Religion

[Octavian]

I think there is a big difference between faith and religion and I personally don’t see historical accuracy of something that a lot of posters don’t see as relevant either way, as addressing the issue of God and creation regardless of how well up you are on the history of religion.
Thst to me seems like an entirely different debate or argument and a very interesting one in itself.

But in my humble opinion, several people in here seem to be fundamentally of the same opinion regarding creationism but are debating different arguments and thus not agreeing with one another .
Now maybe I’m the one picking that up incorrectly, if so, apologies.

To me all the Quran and the bible prove, is that religion is man made. Regardless of who existed and who didn’t. Anything after that comes down to faith.

You’ve got that correct but the reason I started to debate in this thread was because people were saying things about Christianity that were completely incorrect and several have continued to post bad sources and make poor arguments.

Some of the first people I questioned were saying Jesus likely didn’t exist, which is not true, he very likely did.

Too many are in the “fuck off it’s all bollocks” camp and don’t want to learn about different religions.

You are religious because you have faith is how I look at it.

I don’t know if there’s a god or not, neither does anyone else.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I’ve not skipped anything, I said on the other page that it’s more likely Islam or Christianity are true than others because it’s almost certain their main protagonists existed and we know that gods of celestial events don’t exist as we’ve studied those events, whereas the god of the Bible or Quran sits outside of space time and therefore we cannot prove a negative as you say.

Do I believe either of those religions claims? No I do not and I agree it was a very superstitious time.

You wouldn’t have the chance to disprove anything in the Bible using science without scholars first determining what is biblical canon and what isn’t.

Firstly you have to recognise what you want to try and disprove.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Leviticus isn’t in the Christian part of the Bible and Christians are specifically told not to engage with that part within Paul’s Letters. The point of the Christian part is to fulfil the rest of the Bible and Jesus corrects how previous parts of scripture.

And therin lies a major problem with religion and its many texts and scriptures. The parts that support the narrative are embraced, and the parts that don't are ignored, or 'not meant to be taken literally'.

'Blessed are the Cheese Makers'.

 

[Marklr]

You don’t care about Scholars views, even atheist ones and you think the NT is all bollocks as well?

All this says to me is you’re satisfied with your complete ignorance on the subject. I’d rather know my stuff on it and seem clever than post Matt fucking Dillahunty. My word, it’s embarrassing. If you don’t care to learn it and understand it then what’s the fucking point on claiming you’re right in anyway?

Leviticus isn’t in the Christian part of the Bible and Christians are specifically told not to engage with that part within Paul’s Letters. The point of the Christian part is to fulfil the rest of the Bible and Jesus corrects how previous parts of scripture.

You’re one of those who acts as if the Bible is all one book, with one point of view, that’s all meant to be taken literally. You don’t want to learn.

It’s complete ignorance and arrogance at the same time and you called me arrogant.

I don't care about the NT. does it correct all the mistakes of the OT? Why would anybody be interested in some smart arse's view on something that is clearly fiction. If Matt Dillahunty or any of the talk show hosts was an expert on the NT and that's what he only talked about, it wouldn't be worth watching.
So we have to study all of the NT to realise that there is still no god?
That perfect word of god, eh? Are Christians instructed to ignore other things in the OT? Like the creation? Noah's Ark?

 

[Octavian]

And therin lies a major problem with religion and its many texts and scriptures. The parts that support the narrative are embraced, and the parts that don't are ignored, or 'not meant to be taken literally'.

'Blessed are the Cheese Makers'.

It’s not really picking and choosing tho, Leviticus is in the Jewish Bible (the Torah) and the context is that it’s god giving instructions to the Israelites. Christians in the 1st and 2nd century, when Jews were still following the laws given, had dropped it because the New Covenant, in the NT, superseded it from a Christian perspective.

 

[Octavian]

I know you’re a young man but you’re still too old for the style in which you engage.

 

[Octavian]

I don't care about the NT. does it correct all the mistakes of the OT? Why would anybody be interested in some smart arse's view on something that is clearly fiction. If Matt Dillahunty or any of the talk show hosts was an expert on the NT and that's what he only talked about, it wouldn't be worth watching.
So we have to study all of the NT to realise that there is still no god?
That perfect word of god, eh? Are Christians instructed to ignore other things in the OT? Like the creation? Noah's Ark?

You call it fiction but a large chunk of it isn’t fiction and there’s plenty of historical fact in the NT. Matt Dillahunty spends a significant amount of time debating Christians and Christianity is the New Testament, why wouldn’t he talk about the New Testament to Christians, it’s basically their entire religion?

