What came first...

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

What came first...

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

christianity, the religion, or the bible?
Is one based on or off of the other, are did they develop together, side-by-side?

The question arose from another poster's response in another thread saying (paraphrased): christianity wouldn't exist without the bible. This seems to indicate christianity was, at least in some part, 'built' from the bible.

If it's true that christianity is built off of the bible, is today's christianity the same as the belief of jesus's time?
If it's not true, what changed to make today's christianity different than the original?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7961
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: What came first...

Post #11

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Very good post. Good points, too. I went a bit off -topic and I don't want to persist in a derail, but I have to mention that the Faith is strong but the substance for supporting it is fragile. That's why it has to be padded or rather protected by a concrete carapace of whatever arguments will fend off shining a direct light of question on it. The name of the game, the method, is to bat away any questioning of the Bible as well as matters of Dogma.

I don't want to name names, but I've already seen some adjustments, one might say, in the maintaining of cover to cover validity. We have heard, haven't we of 'cafeteria Christians' who already have abandoned some of the Bible as myth or at least metaphor, and maintain other bits of it that don't strain their credibility. I suppose my main argument is that some stuff that was considered credible is actually not when examined comparatively.

We mustn't forget that many, many atheists were once Christians but they deconverted. And the deconversion of Matt Slick's daughter is a pretty typical example of how it can happen. All the time she was in the environment where Faith was regularly topped up, she didn't even think about it, but as soon as she went to university and tried to maintain the Bible against those who doubted, she realized that the case for Bible credibility didn't stand up. Again and again i have seen stories where trying to argue the case against questioners showed up the cracks in the Christian case.

My line, which I don't see argued very much, is redaction criticism, which I don't see done in atheist apologetics, at least not consistently. Bible apologetics have been able to make the 'witness error' excuse stick, yet I think that comparing contradictions is a staggeringly powerful tool in exposing the flaws in the gospel - story, even though the contradictions in the nativities are well - known. Not the one that shows that Matthew had Joseph as a Bethlehem resident, though :D and that's one that I consider unarguable and provable from the text, and yet for over a thousand years, everyone seems to have missed it. Just as they seemed to have missed the oddity of Jesus appearing 'first to Simon' in Luke, Luke Changing the message at the tomb (let alone realizing Why he changed it), and (amazingly to me) that John has never heard of the Transfiguration.

It seems to me that Christian apologetics have got away with it because atheist apologists have never realized it. I think it is high time they did. I want this to become part of the atheist case and I'm here because i wanted a forum dedicated to the debate. The one I came from was just a side -forum on one doing all sorts of discussions. Yet I had a lot of fun and learned a lot there.

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7961
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: What came first...

Post #12

Post by TRANSPONDER »

A bit of a p.s. you touched on a lot of other points. I don't know whether it's too touchy for a separate thread on it. I already mentioned how I saw similar apologetic methods in UFO - believer apologetics and Religious -believer apologetics. You pointed up what is perhaps an elephant in the room - maybe not. A very visible use of this 'religious' -type thinking and argument in US politics today. And it has to be said, just in One group. It goes way back through the Tea -party, through Creationism, which was given a political dimension by the Red Scare, but goes back to the monkey trial and the rush to religion that I have heard mentioned in the last efforts of the Confederacy. I even suspect that we might have all this because there is no Church of America. Separation of Church and State, while a policy that I (as an atheist) admire, left religion in the hands of those who believe the Bible like others believe in UFOs, Bigfoot and Atlantis.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: What came first...

Post #13

Post by brunumb »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:30 am Very good post. Good points, too.
Which post are you referring to TRANSPONDER?

If you are not quoting someone and use the reply arrow/button at the top right of a post we will see a message at the top of your post saying which post you are responding to.
e.g. [Replying to The Maestro in post #13]

The reply arrow/button at the bottom left is used for a general comment that is not directed to any specific post.

Hope that helps :D
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Post Reply