The Center Stage

[Sieguest]

Found some summaries!

10 minute summary: http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/grap...uth_10_min.wmv

30 minute summary: http://www2.ae911truth.org/team/grap...uth_30_min.wmv

Or if you would rather look through the presentation slides, here they are: http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/ppt_selection.php

Just figured you might want to see these Krazy, not trying to start a debate.

VVVVV

Agreed, acrostic. Posts have been moved to the appropriate thread. Any further points after this one that relates to the 9/11 Truther movement will be infracted.

Fifty times this. (QUICK YOU MUST EDIT!)

 

[Ballistics]

VVVVV


Fifty times this. (QUICK YOU MUST EDIT!)

Aww, thanks for the concern!

 

[jaswa]

Yeah Guest is one of the better debaters here in terms of maturity.

I still need to have a Cathoic vs. Protestant debate with him, especially because I'm highly critical of non-denominationalism.

Cath vs. Prot :O Let me at 'im!

Here's some threads from the PG I've posted in:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=285442
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=288080
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=285448
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=288874
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=288658

 

[Dre89]

I'm assuming you meant me, meaning you want to take the Protestant side.

Seeing as you're the PGer, you're probably meant to make the first post.

 

[jaswa]

I'm assuming you meant me, meaning you want to take the Protestant side.

Seeing as you're the PGer, you're probably meant to make the first post.

You want me to start with a question or statement?

Will post something proper when I get home from pool comp.

 

[jaswa]

Allright, can't think of something good but anything should produce discussion =] Here I go:

Religions should be based off a deity-inspired text. Protestants base their faith predominately off of scripture - as opposed to tradition as catholics do, so they are more justified in their religious view.

 

[Sucumbio]

if you think you're ready for a CS debate I'll be glad to take you up, however I ask that you clarify your OP a bit. I'm seeing you juxtapose Catholics and Protestants, but they're both Christian so I'm not sure I follow your premise. It seems like a better example would be Baptists vs Mormons, no?

EDIT: I realize how that read, lol. That's not to say that Mormons are not Christian, but to better exemplify, where Protestants and Catholics draw mostly from The New Testament, The Mormons draw from, well.. mainly the book of Mormon, then both Old and New Testaments, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

 

[Rizen]

I'm way too stressed to debate right now. So I won't be around. Just so you know.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I'm way too stressed to debate right now. So I won't be around. Just so you know.

Post - Edit: I didn't realize that you added posts to the 9/11 thread due to my personal non-involvement and negligence. Again, good luck with whatever you're currently dealing with at the moment.

Arizen, I've realized that you haven't posted in any other PG thread besides the Center Stage. I hope you realize that there are other threads that you could participate in when you have more R&R time that constitute the bread and butter of the section.

Good luck handling your work load and I hope that you are able to perform well under stress.

 

[Dre89]

Sucumbio the main difference between Prots and Caths is that Prots base their faith virtually entirely on the Bible, whereas Caths base it on both Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Sieguest]

Arizen, I've realized that you haven't posted in any other PG thread besides the Center Stage. I hope you realize that there are other threads that you could participate in when you have more R&R time that constitute the bread and butter of the section. Good luck handling your work load and I hope that you are able to perform under stress.

Actually Arizen has posted in the 9/11 truth thread.

 

[Ballistics]

Actually Arizen has posted in the 9/11 truth thread.

And has yet to be proven wrong, I might add. Go Arizen!! Hope you get through your tough times ok.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Comment edited at user's request.

 

[jaswa]

Sucumbio the main difference between Prots and Caths is that Prots base their faith virtually entirely on the Bible, whereas Caths base it on both Scripture and Tradition.

Actually faith is grounded in 4 areas - scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Protestants engage in tradition as well as Catholics but place scripture as the authority above the other 3.

'Prots' and to my understanding 'Caths' too (can we call them that now? ha) both follow the Old Testament and New Testament but have a lot more variance in doctrine than you probably realise. Whereas, Mormons follow other scriptural texts all together.

 

[Sucumbio]

Sucumbio the main difference between Prots and Caths is that Prots base their faith virtually entirely on the Bible, whereas Caths base it on both Scripture and Tradition.

Not quite. It really depends on the type of Protestant. For instance Episcopalians/Anglicans and Catholics are virtually identical, the main difference being who is in authority (the Pope).

They are both Christian churches, springing from the same ancient source as the Eastern Orthodox churches. As such, Anglicans and Roman Catholics read the Bible with not only the two Testaments but also the Apocrypha, those books of the Hebrew Bible written in Greek. Both churches recite the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. Both administer Baptism and Confirmation, and celebrate the Holy Communion, as well as the four other sacramental rites of Penance, Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick, and Holy Orders. Their clergy are ordained deacon first, then priest, unless they are called to be perpetual deacons. From the priests bishops are chosen and consecrated by no fewer than three bishops belonging to a scrupulously conserved line of bishops that reaches back to the earliest churches.

