baddog1 wrote:Mills: We remain on vastly different positions as to my "messages". Therefore rather than debate over implications and assumptions, (and since this is a spirituality/religion forum and not semantics) please allow me to be as clear as I have the capability of being.
Well, I'd debate you in your native tongue, but I'm fluent only in English.
As for your replies to my reason's for not joining Christ:
Quote:1. He's been dead for 2,000 years. What difference does this make? What if the number were 200 years? How about 20? 2?
You're right. The time elapsed since he expired doesn't really matter since you really can't join a dead guy. As for following his teachings, we don't know for sure what they were because of fact #2 and, since he is dead, we can't ask him.
Quote:2. Everything he allegedly said is hearsay. You are certainly entitled to believe this. As I am entitled to believe it is not hearsay, but authentic. Rather than butt heads about this subject - let me ask you: What proof would be sufficient enough for you to declare that God's word is not hearsay?
When one party informs you of what another party said, that is, by definition, hearsay. That everything we know of Jesus is hearsay isn't a
belief, it's a fact. As to what
proof would be sufficient for me "to declare that God's word is not hearsay": if I heard it myself, then it wouldn't, by definition, be hearsay. With regard to what evidence I'd require to believe Christian doctrine is the word of God (which I take to be the question you meant to ask), it would certainly have to be greater evidence than that supporting religions we've largely abandoned or dismiss; for example, the evidence supporting the divinity of Jesus and/or his teachings isn't any more compelling than the evidence supporting the veracity of Greek or Roman mythology.
Quote:3. When someone claims to be God or the son of God today, we assume the reason is insanity, not divinity. Why should we assume differently regarding someone who lived 2,000 years ago? I agree. We should not assume insanity, and you're right - most do. And there were probably many others who claimed to be God 2000 years ago. The world is full of skepticism, and assuredly always has been. Again, it goes back to my "proof" question from #2.
When people sincerely claim to be God (in the supreme being sense, not the pantheistic sense), they are probably suffering from either a schizoid or bipolar disorder. See #2 regarding question of proof.
Quote:4. The Bible wasn't compiled until Rome became Christian (400 years after Jesus and his disciples' deaths). My historical readings indicate otherwise, with initial compilation beginning in BC. However as you know, this timeline is a bit controversial, rendering it hard to prove. To be honest though Mills - it doesn't matter to me. Attempting to prove or disprove a timeline from 1000+ years ago seems pointless to me. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy studying all the claims, stories, etc. related to Biblical history, but it's not a priority of mine and has no relevant bearing on how I choose to live my life.
The point is that the people who compiled the Bible didn't know Jesus or anybody who did to many degrees of separation. What evidence did they possess that the gospels they used were the right ones? (If you're talking about the Old Testament, which was derived from Hebrew scripture, then yes, the Hebrew scriptures from which the Old Testament was derived had been compiled in BC. However, the Bible as we know it [or, at least, the Catholics know it] wasn't
compiled until after Constantine converted and made Christianity the official religion of Rome.)
Quote:5. We don't know what criteria the official Roman clergy used in picking and choosing from among the many, many Christian gospels in existence at that time. Although it makes no difference to me, I liken that situation to what is now happening in many 3rd world countries as Christianity makes it's way through the ranks. I have no idea who the official Roman clergy was as the Roman Empire split several times during that era. The plague visited them and civil war pressed on for a long time. It seems that many Christian gospels kept being eliminated and/or altered until the basis of Christianity, as we know it today was the one left standing. Obviously, my summary is extremely simplified, but I'm sure you get the picture. However, once again I have to ask; what difference does all this make in today's world?
Again, you're right. It doesn't make a great deal of difference. Given the above fact, what we have in Christianity is a man-made religion created either by men seeking to spread their beliefs, men seeking to bolster Constantine (their benefactor), or men seeking to bolster their own power and prestige. Either way, it's a man-made religion.
Quote:6. The Bible used by most protestant sects was translated and pared down by commission of the King of England and we don't really know what criteria the clergy used when translating and deciding what to keep from the Catholic version of the Bible. And we'll probably never know the exactness of the criteria you speak of. The King James Version was preceded by the Geneva version and I have no idea what changed immediately before or after the Geneva version that affected the Catholic version. The antichrist/pope uproar was included along with other issues. Nevertheless, how does that affect Christians now?
We're then left with the same problem as #5 (just change 'Constantine' to
King James).
Quote:There are plenty of facts casting doubt on the veracity, much less the divinity, of the teachings attributed to Christ. This doesn't mean there isn't any value in the Bible and the teachings of Christ, but there's no persuasive reason why we should assume it's the "word of God."
And there are plenty of facts that support the authenticity and religion of Christianity.
Aside from some archeological evidence demonstrating that the Bible is
completely fabricated, what facts support the
religion of Christianity?
Quote:You and I could play "one here - one there" for centuries - if we chose to put that much time into it. I don't. And I agree with you that there is value in the Bible and teachings of Christ, just as there is value in learning about Satan or atheism. And if we were to base your opinion strictly on history; there is no persuasive reason why we should assume the Bible is not the "word of God".
The burden of proof must rest with the one arguing for a religious doctrine. By your criteria, there's no persuasive reason to believe there aren't, in fact, gods and that the Greeks and pre-Christian Romans were right.
Quote:As I'm sure you're aware, our differences are basically about where we place our faith. I read about your life-experiences on another topic and can honestly say that we are not that far apart. In fact, we are alike in many areas (nature, being one with the surroundings, studying the scriptures & forming conclusions, living through adolescence & troubled family times, and so on. And you clearly believe in God.
But the big issue still comes down to faith - and it always will, because none of us knows for sure the tangible truths of 2000 years ago! We have strong beliefs and opinions based on our studies, our own history and emotions - but that is all we really have. From there it's all about our faith(s).
Actually, I've endeavored to base my arguments on logic and facts; rather the opposite of faith.
You asked for
facts refuting the notion that Christian doctrine is the word of God, and I provided them. Your retort, essentially, is you'll believe what you want to believe because that's what you want to believe. In what other aspect of human life is that considered compelling reasoning?
