NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not quite sure how to put this,
I would like to know from the Christians here, what church you go to and how your church interprets the Bible. I am a christian from the Potter's House Christian Church in Australia and we believe the Bible is the word of God and it is truth.

I know other Churches/Denominations believe the Bible is less literal and is written as fictional stories which provide lessons for life. I would lik to know about other peoples churches and how you believe the Bible is to be translated/Interpretated?

The bible is an archaic rag full of lies and deciet. There is no savior or Biblical God...

You asked for it.



EDIT:

I claim this thread for the Atheist Church of the Vatican City. (Smile and pretend that made sense.)

I'm not quite sure how to put this,
I would like to know from the Christians here, what church you go to and how your church interprets the Bible. I am a christian from the Potter's House Christian Church in Australia and we believe the Bible is the word of God and it is truth.

I know other Churches/Denominations believe the Bible is less literal and is written as fictional stories which provide lessons for life. I would lik to know about other peoples churches and how you believe the Bible is to be translated/Interpretated?

I would lik to know about other peoples churches and how you believe the Bible is to be translated/Interpretated?

like this (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Job_1)

The Bible is at least Historically Correct in terms of the Old Testament. Many archaeologists will tell you that many great discoveries have been made based on the History that is written the Bible. If you cannot substantiate your claims or write something constructive please do not post insulting comments.

Oh no they won't

Many archaeologists will tell you that many great discoveries have been made based on the History that is written the Bible.

name them

The bible is an archaic rag full of lies and deciet. There is no savior or Biblical God...

You asked for it.



EDIT:

I claim this thread for the Atheist Church of the Vatican City. (Smile and pretend that made sense.)

:) It made perfect sense to me. I am a follower as long as there are no rules. ;)

The Bible is at least Historically Correct in terms of the Old Testament. Many archaeologists will tell you that many great discoveries have been made based on the History that is written the Bible. If you cannot substantiate your claims or write something constructive please do not post insulting comments.

I was not trying to be insulting, just stating my honest opinion. Christianty (all religion really) is a basis for division in the world.

Sure the bible may be historically correct in some instances, but I was merely stating my opinion on the religious merit of the bible. All the religious stuff in the bible (Genesis in particular) is bullshit in the extreme.

The Bible is at least Historically Correct in terms of the Old Testament. Many archaeologists will tell you that many great discoveries have been made based on the History that is written the Bible. If you cannot substantiate your claims or write something constructive please do not post insulting comments.

*awaits Fass*

You asked for it.

no he didn't, he said "I would like to know from the Christians here" :confused:

The Bible is at least Historically Correct in terms of the Old Testament. Many archaeologists will tell you that many great discoveries have been made based on the History that is written the Bible. If you cannot substantiate your claims or write something constructive please do not post insulting comments.

Really? For all I know, no archaeologists have yet found any trace of Isrealites being slaves in Egypt, let alone anything that would support the whole Exodus-story.
And by and large, that's one of the more credible one of the fairy tales.

:) It made perfect sense to me. I am a follower as long as there are no rules. ;)

Of course there are rules. No Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddists, Hindu's, or any other religious denomination are allowed. You must be atheist. (Other than that, have fun in the ACoVC)

no he didn't, he said "I would like to know from the Christians here" :confused:

So he did. :) My bad. Anyway, my position stands.

The bible is an archaic rag full of lies and deciet. There is no savior or Biblical God...

You asked for it.



EDIT:

I claim this thread for the Atheist Church of the Vatican City. (Smile and pretend that made sense.)

What's you point? Gilfig rules all.

name them
It helped the Nazis find the Arc of the Covenant, didn't it?

Say that to Gods face when you die scumbag!

I will choose to ignore this rather than report it, I don't like to see people get banned.

The bible is an archaic rag full of lies and deciet. There is no savior or Biblical God...


Say that to Gods face when you die scumbag!

What's you point? Gilfig rules all.

Praise be to Gilfig! *begins to try to find out what gilfig is*

I'm Lutheran, and we're the same way. We treat the Holy Bible historically, and believe it is the Word of God.

The Bible is at least Historically Correct in terms of the Old Testament. Many archaeologists will tell you that many great discoveries have been made based on the History that is written the Bible. If you cannot substantiate your claims or write something constructive please do not post insulting comments.

Can we have some of the discoveries that have been made and the links to the Bible and the archaeologists who claim such things?

I predict that there´s at least one Christian who will be very disappointed after his death. :p
Not that you will notice, though.

Yes, I'm dead! Heaven here I come...wait....:( *A tear*

Say that to Gods face when you die scumbag!

I predict that there´s at least one Christian who will be very disappointed after his death. :p
Not that you will notice, though.

Research the dead sea scrolls or the red sea crossing site, you may find something interesting.

Yes, I am sure they are very interesting. And your point?

Research the dead sea scrolls or the red sea crossing site, you may find something interesting.

Research the theory of evolution, you also may find something interesting.

Say that to Gods face when you die scumbag!

I just checked your nation page. I believe this is your motto "Warriors from the gates of Hell, in lord Satan we trust" So the above statement was just a joke right?

Research the dead sea scrolls or the red sea crossing site, you may find something interesting.

Research the theory of evolution, you also may find something interesting.

OOH! That was a mistake. You have just opened Pandora's Box. *Waits for oncoming onslaught of religious fanatics*

Research the dead sea scrolls or the red sea crossing site, you may find something interesting.

The dead sea scrolls were written centuries after the events in the old testament are supposed to have taken place, and you won't find two archaeologists or bible researchers who'll agree on where the Red Sea was crossed. Or even if it was the Red Sea at all to begin with.

Research the dead sea scrolls or the red sea crossing site, you may find something interesting.

Like what - a picture of Pamela Anderson, a recipe for hoummous? If you think it has something of interest say it don't be such a tease.

OOH! That was a mistake. You have just opened Pandora's Box. *Waits for oncoming onslaught of religious fanatics*

Yeah, I know how NSG works lol. I've been here for nearly a year.

The dead sea scrolls were written centuries after the events in the old testament are supposed to have taken place, and you won't find two archaeologists or bible researchers who'll agree on where the Red Sea was crossed. Or even if it was the Red Sea at all to begin with.

Very true. They can't even agree on if the Hebrews even cross a sea or the great Exodus even happened. Or if they were really slaves to their Egyptian rulers. The OP needs something better than this.

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

Uh...what?

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

Somehow I was waiting for this...

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

*gets the popcorn and waits for Bottle to find this thread*

Just out of curiosity ... what evidence is there for the bible?

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

lol, I deliberately baited you in my original post to see whether you knew what you were talking about.

I intentionally said "theory of evolution" instead of just "evolution" to see if, in your reply, you would make a reference to evolution "only being a theory". Indeed you did, which indicates you have no understanding of scientific discourse; not enough to come to a balanced conclusion about evolution and certainly not enough to waste my time debating.

Can I get an "pwned", please?

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

you know the difference between a scientific theory and theory in day to day use, don't you? And could you also please enlighten me and show me the evidence that supports the bible?

On a more interesting note how many more posts do we reckon Exumer has before being banned by a Mod. My guess is about three.

Of course there are rules. No Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddists, Hindu's, or any other religious denomination are allowed. You must be atheist. (Other than that, have fun in the ACoVC)

Ok, this is acceptable.

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

:rolleyes: Conjecture, pure conjecture.

Some reading for you: Evolution as a Theory and Fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_a_theory_and_fact)

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

*hands gun* You know what you need to do. ;)

lol, I deliberately baited you in my original post to see whether you knew what you were talking about.

I intentionally said "theory of evolution" instead of just "evolution" to see if, in your reply, you would make a reference to evolution "only being a theory". Indeed you did, which indicates you have no understanding of scientific discourse; not enough to come to a balanced conclusion about evolution and certainly not enough to waste my time debating.

Can I get an "pwned", please?

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/8258/pwned111za6.jpg

Ok, this is acceptable.


Good.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/8258/pwned111za6.jpg

:D

I'm not here for an argument but am telling others about my beliefs and asking others about theirs. You have the Internet at your fingertips and most of you seem Intelligent (I dont support the "Suffer in Hell" comments) please use some initiative and do a little research. I am not going to quote other peoples works for you. All I can say is have a look at both sides of the fence before you take a side. Assumptions can be very dangerous.

I'm not quite sure how to put this,
I would like to know from the Christians here, what church you go to and how your church interprets the Bible. I am a christian from the Potter's House Christian Church in Australia and we believe the Bible is the word of God and it is truth.

I know other Churches/Denominations believe the Bible is less literal and is written as fictional stories which provide lessons for life. I would lik to know about other peoples churches and how you believe the Bible is to be translated/Interpretated?

Presbyterian Church in America.

Bible is the word of God, though tend towards metaphorical interpretations of a large chuck of prophetic scriptures. (Primarily Amillenial, minority Post-Millenial).

I'm not here for an argument but am telling others about my beliefs and asking others about theirs. You have the Internet at your fingertips and most of you seem Intelligent (I dont support the "Suffer in Hell" comments) please use some initiative and do a little research. I am not going to quote other peoples works for you. All I can say is have a look at both sides of the fence before you take a side. Assumptions can be very dangerous.

See, most of us have been hanging around this forum for a long long time now. And believe me, we've seen both sides. And picked the one that made sense.

A word of advise, research whatever you post before you post it. People here don't take too kindly to ignorance.

I'm not here for an argument but am telling others about my beliefs and asking others about theirs. You have the Internet at your fingertips and most of you seem Intelligent (I dont support the "Suffer in Hell" comments) please use some initiative and do a little research. I am not going to quote other peoples works for you. All I can say is have a look at both sides of the fence before you take a side. Assumptions can be very dangerous.

honestly I have never found any evidence for creation on the net, if it is so well documented it can't really be that hard to just post a link.

See, most of us have been hanging around this forum for a long long time now. And believe me, we've seen both sides. And picked the one that made sense.

A word of advise, research whatever you post before you post it. People here don't take too kindly to ignorance.

True. Though I guess I am a n00b as well....

I'm not quite sure how to put this,
I would like to know from the Christians here, what church you go to and how your church interprets the Bible. I am a christian from the Potter's House Christian Church in Australia and we believe the Bible is the word of God and it is truth.

I know other Churches/Denominations believe the Bible is less literal and is written as fictional stories which provide lessons for life. I would lik to know about other peoples churches and how you believe the Bible is to be translated/Interpretated?

Personally, I'd suggest that Bible literalists actually familiarise themselves with the history of the Bible.

Because, y'know, it's amazing how many times men have taken it upon themselves to speak for the divine.

EDIT: For a starting point: Council_of_Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome) - The first canonical compilation of the Bible. Quite how they chose which books to include...

Also recommended: The Council of Nicea, when a bunch of men voted on the divinity of Christ. Oh, and nicked a bunch of pagan holidays to make Christianity more appealing.

honestly I have never found any evidence for creation on the net, if it is so well documented it can't really be that hard to just post a link.

http://www.seekgod.org/links/creation.html

Trying to help our little noobish OP here.... (This link is retarded; its full of bullcrap Christian Mythology)

Praise be to Gilfig! *begins to try to find out what gilfig is*

He a is supposed God who cut-of his toe, which became the Earth, and the eight drops of blood became the eight races of mankind in Eyes of the Overworld. One sect must walk on tight-ropes. Why? Because the particles of all who died are scattered on the ground, and they have to show respect for the dead. However, if they must touch the ground, they wear specially blessed footwear.

*gets the popcorn and waits for Bottle to find this thread*
I've been lurking since Page 1. :)

The reason I haven't responded is because there's nothing to say. Another random newbie has decided he's extremely insightful because he can parrot Creationist talking points and misinterpret the term "theory." He is quite sure he's being very original by informing us all that evolution is "just a theory" and the Bible really is real, for reals! He arrogantly and condescendingly assumes that anybody who doesn't embrace his personal superstition must not have really thought about this subject at all (despite his own obvious lack of anything approaching scientific literacy).

Wake me if he posts something of interest.

He a supposed God who cut-of his toe, which became the Earth, and the eight drops of blood became the eight races of mankind in Eyes of the Overworld. One sect must walk on tight-ropes. Why? Because the particles of all who died are scattered on the ground, and they have to show respect for the dead. However, if they must touch the ground, they wear specially blessed footwear.

Wow...confusing...anyway; All hail Gilfig!

I've been lurking since Page 1. :)

The reason I haven't responded is because there's nothing to say. Another random newbie has decided he's extremely insightful because he can parrot Creationist talking points and misinterpret the term "theory." He is quite sure he's being very original by informing us all that evolution is "just a theory" and the Bible really is real, for reals!

Wake me if he posts something of interest.

Not even a hello to the thread-thief. How mean. :(

Whats up Bottle. I've heard your quite famous here in our little corner of the net.

(I'm the founder of the Atheist Churh of the Vatican City BTW.)

I've been lurking since Page 1. :)

The reason I haven't responded is because there's nothing to say. Another random newbie has decided he's extremely insightful because he can parrot Creationist talking points and misinterpret the term "theory." He is quite sure he's being very original by informing us all that evolution is "just a theory" and the Bible really is real, for reals!

Wake me if he posts something of interest.

I doubt that will happen... such a pity, I was just in the mood to watch a little flame fest. ;)

I'm not here for an argument but am telling others about my beliefs and asking others about theirs. You have the Internet at your fingertips and most of you seem Intelligent (I dont support the "Suffer in Hell" comments) please use some initiative and do a little research. I am not going to quote other peoples works for you. All I can say is have a look at both sides of the fence before you take a side. Assumptions can be very dangerous.

Okay, the way this works is you link us to a reputable source and we debate from there. Posting what you believe with nothing credible to back you up leads nowhere.

I doubt that will happen... such a pity, I was just in the mood to watch a little flame fest. ;)

Seconded. I was so looking forward to punching massive holes in his creationist idea.

Not even a hello to the thread-thief. How mean. :(

(I'm the founder of the Atheist Churh of the Vatican City BTW.)
Greetings, Your Eminence!


Whats up Bottle. I've heard your quite famous here in our little corner of the net.
If "famous" = "loud and annoying," then yes. I am quite the celebrity. ;)

Greetings, Your Eminence!


If "famous" = "loud and annoying," then yes. I am quite the celebrity. ;)

Good day, my child. Welcome to the Atheist Church. *bows*



Loud and annoying. Ooh, you sound fun.

See, most of us have been hanging around this forum for a long long time now. And believe me, we've seen both sides. And picked the one that made sense.

A word of advise, research whatever you post before you post it. People here don't take too kindly to ignorance.
I'm starting to think that we need to get to work on a NSG For Dummies.

Chapter One: Evolution/Creationism
Subsection 1 = What does "theory" actually mean?
Subsection 2 = What the Bible actually says about the stories(!) of Creation
Subsection 3 = Why the Bible probably should not be your primary source
Subsection 4 = Evolution =/= abiogenesis
Subsection 5 = Zeus is going to smite you, blasphemer.

And so forth.

Just to help the new people catch up, so we don't have to rehash all the same old crap over and over and over.

Wow...confusing...anyway; All hail Gilfig!

