The Gospel of Jesus Christ

[Dre89]

Regardless, the point about the divine plan is a theological point, and theological points have no value, particularly when the appear to contradict logic because a theological point requires you to assume the theology is true, but the whole point of this debate is to decipher whether the theology is true or not.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Holder, let me lay out a little Christian theology for you.

1. True love is impossible without the choice of rejecting said love (aka: evil). That's why there was the one command God gave Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit in the Garden of Eden, and when they rejected His love, that had consequences. Omnipotence is not without limits, even though God is all-powerful, you have to keep in mind that there are limits to that. You can't force someone to make a choice and still retain that choice, and that is why evil exists.

2. As far as the divine plan goes, you have to remember that there is a place called Heaven. Why doesn't God immediately crush all evil? Well, aside from point number 1 above, He wants to give them time to repent and be saved. Yes, there are some definite tragedies that happen due to evil in this life, but keep in mind that Heaven is there for Christians who die, and the worst things that happen in this life are completely outweighed by anything we get to experience in Heaven. There's just no contest. That's why the disciples were willing to undergo such persecution back in New Testament times, they knew those kinds of struggles built up for them a reward in Heaven, and so it was a win/win situation for them.

The two points above are why some of the acts God does would be very immoral for any human, and yet are just when he does them. It's much in the same way how if you were to kill someone for stealing, it's murder, but if a judge were to do the same, then it's simply a just execution.

And if you want to call God immoral, I challenge you, from where do you draw your basis for morality? From society? There are some cultures (I'll just throw out the hypothetical suicidal cult example) that would almost definitely approve of any supposedly immoral act. Also, if the creator of everything (including you!) is flawed and unjust, how could your moral compass possibly be perfect? In short, what gives you the right or ability to judge God? If He was truly that immoral, then considering His power, what would stop Him from just wiping the earth out completely?

Additionally, I know for a fact there are factors to these "immoral acts" that atheists accuse God of that they're often completely unaware of. For example, to take your instance of the kids and the bears, there were at least dozens of them (likely teenagers), yelling "GO AWAY" at the lone prophet. That's not some innocents playing in a field, that's a mob yelling threats. The exact number isn't determined, but there were at least 40 or so (as that's the number that died). We don't know the exact situation, but what if there were hundreds that were about to mob the prophet, and he called down the bears in self defense, which scared away most of them and killed the worst offenders? Would that really be so immoral on God's part? Yes, we don't know if that's how it happened, but to convict a human of a crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'd say that qualifies as reasonable doubt.



As far as prayer goes, it is indeed a factor in God's decisions, the king Hezekiah (of Judah) was healed and lived for 15 more years directly because of prayer. (Don't recall the reference ATM though).

 

[Dre89]

Nic that's a classic trick that religious people pull.

We're not saying our creator is imperfect. We're saying that you're idea of the creator isn't logically valid because of numerous conflicting properties he is supposed to have.

Our judgment is only flawed if we have an imperfect creator, but that point isn't assumed. If we don't have one then our judgment is much more valid.

Also, the first two points are theological points. Theological points have no value unless they concur with ordinary experience, which those two don't. We're not assuming theology to be true, and seeing how it is only reasonable to accept theology if it is reasonable and concurs with ordinary experience, those points you raised are invalid in a debate where theology isn't assumed to be true.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Nic that's a classic trick that religious people pull.

We're not saying our creator is imperfect. We're saying that you're idea of the creator isn't logically valid because of numerous conflicting properties he is supposed to have.

Point taken, I thought that his argument worked on the premise that if God exists, then he's immoral.

Our judgment is only flawed if we have an imperfect creator, but that point isn't assumed. If we don't have one then our judgment is much more valid.

Alright, but since regardless we clearly live in a fallen world, so I don't think we can assume our judgement is perfect in any case. That's going on a tangent though.

Also, the first two points are theological points. Theological points have no value unless they concur with ordinary experience, which those two don't. We're not assuming theology to be true, and seeing how it is only reasonable to accept theology if it is reasonable and concurs with ordinary experience, those points you raised are invalid in a debate where theology isn't assumed to be true.

