Religion Of Christianity - General

[QUOTE=sgman91;43887130]Care to give an example?[/QUOTE] Well any text that has been declared non-canonical.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43887148]Well any text that has been declared non-canonical.[/QUOTE] Can you name a text? All the normal texts people talk about (like the Gospel of Judas) were known to be non-authoritative very very early (like 2nd or 3rd century). It's a huge misunderstanding to say that anyone "created" the current cannon. It would be much more accurate to say they "collected" the books that were already considered authoritative into a single text.

Book of Enoch

[QUOTE=sgman91;43887167]Can you name a text? All the normal texts people talk about (like the Gospel of Judas) were known to be non-authoritative very very early (like 2nd or 3rd century).[/QUOTE] I'm not too familiar with them so wouldn't be able to select any particularly interesting examples, but I suppose the ones here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha[/url] While the church was in its infancy I'm sure most of the texts weren't particularly committed to, so ones that were obviously dubious and heretical could be discarded without much conflict. Is it impossible that some subtly incorrect ones may have slipped through, and become part of the orthodoxy such that the church would be reluctant to question their authenticity? [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;43887167]It's a huge misunderstanding to say that anyone "created" the current cannon. It would be much more accurate to say they "collected" the books that were already considered authoritative into a single text.[/QUOTE] I don't think I'm claiming that, just that since the accounts recorded in the various books were mostly not authored by eye-witnesses the dialogue inscribed is unlikely to be accurate. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] The alternative being that god intervened to ensure that the various authors and compilers of the canon made absolutely no mistakes, but that violates free will.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43886595]Interestingly, the only questions that I know of for which the Bible answers, "He's God and you're not. So don't worry about" are questions relating to God's sovereignty and free will. "14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? " - Romans 9:14-20 [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] I know it seems like a cop out, but it's only a cop out if it isn't true.[/QUOTE] You should really stop quoting the bible. The passages are either being misinterpreted or mistranslated, like was the case of "eternal punishment".

I'm sure we can work out some interpretation of Christianity that eliminates all internal inconsistency while maintaining free will and the assumed perfect nature of god, but you'll probably have to let go of a few of the clunky iron age folk tales.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43883516]I'm going to be completely honest here and say that the way in which God's sovereignty and free will come together mystifies me. I simply don't understand it, but I don't throw out the entire thing because of not being able to understand a single part of it just like scientists didn't throw out all of science when they found quantum particles that contradicted the physical laws that we knew to be true.[/QUOTE] In reference to my past discussions on omnipotence and free will I have to agree with sgman here, I have only been supporting one view point on God's omnipotence when there are others that also have merit. Ultimately they all have their flaws though, so really the best position on the matter is no position, scripture simply isn't clear on how exactly God's omnipotence works. [editline] [/editline] [QUOTE=Ziks;43887585]I'm sure we can work out some interpretation of Christianity that eliminates all internal inconsistency while maintaining free will and the assumed perfect nature of god, but you'll probably have to let go of a few of the clunky iron age folk tales.[/QUOTE] What "iron age folk tales" are you referring to?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43887589]What "iron age folk tales" are you referring to?[/QUOTE] The Old Testament? Mostly things like the Book of Genesis with it's tale's of Noah's Ark, a literal Adam and Eve, people living for 900 years and so on. The things that may make your religion appear cartoonish to an outside observer. They are interesting stories and valuable examples of early storytelling so I absolutely wouldn't advocate completely eliminating them, but it may be best to leave them in libraries of ancient works and filter the Bible down to the important life lessons, teachings about the nature of God, and historically accurate stuff.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43887498]You should really stop quoting the bible. The passages are either being misinterpreted or mistranslated, like was the case of "eternal punishment".[/QUOTE] Sorry, but I don't take your opinion over essentially every Biblical scholar in history, for almost 2,000 years. You seem to keep saying, "Everyone else is wrong and I'm right... because reasons."

