Read...then discuss


Recommended Posts

But that's my point.  There are no contemporary sources.  I said that, and someone else said there was, and provided erroneous examples.  So we are back to...there were no contemporary sources.  

I agree that sometimes we see what we want to see.  But not in my case.  I WANT to find evidence for a God, I wanted that for a long time.  Yet time and again, I am disappointed by the evidence presented.  Maybe my standards are too high.  It is true that I have a bias against the religion, but not against the existence of God.  I was biased against the religion by well meaning grandparents.  But even when I rebelled against the religion, I wanted to find some evidence of God's existence.  I just couldn't find it.  And still haven't.

Link to post
  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I haven't read everyone's replies on this topic, but I want to say my two cents on the original post.  I am not a Catholic, but I am Christian. In my case the Holy Bible is my book in question, and ye

If God, the perfect mind, were behind Scripture -- any Scripture -- it would be perfect Scripture.  Any one who read it, would have perfect understanding.  I don't have anything resembling a perfect m

Perhaps, but it also leaves a lot of room for misunderstandings, lies and assumptions to be added... infiltration from those purposefully trying to make a tradition seem less or worse than it was. And

On 9/11/2017 at 4:53 PM, Kingfisher said:

 

It's a frequent bugbear that appears in every corner of human society -  too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

 

 

It's an old joke with endless variations.  "Look under your bed.  You won't find it there, but by the time you are finished looking, you will have a clean place to sleep."

 

:mellow:

Link to post
8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

But that's my point.  There are no contemporary sources.  I said that, and someone else said there was, and provided erroneous examples.  So we are back to...there were no contemporary sources.  

I agree that sometimes we see what we want to see.  But not in my case.  I WANT to find evidence for a God, I wanted that for a long time.  Yet time and again, I am disappointed by the evidence presented.  Maybe my standards are too high.  It is true that I have a bias against the religion, but not against the existence of God.  I was biased against the religion by well meaning grandparents.  But even when I rebelled against the religion, I wanted to find some evidence of God's existence.  I just couldn't find it.  And still haven't.

 

 

Back to basics.  If you want to find God -- If you want to search for God -- First, we must define God.  Without a defined search, you won't find anything; because you don't know what you're looking for.  Perhaps the God of Pantheism?  Or Deism?  They are both different than the Biblical God.

 

The god that you're looking for, will not be a standard model.  Perhaps, the Emergent Consciousness?  

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 10/20/2017 at 8:17 AM, cuchulain said:

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? 

 

The NIV text isn't even regarded by Christians to be authoritative text in the first place, ( the majority of Christians don't regard any text compiled after the KJV to be authoritative because of the fact that they are lacking in more ways than the KJV to the original Greek and Hebrew.) making your point as to the NIV rather moot. There's no legitimate and meritious claim concrete evidence that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were ever altered.

 

As for your verse in I Corinthians 13:13 both texts (the KJV and the NIV)  are equivalent in meaning to the Greek, once you conduct a proper "word study" as to investigate what the intended meaning of the author actually was. This is why we have lexicons such as Strong's concordance. Otherwise, you'd have to find a definition for "charity" as used in the archaic sense, that means something different, and still actually makes sense in the sentence and within the context of the passage, in order to evidence a "change". Unless of course, your saying that people just "Changed" the text by throwing some random words in there in a nonsensical manner.

 

Your apparent position there is so frivolous, that its really not even worthy of discussing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

The NIV text isn't even regarded by Christians to be authoritative text in the first place, ( the majority of Christians don't regard any text compiled after the KJV to be authoritative because of the fact that they are lacking in more ways than the KJV to the original Greek and Hebrew.) making your point as to the NIV rather moot. There's no legitimate and meritious claim concrete evidence that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were ever altered.

 

As for your verse in I Corinthians 13:13 both texts (the KJV and the NIV)  are equivalent in meaning to the Greek, once you conduct a proper "word study" as to investigate what the intended meaning of the author actually was. This is why we have lexicons such as Strong's concordance. Otherwise, you'd have to find a definition for "charity" as used in the archaic sense, that means something different, and still actually makes sense in the sentence and within the context of the passage, in order to evidence a "change". Unless of course, your saying that people just "Changed" the text by throwing some random words in there in a nonsensical manner.

 

Your apparent position there is so frivolous, that its really not even worthy of discussing.

you dont think that the kjv was altered?  time to rethink your position.

Link to post
9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

you dont think that the kjv was altered?  time to rethink your position.

 

Translated, yes. Altered, No. Two different things. With translation, your always going to slightly gain or loose, by the nature of what translation is, where the languages don't exactly line up.

Link to post
On 10/25/2017 at 2:19 PM, cuchulain said:

But that's my point.  There are no contemporary sources.  I said that, and someone else said there was, and provided erroneous examples.  So we are back to...there were no contemporary sources.  

I agree that sometimes we see what we want to see.  But not in my case.  I WANT to find evidence for a God, I wanted that for a long time.  Yet time and again, I am disappointed by the evidence presented.  Maybe my standards are too high.  It is true that I have a bias against the religion, but not against the existence of God.  I was biased against the religion by well meaning grandparents.  But even when I rebelled against the religion, I wanted to find some evidence of God's existence.  I just couldn't find it.  And still haven't.

