Read...then discuss

[VonNoble]

8 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

Its really not- if Eyewitnesses are shown to be unreliable then how much more unreliable are ear witnesses considering that the majority of human communication is not auditory in nature, in the first place?

How much more unreliable....hmmm.  

 

That depends on a great number of factors. 

Some people are biologically predisposed to learn and remember things via different methods.  There are auditory learners, visual learners, learners needing tactile cues and some requiring a combination.  Communications are effective when a signal is received; by which ever method, and the receiver indicates understanding the message by sending an appropriate message back. 

 

For a deaf person - no communications are auditory - but they can and do communicate effectively and are competitive with the rest of the world.  They are not impaired in any way. They simply don't hear.    For a blind person auditory cues might be more important than for an average person. 

 

In a culture with no written language - auditory records are quite good - in fact extraordinary much of the time.  Again, this is all measured objectively if you choose to pursue it.  If not - that is also fine. 

 

So to address your comment directed to me  - reliability of written or auditory records are largely valid - or questionable depending upon specific circumstances.  it is not an either or situation.  It is an either is possible reality. 

von

[cuchulain]

8 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

Possible, but statistically less likely, because the several accounts were written several hundred years apart, on opposite parts of the globe, by people who never knowingly  met each other. (when we compare the Bible to the Secular Roman and Greek Records which tend to support it)  Therefore, it begs alot of difficulty to suggest that ALL of these people were wrong about the exact same account of the material facts. Though, theoretically still possible.

If they were written several hundred years apart by people who never knowingly met each other, then they were NOT EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS.  Statistically impossible.

[VonNoble]

4 hours ago, AmberLF said:

I think this is all a matter of opinion. If it becomes a flash point for violence then the reasons why are just as important to study. It becomes less about the religion and more about "I'm right, you are wrong".

 

Agreed.  That is largely the issue. And it is not a matter of opinion in my view.  

 

 

Historically, when any two people (or religions) or ideologic differences or even political ones for that matter, arrive to a point of confrontation - there is never going to be understanding if the platform is as you noted.   (I am right - you are wrong.)  When we were kids - we added:  so there.   

 

If either side is representing God (or worse yet instructed to just kill the stupid and unreasonable "other" point of view) there is little hope of anything but violence occurring.   No communications can happen.   Therefore - the non-violent people will walk away (or sit down) (or kneel down to pray) or try to do one of those things...... the violent ones will act upon the impasse.  Might equals right sort of approach. 

 

That is NOT a recent development - it is a historical consistency. 

 

I am NOT saying that the religion is per se, necessarily at fault.  I believe the corruption of the message (sometimes intentionally by leaders)...is the catalyst for violence.    

 

I believe a large number of people who believe these text to be sacred are not really familiar with them.  They have not read them! They tend to rely on someone lifting excerpts and spinning them to support positions NEVER INTENDED by the original authors of the text.    Which is a pity.   If believers who are (now) literate (judging by sales of smart phones worldwide) ....and who have copies of the book collecting dust (or stored in memory of the electronic devices) ....would simply spend more time reading it and less time arguing about it there is a good chance the violence and animosity could be reduced.    If they took a time out and just read it....all sides COULD offer far more understanding and tolerance.

 

 It does not need to be "studied" so much  it needs to be lived.   It provides a blueprint to a life above and beyond one's own needs.  it challenges us to live beyond survival.   It allows us to reap the rewards of gratitude.   It allows us to fill our bucket with charity.  The message in there is quite clear.    And a full time job to apply in one's life.  It is a philosophical how to - if you choose to apply it as such.  The same message resonates across religious labels.  I have not read ALL of the major sacred texts but as I get closer to the exit stage of life - I am getting closer than I was sixty +  years ago.  The message is very easy understand.  There is no need to complicate it.   Take the message.  Work on growing and nurturing in the world by living it.  By example.   

