Victims Silenced

[trencacloscas]

As said before, Christians have poisoned the debate about religion by passing off the concept that religious claims must be treated with a kinder and gentler type of criticism than that leveled at other types of belief systems. But what about the people that was infected with this hellish doctrine, harassed with its symbols, pestered with the absurd and dogmatism from the very cradle?

Most ex-Christians who just want to express their opinion on the subject plainly, and intend to expose forward the nonsense of this religion from their personal experience, are often diminished and censored on the basis that they offend religious people. Like Jews would offend nazis for attacking nazi's doctrine, right?

Lots of people chastised, their natural instincs abnormally refrained, their guilt excited beyond the limits of paranoia, their hunger for knowledge, curiosity or study denied, and the big etcetera...

So, where is exactly the breaking point? Why the "politically correct" tag goes always against victims? Should victims of Christianity be allowed any extra rights to react towards their executioner religion?

[trencacloscas]

Why is the fact that a Christian has done some good of less value than the fact that an atheist has done some good or a Buddhist has done some good?

You mean morally? Well, of course the atheist is morally in advantage, because he would do good for the goodness itself or conscience or just practical reasons. Christians would do good, first of all, because their God said so. That diminishes the merit a bit, as Immanuel Kant would suggest. Anyway, good is good, but when the church or the Christian community uses it, it becomes also propaganda. Atheists and agnostics don't have that circumstance to plague them.

I can give you a long list of blessings from Christians such as William Wilberforce who was instrumental in ending slavery in England.

I know Wilberforce deeds, he was a great man. But then again, just a drop of honey in the endlessly bitter ocean of Christianity, who supported and encouraged slavery during at least fifteen out of its seventeen centuries of existence. Was Wilberforce doing anything else than what the whole Christianity were supposed to have done long ago?

I'm enjoying this conversation but will have to abandon it for a few days as I am going away and will be off-line until the end of next week. This is a busy board and I expect this thread could be eight pages long by the time I get back, so I know I will have some catching up to do!!!!

if we keep extensions like this, we'll be forced to write a book on collaboration! See you next week.

[Arch]

The intellectual history of the Christian church boasts a lot of great thinkers such as Augustine, Anathius, Anselm, Justin Martyr, Erasmus, Luther, Zwingli, etc.

I guess great minds think alike

Hitler is said to have admired the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, more than any other German. Among Luther's many denunciations of the Jews, there are such religious sentiments as: "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them."

[Overcomer]

[

And the Gospels are a valid source of information with eye witness accounts. that, as I said elsewhere, British lawyers tried in a court of law with the conclusion that there is enough evidence to support the claims of Christ.

Sorry, but this is completely unacceptable. No eyewitnesses proven, not even the connection between the Gospels and the names traditionally attached to them, all based in hearsay accounts, multiple and fatal contradictions in the texts, evidence of external forgery... Historically, all facts point in the opposite direction.

It's only unacceptable to you and to others who are fueled by hatred and do not want to believe that God exists. You keep insisting that Christians have been brainwashed and that they don't use their brains at all. However, I can make the same statement about you. You are quick to believe what you have written above about the Gospels. However, it tells me that you have NOT done a great deal of reading about the Bible and its reliability. It tells me that you read what atheists say, but have little interest in true scholarship, especially if that scholarship comes from a Christian.

What I see in you is somebody who hates Christianity because of his limited experience with a church that isn't necessarily Christian at all. On the basis of that experience -- and I'm sure it was horrible as I have heard many ex-Catholics make the same statements about priests and Roman Catholicism that you have made -- you have tarred and feathered ALL Christians as bad and Christianity as the source of their badness.

First of all, the Gospels and the names that are connected to them are indeed reliable. Please check out An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Caron, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. It goes into great detail about authorship of the books of the New Testament.

This is another source of information on the Bible: A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded Edition by Norman Geisler and William Nix.

Are you aware of the fact that there are 25,000 ancient documents containing pieces if not all of the New Testament? That means there are a lot of documents to compare and analyze to arrive at an understanding of what the New Testament says and to verify its reliability. No other ancient document has nearly as many proofs of its accuracy. If I remember correctly, there are about eight ancient copies of the Iliad. It's next in line re: having multiple ancient copies to work from.

With regard to the Old Testament, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 went a long way toward confirming the reliability of the Scriptures. In the book of Isaiah, for example, there were a dozen small differences in the Dead Sea copy (written centuries before Christ came to earth), all having to do with minor words that did not change the meaning of the text at all. In other words, the Bible has come down to us intact over centuries.

Here is an article on the reliability of the Bible:

http://www.probe.org/docs/bib-docu.html

Believe me, people have been trying to discredit the Bible for centuries and yet, as the years go by, there are more and more reasons to trust its accuracy.