The sect I'm speaking of are called "Funambulous Evangels"

However, there are infidels such as the Agnostic Lodermulch:

Lodermulch had been asked his opinion of the so-called Funambulous Evangels, who, refusing to place their feet upon the ground, went about their tasks by tightrope. In a curt voice Lodermulch exposed the fallacies of this particular doctrine. “They reckon the age of the earth at twenty-nine eons. ... They stipulate that for every square ell of soil two and one quarter million men have died and laid down their dust, thus creating a dank and ubiquitous mantle of lich-mold, upon which it is sacrilege to walk. ...” —Eyes of the Overworld, book two of the Dying Earth series

Anyway, he names reasons why they're wrong.

His words are later deemed "Inconsequential claptrap!"

I'm starting to think that we need to get to work on a NSG For Dummies.

Chapter One: Evolution/Creationism
Subsection 1 = What does "theory" actually mean?
Subsection 2 = What the Bible actually says about the stories(!) of Creation
Subsection 3 = Why the Bible probably should not be your primary source
Subsection 4 = Evolution =/= abiogenesis
Subsection 5 = Zeus is going to smite you, blasphemer.

And so forth.

Just to help the new people catch up, so we don't have to rehash all the same old crap over and over and over.

Heh... not a bad idea at all. :D
We could go on and do that for all the other well-worn topics as well. Such as abortion, gun laws, etc.

The man asked for people to answer how people interpret the bible. He didn't ask for a Creationist debate or constant bible-bashing. If you guys want to do that, make another thread.

Heh... not a bad idea at all. :D
We could go on and do that for all the other well-worn topics as well. Such as abortion, gun laws, etc.
Absolutely. I just would love to be able to skip over having to explain why homosexuality is, by definition, natural, and why abortion is not murder in countries like the USA (by definition of "murder"). The intro material bogs everything down so much, and make it harder to get at any interesting debate.

The man asked for people to answer how people interpret the bible. He didn't ask for a Creationist debate or constant bible-bashing. If you guys want to do that, make another thread.

He asked how we interpreted the bible. And got offended when some people told him they interpret it the same way they would all other faity tales. Interesting, but entirely fictional.
And the creationist bit was actually brought up by the OP himself.

The man asked for people to answer how people interpret the bible. He didn't ask for a Creationist debate or constant bible-bashing. If you guys want to do that, make another thread.
The OP seems to be quite able to respond for himself, and has posed additional questions and brought up additional topics. It appears that he doesn't mind them in his thread.

The man asked for people to answer how people interpret the bible. He didn't ask for a Creationist debate or constant bible-bashing. If you guys want to do that, make another thread.

We are interpreting the Bible for what it is - a load of superstitious nonsense.

We are interpreting the Bible for what it is - a load of superstitious nonsense.

But he was asking Christians what their view was, not atheists.

But he was asking Christians what their view was, not atheists.

Welcome to NSG. You can ask whoever you like, but people who want to reply will reply, no matter who was asked.

Heh... not a bad idea at all. :D
We could go on and do that for all the other well-worn topics as well. Such as abortion, gun laws, etc.

euhm, but what would we talk about then?

Rezonal, arguing with people like Sarandanonia is a waste of time (waiting for an insult) because they are religious fanatics (waiting for an insult) who delight in sharing their hate for Christians with the rest of their pack. All one can do is speak the gospel and if they refuse, shake the dust off your feet and move on. They thrive on confrontation and anger, it fuels their hearts. (waiting for an insult)

We should speak to people online the same way we would standing alone in front of them. Kindness and respect has gone out the window on the net.

How about actual content to back up your arguments?

I'm starting to think that we need to get to work on a NSG For Dummies.

Chapter One: Evolution/Creationism
Subsection 1 = What does "theory" actually mean?
Subsection 2 = What the Bible actually says about the stories(!) of Creation
Subsection 3 = Why the Bible probably should not be your primary source
Subsection 4 = Evolution =/= abiogenesis
Subsection 5 = Zeus is going to smite you, blasphemer.

And so forth.

Just to help the new people catch up, so we don't have to rehash all the same old crap over and over and over.

I fully support this as being Officially a Good Idea(tm).

I recommend a chapter on posting etiquette, including spelling, grammar and sources.

Rezonal, arguing with people like Sarandanonia is a waste of time (waiting for an insult) because they are religious fanatics (waiting for an insult) who delight in sharing their hate for Christians with the rest of their pack. All one can do is speak the gospel and if they refuse, shake the dust off your feet and move on. They thrive on confrontation and anger, it fuels their hearts. (waiting for an insult)

We should speak to people online the same way we would standing alone in front of them. Kindness and respect has gone out the window on the net.

I would like to know from the Christians here,

All the religious stuff in the bible (Genesis in particular) is bullshit in the extreme.

Anyone else see the problem here? I do.

All one can do is speak the gospel and if they refuse, shake the dust off your feet and move on.

So if we don't agree you're just going to ignore us?

So if we don't agree you're just going to ignore us?

Oh, don't you wish? ;)
I've heard that all before, they won't ignore us. After all, we might be right, and then what?

So if we don't agree you're just going to ignore us?

I think he was saying that specifically to the person noted and not everybody on this thread.

And if you guys are right, so what? When we die, we cease to exist, and we lived a good life because that is what we believed in at the time.

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

Fail. (youfail.org)

There is absolutely no evidence to support your book of fairy tales; there is plenty of evidence in support of science. Please actually look at evidence instead of believing everything Kent Hovind says.

We should speak to people online the same way we would standing alone in front of them.

See, I'd agree with this, if I hadn't had so many Christians screeching in my ear through a Megaphone in the town square...

I'm curious as to how many people believe that the bible is the true word of god yet are currently wearing a poly/cotton blend.

I'm not here for an argument but am telling others about my beliefs and asking others about theirs. You have the Internet at your fingertips and most of you seem Intelligent (I dont support the "Suffer in Hell" comments) please use some initiative and do a little research. I am not going to quote other peoples works for you. All I can say is have a look at both sides of the fence before you take a side. Assumptions can be very dangerous.

Wow.

You weren't here for an argument, posting on a DEBATE FORUM?!

I think we can all see how intelligent you are.

See, I'd agree with this, if I hadn't had so many Christians screeching in my ear through a Megaphone in the town square...

I am a Christian, and even I find that annoying. Wrong way to convert somebody if you ask me, if it annoys me, a believer, then it must be way worse for a non-believer. Same with the dudes who go around preaching scripture and handing out pamphlets in the Harry Potter line...

And if you guys are right, so what? When we die, we cease to exist, and we lived a good life because that is what we believed in at the time.

Unless, of course, the Greeks were right and while Zeus is fairly tolerant of non believers as a whole, he sends y'all to Tartarus for worshipping this Jesus fellow.

I would lik to know about other peoples churches and how you believe the Bible is to be translated/Interpretated?

like this (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Job_1)

what, nobody likes my biblical interpretation?

Pascal's Wager is an extremely poor argument, one that deserves little more than mocking laughter.

That isn't really Pascal's Wager. Although I can see how it is interpreted as such. Pascal's Wager would be me saying that I want to believe in it to avoid Hell, while I said something different. Or am I wrong?

I think he was saying that specifically to the person noted and not everybody on this thread.

And if you guys are right, so what? When we die, we cease to exist, and we lived a good life because that is what we believed in at the time.

Pascal's Wager is an extremely poor argument, one that deserves little more than mocking laughter.

I'm a Christian, however allow me to outline a few particular view points that I hold.

-I do not endorse, and in fact oppose movements which continue to deny the rights of homosexuals and lesbians to marry.
-I believe homosexuality/lesbianism is a sin.
-I think that evolution, as the theory presently exists adequately describes the process by which life developed on this planet. Though I also happen to believe God directed this process either directly or indirectly.

(I read somewhere that humans are still microevolving or something.)

The next time you get strep throat or some other infection, and your doctor gives you anti-biotics, stop taking them after you're about half way through the perscription. Then go back to your doctor and tell him that. See how badly he yells at you.

There's a reason.

Fail. (youfail.org)

There is absolutely no evidence to support your book of fairy tales; there is plenty of evidence in support of science. Please actually look at evidence instead of believing everything Kent Hovind says.

:D I loved the link! I fully agree. In one hand there is almost nothing supporting creation. In the other, our very existance daily gives credibilty to evolution. (I read somewhere that humans are still microevolving or something.)

Unless, of course, the Greeks were right and while Zeus is fairly tolerant of non believers as a whole, he sends y'all to Tartarus for worshipping this Jesus fellow.

Right. That's the risk you take in believing in any religion. Same with atheism, as the leap of faith is still there.

That isn't really Pascal's Wager. Although I can see how it is interpreted as such. Pascal's Wager would be me saying that I want to believe in it to avoid Hell, while I said something different. Or am I wrong?

you basically cited the second half of pascal's wager. The theory is, either god is or god is not.

if god is not, and you believe, you've lost very little, if god is, and you don't believe, you lose a great deal. You basically stated the first part.

The problem with such a wager is, as I said, what if the god that is isn't the god you believe in, and is quite angry at you for that?

you basically cited the second half of pascal's wager. The theory is, either god is or god is not.

if god is not, and you believe, you've lost very little, if god is, and you don't believe, you lose a great deal. You basically stated the first part.

The problem with such a wager is, as I said, what if the god that is isn't the god you believe in, and is quite angry at you for that?

Then your screwed. Any religion, or lack of, require a leap of faith, does it not? So either way your taking a risk. You just took that leap and believe your religion is the correct one.

That isn't really Pascal's Wager. Although I can see how it is interpreted as such. Pascal's Wager would be me saying that I want to believe in it to avoid Hell, while I said something different. Or am I wrong?

The part that goes "If you guys are right, it doesn't matter, cause we're just dead" generally implies "but if you're wrong, I get to go to Heaven and you go to Hell." That's exactly Pascal's Wager, is it not?

Why would I do that. I always take the exact amount my doctor tells me too, whether I feel sick or not.

I must be terribly misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Are you saying that humans as a species are no longer evolving in any way at all?

no, sorry, you misunderstand. The reasons doctors hate, REALLY FUCKING HATE when people start to suddenly feel better and stop taking their anti-biotics is that only taking it part way succeeds in killing off the weaker bacteria, but not the stronger bacteria. So when you stop taking your anti-biotics, the stronger bacteria starts growing again, and suddenly you have lots of stronger bacteria. And now you just created a drug resistant strain.

Ta-da, evolution in action. My point is, evolution in daily events is rather easy to see, if you know how to look for it.

edit: in fact, that's pretty much exactly how they make biological weapons.

The next time you get strep throat or some other infection, and your doctor gives you anti-biotics, stop taking them after you're about half way through the perscription. Then go back to your doctor and tell him that. See how badly he yells at you.

There's a reason.

Why would I do that. I always take the exact amount my doctor tells me too, whether I feel sick or not.

I must be terribly misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Are you saying that humans as a species are no longer evolving in any way at all?

Why would I do that. I always take the exact amount my doctor tells me too, whether I feel sick or not.

I must be terribly misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Are you saying that humans as a species are no longer evolving in any way at all?

The point is that not complying with your doctor's recommendations and only using half the amount of antibiotic allotted to you makes it significantly easier and significantly more likely for the bacteria infecting your throat to develop a resistance to the antibiotics.

That's evolution in action.

I am a Christian, and even I find that annoying. Wrong way to convert somebody if you ask me, if it annoys me, a believer, then it must be way worse for a non-believer. Same with the dudes who go around preaching scripture and handing out pamphlets in the Harry Potter line...

Yeah! Solidarity Brother!

Y'now... as solid as you can get when your only shared religious opinion is an annoyance for irritating people, anyway.... ;)

Aw. Sorry, I misunderstood you. Try telling that to a creationist though.

"Nuh uh. It must be God's will that we now have super-flu. Those ebil gays and jews must have done something really bad."

Generally the fall-back for the creationist is some hazy distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as if the two are somehow separate processes.

It's silly, but, well, that's how they think.

"Nuh uh. It must be God's will that we now have super-flu. Those ebil gays and jews must have done something really bad."

Haha, quite. Although technically the flu is caused by a virus, and as such anti-biotics will do jack shit all to it in the first place....

pneumonia on the other hand...

no, sorry, you misunderstand. The reasons doctors hate, REALLY FUCKING HATE when people start to suddenly feel better and stop taking their anti-biotics is that only taking it part way succeeds in killing off the weaker bacteria, but not the stronger bacteria. So when you stop taking your anti-biotics, the stronger bacteria starts growing again, and suddenly you have lots of stronger bacteria. And now you just created a drug resistant strain.

Ta-da, evolution in action. My point is, evolution in daily events is rather easy to see, if you know how to look for it.


Aw. Sorry, I misunderstood you. Try telling that to a creationist though.

"Nuh uh. It must be God's will that we now have super-pneumonia. Those ebil gays and jews must have done something really bad."

Aw. Sorry, I misunderstood you. Try telling that to a creationist though.

"Nuh uh. It must be God's will that we now have super-flu. Those ebil gays and jews must have done something really bad."

Nah they'll probably point out that it's just micro-evolution. and there are no organisms really gaining new functions.

Generally the fall-back for the creationist is some hazy distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as if the two are somehow separate processes.

It's silly, but, well, that's how they think.

well it's intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Basically you HAVE to believe in "microevolution", because, as I said, it's obvious. They do try to however draw a line that while "oh yes microevolution exists, but that's not the same as macroevolution!" you begin to wonder about their intellectual honesty, because frankly it's the same as saying "OK, we agree that 1 = 1, but we diagree that 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 2 =4 and 4 + 4 = 8"

The Bible is at least Historically Correct in terms of the Old Testament. Many archaeologists will tell you that many great discoveries have been made based on the History that is written the Bible.
Oh no they won't
name them

I'd quite like to see some names, too, if you would be so kind (Rezonal). Of course, if you are unable to provide them then the rest of that post of yours...
If you cannot substantiate your claims or write something constructive please do not post<snip>
...does at least give you a reason for remaining silent.

Haha, quite. Although technically the flu is caused by a virus, and as such anti-biotics will do jack shit all to it in the first place....

pneumonia on the other hand...




Corrected.

Generally the fall-back for the creationist is some hazy distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as if the two are somehow separate processes.

It's silly, but, well, that's how they think.

What? Are those people high or somthing. Micro-evolution is the same as macro only on a much smaller scale.

Nah they'll probably point out that it's just micro-evolution. and there are no organisms really gaining new functions.

I guess being able to kill us more quickly and more efficiently doesn't count. :rolleyes:

what, nobody likes my biblical interpretation?

You should really attach a disclaimer to that website: "may result in excessive spewage of coffee all over your monitor due to uncontrolled laughter"

Hilarious!

well it's intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Basically you HAVE to believe in "microevolution", because, as I said, it's obvious. They do try to however draw a line that while "oh yes microevolution exists, but that's not the same as macroevolution!" you begin to wonder about their intellectual honesty, because frankly it's the same as saying "OK, we agree that 1 = 1, but we diagree that 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 2 =4 and 4 + 4 = 8"

Everybody knows that 2+2 much equal the sum of its parts. 5 or 22. Duh...didn't you go to kindergarten, gosh!