[QUOTE=Ziks;43887838]The Old Testament? Mostly things like the Book of Genesis with it's tale's of Noah's Ark, a literal Adam and Eve, people living for 900 years and so on. The things that may make your religion appear cartoonish to an outside observer. They are interesting stories and valuable examples of early storytelling so I absolutely wouldn't advocate completely eliminating them, but it may be best to leave them in libraries of ancient works and filter the Bible down to the important and true stuff.[/QUOTE] They're all jewish tales to teach the jewish people. They have no place in Christianity. [QUOTE=sgman91;43887872]Sorry, but I don't take your opinion over essentially every Biblical scholar in history, for almost 2,000 years. You seem to keep saying, "Everyone else is wrong and I'm right... because reasons."[/QUOTE] That's exactly the problem, you're the one disregarding bible schollars.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43887872]Sorry, but I don't take your opinion over essentially every Biblical scholar in history, for almost 2,000 years. You seem to keep saying, "Everyone else is wrong and I'm right... because I say so."[/QUOTE] Do the Biblical scholars claim that the Bible is a perfect translation, and encodes conversations exactly as they occurred? To be fair some probably do, although I'm sure you can appreciate there may be a slight hint of a biased conclusion there.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43887945]Do the Biblical scholars claim that the Bible is a perfect translation, and encodes conversations exactly as they occurred? To be fair some probably do, although I'm sure you can appreciate there may be a slight hint of a biased conclusion there.[/QUOTE] I'm directly responding to his claims that the verses I've used are misinterpreted or mistranslated, going against the common belief for over 1,000 years, without even a hint of trying to provide a reason.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43887838]The Old Testament? Mostly things like the Book of Genesis with it's tale's of Noah's Ark, a literal Adam and Eve, people living for 900 years and so on. The things that may make your religion appear cartoonish to an outside observer.[/QUOTE] How are those elements of internal inconsistency? Also if they are to be interpreted as folk tales they would have to be written in the same style as folk tales of the time. I'm not saying you should consider them truth based solely off of that, but the fact of the matter is that those events simply aren't written as folk tales(by folk tales I assume you mean parables and the like, fictional narrative devised to convey an idea).

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43888004]How are those elements of internal inconsistency?[/QUOTE] Well in Genesis you have the great flood story which doesn't really align well with the notion of a hugely intelligent and loving god, as it sounds more like the kind of solution to a problem that a human might invent rather than the action of an infinitely wise creator of the entirety of the cosmos. As an exaggerated adaptation of an ancient Mesopotamian myth it doesn't really make much sense to me in the context of a book about the Christian god. [QUOTE]Also if they are to be interpreted as folk tales they would have to be written in the same style as folk tales of the time. I'm not saying you should consider them truth based solely off of that, but the fact of the matter is that those events simply aren't written as folk tales(by folk tales I assume you mean parables and the like, fictional narrative devised to convey an idea).[/QUOTE] By folk tales I mean stories that probably either had origins in a non-supernatural event that became exaggerated through retelling, or were invented as parables but were gradually assumed to historically correct over generations of being recounted with the occasional negligence in explicitly stating that they were parables.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43888160]Well in Genesis you have the great flood story which doesn't really align well with the notion of a hugely intelligent and loving god, as it sounds more like the kind of solution to a problem that a human might invent rather than the action of an infinitely wise creator of the entirety of the cosmos. As an exaggerated adaptation of an ancient Mesopotamian myth it doesn't really make much sense to me in the context of a book about the Christian god.[/QUOTE] Honestly, there's so much more meaning in the ordering of Genesis than a basic look at the individual stories can tell. I really do wish schools still taught about the Bible (not religiously, just because it's the most influential book in history) in order to get rid of the common ignorance that even exists among Christians. The book starts with humanity in a state of childlike ignorance with Adam and Eve, it then moves into life without the influence of God (age of heroes) as shown in the description of Cain's family line. This is told to result in all of humanity being evil all the time with the exception of Noah. The flood cleanses the earth of the irredeemable state of humanity that consists of nothing but evil. God then gives the first laws to mankind in the Noahide covenant. It's a logical progressions from ignorance > to full aware life without God (fully evil) > to life with some interaction with God (Noahide law). There's a progression that makes perfect sense within the context of the entire book.

[QUOTE=Pythonox;43852579]So now this is a big giant debate of some sides of religion but mostly it's the good ol' Athiest vs Christian. Now I grew up in a home filled with Roman Catholics that didn't even pray for dinner, said prayers at night, or attended church. Which lead me to being an athiest because I really didn't learn much as I never went to church except for Ash Wednesday and communion/confirmations of family. It's a bad environment of "Catholics" to be around. I'd love to be a Christian, but there is some doubt and I want facepunch's opinion! Do you think God was real? Apparently Jesus was a real person since scientists found the Census Of Quirinius which was a roman artifact which recorded births and Jesus' birth was linked to it. Also, why or why not is god real and what is your take on the finding of some scientists which made them believe Jesus existed. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius[/URL] The Christianity I am talking about is Roman Catholic by the way, not Protestant or anything besides that.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't call Roman Catholicism Christianity.