For example, archaeology has, over the years, authenticated the reliability of what the Bible says. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.bib-arch.org/

http://www.bib-arch.org/

http://www.biblehistory.net/

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/history.html

As far as I can tell, your hatred of the Roman Catholic Church has led you to dismiss anything that might be good and valid in Christianity. I understand why and I sympathize with you. But it is blocking your ability to assess Christians and the Bible fairly and reasonably. You don't do me any damage by trashing them. You only do damage to yourself.

You have no proof that the Bible contains forgeries. As for contradictions in the Bible, I have yet to hear of any that cannot be easily explained. The so-called errors and contradictions that atheists constantly point to in their attempts to discredit the Bible have their roots in the following:

1. A typographical error or error in translation. These errors NEVER affect doctrine and they are often pointed out in modern translations. Because of the many ancient documents we have, we can arrive with a high degree of certainty at the correct word or number.

2. Atheists like to take verses out of context. In doing so, they often change the meaning of a verse. It is imperative that verses be read in context, not just in the context of the chapter they're in, but in the context of the book they're in and, in fact, in context with the whole Bible. An information scientist, Christian or non-Christian, will tell you that this is the only valid and reliable way to assess a document.

3. People don't go back to the original language to see what the original words meant. Sometimes, nuances and connotations are lost in translation and it's important to see what was meant originally, not what people have mistranslated it as.

Here is a link that offers additional links on supposed Bible contradictions and errors:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bible/Contra/

Here's a brief article on Christians using critical thinking when it comes to the Bible. There are links to other articles on the reliability of the Bible at the end of the article:

http://www.probe.org/docs/e-criticalthinking.html

Here is an article addressing the accusation that the Bible has been changed over time:

http://www.probe.org/docs/e-trustbible.html

I have only given you a few links. There are many more out there and I'd be happy to post more if you're interested.

Let me end with this one. It's the link to A Christian Thinktank:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/

It promotes thinking in a big way and is based on 1 Thess. 5:2: "Critically examine everything and hold on to the good."

That is what I encourage you to do, trencacloscas. Critically examine EVERYTHING, including material that disagrees with your own personal beliefs, and HOLD ON TO WHAT IS GOOD!

[Overcomer]

[quote="trencacloscas]You mean morally? Well, of course the atheist is morally in advantage, because he would do good for the goodness itself or conscience or just practical reasons. Christians would do good, first of all, because their God said so. That diminishes the merit a bit, as Immanuel Kant would suggest. Anyway, good is good, but when the church or the Christian community uses it, it becomes also propaganda. Atheists and agnostics don't have that circumstance to plague them.

When it comes to God, the issue isn't one of morality, it's one of sin. Sin literally means missing the mark. What is the mark? Holiness. Perfection. Purity. A state of sinlessness.

NO human being, Christian or non-Christian, can make himself perfect and free of sin. The idea that an atheist has a moral advantage has its root in the sin of pride, that is, the belief that he doesn't need God to point out what sin is and that he isn't a sinner, but a good person. That belief, that he is morally superior to a Christian or anyone else for that matter, is a sin.

How do you decide what a good person is? There has to be an absolute truth by which these things can be measured. God provides that.

And I do good out of love for God and love for others. I don't see how doing something out of love is inferior in any way.

I know Wilberforce deeds, he was a great man. But then again, just a drop of honey in the endlessly bitter ocean of Christianity,

But the number of atheists and godless men and women who have done evil is great. Why do you not have a problem aligning yourself with a huge pool of non-Christians who have done evil? Why do you prefer to align yourself with a group of people that includes men like Joseph Stalin, an atheist who is one of the greatest butchers this world has seen? He murdered more Russians in the Depression years than were killed in all of World War II. Why is it that you don't mind keeping company with him? Why doesn't a man like him turn you off atheism entirely?

if we keep extensions like this, we'll be forced to write a book on collaboration! See you next week.

LOL! Good idea! I bet there's a market for it!

By the way, what does your nickname mean? I've been puzzling over it.

[trencacloscas]

It's only unacceptable to you and to others who are fueled by hatred and do not want to believe that God exists. You keep insisting that Christians have been brainwashed and that they don't use their brains at all. However, I can make the same statement about you. You are quick to believe what you have written above about the Gospels. However, it tells me that you have NOT done a great deal of reading about the Bible and its reliability. It tells me that you read what atheists say, but have little interest in true scholarship, especially if that scholarship comes from a Christian.

Fueled with hatred? Is it fair if I say you are full of fantasies? Where are the proofs? If there was a historic Jesus and, moreover, he did what the Gospels say he did, I want proofs solid as a rock. If these proofs exist and they are so solid, there would be no such arguing.

