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?
Victims Silenced
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
I hope not, considering Adolf claimed himself to be a Christian. And as the contemporary Christians tweak there faith to suit there needs, there is no difference between them. (considering faith).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.
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #32
All I said before about "guilt by association" in the case of Stalin applies to Hitler. There's an all too common argument called the "Hitler card" or "Argumentum ad Nazium" which is only superficially convincing but actually flawed. It goes like this:
Hitler believed in (insert idea)
Therefore, (idea) must be wrong.
This fallacious argument is used against a variety of ideas, from vegetarianism to Christianity, euthanasia, smoking laws, you name it!
This kind of argument is only good for heating up the debate and hindering rationality.
As for Hitler having Vatican support, that's stretching the facts a bit. The vatican perhaps could have done more to oppose Hitler, but lacking a proper army, their options were limited. Pious XII had studied German Philology and was a Germanophile, but that's not enough to make him a Nazi.
Hitler believed in (insert idea)
Therefore, (idea) must be wrong.
This fallacious argument is used against a variety of ideas, from vegetarianism to Christianity, euthanasia, smoking laws, you name it!
This kind of argument is only good for heating up the debate and hindering rationality.
As for Hitler having Vatican support, that's stretching the facts a bit. The vatican perhaps could have done more to oppose Hitler, but lacking a proper army, their options were limited. Pious XII had studied German Philology and was a Germanophile, but that's not enough to make him a Nazi.
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #33
[quote="trencacloscas ]
I gave you a link (http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/main.html) with a source that lists some of the evidence of a historic Jesus from sources such as Josephus, Thallus, Pliny, etc., and I also told you that, if you would do some reading, you would find that the majority of historians, Christian or non-Christian, don't dispute the fact that Jesus was a real human being. I gave you that information and you failed to read it. This tells me that you are not interested in the truth, only in arguing.
As for my assuming too much re: your hatred of Christianity, let me refer you back to your initial posts on this board that were rude, disrespectful, mocking, etc. Those characteristics don't come from somebody who mildly disagrees with Christians. They are the characteristics of someone who is angry and hates the object on which he has spewed his venom.
If you truly just feel that Christanity is a waste of time, then why do you spend so much time here talking about it? Why don't you just get on with your life and let people be?
Let's say that you have a class of 50 students. You have the original copy of the Gettysburg Address. Each student takes it and makes a hand-written copy of it. Then the original copy gets lost. But you still have 50 copies of it.
Now let's say that, when you read all the copies from all the students, you notice that three of them made a mistake in the first line. But the other 47 all had the same thing written for that line. It's a sure bet that the 47 got it right and the other three were wrong.
You can go through the letter line by line that way. Wherever the majority agree, it's a good bet that they're right and the few that disagree are wrong.
Therefore, the fact that there are 25,000 ancient documents is highly important as it means that there are many copies to compare and, through that comparison, you can arrive at a reliable idea of what the text says. This method of validating ancient documents is the one used by all experts on all documents, be they Christian or non-Christian.
Also, you cannot dismiss the Dead Sea Scrolls. You must acknowledge the fact that they attest to how reliable the Bible is as they verified the fact that God's Word has come to us with only minor copyist errors through many, many centuries.
And I believe the oldest fragment we have is the Rylands fragment. It from about 125 A. D. and contains sections of John 18:31-33 and 37-38. I encourage you to broaden your horizons and read some Protestant material as well as the Catholic.
Oh, t! I'm so disappointed in you! You didn't even bother to read any of the information at those links I posted. And I bet you aren't going to bother looking for the books I recommended either, are you? I provided sources of information that attests to the fact that claims about authorship are valid and reliable. Only you don't want to believe that they're not so you won't even consider them. It's important to look at ALL the evidence out there, not just the information that supports the view you already hold. If I can spend time reading what people say in attack of the Bible, I think you can spend the time reading what people say in support of it.
