The Co-existence of Science and Theology

02/01/2008 02:56:42 PM · #1376

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Now, I know what you are likely to do here.

Maybe not.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

However, even if the Davidians aren't an exact analogous situation, there remains the point that the behavior that you appear to want to describe as unique and exclusive to the apostles - proclamations of faith, based on supposed first hand knowledge by the proclaimers, in the face of certain violence or death -- is not a rare phenomenon in human history. There have always been people, Christian and otherwise, who have claimed to have "walked and talked" with the divine or the supernatural and were willing to die in defense of their claims. If you are not willing to give equal credence to these claims, and grant them equal weight as support for the claims themselves, then you must explain why you are willing to preference the example of the apostles over analogous examples. And you have not.

This is the best argument you have presented thus far. I will ponder it over the weekend. I would caution that I do not claim that the behavior is "unique and exclusive", rather that the behavior requires a logical explanation. You have provided one such explaination.

02/01/2008 02:59:57 PM · #1377

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Further, history is rife with examples of self-professed christs, holy men, prophets, etc. who were convincing enough, or whose followers' were credulous enough to believe, and who ended up dying for their beliefs. This phenomenon occurs in all parts of human society and has occurred in all times of history. Very often the beliefs of the followers are claimed to be supported by "evidence" in the form of miracles done or supernatural powers possessed by the supposedly divine/holy/etc. person they are following.

Another very obvious example:

"Muhammad gained few followers early on, and was largely met with hostility from the tribes of Mecca; he was treated harshly and so were his followers. To escape persecution, Muhammad and his followers migrated to Yathrib (Medina) in the year 622. In Medina, Muhammad managed to unite the conflicting tribes, and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca."

Clearly Muhammad's 10,000 contemporary followers, fighting right alongside him, were willing to sacrifice their lives for belief in this prophet (a willingness, unfortunately, that continues to this day).

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/01/2008 03:14:56 PM · #1378

Originally posted by scalvert:

Clearly Muhammad's 10,000 contemporary followers, fighting right alongside him, were willing to sacrifice their lives for belief in this prophet (a willingness, unfortunately, that continues to this day).

The distinction I would make regarding the 10,000 followers, is that they were offering their lives along side the living Muhammad. This is different to me, than followers who saw your execution, then years later embraced their own execution because of their committment to your resurection. Now, as Matthew pointed out and I believe it was one of your earlier points as well, that the resurection portion of the Gospels was not evident in the earliest known writings, thus you (and others) do not believe that the Apostles themselves, were martyred for that reason - but rather for some other adherence to the radical teachings of Jesus. This is a point I am evaluating as well.

edit to add: It has been several years since I last studied articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls. (I regard these as evidence of the earliest written texts). If the Dead Sea Scrolls have recorded verses referencing the message of the resurection amongst the early christians, then I would be inclined to surmise that it was a central tennet in the early church, and thus was preached by the Apostles. If it was preached by the Apostles as "Gospel" (pun intended), then their execution would seem to imply the reason for it. However, I will have to check.

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 15:31:42.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/01/2008 03:54:06 PM · #1379

Originally posted by Flash:

If the Dead Sea Scrolls have recorded verses referencing the message of the resurection amongst the early christians, then I would be inclined to surmise that it was a central tennet in the early church, and thus was preached by the Apostles. If it was preached by the Apostles as "Gospel" (pun intended), then their execution would seem to imply the reason for it.

Not that it has any relevance, but you have no basis for that conclusion. And their potential inclusion in the scrolls still lends no weight to the veracity of their story.

02/01/2008 04:29:20 PM · #1380

Originally posted by Flash:

It has been several years since I last studied articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls...

