Disturbing Passage from The Bible

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/03/2007 08:07:31 PM · #176

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

After all, if it turns out that Christians are right and I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. It makes sense, then, to talk/argue with Christians about matters of faith. Who knows, maybe I'll be convinced by a Christian's arguments, and I'll convert to Christianity and my eternal soul will be saved.

If you even admit of that possibility, why not convert and be done with it? If there is no God, you lose nothing; if the Christians are right, you gain eternal bliss.

Bonus points to the first person to name the most famous proponent of this argument :-)

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/03/2007 08:10:33 PM · #177

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Bonus points to the first person to name the most famous proponent of this argument :-)

R.

Why it was the founder of the Gillette Razor company right? :P

01/03/2007 08:11:27 PM · #178

Blaise Pascal...

01/03/2007 08:12:31 PM · #179

Originally posted by yanko:

Why it was the founder of the Gillette Razor company right? :P

If you're making a slanted reference to Occam's Razor, that's a different thing entirely :-)

R.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/03/2007 08:12:54 PM · #180

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Blaise Pascal...

Bingo! The Doc is a winner. Eternal bliss unto him!

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/03/2007 08:12:57 PM · #181

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Blaise Pascal...

Shit I was thinking of Occam's razor.

Keith Maniac

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/03/2007 08:14:08 PM · #182

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
After all, if it turns out that Christians are right and I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. It makes sense, then, to talk/argue with Christians about matters of faith. Who knows, maybe I'll be convinced by a Christian's arguments, and I'll convert to Christianity and my eternal soul will be saved.

If you even admit of that possibility, why not convert and be done with it? If there is no God, you lose nothing; if the Christians are right, you gain eternal bliss.

Bonus points to the first person to name the most famous proponent of this argument :-)

R.

That argument strikes me as silly, because your soul will only be saved if you truly believe in Jesus Christ as your savior. Your soul will not be saved if you simply "convert", and call yourself a Christian.

EducatedSavage

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

01/03/2007 08:14:11 PM · #183

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

An excellent point, although the readily observable fact that our reality DOES exist may mean the odds are actually quite good. The difference, of course, is that we have a reason other than imagination to question the odds themselves.

Just because the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 came up on the Big Spin and won the lottery, despite that it would be a demonstrable fact, doesn't change the extremely low odds of it ever happening.

R.

Although reality existing can be said to be readily observable, one cannot always trust their observations. The incident of poor odds actually happening could simply be a fluke, or it COULD mean that the odds were originally miscalculated.

I think these are both excellent points that point to the fragility of all stances.

-C, ES

01/03/2007 08:17:18 PM · #184

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

For the sake of this argument, "belief" is implied in the term "convert". After all, no insincere Christian is given a free pass either, even if he's gone to church his whole life.

R.

01/03/2007 08:17:30 PM · #185

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If there is no God, you lose nothing; if the Christians are right, you gain eternal bliss.

Really? My grandparents lost a lot of money to Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Even without tithing and other monetary contributions, wouldn't you lose time and energy by wasting it on a pointless exercise? Kinda' like me writing anything in this thread. :-/

01/03/2007 08:19:47 PM · #186

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Just because the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 came up on the Big Spin and won the lottery, despite that it would be a demonstrable fact, doesn't change the extremely low odds of it ever happening.

TouchÃ©, but observing even one occurence of anything proves that it's at least possible no matter how improbable, and if possibility is proven, THEN maybe you can debate the accuracy of the odds.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 20:21:53.

01/03/2007 08:20:55 PM · #187

Originally posted by scalvert:

â�¢ Paul never actually knew Jesus, so his writings are no more proof of existence than the writings of Stephen King or Dr. Suess
â�¢ You've quoted the only part of Philippians that scholars don't agree Paul actually wrote anyway
â�¢ The passage, if true, reinforces my dismay that such a sacrifice wasn't worthy of literal depiction in artwork for a few hundred years (the point you didn't seem to understand)

Paul never met Jesus, but he was certainly under the assumption that he existed. He spent part of his life running around persecuting Christians. Those Christians certainly believed Jesus existed. He then had a vision and attributed this to Jesus. Again, if he didn't believe he existed, why would he attribute it to him rather than someone else (perhaps a prophet or God Himself)? So while Paul never physically met Jesus, the idea that all this framework surrounding and including his writings had developed completely from a "myth" in roughly 10-20 years is lunacy.

Yes, many people think Paul was quoting an already existing hymn in Phillipians. He seemed to believe it enough to write it down and it seemed to exist in that time period (which is the important part for this argument).

The lack of a literal depiction of the crucifixion could easily have many other explanation:
* The horror of it.
* Art had not typically progressed beyond symbology in the area.
* They have been lost in time.