If you’re out to disprove Christianity and are going to criticise a religion you should at least read it and understand it. I rarely say much on Islam because I’ve not read the Quran in full and I don’t understand it fully.

Christians are told to not follow parts of Jewish law by Paul. Jesus is also quoted in the gospels as offering differing views of the law that were found in the Books of Moses.

It wouldn’t be worth watching for you because you prefer a simplistic slap-dash style of argument where knuckle heads like Dillahunty say stupid things like “what about slavery?” to people who are instructed to not follow that bit of scripture. It’s like listening to Simon Jordan talk about Sheikh Mansour on talksport, it’s a colossal waste of time and brain cells.

 

[Marklr]

You call it fiction but a large chunk of it isn’t fiction and there’s plenty of historical fact in the NT. Matt Dillahunty spends a significant amount of time debating Christians and Christianity is the New Testament, why wouldn’t he talk about the New Testament to Christians, it’s basically their entire religion?

If you’re out to disprove Christianity and are going to criticise a religion you should at least read it and understand it. I rarely say much on Islam because I’ve not read the Quran in full and I don’t understand it fully.

Christians are told to not follow parts of Jewish law by Paul. Jesus is also quoted in the gospels as offering differing views of the law that were found in the Books of Moses.

It wouldn’t be worth watching for you because you prefer a simplistic slap-dash style of argument where knuckle heads like Dillahunty say stupid things like “what about slavery?” to people who are instructed to not follow that bit of scripture. It’s like listening to Simon Jordan talk about Sheikh Mansour on talksport, it’s a colossal waste of time and brain cells.

Ok...let's ignore slavery in the Bible.
How would I disprove Christianity? I know it exists. If you're talking about Jesus as a real person, it's irrelevant. If you're talking about Jesus as a supernatural being...good luck with that.
Does the NT tell people that slavery is bad? Oh yeah...soz..that's below you, isn't it?
And thnks for confirming that the bible is NOT the perfect word of any god.

 

[Octavian]

Ok...let's ignore slavery in the Bible.
How would I disprove Christianity? I know it exists. If you're talking about Jesus as a real person, it's irrelevant. If you're talking about Jesus as a supernatural being...good luck with that.
Does the NT tell people that slavery is bad? Oh yeah...soz..that's below you, isn't it?
And thnks for confirming that the bible is NOT the perfect word of any god.

You know your problem mark, is you’re still arguing at me as if I’m a Christian. I’m not saying Jesus is a supernatural being. Your other problem is you’re still looking at the Bible as one big book, rather than a collection for different times, with different authors and different contexts.

You say Jesus is irrelevant on a thread about religion when he’s the main protagonist in the largest religion ever and still the largest today, whilst you want to talk about slavery in the non Christian part of the Bible?

I never said the Bible is the perfect word of god, I’ve spent the last few days highlighting its inconsistencies.

 

[Marklr]

You know your problem mark, is you’re still arguing at me as if I’m a Christian. I’m not saying Jesus is a supernatural being. Your other problem is you’re still looking at the Bible as one big book, rather than a collection for different times, with different authors and different contexts.

You say Jesus is irrelevant on a thread about religion when he’s the main protagonist in the largest religion ever and still the largest today, whilst you want to talk about slavery in the non Christian part of the Bible?

I never said the Bible is the perfect word of god, I’ve spent the last few days highlighting its inconsistencies.

No...I know you're not a Christian. I just don't get why we have to study the NT to debate whether the Universe was created. Or whether slavery in the bible is wrong. I posted a video that was specifically concerning slavery in the bible and you got upset because we're not experts in the NT. Or that it's not scholars discussing it.
As for the call in shows...I know they're entertainment. That's why I watch them.

 

[Octavian]

No...I know you're not a Christian. I just don't get why we have to study the NT to debate whether the Universe was created.

You don’t. But you do if you’re going to criticise Christianity, at least read it and understand the religion.

Or whether slavery in the bible is wrong.

Slavery everywhere is wrong. But it’s not in the Christian religion.

I posted a video that was specifically concerning slavery in the bible and you got upset because we're not experts in the NT.

Not you, more Dillahunty who is a poor commentator on the subject.

Or that it's not scholars discussing it.

Again, don’t expect you to be but it’s a shame Dillahunty makes so much money when he knows very little and makes terrible points.

As for the call in shows...I know they're entertainment. That's why I watch them.

Fair enough, I occasionally listen to talksport when United or Liverpool have lost.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I know you’re a young man but you’re still too old for the style in which you engage.