If you're looking for corroboration of the story of resurrection in the Dead Sea Scrolls, then I suggest you study them again. Less than a third of the Dead Sea manuscripts concern the [Hebrew] Bible, and those might be exclusively Old Testament. I believe there was some Anglican or Jesuit priest trying to attribute a fragment to the New Testament, but its only legible word was "and." :-/

Yep, here it is. "Spanish Jesuit JosÃ© O'Callaghan has argued that one fragment (7Q5) is a New Testament text from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6, verses 52â��53. In recent years this controversial assertion has been taken up again by German scholar Carsten Peter Thiede. A successful identification of this fragment as a passage from Mark would make it the earliest extant New Testament document, dating somewhere between 30 AD and 60 AD. Opponents consider that the fragment is tiny and requires so much reconstruction (the only complete word in Greek is "και" = "and") that it could have come from a text other than Mark."

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 16:31:30.

02/01/2008 06:05:21 PM · #1381

Originally posted by scalvert:

Yep, here it is.

First, I really appreciate you posting that link. I wish I had thought of it. Second, this passage I found to be particularly meaningful to me. In spite of these limitations, the scrolls have already been quite valuable to text critics. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating to 9th century. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date back to the 2nd century BC. Before the discovery, the oldest Greek manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were the earliest extant versions of biblical manuscripts. Although some of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most do not. The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early Greek manuscripts. With particular emphasis on this The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early Greek manuscripts

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

02/01/2008 06:34:05 PM · #1382

Originally posted by Flash:

With particular emphasis on this The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early Greek manuscripts

Putting this as politely as I can... so what? If someone discovered a full first century text of the Gospel of Mark, complete with margin notes and coffee stains, all you'd have is a copy of a story and a way to compare later versions of that story... but it would still be a story. OK, you might also have an awesome eBay auction, but I digress. The point is this: if you were trying to corroborate, say, The Iliad as a factual account, then finding an earlier manuscript, the name Achilles or historical evidence that a Trojan war really occurred would still do nothing to prove the veracity of the particular events, conversations or Greek gods described therein!

David Ey

Nikon D80

02/01/2008 06:48:40 PM · #1383

No, sorry, but I don't. The scriptures tell me there are false prophets......and they will be dealt with.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, I don't separate them. God will sort them out.

You very clearly DO separate them:

Originally posted by David Ey:
Matthew, all who profess to be Christians are not. They should not all be lumped together as if they are. Some are just following the ways of man.

Message edited by author 2008-02-01 18:50:38.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/01/2008 08:48:38 PM · #1384

Originally posted by David Ey:

No, sorry, but I don't. The scriptures tell me there are false prophets......and they will be dealt with.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, I don't separate them. God will sort them out.

You very clearly DO separate them:

Originally posted by David Ey:
Matthew, all who profess to be Christians are not. They should not all be lumped together as if they are. Some are just following the ways of man.

So... Not all Christians who profess to be should be lumped together.
But... You won't deign to separate out the "false prophets" for us... because that's God's job.
And... Presumably we shouldn't be making distinctions as to which "Christians" are Christians... because that's God's job.
But... Not all Christians who profess to be should be lumped together?

I'm sorry, but how is this little dance you have just done anything other than an attempt by you to reserve the option to dismiss the actions/beliefs of self-professed Christians when you don't agree with those actions/beliefs? Or want to exclude a particular group or individual because it makes your argument weaker to include them or embarrasses you in some fashion?

Are you seriously going to try and tell me that you don't have any opinion on what groups/individuals might be "in" or "out"; that you have NO opinion as to which persons or groups might be "following the ways of man"? Because if that is true, and you make no distinctions or judgments, then how do you know that you aren't following the "ways of man"?

Of course you make these distinctions - you could not follow any sort of coherent belief system without making these distinctions. You just don't like the implications of my question.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/01/2008 09:16:06 PM · #1385

Originally posted by scalvert:

complete with margin notes and coffee stains, ..

no - that would be quite remarkable before the 16th C!!

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

02/01/2008 09:49:38 PM · #1386

Originally posted by Flash:

However, since you do not accept that the Apostles even existed, then this would carry no weight with you.

My opinion is immaterial. I'm simply pointing out that an "argument by apostolic martyrdom" is essentially flawed. It strikes me as a severe case of preaching to the choir.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/01/2008 10:41:04 PM · #1387

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by scalvert:
complete with margin notes and coffee stains, ..

no - that would be quite remarkable before the 16th C!!

