|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2009 06:04:22 PM · #26 |
"This is a text of the Enlightenment Broadcast System! In the Event of an actual Enlightenment, you would be directed to the nearest Psychiatrist to have your Enlightenment forcibly removed! This only an opinionated TEXT!
Thank You for listening to WSCH, 98.6 on your FM dial!"
-----------------------------------------------------------
FYI (to anyone worried & thinking, "He's BACK!") I'm not actually here! This is, of course, April Fool's Day! So, who can tell whether or not I'm live or Memorex, Serious or Teasing!
THAT being said, Let me give a Shout-Out to ALL my DPC atheist Homies to say with all due respects (and all the warmth that I can muster,) "Happy Atheists Day!" (Before you even have the time to write it, I will now receive from you, "Happy Christian's Day!" since I KNOW that you can't help but love me!) :)
---------------------------------------------------
BTW, HeavyJ, No Worries about your answer,...because I'm coming to it. This is ALL just preamble. ;) I have found it necessary, especially in the past year to wade-out into the waters of public opinion gradually since God has been dethroned in the Minds of Modern Man, and Modern Man has diefied The Self & The Family!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ergo, Caveat Emptor ("Let the Buyer, Beware!") :)
The following insipid Post-Modern Warning Label was first placed in front of a blog page,...
"(Today, I begin a new series of blog-posts as a positive declaration of my beliefs in a logical, tangible format.
This is not being presented as a mandate for anyone other than myself to believe, even though I pray that some, if not many,...will believe for I am Absolutely convinced that this IS The Truth!
This Knowledge could prove beneficial to you in many ways, not the least of which is understanding who I am, and why I respond as I do.
If you agree with me, then please feel free to say so. If you can't agree with my content, but you can see the worthiness of my logic in my use of my presuppositions, then I would be honored to hear a compliment about my process before you offer some other opinion.
(If I'm "not worth the effort," then please don't respond. I will not track you down.)
However, if you comment with anything that may be interpreted as malice, then you may except a scathing retort in-kind! These are my terms for (my personal comments to this thread)! You now have your friendly warning. Thank You for understanding!) :)" (The parts in parenthesis have been added for DPC.)
--------------------------------------
First, I don't accept religion at all as having anything valuable to contribute to one's relationship with The Sovereign God, Who is The Creator of ALL things! (Religion is merely Man's efforts to reach the Unreachable God, and IMHO, THAT IS NEVER going to happen! So, Religion is invalid!)
Second, I believe that a person can attend a Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Seventh-Day Adventist, and even Jewish congregation (to name a few,) and be truly in right relationship with Sovereign God. However, This relationship with The LORD will be in spite of their connection with the congregation, not because of it.
Third, I believe that people who grouse about Jesus-Believers, like me, who proclaim The Truth that "God is just as much a God of Wrath as he is a God of Mercy!" are themselves people who are not right in the head.
These same people are not foolish, like that, in any other area of life (if they are indeed mentally-healthy, adult human beings.)
These same people do not want a World ruled by anarchy! These same people believe that it is actually a commendable precaution for Law Enforcement Officers to display their "wrath" (or their "Peace" depending on your viewpoint) in order to promote the safe operation of a smooth and orderly Society.
If God Exists,(and I AM convinced that he does,) then which is more socially-acceptable...for His "speakers," like me to tell the world, "Aw, Just believe whatever! We're all going to Heaven anyway!" and then when you die you find out differently, and KNOW that we intentionally lied, or to have us say, "Yes! The LORD is The Sovereign God Who IS a Burning Fire! Yet, He loves each of you so much that he has provided 'The Way, The Truth & The Life' (John 14:6) in order to save you from his Wrath!"?
Put it another way! What would it be like if Law Enforcement was...what Post-modern humans believe that God should be?
Police: "You say that your next-door neighbor murdered your wife, and raped your daughter before you got home from work, then your daughter watched him drink a six-pack on his front porch, pee on his front lawn, and apparently is still in home with the door locked, and maybe even asleep on his bed?"
Father: "That IS Absolutely Right, Officer! Are you going to knock the door down and arrest him?"
Police: "Well, Sir, it's like this! As you may know universal law no longer exists. I can offer you my sympathies and most sincere condolences on your loss because you really DO seem to have had a pretty bad day, but that IS about the best I can offer you.