I think my points apply, since they were raised in response to a theological question, after all. Additionally, number two in particular is valid regardless, since if death is the end, then letting someone suffer and die is a much different matter than if they go to heaven. As we are talking about the morality of God's decisions, that's important to take into account.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Holder, let me lay out a little Christian theology for you.

1. True love is impossible without the choice of rejecting said love (aka: evil). That's why there was the one command God gave Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit in the Garden of Eden, and when they rejected His love, that had consequences. Omnipotence is not without limits, even though God is all-powerful, you have to keep in mind that there are limits to that. You can't force someone to make a choice and still retain that choice, and that is why evil exists.

So what you're saying is, he made the fruit with the intention of being eaten since he wants this evil, if that is the case then why was there punishment, like Adam and Eve had to be the first sacrificial lambs for his plan that he could have set in motion to begin with if he omnipotently knew it was going to play out in such a manner, and that it created what you say is "true love".

What you are claiming God holds so highly is that his love is to be deniable, which is the most punishable act, so his love can be "true"? He condemns many many people so that this can be so, instead of perpetual happiness with no punishment. Just wanting to clarify.

One more thing, do you truly believe the world began with Adam or Eve? I'm assuming you do if you even mention in it debate, but if you do, how do you explain any of that? I have never heard an intellectual give a description as to how that story makes sense.

2. As far as the divine plan goes, you have to remember that there is a place called Heaven. Why doesn't God immediately crush all evil? Well, aside from point number 1 above, He wants to give them time to repent and be saved. Yes, there are some definite tragedies that happen due to evil in this life, but keep in mind that Heaven is there for Christians who die, and the worst things that happen in this life are completely outweighed by anything we get to experience in Heaven. There's just no contest. That's why the disciples were willing to undergo such persecution back in New Testament times, they knew those kinds of struggles built up for them a reward in Heaven, and so it was a win/win situation for them.

So now you are saying he allows evil so people can struggle with it for the sake of struggling, and all of this struggling, under all circumstances, is what allows all of this to make sense. Not to mention, that God chooses who is Christian and not, because he has set forth the situations everyone will be in, so some people have no choice but to never hear of it, or to hear of it properly, etc. So they are damned, but it is okay and outweighed because some people were granted a life that will grant them ultimate perfection and happiness. Which is strange, since in heaven it is a sinless place... which is where we lose these choices that you say we have. There would be certain things we couldn't think, some things we couldn't do physically (we're suppose to have spiritual bodies, but unless you can't touch each other, you can't hit one another or attack), you cannot say certain evil words, and you could not say something that isn't true, etc. You'd be less than half of what we were, and nothing would be "true". I know Heaven is typically not seen as a sinless place, but I do hear that a perfect heaven will eventually be made, banishing all forms of sin.

Basically, the purpose of life if the Christian God is real, is to either go to hell to punish so others can go to heaven, and if you can go to heaven, you get to lose all the freedom you had. In other words, people are made to either suffer eternally or suffer for a while before coming back to God. That seems completely superfluous, he should have just made life to live with him to begin with. That God is stupid and very twisted morally.[/QUOTE]

The two points above are why some of the acts God does would be very immoral for any human, and yet are just when he does them. It's much in the same way how if you were to kill someone for stealing, it's murder, but if a judge were to do the same, then it's simply a just execution.

That is the most God-awful thing I have ever heard anyone say. No single act can be done by two different beings and can be different morally simply by virtue of it being someone different. That is like a tyrannical king who does what he wants. Judge's don't even kill people the way God does, we have a trial system that usually leads to them being locked up, we rarely even see the sense in killing them. God uses no logic or trials and simply does it. If we were to run those incidents in trials today, people who did God-like things would either go to jail forever or receive a death penalty.

Seriously, you really need to think about that above quote of yours, that is really sickening. I haven't even heard other Christians say that, they simply say that he does only good or that he IS good and that is his being and thus nothing evil can be associated with him (I believe that is the answer to the Euthyphro dilemma in Plato's dialogue that most Christian philosophers go with. Though, that means he isn't omnipotent by your logic, and isn't even "truly" good or loving.