What I see in you is somebody who hates Christianity because of his limited experience with a church that isn't necessarily Christian at all. On the basis of that experience -- and I'm sure it was horrible as I have heard many ex-Catholics make the same statements about priests and Roman Catholicism that you have made -- you have tarred and feathered ALL Christians as bad and Christianity as the source of their badness.

I'm sorry, but you are assuming too much. You are tying bad experiences to conclusions and that doesn't sound like me. My experience wasn't that bad, just the sense of wasting time and energy. It has nothing to do with resentment, just with opening the eyes to the whole thing. If you want to put it in a more realistic way, the problem is not Christians but Christianity itself.

Are you aware of the fact that there are 25,000 ancient documents containing pieces if not all of the New Testament? That means there are a lot of documents to compare and analyze to arrive at an understanding of what the New Testament says and to verify its reliability. No other ancient document has nearly as many proofs of its accuracy. If I remember correctly, there are about eight ancient copies of the Iliad. It's next in line re: having multiple ancient copies to work from.

For starters, a claim that the historicity of the occurrences in the NT are true due to the fact that there are multiple texts of it to bear the same record, is not a serious one. Since we don't have any autographs and suspicion of fabrication and forgery is heavy on the first three centuries after the alleged death of Jesus, it's not the quantity but the quality what matters. The Catholic Encyclopedia informs that the older papyrus we have is Oxyrhyncus Pap. 657, from the third-fourth century and it preserves to us about a third of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Far from complete.

Doesn't matter, in the end. The traditional Church has portrayed the authors of the Gospels as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. These Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Then of course, many many scholars (secular and religious alike) admit they have no reason to doubt about some Epistles (not all) from St. Paul, but again, this should be hearsay comments, as Paul neither actually knew Jesus nor he witnessed his deeds.

That is what I encourage you to do, trencacloscas. Critically examine EVERYTHING, including material that disagrees with your own personal beliefs, and HOLD ON TO WHAT IS GOOD!

It's exactly my recommendation to you. Do not rely on wishful thinking, do not accept suppositions as proofs. By saying "hold on to what is good" you are declaring indirectly that your research is conditioned, for instance.

[Dilettante]

Why do you prefer to align yourself with a group of people that includes men like Joseph Stalin, an atheist who is one of the greatest butchers this world has seen?

Sorry Overcomer, but "guilt by association" is not a good argument. First, atheists are not a homogeneous group at all. There are atheists in all political stripes, and being one does not make you a Stalin supporter. Besides, it could also be argued that what drove Stalin to slaughter his own people were mainly his political ideas. I don't think his lack of a religious belief played a big role.

[trencacloscas]

When it comes to God, the issue isn't one of morality, it's one of sin. Sin literally means missing the mark. What is the mark? Holiness. Perfection. Purity. A state of sinlessness.

NO human being, Christian or non-Christian, can make himself perfect and free of sin. The idea that an atheist has a moral advantage has its root in the sin of pride, that is, the belief that he doesn't need God to point out what sin is and that he isn't a sinner, but a good person. That belief, that he is morally superior to a Christian or anyone else for that matter, is a sin.

How do you decide what a good person is? There has to be an absolute truth by which these things can be measured. God provides that.

I don't believe in sin, and if you relate everything to God, it's also not my concern, as I don't believe in such entity. Morality is a human standard developed with time and custom, no perfection is necessary to establish a paradigma

But the number of atheists and godless men and women who have done evil is great. Why do you not have a problem aligning yourself with a huge pool of non-Christians who have done evil? Why do you prefer to align yourself with a group of people that includes men like Joseph Stalin, an atheist who is one of the greatest butchers this world has seen? He murdered more Russians in the Depression years than were killed in all of World War II. Why is it that you don't mind keeping company with him? Why doesn't a man like him turn you off atheism entirely?

Dilettante's answer on this one is just brilliant, I couldn't find better words. In fact, I loathe Stalin the same way I loathe Hitler, who was Christian and had Vatican support.

By the way, what does your nickname mean? I've been puzzling over it.

Puzzling you mention and 'puzzle' it means. It's a Catalan word.

[LillSnopp]

It's only unacceptable to you and to others who are fueled by hatred and do not want to believe that God exists. You keep insisting that Christians have been brainwashed and that they don't use their brains at all. However, I can make the same statement about you. You are quick to believe what you have written above about the Gospels. However, it tells me that you have NOT done a great deal of reading about the Bible and its reliability. It tells me that you read what atheists say, but have little interest in true scholarship, especially if that scholarship comes from a Christian.