Who knows? I just don't hold much stock in your argument. You are trying to tell me that the idea did not exist because the art did not exist, but the idea certainly did exist in text. Do you think that the early Christians believed it was an actual LAMB that was crucified? How does that make any sense? So once again, I just don't get the relevance of knowing that early depictions show a lamb and the cross. The symbology means a lot to me even 2,000 years later. Just like the "Jesus fish" which was used within a generation or two as well. Do I think early Christians worshiped fish?

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 20:23:08.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

01/03/2007 08:33:42 PM · #188

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Nothing is more baffling to me than a zealous atheist.

Ah, Bravo! I've thought this many times as i read these threads, but never articulated it. I can understand the stake a Christian has in defending/proselytizing his faith, but why on earth are there so many proselytizing atheists? What's their stake? Why do they care what we believe?

R.

Atheists care what you believe because:

a) There is so much violence in this world committed in the name of religion, and many atheists feel the world would be better off without religion. They feel that the amount of good done in the name of religion is outweighed by the amount of evil done in the name of religion.

b) The notion that my soul is damned to eternal hell just because I do not believe in Jesus, regardless of whether I am a good person, is so perverse, so fundamentally repulsive to me, that I just have to speak up about it.

c) Healthy discussion about religion is good. After all, if it turns out that Christians are right and I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. It makes sense, then, to talk/argue with Christians about matters of faith. Who knows, maybe I'll be convinced by a Christian's arguments, and I'll convert to Christianity and my eternal soul will be saved.

It is my opinion that the overwhelming majority of evil that has been done in the name of religion is mostly a cover for doing things for power and greed.

And seriously--- should we go through the hostorical (or current) list of atrocities that have NOT been committed in the name of religion?

And again, for me anyway, the faith has little if anything to do with religion rather than a more personal spiritual relationship with God. While I am FAR from being a perfect person for having it, without it, I am much closer to being a very, very bad person who would have no reason not to give in to anger, violence, greed, lust, etc. Why would I? Why should I? Other than the fear of being caught and prosecuted for breaking laws that were founded on... founded on... hmmm, I can't recall where our laws that prohibit stealing and murder originated from. Any help? ;-)

IMO, and in my personal experience, it is absolutely impossible to convince, coerce, brainwash, etc anyone into believing or even understanding the true nature of Christianity (relationship, not religion). ...and ironically I am having a bit of Deja Vu as I sat on the opposite side of this table for most of my life listening to others tell me the same thing while I continued to try to reason the whole issue away. Ultimately I was never convinced, coerced, brainwashed or tortured into believing what I believe. It is a matter of personal experiences - most of which, if described in detail, may likely brand me a bit of a lunatic. ...ok, a bit more of a lunatic. :) No matter - I branded many others as much in my past life - it must go with the territory. Still, I'll take that over what I lacked prior anyday.

Take all that fwiw to you. :-)

Keith Maniac

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/03/2007 08:35:33 PM · #189

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

That argument strikes me as silly, because your soul will only be saved if you truly believe in Jesus Christ as your savior. Your soul will not be saved if you simply "convert", and call yourself a Christian.

For the sake of this argument, "belief" is implied in the term "convert". After all, no insincere Christian is given a free pass either, even if he's gone to church his whole life.

R.

OK, then I'll quote your earlier post but substitute the word "believe" for the word "convert". Here it is:

"If you even admit of that possibility, why not believe and be done with it? If there is no God, you lose nothing; if the Christians are right, you gain eternal bliss. "

That sounds ridiculous to me, too. How can I possibly force myself to truly believe in anything?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/03/2007 09:04:19 PM · #190

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Paul never met Jesus, but he was certainly under the assumption that he existed.

The same could be said for those that devote their lives to the study of Bigfoot, UFOs, Zeus, Vishnu or Haitian Voodoo. People don't necessarily originate the ideas, but they can certainly come to believe in them absolutely. This isn't news. People all over the world have visions. Pat Robertson just had a vision that millions would be affected by a terrorist attack on the U.S. later this year. God told him so. I live about 45 miles from NYC, but my property value didn't suddenly plummet because some wackaloon with a million followers had a vision from God.

My point about the artwork shouldn't be so hard to understand. We've got LOTS of examples of pre-Christian artwork from all over the world, including images of sacrifice and war. Such artwork is nearly ALL devoted to important events, people or religious themes. Can you think of any more important event, person or religious theme than the crucifixion of Christ? I'm a photographer, dagnabbit- show me the pictures!

A depiction of "horror" should hardly raise an eyebrow at a time of gladiators, public executions and people being thrown to the lions. To say that art wasn't advanced enough a thousand years after Egyptian paintings and Greek marble sculpture is downright laughable, and it seems highly unlikely that the most significant works of art should be lost in time when so many less "treasured" pieces are readily available. After all, we can certainly find images of many other historical events (the Trojan War, Egyptian or Persian battles, etc.). The biggest event in history should logically be the most common theme in art of that time, but we don't see examples until hundreds of years later.