Lol. Is there an accepted canon across all Christian churches? Or are do they still have disagreements like comic book/sci-fi/fantasy fandom?

 

[Octavian]

Lol. Is there an accepted canon across all Christian churches? Or are do they still have disagreements like comic book/sci-fi/fantasy fandom?

Where do you think the sci fi fandom got it from?

Canonical

adjective

1. 1.
   according to or ordered by canon law.
   "the canonical rites of the Roman Church"
   
   
2. 2.
   included in the list of sacred books officially accepted as genuine.
   "the canonical Gospels of the New Testament"

 

[Marklr]

You don’t. But you do if you’re going to criticise Christianity, at least read it and understand the religion.

Slavery everywhere is wrong. But it’s not in the Christian religion.

Not you, more Dillahunty who is a poor commentator on the subject.

Again, don’t expect you to be but it’s a shame Dillahunty makes so much money when he knows very little and makes terrible points.

Fair enough, I occasionally listen to talksport when United or Liverpool have lost.

I would ask can you give examples of Dillahunty making terrible points but...don't. Haha. It makes me look like a Dillahunty fanboy and that's not what I want to be. I disagree though...it's debating for the masses. For the general public. Entertainment. If it gets people talking...

 

[Octavian]

I would ask can you give examples of Dillahunty making terrible points but...don't. Haha. It makes me look like a Dillahunty fanboy and that's not what I want to be. I disagree though...it's debating for the masses. For the general public. Entertainment. If it gets people talking...

Ehrman tends to keep things simple enough for the masses and yes I am an Ehrman fanboy. What he doesn’t do is raise his voice, interrupt or fall out with people so it’s less dramatic.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Where do you think the sci fi fandom got it from?

Canonical

adjective

1. 1.
   according to or ordered by canon law.
   "the canonical rites of the Roman Church"
   
   
2. 2.
   included in the list of sacred books officially accepted as genuine.
   "the canonical Gospels of the New Testament"

Oh wow. You are fine scholar, can you put it in a podcast?

 

[Octavian]

Oh wow. You are fine scholar, can you put it in a podcast?

Yeah but only if you promise not to mention gammon, as you know, it’s not kosher.

 

[Marklr]

Ehrman tends to keep things simple enough for the masses and yes I am an Ehrman fanboy. What he doesn’t do is raise his voice, interrupt or fall out with people so it’s less dramatic.

But..aren't they too focused on the NT? Or Christianity? With the AE, we get all religions. And some weird beliefs too. I'm not interested ENOUGH to go full on into certain aspects or religions. My view on Christianity is limited simply because the OT is such a fuck up. Without the OT, the NT is irrelevant..i don't mean on a human level...obviously, like you say, it's been a massive part of shaping the world. but in the debate of a god's existence, it is.

 

[Octavian]

But..aren't they too focused on the NT? Or Christianity? With the AE, we get all religions. And some weird beliefs too. I'm not interested ENOUGH to go full on into certain aspects or religions. My view on Christianity is limited simply because the OT is such a fuck up. Without the OT, the NT is irrelevant..i don't mean on a human level...obviously, like you say, it's been a massive part of shaping the world. but in the debate of a god's existence, it is.

Ehrman also talks to Muslims but he is a NT scholar after all so he only talks to Muslims to correct their views on Jesus really.

The NT is a lot different to OT in terms of what it’s describing, what’s preached and how it’s done. Some of it is quite beautiful, some of it daft and everything in between.

 

[tonea2003]

I agree that within Christianity you’re supposed to be fearful of god and god’s wrath.

But you can escape that by repenting and accepting Jesus. The whole point of Christianity is Jesus dying for the sins of humanity and taking the place of sinner’s punishment. To escape eternal hell fire you need to accept the free gift - that’s the doctrine.

Paul clearly has access to scripture as his Christian theology matches the gospels, which were written 20+ years after his letters, so there was something lying around that had Jesus quotes on - he referenced it within his letters also.

Jesus was dirt poor as an individual and a lot of his preachings were against the rich, he likely saw the rich as greedy people and therefore a sin.

I know what the doctrine is
And it’s a one way street my way or the highway

course paul had access to scripture because that’s all he knew and that’s what he based his writings on
And as far as he was concerned there could be only one gospel all other were false
And his was received by divine vision
We’ve been round this buoy before

the last para you’re just making fit your purpose 2+2=5 shall we say
He plainly didn’t like the rich for no good reason other than he was poor probably