"About ten years ago it was declared legal to be judged personally by any set of moral rules that an individual might choose. Therefore, your personal laws don't actually apply to your next-door neighbor. From personal experience, I can tell you that your neighbor has all of his bases covered because the law that he personally has chosen to live-by is 'Anything that I do is okay!' No Court in the World will prosecute a law, like that!
"Have a nice Day!"
-------------------------------
It may interest you to KNOW, HeavyJ, that since I have been a member of DPC, I have yet to get a Blue Ribbon for any of my photos, but the belief still STANDS that there are NO MORAL ABSOLUTES! (Hmmmmm, I wonder if those folks have ever been asked, "Are you Absolutely sure of THAT?
Isn't april FOOL's Day FUN!!!!!!!!!!! :}
-------------------------------------------------
For more on the subject, just follow this links!
WinBro777JOT @ Soda Head!
The Reason Science & Faith Are Both Only as Good as The Character of The Source Trusted!
Reason Promotes Faith! Presence of Potential-Wrath Promotes Peace!
|
|
|
|
04/01/2009 06:10:25 PM · #27 |
| I was going to predict that this would be moved to the Rant section soon, but I see it already has. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/01/2009 09:23:36 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
The hard evidence pertains to the resurrection not just that he existed. If a man was undeniable killed and buried, then in 3 days, he is alive again and it is in historic and journalistic records by people who were not necessarily believers, then that is enough evidence in my mind to say that he is more than "just a man", and what he says is worth hearing. Not to mention the historic records of the miracles he performed while he was here. |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I think our definition of 'hard evidence' differ greatly, then. |
Yeah, pretty much.
I would pretty much love to see historic and journalistic records of both the existence and miracles.......outside of the Bible.
Part of what creates veracity is concurring evidentiary support......which means outside of one frame of reference.
For me, I wouldn't in a million years presume to tell someone that their version is wrong, but how do I ascertain who's right?
If you tell me one thing, Sandy and Jason, and a friend of mine who I love, trust and admire, who is a Catholic, tells me another, and my third friend, Meredith, who is also a person whom I care about and admire, and Jewish, tells me a third thing, how do I know which is right?
And what about the Muslims? What if they are really the ones who have the answers? There are more Muslims, with way more years of experience and history than there are Christians.
Most of all of this for me is moot, because I know I get my guidance from God. And one of the things that I ascertain from that guidance is that I should worry about doing my best to live my life properly, and let him worry about the others.
And that kind of flies in the face of all those people who feel that they have been tasked with spreading their message.
So you see, in order for you to be right, someone else HAS to be wrong, and if we're all God's children, how can you be "righter" than "them"?
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 12:06:06 AM · #29 |
| I have little time before going to work today, but I will put more to this post later on. I appreciate all the answers. It is unfortunate that this was moved to rants since I don't see it as a rant...just a question of religion...unless that is now automatically a rant. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 12:13:26 AM · #30 |
Hey, Jeb, I would like to offer a serious question or two(the day notwithstanding.)
Is it possible for Truth to exist apart from one ROCK-Solid Standard?
Is it possible for a Photo on DPC to gain a Blue Ribbon without starkly "crisp" lines on the subject (in the typical challenge?)
If the answer is "NO!" to both questions, then is it out of the realm of conceivability that in order for God to BE GOD,...He would have to be the Highest Superlative in every area of conceivable as well as inconceivable ability in order to maintain the necessary integrity for ALL of Existence to continue its presently (and eternally) constituted structure.
Two Gods, (Co-Equal in Strength, but NOT Co-Equal in Purpose,) could devastate the very existence of Mankind, the Earth, and the entire Universe itself!
Consider,...According to the science we all learned in junior or high school, "The correct tilt angle is 23 degrees 27 minutes,
which is approximately 23.45 degrees.
David R. Cook
Atmospheric Research Section
Environmental Research Division
Argonne National Laboratory"
Ask a Scientist - Argon National Conservatory
If two Gods (Co-Equal in Strength, but not Purpose) were to struggle over the axial tilt of Earth physically yanking it "back and forth between 23.45 degrees and 30 degrees (for whatever reasons,) I can personally conceive that no living body on Earth would stay alive for long.