 

There is no direct tangible evidence to substantiate God, except in what exist; "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20). Perhaps your looking for the sensational, when the evidence of creation is all around you, and in that sense, a tree itself is a miracle when you consider the million of things that had to happen for it to exist.

 

We do have contemporary evidence in the sense that others living 2000 years ago witnessed and recorded the events, but you discard them as illegitimate because they weren't sourced by independent historians. But the fact is, there is more written about Christ than Julius Caesar, and most records of the Emperors weren't written until centuries later.  But even though Christ’s story is just as well attested to as Caesar’s, people reject one and accept the other. I guess it all comes down to what's believable, and not necessarily the amount of documented records, which is why more has been written about Aliens than Caesar or Christ, but I don't believe any of it. :) 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

There is no direct tangible evidence to substantiate God, except in what exist; "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20). Perhaps your looking for the sensational, when the evidence of creation is all around you, and in that sense, a tree itself is a miracle when you consider the million of things that had to happen for it to exist.

 

We do have contemporary evidence in the sense that others living 2000 years ago witnessed and recorded the events, but you discard them as illegitimate because they weren't sourced by independent historians. But the fact is, there is more written about Christ than Julius Caesar, and most records of the Emperors weren't written until centuries later.  But even though Christ’s story is just as well attested to as Caesar’s, people reject one and accept the other. I guess it all comes down to what's believable, and not necessarily the amount of documented records, which is why more has been written about Aliens than Caesar or Christ, but I don't believe any of it. :) 

 

Besides the fact that the ancient Romans were very anti-semetic at the time, and hence, anti-Christian as well. (given Christianity's early juxtaposition to the Jews, whom Rome saw as problem children to their government.) Hence, we'd expect the Roman history to be very much contradictory to the history of the Christian church. Yet, we don't see anywhere near as much contradiction between the two mutually  independent  accounts as we'd expect, since Rome had motive to be antagonistic and therefore lie their ** off. That would have to be more than coincidence.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

But the fact is, there is more written about Christ than Julius Caesar, and most records of the Emperors weren't written until centuries later.  

If a man tells me he was born in Maryland, I will probably take him at his word, because there is no danger posed by getting it wrong. It doesn't matter to my life whether or not any given Roman emperor lived, so it is harmless to accept those stories as true, even if they are lies.

Edited by mererdog
Link to post
2 hours ago, mererdog said:

If a man tells me he was born in Maryland, I will probably take him at his word, because there is no danger posed by getting it wrong. It doesn't matter to my life whether or not any given Roman emperor lived, so it is harmless to accept those stories as true, even if they are lies.

 

We can go much further than that.  It doesn't matter whether or not there was a historic Socrates.  What matters is the process of the Socratic dialog, to examine the true.  Likewise, it doesn't matter whether or not there was a historic Buddha.  What matters to Buddhism is the strength of the ideas.  Not the person of Buddha.  Christianity is different.  The person of the historic Jesus, who was The Christ, does matter.  Without a historic Jesus -- what does Christian faith count for?  

 

But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to post
22 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

What matters to Buddhism is the strength of the ideas.  Not the person of Buddha. 

That is only true for some forms of Buddhism. There are Buddhists who consider Buddhas to be divine figures capable of answering prayers and getting people into an afterlife paradise. In that context, it would matter whether or not any specific Buddha existed.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 Perhaps your looking for the sensational, when the evidence of creation is all around you, and in that sense, a tree itself is a miracle when you consider the million of things that had to happen for it to exist.

Dan56,

Again.... you post is helpful.

Thank you.  From my belief your calm and pleasant willingness to discuss this validates you have read the book and got something out of what you read.  Not only to support your growing faith but also it affects how you represent the sacred.  

 

i have zero difficulty experiencing wonder in nature.    Only , for me, it points to evolution that is still unfolding.   None of proves that a Supreme Being was involved.   In fact the most plausible explations for the Big Bang are just beginning to be be explored.

 

Of course- for a person of faith- none of this works as a reasonable answer... and I accept that.

 

Thank you for a gentle response that explains nicely the chasm.    We have the same appreciation and sense of wonder....we merely attribute the origin to different sources.

 

It would seem one version takes place in a much longer time frame....converging proof from several areas of science pointing to probable connecting points and facts.

 

The other is an inspiring (to me) document... written by more than one author.... gathered & translated several more times....by several authors.   It does not make it less valuable as a literary document full of excellent moral lessons!   

 

It is woth reading.   More than once.   And we can sit in wonder under the same tree and appreciate the lessons.   We can both improve for having read the book.    We can part and live very similar lives by a very similar code of conduct.   We really, for all external purposes would not be seen as very different.

 

Unless some third part jumps in and says one of us ( for our belief or lack of it) one of us needs to have our head lopped off or get the heck out of the country and forfeit all we have worked for....or accept a lesser position in society...until that dunderhead gets control.... life is good and we both enjoy having way more than enough.   And the right to share ideas freely 

 

von

 

Link to post
16 minutes ago, mererdog said:

That is only true for some forms of Buddhism. There are Buddhists who consider Buddhas to be divine figures capable of answering prayers and getting people into an afterlife paradise. In that context, it would matter whether or not any specific Buddha existed.

I second that.

 

As a philosophical way to approach things I find Buddhism has much to offer.    As a religion it is as splintered as any other.   And for the sects you noted ....the point you make can launch incivility as fast as a match if you say otherwise.   

 

von

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.