And if you want to call God immoral, I challenge you, from where do you draw your basis for morality? From society? There are some cultures (I'll just throw out the hypothetical suicidal cult example) that would almost definitely approve of any supposedly immoral act.

I draw my basis for morality from logic and nature. I don't draw from any religion or culture, I actually have very unconventional beliefs that I have come up with by simply cross-examining myself Socrates style. Society's beliefs probably contrast drastically to me. I disregard tradition and usually look for inconsistencies, primary inhibitors, etc. I don't see your point with this.

Also, if the creator of everything (including you!) is flawed and unjust, how could your moral compass possibly be perfect? In short, what gives you the right or ability to judge God? If He was truly that immoral, then considering His power, what would stop Him from just wiping the earth out completely?

First off, if the God is flawed and not perfect, he actually then doesn't exist, for he is described as being a perfect God. Proving the Christian God idea as immoral is a common way of disproving he exists entirely. If that is to be conceded, he is gone. But setting that aside, I have seen this argument before described as the following: "God being the potter, what right has the pots to question what the potter does?" I find this incredibly demeaning for us. If we are to assume such a stance, we must then question our understanding of ALL things, or even debate whether God WANTED us to judge him, do you see the aporia that is created by admitting us as mindless pots? Saying questioning is then useless not only cuts off all things we trust in, but also makes us have to question the idea to begin with.

But again, if Christian God is immoral, that is great proof for his nonexistence. Besides, theoretically if he could exist and still remain in a status of immorality, you have to remember one thing: he THINKS he is righteous. So he is going to continue doing what he thinks is right, do you say people who go around killing people he deems unfit, he might as well kill those he finds unfit? That doesn't quite follow.

Additionally, I know for a fact there are factors to these "immoral acts" that atheists accuse God of that they're often completely unaware of. For example, to take your instance of the kids and the bears, there were at least dozens of them (likely teenagers), yelling "GO AWAY" at the lone prophet. That's not some innocents playing in a field, that's a mob yelling threats. The exact number isn't determined, but there were at least 40 or so (as that's the number that died). We don't know the exact situation, but what if there were hundreds that were about to mob the prophet, and he called down the bears in self defense, which scared away most of them and killed the worst offenders? Would that really be so immoral on God's part? Yes, we don't know if that's how it happened, but to convict a human of a crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'd say that qualifies as reasonable doubt.

... Your morality is appalling. If you were almighty, and if I was among a group of people mocking someone and calling them a baldhead, you would send bears upon me to die a grueling death. There were precisely 42 killed. The prophet CURSED them in the name of the lord, the children were not attacking him. Most people seen it as insulting God by making fun of the prophet, which requires instant cruel death. If you were a God and I didn't like you, you'd do that to me? Really? Are you kidding me? You would have even GIVEN me the option to dislike you.

 

[Dre89]

Holder, the morality of an action is dependent on the actor.

A lion committing infanticide isn't immoral, in fact it is an evolutionary adaption. But if a human did that it would be considered immoral.

Although at the same time by Christian theology a lion isn't considered a rational agent accountable for his actions, whereas God and humans are according to the theology.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

So... you are refuting me but then retracting the refutation?

But yeah, that is the point. It isn't the actor deciding the morality, it is the WILL of the actor. Lion isn't parallel to God or us at all, not a good example. The lion does what it does out of instinct because it has no choice from the effect of what it is, not simply by virtue of "Lion-ness", baring "Godness" doesn't make my will any different with the action, and thus it remains morally the same. With the lion it doesn't carry over.

Lion =/= Human < God in terms of intellectual understanding, the latter two only being capable of moral understanding. The latter is suppose to have better, and as a result has an even worse time excusing itself when performing worse than a human would in the realm of morality.

 

[Cassio]

btw I cant believe someone actually argued Protestants returned to a purer interpretation of the bible. By a more pure interpretation you must mean taking a high-context document and giving it a low-context and personal interpretation, in that case I guess every rap artist mustve been playing pogs next to a donkey to resolve their turf disputes.