Actually faith is grounded in 4 areas - scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Protestants engage in tradition as well as Catholics but place scripture as the authority above the other 3.

'Prots' and to my understanding 'Caths' too (can we call them that now? ha) both follow the Old Testament and New Testament but have a lot more variance in doctrine than you probably realise. Whereas, Mormons follow other scriptural texts all together.

See above. SOME protestants do deviate. Baptists for example, come from an idea that only adults should be baptized.

However you original thesis: that "Religions should be based off a deity-inspired text" would be pointless to debate if your citations were rooted in versing Protestants and Catholics, because they both technically base their doctrine off of "deity-inspired" text. Same with Islam (the Koran), Judaism (Torah), and even Hinduism (Ramayana and Mahabharata). Iits offspring Buddhism however is less based on texts/scriptures and more based on teachings of a "messiah" or in this case, the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama).

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe. It is commonly regarded as consisting of a person’s relation to God or to gods or spirits. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories associated with their deity or deities, that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but it is more than private belief and has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places and scriptures.

So again we see that most if not all religions that are considered valid do in fact already find their origins based in deity-inspired teachings/writings/traditions. This includes Catholics, Protestants, and yes, even Mormons.

One example of a religion that I find difficult to truly ascribe these points is:

god it's hard to even type it...

Scientology. >< This "religion," the Church of Scientology, is difficult to accept as being legitimate. Most of his teachings are based on a prior self-help guide entitled Dianetics. Should the "cult" feel of Scientology defy its acceptance as a true religion? Perhaps... there certainly IS a difference between a religion and a cult, both legally and socially. But, he met the requirements, so he's safe. It's funny but Germany actually has had issues with them, and are among some of the more verbal aggressors against them, suggesting they're a threat to society and such. I just think they're a bunch of nut-bags, but who am I to judge, right? Who knows maybe he's got it all figured out and the rest of the world is really screwed, lol.

At any rate this would be I think a prime example of what you're referring to. Do you think Scientology should not be considered a religion, because their teachings weren't handed down over hundreds or thousands of years and from "visions" or "encounters" from "God(s)"? It fit the legal parameters enough to be incorporated. Make your case, my friend and we'll see what happens.

 

[jaswa]

Not quite. It really depends on the type of Protestant. For instance Episcopalians/Anglicans and Catholics are virtually identical, the main difference being who is in authority (the Pope).

They are both Christian churches, springing from the same ancient source as the Eastern Orthodox churches. As such, Anglicans and Roman Catholics read the Bible with not only the two Testaments but also the Apocrypha, those books of the Hebrew Bible written in Greek. Both churches recite the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. Both administer Baptism and Confirmation, and celebrate the Holy Communion, as well as the four other sacramental rites of Penance, Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick, and Holy Orders. Their clergy are ordained deacon first, then priest, unless they are called to be perpetual deacons. From the priests bishops are chosen and consecrated by no fewer than three bishops belonging to a scrupulously conserved line of bishops that reaches back to the earliest churches.

You alone brought up a big doctrinal difference - the Pope. According to Catholics the Pope has a direct connection with God that other Catholics don't. This along with the ideas of confession and praying to Mary and other saints etc. all go against what the Bible itself says. Here (Matthew 6:9-13) Jesus directs us to pray to "Our father in heaven" and to ask for God to "forgive us our debts." Hence the Bible shows us that we can talk to God directly - no need for Pope, to pray to God the Father - not necessary to pray to Mary/saints, and to ask for forgiveness - no need for confession with Priests.

See above. SOME protestants do deviate. Baptists for example, come from an idea that only adults should be baptized.

When discussing doctrine, there are salvation and non-salvation issues. Protestants all have the same doctrine behind being saved by God shown here (Ephesians 2:8-9). Neither Baptists nor Anglicans nor etc. believe that you are saved by the physical baptism, but it is a symbol and in a church context can show a public display of commitment to God to the rest of your congregation. It comes down to a 'style' issue between churches - the Baptists who I personally think perform it better in line with what is taught in the Bible.

Now if we were to use the Bible as the authority for our religion, the aforementioned verse debunks the Catholic notions of purgatory.

However you original thesis: that "Religions should be based off a deity-inspired text" would be pointless to debate if your citations were rooted in versing Protestants and Catholics, because they both technically base their doctrine off of "deity-inspired" text. Same with Islam (the Koran), Judaism (Torah), and even Hinduism (Ramayana and Mahabharata). Iits offspring Buddhism however is less based on texts/scriptures and more based on teachings of a "messiah" or in this case, the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama).