 

I have noted that I struggle with parts of the Quran for example.  But the parts covering charity and generosity towards others are not that difficult to grasp.  I know many Christians/Catholics,  Muslims and Jews  who live by these documents and I respect each of them immensely.  They are people who validate the sanctity of the script. Their life of inspiration and generosity validate the worth of the text. 

 

  NO NEED for confrontation or analyzing it (in my opinion)...as each book allows for more than one right way.  If it is divinely inspired the divine part is largely on the secret that each can take what they need in full measure to have a great life - if they just READ IT for themselves.  

von

[ULCneo]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

If they were written several hundred years apart by people who never knowingly met each other, then they were NOT EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS.  Statistically impossible.

 

I guess you forget the FACT that the majority of the NT wasn't written at the time of the events- in most cases the time of the writing was about 30 - 64 A.D., and the later parts of it were written as late as 400 A.D.- hence the fact that the writers, writing their own eye-witness accounts of events they were exposed to, but where the multiple witnesses weren't present at the same location, is fruit for insight.

 

For example, we know that the book of Acts has two authors- we have distinctly Pauline Script and distinctly Petorian Script. However, during some of these events, we KNOW that Peter was NO WHERE NEAR Paul, geographically speaking, based upon the secular Roman historians of the time. Their writings were combined some time later into a single volume. Hence, the fact that they agree without knowledge of one another's writings at the time they wrote, it becomes that this fact speaks for their credibility.

 

This is but an example of what I'm talking about, but it serves the point. You should probably study your basic history concerning the writing in question before commenting, as I find your ignorance of the subject matter bemusing.

[ULCneo]

6 hours ago, VonNoble said:

How much more unreliable....hmmm.  

 

That depends on a great number of factors. 

Some people are biologically predisposed to learn and remember things via different methods.  There are auditory learners, visual learners, learners needing tactile cues and some requiring a combination.  Communications are effective when a signal is received; by which ever method, and the receiver indicates understanding the message by sending an appropriate message back. 

 

For a deaf person - no communications are auditory - but they can and do communicate effectively and are competitive with the rest of the world.  They are not impaired in any way. They simply don't hear.    For a blind person auditory cues might be more important than for an average person. 

 

In a culture with no written language - auditory records are quite good - in fact extraordinary much of the time.  Again, this is all measured objectively if you choose to pursue it.  If not - that is also fine. 

 

So to address your comment directed to me  - reliability of written or auditory records are largely valid - or questionable depending upon specific circumstances.  it is not an either or situation.  It is an either is possible reality. 

von

 

This is true, but we must also factor in one's motive to lie about what was told. If I write you a letter, its difficult for you to lie about what was said, because one can keep a copy of the letter they sent. The early writers would have most CERTAINLY caused a big stink if they were misinterpreted or misquoted. (in fact Paul did this a few times in his letters to the Roman and Corinthian Churches.)  However, if I communicate with you verbally, its quite easy for you to potentially distort or outright lie about the substance of the communication for whatever personal reason you might have, and I have no real way to prove what was said, considering that in the ancient world, we didn't have microphones and audio recording.

[cuchulain]

15 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

I guess you forget the FACT that the majority of the NT wasn't written at the time of the events- in most cases the time of the writing was about 30 - 64 A.D., and the later parts of it were written as late as 400 A.D.- hence the fact that the writers, writing their own eye-witness accounts of events they were exposed to, but where the multiple witnesses weren't present at the same location, is fruit for insight.

 

For example, we know that the book of Acts has two authors- we have distinctly Pauline Script and distinctly Petorian Script. However, during some of these events, we KNOW that Peter was NO WHERE NEAR Paul, geographically speaking, based upon the secular Roman historians of the time. Their writings were combined some time later into a single volume. Hence, the fact that they agree without knowledge of one another's writings at the time they wrote, it becomes that this fact speaks for their credibility.