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 21:05:19.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/03/2007 09:36:37 PM · #191

Originally posted by scalvert:

Pat Robertson ... some wackaloon with a million followers had a vision from God.

Isn't this the fellow Deuteronomy says should be killed?

Or given Haldol?

Message edited by author 2007-01-03 21:37:04.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

01/03/2007 10:31:36 PM · #192

I'm just going to try once more and then give up. You can keep your opinion and realize that even among atheists you are in the laughable minority.

Proof Paul, a contemporary of Jesus, believed he was crucified:

Romans 6:6
"For we know that our old self was crucified with him..."

I Corinthians 1:23
"...but we preach Christ crucified..."

I Corinthians 2:8
"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

II Corinthians 2:13
"For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. "

Galatians 3:1
"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified."

Galatians 6:14
"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."

So let there be no doubt that Paul felt Jesus of Nazareth died via crucifixion.

But wait, you say, Paul never met Jesus. No, but he met many of his closest disciples.

Galatians 2
"James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."

So at this point I'm just going to stop. Believe what you will.

EducatedSavage

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/03/2007 11:27:58 PM · #193

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but I don't think the question was Paul's sincerity of belief but whether or not what be believed was true?

- C, ES

01/03/2007 11:55:13 PM · #194

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

That sounds ridiculous to me, too. How can I possibly force myself to truly believe in anything?

By suspending your disbelief. It's called "faith". ;-)

R.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/04/2007 12:02:08 AM · #195

Originally posted by scalvert:

My point about the artwork shouldn't be so hard to understand. We've got LOTS of examples of pre-Christian artwork from all over the world, including images of sacrifice and war. Such artwork is nearly ALL devoted to important events, people or religious themes. Can you think of any more important event, person or religious theme than the crucifixion of Christ? I'm a photographer, dagnabbit- show me the pictures!

At the time of His crucifixion, Jesus was only "important" to a small coterie of His followers. It is only after His crucifixion and resurrection that Christianity came into being and began to grow. The time span we're talking about here (a matter of a handful of decades) seems about right for the growth of a sect into a burgeoning religion. Remember, the crucified Christ was a Jew, not a "Christian". I don't see any inconsistency there. It's not as if the crucifixion, per se, was a big deal in those days; it's how they executed common criminals.

So it's only in retrospect, so to speak, that the event began to gather the significance it now holds. Took a few decades, but that's not surprising.

R.

Wade

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

01/04/2007 12:13:51 AM · #196

I couldn't bring myself to read every post here; so what I have to say may have already been said. The last post, however, brought something to mind that I hold dear: The fact the this man Jesus(according to the "Bible"), continually urged his followers( the few there were, and none willing to die for their faith at the time)NOT to deify him. Consider the leper and the "woman with the issue of blood". He always said "It is YOUR faith that healed you".

01/04/2007 12:24:14 AM · #197

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So it's only in retrospect, so to speak, that the event began to gather the significance it now holds. Took a few decades, but that's not surprising.

Again, note that three of the four gospels were supposedly written 100 years+ afterwards, the first known mention of those gospels shows up in 180A.D., and that the first images of the crucifixion don't appear until about the 5th century. That's more than a few decades, and a HUGE gap of time before the recording of "historical" events. At a minimum, it's very poor PR on God's part for a message that all of man is supposed to heed. You would think that news of mind-boggling miracles and direct messages from God might spread a little faster than that. A simple "Let there be tri-lingual cliff notes engraved upon the moon," would have eliminated doubt and potential translation errors. ;-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 00:28:37.

01/04/2007 01:18:48 AM · #198

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So it's only in retrospect, so to speak, that the event began to gather the significance it now holds. Took a few decades, but that's not surprising.

Again, note that three of the four gospels were supposedly written 100 years+ afterwards, the first known mention of those gospels shows up in 180A.D., and that the first images of the crucifixion don't appear until about the 5th century. That's more than a few decades, and a HUGE gap of time before the recording of "historical" events. At a minimum, it's very poor PR on God's part for a message that all of man is supposed to heed. You would think that news of mind-boggling miracles and direct messages from God might spread a little faster than that. A simple "Let there be tri-lingual cliff notes engraved upon the moon," would have eliminated doubt and potential translation errors. ;-)

TO Wikipedia!!!

The Gospel of Mark
There is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written sometime between the late 60s or the early 70's.[12] There are vocal minority groups that argue for earlier or later dates. However, as most scholars believe that either Matthew or Luke was written around the year 80 and used Mark as a source, they find a date past 75 unlikely.[13] There is no definite way to determine how early it was written, as most scholars reject the assertion of Callaghan and Thiede that a fragment of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls as lacking sufficient evidence.