Add to THAT the potential devastation of arguing over the speed and direction of Earth's rotation (or spinning on its axis,) and the speed at which we (Earth) are "trotting" around the sun, at which we (The Solar System) are "trotting" around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, and at which we (The Milky Way Galaxy) are "trotting" on a relatively straight line out into Space from a center-point of the Cosmos which allegedly denotes The Big Bang which assumes a needed Someone to "Strike the Match!"
Two Divine Co-Equal enemies would be devastating to our very existence because of fights and arguments over every area of allegedly-secure, allegedly-inviolable scientific fact. The only possible SANE Answer is One Solo Sovereign God in Absolute control of Everything! (It is scientifically illogical to believe in more than One ALL-Powerful God!)
Information gained at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
"Ask an Astrophysicist
The Question
(Submitted April 01, 1997)
I am trying to find out the speed of the turning of the Earth.
The Answer
Basic Answer
The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 25,000 miles. The Earth rotates in about 24 hours. Therefore, if you were to hang above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a speed of 25000/24 or just over 1000 miles per hour.
Multiply by cosine of your latitude to see how fast the Earth is rotating where you are.
Earth is also moving around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour."
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 12:39:46 AM · #31 |
| Hey Stan, can I have some of whatever you are on? They sound great. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 12:58:22 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by 777STAN:
"Ask an Astrophysicist
The Question
(Submitted April 01, 1997)
I am trying to find out the speed of the turning of the Earth.
The Answer
Basic Answer
The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 25,000 miles. The Earth rotates in about 24 hours. Therefore, if you were to hang above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a speed of 25000/24 or just over 1000 miles per hour.
Multiply by cosine of your latitude to see how fast the Earth is rotating where you are.
Earth is also moving around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour." |
edited to remove reply.
Message edited by author 2009-04-02 01:13:00. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 01:54:56 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There are more Muslims, with way more years of experience and history than there are Christians. |
Say what? There may be more of them, but Muhammad lived 600-odd years after Christ...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 06:26:18 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There are more Muslims, with way more years of experience and history than there are Christians. |
Say what? There may be more of them, but Muhammad lived 600-odd years after Christ...
R. |
Cumulative due to volume is what I meant......8>)
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 06:46:36 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by 777STAN:
If the answer is "NO!" to both questions, then is it out of the realm of conceivability that in order for God to BE GOD,...He would have to be the Highest Superlative in every area of conceivable as well as inconceivable ability in order to maintain the necessary integrity for ALL of Existence to continue its presently (and eternally) constituted structure. |
Stan, I'm not sure what the rest of all of that was about, and to be frank, I kinda think you're missing my point......as are some of the rest of you as it pertains to my simple understanding, ot the complete lack thereof.
I am a mere mortal, struggling to do his best to be a decent, ordinary man, as I see it according to what my understanding is of God.
Where I run into the problem is a matter of simple common sense.
There is a huge number of people out there who all have "The Answer".....and they feel obligated to save me from whatever, and/or myself, so that I see things their way, in order for me to achieve salvation.
So.....what I want to know is......if I firmly, and wholeheartedly believe in God, do my very best to do his bidding based on what I understand his guidance for me is, then how do I know who to believe?
I have never had the slightest inclination to buy into what another human being has to say to me in the way of direction and guidance for my salvation.
Why would God tell YOU what he wants for ME?????
He tells me, or shows me, or gives me a sign, or a nudge in the right direction, so I feel pretty confident that since He(or She), hasn't sent me a memo, that part of what I'm supposed to do is figure it out as well.
And somehow, I just know that some slickie-boy, with a bad hairpiece on the TV, is NOT God's messenger......but why would I think that someone on the other end of a computer screen, whom I've never met is, either? And, no offense, but someone who prefaces his spiel with the caveat that if he gets a scathing PM that he will reply in kind, is not exactly brimming with believability.
I'm pretty comfortable in my faith, and the relationship with the God of my understanding, but part of the magic and mystery for me is the eternal search for the knowledge, and comfort that I'm doing the best I can to do the right thing.
I just don't see the concrete black and white of it that so many people want me to buy into. I don't believe it's that cut and dried.
One thing I am QUITE sure of is that God does NOT want me to presume to tell anyone else how to be, that instead, I concentrate on keeping my house in order and let him be the overseer of the rest.
Does anybody understand and see how it is that I believe, and can the merit be seen in that?