 

[Orboknown]

btw I cant believe someone actually argued Protestants returned to a purer interpretation of the bible. By a more pure interpretation you must mean taking a high-context document and giving it a low-context and personal interpretation, in that case I guess every rap artist mustve been playing pogs next to a donkey to resolve their turf disputes.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought it was protestants who went by "the bible is the only acceptable authority on God and his word". By that understanding, going to a purer interpretation is exactly what a protestant should be doing.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That is a fundamental problem (one of many) of the bible's layout that makes it absolutely impossible, and immoral and illogical in construction. This is not about how Jesus and God do grotesque things, or how there are discrepancies of accounts in the bible in relation to other accounts it also makes, or even its accounts with what actual history states, but it is about interpreting the bible. From that I don't even mean the 30,000 different denominations that were begotten as a result of different interpretations, I am talking about how it is intrinsically written out in such a manner.

How are we suppose to know not only how to interpret, but when? When is something literal? What right do we have to say one thing is literal or interpretive? How many meanings are there if it isn't literal? How many do we use?

I have heard an argument from a religious person that says if God is real, we are essentially mindless pots made from the potter, so who are we to question his holy words? By that same notion, who are not to question his words, as pots, how are we suppose to know that isn't what we're suppose to do? We don't know anything in this area!

 

[Orboknown]

That is a rather good point. The bible was written over thousands of years, by different people in different circumstances. Excluding the christian belief it was all inspired by God(Islam solves this by saying Allah spoke directly to Muhammad, but thats another story) how do we know what each writers intentions were?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It isn't even a matter of intentions, though that is highly conducive yes. They could have had the best intentions at heart, but we'll never know what they are specifically getting across. Even a hatred of homosexuality in Christianity has been debated as to how it was interpreted.

Having the Bible as it is, to be an eternal way of displaying truth and morality, is rather uncertain, which is illogical and not to mention immoral to expect us of that, irrespective of the immoral things that lie within it.

 

[Orboknown]

The thing that i meant to say is, The writers are the only people who know what they intended each book to mean, so without us knowing that it is rather impossible to interpret any hidden meanings in it. Its rather onvious not all of the book is meant to be taken literally(See the book of Revelations).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Who are you to say that though, is my point.

 

[Orboknown]

Who is anyone to say anything? My personal interpretation is what works for me, unless someone with authority on the subject that i trust enough to listen to convinces me otherwise.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

But what does that person gain authority from? A personal interpretation isn't good enough for knowing God's words, the truth, and how to behave for God to accept you.

 

[Orboknown]

A person gains authority in religious matters through being ordained. One's spiritual beliefs as regarding God are different from religious beliefs. And if one does not believeinlA certain faiths measures of being accepted by God, who is to say that persons beliefs aren't correct?(new formation of a religion there)

 

[Holder of the Heel]

A person gains authority in religious matters through being ordained. One's spiritual beliefs as regarding God are different from religious beliefs. And if one does not believeinlA certain faiths measures of being accepted by God, who is to say that persons beliefs aren't correct?(new formation of a religion there)

But who ordains that one that is ordained? And what is the criterion that must be met? And how do we know for sure that they truly fulfill it?

And that is a good question Orboknown. Who can tell you when you are wrong or right? No one. That is why the bible is a dangerous vacuum of phantasmagoria, when you can't tell reality from illuision, when trying to find the most powerful truth in an infinite amount of incorrect lies, and never really knowing if that powerful truth really exists or possess the ultimate morality that nothing else possesses, you are lost.

Do you know what is more dangerous than a person trying to commit evil? A person who believes the actions they commit are righteous in the name of the King of Kings who will grant paradise to your immortal soul attached to your slab of meat body. It isn't that what they do that is worse than an evil person, but how much they will pour into it and never stop, and how much it will spread, because such a pure dreamy idea is far more powerful than any rage. Bet sweet Jesus that is the truth.

