Opposites attract

[Peds nurse]

My most precious friends, I hope this finds you all well.

I was pondering the reason we debate. Why are we here on this forum? In other words, why does it matter what God people believe in, or if they believe in one at all? Does it affect our families, our jobs, or our relationships in our communities? Do we get up in the morning, trying to navigate through a network of religions and belief's, trying to decide what God hat we might wear?

What brings you here?

I will start. I joined this forum, after I was debating a few friends on facebook. I loved the debate, but more importantly, found that I loved the people to whom I was talking to, and the challenges they brought to the table that encouraged me to dig a little deeper into why I believed what I do. This forum has been a huge blessing to my growth in understanding other people's perspectives, while solidifying my own belief in God. I have also developed a very sincere and deeply appreciative heart for the people on this forum. I have come to the conclusion that our belief in God does not make us better people, but rather equips us to better love people.

I look forward to reading your reasons for being on the forum.

[Zzyzx]

.

Even silly responses must be preferable to admitting that "we don't actually have ANY of the words Jesus actually said".

I think my point was that the Gospels reputedly are the words that Jesus actually said. One who asserts, “We don’t actually have any of the words Jesus actually said� has no way of knowing that.

Let's look at the whole exchange:

Because we don't actually have ANY of the words Jesus actually said.

I was unaware that scientists have proved that all of Christ’s dialogue in four canonical Gospels was actually the work of Shmuley Boteach’s 400th degree great grandfather. When did this happen – last week?

Those who can't dispute what is presented can always try to obfuscate, hoping to fool someone. Even silly responses must be preferable to admitting that "we don't actually have ANY of the words Jesus actually said".

I think my point was that the Gospels reputedly are the words that Jesus actually said.

Yes, reputedly (defined as According to what people say or believe; supposedly. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com). Notice that what people say or believe is no assurance of truth or accuracy.

One who asserts, “We don’t actually have any of the words Jesus actually said� has no way of knowing that.

Add 'available' after have and that 'major' issue is eliminated.

However, this provides an excellent opportunity for a Theist to prove Non-Theists wrong – just produce the writings that are verifiable as the words Jesus spoke. Perhaps the Vatican has them hidden away out of reach of scholars and theologians. Or maybe there is a grand scheme to keep them secret . . .

You can't and you (likely) know you can't show that words attributed to Jesus were actually his words -- which adds credibility to the statement

There are STORIES written by anonymous people decades or generations afterward (the earliest copies of which date to three centuries later) that purport or pretend to quote his exact words.

You don’t actually know that. Perhaps you believe it, but to proclaim it as fact is somewhat premature.

I do not proclaim such things BUT Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the identity of Gospel writers is in doubt / disputed, that none can be shown to be witnesses, and that the earliest Bible available dates from 325 CE.

Do you care to dispute any of that?

Hop in your time machine in your basement, dial it back two thousand years, take a video recorder with you and then you can proclaim that the dialogue in the Gospels is pure fiction. Of course, the opposite might occur as well.

Ah yes, the 'time machine argument'.

In the absence of such a device, how can anyone proclaim to know what Jesus actually said?

Notice, as I trust readers do, that I (for one) do NOT state that “the dialogue in the Gospels is pure fiction�. There may be some literal truth, even if by accident or happenstance.

However, those who claim that the Gospels represent literal truth are asked to show verifiable evidence that they are truthful and accurate.

[JLB32168]

Notice that what people say or believe is no assurance of truth or accuracy.

I never said otherwise. I was pointing out that according to you (all skeptics, that is) “no assurance of truth or accuracy� means “absolutely bereft of truth and accuracy and most likely 100% fabrication,� which moves you to easily say we don’t possess ANY words. Unfortunately for you, you don’t know that the dialogue in Gospels is all fiction – your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

I do not proclaim such things BUT Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the identity of Gospel writers is in doubt / disputed, that none can be shown to be witnesses, and that the earliest Bible available dates from 325 CE.

Why is the fact that the oldest complete Bible even relevant? There are plenty partial manuscripts and even fragments that antedate that.

In the absence of such a device, how can anyone proclaim to know what Jesus actually said?

I agree. How can you know that we don’t have ANY of Jesus’ words, which is what you skeptics asserted? I'm quite willing to admit I might be wrong. You guys act like someone has asked you for a kidney.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 42 by JLB32168]

Why is the fact that the oldest complete Bible even relevant? There are plenty partial manuscripts and even fragments that antedate that.