You missed the second half of my thesis so I'll restate it:

Religions should be based off a deity-inspired text. Protestants base their faith predominately off of scripture - as opposed to tradition as catholics do, so they are more justified in their religious view.

I've shown above how prayer and purgatory differ from the Protestant and Catholic churches, and there are more such as - the transfiguration of Jesus' body and blood (although a non-salvation issue, similar to baptism amongst Prots) and the idea of 'mortal sins.'

So again we see that most if not all religions that are considered valid do in fact already find their origins based in deity-inspired teachings/writings/traditions. This includes Catholics, Protestants, and yes, even Mormons.

My original point wasn't that Catholics don't engage with Scripture at all, it's that they hold it's importance below tradition - which as I stated, would make their religious views less justified.

One example of a religion that I find difficult to truly ascribe these points is:

god it's hard to even type it...

Scientology. >< This "religion," the Church of Scientology, is difficult to accept as being legitimate. Most of his teachings are based on a prior self-help guide entitled Dianetics. Should the "cult" feel of Scientology defy its acceptance as a true religion? Perhaps... there certainly IS a difference between a religion and a cult, both legally and socially. But, he met the requirements, so he's safe. It's funny but Germany actually has had issues with them, and are among some of the more verbal aggressors against them, suggesting they're a threat to society and such. I just think they're a bunch of nut-bags, but who am I to judge, right? Who knows maybe he's got it all figured out and the rest of the world is really screwed, lol.

At any rate this would be I think a prime example of what you're referring to. Do you think Scientology should not be considered a religion, because their teachings weren't handed down over hundreds or thousands of years and from "visions" or "encounters" from "God(s)"? It fit the legal parameters enough to be incorporated. Make your case, my friend and we'll see what happens.

Scientology isn't widespread in Australia, so I have limited knowledge here. But to my understanding in some cases they forcibly keep their members in their church - I would see this as cult-like behaviour. Also the way they take money off their members - they don't ask for money to help send missionaries overseas, put food on the table for the ministers or help with the upkeep of the church building, etc. They demand money for their doctrine. That to me alone is reason enough to steer clear.

And to be honest I find people who join it to be naive because of this (nice way to end the post )

You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see how Tradition is inferior to Scripture, considering that T predates S, with S essentially being the written form of T.

The only reason why S was even formulated was because they wanted to spread the faith, and the Greeks had a strong written tradition, but a weak oral one, so the Jews, who had a strong oral tradition, converted T to S.

We have evidence of the Church declaring Protestant views of transubstantiation as heresy, which predate the Bible. We also have the same for Rome as the authority.

Another distinction is that Prots leave out something like 10-12 books from the Bible.

Baps only believe in adult baptism because only adults get baptised in the Bible, yet entire families get baptised in books they leave out.

 

[Sucumbio]

The only reason why S was even formulated was because they wanted to spread the faith, and the Greeks had a strong written tradition, but a weak oral one, so the Jews, who had a strong oral tradition, converted T to S.

Are you f***ing kidding me? The GREEKS? Had WEAK ORAL TRADITION?????????

DUDE!?!?!?! The Greeks practically -INVENTED- the oral tradition. You'd best leave this one alone before I revoke your debate hall status. I'm not even playing.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/education/resources/homer

Most of your encounters with Ancient Greek Literature have been with some kind of book that one of your teachers assigned or you picked up from the library or a friend. In fact, when people think about Ancient Greek Literature, usually they think about the great tragedies, or Plato's dialogues or, most often, Homer's epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey.

However, we often tend to forget that these epic poems, originally developed by Sumerians and then by Ancient Greeks three thousand years ago, were not originally written, but spoken.



@jaswa

I see what you're getting at, but to suggest that Catholics rely more on tradition than Protestants seems incorrect to me. There's great importance placed upon scripture in both branches of Christianity, and I DO find that the variable here lies in which Protestant faith you're looking at, but there was a reason I chose Anglican as my example of Protestant, because they really are quite the same. The one difference that stands out - the Pope - is not enough of a difference to say that tradition outweighs scripture. Plus, to get technical, none of them, Catholic or Protestant, are the same as they were. Vatican II changed a lot of things for Catholics. Also remember the Catechism, the how-to guide for Roman Catholic priests. Basically my point is that the "tradition" we see in church is actually handed to us by interpretations of scripture. In essence all Christian churches pull from tradition, as it is described in the bible, so they are by default holding true to scripture. The difficulty is that the further you get from the one true church, the Roman Catholic church as is decedent from the first Pope, the more "watered-down" the version you're practicing becomes, until you get so far off that the only reasonable association you have with it is that Jesus is thrown in there somewhere. Ok that's hyperbole, but it does get fairly ridiculous.