:p

I guess being able to kill us more quickly and more efficiently doesn't count. :rolleyes:

It doesn't prove that new species can be formed by evolution, like humans from unicellular organisms. Or that's at least what "creation scientists" will tell you, I think.

I was not trying to be insulting, just stating my honest opinion. Christianty (all religion really) is a basis for division in the world.

Sure the bible may be historically correct in some instances, but I was merely stating my opinion on the religious merit of the bible. All the religious stuff in the bible (Genesis in particular) is bullshit in the extreme.

Heh haveing people from different countries is a basis for division in the world, differing types of musical taste is a basis for division in the world, having a favoratie colour, number, author, artist, playwrite are all basis for division in the world.

The point being of course there are plenty of reasons why such division occur.

no he didn't, he said "I would like to know from the Christians here" :confused:

Bwhahah on a public relatively unmoderated forum?

The real Pascal's Wager:

"If you believe in God A, and God A does not exist, you might be screwed because God B is the true God, unless God A does exist in which you are ok; but if neither God A or God B exists, there may be a God C, in which case you're still screwed or maybe even God D, E, F, G, etc... In which case you're royally screwed. Though if no God exists, regardless you're ok whether you believe in any particular God or not."

Regardless, it shows the fallacy of Pascal's Wager.

Nah they'll probably point out that it's just micro-evolution. and there are no organisms really gaining new functions.

The problem this ends up coming down to is a rather nebulous definition of what a Species is. It always seems to me, as a physics major, that the act in biology of cataloging species into these kingdoms and phylas and whatnot, sort of distracts from a more real understanding of what's going on. And it often seems like the distinction between members of the same genus who are of different species, and members of the same species who are in different sub-species are either poorly designed, or not designed to work proactively.

After all, how do you know, experimentally that what you've created is a new species? We get into an issue of, well, is it a percentage of genetic distinction? What else is the real determining factor in what is and isn't part of the same species.

So when you have an experiment in fruit flies that results in two groups of fruit flies separated in different environments for multiple (hundreds, perhaps thousands) of generations, and then you mix the two, and they don't breed, and your biologist/research says, "They're separate species, they can't breed," and your creationist says, "Nu-uh, they're still fruit flies," well....how do you resolve this problem, short of smacking the creationist over the head with a shovel?

I will choose to ignore this rather than report it, I don't like to see people get banned.

Good call. Interesting though that if God is omnipresent, then surly you have already said it to Gods face?

It doesn't prove that new species can be formed by evolution, like humans from unicellular organisms. Or that's at least what "creation scientists" will tell you, I think.

well the problem again with that line of argument is that "creation scientists" believe, or like to think us to think they believe, that there's some magic wall, some uncrossable line between species. Like the difference between a horse and a zebra is more than just a few random mutations.

Which is the big problem, is that they try to pretend like there's some firm definition of species. There isn't. We can expose bacteria to different conditions, bring about various mutations, cause enviornments that naturally select for certain traits.

And if we do this repeatedly, we can end up with a bacteria that's rather different from the bacteria we started with. This is pretty easy. And in many ways we can say this is a new "species" of bacteria. The creationist of course go "nuh uh, it's just the same bacteria that's a little different" as if the difference between species were not often little differences.

The real Pascal's Wager:

"If you believe in God A, and God A does not exist, you might be screwed because God B is the true God, unless God A does exist in which you are ok; but if neither God A or God B exists, there may be a God C, in which case you're still screwed or maybe even God D, E, F, G, etc... In which case you're royally screwed. Though if no God exists, regardless you're ok whether you believe in any particular God or not."

As an addendum: you're "ok" in the sense that you don't burn eternally. On the other hand, you've probably wasted a significant portion of your life in worship of something that never existed.

Heh haveing people from different countries is a basis for division in the world, differing types of musical taste is a basis for division in the world, having a favoratie colour, number, author, artist, playwrite are all basis for division in the world.

The point being of course there are plenty of reasons why such division occur.

Yes, but to me, religion seems to be the major player in human disunity. (Along with conflicting cultures, but that is a given.)

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

Ohhh goody!

It doesn't prove that new species can be formed by evolution, like humans from unicellular organisms. Or that's at least what "creation scientists" will tell you, I think.

Its true, regular step-throat is the same as super strep-throat, but it is a different type of strep-throat thus making different.

Example: Homo-Sapien : Neanderthal; both are basically human but they are two different types of human. Same thing applies to micro-organisms as well. (If this a completly incorrect or retarded ananlogy just let me know and I will remove it and let someone with a better analogy post in my stead.)

Good call. Interesting though that if God is omnipresent, then surly you have already said it to Gods face?

Yep.

As an addendum: you're "ok" in the sense that you don't burn eternally. On the other hand, you've probably wasted a significant portion of your life in worship of something that never existed.

True, but many people waste significant portions of their life on one thing or another.

God is not something that can be proved logically. So attempting to prove such is a pointless endeavor. Belief in God is only an exercise of faith. It's enough to be wasting ones life on a belief; it's even more of a waste attempting to convince people through logic that some particular God exists. At least personal belief in a God only wastes your own time; the later wastes everyones.

I'm not here for an argument but am telling others about my beliefs and asking others about theirs. You have the Internet at your fingertips and most of you seem Intelligent (I dont support the "Suffer in Hell" comments) please use some initiative and do a little research. I am not going to quote other peoples works for you. All I can say is have a look at both sides of the fence before you take a side. Assumptions can be very dangerous.

Heheh funny. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a religious man myself, but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't faith that a creative God exists just about the biggest assumption one can ever make?

Its true, regular step-throat is the same as super strep-throat, but it is a different type of strep-throat thus making different.

Example: Homo-Sapien : Neanderthal; both are basically human but they are two different types of human. Same thing applies to micro-organisms as well. (If this a completly incorrect or retarded ananlogy just let me know and I will remove it and let someone with a better analogy post in my stead.)

If I recall correctly, Neanderthal weren't "human" per se, which is to say they weren't true Homo-Sapiens, but were part of the Homo genus. If I remember right, it's pretty much believed that neanderthas were on the same evolutionary track as humans, and shared common ancestors, but died out aroud 25,000 years ago. Neanderthals weren't "human" exactly, but a close genetic cousin if you will.

The Bible is at least Historically Correct in terms of the Old Testament. Many archaeologists will tell you that many great discoveries have been made based on the History that is written the Bible. If you cannot substantiate your claims or write something constructive please do not post insulting comments.

This is an image from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field project(warning: it's a biggie): http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

Within that picture is over 10,000 galaxies. Galaxies! Some of them are at distances in excess of 13 billion light years away. All of them were taken from a sector of space no larger than a 1 mm square piece of paper held up 1 meter from your eyes.

I rest my case. :)

Am I right in assuming this supports my post, or are you correcting me? I think your right; Neanderthals and Homo-Sapien shared common ancestors but were genetically two different species. (Would be interesting to still have Neanderthals around don't you think? What would the world be like today if we had two intelligent species instead of just one.)

It's an interesting thought to be sure. Though there is some question as to whether Neanderthals were as intelligent as homo sapiens are. The last of them died out about 30,000 years ago, and not a lot of human evolution on a grand scale has occured since then.

If I recall correctly, it's believed that neanderthals posessed an intelligence less than modern humans, but more than simians. somewhat of the level of a down syndrome adult.

If I recall correctly, Neanderthal weren't "human" per se, which is to say they weren't true Homo-Sapiens, but were part of the Homo genus. If I remember right, it's pretty much believed that neanderthas were on the same evolutionary track as humans, and shared common ancestors, but died out aroud 25,000 years ago. Neanderthals weren't "human" exactly, but a close genetic cousin if you will.


Am I right in assuming this supports my post, or are you correcting me? I think your right; Neanderthals and Homo-Sapien shared common ancestors but were genetically two different species. (Would be interesting to still have Neanderthals around don't you think? What would the world be like today if we had two intelligent species instead of just one.)

Doesn't Genesis say that all stars were made to light the earth? If this is true, why are only a VERY small fraction of them able to be seen from the earth?

Ambiance. :)

This is an image from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field project(warning: it's a biggie): http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

Within that picture is over 10,000 galaxies. Galaxies! Some of them are at distances in excess of 13 billion light years away. All of them were taken from a sector of space no larger than a 1 mm square piece of paper held up 1 meter from your eyes.

I rest my case. :)

Doesn't Genesis say that all stars were made to light the earth? If this is true, why are only a VERY small fraction of them able to be seen from the earth?

Am I right in assuming this supports my post, or are you correcting me? I think your right; Neanderthals and Homo-Sapien shared common ancestors but were genetically two different species. (Would be interesting to still have Neanderthals around don't you think? What would the world be like today if we had two intelligent species instead of just one.)

We probably wouldn't have racism. I mean, why bother with that when you have the infinitely more amusing speciesism?

If I recall correctly, Neanderthal weren't "human" per se, which is to say they weren't true Homo-Sapiens, but were part of the Homo genus. If I remember right, it's pretty much believed that neanderthas were on the same evolutionary track as humans, and shared common ancestors, but died out aroud 25,000 years ago. Neanderthals weren't "human" exactly, but a close genetic cousin if you will.

Neanderthals were Homo Sapiens, specifically Homo Sapien Neadethalis; modern man is Homo Sapien Sapien. Basically Neaderthals are a "Cousin" of modern man. All Hominids are "humans" in a technical sense.

Yes, but to me, religion seems to be the major player in human disunity. (Along with conflicting cultures, but that is a given.)

While I agree with you (sorta) I have to ask why should we strive for human unity? Can you ever see such a thing occouring? Or are there fundmental cultural differances that can never be unified?

Ambiance. :)

God's got the mood lights on at night?

God's got the mood lights on at night?

WOuldn't you? No electric bills to worry about. :)

God's got the mood lights on at night?

Duh! No silly, it's always night in space? Umm where God lives, err and ohh stuff.

This is an image from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field project(warning: it's a biggie): http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

Within that picture is over 10,000 galaxies. Galaxies! Some of them are at distances in excess of 13 billion light years away. All of them were taken from a sector of space no larger than a 1 mm square piece of paper held up 1 meter from your eyes.

I rest my case. :)

Humbling, isn't it. And in turns both wondrous and depressing.

So much we'll never get to see...

God is not something that can be proved logically.Strange, isn't it? and so convenient.

As a mystic, I don't really believe in the Christian deity and the associated religions and rituals that have surfaced around the Holy Bible.

I still find it a useful book for imforming me of mystical practices, it has sweet poetry (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/sofs/1.html), and an interesting view of ancient life in the Holy Lands.

So, I see it as a human account of religious and sociopolitical experiences with the odd poetic interlude. Consequently, I see the whole fact-myth dichotomy as an artificial and imposed duality.

True. Though I guess I am a n00b as well....

No, you're a newbie. There is quite a difference. A newbie is someone who has just joined but displays plenty of what we like to call "common sense", whereas a n00b is someone who has also just joined but insists on being an asshole and not trying to play nice.

But he was asking Christians what their view was, not atheists.

Then he should have done it on a strictly Christian forum.

We are interpreting the Bible for what it is - a load of superstitious nonsense.

And there are other religions that would agree too.

*gets the popcorn and waits for Bottle to find this thread*

Just out of curiosity ... what evidence is there for the bible?

*snatches some of that popcorn*

Evidence for the bible? I have one right here in my desk. It is a black book that says "Holy Bible" on it. Since I have physically observed the bible, that is plenty of evidence for the bible. Have you physically observed 7,000+ years of devolution? :p

If I recall correctly, Neanderthal weren't "human" per se, which is to say they weren't true Homo-Sapiens, but were part of the Homo genus.

i don't know if i want to reserve 'human' for just homo sapiens. i mean, there were a whole bunch of very humany species running around for a long time, and we know they interbred from time to time (from studies of introgression and the like).

i don't know if i want to reserve 'human' for just homo sapiens. i mean, there were a whole bunch of very humany species running around for a long time, and we know they interbred from time to time (from studies of introgression and the like).

I'm not sure. I'd say our definition of human specifically means homo sapiens sapiens

I'm not sure. I'd say our definition of human specifically means homo sapiens sapiens

so you'd rule out even homo sapiens idaltu?

Right. That's the risk you take in believing in any religion. Same with atheism, as the leap of faith is still there.
How is saying "there's absolutely no evidence in favor, so I doubt it's true" a leap of faith on the level of "there is no evidence in favor, so I'll believe it 100%."?

Humbling, isn't it. And in turns both wondrous and depressing.

So much we'll never get to see...

I don't think the size of the universe is depressing, really. I think it's utterly beautiful and powerful. The way everything interacts upon such subtle and complex levels... it's amazing. That is the one sense that I am religious, that is, the way that Einstein was. I just try not to use that word because, to most people, it tends to imply belief in the supernatural.

Rezonal, arguing with people like Sarandanonia is a waste of time (waiting for an insult) because they are religious fanatics (waiting for an insult) who delight in sharing their hate for Christians with the rest of their pack. All one can do is speak the gospel and if they refuse, shake the dust off your feet and move on. They thrive on confrontation and anger, it fuels their hearts. (waiting for an insult)

We should speak to people online the same way we would standing alone in front of them. Kindness and respect has gone out the window on the net.

The problem here is that athiests don't actually hate Christians, at least not the rational ones, but everyone has a few crazy uncles they'd rather ignore. Athiests and Chrstians are a lot alike in this way. Christians cannot understand how anyone could -possibly- be blind enough, and ungrateful enough to turn their back on the Lord and denouce His existance, while the athiests cannot understand how anyone could be -stupid- enough to believe they and everything around them was created by some supposedly greater being.

You see, both groups are just trying to save the other from themselves... You'd think with this much in common they'd get along... :(

You see, both groups are just trying to save the other from themselves... You'd think with this much in common they'd get along... :(

Most Christians are practically atheists anyway. The only difference is real atheists don't believe in the Christian god, either.

Most Christians are practically atheists anyway. The only difference is real atheists don't believe in the Christian god, either.

:p

You win this page of the thread.

I believe the OT of the bible is jewish law, history, and some good stories. There are also some prophecies, words of wisdom and songs of praise. The NT, is the life and death of Jesus, history of the church, and letters of advice to christians. I don't believe the bible to be final and direct doctrine to mankind, because to me that limits what YWVH has to say to man. And since His word is eternal, it cannot be limited. :)

I'm not quite sure how to put this,
I would like to know from the Christians here, what church you go to and how your church interprets the Bible. I am a christian from the Potter's House Christian Church in Australia and we believe the Bible is the word of God and it is truth.

I know other Churches/Denominations believe the Bible is less literal and is written as fictional stories which provide lessons for life. I would lik to know about other peoples churches and how you believe the Bible is to be translated/Interpretated?

I'm nominally an evangelic-lutheran, but, in reality, don't really care how any official denomination tells me to believe. I'm a christian, trying to combine the Bible with common sense to the best of my ability.

