Christianity: Damaging to our civilisation?

well...it takes wisdom to interpret the bible correctly....who says creation is a literal week....many things in the bible are symbolic...

0 Replies

Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:

well...it takes wisdom to interpret the bible correctly....who says creation is a literal week....many things in the bible are symbolic...

and what is the correct way to interpret the bible?

the way that science has now proved us is the real one?

will the correct way to interpret the bible change with time?

0 Replies

Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:

the point is the bible has never been found to be wrong archeologically speaking.....

of all ancient texts it is the most reliable when it comes to translations thru the ages....

Quote:

well...it takes wisdom to interpret the bible correctly....who says creation is a literal week....many things in the bible are symbolic...

The only problem I have with what you said is your claim that the Bible "is the most reliable". This is not a reasonable claim.

Well first, let me point out that the Bible clearly says the creation is a literal week. The Bible very clearly defines what a day is. First it describes the cycle of light and darkness. Then it says "there was morning, and there was evening, the first day". Then it goes on to talk about the creation happening in six days. To interpret this in any other way stretches all logic.

Any reasonable person would understand what that meant. It is clear what the author meant by these words. And we know how believers have understood these words for centuries. We have no record of anyone questioning that this meant six days until the advent of modern science. When people, based on science, started to question the faithful argued vigorously against it. Today there are still people who reject modern science based on this story.

Now for the matter of Interpretation... Of course religions evolve as society advances. Believers of any faith must change their values as they adapt to greatly different circumstances. Look at how Christianity has changed over the past 300 years-- it is quite amazing.

Christians now say that the "six days" was not literal, but a metaphor. Christians say this because they are faced with a 21st century view of science. Do you think you could suggest this to a Puritan of 400 years ago.. or a Roman Catholic of 1000 years ago... or a Israeli of 3000 years ago? In any of these times, you could have gotten yourself killed for such a heresy.

No. "Interpretation" is a way for believers to adapt so that they can live their faith in a far different environment from the one where it developed. It often means attaching meanings to religious text that the authors and original recipients never intended or even imagined.

This argues against any measure of "reliability".

And Christianity is not at all unique in this respect. It is the same with any sacred text from any religion.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

The only problem I have with what you said is your claim that the Bible "is the most reliable". This is not a reasonable claim.

this is a very reasonable claim....

based purely on the volume of evidence, we can be much more confident about the contents of the bible than about almost all the history we take for granted. it's been truly said that there is more evidence for jesus than for julius caesar. there are many more manuscripts of the bible than of any comparably ancient writings, and they go back to much closer to the original date of writing than do the manuscripts of comparable works.

Name of Work -When written -Earliest copy -Span -Number of copies

Heredotus 488-428 BC AD 900 1300 8
Thucydides 460-400 BC AD 900 1300 8
Tacitus AD 100 AD 1100 1000 20
Caesar's Gallic War 58-50 BC AD 900 950 9-10
Livy's Roman History 59 BC-AD 17 AD 900 900 20

New Testament AD 40-100 Earliest scraps AD 130
Complete manuscript AD 350 300 5000 Greek
10000 Latin
9300 other

these figures, and the quality of the manuscripts, have led experts in textual criticism to conclude that the text of the bible is beyond question:

``In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings.''
- F. J. A. Hort

``The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.''
- Sir Frederic Kenyon

0 Replies

Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:

when god asks us to believe something, he gives us evidence. he asks us to believe that jesus is the son of god, the messiah, and he gives us evidence by resurrecting him from the dead. jesus appeared to hundreds of people and gave visible and tangible evidence. those witnesses gave reports that are evidence for us.

If that is what you call evidence, then by your definition there is a wealth of evidence for alien abductions, telepathy, psychokinesis, and the loch ness monster. Do you believe in those too? I don't.

0 Replies

Ok if you'll allow a newbie to try and jump in the conversation, then just listen to me for a minute.