 

[Dre89]

Don't forget Sucumbio there also the language barrier, which was another reason why they had to convert Scripture to Tradition.

I read it from a source that the Greek oral tradtion at the time relevant time wasn't as strong. And if saying such is worthy of being ejected from the DH, then you'd need to eject all the atheists here who think that God is some guy in the clouds with a beard, that the FSM argument actually has any merit, that theists change their notion of God to accommodate science, and that every Christian takes the Bible literally.

 

[jaswa]

Umm not sure if we should continue this much more because I'm sensing a little hostility between you too xD

I will say a few things though.

Acts 2 describes the first Christian sermon ever preached. Clearly Christian doctrine can be passed on orally. However - an oral tradition requires everyone to perfectly retell something across each generation. This is fairly unlikely (test this yourself playing Chinese Whispers with just 10ish friends!). Knowing this, Jesus and his 'certified' followers (apostles - 1 link in the oral chain) had their teachings written down (either by themselves of by others). Yes the original Catholic church collaborated the Bible, but this does not make it their word. The Bible is God's word transcribed through man. Now ~2000 years later do you think that we can trust the Chinese Whispers of 40+generations? Probably not, it'd be a lot easier if, you know, they wrote something down ages ago which hasn't been changed, yeah? The reason Scripture should hold more weight than Tradition is because we can place more trust in it. For crying out loud, the whole point of the Protestant reformation was because God's word is the only thing whose validity we can trust (from a Christian standpoint - hope that was implied) and the current Catholic church had deviated from it.

In terms of transubstantiation etc. these should be considered non-salvation issues and merely stylistically change between churches, the same goes for baptism. The current Catholic church has more wrong than just the Bible, because they don't follow scripture (as much). The whole point of the Bible is about Jesus death on the cross for humanitys sins. However Catholics turn non-salvation issues; sacrements, etc. into saving works. It's almost like this; Prots believe that Jesus death covers 100% of their salvation, and Caths believe that Jesus death covers maybe 98% of their salvation but they have to work the other 2%. Now if we look at God's word which we can trust more than oral tradition, we see:

God saving through grace, not works - Ephesians 2:8-9
Jesus being the only way to heaven - John 14:6

If we trust Scripture over Tradition (which we should) the ideas of works based salvation are just stupid, can the Catholics just ignore it? Don't even want to get started on Jehovah's Witnesses... Also this isn't even mentioning the flaws of purgatory which should seem obvious using the above verses.

And just quickly on 'other books'. To my understanding the Apocrypha' are just history/wars etc between the 400years after the prophets before Jesus came. They're just not necessary to be in the Bible, should we include the story of "Jesus first game of soccer" in the canon (there's not really this )?. Like I said earlier, it's all about Jesus - OT and NT.

An amusing anecdote: The last time I remember playing Chinese Whispers, "Peter Pan and Tinkerbelle can travel around the world in 8 days" with 7ish people changed to "I want to be Peter Pan and 'ride' Tinkerbelle for 8 long days."

 

[Dre89]

If I were still a practising Catholic, I would prefer to trust Tradition, because again, Scripture came from Tradition.

And you can't just say that the Bible is God's word transcribed through man, how do you know that? Because the Catholic Church said it was.

So yes, before anything about the Bible is proved, it is the Catholic Church's word. You only believe it is the word of God because the Catholic Church said it to be so.

Also, the Chinese whispers argument is pointless, because we have evidence that the position the Church holds now were held by the Church before the Bible was put together.

Transubstantiation is not just a stylistic difference, it's a huge difference. The Prostestant view was considered heresy before the Bible was put together.

Your constant talk about Scripture deviates from the purpose of Scripture entirely. The purpose of Scripture was to preserve the message of Tradition. Now, we have evidence of what positions the Tradition held before the Bible, and modern day Catholcisim is consistent with those positions, so what argument can you possibly have against that?

Your arguments only have merit if we were to automatically assume that the Bible is the word of God. But we don't, we need to justify that assertion first. We only believe the Bible is the word of God because the Catholic Church put it together, and said it was the word of God.

Individual interpretations of Scripture mean absolutely nothing when we know the interpretation of the Tradition that put the Bible together. Again, that's the Catholic Tradition, which we know nowadays is still consistent to the Tradition pre-Bible.

Also, how can you justify ommitting something like 10-12 books from the Bible. If you trust the source of the Bible when they say it is the word God, yet you remove 10-12 books, a sign of distrust. How could it psosibly be the word of God if 10-12 books need to be ommitted?

Protestantism is just like looking at a painting and making an indivual intepretation about it, completely ignoring who painted it, and the context it was painted in. Catholicism embodies the painter, his journal which specifies his intentions for the painting before it was painted, and the painting itself.