LOL! For anyone who doesn't understand the reference (and the subtle humor of my post):
"While coffee is thought to have been first brewed by the Arabs, it may not have reached Christians as soon as it did if not for Pope Clement VIII. When coffee first reached Rome, Christian priests believed that Satan had invented coffee as a substitute for wine which Muslims were not allowed to drink. Since wine was used in Christian practices such as Holy Communion, priests thought that coffee must then be from the Anti-Christ. Faced with strong beliefs that coffee was the drink of Satan, Pope Clement VIII asked to try a cup before making a decision. When he did, he blessed the drink as a Christian beverage, resulting in massive imports of coffee to Italy and the Western world."

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/01/2008 10:48:37 PM · #1388

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by scalvert:
complete with margin notes and coffee stains, ..

no - that would be quite remarkable before the 16th C!!

LOL! For anyone who doesn't understand the reference (and the subtle humor of my post):
"While coffee is thought to have been first brewed by the Arabs, it may not have reached Christians as soon as it did if not for Pope Clement VIII. When coffee first reached Rome, Christian priests believed that Satan had invented coffee as a substitute for wine which Muslims were not allowed to drink. Since wine was used in Christian practices such as Holy Communion, priests thought that coffee must then be from the Anti-Christ. Faced with strong beliefs that coffee was the drink of Satan, Pope Clement VIII asked to try a cup before making a decision. When he did, he blessed the drink as a Christian beverage, resulting in massive imports of coffee to Italy and the Western world."

Well, thank God for Pope Clement VIII then! ;)

02/02/2008 03:04:50 PM · #1389

This is what I surmise may be the basis for much of Louis's and others positions. Please see the side by side tables.

02/02/2008 08:16:20 PM · #1390

Originally posted by Flash:

This is what I surmise may be the basis for much of Louis's and others positions. Please see the side by side tables.

You are falling into the trap of thinking that other people have a single alternative belief to that in Jesus.

I would be so bold to speak for others in saying that we do not doubt the Jesus story because we believe in any one single alternative story (such as the one that you have found) - the whole point is that we do not know, there are good grounds for skepticism, and we assess the validity of the story realistically.

You may see that we are not trying to tell you what happened - just that the biblical version of it is unlikely.

02/03/2008 01:34:43 PM · #1391

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
With particular emphasis on this The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early Greek manuscripts

Putting this as politely as I can... so what? If someone discovered a full first century text of the Gospel of Mark, complete with margin notes ...

The "so what" is that here we have another piece of evidence that correlates a consistency of message over time (verses from 200 BC compare with those from the 9th century). If, as you have argued, the short comings of man (inherent in his being man - not God) have "modified" the texts through time, due primarily to his adopting and inserting other myths/mythology to "enhance" the tale, then why would we find after almost a thousand years (and I would suppose mulitple rewrites - thus many deviation opportunities from the original, and thus many "enhancements"), the similarity between texts? This I would think, would bolster those who proclaim the "God Inspired" doctrine, as it seems to challenge your position that man is simply incapable of reproducing (without error and in some cases intentional error), literature that is consistent from the original (or at the very least - very early versions).

If Psalms can be recorded and rewritten over a thousand years with little variation, then why couldn't other texts benefit from this same translation consistency?

Message edited by author 2008-02-03 14:02:31.

02/03/2008 02:28:15 PM · #1392

Here is another article that seems to correlate with many of the posters positions here. Specifically this section that essentially states the crux of scalvert's (and others) position;