Ok first off the bible is not the infalliable word of God himself. God never came down with a pen and pad and continued to write the Bible for us. But instead the Bible is imperfect man's interpretation of a perfect being. It's as if you take a cro-magnon man, or a neanderthal give him a pencil and a bunch of paper and present him with the entire exsistence of the Heavenly Father. Next we tell this "pre-man" to explain to us what he sees and what it means. This is the bible. It's filled with historical fallacies, theological contradictions, but this is only because it was wrote by man himself. However in defense of the book the core message remains the same. Jesus bestowed himself on the earth and lived out the life of a man. However it's my belief that modern christianity misinterprets this entire account. It's my belief that Jesus was not sent here as a sacrifice so that we may enter heaven, that makes no sense. What of all the good people who died before Jesus's sacrifice. Does that mean they went hell or better yet purgartory? I think that Jesus bestowed himself here so that we would know how to live, and walk the path of the father. Think of it, if you ever want to know how to do something in the way God would want you to, you can simply think of the cliche'd WWJD.

Ok next I want to try and tackle the issue of the orignal sin. To say that just because man is capable of sin, does not mean(in my opinion) that we are inherrently evil. We are capable of sin yes, but we do not befall the curses of our forefathers. That makes no sense in it's self, how can God be all merciful, and all Loving when he can't forgive his children for something that none of us are responsible(orignal sin). So I don't believe if adam and even would not have fallen the world would be utopia, that in my belief is simply organized religon controlling people, telling Us that we are wrong, sinful, and tipping on the brink of hell.

So I guess I rambled all of that to simply say that, to worship God is not attending church nor speaking "his" world alone, it is simply doing good in everyday life. I can't remeber who said it, but they said something around "why can't we simply be good people instead of worrying about the after life." Well if you ask me, you are right, we are our fathers and mothers children, but never there choices. We do not befall the sin of those before us, nor is being human a curse; it is a gift. You do not have to know god, nor join a church to enter heaven, you simply have to want to do good, and have that desire in your heart. I can't believe that Moses and Sidhartha both went to "hell" simply because they did not know Jesus. It's a contradiction in itself

0 Replies

getting back to the original question - Is Religion 'damaging' our civilization?

The answer to that question predates religion; the things that are 'damaging', or interfering with the civilization of this planet, are the same things that gave rise to religion in the first place.
They are the echoes of our savage battle for survival, in a world that threatened our ancestors at every turn.
The methodology of our survival was through 'territoriality', 'invention', 'brutality', and the willingness to act without ethical inhibition, to protect the needs of the many, over those of the few.

All these factors lead to the creation of imbedded myths, which amorally drove the survival juggernaut, expanding the human niche to the point where the species was ensured of the pivotal position in the hierarchy of the planet's life forms.

The result as we see it today, is 'survival techniques' that have grown into a 'monster', capable of wiping all life from this planet permanently, if we do not reassess our ingrained 'modus apparendi', and discard those features of our past natural Empiricism, that brought us to this point, but threatens to eradicate all that has been savagely carved from the environmental challenges of the past.

This outdated 'way of being' is best represented by 'religious belief'; the tool by which we were able to closed mindedly hack our place from the jungle; and the institution that now threatens to turn us on each other, until no one will be left to benefit from the struggle.

0 Replies

Abu,

Your table says the "earliest scraps" we have are from 130 AD. This is about 100 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Since the writers of the New Testament claim to be contemporaries of Jesus, they simply would not have been alive at the time the earliest scraps were written.

Your own data implies that the earliest "complete manuscript" was from 350 AD. Not even the grandchildren of any one who witnessed the events could have helped writing these manuscripts.

But Sir Keyon says

``The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible"

This just doesn't make any sense.

0 Replies

aquarius_blue05, I like your style. You're the sort of Christian I really can't argue with, a bit like my mum. Laughing

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Abu,

Your table says the "earliest scraps" we have are from 130 AD. This is about 100 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Since the writers of the New Testament claim to be contemporaries of Jesus, they simply would not have been alive at the time the earliest scraps were written.

please.....obviously the earliest scraps we have were not penned by the writters themselves......not everything survives ancient history...i was simply making the point that the bible is the most reliable ancient manuscrpit we have......people will find every excuse imaginable to discredit scripture simply because you don't want to believe....nothing i could say will change that...