 

[Sucumbio]

Don't forget Sucumbio there also the language barrier, which was another reason why they had to convert Scripture to Tradition.

Do what?

I read it from a source that the Greek oral tradtion at the time relevant time wasn't as strong.

Links or it didn't happen.

And if saying such is worthy of being ejected from the DH, then you'd need to eject all the atheists here who think that God is some guy in the clouds with a beard, that the FSM argument actually has any merit, that theists change their notion of God to accommodate science, and that every Christian takes the Bible literally.

Ok I may admit I got a little hot, but that's cause your statement was blatantly false. Now if you wish to modify your statement by saying that the Greek Oral tradition was weakening in place of written text, I might buy that (but doubtfully, because literacy wasn't wide-spread until after the Renaissance, and even then it was still a money matter).

Umm not sure if we should continue this much more because I'm sensing a little hostility between you too xD

nah, don't mind us, we're like Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan on a park bench overlooking capital hill.

Acts 2 describes the first Christian sermon ever preached. Clearly Christian doctrine can be passed on orally. However - an oral tradition requires everyone to perfectly retell something across each generation. This is fairly unlikely (test this yourself playing Chinese Whispers with just 10ish friends!). Knowing this, Jesus and his 'certified' followers (apostles - 1 link in the oral chain) had their teachings written down (either by themselves of by others). Yes the original Catholic church collaborated the Bible, but this does not make it their word. The Bible is God's word transcribed through man. Now ~2000 years later do you think that we can trust the Chinese Whispers of 40+generations? Probably not, it'd be a lot easier if, you know, they wrote something down ages ago which hasn't been changed, yeah? The reason Scripture should hold more weight than Tradition is because we can place more trust in it. For crying out loud, the whole point of the Protestant reformation was because God's word is the only thing whose validity we can trust (from a Christian standpoint - hope that was implied) and the current Catholic church had deviated from it.

I don't disagree that scripture is important. I do disagree that tradition came before scripture. It wasn't tradition until after The Bible was written, see, because... before it was written, you were only talking about a handful of people just copying what they witnessed. Compared to the gigantic masses that would follow once Peter established The Church.

Works vs Faith has always been a heated debate in Catholics, let alone between Catholics and Protestants. It's generally accepted to Catholics that to be saved you have to have faith AND works, just believing isn't enough, in other words, you also have to participate in the holy sacraments. I tend not to get into this argument in particular, because there's evidence in The Bible for both perspectives.

The omission of several gospels was intended to help The Bible remain consistent. Because it's mainly written from the perspective of individuals and not groups under consensus, there's a tendency for disparity. Think of it like this: 3 people all witness the same event, and then are asked to write about the event 20 years later (this was done a few years ago as a test to see how accurate the accounts of Roswell were). Basically what happens is everyone gets some facts right, and everyone gets other facts twisted, either exaggerating points, forgetting points, or mixing up points. Take The Resurrection for example. One account says there were 2 guards, another says there were 2 guards, Mary, Mother Mary and an angel, another says there was no one but Mary, on and on.

Now imagine being in charge of trying to put this together so that your followers can understand the events and make good use of the information. Heh, tough job! So they took the gospels that 1.) had the most impact, and the most to present 2.) had the best versions of events possible 3.) despite there STILL being contradictions, there were as few as possible without compromising points 1 and 2.

On a side note, I'm still not convinced this is a good example of your thesis. It seems to me that the statement "religions should be based off of deity-inspired texts" is true, and I'd personally not refute it. Of course they should. However I don't see how any of the above we've been discussing qualifies as NOT that. Only one that's been presented that I can think of is the one I presented, Scientology.

 

[jaswa]

@Dre.

The Bible says that "all scripture is God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16. Not exactly sure how the Catholics can claim the Bible as "their word" (not sure if they do or if you're saying that to justify their predominance of tradition), maybe they could've removed it like we removed some books yeah? With that I don't think I have to break it down to each individual point you made...

I thought I made my point clear that the apocrypha just don't connect in with any of the message of scriptures purpose, they might be a good read, but not necessary. While I forgot about the gospel omissinos, Sucumbio ended up covering that, ha.

I don't disagree that scripture is important. I do disagree that tradition came before scripture. It wasn't tradition until after The Bible was written, see, because... before it was written, you were only talking about a handful of people just copying what they witnessed. Compared to the gigantic masses that would follow once Peter established The Church.

Not sure how exactly we're defining tradition, my point was just to show that the Christian message was taught orally first then was written down as Acts 2.

Works vs Faith has always been a heated debate in Catholics, let alone between Catholics and Protestants. It's generally accepted to Catholics that to be saved you have to have faith AND works, just believing isn't enough, in other words, you also have to participate in the holy sacraments. I tend not to get into this argument in particular, because there's evidence in The Bible for both perspectives.