The Christians rely mainly on the four Gospels for the historicity of Jesus. But the original documents of which the books in the New Testament are claimed to be faithful copies are not in existence. There is absolutely no evidence that they ever were in existence. This is a statement which can not be controverted. Is it conceivable that the early believers lost through carelessness or purposely every document written by an apostle, while guarding with all protecting jealousy and zeal the writings of anonymous persons? Is there any valid reason why the contributions to Christian literature of an inspired apostle should perish while those of a nameless scribe are preserved, why the original Gospel of Matthew should drop quietly out of sight, no one knows how, while a supposed copy of it in an alien language is preserved for many centuries? Jesus himself, it is admitted, did not write a single line. He bad come, according to popular belief, to reveal the will of God -- a most important mission indeed, and yet he not only did not put this revelation in writing during his lifetime, and with his own hand, which it is natural to suppose that a divine teacher, expressly come from heaven, would have done, but he left this all- important duty to anonymous chroniclers, who, naturally, made enough mistakes to split up Christendom into innumerable factions. It is worth a moment's pause to think of the persecutions, the cruel wars, and the centuries of hatred and bitterness which would have been spared our unfortunate humanity, if Jesus himself had written down his message in the clearest and plainest manner, instead of leaving it to his supposed disciples to publish it to the world, when he could no longer correct their mistakes.

Message edited by author 2008-02-03 14:30:49.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/03/2008 07:26:22 PM · #1393

Flash, do you believe in Robin Hood, William Tell and/or King Arthur?

In more detail, do you believe:

1) nothing about them; or

2) in the morality ascribed to them (but not that they existed); or

3) that a roughly corresponding person existed (but did not preach the detailed morality that modern tales ascribe to them); or

4) that a corresponding person existed and preached the morality ascribed to them?

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

02/03/2008 09:48:50 PM · #1394

Originally posted by Flash:

If Psalms can be recorded and rewritten over a thousand years with little variation, then why couldn't other texts benefit from this same translation consistency?

They could very well.

They also may not.

Problem is, who knows for sure?

That's the crux of the problem.

In reference to Biblical issues, "translation consistency" is a huge oxymoron.

02/03/2008 10:36:02 PM · #1395

Originally posted by Flash:

...here we have another piece of evidence that correlates a consistency of message over time (verses from 200 BC compare with those from the 9th century). If, as you have argued, the short comings of man (inherent in his being man - not God) have "modified" the texts through time, due primarily to his adopting and inserting other myths/mythology to "enhance" the tale, then why would we find after almost a thousand years (and I would suppose mulitple rewrites - thus many deviation opportunities from the original, and thus many "enhancements"), the similarity between texts?

The gospels already incorporated pre-existing mythologies and aren't even consistent amongst themselves, so the accuracy of later versions is a moot point.

02/04/2008 09:50:01 AM · #1396

Originally posted by Matthew:

Matthew,

Having spent 3 semesters in Medieval/Arthurian literature, I actually do believe that a real person(s) is/are the basis for the "tales" of King Arthur. A recent movie titled "King Arthur", which portrays Arthur and his knights as Roman soldiers, has some basic valididty to it in my opinion.

This actually leads into a post I was planning to make today regarding my conclusions on this thread and several positions taken. This summation is for me, a kind of farewell to the topic.

It appears to me that those who oppose Biblical accounts do so primarily because it simply does not make logical sense to accept them. Especially when the arguments like parrellels between other deities, other pagan practices, the inaccuracy of books to book, the problems with intrepretation, the realizations of writers like Joseph McCabe, the easily recognizable historic myths included, etc etc etc. Those who choose to accept Biblical accounts, do so for many reasons (some personal, some due to education/exposure, some due to the basic goodness of the teachings) etc etc etc. There seem to be some anomolies that are not explainable, like the apritions of Mary (like at Fatima) and the scientific studies that concluded that the children were in a trance like state. The 66 miracles at Lourdes - althought some argue that mere statistics can explain those. The similarities between the major books of Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam and the accounts and characters similar in each. And so forth.