The Bible was written by a bunch of nomads for a bunch of nomads thousands of years ago. Those people didn't have time, interest, nor ability to understand stuff more complicated than "God said: let there be light". Things had to be dumbed down a lot, and because of that, we have vague myths instead of accurate scientific essays. (The other choice is that the Bible is bullshit, but let's not go there.)

Many of the Bible's books were passed on orally for hundreds of years, before anyone bothered to write them down, and it was chosen more or less arbitrarily, which books got to be in the Bible, and which were to be ignored. Those things will cause a lot of distortion, and some things may have been completely lost. Also, the Bible has been translated many times before getting to the current versions, and this has led to some huge errors in translation and interpretation, some of which continue to divide christianity to this day.

I'd say that the Bible is the best we have, but it's still far from perfect, and anyone, who takes it literally, is just crazy.

So then, is it sinful to cast aside the literal words, and interpret the Bible as we see fit? No, because of one little loophole. The Bible says: "Test everything, and keep that which is good." Or whatever the exact wording is in English translations.

How do I think the Bible should be interpreted, then? That is for everyone to figure out for themselves, because if they don't, and just blindly accept the interpretations of someone else, they're committing a sin by not obeying the command in the previous paragraph. And however you decide to interpret the Bible, remember to not be a jerk about it, because of "judge not, lest you be judged".

like this (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Job_1)

Heh, I might actually read the bible then. :)

You know, I never liked the assertion "well, the Bible couldn't accurately explain evolution. Nobody would have understood it!"

One thing that is important to remember is that, historically, people weren't actually significantly less (or more!) intelligent than we are now. Intelligence, for recorded history(and probably before it, too), has been more or less constant. It's education that has changed. Education is available to more people than it used to be-- not just nobles and aristocracy.

True, even the educated elites in the past didn't have the scientific knowledge we now have. But that's because the scientific breakthroughs had not yet happened--not that the people of the time would be intellectually incapable of understanding the theories. However, there are many cases in history where people managed to accomplish pretty impressive tasks without the knowledge/technology that we know have-- demonstrating their ingenuity. (The Pyramids, Stonehenge, and the ancient wonders are all good examples of this)

So, if God were to explain evolution to the ancient Hebrews, such that they'd have learned it from a young age as do children in science classes today, (Or, as they're supposed to, but often don't--something to thank religion for) they'd understand it just fine.

Do I make any sense, or am I just rambling?

Do I make any sense, or am I just rambling?

I wasn't actually referring to evolution in particular, but to everything concerning the creation of the universe. I think explaining that in detail would need all kinds of modern physics explained. Even more than that, since even today we don't know where everything came from from a scientific point of view. Also, I never questioned the intelligence of the people, just the level of their education and their resources to improve it.

But yeah, you make sense in some parts. The creation of different species of lifeforms could have been better explained in the Bible. If the original books of the Bible were written under some divine guidance, maybe there could have also been a university physics textbook somewhere along the line. Maybe God just considered all that stuff to be irrelevant to the faith?

You know, I never liked the assertion "well, the Bible couldn't accurately explain evolution. Nobody would have understood it!"

me neither. its not like evolution is even some particularly complicated concept. in fact, people had a pretty good grasp of it back then anyways, and regularly used it for their own purposes.

Was a Mormon about 3 years ago, now atheist.

Anyways, essentially its all the same except they have the book of Mormon. Nothing really different. Jesus is still Jesus, God is still God, everything is the same as most other Protestant denominations except for book of Mormon, which is minor, really.

How is saying "there's absolutely no evidence in favor, so I doubt it's true" a leap of faith on the level of "there is no evidence in favor, so I'll believe it 100%."?

Not on the same level, but both require a leap of faith. For theists, especially organised religion, it is obvious as all their sacred texts and beliefs etc can be traced back to see when/why they were created and easily debunked. For atheists you are making the assumption that the universe wasn't created by some sort of supernatural being, something of which there is no proof for one way or another.

Fuck Dawkins; agnosticism FTW.

I wasn't actually referring to evolution in particular, but to everything concerning the creation of the universe. I think explaining that in detail would need all kinds of modern physics explained. Even more than that, since even today we don't know where everything came from from a scientific point of view. Also, I never questioned the intelligence of the people, just the level of their education and their resources to improve it.

But yeah, you make sense in some parts. The creation of different species of lifeforms could have been better explained in the Bible. If the original books of the Bible were written under some divine guidance, maybe there could have also been a university physics textbook somewhere along the line. Maybe God just considered all that stuff to be irrelevant to the faith?

Maybe, but it seems to me, that God, in his omniscience, would have foreseen how many of his followers would oppose scientific progress as a result of the contradiction between science and the obvious (even if it is wrong) interpretation of his work. Furthermore, there are plenty of people (like me), who reject existence the Christian God in part because the scientific and historical evidence contradicts his holy book. Now, if I were a god, I'd have some commandment like "Thou shalt test all thine beliefs against the evidence, and thou shalt support scientific inquiry, even about-- indeed, especially about-- thy religious beliefs about me. Believeth not those things that have no basis in fact and cannot be rationally demonstrated."

Now, if I were to see some revolutionary scientific knowledge in a holy book that people of the time otherwise had no way of knowing (say, a measurement for the speed of light, or a complete explanation of germ theory or the theory of evolution), I'd very probably convert to that religion, and I'm pretty sure that there are many others who would to. If he could easily save this number of us by simply explaining some science to his early followers, it seems cruel to damn us to eternal hellfire by not doing so. (Unless he was only joking about that the eternal torture stuff, like some people suggest. :D)

Not on the same level, but both require a leap of faith. For theists, especially organised religion, it is obvious as all their sacred texts and beliefs etc can be traced back to see when/why they were created and easily debunked. For atheists you are making the assumption that the universe wasn't created by some sort of supernatural being, something of which there is no proof for one way or another.

Fuck Dawkins; agnosticism FTW.


God and religion was MADE UP by humans. There is no point even contemplating agnosticism scientifically, as if God(s) were never created by humans, they would not exist in our society today.

Not on the same level, but both require a leap of faith. For theists, especially organised religion, it is obvious as all their sacred texts and beliefs etc can be traced back to see when/why they were created and easily debunked. For atheists you are making the assumption that the universe wasn't created by some sort of supernatural being, something of which there is no proof for one way or another.

Fuck Dawkins; agnosticism FTW.

I'm not sure where this quote originated, but I'm a fan: "Proof is for mathematics and alcohol." Sure, you can't disprove God, but neither can you disprove fairies, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor the Invisible Pink Unicorn, nor Russell's teapot... you get the idea. To suggest that it's sensible to believe in any of those things... well, I just don't agree with that. None of them have evidence in favor. (Well, the FSM has a graph. Can't forget the graph!:D)

And as to Dawkins... I don't know why people think he's so radical. All he says is that it's irrational to believe in things that you do not have evidence for, and, until there is evidence in favor of something, we should be skeptical.

God and religion was MADE UP by humans. There is no point even contemplating agnosticism scientifically, as if God(s) were never created by humans, they would not exist in our society today.

That has nothing to do with whether God/s may or may not exist. It would have existed independently of humans for 13 billion years or so, and just because we aren't aware of him/her/whatever in no way means that they don't exist.

Now, if I were a god, I'd have some commandment like "Thou shalt test all thine beliefs against the evidence, and thou shalt support scientific inquiry, even about-- indeed, especially about-- thy religious beliefs about me. Believeth not those things that have no basis in fact and cannot be rationally demonstrated."

This is the biggest complaint I have with the beliefs of many atheists: "According to [religion], God(s) act this way, but that doesn't make any sense." First of all, I question getting all your information about God from people who denied that the earth revolves around the sun for hundreds of years. Second, what makes sense and what does not make sense is fundamentally a belief bias. If different cultures have different concepts of what is reasonable, I can't imagine how large the difference between people and a supernatural being would be.

As to the OP's question: I don't think the Bible is literal, as witnessed by the fact that many of what it says is not literally true. This might have been what Pirated Corsairs was referring to. However, I do beileve it is the inspired word of God, blah blah blah, I haven't read everything but I'm pretty sure someone has already posted what I believe.

That has nothing to do with whether God/s may or may not exist. It would have existed independently of humans for 13 billion years or so, and just because we aren't aware of him/her/whatever in no way means that they don't exist.

Would we even be having this conversation if humans resorted to science instead of religion, and never made up gods?

Probably not.

I'm not sure where this quote originated, but I'm a fan: "Proof is for mathematics and alcohol." Sure, you can't disprove God, but neither can you disprove fairies, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor the Invisible Pink Unicorn, nor Russell's teapot... you get the idea. To suggest that it's sensible to believe in any of those things... well, I just don't agree with that. None of them have evidence in favor. (Well, the FSM has a graph. Can't forget the graph!:D)

And as to Dawkins... I don't know why people think he's so radical. All he says is that it's irrational to believe in things that you do not have evidence for, and, until there is evidence in favor of something, we should be skeptical.

Generally, I like Dawkins, except when he starts going on about the quote you used.

We can't disprove the teapot, but we know that it is really very unlikely that it is there. We base this on evidence such as that teapots are man-made and there are no records of space missions out towards Mars dropping a teapot out of the ship. But as for some sort of God, we have no evidence at all for or against, so it is extremely unfair to extrapolate the teapot analogy to God.

me neither. its not like evolution is even some particularly complicated concept. in fact, people had a pretty good grasp of it back then anyways, and regularly used it for their own purposes.
Well, it's not complicated, but it's not intuitive, either. But I agree. If God had really wanted to teach science in his Holy Book, he wouldn't dumb it down.

For atheists you are making the assumption that the universe wasn't created by some sort of supernatural being, something of which there is no proof for one way or another.

Fuck Dawkins; agnosticism FTW.

except that you don't apply this standard to anything else in the universe. you don't go around withholding judgment from the question of, for example, whether there is a tiny teapot in orbit around the sun between mars and jupiter.

Anyways, essentially its all the same except they have the book of Mormon. Nothing really different. Jesus is still Jesus, God is still God, everything is the same as most other Protestant denominations except for book of Mormon, which is minor, really.

nah, mormonism is several orders of magnitude greater in terms of crazy.

nah, mormonism is several orders of magnitude greater in terms of crazy.

lol.

Didn't I just say that I was a Mormon? I'm the primary source saying that if you really know what it is, its just as 'normal' as Baptist or Methodist and such.

Its no more crazy then any other Christian denomination, and especially far less crazy then Evangelicals.

Would we even be having this conversation if humans resorted to science instead of religion, and never made up gods?

Probably not.

That proves nothing; you've repeated yourself.

Generally, I like Dawkins, except when he starts going on about the quote you used.

We can't disprove the teapot, but we know that it is really very unlikely that it is there. We base this on evidence such as that teapots are man-made and there are no records of space missions out towards Mars dropping a teapot out of the ship. But as for some sort of God, we have no evidence at all for or against, so it is extremely unfair to extrapolate the teapot analogy to God.

Teapots are man-made... how is this different from god(s)? :p

Teapots are man-made... how is this different from god(s)? :p

When is the last time you boiled up some tea water using god[s]?

As a side note: Cayenne pepper and cinnamon in Cranberry tea is...interesting.

*awaits Fass*

*bated breath*

When is the last time you boiled up some tea water using god[s]?

As a side note: Cayenne pepper and cinnamon in Cranberry tea is...interesting.

I'm sure if you added all the heat (Fire, raised body heat) that humans have created over the last 3 million years relating to religion, it would boil off Lake Superior.

It helped the Nazis find the Arc of the Covenant, didn't it?

Bah, it was just sand.

Well, it's not complicated, but it's not intuitive, either. But I agree. If God had really wanted to teach science in his Holy Book, he wouldn't dumb it down.

You know, it's funny how often I hear this, but, when I was in middle school and I first learned about Darwin's theory, I never thought to think "Really? Really? No fucking way." I accepted it on the same level I did germ theory, or that matter is made of atoms, or whatever.

Say that to Gods face when you die scumbag!

Nah, just to the back of its neck like i usually do ... ever seen South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut?

*shakes head*

Generally, I like Dawkins, except when he starts going on about the quote you used.

We can't disprove the teapot, but we know that it is really very unlikely that it is there. We base this on evidence such as that teapots are man-made and there are no records of space missions out towards Mars dropping a teapot out of the ship. But as for some sort of God, we have no evidence at all for or against, so it is extremely unfair to extrapolate the teapot analogy to God.

There's another problem with the teapot: no one believe's it's true. It is one thing to try to prove the existence of God, people already believe in it without proof. It's a little like trying to prove that P does not equal NP, or some other mathematical conundrum. Many people already believe this statement to be true, all that's missing is a definitive proof.
Besides, there is plenty of "proof." The subject of this thread, the Bible. I have proof in quotation marks because it probably wouldn't hold up to peer review. But still, what you have are a wide collection of testimonies by different people on the existence of the Abrahamic God.

You know, it's funny how often I hear this, but, when I was in middle school and I first learned about Darwin's theory, I never thought to think "Really? Really? No fucking way." I accepted it on the same level I did germ theory, or that matter is made of atoms, or whatever.

Kind of like me.

I watched Discovery channel when I was a kid a lot. Watched their special on Human Evolution in like 1997 and believed Evolution since then.

I have researched the theory of evolution and the fact is there is more evidence to support the bible than there is to support evolution. That is why is is a theory.

You messed one or another of your words up in that sentence, and i have a strong, strong suspicion that a few people will take you to task for it, if they haven't already.
I would say it is an unfortunate circumstance, but i really wouldn't be very sincere in saying that.

There's another problem with the teapot: no one believe's it's true. It is one thing to try to prove the existence of God, people already believe in it without proof. It's a little like trying to prove that P does not equal NP, or some other mathematical conundrum. Many people already believe this statement to be true, all that's missing is a definitive proof.
Besides, there is plenty of "proof." The subject of this thread, the Bible. I have proof in quotation marks because it probably wouldn't hold up to peer review. But still, what you have are a wide collection of testimonies by different people on the existence of the Abrahamic God.

Irrelevant. People believing something is true does not make it so. The Bible isn't evidence, not even weak evidence, of God's existence: a claim does not count as evidence for itself.

You know, it's funny how often I hear this, but, when I was in middle school and I first learned about Darwin's theory, I never thought to think "Really? Really? No fucking way." I accepted it on the same level I did germ theory, or that matter is made of atoms, or whatever.

I don't mean it is hard to believe. But if you asked me where the world came from, and I had the scientific background of a four-year-old (which almost everyone before 1500 had), I wouldn't say, "Well, life evolved from other life, over millions of years. Random mutations in genes caused these changes, and the mutations that were successful were able to continue." I'd probably think, "It takes a person to make something as simple as a house. I'd say that the world can't be that much simpler."
So I agree, in modern times there is no excuse for not believing in evolution. At the same time, there is no reason to believe it if you don't have the proof, which was the situation of the ancient Israelites. Actually, believing in evolution without proof would make less sense than creationism: creationism is much simpler, and when you don't know anything, it's just as likely as evolution. Occam's Razor, I think, is what says between two equally plausible theories, the simpler should be chosen.