I think it comes down to your interpretation of James 2:17-19. You can't profess to be a Christian and go out sleeping around, getting drunk and doing drugs, vandalising and stealing things etc. there's got to be something different there. Your actions have to match up with your views. If you read James in conjunction with the Ephesians and John verses I showed earlier I think it would look something like this:
-God saves by not works
-Jesus is the only way to heaven
-Therefore works can't be a way to heaven
-Christians shouldn't be crap and should do works though

On a side note, I'm still not convinced this is a good example of your thesis. It seems to me that the statement "religions should be based off of deity-inspired texts" is true, and I'd personally not refute it. Of course they should. However I don't see how any of the above we've been discussing qualifies as NOT that. Only one that's been presented that I can think of is the one I presented, Scientology.

Heh, like I originally said when I posted the question I was tired/busy or something of that sort, so maybe not well thought out

Maybe I should've tweaked it to be:
-religions should be based off of deity-inspired texts
-scripture should hold authority over tradition, reason, experience (main change here)
-prots have a better defined religion than caths because it is scripture dominant as opposed to tradition dominant (defined changed from justified)

 

[Ballistics]

What is the point debating catholicism vs protestanism when Jesus never existed?

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Nicholas1024]

What is the point debating catholicism vs protestanism when Jesus never existed?

Shut up and do some research until you know what you're talking about. Even the other atheists in my new testament thread have admitted that Jesus existed!

 

[Pragmatic]

I'm interested in starting a discussion about the correct methods of analyzing violent behaviour.

Do I have the motivation? Not particularly.

 

[Dre89]

What is the point debating catholicism vs protestanism when Jesus never existed?

What's the point of letting you into the Debate Hall if a good post from you has never existed?

Jaswa, Sucumbio's a pretty cool guy, there's no bad blood between us, we just disagree strongly on some things.

But Sucumbio, I don't see how you could say that Scripture precedes the Bible, considering that the tradition existed for like 300 years before the Bible was assembled, and many positions the modern Church holds today are the positions held by the Church before the Bible. Also, the Bible was put together only because it was the most efficient way of preserving the Tradition, and to accommodate the issue of spreading the word where there would be languae barriers.

Anyway, Jaswa, it doesn't matter what the Bible said. Do you think the Bible is the only text that has said it is God's word? The point is, you only believe it to be the word of God because the Catholic Church said it to be so.

Honestly, you just go make the same argument with the Koran, that it says it is the word of God, therefore the tradition preceding it has no weight. What makes us discard the Koran is that the tradition preceding it is weak and faulty, whereas what makes you accept the Bible is the strength of its prior tradition.

If Scripture is the pillar of faith, why did Jesus never write anything down? In fact, are you saying that every Catholic before the Bible had an incomplete faith?

Again, indiividual interpreatations of Scripture mean nothing when we know the interpretations of those who put the Bible together.

You don't realise the inconsistency you're committing. You accept the Bible as the word of God, because of the people who put it together, but then deem their interpretation false. Not only that, but you claim that their interpretation is so skwede that you omit a number of books from the Bible.

How does that at all make sense?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Shut up and do some research until you know what you're talking about. Even the other atheists in my new testament thread have admitted that Jesus existed!

Lolwut? I don't think anyone did.

 

[Dre89]

Some atheists do concede that Jesus as a historical person did exist.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Lolwut? I don't think anyone did.

I refer you to this.

At this point, I suppose it's fair to claim that Jesus, as a person did exist.

So be quiet.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

To conclude from that that any of the writings of the bible regarding him are accurate is, however, heavily fallacious.

You've missed the second part.

So Be quiet.

 

[Sucumbio]

Alright now, lets stay focused on the topic at hand, or until another topic is brought up. Ballistics you are warned, your 1 liner is inappropriate and I thank you for refraining from interjecting with side-line comments such as that. And Nicholas1024 et al I thank you to not encourage him by replying further.

Not sure how exactly we're defining tradition, my point was just to show that the Christian message was taught orally first then was written down as Acts 2.

That's fair enough, I think I've mistaken "tradition" for "rituals" so, point for you ^^

I think it comes down to your interpretation of James 2:17-19. You can't profess to be a Christian and go out sleeping around, getting drunk and doing drugs, vandalising and stealing things etc. there's got to be something different there. Your actions have to match up with your views. If you read James in conjunction with the Ephesians and John verses I showed earlier I think it would look something like this:
-God saves by not works
-Jesus is the only way to heaven
-Therefore works can't be a way to heaven
-Christians shouldn't be crap and should do works though

We agree, essentially. "Cafeteria Catholics" are a good example, they pick and choose what they want to follow, pray away the rest in confession, ugh. It used to bug the heck out of me that they'd get to go to church on Saturday night so they could go out afterward, get drunk or whatever, and then not have to be up at 9 am the next morning for mass. Though technically that's not why there is Saturday Night Mass, you can still see the issue with it, lol.