The Bible itself is relevant to millions of people today because they have chosen to make it relevant. If millions of people chose to believe that the Harry Potter books represent actual events rather than fiction, and chose to live their lives according to details taken from the Harry Potter books, then the Harry Potter books would be deeply relevant to them, their view of reality and the world around them. And it is true that the Harry Potter books contain references to actual places and commonly known objects, like cars and trains. But that would not change the fact that the Harry potter books are, largely, derived entirely from the imagination and have no actual relationship to anything valid and true. Harry Potter is make believe and so is much of the Bible.

[JLB32168]

The Bible itself is relevant to millions of people today because they have chosen to make it relevant.

And I suppose that might be relevant in some multiverse to the question of whether or not we have any of Jesus’ words today.

The fact remains that you said we don’t have any of Jesus’ words. You don’t know that. You only believe it.

You don’t state beliefs as facts and I won’t either.

[Zzyzx]

.

Notice that what people say or believe is no assurance of truth or accuracy.

I never said otherwise. I was pointing out that according to you (all skeptics, that is) “no assurance of truth or accuracy� means “absolutely bereft of truth and accuracy and most likely 100% fabrication,�

It must be REALLY difficult to debate against what is ACTUALLY said – since you (generic term) so often find it necessary or convenient to twist / warp / misrepresent in weak attempts to make a point.

“no assurance of truth or accuracy�

Does NOT mean

“absolutely bereft of truth and accuracy and most likely 100% fabrication,�

Deliberately misconstruing what is said in debate is not honorable.

which moves you to easily say we don’t possess ANY words.

I do not deny that religionists possess WORDS – tales, stories, myths, legends, folklore, oral tradition, written tradition, church dogma – all of which are WORDS. What is lacking is verifiable evidence that the words are truthful and accurate.

Unfortunately for you, you don’t know that the dialogue in Gospels is all fiction – your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

Again, flailing away against what I have NOT said is a rather foolish debate tactic.

I do not proclaim such things BUT Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that the identity of Gospel writers is in doubt / disputed, that none can be shown to be witnesses, and that the earliest Bible available dates from 325 CE.

Why is the fact that the oldest complete Bible even relevant? There are plenty partial manuscripts and even fragments that antedate that.

Of course there are partial documents and fragments (some the size of a credit card). Do those contain tales of resurrection (for example)?

My point is that modern Christianity is based on the Bible – an anthology created by churchmen of the Roman empire from earlier writings by religion promoters (whose identity is debated / doubted by Christian scholars and theologians) supposedly written a couple centuries earlier (and decades or generations after the events and conversations reported) by people who have not been shown to have had personal knowledge. None of those original writings are available to compare to what is reproduced in the Bible.

In the absence of such a device, how can anyone proclaim to know what Jesus actually said?

I agree.

Thank you.

How can you know that we don’t have ANY of Jesus’ words, which is what you skeptics asserted?

I have made no such claim. If others have, take it up with them.

I'm quite willing to admit I might be wrong. You guys act like someone has asked you for a kidney.

I am NOT willing to 'admit' being wrong to QUESTION claims and stories presented as though truthful and accurate. I consider it prudent to QUESTION what I hear and what I read.

I do not take anyone's word as a basis for making decisions regarding important matters. If I did 'take his word for it (or this book)' regarding anything significant, I would consider myself very naïve and gullible.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The Bible itself is relevant to millions of people today because they have chosen to make it relevant.

And I suppose that might be relevant in some multiverse to the question of whether or not we have any of Jesus’ words today.

The fact remains that you said we don’t have any of Jesus’ words. You don’t know that. You only believe it.

You don’t state beliefs as facts and I won’t either.

If you are amenable to not quoting Jesus as if the words are unquestionably his own, then I am agreeable to that.

[Blastcat]

Great topic!

Well, if I'm totally honest, I enjoy being right. Debating let's me test whether I really am or not. Sadly for my ego, I'm not always right

You are wrong.
Sorry.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 42 by JLB32168]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Skepticism means being absolutely sure[/center]

Notice that what people say or believe is no assurance of truth or accuracy.

I never said otherwise. I was pointing out that according to you (all skeptics, that is) “no assurance of truth or accuracy� means “absolutely bereft of truth and accuracy and most likely 100% fabrication,� which moves you to easily say we don’t possess ANY words. Unfortunately for you, you don’t know that the dialogue in Gospels is all fiction – your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

“no assurance of truth or accuracy� means “absolutely bereft of truth and accuracy and most likely 100% fabrication,�

That's not a very skeptical appraisal of skepticism.

___________

Questions:

• 1. How do you define "skepticism"?
  2. How does "no assurance" mean "Absolutely none"?

___________