What if that's the way it really is? Is there anyone who can say that they have God's ear and can truly say that I'm all wet?
How do *I* know that this person is for real and not just another person who thinks they have the answer for me?
I cannot help but be inherently suspicious of someone who tells me they know what the answer is for me when they don't know me at all.
If, as so many people do, I believe that God created me, or the process by which I became me, then God has a plan for me, and it just makes no sense at all that he, or she, would tell someone else what that plan is......
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 06:59:45 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I was going to predict that this would be moved to the Rant section soon, but I see it already has. ;-) |
I do believe it holds the record for staying out of rant! And it continues to be somewhat civil. (Well except where Achoo referred to me as noise.) :) |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 07:05:50 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(That may honestly not even make sense to you since I'm not sure a UU even believes that an "error of belief" is possible.) |
But who ascertains this? Who is qualified? And how do us mere mortals know?
To me that concept is shaky at best because only God can determine this, right?
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 07:23:13 AM · #38 |
 DrAchoo's advice on how to putting everything in 3 piles is something I can understand. I thank you for that.
I'm not sure where some of the conversation has turned. I was hoping that most posters would simply give a personal account on how they feel or came to believe that they are right or at least on the right path. I have heard many say that there is only one path, but if this is true how could a loving God cast so many loving people to Hell. I've had 'deep' conversations with some people who believed that the pit of fire was the best way for people at the beginning of time to understand that in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you would have to understand your sins and therefore those that didn't, those that would go to Hell, would go through the pain they have caused with their sins only to come out the other side of this lake of fire pure and understanding of what they did and accepting of Christ and God and welcomed into His Kingdom. Whether this is true or not, I can't really answer. It's a thought, an idea.
I go to the church I go to in order to learn bits and pieces that pertain to my life at that time. My friend is a guide rather than a teacher. Showing me what paths there are, what may lay ahead. He does not tell me "This is it. This or Hell."
I do not fear God in the way I fear an evil man lurking over me, I fear him the same way I feared my own father if I did something wrong. I got the belt, it hurt. However, at the end of the day I knew he loved me and that his punishment was not out of hate for me but because of my actions...actions I would be careful not to do next time. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 08:27:32 AM · #39 |
Hey, Jeb! Thanks for being willing to continue talking with me because I admire you as a person. You have a strong mind and the courage to express it regardless of response...
First of All, the Caveat has been developed at another site that allows direct responding to specific individuals in a thread.
Soda Head is a wonderful debate site for those of us who enjoy "sharpening our minds" with opposing viewpoints in an occasionally-civil, yet often-heated format. I found Soda Head shortly after folks at DPC suggested that I find "one of those debate websites." The endorphins have been pumping so gloriously that I spend way more time on Soda Head than I do on DPC to the great relief of DPC,...No Doubt.
(I have a profile at the website, Opposing Views, too! Surprised?)
Secondly, I have learned to give the Caveat as a "Professional Courtesy" to any poor soul who wanders into the debate, and hasn't known me for longer than...O, say,...five minutes. :}
Finally, Let me Hasten to Say that I still remember the Restrictive Warning that DPC Site Council gave to me about the Forums last Spring, and that I am not here to debate per se. The Caveat is merely to indicate that I am here to encourage the OP in as logical a fashion as I possibly can, and in an civilly as I may be allowed to do so because I am truly enjoying the sport of Debate on Soda Head.
(At such time that you wish to join-in the lovely little sparring-match, please check-out my profile & message me. WinBro777JOT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, to answer your concerns with all due respect,...
...since I have not personally found "Sense" to be either "Common" nor is alleged "Common Sense" consistently logical to THIS human being,...
...I have been moved through my many years of debating (both in person and in written form) to choose a position that has gained for me the most-consistently healthy (my detractors notwithstanding) mind,...
...and the position which gives me the greatest centering and focus to my life!
What is THAT position which I have chosen?
Just this,...I personally believe that the Human Mind cannot stay SANE for very long without one Moral Absolute to which it remains anchored through-out the "storms" of life!
This Moral Absolute is NEVER provable through the Scientific Method, even though scientists as well must use it in order to stay mentally healthy.
This Moral Absolute seems imminently logical to the individual who subscribes to the Absolute, even though the individual is aware that it is a matter of faith.