Heh, like I originally said when I posted the question I was tired/busy or something of that sort, so maybe not well thought out

Maybe I should've tweaked it to be:
-religions should be based off of deity-inspired texts
-scripture should hold authority over tradition, reason, experience (main change here)
-prots have a better defined religion than caths because it is scripture dominant as opposed to tradition dominant (defined changed from justified)

That's fair enough also. At this point I'll actually hand the reigns over to Dre. since he's vested more in this debate than myself, and I don't want to steal his thunder. Still, though I think you've done a great job presenting yourself, and your biblical references are dead-on.

But Sucumbio, I don't see how you could say that Scripture precedes the Bible, considering that the tradition existed for like 300 years before the Bible was assembled, and many positions the modern Church holds today are the positions held by the Church before the Bible. Also, the Bible was put together only because it was the most efficient way of preserving the Tradition, and to accommodate the issue of spreading the word where there would be languae barriers.

You are correct, sir. I was focusing on traditions, not "tradition" so to speak, more about rituals and less about The Word as it were. Spreading The Word is all about why the Bible became necessary, for to keep it accurate and consistent required as such.

 

[Ballistics]

I'd like to talk about the evidence of Jesus ever being a real person, since you all seem to just assume he existed. I'm calling you out on that.

Jesus is a total myth for three reasons:

1. There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
2. The epistles, written earlier than the gospels, provide no evidence of a recent historical Jesus—all that can be taken from the epistles, is that a Jesus Christ, son of God, came into the world to die as a sacrifice for human sin and was raised by God and enthroned in heaven.
3. The Jesus narrative is paralleled in Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. Baal, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dumuzi/ Tammuz as examples, all of which survived into the Hellenistic and Roman periods and thereby influenced early Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

If you can't prove that he existed I don't see what the point of talking about which religion about him is right. Feel free to ignore me though, I don't want to interrupt anyone.

 

[jaswa]

@Dre

I've mentioned before written document isn't going to change as much as oral teaching and passing down of a message. Like I said, the Catholic Church deviated from what the Christian message should be and the priests being the only one's that could read the Latin Bible and teach the scriptures kind of had a hand in an entirely different teaching.

Have you not heard of the King James Version of the Bible? Shortly before the Protestant Reformation, this version of the Bible was translated directly from the Hebrew/Greek and recompiled. Sure it was done at a later date, but it discredits your claims of Prots 'looking at the Caths painting and interpreting it differently to the painter'. I don't see how you can continue to say that the Bible is the Catholic Church's word, when they wrote in there that it's God-breathed and it been translated independently from them.

Just a side point - since the notions of purgatory can be shot down with Scripture, I'd like to know how exactly it is defined through tradition?

Edit:

I'd like to talk about the evidence of Jesus ever being a real person, since you all seem to just assume he existed. I'm calling you out on that.

Dude noone cares, this isn't the place for that. Go take it to this thread.

 

[Sieguest]

I'd like to talk about the evidence of Jesus ever being a real person, since you all seem to just assume he existed. I'm calling you out on that.

Jesus is a total myth for three reasons:

1. There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
2. The epistles, written earlier than the gospels, provide no evidence of a recent historical Jesus—all that can be taken from the epistles, is that a Jesus Christ, son of God, came into the world to die as a sacrifice for human sin and was raised by God and enthroned in heaven.
3. The Jesus narrative is paralleled in Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. Baal, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dumuzi/ Tammuz as examples, all of which survived into the Hellenistic and Roman periods and thereby influenced early Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

If you can't prove that he existed I don't see what the point of talking about which religion about him is right. Feel free to ignore me though, I don't want to interrupt anyone.

Okay, here we go.
I believe the first facet to be inaccurate. See the article I posted below.

The second facet of the reasons why Jesus doesn't exist is pretty sketchy. Most of the Pauline Epistles are taken to be authentic in determining the Historicity of Jesus. See this article concerning the Historicity of Jesus.

The third facet of the theory is really trying to make a play on the fact of the relationship between the Abrahamic Religions. See this chart.
Then by taking these myths which have no founding to them at all, and paralleling them to Middle Eastern Abrahamic Religions, then try to connect it to the Western religions. However, going off the idea of Abraham, all of the Abrahamic Religions have some base. This separates them from these myths. Also consider that death and rebirth is a common theme in a lot of tall tales and myths, but these tall tales and myths don't have the same foundation supporting them as these Abrahamic Religions do.

