Religion

[formerly known as hf]

The bible is written about a religion that is still major, that is why, you cannot have a myth if people believe it is true, that is what a myth is....

Look up 'Myth' - a myth doesn't mean no-one at all believes it.

And the Ramayama story/myth is still believed by many Hindus

Oh and I don't know who Ramayana is so don't ask me.

And I'm making silly comments?

Don't start 'flaming silly comments' unless you know what the fuck you're on about.

Let me phrase the question again, then. What makes the Bible any less fiction than the writings of Homer, the Ramayana, or bloody Harry Potter?

[Pie]

Becaus, It wasn't written by a government wich is devoted to a religion. It wasn't written 900 years after the events. It wasn't written to be a fictional novel.

And now i will respond to many posts wich i have missed.

AOM: That is the jewish religion. And we have no proof for or against those. IF it is true it all makes sence. IF it is a lye than jesus couldn't have risen frome the dead.

I personally have no reason to doubt centars or harpies. stranger things have happened. AND, we haven't even excivated .1% of the world. we really don't know, now do we?

Muhammed didn't part the red sea, now did he?

and again, we have no proof for or against it. If jesus lived and died and rose again, than it is there-fore validated.

H.F:

If you will not believe those aparantly "biassed" websites, than I loos. You win. But, FIRST, show me a site that is truly non Biassed.

Deadboy: If you are going to just say that there is no proof, when I have clearly made conjectures apon texts that don't come frome the bible(the one about "A man, if he should be called a man," And another about those who were myrterd, wich has pauls name in it, Than don't post here.

There is proof.

Zanthos: GOOD FOR YOU!!! I hope the school isn't biassed.

I for one believe it is better for you to learn somthing frome a biassed sourse, and then try and counter it frome a different biassed source, and thus creating a double negative.(a positive)

Deadboy: Indeed, look up the definition of a myth. Shurly it will say something about age.

(the bible is 30 years frome happening to writing)

perhaps in that last comment i am being a little... you know, smallminded.

So lets try and narrow it down.(I will edit back with proof)

1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus

These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).{5}

2. Older Papyrii


Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.{6}

3. Oldest Fragment

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.{7}



There we have it.

the oldest fragnment dating frome 130A.D.

pleas, don't take my word for it. Go search for it in google. And find a differen't biassed web page that disproves this.

And here I must ask you, as you alwaysed have asked me. Pleas, find some, non biblical text, that has a lesser date time frome the event to writing, and still retains such a mithilogical stature that the bible holds. Also, when you find this text, try and find another text that proves that the hero of this story actually lived, and some of the actions he made. And then find a text proving that this OTHER text swept an entier empire off its feet, and converted it to the religion that it states.

(I know you haven't asked me to do this, but you have asked me for non biblical proof)

[Floris]

The Bible is composed of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The Old Testament is the Tanakh the Jewish holy book.

New Testament was composed by theologists of christianity, it consists of texts written by religious people. In my opinion, sadly, there were a lot of such texts and only very few(probably the ones that were closest to expressing the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit) were taken into the New Testament.

In other words, most of the Bible was written by people, and practically all people in it have lived.

I do believe in God as a roman catholic, but that does not mean I hold the Bible as a 100% non-fictuous work and I do not believe everything that is in it. I do not believe that Adam died at the age of 900, I do not believe that Moses split the Red Sea or that Jesus literally multiplied 5 loafs of bread into 500.
I also do not agree with the inquisition in the medieval ages, the witchhunts, the religious wars. On the other hand, I do agree with inspired missionaries who try to peacefully convert other people to christianity.
However, I believe In Jesus and in the God of love and kindness for your fellow man. It's perhaps a cliché but the essence of religion is for me that you take strength and spirit out of praying to live in a better way with other men and women around you.

That's also the reason that I can not agree that Allah would be the same god as my God. A god who claims that his religion is better and should be brought to all people, if necessary by force, a god that oppresses women in appalling ways, that god can not be the same as my God.

[deadboy]

[quote="Pie]
Deadboy: If you are going to just say that there is no proof, when I have clearly made conjectures apon texts that don't come frome the bible(the one about "A man, if he should be called a man," And another about those who were myrterd, wich has pauls name in it, Than don't post here.

There is proof.
[/quote]

Whoa..... you don't need to recite some text to me, I'm actually Christian, just not the "Shove it in your face" kind. And I still don't think that anything that anyone could have said could be counted as proof about anything. Get me a video clip of Jesus raising the dead and I might think there is but until then.....

[Pie]

Floris: I have many things I would like to say to you, but those are another debait. The one thing I can point out Is why not?

If god can make jesus rise frome the dead, why can't he multiply simple fish and bread, or do the simplest thing of parting the red sea?

If our god is truly god, and he created this whole thing, every miniscule spec of life, up to the verry cosmos that surrounds us, than why cant he do such pitiful miracles as thus?

anyway, i must leave my thing half made, caus i gotta go to school, so by.