We can't disprove the teapot, but we know that it is really very unlikely that it is there. We base this on evidence such as that teapots are man-made and there are no records of space missions out towards Mars dropping a teapot out of the ship. But as for some sort of God, we have no evidence at all for or against, so it is extremely unfair to extrapolate the teapot analogy to God.

we most certainly do have exactly the same sort of evidence against all sorts of gods. if our lack of evidence for the teapot constitutes evidence against it, then our lack of evidence for any of the various gods people have proposed constitutes evidence against them. proof is unnecessary.

Irrelevant. People believing something is true does not make it so. The Bible isn't evidence, not even weak evidence, of God's existence: a claim does not count as evidence for itself.

I agree that believing in something does not make it so. However, to say, "God is just like this teapot I made up" does not make any sense. No one believes in the teapot, and so it is wrong to say it is just as likely as the existence of God. If it were, people would probably believe in it.

And I know the Bible is not adequate proof for God. But often people will say, "If God exists, why doesn't he tell us?" It's a fixed question though, if you don't believe the Bible, you are unlikely to believe the claims of someone who says they had a vision, or have had his prayers answered.

we most certainly do have exactly the same sort of evidence against all sorts of gods. if our lack of evidence for the teapot constitutes evidence against it, then our lack of evidence for any of the various gods people have proposed constitutes evidence against them. proof is unnecessary.

Funny, this is exactly where Jocabia needs to jump in. :D

Well, it's not complicated, but it's not intuitive, either.

most things aren't.

but really, everyone knows that children resemble, but are not identical to, their parents. and everybody knows that some of those variations do better than others in terms of surviving and getting laid. putting two and two together gets you evolution. add in a look at the similarities of life around us and a splash of geologic deep time and you get common descent too.

most things aren't.

but really, everyone knows that children resemble, but are not identical to, their parents. and everybody knows that some of those variations do better than others in terms of surviving and getting laid. putting two and two together gets you evolution. add in a look at the similarities of life around us and a splash of geologic deep time and you get common descent too.

Hmm, I suppose. I think that to base the theory just on that would be bad science, though.
My original point was that the Israelites weren't stupid or liars for their creation story. There were, to quote Ned Flanders, wrong-diddly-ong. Once I learned about evolution, like most people I accepted it. But I didn't think it up by myself, and it doesn't make sense to expect me to. Same with people before Darwin.

how so? on what grounds do you rest this probability claim?

By using an infinite improbability drive?
*slaps self with ruler*

The bible is an archaic rag full of lies and deciet. There is no savior or Biblical God...

You asked for it.

EDIT:

I claim this thread for the Atheist Church of the Vatican City. (Smile and pretend that made sense.)

Wrong. The King James Bible is the divinely inspired, divinely preserved word of God, it contains the words God wants us to have, and it is certainly NOT archaic. It is relevant in ALL ages, days, times, seasons, and societies.

like this (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Job_1)

That is nonsense. Just as nonsensical as rewriting the Bible to say "In the beginning Zod created the heaven and the planet Houston".

I was not trying to be insulting, just stating my honest opinion. Christianty (all religion really) is a basis for division in the world.

Sure the bible may be historically correct in some instances, but I was merely stating my opinion on the religious merit of the bible. All the religious stuff in the bible (Genesis in particular) is bullshit in the extreme.

No, it is NOT bull#$%&. ESPECIALLY not Genesis. The book of Genesis is the only accurate and scientific account mankind has about the origin of the universe. I say "accurate" and "scientific" because the THEORY (read: "lie") of evolution is just a fairy tale for grown-ups, a desperate attempt by mankind to rid himself of his Creator, a religious belief requiring more faith than the scientific explanation given in Genesis.

The theory of evolution passes for "scientific fact" because it denies the existence of, and in fact does not even mention, ANY God, and mankind thinks God should be confined to "religion" so that mankind can live any way he wants without having to answer to any deity of any kind for it. But the God of the Bible refuses to be confined to religion; He inserted Himself into history by CREATING THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH.

Really? For all I know, no archaeologists have yet found any trace of Isrealites being slaves in Egypt, let alone anything that would support the whole Exodus-story.
And by and large, that's one of the more credible one of the fairy tales.

They are NOT fairy tales. The THEORY of evolution is a fairy tale.

I agree that believing in something does not make it so. However, to say, "God is just like this teapot I made up" does not make any sense. No one believes in the teapot, and so it is wrong to say it is just as likely as the existence of God.

how so? on what grounds do you rest this probability claim?

I agree that believing in something does not make it so. However, to say, "God is just like this teapot I made up" does not make any sense. No one believes in the teapot, and so it is wrong to say it is just as likely as the existence of God. If it were, people would probably believe in it.

On what basis do you make this claim?
For thousands of years, nobody believed in evolution. By your logic, that would mean it's not true.

how so? on what grounds do you rest this probability claim?

No one beileves in a tea pot. Not only that, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I think we can all agree that the teapot does not exist, that's the point of the analogy.
However, people do believe in a God or Gods. There are several potential reasons for this, the most obvious (though not necessarily the most correct) being there is a God or Gods. There are plenty of other reasons, but the fact that people believe in this makes it more likely to exist.
In another thread, someone said something about their friends believing Belgium was going into civil war. There friends were wrong, almost certainly. However, if they told him that they believed Belgium was going into a civil war, he would be more likely to believe that than France was going into a civil war. It's the same with gods and teapots.

Wrong. The King James Bible is the divinely inspired, divinely preserved word of God, it contains the words God wants us to have, and it is certainly NOT archaic. It is relevant in ALL ages, days, times, seasons, and societies.Wha-ahahahaha!!! Hohohohahaha*snort*hahahaheeehehehahahaha!!!!

.....










No, it is NOT bull#$%&. ESPECIALLY not Genesis. The book of Genesis is the only accurate and scientific account mankind has about the origin of the universe. I say "accurate" and "scientific" because the THEORY (read: "lie") of evolution is just a fairy tale for grown-ups, a desperate attempt by mankind to rid himself of his Creator, a religious belief requiring more faith than the scientific explanation given in Genesis.Oh wow, just ... wow. So the airport is your usual hangout, handing out fliers and pencils?
We should hang out some time.




They are NOT fairy tales. The THEORY of evolution is a fairy tale.
Heh. Sure. Don't take it badly or anything if someone might just prove you wrong, repeatedly, and in a severely personal and humiliating fashion.

jocabia is wrong on this point, and has been since we first argued it years ago. an absence of evidence where we have good reason to expect it most certainly does constitute evidence of absence. not proof, obviously, but evidence. jocabia gets confused on that distinction, as well as the idea that if we allow infinite tweaking of idea without calling the pre-tweaked one falsified then everything is unfalsifiable.

Check out the last two pages of Sim's AI thread.
:)

Funny, this is exactly where Jocabia needs to jump in. :D

jocabia is wrong on this point, and has been since we first argued it years ago. an absence of evidence where we have good reason to expect it most certainly does constitute evidence of absence. not proof, obviously, but evidence. jocabia gets confused on that distinction, as well as the idea that if we allow infinite tweaking of idea without calling the pre-tweaked one falsified then everything is unfalsifiable.

On what basis do you make this claim?
For thousands of years, nobody believed in evolution. By your logic, that would mean it's not true.

That analogy doesn't really work. For thousands of years, people did not believe in evolution, and there was no scientific reason that they should; they had no proof. Now there is proof, and it make sense to believe in it.
For thousands of years, people have not believed in a teapot over the earth. There is no evidence to suggest they should, and so this lack of belief continues to make scientific sense. If evidence was found, it would be reasonable to believe in a teapot.
For thousands of years, people have believed in some sort of supernatural deity. There is no evidence, at least no scientific evidence. However, there is a reason people believe what they do. What is it? Haven't a clue. But as I said before, something people believe is more likely to be true than something no one believes in. That doesn't mean it is true: if there is a forty percent chance God exists, there's still a sixty percent chance he doesn't. However, it is more likely than the teapot, which has between zero and twenty percent chance. (I'm making numbers up, but you get the idea.)

No one beileves in a tea pot. Not only that, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I think we can all agree that the teapot does not exist, that's the point of the analogy.
However, people do believe in a God or Gods. There are several potential reasons for this, the most obvious (though not necessarily the most correct) being there is a God or Gods. There are plenty of other reasons, but the fact that people believe in this makes it more likely to exist.
In another thread, someone said something about their friends believing Belgium was going into civil war. There friends were wrong, almost certainly. However, if they told him that they believed Belgium was going into a civil war, he would be more likely to believe that than France was going into a civil war. It's the same with gods and teapots.

You keep claiming that, but that does not make it true.
Plenty of people believe that rabbit's feet give you good luck. Doesn't make it any more likely to be true: indeed, it's demonstrably untrue.

That analogy doesn't really work. For thousands of years, people did not believe in evolution, and there was no scientific reason that they should; they had no proof. Now there is proof, and it make sense to believe in it.
For thousands of years, people have not believed in a teapot over the earth. There is no evidence to suggest they should, and so this lack of belief continues to make scientific sense. If evidence was found, it would be reasonable to believe in a teapot.
For thousands of years, people have believed in some sort of supernatural deity. There is no evidence, at least no scientific evidence. However, there is a reason people believe what they do. What is it? Haven't a clue. But as I said before, something people believe is more likely to be true than something no one believes in. That doesn't mean it is true: if there is a forty percent chance God exists, there's still a sixty percent chance he doesn't. However, it is more likely than the teapot, which has between zero and twenty percent chance. (I'm making numbers up, but you get the idea.)

But there are scientific and psychological explanations for the existence of religion. There is no evidence to believe a God exists. Believing something with no evidence is irrational. Therefore, religion is irrational.

You keep claiming that, but that does not make it true.
Plenty of people believe that rabbit's feet give you good luck. Doesn't make it any more likely to be true: indeed, it's demonstrably untrue.
But God(s) is not demostrably (is that reallly a word?) untrue. And I think what I'm saying makes sense:
Someone believes in something. There is an finite number of reasons they believe in what they do. One of them is that that something exists.
Someone does not believe in anything. Because there is an infinite number of things we do not believe in, it does not make sense that we have a reason for each. Then we would have to believe an infinite number of reasons why we don't believe in an infinite number of things, in addition to believing in what we do believe.
In conclusion:
There are reasons we believe what we do. At least one of them is true.
There are not reasons we don't believe in what we don't, at least not for everything.

Therefore, the chance that belief in God is true actually exists. The chance that the belief in the teapot is true does not exist, because there is no belief in the teapot.

You know, I never liked the assertion "well, the Bible couldn't accurately explain evolution. Nobody would have understood it!"

One thing that is important to remember is that, historically, people weren't actually significantly less (or more!) intelligent than we are now. Intelligence, for recorded history(and probably before it, too), has been more or less constant

This is an image from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field project(warning: it's a biggie): http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

Within that picture is over 10,000 galaxies. Galaxies! Some of them are at distances in excess of 13 billion light years away. All of them were taken from a sector of space no larger than a 1 mm square piece of paper held up 1 meter from your eyes.

I rest my case. :)



And men have been formed and all the other animals that have life; and the men have settled cities and cultivated fields as with us, and sun and moon and the rest as with us; and the earth grows all sorts of produce for them, the most useful of which they gather into their houses and use. This is my account of the separating off, that it must have taken place not only where we live, but elsewhere also.
...
...
There are innumerable worlds of different sizes. In some there is neither sun nor moon, in others they are larger than in ours and others have more than one. These worlds are at irregular distances, more in one direction and less in another, and some are flourishing, others declining. Here they come into being, there they die, and they are destroyed by collision with one another. Some of the worlds have no animal or vegetable life nor any water.

- Democritus, ca 400 BC

But there are scientific and psychological explanations for the existence of religion. There is no evidence to believe a God exists. Believing something with no evidence is irrational. Therefore, religion is irrational.
You're exactly right. But irrational does not mean wrong, and the scientific and psychological reasons for the existence of religion cannot claim to have 100% accuracy. There are very possible, and certainly more rational than the reason "God exists." But all that does is make the chances of God's existence smaller, if anything. They do not remove it completely.

And men have been formed and all the other animals that have life; and the men have settled cities and cultivated fields as with us, and sun and moon and the rest as with us; and the earth grows all sorts of produce for them, the most useful of which they gather into their houses and use. This is my account of the separating off, that it must have taken place not only where we live, but elsewhere also.
...
...
There are innumerable worlds of different sizes. In some there is neither sun nor moon, in others they are larger than in ours and others have more than one. These worlds are at irregular distances, more in one direction and less in another, and some are flourishing, others declining. Here they come into being, there they die, and they are destroyed by collision with one another. Some of the worlds have no animal or vegetable life nor any water.

- Democritus,
I remember Democritus. Why doesn't he post here anymore?
ca 400 BC
Has it really been that long?

You're exactly right. But irrational does not mean wrong, and the scientific and psychological reasons for the existence of religion cannot claim to have 100% accuracy. There are very possible, and certainly more rational than the reason "God exists." But all that does is make the chances of God's existence smaller, if anything. They do not remove it completely.

Well, I suppose that's where we disagree. I would say that rational beliefs are infinitely more likely to be true than irrational beliefs, and are therefore superior.

Well, I suppose that's where we disagree. I would say that rational beliefs are infinitely more likely to be true than irrational beliefs, and are therefore superior.
More likely, yes. Infinitely? I don't see how they could.

More likely, yes. Infinitely? I don't see how they could.

Okay, to correct myself, so much more likely that you might as well dismiss irrational beliefs.

Okay, to correct myself, so much more likely that you might as well dismiss irrational beliefs.
That sounds more reasonable. But, as I've been saying, the chance is still there.

I feel like I've reached a new low in my NSG career. I've spent the last page arguing that there is no magic teapot circling the earth. I think it's a sign I need to log off and go to sleep.

That sounds more reasonable. But, as I've been saying, the chance is still there.

I feel like I've reached a new low in my NSG career. I've spent the last page arguing that there is no magic teapot circling the earth. I think it's a sign I need to log off and go to sleep.

To be fair, atheists are generally also arguing that there is no teapot circling the earth (nor the sun, as the analogy usually goes). That's the whole point.:p

Though, I probably should be logging, too... damn midterm exams.

Well, I suppose that's where we disagree. I would say that rational beliefs are infinitely more likely to be true than irrational beliefs, and are therefore superior.


Irrational beliefs are neccessary for we cannot advance without irrational and unlikely ideas, like the existence of atoms or wacky thought game of "what if lightspeed were a constant"!

In the end though, conformity and blind acceptance are the antitheses of innovation and breakthrough - We should not accept anything at face value, on the other hand we should not dismiss conflicting ideas outright.

The bible is an archaic rag full of lies and deciet. There is no savior or Biblical God...

You asked for it.

EDIT:

I claim this thread for the Atheist Church of the Vatican City. (Smile and pretend that made sense.)
No. you asked for it and made it so.

Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.
Jesus is my saviour and God is love. :)

we most certainly do have exactly the same sort of evidence against all sorts of gods. if our lack of evidence for the teapot constitutes evidence against it, then our lack of evidence for any of the various gods people have proposed constitutes evidence against them. proof is unnecessary.