 

[Orboknown]

paragraph 1-Depends on which religion you refer to. In catholicism the pope is st peters successor as Gods mouth on Earth. He holds Gods authority.(Hence why the pope is said to be infallible)
Paragraph two i agree with you and paragraph three, but especially

It isn't that what they do that is worse than an evil person, but how much they will pour into it and never stop

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yeah but who ordains the Pope? My question poses an infinite regress as in we can never get "true" judgment from an ordained individual if it takes an ordained individual to ordain them.

 

[Orboknown]

The cardinals gather together in prayer and fast until God reveals jis next selection. Thats the catholic theological perspective on it. Hence, God appoints his Pope.
But in non-theological manners, one has authority if a majority say he does.

 

[GwJ]

I don't think the only authorities that can interpret he bible are ordained people. We've seen what happens when only priests know what's actually in the bible and what's not.

Hint: It's not an honest interpretation.

Interpreting the bible is weird, because you can either take it literally, metaphorically, or a mix.

If you take it literally, you don't need any authority at all.

If you take it all metaphorically or a mix, then the religion becomes a personal thing and the only person who can have authority over that is you and whoever else has the same exact interpretation as you (which is almost no one if anyone at all).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Not to mention the difficulty one finds when they interpret the bible subjectively when what the bible proposes is entirely objective, it is fundamentally illogical in nature.

Also, to address Orbo's last post, that still doesn't answer the infinite regress, because God has no way of picking anyone, he doesn't let his presence be known, even on the assumption he exists.

 

[Dre89]

You guys make out that interpretting the Bible in different ways are all equally valid.

The Bible, which was put together by Catholics, was only meant be believed to be the word of God because the Church said it was. Belief in the Bible was a teaching of the Church

This is why it's stupid that Protestants have a Scripture exclusive interpretation. It's also logically fallacious, seeing as the only thing which can verify the idea that Scripture the sole authority is Scripture itself, which is circular.

 

[GofG]

Yeah but who ordains the Pope? My question poses an infinite regress as in we can never get "true" judgment from an ordained individual if it takes an ordained individual to ordain them.

I don't think it's infinite regress. Jesus Christ had true judgement, and he ordained Peter as the first pope.

 

[Nicholas1024]

You guys make out that interpretting the Bible in different ways are all equally valid.

The Bible, which was put together by Catholics, was only meant be believed to be the word of God because the Church said it was. Belief in the Bible was a teaching of the Church

This is why it's stupid that Protestants have a Scripture exclusive interpretation. It's also logically fallacious, seeing as the only thing which can verify the idea that Scripture the sole authority is Scripture itself, which is circular.

Alright, I'll try this one last time.

We'll define C to be first century Christianity, whatever Jesus actually taught.

We'll call Catholic Tradition T, and Scripture (as in the bible) S.

Since S was written in the first century, it's very unlikely that there was significant corruption via legend, and therefore S is a subset of C.

T was compiled through (I think? Not that familiar with Catholic teachings) 3rd century onwards. Due to the larger time difference, there is a significant chance of corruption. (To prove it can happen, there's various false gospels dating 2nd century onwards, which disagree with both Protestant and Catholic teachings.) Therefore T is less reliable than S.

Additionally, T mentions many different things that are not in S at all, nor other Christian writings from the same time period as S. In fact, some elements of T (Papal infallibility, indulgences) are directly contradictory with some elements of S. Therefore T is unreliable.

Considering the various number of writings we have from the early church, it's almost certain that any major points of C would have been written down within a century or so. Therefore, S = C, and QED!


In short, it's not that Protestants have a scripture exclusive interpretation, it's that they consider the scripture to be more reliable and consistent than Catholic tradition, and note that with the amount of scripture available it's likely to contain everything important from Christian tradition.

 

[Dre89]

If T is corrupt, then S would be corrupt too, seeing as T compiled S and were the ones to say it was the word of God.

So you basically believe S is the word of God, because a faulty organisation told you to, then reject what told you it's the word of God and claim S is self-verifying without being logically fallacious.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Objection. Although T compiled S, C produced S. If a bunch of prestigious universities went to make a list of great musicians (Mozart, Bach, etc.), does that actually make them great? Of course not. If said universities turn out to be complete idiots with respect to music, does that detract from Mozart and Bach's greatness? Again, no. The gospels were included in the new testament because they were trustworthy, including them didn't suddenly make them trustworthy. Additionally, T changed over time. I'm not completely familiar with T, but I don't think corruption set in until a while after S was compiled.

