misquoted or misrepresented any factual information therein, present it. If not your "debate" with me, is now over.

Have an excellent day.

JW

[William]

I was not discussing the bible as it is, I was discussing how the bible canon came to be. My understanding of debating is that the response must be based on what has been said, not by what has not been said. I have made no statement regarding inspiration and I don't think I have even mentioned God. Therefore your question is irrelevant.

JW

Well okay, you were just debating. When debating, are you permitted to not witness Jehovah as per the rules of debate?

How the bible cannon came to be according to your list, had to do with Jehovah's ability to make sure his word was not tampered with in any way. That was the implied way in which divine revelation could be protected from the 'highly dubious' stuff also mentioned.

Your list came with the implication that Jehovah had made sure that the dubious could not have infiltrated his word, and my argument in reply to that is what you are avoiding addressing.

Are you saying that:

1: The Bible is not the inspired word of Jehovah due to this or:
1: The Bible is the inspired word of Jehovah due to this?

Which is it you are arguing?