This Moral Absolute is in essence the "Auto-Focus of the Mind!" I don't like to look at soft-focus photographs anymore than most DPCers. I, also, abhor a soft-focus mental picture of Life and its value to me personally.
(Please notice that I have not told you in this post what my Moral Absolute is...I am sure that YOU already know what it is. Therefore, my points may be applied to each individual moral absolute that a person may choose.)
I have personally debated many whose Moral Absolute seems to be the Theory of Evolution. Since they appear not to need a god, and don't wish to waste anymore brain-cells in debate over Human Causalities, Evolution brings Life into focus for them giving them a centering that brings order to Life.
(When pressed to do so, some will even grudgingly admit that no one has ever given them concrete facts as to the absolute origin of The Big Bang at the beginning of Life, nor the absolute verification of The Big Sleep at the end of Life, but they are willing to live with these two matters of faith.)
I have debated others whose Moral Absolute seems to be any of a myriad of pleasures, from SEX to Cuisine to Power to Money-Power to anything that is the main focus of Life (which is usually found by paying attention to what you think about when you are not required...by responsibility...to think about anything in particular.)
Bottom Line: The Moral Absolute is THAT for which an individual Human Heart is willing to invest Life!
(However, I would humbly add that this perspective is the horizontal perspective...Human to Human. IMHO, for a Moral Absolute to be The Moral Absolute, it has to be the vertical perspective...God to Man, over-arching. THAT has been presented! THAT is often rejected! Such rejection usually leaves souls in confusion. Finally [finally,] God's enemy knows that they best way to keep Man from being rightly related to God is not to deny His Existence [for atheism has always been a minority belief,] but to give a plethora of options search the Human Heart that becomes overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the Search usually gives-up the Search.)
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 09:55:34 AM · #40 |
I, too, struggle with religion. Since I was born into a mostly Christian nation, that was the only religion I was exposed to in my youth. Each church thinks it has "the answer", but since there are so many "answers" I end up thinking none of them are right. Jeb, I agree that a traditional church is not needed to have a relationship with God. Men have made up a lot of rules over the years, and most of them don't seem necessary for salvation to me.
I am currently reading the book, Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman. Religion is based on the Bible, but the original writings have been lost and the Bible we use today was created from copies of copies of copies over a couple of centuries--all done by hand. There are many intentional and unintentional mistakes/changes made by various scribes, not to mention changes due to translation.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2009 10:07:44 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I, too, struggle with religion. Since I was born into a mostly Christian nation, that was the only religion I was exposed to in my youth. Each church thinks it has "the answer", but since there are so many "answers" I end up thinking none of them are right. Jeb, I agree that a traditional church is not needed to have a relationship with God. Men have made up a lot of rules over the years, and most of them don't seem necessary for salvation to me.
I am currently reading the book, Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman. Religion is based on the Bible, but the original writings have been lost and the Bible we use today was created from copies of copies of copies over a couple of centuries--all done by hand. There are many intentional and unintentional mistakes/changes made by various scribes, not to mention changes due to translation. |
I saw a video of a scientist who is in charge of putting together pieces of the oldest found texts etc. He says the oldest of the New Testament is about a credit card size piece of parchment written on both sides, indicating it was a book being copied. He also said that older pieces and new pieces, when compared, have missing parts due to mistakes made by scribes and that their is a whole science devoted to how scribes wrote and the mistakes they made. Very interesting. Wish I could find the video. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 11:15:24 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There are more Muslims, with way more years of experience and history than there are Christians. |
Say what? There may be more of them, but Muhammad lived 600-odd years after Christ...
R. |
Umm, there are certainly NOT more Muslims than Christians. Just to set the record straight.
World Religions by Adherents
Christians: 2.1 billion
Muslims: 1.5 billion |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 11:19:26 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
However, I had an encounter with a Catholic gentleman, someone I had seen at work now and again. He was much older than myself, in his 50's at least, and I asked him what he thought my future in the afterlife would be like so long as I put my faith in Jesus and God...his answer was "The only true Church is the Catholic church. It might be hard to swallow, but that's it." I took that to mean that I wouldn't be going to a nice place when I died. So how does one really know which church to follow? |
Some things to consider...
1. If it wasn't for the "Catholic" church, there lkely would not be a bible. Even the protest-ing bibles are available due to the painstaking work of many monk scribes over the centuries. Monk scribes that were of the "Catholic" faith.