What I see in you is somebody who hates Christianity because of his limited experience with a church that isn't necessarily Christian at all. On the basis of that experience -- and I'm sure it was horrible as I have heard many ex-Catholics make the same statements about priests and Roman Catholicism that you have made -- you have tarred and feathered ALL Christians as bad and Christianity as the source of their badness.

First of all, the Gospels and the names that are connected to them are indeed reliable. Please check out An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Caron, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. It goes into great detail about authorship of the books of the New Testament.

This is another source of information on the Bible: A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded Edition by Norman Geisler and William Nix.

Are you aware of the fact that there are 25,000 ancient documents containing pieces if not all of the New Testament? That means there are a lot of documents to compare and analyze to arrive at an understanding of what the New Testament says and to verify its reliability. No other ancient document has nearly as many proofs of its accuracy. If I remember correctly, there are about eight ancient copies of the Iliad. It's next in line re: having multiple ancient copies to work from.

With regard to the Old Testament, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 went a long way toward confirming the reliability of the Scriptures. In the book of Isaiah, for example, there were a dozen small differences in the Dead Sea copy (written centuries before Christ came to earth), all having to do with minor words that did not change the meaning of the text at all. In other words, the Bible has come down to us intact over centuries.

I would be one of these people "fueled by hatred". Do you know what i did last Saturday?

You see, a couple of years ago, i refused to believe that Creationist actually existed. I assumed it was just one big joke, a haha, Like Green Elfs, Santa Claus and the gnomes (could be debated). But i even found a group on Sweden that was Creationists. They call themselves "pingstvännerna" (Whitsun Friends literally).

Last Satudray, i was at one of there meetings, because i find it interesting to see these kind of people, Yes, I, one of does fueled by hatred, refusing to see or learn anything about it (did´nt you say so? I thought you did?).

At this meeting (it was a "youth" meeting, meaning anyone under 30 i suspect), they had very skillful indoctrination methods i must admit. Me and my colleague whom attended it, was very impressed, and learned several new things about how you can control people easily. Of course, during the 3 hours since they begun, they said absolutely nothing, i never been at a meeting with so much spoken, but so little came out. Except, Believe in Jesus, or burn in Hell.


Anyways, You guys (a)muse me.

[Overcomer]

Why do you prefer to align yourself with a group of people that includes men like Joseph Stalin, an atheist who is one of the greatest butchers this world has seen?

Sorry Overcomer, but "guilt by association" is not a good argument. First, atheists are not a homogeneous group at all. There are atheists in all political stripes, and being one does not make you a Stalin supporter. Besides, it could also be argued that what drove Stalin to slaughter his own people were mainly his political ideas. I don't think his lack of a religious belief played a big role.

That's my whole point, Diletttante, that Arch and trencasclosas are damning Christianity on the basis that there has never been a perfect Christian. That's what I was trying to say, that guilt by association is not a good argument. Thank you for recognizing that and confirming what I was trying to say.

Christians are not a homogeneous group either. There are Christians of all political stripes as well and being a Christian does NOT mean that we agree with everything that has been done in the name of God. Yet, I feel that I am being damned here by atheists for all the mistakes that anybody who called himself a Christian ever made in the history of the world. My point has been all along that that isn't just.

As for Stalin's lack of religious belief not playing a big role in his butchery, that's a debatable matter. You can't say that the lack of God in his life didn't affect his lack of respect for human life either.

[Overcomer]

[quote="Arch

Hitler is said to have admired the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, more than any other German. Among Luther's many denunciations of the Jews, there are such religious sentiments as: "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them."

You're right. Luther said some awful things about Jews. He started out very positive about them, sure that when he witnessed to them that he would be able to show them that Jesus was their long-awaited Messiah. But as the years went by, they failed to see that and he grew angry, bitter and hopeless about them.

Why did he become so vituperative? Maybe in his old age he just got cranky! He lived with a bounty on his head for 25 years, on the run, sometimges going into hiding, never sure when he might be caught and killed. He suffered severe digestive problems and lived with pain and discomfort. He lost two of his children, a daughter at 13 and another one in infancy and that broke his heart. When he first nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, he had no intention of starting a new denomination. He simply wanted the existing church to reform and eradicate the negative things in it. When that didn't happen, he was bitterly disappointed about it.

Does all of that justify what he said about the Jews in his later years? No, of course not. But it does prove that he was human and that he was exactly what he said all Christians were -- both saint and sinner at the same time, capable of doing great things and capable of being a jerk.

Hitler, of course, also admired the atheist Nietschze and borrowed from him. But I do not hold either Nietschze or Luther accountable for the way that Hitler took what they said and used it for pure evil. Again, let's not condemn all Christians or all atheists because there were some bad mixed in with the good.