The book [I]The Beginning of Wisdom[/I] by by Leon Kass is a very in depth philosophical analysis of Genesis. Kass is a Jew, but writes without any religious commentary. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Galactic;43888285]I wouldn't call Roman Catholicism Christianity.[/QUOTE] The more one learns about Catholicism, the more one sees the glaring differences between it and protestantism, many of which are major doctrinal issues.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43888267]Honestly, there's so much more meaning in the ordering of Genesis than a basic look at the individual stories can tell. I really do wish schools still taught about the Bible (not religiously, just because it's the most influential book in history) in order to get rid of the common ignorance that even exists among Christians. The book starts with humanity in a state of childlike ignorance with Adam and Eve, it then moves into life without the influence of God (age of heroes) as shown in the description of Cain's family line. This is told to result in all of humanity being evil all the time with the exception of Noah. The flood cleanses the earth of the irredeemable state of humanity that consists of nothing but evil. God then gives the first laws to mankind in the Noahide covenant. It's a logical progressions from ignorance > to life without God (fully evil) > to life with some interaction with God (Noahide law). There's a progression that makes perfect sense within the context of the entire book.[/QUOTE] But it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the entire canon. For one, if god knows all possible futures then he will have known that leaving humanity without intervention would have lead to what it did. Additionally, outright murdering all but a small group of humans by pouring water on them doesn't sound like a particularly nuanced and perfect divine intervention but more like something you would get in Norse or Polynesian mythology. Finally, it seems that the great flood myth was initially an ancient Mesopotamian tale describing divine intervention by one of their gods, and was adapted into your religion later on. You get some further difficulties from some people taking the myth as a literal truth, and believing that the entire world actually was flooded. That's kind of embarrassing. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Galactic;43888285]I wouldn't call Roman Catholicism Christianity.[/QUOTE] Hey there, how's the evolution denial going? [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1331103&p=43796579&viewfull=1#post43796579[/url] [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] Also bIgFaTwOrM12, I should be able to respond tomorrow to that reply I neglected. Sorry for leaving you hanging for so long!

[QUOTE=Ziks;43888160]Well in Genesis you have the great flood story which doesn't really align well with the notion of a hugely intelligent and loving god, as it sounds more like the kind of solution to a problem that a human might invent rather than the action of an infinitely wise creator of the entirety of the cosmos. As an exaggerated adaptation of an ancient Mesopotamian myth it doesn't really make much sense to me in the context of a book about the Christian god.[/QUOTE] What about the flood narrative inclines you to believe that an infinitely wise creator would not do as God did? Also you assume it is an exaggerated adaption, it is true that a very similar narrative was written down before the flood narrative was, one could extrapolate that the biblical one was derived from the older Sumerian myth. One would then expect the other aspects of scripture to resemble the surrounding myths and religions of the time though, which it does not. [QUOTE]By folk tales I mean stories that probably either had origins in a non-supernatural event that became exaggerated through retelling, or were invented as parables but were gradually assumed to historically correct over generations of being recounted with the occasional negligence in explicitly stating that they were parables.[/QUOTE] What proof is there that the flood narrative or the creation accounts were originally parables or were exaggerated through retelling?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43888515]What proof is there that the flood narrative or the creation accounts were originally parables or were exaggerated through retelling?[/QUOTE] Are you claiming the flood literally happened? [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43888515]What about the flood narrative inclines you to believe that an infinitely wise creator would not do as God did? Also you assume it is an exaggerated adaption, it is true that a very similar narrative was written down before the flood narrative was, one could extrapolate that the biblical one was derived from the older Sumerian myth. One would then expect the other aspects of scripture to resemble the surrounding myths and religions of the time though, which it does not.[/QUOTE] Well it kind of does, since your religion appears to be taken from the concentrated belief in one god of many in a polytheistic religion, with some qualities and parables merged from those previously assigned to other gods and with influence from the religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion[/URL]

[QUOTE=Ziks;43888536]Are you claiming the flood literally happened?[/QUOTE] In the present discussion that is irrelevant, you're stating that the flood narrative was originally written as a parable and simply over time was rewritten/retold in the form of a historical narrative, I'm asking what historical proof there is of that. [QUOTE]Well it kind of does, since your religion appears to be taken from the concentrated belief in one god of many in a polytheistic religion, with some qualities and parables merged from those previously assigned to other gods and with influence from the religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion[/URL][/QUOTE] Upon doing a quick run-through I am not sure what's of interest in the article,is it the usage of the word El Elyon to refer to God?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43888615]In the present discussion that is irrelevant, you're stating that the flood narrative was originally written as a parable and simply over time was rewritten/retold in the form of a historical narrative, I'm asking what historical proof there is of that.[/QUOTE] Not originally written, it was probably purely verbal (although that's purely a guess on my part). What alternatives are there? Surely the mechanism I described is most rational?