2. According to Catholic teaching, the "rock" upon which Christ founded his church was Peter (the 1st Pope), thus the "original" christian church was "catholic" meaning "universal".
3. There was literally only one "church" untill the 1st major schism (break away separation due to philosophical differences) between the Greeks and the Romans around 1000 AD. Today that is represented by the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic denominations.
4. Then around the 1500's we had Luther and a succession of other Protesting Catholics separate and become "protestants" or as I prefer to call them - protesters.
5. From these protesters, have spawned protesters of the protesters and thus we have several hundred denominations of "christians" all born from an original single church founded by one shepard and a dozen apostles.
6. Free will allows you to seek, knock and ask. As it is given to you, you are required to digest it, contemplate it, assess it's worth/value, and then do something with it. You may discard it, keep it, treasure it, or simply know that you have been exposed to it and secure it for a later re-visit.
7. The Doctors post regarding the 3 piles was spot on in my opinion. There is core teaching (born out by the oldest texts and translations), denominational doctrine (aka philosophy), and manmade tradition. Separating the wheat from the chaffe is a responsibility of the seeker. Understanding the differences between core teaching, denominational doctrine and traditions is key to finding your way through the maze.
Best of luck in your quest.
Fwiw - some argue that the Vatican likely has the oldest and most accurate texts available. So - either they are promulgating a lie or they have it pretty close. Your position on the matter likely places you into either the "Catholic" denomination or the "Protesting Catholic" denomination - either way - it is still "catholic". |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 11:27:07 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I, too, struggle with religion. Since I was born into a mostly Christian nation, that was the only religion I was exposed to in my youth. Each church thinks it has "the answer", but since there are so many "answers" I end up thinking none of them are right. Jeb, I agree that a traditional church is not needed to have a relationship with God. Men have made up a lot of rules over the years, and most of them don't seem necessary for salvation to me.
I am currently reading the book, Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman. Religion is based on the Bible, but the original writings have been lost and the Bible we use today was created from copies of copies of copies over a couple of centuries--all done by hand. There are many intentional and unintentional mistakes/changes made by various scribes, not to mention changes due to translation. |
There's already a thread about Erhman's video on rant (search for "Quoting from the Bible"). I wrote this response in that thread:
If you want a different point of view than your source above, check out this paper. Admittedly it is presented on a Christian website, BUT it is cited and sourced. As an example for the reliability of the text of the new testament, we can see below the % of words in each book that have complete agreement among the seven major greek editions of the NT.
(% of words in agreement/ avg # of variances per page)
Matthew 59.9 / 6.8
Mark 45.1 / 10.3
Luke 57.2 / 6.9
John 51.8 / 8.5
Acts 67.3 / 4.2
Romans 75.5 / 2.9
1 Corinthians 75.7 / 3.5
2 Corinthians 78.1 / 2.8
Galatians 76.5 / 3.3
Ephesians 76.1 / 2.9
Philippians 70.2 / 2.5
Colossians 72.6 / 3.4
1 Thess. 68.5 / 4.1
2 Thess. 72.3 / 3.1
1 Timothy 81.4 / 2.9
2 Timothy 79.5 / 2.8
Titus 71.7 / 2.3
Philemon 76.0 / 5.1
Hebrews 77.2 / 2.9
James 61.6 / 5.6
1 Peter 66.6 / 5.7
2 Peter 52.5 / 6.5
1 John 72.4 / 2.8
2 John 61.5 / 4.5
3 John 73.3 / 3.2
Jude 72.0 / 4.2
Revelation 52.8 / 5.1
Roughly speaking 2/3rds of the NT has no disagreement in what the words say. The author goes on to say that if you then go with 6 of 7 or 5 of 7 you quickly raise that % to the upper 90s.
Read the link. It doesn't take too long and it's a well-presented counter to your own link.
Message edited by author 2010-02-11 19:59:58. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 12:29:54 PM · #45 |
The unity of biblical teachings is in my understanding, more a result of the strong hand of the Papacy than a clear rendering of the story of Christ written several centuries after his death. While the King James edition is seen as the direct word of God, older tellings of the Christ story differ widely, from Gnostic to Aremeic the story differs, as you would expect it would, being a tale told from different viewpoints, written down centuries apart. It took centuries for the Roman Church to create a central authority, and to winnow out stray strands of the story, to parse down the number of official stories and to smooth them into compliance. I'm not promoting some da Vinci Code conspiracy, just the natural selection of a missionary church.
