Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

Right 0.0 Sorry.

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.

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.

This refers to salvation and not Biblical canon.

Also, wouldn't the majority be determined by the amount of believers and not by the number of denominations and such?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Here's a resource regarding authorship claims, and another on why it's important.

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.

It makes me pretty uncomfortable to be honest.

Interesting. I am still wondering how the scholars are able to determine when and by whom the books were written.

Particulars such as...

Anyone can read the book and experience God the way I do.

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.

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?

First, it should be historically accurate. I know that for sure.

The fact is that the Bible 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?

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?

You can't just come up with Christianity because Jesus's life, death, and resurrection literally happened.

They wouldn't leave it up to a minority to decide the Biblical canon anyway.

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...

I'm not here to convince. I'm here to argue.

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.