 

This is but an example of what I'm talking about, but it serves the point. You should probably study your basic history concerning the writing in question before commenting, as I find your ignorance of the subject matter bemusing.

my ignorance may be there.  but what of the ignorance of the masses of people who know even less, even though God allegedly wants them to understand his perfect message?  why, if you can, wouldn't you make your message clear for everyone? 

[cuchulain]

15 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

This is true, but we must also factor in one's motive to lie about what was told. If I write you a letter, its difficult for you to lie about what was said, because one can keep a copy of the letter they sent. The early writers would have most CERTAINLY caused a big stink if they were misinterpreted or misquoted. (in fact Paul did this a few times in his letters to the Roman and Corinthian Churches.)  However, if I communicate with you verbally, its quite easy for you to potentially distort or outright lie about the substance of the communication for whatever personal reason you might have, and I have no real way to prove what was said, considering that in the ancient world, we didn't have microphones and audio recording.

you can compare lies against the ORIGINAL letter but not the hand transcribed one if you dont have access to the author.  so show the original writings of Corinthians and let's see all the changes....oh wait, we only have hand copies. okay, let's interview the transcriber...oh wait, they were anonymous... how do we know it was accurate again?  

but really, you debating that it's not been changed is ludicrous.  read kjv then niv Corinthians 13 13 for 100% proof of change.  but you still refuse to admit it?  now who is ignorant? 

[VonNoble]

15 hours ago, ULCneo said:

You should probably study your basic history concerning the writing in question before commenting, as I find your ignorance of the subject matter bemusing.

 

How did this portion of your posting facilitate understanding of the topic?    I might be showing my ignorance but I am willing to do that if it helps me to understand why that was useful,  necessary or even relevant to include this sentence in making your point?   Thank you

von

 

 

[cuchulain]

is a persons life not difficult enough without us placing roadblocks in each others paths?  deliberately making someones journey more difficult should be a sin i think.  

[VonNoble]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

now who is ignorant? 

 

AND THE ANSWER IS:      NO BODY.    Nobody is EVER considered ignorant....at least not in this FORUM. 

That is my conclusion based on reading this FORUM more than (10) years.  

 

We learn from what is said (and how it is said)  - what is omitted,  what is repeated like a broken record, who rises to the occasion, who never apologizes.... and so it goes. NO ONE is ignorant and all of us are capable of learning something from every post and every poster. 

 

Back to the topic folks....note:  THE TOPIC (not fellow posters) if you please.  

 

von

 

[VonNoble]

3 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

is a persons life not difficult enough without us placing roadblocks in each others paths?  deliberately making someones journey more difficult should be a sin i think.  

 

We humans are odd creatures.  Full of walking paradoxes to be sure. 

I don't really buy into the concept of sin.   But full appreciate the sentiments your express.   

Been there (way to often in life) - thankfully the wheel turns and eventually we wear down the obstacles. 

 

The Grand Canyon in all its splendor - emerged from individual drops of water at a time ebbing away what was - into what is. 

So too with us.....eventually our path gets smoother (right up till we stumble over the next rock) .... (or frustrating moment) 

von

[VonNoble]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

my ignorance may be there.  but what of the ignorance of the masses of people who know even less, even though God allegedly wants them to understand his perfect message?  why, if you can, wouldn't you make your message clear for everyone? 

 

I too have wondered this for a very long time. 

Why in the world did the divine being need the message recorded at all?  An eternal being creating worshipers could easily have installed the message in the hardwiring or something.   If you did have to have "go between" people retelling the message because for some reason I can not comprehend.   Why as the maker of all things - would you not  just keep the message clear and simple so imperfect creations would be able to do what you wish them to do? 

 

If you give them freewill to make it a matter of choice (or some sort of proving ground) then why make reading a big long tomb as the ultimate and only way to know the rules and penalties. 

 

I am fairly certain all of this ends in the word faith.   Things that can be explained are explained.  Anything that is a jump in logic or a disconnect of reason or an impossibility to science is a matter of faith.   