[Nalaris]

HF, your demeanor has changed grossly lately. While I remain making calm statements (the closest thing to anger was a bit of disdain in my comments about your rather unsophisticated swearing) you've begun slinging mud with a vengeance.

What's wrong? Surely it can't be a few simple words that are causing you to act like this?

[Antichrist_Online]

That's also the reason that I can not agree that Allah would be the same god as my God. A god who claims that his religion is better and should be brought to all people, if necessary by force, a god that oppresses women in appalling ways, that god can not be the same as my God.

It's only relitively recently that the catholic church has stopped preaching laws on women. The bible supports beating your wife, but only with a thin rod. (Can't remember the quote will look it up). And has been interpreted by extremists like the Qu'uran to mean that they should start wars to spread the religion and that is the only god. The Qu'uran only supports war if you interpret it that way, same with the Bible. Most Muslims aren't for terrorism/war, infact it is against their code as much as it's against yours.

But then again, I'm just a pagan, I'm biased and basing everything from the people I know and what I've read rather than those I see on the news.

[cantrlady]

It's only relitively recently that the catholic church has stopped preaching laws on women. and what I've read rather than those I see on the news.

I don't see any female priests when I go to mass on Sundays.

[Floris]

That's also the reason that I can not agree that Allah would be the same god as my God. A god who claims that his religion is better and should be brought to all people, if necessary by force, a god that oppresses women in appalling ways, that god can not be the same as my God.

It's only relitively recently that the catholic church has stopped preaching laws on women. The bible supports beating your wife, but only with a thin rod. (Can't remember the quote will look it up). And has been interpreted by extremists like the Qu'uran to mean that they should start wars to spread the religion and that is the only god. The Qu'uran only supports war if you interpret it that way, same with the Bible. Most Muslims aren't for terrorism/war, infact it is against their code as much as it's against yours.

But then again, I'm just a pagan, I'm biased and basing everything from the people I know and what I've read rather than those I see on the news.

As I said I do not approve of that, but the god of inquisition and oppression is not my god(it may seem to be an easy way out, but the fact is that I could not believe in a god who would approve of such things, therefore my god is not such a god ). I am a christian, but the bible is not my rulebook. I disapprove of people who have it as a rulebook in a negative way(ie beating your wife with a rod or murdering the entire city of jericho). In such my religion is probably not better than any other religion, but it is a disturbing fact that in present day a lot of bad things are caused by over-zealous followers of a certain religion, and they possibly pursue it like some catholics did throughout history(the crusades, inquisition). So I do not have anything against the Islam, and non-agressive muslims. It is however a sad fact that all suicide-bombers are extremist islamists. I do not say that all bad in the world comes from the Islam, for that is not true, but there is at this time only one religion, one god and one holy book that has such a devastating effect on world peace and stability(one religion I say, not one country or one people, cause the western world is probably as guilty, but here it does not originate from the religion).

I think that a god is best defined by the people who believe in it. Therefore I don't claim to have anything negative to say about muslims, christians or anything who treat their wife and familiy well, don't live a violent life and do not believe in the rightness of the superiority of their belief over another(very important this is).






@ Pie: (Floris: I have many things I would like to say to you, but those are another debait. The one thing I can point out Is why not?

If god can make jesus rise frome the dead, why can't he multiply simple fish and bread, or do the simplest thing of parting the red sea?

If our god is truly god, and he created this whole thing, every miniscule spec of life, up to the verry cosmos that surrounds us, than why cant he do such pitiful miracles as thus?)

These are good questions, Pie, and probably the hardest you can ask me.
It is easy to ask: do you believe? and easy to say yes, I do believe.
But the essence from my belief is the symbolism, the importance of love and of giving with your heart. It may sound crude to you, one who believes in a different way and to a different extent(but not better or worse than me for that), but to me it does not really matter whether it really happened that God did part the Red Sea for Moses.

I am an intelligent and educated person, and therefore I can not say that I believe in the factual happenstance of all the miracles(of the Bible, but also of saints), but I do not bother myself with it, for it is of no real concern to the core of my belief. I believe Jesus was a very good man, who bore love for all beings, whether they loved him back or hurt him, and he loved God, his father. And God loves him, as he loves all beings, none more or less than the other.
The resurrection of christ is another question, and I believe in it, but I can not explain that. Not with words in written text, without emotion and faith.

[Pie]

AoM: THAT is the folly of the catholic church. They forgot the soverignity of god(God's answer IS THE answer. You cannot go past god's word even you you do hold the keys of heven or whatever.) They forgot the commandments, the golden rule, wich is in the bible, "don't try and pick the splinter" thing, And they forgot god's mercy(does the potter not have power over the clay to make one vessel unto honnor and one onto dishoner?) and many other things. And still, forgetting god's soveringnity and mercy(god chooses who is what. no mater what organisation chooses you to be "pope" or "bishop" it dosen't really matter unless GOD is behind it. And god may choos whoever he wants to be an apostle of god, so you don't have to be a "bishop" to interperet the bible. Or anything els for that matter. you could just be an average joe, and if you have an incite, AND it matches up with the bible, why not interperet it like that?)

