|
Post by timoneill on Aug 14, 2010 3:52:54 GMT
Then he suggested to take just one example to discuss. I read through it and suggested that we discuss the possible Mythra influence on Paul. Tim shot down that idea with one word, ' no,' which was in reply to one of my questions. I used rather more words than that and answered all your questions. I can elaborate if you want. I'd suggest you note that it's "Mithras" or "Mithra" not "Mythra" and that you pick another example. But you might want to work out what exactly you mean by "discrepancies in the Bible" first and what you intend to argue with them. Most of the (fairly poor) anti-Christian stuff on the web is aimed at fundamentalists who take the Bible literally. So I can point out that Matthew's gospel depicts Jesus giving his most famous sermon on a mountain (Matt 5-7) while Luke's depicts him giving what is more or less the same sermon on a plain (Luke 6:17-49). That's a "discrepancy" of sorts. This might be a bit bothersome for a Biblical literalist (though they usually respond by saying Jesus simply gave more or less the same sermon twice, in two different places), but I can't see too many of the Christians here batting an eyelid at it. You could also point out that Matthew has Jesus born sometime before 4 BC during the reign of Herod the Great while Luke has it happening ten years later in AD 6, during the census of Publius Sulplicius Quirinius. Again, that might be a problem for a fundie (though they have some contrived and unconvincing ways around it) but no-one here much is going to be bothered by it. So what kind of "discrepancies" are you trying to highlight and why?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 14, 2010 4:36:13 GMT
I took my dog for a walk last night and came across a catfish walking in the opposite direction. My dog barked at it some but the catfish seemed undeterred. I loved this, gymnopodie. I think I get your message. May I make an apology and a plea? This is a fairly benign forum compared to most (ir)religious forums I have been on, and I think many people here have not had their rough edges rubbed off as much as some, and unfortunately find it easy to make the occasional personally dismissive remark. I apologise if you have been treated in an unfriendly manner, but I assure you, I know these people and they are all good decent people who do not intend to be rude. To my fellow believers, may I suggest (as un-arrogantly as possible) that we welcome gymnopodie here and respect his viewpoint - he has as much right to hold it as we do our beliefs, even if we believe him to be mistaken. By all means, let us explain to him where we believe him to be in error, but let us not demean him personally. That was me originally, and I am still here and have posted a response on Mithraism. I think it may not be the best example, but I'm happy to keep discussing.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 14, 2010 5:17:12 GMT
I wasn't trying to diss you. What you said was fine with me.
OK, I'll look again and come up with another example.
So as a 'fellow atheist,' you see no discrepancies in the Bible? Or see any reasons to discuss them?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Aug 14, 2010 5:25:56 GMT
So as a 'fellow atheist,' I do hope those quote marks don't indicate that you don't believe I'm an atheist. I wouldn't suggest trying that tack - you'll end up with egg all over your face. Depending on how you define "discrepancies" (contradictions? errors of fact?), I see plenty. I can think of several. I simply asked you to clarify exactly what you are trying to achieve by discussing them. And pointing out that "discrepancies" are mainly a problem for fundamentalist Christians, who are pretty scarce around here. So what point are you making with them again?
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Aug 14, 2010 12:29:31 GMT
To my fellow believers, may I suggest (as un-arrogantly as possible) that we welcome gymnopodie here and respect his viewpoint - he has as much right to hold it as we do our beliefs, even if we believe him to be mistaken. By all means, let us explain to him where we believe him to be in error, but let us not demean him personally. Point taken. I apologize for my comment.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Aug 14, 2010 17:02:50 GMT
I see how prejudiced that comment was. You missed my point (irony sometimes doesn't transfer well in the medium of internet fora). My comment about atheists naturally being prejudiced was tongue-in-cheek - it was a mirror-image of your comment about a Christian blindly believing that their church's version of the truth was corect. If I were to honestly think that someone's atheism automatically meant that their opinions were unreliable or not thought out, I would indeed be foolish - and it's equally foolish to dismiss someone's reasoning by saying "Well, you're a JW / Catholic / Baptist, so you WOULD believe that!" Yup. Certainly, the idea of Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) being ontologically equal to God is loud and clear in the earliest records we have of Christianity, and the trinity is the best synthesis we have of what we know. If it was borrowed from anywhere, it was borrowed from Jewish concepts of hypostases, with Jesus being framed as God's incarnate Logos. (see www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html for a decent summary of scholarly backup for this. If you fancy a longer read, with some more emphasis on Jewish sources, try www.christian-thinktank.com/trin02.html) If you've never even read the dashed thing, I don't think you're in much of a position to use it as proof of discrepancies in the Bible. If I made a claim of inconsistencies in modern evolutionary theory and backed up my case by posting a link which I'd never read and had already been thoroughly replied to by credentialled scholars, the Christians here would roast me over hot coals, never mind Tim O'Neill and his ilk. Bottom line: people of any belief are welcome here, and we will happily discuss whatever topic you fancy; be it Mithra or whatever. But we expect you to a) try to keep an open if critical mind, b) not commit the genetic fallacy, and c) back up any assertions you make. Sound a fair deal?
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 14, 2010 17:32:09 GMT
gymnopodie wrote: I loved this, gymnopodie. I think I get your message. Thanks, but actually I didn't make that up. The golf course surrounding our home has a few ponds, so it must have come from one of those. There's plenty of water so why it was taking a walk, I haven't a clue.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Aug 14, 2010 21:34:15 GMT
gymnopodie wrote: I loved this, gymnopodie. I think I get your message. Thanks, but actually I didn't make that up. The golf course surrounding our home has a few ponds, so it must have come from one of those. There's plenty of water so why it was taking a walk, I haven't a clue. Er, yup. Are you going to respond to the posts above now, explain what you mean by "discrepancies" and detail what exactly you're trying to achieve by pointing them out? Or did you think this was some forum of dumb fundies, are now finding yourself out of your depth and are resorting to flippancy before running away? You're not exactly making we atheists look good so far, so please lift your frigging game. You're embarrassing me.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 14, 2010 21:49:14 GMT
Even in Origen's writings?
Could you show me an example of loud and clear evidence of the trinity from the earliest records?
I wasn't offering it as proof.
Is this an example of genetic fallacy? "I have attended church since I was a child and they say God exists, so He must."
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Aug 15, 2010 21:33:35 GMT
Could you show me an example of loud and clear evidence of the trinity from the earliest records? Well, you could always read those articles I linked to. Before Origen, some examples of Jesus claiming divinity include: > calling himself Son Of Man (Matthew 8:20, Matthew 9:6, Matthew 26:24, Mark chapters 8-10 extensively - and Daniel 7 for the context) > speaking with divine authority ("I say unto you" - Matt 26:56, Luke 18:31) > using the expression "I AM", paralleling the Old Testament (John 4:26 v Isaiah 52:6; John 6:20 v Isaiah 43:1-3; etc) ...as well as the way the Bible writers framed Jesus as God's Wisdom, using the same language as Jewish intertestamental literature - see www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html once again for a good collation of scholarly resources behind this. I can give you similar scriptural backup for the Holy Spirit if you want. Put the pecies together, and you get the Trinity. Evidence, then. My point stands... No, it's an example of an argument from authority. In any case, if a Christian came up to me and said this, I'd slap them in the face for being so silly and order them to the nearest library at once.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 16, 2010 4:55:39 GMT
Thanks for the reply and the links; I read them.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Aug 25, 2010 14:05:02 GMT
Going back to the question of conspiracy theories, the Pew Forum recently published this report. I don't think that is a common view in Europe, but it would be interesting if some organisation would survey it here.
|
|