Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread
| 704 | 250669 |
So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!
Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!
I'm going to start the ball rolling:
We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?
Roping in the WERP frequenters
@MageGrayWolf @Kasic @Hahiha @FishPreferred @Doombreed @09philj
- 704 Replies
Right 0.0 Sorry.No worries. It was my fault for not making it clear.
Still, coming from a slightly different angle now, I think. It is not surprising that several people from the same cultural background believe in roughly the same deity; as I argued based on bereavement hallucinations, believers may just invent their god because they expect it to be there, and so people from the same background would have similar expectations; although not necessarily exactly the same, which would coincidentally explain the disagreements on certain issues.Considering that God chose His people to come from one man, Abraham, then there is nothing wrong with that.
It would be truly intriguing if several cultures independently came up with Christianity or a very close form thereof, because that could indicate there might be a God inspiring all those people. This isn't the case, however, as we see wildly different belief systems all over the world. As I see it, this lends more credibility to gods being inventions of our minds rather than there being a single universal God.You can't just come up with Christianity because Jesus's life, death, and resurrection literally happened.
You can't just come up with Christianity because Jesus's life, death, and resurrection literally happened.
There might have been a guy named Jesus, and if he lived he definitely died, but that is all I will concede as probably factual.
Also, I would agree that Christianity started only a little over two thousand years ago, but that's because I don't believe in God. Anyone who does should assume that God has always been there, has accompanied humankind since He created it, since Adam, right?. So why couldn't other humans before follow a monotheistic belief system based on the same values as Christianity (because inspired by God), just without the Jesus part?
This refers to salvation and not Biblical canon.
Assuming that a believer needs to have heard and understood an accurate version of events in order to understand what happened and be saved, it applies to both. There's not really a way to explain Jesus or sin without consulting a bible in some capacity.
Also, wouldn't the majority be determined by the amount of believers and not by the number of denominations and such?
It's irrelevant anyway. Since we're going from the views of early compilers, none of these denominations existed yet. If they did, the early church would've considered them all heretical for their radical interpretations. So, to them, "being accepted by the body of Christ" would refer only to what members of their group agreed with, similar to the other requirements.
However, if the author isn't who they say they were, wouldn't we expect some sort of contradiction in the fake author's own account in the same way we find continuity errors in fiction books?
There are plenty of internal contradictions within individual books and between different books, and these vary based on specific interpretations. That's what apologetics are for. But a continuity error doesn't necessarily mean the author is a fraud, nor does a lack of inconsistencies mean they're legitimate. For example, perhaps the apostle couldn't write and chose to dictate the story to a scribe. Or perhaps the author heard the story from someone else and wrote about it.
Also, I would agree that Christianity started only a little over two thousand years ago, but that's because I don't believe in God. Anyone who does should assume that God has always been there, has accompanied humankind since He created it, since Adam, right?. So why couldn't other humans before follow a monotheistic belief system based on the same values as Christianity (because inspired by God), just without the Jesus part?They might be able to but they would be missing out on having a relationship with God. They wouldn't really be saved. God decided in what way people are saved and that's what He chose.
Assuming that a believer needs to have heard and understood an accurate version of events in order to understand what happened and be saved, it applies to both. There's not really a way to explain Jesus or sin without consulting a bible in some capacity.They wouldn't leave it up to a minority to decide the Biblical canon anyway.
It's irrelevant anyway. Since we're going from the views of early compilers, none of these denominations existed yet. If they did, the early church would've considered them all heretical for their radical interpretations. So, to them, "being accepted by the body of Christ" would refer only to what members of their group agreed with, similar to the other requirements.Agreed.
There are plenty of internal contradictions within individual books and between different books, and these vary based on specific interpretations. That's what apologetics are for. But a continuity error doesn't necessarily mean the author is a fraud, nor does a lack of inconsistencies mean they're legitimate. For example, perhaps the apostle couldn't write and chose to dictate the story to a scribe. Or perhaps the author heard the story from someone else and wrote about it.Then why does it matter if who wrote it?
Then why does it matter if who wrote it?
Because if these are secondhand or distant accounts describing firsthand information, regarding the most important and influential events in history, the accuracy of the message becomes doubtful. Since we're only dealing with copies and have no original works, there's no way of knowing how accurate the copies are in comparison to the intended divine message, such as through transcription errors. And even if we had the original works, there's no way to know if the author was actually witnessing these events, or writing a story that they had heard, or adding elements to make it seem more fantastical, or fabricating stories entirely in order to spread their own ideals on the coattails of a growing movement.
Here's a resource regarding authorship claims, and another on why it's important.
They might be able to but they would be missing out on having a relationship with God. They wouldn't really be saved. God decided in what way people are saved and that's what He chose.
Yes, here we are again. A scumbag deity who only saves His very own chosen people under very specific conditions, and is completely oblivious to everyone else.
Here's a resource regarding authorship claims, and another on why it's important.Wow. These are very eye opening. It makes me pretty uncomfortable to be honest. I am curious about the scholars' research the first article talked about though. As I am faithful and very fearful of God I am sticking to what I believe for now.
Yes, here we are again. A scumbag deity who only saves His very own chosen people under very specific conditions, and is completely oblivious to everyone else.Haha I saw what you posted earlier and I would say that's a fair question if you really believe that about God. I'll allow you to ask again if you want to though becausr you edited it out for a reason.