[formerly known as hf]

You always seem to sidestep my questions, pie.

Yes, I know there is a lot of evidence for the origins of the Old and New Testament. I am not disputing that they are old books, with a smidgen of historical basis.

But my point is that other 'stories' or religious texts have just as much evidence, if not more.

The earliest examples of the Qu'ran date almost to within a year of Mohammed's death. There are various texts written at a similar time which verify some of the text.

The Illiad has been shown to be based on real events, Troy has been excavated, with a battlefield found nearby. They are close to locating Odysseus' palace on the peninsula they think once was the island of Ithica.

The Ramayana has some excavated verification.

The writings of the first buddha can't be disputed - his birth and death dates are known, to the day, and there are numerous sources written at the same time. Ok, Buddhism isn't quite the same as other religions, due to a lack of a deity as such, but the teachings of Buddha are so much more verifiable than the writings of the Bible.



The Bible has no more evidence than other, similar, texts.

In fact, as I have argued before, the Qu'ran has a MUCH greater arguments for being similar to its original state, as, unlike the Bible, it has not been re-written.


The Bible has been re-written, remixed, basically used and abused for Centuries.


There are scraps of parchment and papyrus which validate the dates and some vague events of the Bible.

There's a great big excavation which validates the existence of Troy.

But, validating bits of the Bible does not mean Jesus performed miracles and was the son of God. - You use of a lot of conjecture to say that these parchments proove Jesus lived and performed miracles.

The same way that locating Troy does not mean Athena, Goddess of War actually came down from Mount Zeus, or existed at all.


I can accept that you have blind faith, pie, but you do not seem to realise it yourself.




You throw 'validating' sources at me, you conjour up possible supports for the Bible. none of which I have much disagreement with. What I do disagree with is that these tiny pieces of evidence suddenly proove the whole Biblical story.

That takes a leap of faith, one which you have taken and I haven't.
Stop trying to make out that the evidence is so strong.

It takes one thing to say that some of the historical events in the Bible are somewhat accurate - which I would agree with.
It's quite another, something entirely different, to then say that because of this small evidence, the whole damn thing is true, Jesus is God on Earth and has a penchant for refusing to die.

I am getting angry, as you seem to be suggesting that this 'evidence' you produce is so overwhelming that I can't but believe.
Which is frankly insulting, as it isn't all that overwhelming. They are vague, at best.

I can accept that you have blind faith, which is what it takes to believe this. But stop, please, stop trying to make out that small amounts of evidence promote the Bible to the stats you give it. Admit that it is faith which helps you to believe, and not 'weight of evidence'.

[Pie]

Alright I'll admit it.

but why not? Since we aren't sure that it is true or not, than why shouldn't I be a christian? I must say that there are no down points to being a cristian. Cristianity dosen't involve killiing people, or anything morally rong. I must say that it greatly involves humanitarianism within it's teachings. So why not? If I'm rong, and cristianity is rong, what harm have I done to the world, or to me? It is clear that there is some proof FOR cristianity, and some against. the battlefeild is thusly levled. so why not?

I think this argunment has gone on long enough. I think we should all just quit this. it is getting us nowere, and is just causing hurt feelings and flame wars.

[formerly known as hf]

The last thing I was ever trying to do was get you to renounce your beliefs, pie.

[Nosajimiki]

This brings up a question more important than religion as true or false. Who here can say that religion can make someone good or evil; rather, who here can claim that to believe or not to believe brings out the good or evil in themselves. It may be a lie, but wether it is or it is not, is it worth believeing just because of what it brings out in you?

I know what it did to me, I know what depths it brought me to, but I also know that it effects different people differently. For me it is easier to see the distictions between right and wrong, and the value of human life without the the consideration of God and Heaven and Damnation, had I not re-though my views they would have destroyed me by now in a very litteral and spirtiual since. At the same time my fiance is a very devote Jewdio-Christian (seventh-day adventist for those familar with it.) For her it was her religion that saved her, kept her from darker paths, as such, I respect her faith and have even felt it nessissary to convence her not to abanondon or change it for my sake. Some of you would call this Carma and Dharma, that to find one's spritual fulfilment you must live by what drives you personally. Sadly Christianity doesn't so well define the diverse nature of man which is perhaps why I felt the need to abandon it so full heartedly

The "truth" behind religion will always be an amorphic subject, instead, we could just use the remainder of this thread to say just how it has effected us. Maybe then the "Truth" is not so important and at lease some of us should be able to find a way to let this flame war end.

I for one am done commenting on pointless "truths"

[Floris]

I think that people can be good or evil in different ways.

Religion can help them. In any of these ways. Faith and belief can help people have trust in others and bear love towards them. But people who are not religious are not worse or better. They can trust as much and love as much.

But, in my opinion, it is easier to be a good person out of your beliefs, and out of what you hold true than be good because of laws that are imposed upon you by your nation.
Believing does not make you better, but I believe that it can help you much more to live your life. I don't claim that religions are the only 'institutions' to give a meaning to your life but they give far more meaning to far more people than other things. Politics, economics, science? No.