Additionally, although inerrancy is a protective doctrine wrt Christianity, it is not an essential one. It is completely possible to be Christian and look at the gospels simply as biographies of Jesus written by his closest followers.

In short, your analysis of the situation is over-simplified, and fails to take into account several factors. T did not create S, C created S which was later compiled by T, which much later was shown to have developed into something corrupt.

 

[Dre89]

There is evidence that the Eucharist was considered the real presence as far back as 106 AD, which according to you is still the C era. I've shown Jaswa the source.

Now this is a teaching that you consider to be faulty and associate with the T era. Now seeing that is a C era teaching, that means either that T and C are the same thing, or that C is corrupt too.

And you still haven't explained how a Scripture exclusive (SE) interpretation isn't circular. Not only that, not only did Jesus not advocate this interpretation (which would still be cirular anyway, since the source would still be S), but he himself didn't write things down. He did his teachings the T way.

So what you are saying is that Jesus was a SEer, yet he didn't say this in the S, didn't write anything down, and entrusted the documentation of his teachings to an institution which he knew would turn corrupt in the future. How is that logical to believe?

 

[Cassio]

How are we suppose to know not only how to interpret, but when? When is something literal? What right do we have to say one thing is literal or interpretive? How many meanings are there if it isn't literal? How many do we use?

It isn't even a matter of intentions, though that is highly conducive yes. They could have had the best intentions at heart, but we'll never know what they are specifically getting across. Even a hatred of homosexuality in Christianity has been debated as to how it was interpreted.

Woaahhh now hold your horses. Theres definitely a good idea for what the context behind the bible is. Its not just the bible, any primary article from history needs to be analyzed for the context it was written in, and historians tend to do a pretty darn good job. The Bible isnt any different in this sense, what does make it different is that your average joe attempts to read it without appreciating the historical context that exists, and so you get a lot of screwed up interpretations and new denominations based on what 'john smith' decided to take from it because people in general dont understand that text usually has context.

The Catholic church has spent centuries analyzing its historical context, so they actually have very good idea of what its original meaning is.

In short, it's not that Protestants have a scripture exclusive interpretation, it's that they consider the scripture to be more reliable and consistent than Catholic tradition, and note that with the amount of scripture available it's likely to contain everything important from Christian tradition.

lol, theres no way to word this without sounding mean. Protestants are the worst culprits in removing historical context from the bible, and taking literal interpretations of its text.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Uhh... yeah no, they have very little idea how to understand things. Not only have there been roughly over 35,000 official denominations (those that we have recorded) in history, which shows how not very sure they are. Many philosopher's even spent hours on end trying to find when and how to interpret something and find when there is a hidden meaning and find out what it is, yeah they all came up with their own answers, but it is arbitrary to know if they succeeded in obtaining the original message, let alone know precisely how to look for the hidden meanings in the text. And unfortunately, as I said, it is a bit arbitrary to decide when to do this or that, regardless of their position, it is hard to show how it can be otherwise. It is obvious we interpret texts, but never have people struggled to do so, never have we tried to do so with something that people put their principles and facts about life in, and never have we fought over what to discriminate against, etc. It isn't a matter if people are "doing a pretty darn good job", because that doesn't even mean anything, it is baseless to even say someone is doing a good job or not, and you can't prove otherwise.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Holder
You know what most of the big splits in theology are? They're over what stuff like the finer details of what exactly happens at end times, basically topics in which the Bible only touches on in brief ( stuff like the rapture and when/whether it happens), and there isn't much evidence at all to go on. It'd be like the scientific community trying to puzzle out an evolutionary line with just a couple fossils, of course there's going to be tons of different theories going around.

@Cassio
Seriously, if you want to make that claim you have to back it up. What context is being eliminated here?

@Dre
Question, would first century writings not included in the Bible be considered tradition or scripture?

 

[Dre89]

Well it's obviously Scripture because it's a written document, but it's also Tradition because it was done by the institution.