What evidence do you have that points towards the non-existence of a God? The mere existence of our universe is itself evidence of the possibility that it was created by a supernatural being or what have you. Alternatively you have no proof for the teapot.

Irrational beliefs are neccessary for we cannot advance without irrational and unlikely ideas, like the existence of atoms or wacky thought game of "what if lightspeed were a constant"!

irrational ≠ not self-evident

What evidence do you have that points towards the non-existence of a God?

the utter lack of any evidence even vaguely tending to point towards there being one, despite ample opportunity and occasion (and searching, no less). the best the pro-deity side is left with at this point is that we haven't utterly disproven the mere possibility of some such entity or other.

Alternatively you have no proof for the teapot.

precisely. and that has no bearing on our ability to know that there isn't one. proof don't enter into the question.

the utter lack of any evidence even vaguely tending to point towards there being one, despite ample opportunity and occasion (and searching, no less). the best the pro-deity side is left with at this point is that we haven't utterly disproven the mere possibility of some such entity or other.

What evidence do you speak of? I'm not referring to any specific God like Allah or the Christian one or whatever, but just a possible supernatural being who had a hand in the universe's creation. He/she/it wouldn't have any traces obvious to us but. What evidence is there is disprove this sort of God?

What evidence do you speak of? I'm not referring to any specific God like Allah or the Christian one or whatever, but just a possible supernatural being who had a hand in the universe's creation. He/she/it wouldn't have any traces obvious to us but. What evidence is there is disprove this sort of God?

There isn't.

If this was all you wanted then that would be fine - if it was simply a case of getting people to admit that there's the possibility, the same possibility that giant lesbian turtles had a hand in the universe's creation, then I doubt there'd be any real debate.

The problem is that once you* posit this God, you then go on to make all sorts of claims about what that God thinks, wants or feels about the universe as well as try and influence legislation according to those claims.

*perhaps not you personally

The word "Bible" is derived through Latin from the Greek word biblia (books), specifically the books that are acknowledged as canonical by the Christian church. The earliest Christian use of ta biblia (the books) in this sense is said to be 2 Clement 14:2 (c. A.D. 150): "the books and the apostles declare that the church...has existed from the beginning." (Compare Dan. 9:2, "I Daniel, understood from the Scriptures," where the reference is to the corpus of Old Testament prophetic writings.) Greek biblion (of which biblia is the plural) is a diminutive of biblos, which in practice denotes any kind of written document, but originally one written on papyrus.

There isn't.

If this was all you wanted then that would be fine - if it was simply a case of getting people to admit that there's the possibility, the same possibility that giant lesbian turtles had a hand in the universe's creation, then I doubt there'd be any real debate.

No. What I've been trying to explain is that the teapot and turtle analogies are incorrect when you try to use them to justify atheism. The possibility (or impossibility) of a teapot floating between Mars and Earth has zero relevance to the possibility of some sort of God existing or having existed.

The problem is that once you* posit this God, you then go on to make all sorts of claims about what that God thinks, wants or feels about the universe as well as try and influence legislation according to those claims.

*perhaps not you personally

No. I'm just musing on the possibility of some sort of God as an agnostic. I'm not making any claims about what it is, what it has done or anything other than its existence.

The word "Bible" is derived through Latin from the Greek word biblia (books), specifically the books that are acknowledged as canonical by the Christian church. The earliest Christian use of ta biblia (the books) in this sense is said to be 2 Clement 14:2 (c. A.D. 150): "the books and the apostles declare that the church...has existed from the beginning." (Compare Dan. 9:2, "I Daniel, understood from the Scriptures," where the reference is to the corpus of Old Testament prophetic writings.) Greek biblion (of which biblia is the plural) is a diminutive of biblos, which in practice denotes any kind of written document, but originally one written on papyrus.
First post?
Off to a nice start. Welcome to NS. *bows*

I feel like I've reached a new low in my NSG career. I've spent the last page arguing that there is no magic teapot circling the earth. I think it's a sign I need to log off and go to sleep.

...and now you have The Mark.

Incidentally, this is very, very similar to what Jocabia was saying.

(I'm making numbers up, but you get the idea.)
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooodon't do that. That's the kind of thing that got the Hockey-Stick Graph stuck in so many peoples' craw.
Or, perhaps more accurately, the reason why there's never enough funding going towards paranormal investigations for very long.

First post?
Off to a nice start. Welcome to NS. *bows*

Thank you for the kind welcome Brevious.

Maybe, but it seems to me, that God, in his omniscience, would have foreseen how many of his followers would oppose scientific progress as a result of the contradiction between science and the obvious (even if it is wrong) interpretation of his work. Furthermore, there are plenty of people (like me), who reject existence the Christian God in part because the scientific and historical evidence contradicts his holy book.

I don't think that omniscience includes seeing into every possible future. All that stuff about omniscience and omnipotence is probably just a result of God having an overeager PR crew. Either that, or the meaning of 'omni' has expanded over the millennia, but that'll take us back to what ancient nomads can and cannot understand. Either way, today it implies more than God would probably be willing to admit.

It doesn't seem to me that God has at any point considered scientific progress to be a priority, especially over faith in Himself, and if scientific discoveries contradict christian dogmas, it could be God's way of testing people. Besides, we must take into account the fact that the Bible was written by people; I'd be very surprised if it wasn't filled with pagan myths and other non-christian stuff, which brings me to your next point:

Now, if I were a god, I'd have some commandment like "Thou shalt test all thine beliefs against the evidence, and thou shalt support scientific inquiry, even about-- indeed, especially about-- thy religious beliefs about me. Believeth not those things that have no basis in fact and cannot be rationally demonstrated."

Even though it's not a part of the Ten Commandments, there actually is a commandment like that. I even mentioned it in my first post to this thread, on the 10th page. Test everything, and keep what's good. I'm sorry for not remembering exactly where in the Bible you can find that, but it's there somewhere.

Now, if I were to see some revolutionary scientific knowledge in a holy book that people of the time otherwise had no way of knowing (say, a measurement for the speed of light, or a complete explanation of germ theory or the theory of evolution), I'd very probably convert to that religion, and I'm pretty sure that there are many others who would to. If he could easily save this number of us by simply explaining some science to his early followers, it seems cruel to damn us to eternal hellfire by not doing so. (Unless he was only joking about that the eternal torture stuff, like some people suggest. :D)

I think all that stuff about God being all nice and forgiving and not at all cruel is just another piece of false advertising by the PR team. You can find plenty of evidence against it in the Old Testament. I'm not entirely sure about what the Bible says about Hell (I should finish reading it sometime), but I wouldn't put it past God to screw people over like that.

Why do you believe in a God like that, you'll ask. Just because God is not nice, it's not evidence against His existence. Now that most of us in the christian world have the Western liberal mindset, people often seem to believe that if there is a god, he has created the universe just so that he could create people for the sole purpose of being happy, and then creating them an afterlife, where they can be even happier after they've died. Because of this assumption, any evidence of the World not being all fair and happy and friendly place is taken as evidence of the inexistence of all gods. This is faulty logic.

Besides, I rather like having a badass God.

I don't think that omniscience includes seeing into every possible future. All that stuff about omniscience and omnipotence is probably just a result of God having an overeager PR crew. Either that, or the meaning of 'omni' has expanded over the millennia, but that'll take us back to what ancient nomads can and cannot understand. Either way, today it implies more than God would probably be willing to admit.

It doesn't seem to me that God has at any point considered scientific progress to be a priority, especially over faith in Himself, and if scientific discoveries contradict christian dogmas, it could be God's way of testing people. Besides, we must take into account the fact that the Bible was written by people; I'd be very surprised if it wasn't filled with pagan myths and other non-christian stuff, which brings me to your next point:



Even though it's not a part of the Ten Commandments, there actually is a commandment like that. I even mentioned it in my first post to this thread, on the 10th page. Test everything, and keep what's good. I'm sorry for not remembering exactly where in the Bible you can find that, but it's there somewhere.



I think all that stuff about God being all nice and forgiving and not at all cruel is just another piece of false advertising by the PR team. You can find plenty of evidence against it in the Old Testament. I'm not entirely sure about what the Bible says about Hell (I should finish reading it sometime), but I wouldn't put it past God to screw people over like that.

Why do you believe in a God like that, you'll ask. Just because God is not nice, it's not evidence against His existence. Now that most of us in the christian world have the Western liberal mindset, people often seem to believe that if there is a god, he has created the universe just so that he could create people for the sole purpose of being happy, and then creating them an afterlife, where they can be even happier after they've died. Because of this assumption, any evidence of the World not being all fair and happy and friendly place is taken as evidence of the inexistence of all gods. This is faulty logic.

Besides, I rather like having a badass God.

So, God is an evil tyrant? Hm. At least you've read your own Holy Book, then.

I agree that believing in something does not make it so. However, to say, "God is just like this teapot I made up" does not make any sense. No one believes in the teapot, and so it is wrong to say it is just as likely as the existence of God. If it were, people would probably believe in it.

In an argument from analogy it isn't necessary for the two things being compared to be the same in every respect, only that they are similar in the respect being compared. For example, one form of the teleological argument draws an analogy between the human eye and a watch; pointing out that watches are hard while eyes are squishy isn't much of a counter-argument as it's their complexity which is being compared.

Similarly, when atheists compare god to Russell's Teapot we are drawing an analogy which compares the evidence for each things existence; unless the existence of believers is strong evidence for god's existence then it isn't really relevant to the analogy.

Jesus is my saviour and God is love. :)

Then why did you post a quote which shows rather petty and vindictive behaviour on the part of the putative deity? "If you deny me then I'll deny you back, nah!"

A term synonymous with "the Bible" is "the writings" or "the Scriptures" (Greek hai graphai, ta grammata), frequently used in the New Testament to denote the Old Testament documents in whole or in part. For example, Matthew 21:42 says, "Have you never read in the Scriptures?" (en tais graphais). The parallel passage, Mark 12:10, has the singular, referring to the particular text quoted, "Haven't you read this Scripture?" (ten graphen tauten). 2 Timothy 3:15 speaks of "the sacred writings" (ta hiera grammata), and the next verse says, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (pasa graphe theopneustos). In 2 Peter 3:16 "all" the letters of Paul are included along with "the other Scriptures" (tas loipas graphas), by which the Old Testament writings and probably also the Gospels are meant.

But as I said before, something people believe is more likely to be true than something no one believes in.

why?

A term synonymous with "the Bible" is "the writings" or "the Scriptures" (Greek hai graphai, ta grammata), frequently used in the New Testament to denote the Old Testament documents in whole or in part. For example, Matthew 21:42 says, "Have you never read in the Scriptures?" (en tais graphais). The parallel passage, Mark 12:10, has the singular, referring to the particular text quoted, "Haven't you read this Scripture?" (ten graphen tauten). 2 Timothy 3:15 speaks of "the sacred writings" (ta hiera grammata), and the next verse says, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (pasa graphe theopneustos). In 2 Peter 3:16 "all" the letters of Paul are included along with "the other Scriptures" (tas loipas graphas), by which the Old Testament writings and probably also the Gospels are meant.

though one does wonder what to make of, for example, the epistle of jude quoting as scripture the book of enoch, which is not included among the current batch of old testament writings...

2 Timothy 3:15 speaks of "the sacred writings" (ta hiera grammata), and the next verse says, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (pasa graphe theopneustos). In 2 Peter 3:16 "all" the letters of Paul are included along with "the other Scriptures" (tas loipas graphas), by which the Old Testament writings and probably also the Gospels are meant.

Ironically 2 Timothy is generally agreed by scholars to be a forgery rather than a genuine epistle. It's also generally agreed that at least one (and possibly both) of Peter's epistles were written by someone else.

Ironically 2 Timothy is generally agreed by scholars to be a forgery rather than a genuine epistle. It's also generally agreed that at least one (and possibly both) of Peter's epistles were written by someone else.

That’s not true according to the Catholics,
The Pauline authorship of the Pastorals was never doubted by Catholics in early times. Eusebius, with his complete knowledge of early Christian literature, states that they were among the books universally recognized in the Church ta para pasin homologoumena ("Hist. eccl.", II, xxii, III, iii; "Præp. evang.", II, xiv, 7; xvi, 3). They are found in the early Latin and Syriac Versions. St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of them (Strom., II, III), and Tertullian expresses his astonishment that they were rejected by Marcion (Adv. Marcion, V, xxi), and says they were written by St. Paul to Timothy and Titus; evidently their rejection was a thing hitherto unheard of. They are ascribed to St. Paul in the Muratorian Fragment, and Theophilus of Antioch (about 181) quotes from them and calls them the "Divine word" (theios logos). The Martyrs of Vienne and Lyons (about 180) were acquainted with them; and their bishop, Pothinus, who was born about A. D. 87 and martyred in 177 at the age of ninety, takes us back to a very early date. His successor, St. Irenæus, who was born in Asia Minor and had heard St. Polycarp preach, makes frequent use of the Epistles and quotes them as St. Paul's. He was arguing against heretics, so there could be no doubt on either side. The Epistles were also admitted by Heracleon (about 165), Hegesippus (about 170), St. Justin Martyr, and the writer of the "Second Epistle of Clement" (about 140). In the short letter which St. Polycarp wrote (about 117) he shows that he was thoroughly acquainted with them. Polycarp was born only a few years after the death of Saints Peter and Paul, and as Timothy and Titus, according to the most ancient traditions, lived to be very old, he was their contemporary for many years. He was Bishop of Smyrna. only forty miles from Ephesus, where Timothy resided. St. Ignatius, the second successor of St. Peter at Antioch, was acquainted with Apostles and disciples of the Apostles, and shows his knowledge of the Epistles in the letters which he wrote about A. D. 110. Critics now admit that Ignatius and Polycarp knew the Pastorals (von Soden in Holtzmann's "Hand-Kommentar", III, 155; "Ency. Bib.", IV); and there is a very strong probability that they were known also to Clement of Rome, when he wrote to the Corinthians about A. D. 96. link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm)

Not according to the Protestant authors of the NIV Study Bible either:
After Paul’s release from prison in Rome in a.d. 62 (Ac 28) and after his fourth missionary journey (see map, pp. 2486–2487), during which he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul was again imprisoned under Emperor Nero c. 66–67. It was during this time that he wrote 2 Timothy (see chart, p. 2261). In contrast to his first imprisonment, when he lived in a “rented house” (Ac 28:30; see note there), he now languished in a cold dungeon (see 4:13 and note), chained like a common criminal (1:16; 2:9). His friends even had a hard time finding out where he was being kept (1:17). Paul knew that his work was done and that his life was nearly at an end (4:6–8). link (http://www.ibs.org/niv/studybible/2timothy.php)

And not according to WRS papers either.
In the context of this issue, therefore, it seems eminently appropriate briefly to vindicate the Pastoral Epistles’ Pauline authorship. The work of such distinguished students of the NT as Joachim Jeremias,1 J. N. D. Kelly,2 Ceslaus Spicq,3 and Luke Timothy Johnson,4 each of whom defends the authenticity of the Pastorals in his commentary on the epistles, renders extended comment on our part unnecessary. We shall argue, nonetheless, for three claims, which, in our view, are worthy of more attention than they have been accorded by both liberal and evangelical scholarship. First, we intend to show that P46, the earliest extant collection of Paul’s letters, may in its original form have contained the Pastoral Epistles and that one cannot, therefore, reasonably regard the absence of the Pastorals in present-day copies of P46 as evidence of the Pastorals’ inauthenticity. Second, we intend to argue that Paul’s employment of multiple amanuenses in the composition of his letters suffices, to a great extent at least, to account for the differences in style and vocabulary that distinguish the Pastorals from the other Pauline epistles. Third and finally, we intend to argue that the techniques of statistical analysis frequently employed to discredit the Pastorals’ authenticity are unreliable guides in inquiries about the authorship of brief texts. link (http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Journals/12-2_Aug-2005/Jowers-Authenticity_Pastoral_Epistles.pdf)

continued from above link...
When one follows the appropriate methodology in investigating the Pastorals’ authenticity, giving priority to external evidence, therefore, the authorship of the Pastorals appears difficult to dispute. This is good news, of course, for all who uphold the inspiration and inerrancy of all 66 books in the Protestant, biblical canon; in light of Prof. Battle’s findings, moreover, it is especially good news for the discouraged pastor-theologian.