Anyways, God isn't oblivious to those who aren't chosen. They still get to enjoy some of his grace. They live lives after all.
It makes me pretty uncomfortable to be honest.
I was far more uncomfortable that so many things that are proclaimed as permanent and divine are simply arbitrary. For example, I was raised JW, so the use of God's true proper name as Jehovah instead of the censoring title Lord in place of YHVH (the tetragrammaton) was considered an essential element in worship for a stronger relationship with God. In research, I found out that it was made up by a friar named Raymond Martini in the 1200s. All he did was throw the vowel sounds for the Latin word for Lord, Adonai, in between the 4 letters. So you're still saying Lord, just a strange perversion of it.
Interesting. I am still wondering how the scholars are able to determine when and by whom the books were written.
Particulars such as...God's stance on marriage, God's stance on food, God's stance on offerings, the name and number of God(s) of Abraham, Jesus's ancestry and parentage, what happened at the baptism of Jesus, when the second coming of Christ would happen, whether the first coming of Christ has happened, and what heaven and hell are like, to name a few.
Anyone can read the book and experience God the way I do.No, they can't. That's why the Christian faith is divided into many denominations, after all.
I have faith that the Bible is inspired by God meaning that it was written exactly as was intended by God. Its different versions are subject to flaws and everything.And why exactly would He want His divine command to be subject to flaws and misinterpretations?
Very well. I would like to point out the multitude of prophecies that were fulfilled through Jesus Christ. What can be made to explain this?Then go ahead and point them out.
First, it should be historically accurate. I know that for sure.Well then, that does away with Genesis 1-11, Exodus 1-19, and Chronicles, as well as all accounts of Nativity, all accounts of the Temptation of Jesus, all accounts of any miracles, cures, or exorcisms, all accounts of the Empty Tomb and Ressurrection, Acts 1-5, ... essentially anything that is absent from unrelated accounts of the events and/or uses an omniscient narrative, and of course Revelation.
The fact is that the Bible is many books that confirm each other in one way or another.The Norse Sagas are many books that confirm each other in one way or another. Homer's Odyssey is many books that confirm each other in one way or another. Jack Campbell's sci-fi novel series The Lost Fleet is many books that confirm each other in one way or another.
May I also bring up the argument that the Bible is historically accurate?Do try.
However, if the author isn't who they say they were, wouldn't we expect some sort of contradiction in the fake author's own account in the same way we find continuity errors in fiction books?1 They often didn't say. Take, for example:
The "Gospel according to Matthew" - Anonymous, posthumously attributed to the apostle Matthew.
The "Gospel according to Luke" - Anonymous, posthumously attributed to Luke, desciple of Paul.
The "Gospel according to John" - By the "beloved disciple", usually assumed to be John the Apostle, and/or John of Patmos, and/or John the Presbyter.
Acts - Anonymous, posthumously attributed to Luke, desciple of Paul.
The Epistle to the Hebrews - Anonymous, posthumously attributed to the apostle Paul.
2 We should expect some continuity errors, and on examination, we are not disappointed.
You can't just come up with Christianity because Jesus's life, death, and resurrection literally happened.Uh, no, in fact, it didn't. That did not literally happen, so your point is moot.
They wouldn't leave it up to a minority to decide the Biblical canon anyway.So?
@EmperorPalpatine
He's willing to ignore EVERY CONTRADICTION between EVERY BIBLICAL VERSION, including but not limited to (Non)Trinitarianism, afterlife views, methods of worship and idolatry, WHICH ENTIRE BOOKS ARE(N'T) GOD'S PERFECT WORD, and you come back with "What about slavery?"No. I come back with this corollary:
If the bible as a whole is a complete and sufficient account of God's will, the entirety of Exodus 21 must reflect some part of God's will. Therefore, according to God's will, 15Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death, 17Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death, 18When individuals quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or fist so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed, 19but recovers and walks around outside with the help of a staff, then the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time, and to arrange for full recovery, and 20When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment.
No. I come back with this corollary:
If the bible as a whole is a complete and sufficient account of God's will, the entirety of Exodus 21 must reflect some part of God's will. Therefore, according to God's will...
Normally I'd point out the context of these laws applying specifically to Jews of the era, but since he's opened it up to "all variations are valid," all of the laws could be considered ongoing. But so what? Any divine command is ultimately moral under divine command theory. An argument from "God's will is evil" generally doesn't convince believers. It just drags the conversation inward to the text, where you're faced with a plethora of trite presuppositional apologetics. That's fine if you want to have that dialogue for the sake of understanding someone's positions, but I think we're well beyond that. The best way to be convincing is to keep the conversation external, meta, talking about the text rather than within it. That's how I was convinced anyway.
Well then let's get back to it. Some consider the idea that the authors are not really who the church or whatever say they are to be revisionist history. There is actually plenty of evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. First of all, you can tell by his style of writing that it reflects an Egyptian environment at the time it was written. This makes sense because Moses was adopted and raised by Egyptians.
Interesting. I am still wondering how the scholars are able to determine when and by whom the books were written.
That happened in the early days, because other books had already started showing up, like titled "Gospel according to Peter". The Christians separated the books that formed the Testaments but the source did not mention the criteria with which that choice was made.
Some consider the idea that the authors are not really who the church or whatever say they are to be revisionist history.
Do YOU consider biblical authorship important?
You must be logged in to post a reply!