There is NO proof that these books did not come from the sources to which they have been attributed. You keep telling me I have to have proof, but you don't have any to offer me. Yet, you expect me to believe you. In fact, you admit that scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have no reason to believe they were NOT written by the people they were attributed to! So why do you assume that you're smarter than any of them and are sure that the Bible can't be trusted? You're working awfully hard to deny God and His Word for somebody who thinks it's all a waste of time!!!
As for Paul not knowing Jesus personally, he knew him the way that I know him and millions of Christians have know him -- through his revelation of himself to us. Let's not forget Paul's encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.
Also, Paul lived with and knew many people who had known Christ personally. That means that, if he ran around telling complete lies about Christ, there were a heck of a lot of people who could have shot him down. Does the fact that my sister tells me about an experience with somebody I have never met make her experience invalid? Does it make her experience a lie? If I know my sister to be a trustworthy person, then I have no reason to doubt her. It's the same with Paul.
As for your statement that I am declaring indirectly that my research is conditioned by quoting the Bible, let me remind you that you had asked me for verses from the Bible that suggested Christians should think critically. That's one more verse for you. I don't even understand why my quoting the Bible is an example of "conditioning".
Can you honestly say that you are not conditioned by anything? Because, from where I sit, it looks like you have bought the atheistic lie hook, line and sinker. You have been conditioned to believe that God and the Bible are invalid. And yet you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Nor can you prove that the Bible is not reliable.
Bear in mind that all kinds of people become Christians from all kinds of backgrounds -- atheism, Islam, Wicca, Hinduism, etc. In other words, you can't dismiss all Christians as people who have been conditioned to believe what the Bible says. Many people have been conditioned in entirely different worldviews and yet come to Christ. How do you explain them?
It has been said by others on this board that we are talking about evidence, not proof. You have no proof that God doesn't exist. Yet, I'm sure that you would list things that you find as evidence suggesting to you that he isn't real. Why do you demand proofs for my beliefs when you don't have them for yours? Remember that we are talking about evidence here.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.
I gave you a link (http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/main.html) with a source that lists some of the evidence of a historic Jesus from sources such as Josephus, Thallus, Pliny, etc., and I also told you that, if you would do some reading, you would find that the majority of historians, Christian or non-Christian, don't dispute the fact that Jesus was a real human being. I gave you that information and you failed to read it. This tells me that you are not interested in the truth, only in arguing.
As for my assuming too much re: your hatred of Christianity, let me refer you back to your initial posts on this board that were rude, disrespectful, mocking, etc. Those characteristics don't come from somebody who mildly disagrees with Christians. They are the characteristics of someone who is angry and hates the object on which he has spewed his venom.
If you truly just feel that Christanity is a waste of time, then why do you spend so much time here talking about it? Why don't you just get on with your life and let people be?
Actually, the fact that there are multiple texts IS important, extremely important. An information scientist or expert in ancient documents, be they Christian or non-Christian, will tell you so. Here's why: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.
Let's say that you have a class of 50 students. You have the original copy of the Gettysburg Address. Each student takes it and makes a hand-written copy of it. Then the original copy gets lost. But you still have 50 copies of it.
Now let's say that, when you read all the copies from all the students, you notice that three of them made a mistake in the first line. But the other 47 all had the same thing written for that line. It's a sure bet that the 47 got it right and the other three were wrong.
You can go through the letter line by line that way. Wherever the majority agree, it's a good bet that they're right and the few that disagree are wrong.
Therefore, the fact that there are 25,000 ancient documents is highly important as it means that there are many copies to compare and, through that comparison, you can arrive at a reliable idea of what the text says. This method of validating ancient documents is the one used by all experts on all documents, be they Christian or non-Christian.
Also, you cannot dismiss the Dead Sea Scrolls. You must acknowledge the fact that they attest to how reliable the Bible is as they verified the fact that God's Word has come to us with only minor copyist errors through many, many centuries.
And I believe the oldest fragment we have is the Rylands fragment. It from about 125 A. D. and contains sections of John 18:31-33 and 37-38. I encourage you to broaden your horizons and read some Protestant material as well as the Catholic.