And not according to the NKJV Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary either...
Early in the nineteenth century, some scholars began to question Paul's authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus). Critics claimed that these letters were "pious forgeries" written in the second century. They leveled four different attacks on the integrity and authenticity of these letters. First is a historical problem. Since the chronological references in these letters do not correspond with the Book of Acts, critics assume that the letters were written at a much later time by an impostor. However, the letters could have been written soon after the events described in the Book of Acts. Many scholars hold that Paul was acquitted and released from the imprisonment described in Acts 28, and then traveled for several years in Asia Minor and Macedonia. During this time he wrote the disputed letters. Eventually he was imprisoned in Rome again, and then died in Nero's persecution.

Second, critics argue that the Pastoral Epistles do not fit Paul's writing style. These letters contain a number of words that occur only here in the New Testament but are common in the writings of the second century. This is taken as evidence that the letters are from the second century. The weakness of this argument is that there is a limited body of literature from the second century from which to draw such a dogmatic conclusion.

The third point relates to the form of church leadership described in the Pastoral Epistles. The structure of authority, including elders and deacons, seems to represent a more developed, second-century church. However, it is clear from Phil. 1:1 that the offices of elder and deacon were already functioning during Paul's ministry.

The fourth argument involves theology. Critics claim that the heresy combated in the Pastoral Epistles is the full-grown Gnosticism of the second century. While it is true that Gnosticism was not fully developed until the second century, it is also certain that the heresy began slowly and evolved before it became a complete theological system. Paul dealt with similar false teachings in Colosse (Col. 1:9-15). The heresy in 1 Timothy appears to be an early form of gnostic teaching that combined elements of Judaism (1:7), Persian thought, and Christianity.

There is no reason, therefore, to conclude that 1 and 2 Timothy are not authentic Pauline Epistles. First Timothy was probably composed shortly after Paul's release from his first Roman imprisonment. This means the book was composed in Macedonia around &AD; 62. link (http://www.newkingjamesversion.com/books/1timothy.html)

I think there are more than a few scholars in the subject to dispute that "generally agreed" lassie faire dismissal of the authenticity of 2nd Timothy, as you presented it.

That’s not true according to the Catholics,


I think there are more than a few scholars in the subject to dispute that "generally agreed" lassie faire dismissal of the authenticity of 2nd Timothy, as you presented it.

it must be somewhat up in the air or the catholic online bible wouldnt have put this in their introduction to 2timothy

From the late second century to the nineteenth, Pauline authorship of the three Pastoral Epistles went unchallenged. Since then, the attribution of these letters to Paul has been questioned. Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters. A second group believes, on the basis of statistical evidence, that the vocabulary and style are Pauline, even if at first sight the contrary seems to be the case. They state that the concept of church organization in the letters is not as advanced as the questioners of Pauline authorship hold since the notion of hierarchical order in a religious community existed in Israel before the time of Christ, as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, this group sees affinities between the theological thought of the Pastorals and that of the unquestionably genuine letters of Paul. Other scholars, while conceding a degree of validity to the positions mentioned above, suggest that the apostle made use of a secretary who was responsible for the composition of the letters. A fourth group of scholars believes that these letters are the work of a compiler, that they are based on traditions about Paul in his later years, and that they include, in varying amounts, actual fragments of genuine Pauline correspondence.



http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm its in frames so you have to go to the book then click on introduction.

and lassie is the dog. the french phrase you are looking for is laissez faire.

...
and lassie is the dog. the french phrase you are looking for is laissez faire.

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind next time. I must have been too busy using my Shift Key to capitalize the first letters of my sentences and must have gone straight past the notice that spelling errors will be corrected warning. Oh, and by the way, it’s “French” when referencing the language, not, french.

This is a game you will win though, I am a notoriously bad speller, my handwriting is even worse, I'll concede that point now to save you the trouble.

Edit: On topic though, from the link you provided, going to introduction of 2 Timothy, it says:
On the theory of authorship by Paul himself, Second Timothy appears to be the last of the three Pastoral Epistles. The many scholars who argue that the Pastorals are products of the Pauline school often incline toward Second Timothy as the earliest of the three and the one most likely to have actual fragments of material from Paul himself. link (http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm)

Then why did you post a quote which shows rather petty and vindictive behaviour on the part of the putative deity? "If you deny me then I'll deny you back, nah!"
You perhaps see the saying in a negative light? I see it in a positive light.

God gave us all free will, and the gift of life. Why should I deny Him?

So, God is an evil tyrant? Hm. At least you've read your own Holy Book, then.

I wouldn't say evil. More like harsh.

Among Christians, for whom the Old Testament and New Testament together constitute the Bible, there is not complete agreement on their content. Some branches of the Syriac church do not include 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation in the New Testament. The Roman and Greek communions include a number of books in the Old Testament in addition to those that make up the Hebrew Bible; these additional books formed part of the Christian Septuagint.

I wouldn't say evil. More like harsh.

Even Moses?
Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.Hmmm. The happy book itself says it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032&version=9;

Continued from my last post..

While they are included, along with one or two others, in the complete Protestant English Bible, the Church of England (like the Lutheran Church) follows Jerome in holding that they may be read "for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine" (Article VI). Other Reformed Churches give them no canonical status at all. The Ethiopic Bible includes 1 Enoch and the book of Jubilees.

The Ethiopic Bible includes 1 Enoch and the book of Jubilees.

Ooh! I brought this up two something years ago. Could you expand a bit on this particular part? It's kind of interesting. I think i brought it up to Zilam a little while back too.

Yes. In the Roman, Greek, and other ancient communions the Bible, together with the living tradition of the church in some sense, constitutes the ultimate authority. In the churches of the Reformation, on the other hand, the Bible alone is the final court of appeal in matters of doctrine and practice. Thus Article VI of the Church of England affirms: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." To the same effect the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.2) lists the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New Testament as "all...given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."

Stupid people, from all my christian friends, 'the bible is for you interpretation and not to be taken literally' wtf ever...grow the fuck up...learn to actually blame something on ourselves instead of placing it on something that OBVIOUSLY doesnt exist. And until one of you stupid F.U.C.K.S. can prove to me that a 'god' exists...I'm not believing any of the fables and tales in your 'holy bible'.

Religious scholar Bart Ehrman has explored how scribes - through both omission and intention - changed the Bible. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.

Ehrman says the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts. In the introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman writes that when he came to understand this process 30 years ago, it shifted his way of thinking about the Bible. He had been raised as an Evangelical Christian.

"To discuss the copies of the New Testament that we have, we need to start at the very beginning with one of the unusual features of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world: its bookish character. In fact, to make sense of this feature of Christianity, we need to start before the beginnings of Christianity with the religion from which Christianity sprang, Judaism. For the bookishness of Christianity was in some sense anticipated and foreshadowed by Judaism, which was the first "religion of the book" in Western civilization.

Judaism as a Religion of the Book

The Judaism from which Christianity sprang was an unusual religion in the Roman world, although by no means unique. Like adherents of any of the other (hundreds of ) religions in the Mediterranean area, Jews acknowledged the existence of a divine realm populated by superhuman beings (angels, archangels, principalities, powers); they subscribed to the worship of a deity through sacrifices of animals and other food products; they maintained that there was a special holy place where this divine being dwelt here on earth (the Temple in Jerusalem), and it was there that these sacrifices were to be made. They prayed to this God for communal and personal needs. They told stories about how this God had interacted with human beings in the past, and they anticipated his help for human beings in the present. In all these ways, Judaism was "familiar" to the worshipers of other gods in the empire.

In some ways, though, Judaism was distinctive. All other religions in the empire were polytheistic -- acknowledging and worshiping many gods of all sorts and functions: great gods of the state, lesser gods of various locales, gods who oversaw different aspects of human birth, life, and death. Judaism, on the other hand, was monotheistic; Jews insisted on worshiping only the one God of their ancestors, the God who, they maintained, had created this world, controlled this world, and alone provided what was needed for his people. According to Jewish tradition, this one all-powerful God had called Israel to be his special people and had promised to protect and defend them in exchange for their absolute devotion to him and him alone. The Jewish people, it was believed, had a "covenant" with this God, an agreement that they would be uniquely his as he was uniquely theirs. Only this one God was to be worshiped and obeyed; so, too, there was only one Temple, unlike in the polytheistic religions of the day in which, for example, there could be any number of temples to a god like Zeus. To be sure, Jews could worship God anywhere they lived, but they could perform their religious obligations of sacrifice to God only at the Temple in Jerusalem. In other places, though, they could gather together in "synagogues" for prayer and to discuss the ancestral traditions at the heart of their religion.

These traditions involved both stories about God's interaction with the ancestors of the people of Israel -- the patriarchs and matriarchs of the faith, as it were: Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rachel, Jacob, Rebecca, Joseph, Moses, David, and so on -- and detailed instructions concerning how this people was to worship and live. One of the things that made Judaism unique among the religions of the Roman Empire was that these instructions, along with the other ancestral traditions, were written down in sacred books.

For modern people intimately familiar with any of the major contemporary Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), it may be hard to imagine, but books played virtually no role in the polytheistic religions of the ancient Western world. These religions were almost exclusively concerned with honoring the gods through ritual acts of sacrifice. There were no doctrines to be learned, as explained in books, and almost no ethical principles to be followed, as laid out in books. This is not to say that adherents of the various polytheistic religions had no beliefs about their gods or that they had no ethics, but beliefs and ethics -- strange as this sounds to modern ears -- played almost no role in religion per se. These were instead matters of personal philosophy, and philosophies, of course, could be bookish. Since ancient religions themselves did not require any particular sets of "right doctrines" or, for the most part, "ethical codes," books played almost no role in them.

Judaism was unique in that it stressed its ancestral traditions, customs, and laws, and maintained that these had been recorded in sacred books, which had the status, therefore, of "scripture" for the Jewish people. During the period of our concern -- the first century of the common era, when the books of the New Testament were being written -- Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire understood in particular that God had given direction to his people in the writings of Moses, referred to collectively as the Torah, which literally means something like "law" or "guidance." The Torah consists of five books, sometimes called the Pentateuch (the "five scrolls"), the beginning of the Jewish Bible (the Christian Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Here one finds accounts of the creation of the world, the calling of Israel to be God's people, the stories of Israel's patriarchs and matriarchs and God's involvement with them, and most important (and most extensive), the laws that God gave Moses indicating how his people were to worship him and behave toward one another in community together. These were sacred laws, to be learned, discussed, and followed -- and they were written in a set of books.

Jews had other books that were important for their religious lives together as well, for example, books of prophets (such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos), and poems (Psalms), and history (such as Joshua and Samuel). Eventually, some time after Christianity began, a group of these Hebrew books -- twenty-two of them altogether -- came to be regarded as a sacred canon of scripture, the Jewish Bible of today, accepted by Christians as the first part of the Christian canon, the "Old Testament.""

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Copyright © 2005 by Bart Ehrman.


I highly recommend this book to anyone who would claim to have an open mind. And especially those who would demand that others read the bible to better understand their views. Otherwise, they simply lack the conviction of their claims like the cowards they are.

Have a go at

http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/055277331X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/203-0850594-5455137?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191574868&sr=8-1

i would say that we don't know what there is or isn't. the book of one belief is no more nor less then the book of another. all might have been revealed by channelers of the same god who chose each and every last one of them to do so. this might not have made them infallable however. nor even neccessarily that god itself.

and there is a tendency for all beliefs to be taken the wrong way, by people both inside and outside of them.

so i really don't see that big of a deal about the book of what might or might not be the most dominant single belief.

it isn't history nor science. it isn't the beggining and end of knowledge. it certainly isn't the beggining and end of everything unseen that might or might not exist.

it is simply the central text of one paticular belief, that granted, has only just so much, if that, to recomend it.

and people do, certainly derive, a very distorted perception of the universe arround them from it. even to a great extent, how human society itself actually works, which seems to be the only thing it is really concerned with.

=^^=
.../\...

Even Moses?
Hmmm. The happy book itself says it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032&version=9;

Nicely taken out of context. Moses left the "God's people" alone in the desert for a couple of days, and during that time they became afraid of having been abandoned there. They decided to make a golden bull to worship, which is strictly forbidden in the Ten Commandments. So you see, God was entirely right in being pissed off at the people. That doesn't make Him evil; on the contrary, Moses being able to persuade Him to forgive the people is clear evidence of God's benevolence, regardless of what you or I might think about genocide being a proper punishment for worshipping false idols.

Furthermore, just because the translator of KJV has chosen to use the word 'evil' to describe God's intentions, it doesn't mean it's correct. The Bible has even much bigger translation errors. KJV, or any other translation for that matter, just isn't evidence of anything, where the choice of words is the issue. The Finnish version, from which I checked, doesn't mention evil at all, just hatred and wrath. Is the Hebrew word for evil used in the original?

Stupid people, from all my christian friends, 'the bible is for you interpretation and not to be taken literally' wtf ever...grow the fuck up...learn to actually blame something on ourselves instead of placing it on something that OBVIOUSLY doesnt exist. And until one of you stupid F.U.C.K.S. can prove to me that a 'god' exists...I'm not believing any of the fables and tales in your 'holy bible'.


heh proove God exists, thats a good un!

Religious scholar Bart Ehrman has explored how scribes - through both omission and intention - changed the Bible. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.

Ehrman says the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts. In the introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman writes that when he came to understand this process 30 years ago, it shifted his way of thinking about the Bible. He had been raised as an Evangelical Christian.

*snip large quote from Ehrman's book*

I highly recommend this book to anyone who would claim to have an open mind. And especially those who would demand that others read the bible to better understand their views. Otherwise, they simply lack the conviction of their claims like the cowards they are.

By all means, I agree, people should read books on this topic before establishing their opinions solidly, like forming their feet into stone pillars that they cannot move again later only to find that they are in trouble when the tide comes in...