Either way it doesn't really matter. This is a belief which you consider faulty, yet was held by the institution at the time you considered it to be legitimate.

 

[Nicholas1024]

But hang on a second. Part of the reason the Bible is considered trustworthy is because the first century church more or less unanimously supported the various books. Therefore, that gives us some first century tradition to work with, which then in turn supports scripture, which keeps the "The Bible is trustworthy" claim from being circular.

Also, a couple other notes. First off, although many people do hold that the Bible is infallible, that's not a central part of Christian doctrine, and it's entirely reasonable to look at the Bible for what it is in the most literal sense: A collection of books written by various authors, which are almost definitely reliable by standard historical analysis, plus their agreement with the other most reliable books and support from first century tradition.

Finally, could I get a source involving that Eucharist claim? I'm unfamiliar with it. However, I would like to note that just because it was written down early, that doesn't make it part of Christian tradition (although it is a rather important point in its favor.) There are false gospels that neither Catholics nor Protestants recognize as reliable as early as the second century, and there's also reports of the disciples combating false teachings in the Bible itself.

 

[Dre89]

But that Church then turned corrupt.

You're acting as if C and T are two diferent institutions, they're not. C became corrupt.

The corruption comes into play now because you played the 'Bible isn't self-verifying because of the Church that put it together' card.

You lose either way. Either C verifies itself, which is circular, or a corrupt institution verifies it, which is also logically fallacious.

Saying that C wasn't corrupt at the time means nothing because at this point you have nothing to measure what teachings are considered corrupt and what aren't. Saying 'C's teachings reflect S closest' is arbitrary and fallacious because it was C who made that S.

Besides that, C isn't infallible because it turned into T.


The source is in my theology unit reader from uni. I looked through it quickly but I couldn't find the quote and the specific source. I'll look again later. I've showed it to Jaswa though, so he can back me up if I can get him to come back here.

And it wasn't a false gospel, it said that Christians of the time believed in the real presence, and it was considered a heresy not to. So it was more historical than theological.

And meeting standard historical requirement simply isn't good enough for something that claims the supernatural. Historical reliability is about probability. We're more likely to believe an event referenced by ten sources than we are by one. We're more likely to believe an event documented ten years after the event occured than one documented 300 years after. The supernatural, however, is by definition the most improbable explanation for any event. In fact the only reason why the supernatural isn't impossible is because the physical laws are contingent. So the evidence required for the Bible sky rockets due to the astronomical improbability of its events actually happening.

 

[Nicholas1024]

But that Church then turned corrupt.

You're acting as if C and T are two diferent institutions, they're not. C became corrupt.

The corruption comes into play now because you played the 'Bible isn't self-verifying because of the Church that put it together' card.

You lose either way. Either C verifies itself, which is circular, or a corrupt institution verifies it, which is also logically fallacious.

Saying that C wasn't corrupt at the time means nothing because at this point you have nothing to measure what teachings are considered corrupt and what aren't. Saying 'C's teachings reflect S closest' is arbitrary and fallacious because it was C who made that S.

Besides that, C isn't infallible because it turned into T.

That argument requires that I assume inerrancy. By discarding inerrancy (which as I've said isn't a central part of Christian theology anyway), I can sidestep the entire issue, by considering S and T different records of C, and then applying standard historical tests to determine which is more likely (which comes out FAR more in favor of S than T).

Anyway, I have a question. If we take a "valid" religion such as Islam, and then assume that 1000 years from now its leaders end up teaching something completely different, would that invalidate the present day form of Islam in your eyes?

The source is in my theology unit reader from uni. I looked through it quickly but I couldn't find the quote and the specific source. I'll look again later. I've showed it to Jaswa though, so he can back me up if I can get him to come back here.

And it wasn't a false gospel, it said that Christians of the time believed in the real presence, and it was considered a heresy not to. So it was more historical than theological.

Could you explain a bit more on this? (Not so much the source as the doctrine itself and the evidence behind said doctrine) As I've said, I don't really know much about it.