Another edit: This post isn't to start a debate about it in here. As Jaswa said, it belongs in the "Evidence for the New Testament" thread. The point of this post is mainly to say that you can't just come in here and derail Jaswa's 1v1 with Dre. just because you believe that a facet of what they're debating over doesn't exist. Especially if you can't prove your assertion as conclusively true.

 

[Dre89]

@Dre

I've mentioned before written document isn't going to change as much as oral teaching and passing down of a message. Like I said, the Catholic Church deviated from what the Christian message should be and the priests being the only one's that could read the Latin Bible and teach the scriptures kind of had a hand in an entirely different teaching.

Have you not heard of the King James Version of the Bible? Shortly before the Protestant Reformation, this version of the Bible was translated directly from the Hebrew/Greek and recompiled. Sure it was done at a later date, but it discredits your claims of Prots 'looking at the Caths painting and interpreting it differently to the painter'. I don't see how you can continue to say that the Bible is the Catholic Church's word, when they wrote in there that it's God-breathed and it been translated independently from them.

Just a side point - since the notions of purgatory can be shot down with Scripture, I'd like to know how exactly it is defined through tradition?

Edit:



Dude noone cares, this isn't the place for that. Go take it to this thread.

Again, exactly how is it that the Catholic Church has deviated from the original message, when the original message was in Tradition, and we've kept the same positions until now?

You would essentailly be saying that the Church deviated before it assembled the Scripture. That would mean that the Scripture is not the word of God at all.

You've also just admitted that you accepted the claim that the Bible is the word of God before you even checked the strength of the tradition preceeding it. So basically, any text that claims it is the word of God should just be immediately accepted as true? For no logical reason at all?

How do you know it is the word of God? You've basically just claimed that the tradition which preceded it had deviated from the truth before the Scripture was even assembled.

And your point about purgatory is just silly. Apart from the fact that there are references to it in the Scripture (which I'll find for you later, chances are they're probably in the books Protestants conveniently leave out), there doesn't need to be, because Catholicism has Tradition as well as Scripture. It doesn't need to be in a book when it's a source that predates and formulated that book.

 

[jaswa]

Again, exactly how is it that the Catholic Church has deviated from the original message, when the original message was in Tradition, and we've kept the same positions until now?

Can you show that you've kept the same positions on salvation issues until now? I place my trust in the written text that the God of the universe wrote through man that has kept constant until today, not some priests who've mixed up things along the way for the past 2 millenniums.

You would essentailly be saying that the Church deviated before it assembled the Scripture. That would mean that the Scripture is not the word of God at all.

Words in my mouth.

How do you know it is the word of God? You've basically just claimed that the tradition which preceded it had deviated from the truth before the Scripture was even assembled.

You're still under the assumption I've said these things. From Jesus death to the current day, the Catholic teaching has skewed from the original Church. Again my whole point - we know this because the written text in the Bible cannot deviate as much as an oral tradition. I also mentioned you place trust in the few priests who were able to teach it.

And your point about purgatory is just silly. Apart from the fact that there are references to it in the Scripture (which I'll find for you later, chances are they're probably in the books Protestants conveniently leave out), there doesn't need to be, because Catholicism has Tradition as well as Scripture. It doesn't need to be in a book when it's a source that predates and formulated that book.

Can you give some verses please? AND your interpretation of them?
So since tradition is so good Catholics can just ignore the Bible all together? I already showed you in John where Jesus says he is the only way to heaven.

Plus I never got a response on if the Catholic church in general think that the Bible is their own word, or if you just use it to help your agrument?

 

[Dre89]

Of course Catholics think it is the word of God. But until you can prove that, you have to assume it's the Church's word.

Is the Koran God's word too? It's Islam's word until it is proven to be God's.

I'll get the references when I'm at home, I'm at uni now.

But how do you know the Bible is the word of God if the Tradition that assembled it is faulty?

Your account of faith began after the Bible was put together. So if the source of the Bible is faulty, how do you know it is the word of God?

 

[jaswa]

Is the Koran God's word too? It's Islam's word until it is proven to be God's.

Muslims trust that the prophet Muhammad had visions from God and relayed the contents of them correctly - there's a bit more to it though. They have a justification whether or not it's solid is a totally separate discussion.

Just an interesting note: in the Old Testament, as well as Jesus being descendent through the Isaac side of Abraham, God says he'll make a nation out of Ishmale's line as well and lo and behold we have Muslims =]

But how do you know the Bible is the word of God if the Tradition that assembled it is faulty?
Your account of faith began after the Bible was put together. So if the source of the Bible is faulty, how do you know it is the word of God?

Again, I never said the original tradition that assembled it is faulty, just that the tradition of the Catholic Church today (and at the least since the protestant reformation) doesn't compare with what Scripture (which has kept constant) tells us.