shut your fucking mouth I ain't having any of your bullshit you spastic

[QUOTE=Ziks;43888654]Not originally written, it was probably purely verbal. What alternatives are there? Surely the mechanism I described is most rational?[/QUOTE] Whether you believe it actually occurred or not is another matter, that however should have no influence on trying to develop an exegetical interpretation of the text.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43888787]Whether you believe it actually occurred or not is another matter, that however should have no influence on trying to develop an exegetical interpretation of the text.[/QUOTE] Surely it does matter, in that it contradicts reality? We're obviously not going to consider the possibility that God literally did flood the entire planet with magically conjured water, are we? So we are looking for an explanation for the story in Genesis elsewhere, and so far you haven't given an alternative mechanism for the one I provided such that we could compare them.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43888845]Surely it does matter, in that it contradicts reality? We're obviously not going to consider the possibility that God literally did flood the entire planet with magically conjured water, are we?[/QUOTE] I'm speaking in terms of pure literary analysis right now, the flood narrative simply isn't written as a folk tale, you can assume that it was the result of adopted traditions and fictional stories that solidified into their current form, but it still remains a very bad method of interpretation. [QUOTE]So we are looking for an explanation for the story in Genesis elsewhere, and so far you haven't given an alternative mechanism for the one I provided such that we could compare them.[/QUOTE] I don't need to provide an alternate explanation for the origins of the narrative to display the issues with your explanation.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43888916]I'm speaking in terms of pure literary analysis right now, the flood narrative simply isn't written as a folk tale, you can assume that it was the result of adopted traditions and fictional stories that solidified into their current form, but it still remains a very bad method of interpretation.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure that pure literary analysis is a particularly sound method for determining historical truths if it involves neglecting reality. [QUOTE]I don't need to provide an alternate explanation for the origins of the narrative to display the issues with your explanation.[/QUOTE] So is your issue "lack of evidence"? Surely that's only a valid reason to reject it if there is an alternative explanation present with more empirical support? "Whatever remains however improbable" and so on. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] For example, if it was somehow physically possible for the entire Earth to be flooded, for all species to be represented on a boat, and there was evidence that both circumstances had occurred, it would be perfectly rational to assume the story of Noah was based on historical fact. However, that is simply not the case and so other explanations for the origins of the story must be explored.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43888973]I'm not sure that pure literary analysis is a particularly sound method for determining the past if it involves neglecting reality.[/QUOTE] It need not involve the neglecting reality, simply the recognition that the flood narrative was written in the style of a historical record and that to interpret it otherwise without sound proof is bad interpretation. [QUOTE]So is your issue "lack of evidence"? Surely that's only a valid reason to reject it if there is an alternative explanation present with more empirical support? "Whatever remains however improbable" and so on.[/QUOTE] Part of it yes, the other part is the fact that it completely disregards proper interpretations of all the copies of the narrative that we have. It's a shot in the dark with no other reason behind than the fact that you find a particular historical interpretation of the narrative hard to believe.

If you are a fan of evidence in this instance you should appreciate that the mechanism I described has occurred plenty of times in history for other ancient mythologies and even modern day urban myths. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889057]Part of it yes, the other part is the fact that it completely disregards proper interpretations of all the copies of the narrative that we have. It's a shot in the dark with no other reason behind than the fact that you find a particular historical interpretation of the narrative hard to believe.[/QUOTE] It's hardly a shot in the dark, but rather the application of a mechanism that is known to occur in other domains. Also it's not just about me finding an interpretation hard to believe, but how that interpretation contradicts reality and required a huge amount of assumed complexity to accommodate it. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] It really seems like you are arguing for the great flood being historical fact.

[QUOTE]For example, if it was somehow physically possible for the entire Earth to be flooded, for all species to be represented on a boat, and there was evidence that both circumstances had occurred, it would be perfectly rational to assume the story of Noah was based on historical fact. However, that is simply not the case and so other explanations for the origins of the story must be explored.[/QUOTE] That has no effect on how the text should be interpreted though, it was written with a meaning, to inject that sort of a mindset into the interpretation is not good scholarship. I'd also like to note that this is only one historical interpretation of the narrative. [QUOTE=Ziks;43889077]And if you are a fan of evidence in this instance you can appreciate that the mechanism I described has occurred plenty of times in history for other ancient mythologies and even modern day urban myths.[/QUOTE] Urban legends aren't ancient texts written in the style of historical narratives, so I don't necessary consider their being debunked of any particular concern. Also it would depend on the literary style of the ancient myths that were debunked whether they have any weight(granted still little) on how the text should be interpreted.