And meeting standard historical requirement simply isn't good enough for something that claims the supernatural. Historical reliability is about probability. We're more likely to believe an event referenced by ten sources than we are by one. We're more likely to believe an event documented ten years after the event occured than one documented 300 years after. The supernatural, however, is by definition the most improbable explanation for any event. In fact the only reason why the supernatural isn't impossible is because the physical laws are contingent. So the evidence required for the Bible sky rockets due to the astronomical improbability of its events actually happening.

This was kind of my point. The Bible far exceeds standard historical requirement, does the Eucharist documents (or whatever it is) also satisfy?

 

[Dre89]

But Christianity says the Bible is the infallible word of God. Saying that it isn't would be considered heresy.

The T vs S argument is exactly where your justification goes wrong. Even if S is superior to T, you have no reason to believe C in the first place.

You have to remember what you're asking the neutral to believe. You're asking them to believe that Jesus believed Scripture was the most superior form of preserving the word of God. Despite this, he didn't write anything down himself, and entrusted the documentation of his campaign to a faulty institution.

You also want the neutral to believe that C was a valid source, when it later turned corrupt.

You're argument is fallacious because you say S is superior to T. You then say what validates S is C. But C turned into T. So you're reason for why S is superior to T, actually commits the same fallacy as T.

The Islam question doesn't really work because I already consider Islam invalid for the similar reasons as to why I consider Christianity invalid.

As for the source, it wasn't really doctrine, it was simply commentating that belief in the real presence was the standard belief back then, and believing otherwise was considered heresy. As I said before it's more historical than theological. I don't know about the actual initial doctrine that said to believe in the real presence.

 

[Cassio]

Uhh... yeah no, they have very little idea how to understand things. Not only have there been roughly over 35,000 official denominations (those that we have recorded) in history, which shows how not very sure they are. Many philosopher's even spent hours on end trying to find when and how to interpret something and find when there is a hidden meaning and find out what it is, yeah they all came up with their own answers, but it is arbitrary to know if they succeeded in obtaining the original message, let alone know precisely how to look for the hidden meanings in the text. And unfortunately, as I said, it is a bit arbitrary to decide when to do this or that, regardless of their position, it is hard to show how it can be otherwise. It is obvious we interpret texts, but never have people struggled to do so, never have we tried to do so with something that people put their principles and facts about life in, and never have we fought over what to discriminate against, etc. It isn't a matter if people are "doing a pretty darn good job", because that doesn't even mean anything, it is baseless to even say someone is doing a good job or not, and you can't prove otherwise.

Youre using nonsense interpretations to justify that the bible is unable to be interpreted. If I interpret 1984 to be a story on the benefits of a totalitarian society does 1984 suddenly lose its meaning from having multiple interpretations?

The bible is still a historical document, just like any other old text context its been researched by historians who can pull context from its authors and the society and culture it was written by and for. How do you believe any historical document, many of which are considerably older than the bible, are ever understood correctly?

Seriously, if you want to make that claim you have to back it up. What context is being eliminated here?

Well as an example, middle eastern culture is very different from western. Anyone doing justice to the bible will add this context into their interpretation. I suppose Im only speaking from experience, but Im unaware of protestant denominations that do this while the Catholic church does. Feel free to correct me on the protestant denominations that do so. I suppose the bigger point is that simply relying on the bible as a reliable source is not enough.

 

[Dre89]

Cassio- The reason why people are so hesitant to accept the Bible as historically reliable is because it speaks of supernatural phenomena.

If it didn't do that most skeptics wouldn't be so hesitant to accept it as historically reliable.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

1984 is not a very parallel example, it isn't to be taken as something factual or something that is suppose to give you objective meaning and goals. The Bible tries to do this, and it fails terribly to meet the standards of such, philosophy books describing ethics do a better job in giving value and morality to a person than that book does, and it even claims to be the word of some infallible being. As for history books, there aren't innumerable ways to help induct the Bible like history, and there aren't innumerable accounts of things in history, and history also doesn't tell you how to live your life, you fail to realize it is immeasurably more difficult to put stock in the Bible as opposed to history, that goes without even mentioning all of the supernatural and illogical properties it possesses and other factors.