Thus, even if we were to conclude that religion and more specifically Christianity, was based on a compilation of fiction literature. So what. What wordly evil comes from the reading, understanding, and following the basic messages of scripture? Now some will surely point out the wars and persecutions presented in the name of religion. And I submit to you that these are false. They are false because man himself is a waring entity. For evidence one need only look at gangs like MS-13, Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, Aryan Nation, Hells Angels, Outlaws, Bandidos, etc . These are not religious in nature, yet they war. Atheist countries like China have a long history of warring, so to say that religion was the root cause of wars/persecution, I would argue that it is mans nature to make war, and religion is merely another excuse/reason to do so. So, I return to my point, what does it matter, if religious texts exist and promote followers to live a more compassionate life? A life dedicated to sharing peace and love. What does it matter that ministers like Billy Graham can lift the spirits and souls of individuals, and replace their despair with hope. What does it matter that people can receive forgiveness for transgressions they committed in life and carried a burden on their hearts - sometimes for years, to be washed clean of that burden and receive an immense joy, from believing in thier forgiveness? What problem is there for families to receive some measure of comfort at the passing/funeral of a loved one, in the hope of another time together and a "peace" for their departed? What problem is there for pesons to dedicate their entire lives to serving mankind (like Sister Theresa) or providing services (ie charity) to communities in need? Are these things a problem for society - even if the literature these actions stem from is fiction?

I submit to you that they are not. Thus, for those who demand 1st person accounts of every literal depiction in scripture, it isn't there. At least not yet. For those who receive a benefit from believing in the message of their messiah, live life fully, and go do good for mankind.

The wars and persecution will always be there. Even if no religion existed. The evolutuion of man should be proof of that. Perhaps the evolution from animals is the very basis for man's ingrained need to guard his territory. Whether that territory is land, property/goods, or routes of commerce.

Message edited by author 2008-02-04 10:39:34.

02/04/2008 10:19:56 AM · #1397

Originally posted by Flash:

one need only look at gangs like MS-13, Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, Aryan Nation, Hells Angels, Outlaws, Bandidos, etc . These are not religious in nature, yet they war. Atheist

You equate street gangs with Atheism... are you NUTS?! First of all, in some cases at least, the complete opposite is true: "The religion of the Aryan Nations is the Christian Kingdom Identity Movement, whose adherents believe that white Europeans are the chosen people of the Bible..." Many of the individual members of street gangs may be deeply religious, but religion (or absence thereof) is generally not the focus of these groups. As much as you'd like to point to anything NOT done in the name of a particular deity as the work of atheists, it just ain't so. Wars are only fought for resources, ethic or religious dominance. No war has ever been fought in the name of lack of belief (that doesn't even make sense). Just imagine the rally cries... "I don't believe anybody is great!" or "I don't believe anybody is on our side!" or maybe the classic, "For the glory of nobody!" :-/

02/04/2008 10:30:53 AM · #1398

Originally posted by Flash:

Having spent 3 semesters in Medieval/Arthurian literature, I actually do believe that a real person(s) is/are the basis for the "tales" of King Arthur. A recent movie titled "King Arthur", which portrays Arthur and his knights as Roman soldiers, has some basic valididty to it in my opinion.

But presumably not the bit about Arthur being reincarnated to save England if it is ever threatened again? And you might take a skeptical view of the powers of Merlin and the Lady of the Lake, and treat them as allegorical or mythical, notwithstanding the number of documents that report their very words and stories in a moderately consistent fashion over centuries? Indeed, you might go so far as to review the motives of the people who wrote these tales, the morality of the period, their political and religious beliefs and aspirations and take those into account when reading the text.

My point is that you have been arguing as to the historical validity of Jesus as being persuasive when determining whether or not there is a god (and more specifically a Christian god). Reading the ancient texts critically (as you would for non-religious texts) this can be called into real question.

If this kind of evidence were the defining factor, then you should be either (1) a Muslim: the Koran is far better preserved than the bible (it being younger and treated far more venerably as an untranslated text) or (2) a scientologist: L Ron Hubbard lived within living memory and you have video and audio to supplement the voluminous writings that he gave us.

As it is, the Bible text is weak evidence of the truth of biblical stories for the reasons reviewed extensively in this thread.

02/04/2008 10:34:41 AM · #1399

Originally posted by scalvert:

You equate street gangs with Atheism... are you NUTS?!

You caught me in the middle of a post. I tried to make a comment to such, but apparently you missed it. Please read the full context of the completed post.