 

And for those who find this way helpful - so be it.....I know a large number of believers who are really decent and kind people so it is working for them. I am happy it is - it makes the world better to have joyous, nice and kind people however they get to that place.  

But I have often pondered the need for the book at all.   Equally moral people  - living to the same standards in life - some have never a seen a book much less this book - and still - they live exemplary lives.  Fascinating point you raised.  

 

von 

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, VonNoble said:

 

AND THE ANSWER IS:      NO BODY.    Nobody is EVER considered ignorant....at least not in this FORUM. 

That is my conclusion based on reading this FORUM more than (10) years.  

 

We learn from what is said (and how it is said)  - what is omitted,  what is repeated like a broken record, who rises to the occasion, who never apologizes.... and so it goes. NO ONE is ignorant and all of us are capable of learning something from every post and every poster. 

 

Back to the topic folks....note:  THE TOPIC (not fellow posters) if you please.  

 

von

 

I was partially on topic...we were discussing the written word vs the spoken.  We were debating the differences in biblical works, whether the message had been changed or not, as relates to the changes present in vocal works.  The last piece could be seen to be directed at the poster, and probably is perceived that way.  It was not intended to be any more than an observation that we are all ignorant of the original manuscripts of the bible, since they haven't been found.  Apologies if it came off negatively towards someone in particular.

[VonNoble]

51 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

  It was not intended to be any more than an observation that we are all ignorant of the original manuscripts of the bible, since they haven't been found.  Apologies if it came off negatively towards someone in particular.

 

Thx for the clarification.... sometimes I am slow on the uptake.    Your explanation makes sense now that I read it again in that context.   Your point is valid and much appreciated

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

I too have wondered this for a very long time. 

Why in the world did the divine being need the message recorded at all?  An eternal being creating worshipers could easily have installed the message in the hardwiring or something.   If you did have to have "go between" people retelling the message because for some reason I can not comprehend.   Why as the maker of all things - would you not  just keep the message clear and simple so imperfect creations would be able to do what you wish them to do? 

 

If you give them freewill to make it a matter of choice (or some sort of proving ground) then why make reading a big long tomb as the ultimate and only way to know the rules and penalties. 

 

I am fairly certain all of this ends in the word faith.   Things that can be explained are explained.  Anything that is a jump in logic or a disconnect of reason or an impossibility to science is a matter of faith.   

 

And for those who find this way helpful - so be it.....I know a large number of believers who are really decent and kind people so it is working for them. I am happy it is - it makes the world better to have joyous, nice and kind people however they get to that place.  

But I have often pondered the need for the book at all.   Equally moral people  - living to the same standards in life - some have never a seen a book much less this book - and still - they live exemplary lives.  Fascinating point you raised.  

 

von 

 

 

My reasoning tells me that a perfect being, with a perfect message, would find a way.  We are talking about God.  The All Powerful and All knowing.  Maybe not a perfect book, but a perfect transmission.

 

Or, we could have the world that we have.  The world that would exist, if the perfect being had not been involved.

 

Of course, the All Powerful One could be crazy.  Or not good.  Or devious.  Or a trickster.  Or have a seriously awful sense of humor.  Or be mean.  

 

 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I was partially on topic...we were discussing the written word vs the spoken.  We were debating the differences in biblical works, whether the message had been changed or not, as relates to the changes present in vocal works.  The last piece could be seen to be directed at the poster, and probably is perceived that way.  It was not intended to be any more than an observation that we are all ignorant of the original manuscripts of the bible, since they haven't been found.  Apologies if it came off negatively towards someone in particular.

 

There are no original manuscripts of anything thousands of years old.. They rot and decay, so we're reliant on accurate copies and translations into a hundred different languages. While subtle variations exist from the KJV and New Age versions, they all essentially transmit the exact same message. Most of the existing variants aren't from corrupt manuscripts, but translation choices.