.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
Oh, t! I'm so disappointed in you! You didn't even bother to read any of the information at those links I posted. And I bet you aren't going to bother looking for the books I recommended either, are you? I provided sources of information that attests to the fact that claims about authorship are valid and reliable. Only you don't want to believe that they're not so you won't even consider them. It's important to look at ALL the evidence out there, not just the information that supports the view you already hold. If I can spend time reading what people say in attack of the Bible, I think you can spend the time reading what people say in support of it.
There is NO proof that these books did not come from the sources to which they have been attributed. You keep telling me I have to have proof, but you don't have any to offer me. Yet, you expect me to believe you. In fact, you admit that scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have no reason to believe they were NOT written by the people they were attributed to! So why do you assume that you're smarter than any of them and are sure that the Bible can't be trusted? You're working awfully hard to deny God and His Word for somebody who thinks it's all a waste of time!!!
As for Paul not knowing Jesus personally, he knew him the way that I know him and millions of Christians have know him -- through his revelation of himself to us. Let's not forget Paul's encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.
Also, Paul lived with and knew many people who had known Christ personally. That means that, if he ran around telling complete lies about Christ, there were a heck of a lot of people who could have shot him down. Does the fact that my sister tells me about an experience with somebody I have never met make her experience invalid? Does it make her experience a lie? If I know my sister to be a trustworthy person, then I have no reason to doubt her. It's the same with Paul.
My beliefs have nothing to do with wishful thinking. They have to do with the revelation of God with His Spirit speaking to mine. They have to do with fellowship with Jesus Christ. They have to do with the infilling of the Holy Spirit who provides revelation knowledge. That is where my faith is centred -- in a relationship with Jesus Christ.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
As for your statement that I am declaring indirectly that my research is conditioned by quoting the Bible, let me remind you that you had asked me for verses from the Bible that suggested Christians should think critically. That's one more verse for you. I don't even understand why my quoting the Bible is an example of "conditioning".
Can you honestly say that you are not conditioned by anything? Because, from where I sit, it looks like you have bought the atheistic lie hook, line and sinker. You have been conditioned to believe that God and the Bible are invalid. And yet you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Nor can you prove that the Bible is not reliable.
Bear in mind that all kinds of people become Christians from all kinds of backgrounds -- atheism, Islam, Wicca, Hinduism, etc. In other words, you can't dismiss all Christians as people who have been conditioned to believe what the Bible says. Many people have been conditioned in entirely different worldviews and yet come to Christ. How do you explain them?
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #34
LillSnopp wrote:In order to make this general statement about Christians you would have to know ALL Christians from every country in the world throughout all of history and you would have had to study them them at length. Since I'm sure you have not know them all, then I am sure that this statement is not just uninformed, but invalid.And as the contemporary Christians tweak there faith to suit there needs, there is no difference between them. (considering faith).
Post #35
No, i just have to make a generalization (which i did), without this, we could not argue anything (pointless to debate anything).In order to make this general statement about Christians you would have to know ALL Christians from every country in the world throughout all of history and you would have had to study them them at length. Since I'm sure you have not know them all, then I am sure that this statement is not just uninformed, but invalid.
And the comment must be one of the most dazed i ever seen. How come you are on a Forum at all? You cant you state anything(?) after this. You cant argue that Peace is better then war, because some people dont agree. You cant state that raping is bad, because some people might not agree..... You dont need to have everyones opinion, you can just use the average opinion of this, the general populations regard to it, and most people, dont think rape is good... Do you?
Thats why we have generalization, or inductive reasoning as i would prefer.
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #36
I'm sorry, but you have missed my point entirely. I said that you cannot state that ALL are a certain way just because SOME are a certain way in your estimation. That's just common sense.LillSnopp wrote:No, i just have to make a generalization (which i did), without this, we could not argue anything (pointless to debate anything).In order to make this general statement about Christians you would have to know ALL Christians from every country in the world throughout all of history and you would have had to study them them at length. Since I'm sure you have not know them all, then I am sure that this statement is not just uninformed, but invalid.
And the comment must be one of the most dazed i ever seen. How come you are on a Forum at all? You cant you state anything(?) after this. You cant argue that Peace is better then war, because some people dont agree. You cant state that raping is bad, because some people might not agree..... You dont need to have everyones opinion, you can just use the average opinion of this, the general populations regard to it, and most people, dont think rape is good... Do you?