As to the original question of the thread (I came in late) I like the book club versus lecture analogy. You can read any book alone, but the more important it is, the more complex the tale, or convoluted the method of the telling (think Joyce's Ulysses), the more befuddled the lone reader is likely to be.
Now if you read the book and then discuss it with other people who have read the book, you will gain insights. Sometimes it will be others seeing things you missed, but more often it will be a case of the lively discussion bringing your own thoughts more clearly into focus, not so much because others have greater understanding of what they have read, but because what they say brings your own understanding into sharper relief.
Others will get more out of going to a lecture about the book given by a learned person who is an accredited expert on the author, who will give out a lifetime's insights into what they think the book means, and you can use the prism of their thoughts to see into the text.
I'm a Unitarian, we spend alot of time in C.S. Lewis' "hallway", moving from room to room, choosing not to choose, so I like the book club model. My Cousin was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and has full faith in the mysteries of the church, and the lecture model works for her.
Or you can read on you own and post questions on the internet, our most modern church.
Wander many paths, the journey is more important than the destination |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 12:47:14 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Roughly speaking 2/3rds of the NT has no disagreement in what the words say. The author goes on to say that if you then go with 6 of 7 or 5 of 7 you quickly raise that % to the upper 90s.
Read the link. It doesn't take too long and it's a well-presented counter to your own link. |
But it only takes one word being wrong to make a whole sentence completely different. Statistics don't mean anything when it comes to understanding the meaning of texts.
She is in the school.
She is not in the school.
Or for a more appropriate example read the section on the mistranslation to include the words "homosexual" and "effeminate" in the I Corinthians 6:9; I Timothy 1:9-10 section on THIS SITE.
I get the point in the article that historical texts are equally flawed but people do not base their lives, judge, and discriminate against people based on this history of Julius Ceasar. If they did, those texts would be undergoing high scrutiny too. I take all history and religion with a grain of salt. Eye witness accounts don't really mean anything. How many people have seen UFOs within our lifetime that we think are quacks but we are going to believe supposed eye witness accounts of Jesus rising from the dead from people we never met, hundreds of years ago? |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 12:54:31 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Roughly speaking 2/3rds of the NT has no disagreement in what the words say. The author goes on to say that if you then go with 6 of 7 or 5 of 7 you quickly raise that % to the upper 90s.
Read the link. It doesn't take too long and it's a well-presented counter to your own link. |
But it only takes one word being wrong to make a whole sentence completely different. Statistics don't mean anything when it comes to understanding the meaning of texts.
She is in the school.
She is not in the school.
Or for a more appropriate example read the section on the mistranslation to include the words "homosexual" and "effeminate" in the I Corinthians 6:9; I Timothy 1:9-10 section on THIS SITE.
I get the point in the article that historical texts are equally flawed but people do not base their lives, judge, and discriminate against people based on this history of Julius Ceasar. If they did, those texts would be undergoing high scrutiny too. I take all history and religion with a grain of salt. Eye witness accounts don't really mean anything. How many people have seen UFOs within our lifetime that we think are quacks but we are going to believe supposed eye witness accounts of Jesus rising from the dead from people we never met, hundreds of years ago? |
You don't understand statistics very well, or probably more likely missed my point. Sure the sentence can change meaning with one word, but what if your different versions look like this?
She is in the school.
She is in the schol.
She is in the school.
She is not in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
Can statistical analysis be used to judge what the original sentence, now lost, looked like?
You example of the translation of the word arsenokoites is a completely different animal. That's a translational issue, and can be argued, but it isn't a question of whether the word was there when originally written.