 

The bottom line for me is that nothing can be disproved. People look for proof that its true, but have zero evidence that it isn't true. So, a person is either convinced that Christ rose from the grave, or they concoct a reason of why it didn't happen, despite hundreds of witnesses and no official explanation or record to the contrary. 

 

Its impossible to write a single paragraph on a message board to convince anyone of anything, but each must weigh the culmination of evidence to reach their own conclusion. I have found this site states the case for Christ as plainly as anything I could write, even most Atheist think he existed. 

http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/1-jesus-real-person/

[VonNoble]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

There are no original manuscripts of anything thousands of years old.. 

 

According to a first blush ask on Google: The oldest piece of writing on paper is from around 4600 years ago. That cite continues with other written hymns in sanskrit dating back to somewhere around 1500 BC.....so they sort of do - not that it has much impact on the topic or your very valid other points. 

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

The bottom line for me is that nothing can be disproved. People look for proof that its true, but have zero evidence that it isn't true. So, a person is either convinced that Christ rose from the grave, or they concoct a reason of why it didn't happen, despite hundreds of witnesses and no official explanation or record to the contrary. 

This concept is not limited to Christ rising from the dead - it also applies to the existence of Christ.  You are correct.  There is zero evidence he did not exist.  

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Its impossible to write a single paragraph on a message board to convince anyone of anything, but each must weigh the culmination of evidence to reach their own conclusion.

Agreed.   

We should each reach our own conclusions.....

 Unfortunately far too many clergy - of more than one religion - INSIST that is not the way to go. And millions of followers do not allow that one simple truth to prevail.  They believe it is their DUTY to convert (willingly if possible) (violently if they meet resistance.)  

 

I find it incomprehensible for someone to use a book as a weapon because of its heft alone.   most sacred texts can be splendid tools for a better life for a us all.  But NOT unread.  Unread it is just another blunt force instrument....

 

Dan I thank you for a very well positioned response in the middle of the bridge of understanding.   As has often happened in the past - your willingness to come half way over is helpful and also offers some hope. 

von

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

There are no original manuscripts of anything thousands of years old.. They rot and decay, so we're reliant on accurate copies and translations into a hundred different languages. While subtle variations exist from the KJV and New Age versions, they all essentially transmit the exact same message. Most of the existing variants aren't from corrupt manuscripts, but translation choices.

 

The bottom line for me is that nothing can be disproved. People look for proof that its true, but have zero evidence that it isn't true. So, a person is either convinced that Christ rose from the grave, or they concoct a reason of why it didn't happen, despite hundreds of witnesses and no official explanation or record to the contrary. 

 

Its impossible to write a single paragraph on a message board to convince anyone of anything, but each must weigh the culmination of evidence to reach their own conclusion. I have found this site states the case for Christ as plainly as anything I could write, even most Atheist think he existed. 

http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/1-jesus-real-person/

 

That is an odd assertion.  What is it based on?

 

 

 

 

[ULCneo]

On 10/20/2017 at 9:29 AM, VonNoble said:

 

How did this portion of your posting facilitate understanding of the topic?    I might be showing my ignorance but I am willing to do that if it helps me to understand why that was useful,  necessary or even relevant to include this sentence in making your point?   Thank you

von

 

 

 

It facilitates understanding of the topic by way of not giving examples which are incorrect in terms of the parts of history that agreed to by both the early Christian Church and the Secular historians whom were contemporary to the events. Otherwise, we insert incorrect information into our arguments, and such arguments will fail as a consequence that flows from incorrect information. This is what Google is for.

[VonNoble]

On 10/19/2017 at 3:52 PM, ULCneo said:

 You should probably study your basic history concerning the writing in question before commenting, as I find your ignorance of the subject matter bemusing.

 

On 10/20/2017 at 8:37 AM, VonNoble said:

We learn from what is said (and how it is said)  - what is omitted,  what is repeated like a broken record, who rises to the occasion, who never apologizes.... 

 

von