However, as to Ehrman's book; Ehrman has an agenda. The book was intended to be provocative and his goal is to shock the layman on this topic. But the books fails with actual challenge for the student of the subject matter. Professors like Ehrman have a responsibility to not mislead lay readers when the introduce the general public to their field of study by writing books suck as this, the laymen of the world don’t have the background in the topic to form counter arguments as they read his one sided tirades against the authenticity of the few problems he brings up, nor the facility to scale those issues properly in the field. The normal reader of Ehrman’s book will finish it and then have a huge misunderstanding about the actual conflicts about wording and teachings of the NT, far more so than the scholars in the field actually have as a whole. Of course a professor should tell us what is what, but a good professor doesn’t try to "Create Chicken Littles" as one of the critics in the links below put it.

Critical reviews of Ehrman’s book: link (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3452) or link (http://www.ccwonline.org/ehrman.html) and this one link (http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/misquoting-jesus-the-story-behind-who-changed-the-bible-and-why)

So again, by all means, read Ehrman’s book, but also don’t make it the only one in the field that you read or else you will likely end up with a very distorted and inaccurate view of the scholarship in the field of biblical criticism.

Critical reviews of Ehrman’s book: link (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3452) or link (http://www.ccwonline.org/ehrman.html) and this one link (http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/misquoting-jesus-the-story-behind-who-changed-the-bible-and-why)

from the middle one: "Contrary to what Bart Ehrman seems to think, most Christians are not completely ignorant of the problems related to the New Testament manuscripts."

hah! man, globally a huge part of christianity still thinks the whole thing ought to be taken literally, which is an even stronger claim than mere innerrancy.

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind next time. I must have been too busy using my Shift Key to capitalize the first letters of my sentences and must have gone straight past the notice that spelling errors will be corrected warning. Oh, and by the way, it’s “French” when referencing the language, not, french.

This is a game you will win though, I am a notoriously bad speller, my handwriting is even worse, I'll concede that point now to save you the trouble.

'Laissez-faire' is the correct spelling but it doesn't make sense in the context of your post, it's only usually used to refer to economic liberalism and is roughly translated as 'leave it alone'. I suspect the meaning you were attempting to comvey would be better expressed by 'glib' (although you'd still be wrong :p).

Edit: On topic though, from the link you provided, going to introduction of 2 Timothy, it says:
On the theory of authorship by Paul himself, Second Timothy appears to be the last of the three Pastoral Epistles. The many scholars who argue that the Pastorals are products of the Pauline school often incline toward Second Timothy as the earliest of the three and the one most likely to have actual fragments of material from Paul himself. link (http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm)

Yep, the majority of scholars say that 2 Timothy contains, at best, a few 'fragments' of genuine material from Paul.

...

Yep, the majority of scholars say that 2 Timothy contains, at best, a few 'fragments' of genuine material from Paul.

You're not reading the quote well. It says, "The many scholars who argue that the Pastorals are products of the Pauline school..."

Which means, even the scholars who argue that Paul did not write the epistles but that his followers did afterwards, even those scholars agree that 2 Timothy, of the epistles, is the most authentic and oldest.

It does not say Majority, nor does it try to say that the majority of scholars believe that Paul wrote only fragments of 2 Timothy. The credentials for 2 Timothy seem to be so strong that even the minimalists (which you must be one I assume?) are forced to concede that 2 Timothy must have some original Paul writings in it.

*cracks knuckles*

Right, let's have a go at this:

That’s not true according to the Catholics,
The Pauline authorship of the Pastorals was never doubted by Catholics in early times. Eusebius, with his complete knowledge of early Christian literature, states that they were among the books universally recognized in the Church ta para pasin homologoumena ("Hist. eccl.", II, xxii, III, iii; "Præp. evang.", II, xiv, 7; xvi, 3). They are found in the early Latin and Syriac Versions. St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of them (Strom., II, III), and Tertullian expresses his astonishment that they were rejected by Marcion (Adv. Marcion, V, xxi), and says they were written by St. Paul to Timothy and Titus; evidently their rejection was a thing hitherto unheard of. They are ascribed to St. Paul in the Muratorian Fragment, and Theophilus of Antioch (about 181) quotes from them and calls them the "Divine word" (theios logos). The Martyrs of Vienne and Lyons (about 180) were acquainted with them; and their bishop, Pothinus, who was born about A. D. 87 and martyred in 177 at the age of ninety, takes us back to a very early date. His successor, St. Irenæus, who was born in Asia Minor and had heard St. Polycarp preach, makes frequent use of the Epistles and quotes them as St. Paul's. He was arguing against heretics, so there could be no doubt on either side. The Epistles were also admitted by Heracleon (about 165), Hegesippus (about 170), St. Justin Martyr, and the writer of the "Second Epistle of Clement" (about 140). In the short letter which St. Polycarp wrote (about 117) he shows that he was thoroughly acquainted with them. Polycarp was born only a few years after the death of Saints Peter and Paul, and as Timothy and Titus, according to the most ancient traditions, lived to be very old, he was their contemporary for many years. He was Bishop of Smyrna. only forty miles from Ephesus, where Timothy resided. St. Ignatius, the second successor of St. Peter at Antioch, was acquainted with Apostles and disciples of the Apostles, and shows his knowledge of the Epistles in the letters which he wrote about A. D. 110. Critics now admit that Ignatius and Polycarp knew the Pastorals (von Soden in Holtzmann's "Hand-Kommentar", III, 155; "Ency. Bib.", IV); and there is a very strong probability that they were known also to Clement of Rome, when he wrote to the Corinthians about A. D. 96. link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm)

Completely irrelevant, this says nothing about the views of modern scholars and what it does say supports my case. I'm not aware of any certain examples of people quoting from any of the pastorals before Irenaeus in about 170CE, but feel free to prove me wrong. The Church Fathers believed many things about the dating and authorship of the New Testament Canon which are now widely rejected, such as Mathian Hebrew priority (see Irenaeus Against Heresies and Polycarp) and apostolic authorship. The site in question has a blatant agenda:

The remainder of this article will be devoted to the important question of authenticity, which would really require a volume for discussion. Catholics know from the universal tradition and infallible teaching of the Church that these Epistles are inspired, and from this follows their Pauline authorship as they all claim to have been written by the Apostle.

Yep, these guys are clearly serious scholars... They don't cite their sources so I'm not inclined to trust their assertions in the light of this.

Not according to the Protestant authors of the NIV Study Bible either:
After Paul’s release from prison in Rome in a.d. 62 (Ac 28) and after his fourth missionary journey (see map, pp. 2486–2487), during which he wrote 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul was again imprisoned under Emperor Nero c. 66–67. It was during this time that he wrote 2 Timothy (see chart, p. 2261). In contrast to his first imprisonment, when he lived in a “rented house” (Ac 28:30; see note there), he now languished in a cold dungeon (see 4:13 and note), chained like a common criminal (1:16; 2:9). His friends even had a hard time finding out where he was being kept (1:17). Paul knew that his work was done and that his life was nearly at an end (4:6–8). link (http://www.ibs.org/niv/studybible/2timothy.php)

My NIV also contains a map showing the route of the Hebrew Exodus and the genealogy of the Patriarchs, that doesn't mean that their historicity is accepted by most, or even many, scholars. A quick browse of the site reveals that they also reject the Documentary Hypothesis (by far the most mainstream theory for the origin of the Pentateuch) and again they cite no arguments or scholarly sources. Moving on...

And not according to WRS papers either.
In the context of this issue, therefore, it seems eminently appropriate briefly to vindicate the Pastoral Epistles’ Pauline authorship. The work of such distinguished students of the NT as Joachim Jeremias,1 J. N. D. Kelly,2 Ceslaus Spicq,3 and Luke Timothy Johnson,4 each of whom defends the authenticity of the Pastorals in his commentary on the epistles, renders extended comment on our part unnecessary. We shall argue, nonetheless, for three claims, which, in our view, are worthy of more attention than they have been accorded by both liberal and evangelical scholarship. First, we intend to show that P46, the earliest extant collection of Paul’s letters, may in its original form have contained the Pastoral Epistles and that one cannot, therefore, reasonably regard the absence of the Pastorals in present-day copies of P46 as evidence of the Pastorals’ inauthenticity. Second, we intend to argue that Paul’s employment of multiple amanuenses in the composition of his letters suffices, to a great extent at least, to account for the differences in style and vocabulary that distinguish the Pastorals from the other Pauline epistles. Third and finally, we intend to argue that the techniques of statistical analysis frequently employed to discredit the Pastorals’ authenticity are unreliable guides in inquiries about the authorship of brief texts. link (http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Journals/12-2_Aug-2005/Jowers-Authenticity_Pastoral_Epistles.pdf)

continued from above link...
When one follows the appropriate methodology in investigating the Pastorals’ authenticity, giving priority to external evidence, therefore, the authorship of the Pastorals appears difficult to dispute. This is good news, of course, for all who uphold the inspiration and inerrancy of all 66 books in the Protestant, biblical canon; in light of Prof. Battle’s findings, moreover, it is especially good news for the discouraged pastor-theologian.

My bold. It seems that even your source admits that many scholars reject Pauline authorship. A quick skim of the website reveals that the seminary in questions hold to Biblical inerrancy; have you noticed that in order to find people who support Pauline authorship you're having to cite some serious nuts? If Pauline authorship is really as widely accepted as your sources claim then why aren't you citing serious, mainstream scholars?

And not according to the NKJV Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary either...
[INDENT]Early in the nineteenth century, some scholars began to question Paul's authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus). Critics claimed that these letters were "pious forgeries" written in the second century. They leveled four different attacks on the integrity and authenticity of these letters. First is a historical problem. Since the chronological references in these letters do not correspond with the Book of Acts, critics assume that the letters were written at a much later time by an impostor. However, the letters could have been written soon after the events described in the Book of Acts. Many scholars hold that Paul was acquitted and released from the imprisonment described in Acts 28, and then traveled for several years in Asia Minor and Macedonia. During this time he wrote the disputed letters. Eventually he was imprisoned in Rome again, and then died in Nero's persecution.

Speculation.

Second, critics argue that the Pastoral Epistles do not fit Paul's writing style. These letters contain a number of words that occur only here in the New Testament but are common in the writings of the second century. This is taken as evidence that the letters are from the second century. The weakness of this argument is that there is a limited body of literature from the second century from which to draw such a dogmatic conclusion.

A laughably poor slight of hand: he begins by considering several objections, offers a glib defense against one, and then pretends that all of them have been answered.

1. There are 848 words in the pastorals (excluding names and place names), of which 306 are found nowhere else in Paul's letters. 175 of these words are found nowhere else in the NT, but 211 of them are common in second century Christian writings.

2. Paul's writing is emotional, passionate, and dynamic whereas the pastorals are serene and meditative, more akin to Greek philosophy of the time.

You're not reading the quote well. It says, "The many scholars who argue that the Pastorals are products of the Pauline school..."

Which means, even the scholars who argue that Paul did not write the epistles but that his followers did afterwards, even those scholars agree that 2 Timothy, of the epistles, is the most authentic and oldest.

It does not say Majority, nor does it try to say that the majority of scholars believe that Paul wrote only fragments of 2 Timothy. The credentials for 2 Timothy seem to be so strong that even the minimalists (which you must be one I assume?) are forced to concede that 2 Timothy must have some original Paul writings in it.

And you claim I'm not reading the quote well? It clearly states that 2 Timothy is "the earliest of the three and the one most likely to have actual fragments of material from Paul himself"

Nothing about "must", and nothing about anything more than "fragments" of Paul. Allow me to quote from your sites introduction to 1 Timothy (and the pastorals in general):

Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters.

From here, about half way down the page (http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm). To be honest, every serious scholar is a 'minimalist' now in the original sense of the word as hardly anyone still holds to things link Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (and with good reason); now the split it between minimalist minimalists and conservative minimalists. ;)

...
My bold. It seems that even your source admits that many scholars reject Pauline authorship. A quick skim of the website reveals that the seminary in questions hold to Biblical inerrancy; have you noticed that in order to find people who support Pauline authorship you're having to cite some serious nuts? If Pauline authorship is really as widely accepted as your sources claim then why aren't you citing serious, mainstream scholars?

Uterly typical, "dont' like the message? Attack the messenger." If you are going to dismiss the seminaries and the schools like the Moody Bible Institute (like Ehrman himself went to) because they were founded to teach the very topic we are talking about etc., where do you think the minimulist scholars will be able to go to school?

Speculation.

You should be careful, speculation is the only weapon in the arsenal for the scholars that want to say that Paul did not author 2 Timothy.

A laughably poor slight of hand: he begins by considering several objections, offers a glib defense against one, and then pretends that all of them have been answered.

1. There are 848 words in the pastorals (excluding names and place names), of which 306 are found nowhere else in Paul's letters. 175 of these words are found nowhere else in the NT, but 211 of them are common in second century Christian writings.

2. Paul's writing is emotional, passionate, and dynamic whereas the pastorals are serene and meditative, more akin to Greek philosophy of the time.

If you want an full rebuttal to the arguments, you'll have to read a book, such as, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, by Craig A. Evans.

...
Nothing about "must", and nothing about anything more than "fragments" of Paul. Allow me to quote from your sites introduction to 1 Timothy (and the pastorals in general):
...

Just for clairity's sake, I didn't come up with this link, Ashmoria (I think) did. I'm not objecting to it though.

Uterly typical, "dont' like the message? Attack the messenger." If you are going to dismiss the seminaries and the schools like the Moody Bible Institute (like Ehrman himself went to) because they were founded to teach the very topic we are talking about etc., where do you think the minimulist scholars will be able to go to school?

Erm... it's a bit radical, but they could always go to REAL universities, where the faculty aren't required to sign up to a 'statement of faith' which forbids them to question the factual basis of any part of the Bible. Here in the UK most of the top universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St Andrews, York, Bristol etc.) have theology and religious studies departments which teach Biblical studies but they don't feel the need to make anyone sign a declaration of faith; some lecturers are believers, some aren't.

Here's a little snippet of information which not many people know: ad hominem arguments can be valid. There is only one circumstance in which they are valid and that is in response to an argument from authority; you appealed to an authority and I used a valid tactic in attacking their credibility.

I notice you evaded my question so I'll ask it again: why do you think you're having to cite so many nuts to respond to my claim that most scholars reject the Pauline authorship of the pastorals? Why haven't you cited any mainstream scholars?

You should be careful, speculation is the only weapon in the arsenal for the scholars that want to say that Paul did not author 2 Timothy.

Bullshit, and your bluffing is even more blatant given that I give you two strong arguments against Paul's authorship in the very next quote. Shoot yourself in the foot much?

If you want an full rebuttal to the arguments, you'll have to read a book, such as, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, by Craig A. Evans.

Very cute. Instead of responding to my arguments you tell me to go and read a book. Presumably you've read the book, why don't you 'rebut' my arguments for yourself? I typed out my own arguments instead of handing you a reading list or a long section of link spam.

Just for clairity's sake, I didn't come up with this link, Ashmoria (I think) did. I'm not objecting to it though.

Fair enough, but it still puts a cramp in your "That’s not true according to the Catholics" claim. Are Catholics Minimalists now?