Thats why we have generalization, or inductive reasoning as i would prefer.
And to say there is no difference between Christians is like saying there is no difference between atheists and, as Dilettante pointed out, there is! And I agree with him. That's the point I was trying to make. Forgive me if I did not make it clearly.
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
reliability of Bible
Post #37Here's another good source of information re: reliability of the Bible for anyone who is interested the evidence for its trustworthiness:
http://www.myfortress.org/manuscriptevidence.html
And now I really must do something other than write posts for this board no matter how much I enjoy it!!!!
http://www.myfortress.org/manuscriptevidence.html
And now I really must do something other than write posts for this board no matter how much I enjoy it!!!!
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20853
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
- Contact:
Post #38
Anyone can make any assertion one wants on this forum. It can even be wild and ridiculous. However, there is one condition that it must adhere to. It must be supportable by logic and/or evidence. It doesn't necessarily need to be provided when the assertion is made, but it should be ready to be pulled out of the pocket when the assertion is challenged. Logic is the basis of debate, not opinions. So, actually, generalizations that are not supportable have little value in debates.LillSnopp wrote: No, i just have to make a generalization (which i did), without this, we could not argue anything (pointless to debate anything).
-
trencacloscas
- Sage
- Posts: 848
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:21 pm
Post #39
Just for the record, would you like to explain the difference between one and the other?It has been said by others on this board that we are talking about evidence, not proof.
Again, I don't have to present any proof since I'm not affirming anything. It's a logical stance, the burden of proof is on the affirmative side.You have no proof that God doesn't exist.
First of all, calm down. You provided a series of links, I'm reading them at my own time and just started already. Did you read the link I provided? Don't seem so since you did not do any comment...I gave you a link (http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/main.html) with a source that lists some of the evidence of a historic Jesus from sources such as Josephus, Thallus, Pliny, etc., and I also told you that, if you would do some reading, you would find that the majority of historians, Christian or non-Christian, don't dispute the fact that Jesus was a real human being. I gave you that information and you failed to read it. This tells me that you are not interested in the truth, only in arguing.
Starting with the latest one, sorry, but some secular references are corrupted, and this was proven long ago. If you care to follow the link I gave (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html) you'll find more information about it (as I warned before, do not regard the language and the web title, because you might get offended, just the arguments and sources). The two paragraphs (rather sentences, simply) of Josephus were interpolated in the Middle Ages, it's kinda easy to point the fraud. Here you got a full explanation of the so called Testimonium Flavianum: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html
Tacitus do not mention Christ, but Christians, which is something different. Suetonius got that famous Nero paragraph contradicted in other version, and so on. It is nevertheless an interest source of discussion today. About biblehistory.net, it goes the same direction but with less information, it gets kinda boring to read since it doesn't bring anything new. Hope you don't mind if I pass on this one. bib-arch.org is a general link, I don't quite understand the purpose of this one, as it is not anything speciphic, I'll be talking a wider look though. This other link (I guess you passed it because of the contradictions issue) http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/history.html is void.
About the rest, I'm still checking.
OK, is it alright to say that the Fathers of the Church show hatred and their writings are full of venom then? Or would you say that they get angry for a good cause?As for my assuming too much re: your hatred of Christianity, let me refer you back to your initial posts on this board that were rude, disrespectful, mocking, etc. Those characteristics don't come from somebody who mildly disagrees with Christians. They are the characteristics of someone who is angry and hates the object on which he has spewed his venom.
That's my problem, don't you think. But I could answer that I am just spending the same time on the subject that I wasted before.If you truly just feel that Christanity is a waste of time, then why do you spend so much time here talking about it? Why don't you just get on with your life and let people be?
Last edited by trencacloscas on Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Post #40
Confusion solvedAnd to say there is no difference between Christians is like saying there is no difference between atheists and, as Dilettante pointed out, there is! And I agree with him. That's the point I was trying to make. Forgive me if I did not make it clearly.