Message edited by author 2009-04-02 13:01:20. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 01:00:58 PM · #48 |
To the OP,
You seem smart. And I think you already know the answer you just want to see what other people will say. The answer is there is no answer. None of us knows. And I think that's why I fail to label myself as an atheist because there are nuts on all ends of the spectrum, and the most extreme of the atheists think they know the answers just as much as the religious people and they look just as dumb for thinking they are so smart. So I'll just lay out my beliefs:
1. I do not believe in organized religion. If there was a God, and there was on true religion, then why the hell did God make people all over the world on islands and in the jungles, etc. that will never in their lifetimes even learn about organized religion. They should go to hell because no one ever taught them about Jesus? No. I do not believe in a God who would do that. Or send me to hell for dating a woman. Or send Susie down the street to hell for not giving 10% to the church or send my sister to hell because (insert some random rule created by man speaking for God here). I just don't buy it.
2. None of us knows what happens when we die. Period. We do not know. We can guess, we can think we have a pretty good idea. But we have no idea. I don't agree with playing nice on earth so I can go to heaven. I want to do the right thing because its the right thing. Because THIS life matters. The people we encounter, and the things we do now matter because they do. Not because someone is watching me, judging me.
3. There are mysterious things in the world that I will never understand. God, intuition, spirits, or merely happens that cannot yet be explained by science (like simple things like rain once were). Whatever you want to call it, there IS mystery in the world. I am not like the atheists who say "if I can't see it, its not real".
4. Just because I don't believe in "your God" (whatever your version of God may be) does not mean I have an empty spot in me, crying and yearning and missing something. (Yes, Christians have accused non-Christians of this many times). Whatever you feel inside you that you call God, I feel that too. And it is strong. I just don't explain it the same way you do.
I have a lot more to say (as usual) but I'll leave it at that. :) |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 01:05:16 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Roughly speaking 2/3rds of the NT has no disagreement in what the words say. The author goes on to say that if you then go with 6 of 7 or 5 of 7 you quickly raise that % to the upper 90s.
Read the link. It doesn't take too long and it's a well-presented counter to your own link. |
But it only takes one word being wrong to make a whole sentence completely different. Statistics don't mean anything when it comes to understanding the meaning of texts.
She is in the school.
She is not in the school.
Or for a more appropriate example read the section on the mistranslation to include the words "homosexual" and "effeminate" in the I Corinthians 6:9; I Timothy 1:9-10 section on THIS SITE.
I get the point in the article that historical texts are equally flawed but people do not base their lives, judge, and discriminate against people based on this history of Julius Ceasar. If they did, those texts would be undergoing high scrutiny too. I take all history and religion with a grain of salt. Eye witness accounts don't really mean anything. How many people have seen UFOs within our lifetime that we think are quacks but we are going to believe supposed eye witness accounts of Jesus rising from the dead from people we never met, hundreds of years ago? |
You don't understand statistics very well, or probably more likely missed my point. Sure the sentence can change meaning with one word, but what if your different versions look like this?
She is in the school.
She is in the schol.
She is in the school.
She is not in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
She is in the school.
Can statistical analysis be used to judge what the original sentence, now lost, looked like?
You example of the translation of the word arsenokoites is a completely different animal. That's a translational issue, and can be argued, but it isn't a question of whether the word was there when originally written. |
I do understand statistics. But they are just that. Stats. There are flukes, there are other factors involved. So that example you gave, what of it? Haven't you ever played telephone? What if the one sentence with the "not" that obviously looks wrong, statistically at least, was the original sentence and the rest are wrong because one person got it wrong and the rest followed suit? Again I stick to my original sentiment that statistics don't prove anything. Sure they can be used to make an educated guess, but they aren't infallible. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 01:14:15 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I do understand statistics. But they are just that. Stats. There are flukes, there are other factors involved. So that example you gave, what of it? Haven't you ever played telephone? What if the one sentence with the "not" that obviously looks wrong, statistically at least, was the original sentence and the rest are wrong because one person got it wrong and the rest followed suit? Again I stick to my original sentiment that statistics don't prove anything. Sure they can be used to make an educated guess, but they aren't infallible. |
Of course the aren't infallible. That's a straw man. But they can certainly give us a strong sense of what was written. Telephone is an inaccurate analogy because it assumes translation works like A>B>C>D>E. Modern textual criticism is nothing like this. In the real word the last person is allowed to go back and ask "B" what they said and compare it to what "E" said. We may have lost A, but we have the ability to compare the other versions, arrange them chronologically, see which translations are based on which other translations (who's been talking to whom in telephone), etc. Once this is understood, your argument falls apart.
Message edited by author 2009-04-02 13:14:36. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:40:04 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:40:04 PM EDT.
|