0 Replies

Good thing I'm here then, eh? Hahaha... Here's the thing about aquarius' passage, impressive as it was: After establishing the logical likelihood that God didn't own a pen or paper (undeveloped technology at the time), and hence the Bible (or at least proto-manuscripts) were written by Puny Hu-mans, most every claim he made afterword falls under the blow of his own argument. If the Bible is an unreliable source (I'm taking liberties with that), then how is the idea of God himself reliable? The Bible IS the ultimate source material for the faith, right?

Examples:
"Jesus bestowed himself on the earth and lived out the life of a man."
"...Jesus's sacrifice."
"...if adam and even( Smile

) would not have fallen..."

Where did this knowledge come from? THE BIBLE! What sense do these assumptions (well, 'items' taken on faith) have in the mind or argument of someone who's already established the Bible as logically, historically and theologically flawed? The whole thing reeks of circular logic...and an impure example of circular logic at that.

EDIT: This was meant to appear directly after the praise for the post in question here, that goat guy just took my spot.

0 Replies

Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Abu,

Your table says the "earliest scraps" we have are from 130 AD. This is about 100 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Since the writers of the New Testament claim to be contemporaries of Jesus, they simply would not have been alive at the time the earliest scraps were written.

please.....obviously the earliest scraps we have were not penned by the writters themselves......not everything survives ancient history...i was simply making the point that the bible is the most reliable ancient manuscrpit we have......people will find every excuse imaginable to discredit scripture simply because you don't want to believe....nothing i could say will change that...

What do you mean by reliable?

Are you, or are you not, saying that there is proof that what is written in the New Testament really happened? That is what I mean by "reliable".

You have not given any such proof.

Your argument seems to revolve around the fact there people made a heck of a lot of copies.

But seeing as that we have nothing written from anyone who was there is a problem. Some three hundred years passed before anyone wrote any complete manuscripts that have survived. The number of copies made doesn't prove very much, especially since there are "Biblical" texts of the same period that have been rejected by the religious community.

There is absolutely no scientific or historical way to make any statement about the reliability of the Bible. You are making a statement of faith...pure and simple... with nothing to back it up that any unbiassed person would think is rational.

0 Replies

well...what meant by reliable was in regards to ancient manuscripts being reliably copied exactly from the originals...

i simply meant that there is more evidence for the bible being a true copy of its original form than other ancient texts....

as far as those events really happening.....well, men don't give their lives for lies....and i'm not just talking about jesus....

i'm talking about all the apostles and subsequent martyrs....men don't hang on crosses for lies either...jesus wasn't the only one to hang on a cross....

and i for one was not impressed at all by aquarius' post....i was dissapointed....

the question of 'did people go to heaven before jesus came' is pretty sophomoric....of course people who died before jesus' time went to heaven (if god saw fit)....this is addressed in scripture....

0 Replies

I've been rude...may I call you "that goat guy"?

0 Replies

Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:

well...what meant by reliable was in regards to ancient manuscripts being reliably copied exactly from the originals...

i simply meant that there is more evidence for the bible being a true copy of its original form than other ancient texts....

as far as those events really happening.....well, men don't give their lives for lies....and i'm not just talking about jesus....

i'm talking about all the apostles and subsequent martyrs....men don't hang on crosses for lies either...jesus wasn't the only one to hang on a cross....

and i for one was not impressed at all by aquarius' post....i was dissapointed....

the question of 'did people go to heaven before jesus came' is pretty sophomoric....of course people who died before jesus' time went to heaven (if god saw fit)....this is addressed in scripture....

So you believe Allah is great and will send suicide bombers to paradise? If you think that's a lie, then men DO give their lives for lies. Soldiers that have died in Iraq have given their lives for lies. Whatever makes you think that the fact that somebody has died for somethinggn means that that something actually has some truth or value to it? How can you just assume that?

0 Replies

the Reverend wrote:

I've been rude...may I call you "that goat guy"?

sure...no problem!

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

So you believe Allah is great and will send suicide bombers to paradise? If you think that's a lie, then men DO give their lives for lies. Soldiers that have died in Iraq have given their lives for lies. Whatever makes you think that the fact that somebody has died for somethinggn means that that something actually has some truth or value to it? How can you just assume that?

you make a good point....

firstly, our soldiers that have died in iraq surely did not want to die....they were not faced with the same circumstances that christian martyrs are faced with. christian martyrs could have saved their own lives by denouncing the faith.

surely you don't think our soldiers have died in iraq for lies.....saddam was a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people....saddam WAS a weapon of mass destruction....we all know this..

ok you got me....some men DO die for lies.....the only other thing i can say to this is that suicide bombers are bred from birth for this sort of thing....the apostles were not. they died for something they witnessed first hand...

0 Replies

Abu Ishaq Al Juwayri wrote:

agrote wrote:
So you believe Allah is great and will send suicide bombers to paradise? If you think that's a lie, then men DO give their lives for lies. Soldiers that have died in Iraq have given their lives for lies. Whatever makes you think that the fact that somebody has died for somethinggn means that that something actually has some truth or value to it? How can you just assume that?

you make a good point....

firstly, our soldiers that have died in iraq surely did not want to die....they were not faced with the same circumstances that christian martyrs are faced with. christian martyrs could have saved their own lives by denouncing the faith.

surely you don't think our soldiers have died in iraq for lies.....saddam was a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people....saddam WAS a weapon of mass destruction....we all know this..

I took agrote's post to mean the Iraqi soldiers who died defending the Saddam regime. Many Iraqi soldiers could have saved their lives by not fighting against the vastly superior American army. This is similar to the circumstances that christian martyrs were faced with.

Willingness to face certain death because of one's belief is not unique to the Christian martyrs. It is certainly not any measure of the correctness of the belief.

My contention stands. There is nothing unique about Christianity that makes it any more believable to an objective observer than any other faith. Like any other religion it is based on cultural beliefs.

If you believe in Christianity, you can always find reasons to back up your beliefs-- but this is true of any faith. The problem is, as the world inevitably advances, every religion must sacrifice reason to hold on to some of their beliefs.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

My contention stands. There is nothing unique about Christianity that makes it any more believable to an objective observer than any other faith. Like any other religion it is based on cultural beliefs.

christianity is unique for several important reasons..... unlike other religions, it is historic and evidential. jesus of nazareth is a historical figure..... he was, of course, born in bethlehem in judea during the reign of caesar augustus and was put to death by pontius pilate, a first century roman governor. ...more important, the testimony of his life, death, and resurrection comes to us by way of eyewitness accounts (1 john 1:1-4). therefore, christianity is a historic faith and its claims can be validated by examining the testimony of history. None of the other religions of the world can claim this kind of historical support.

another unique feature of christianity is that its founder claimed to be God (john 8:58). .....of the great religious leaders of the world (buddha, moses, zoroaster, lao tzu, mohammed), only jesus claimed to be god in human flesh (mark 14:62). ........yet far from being an empty claim, his historically verifiable resurrection from the dead vindicated his claim to deity (rom 1:4; 1 cor. 15:3-8). ....other religions, like buddhism and islam, claim miracles in support of their faith, but unlike christianity, these miracles lack historical verification.

finally, an additional feature setting christianity apart from other religions is that it is a coherent belief system. some christian doctrines might transcend complete comprehension, but unlike the claims of many religions, they are not irrational or absurd......also, the christian faith is unique in that it can account for the vast array of phenomena that we encounter in everyday life: the laws of science, the universal laws of logic, ethical norms, love, the meaning in life, and the problem of evil and human suffering...... so to state it philosophically: the christian faith corresponds with the present state of affairs.

0 Replies

Christianity: Damaging to our civilisation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know