Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[pocaracas]

EGA graphics... good lord...

Actually, CGA!
EGA?... you wish!

[Tonus]

I had filed away any references to CGA so that I'd never remember it again!

[Angrboda]

My entire life I've been a push over, because that's what I thought god wanted from me. Turn the other cheek, never standing up for myself. I was bullied, but always thought reacting in love would be the best punishment for them. Turns out, not so. Now that I've come into my own and learned to stand up for myself and be assertive (within reason of course), I have a better self esteem and lots of truly great close friends. So that "turn the other cheek" isn't always for the best. Yes, there are moments when it's the best course of action, but I like being free to decide when that is.

From the Wikipedia:
"Tit for tat is an English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation". It is also a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma."

The tit for tat strategy has been shown to be productive in certain constrained versions of competition. However, in other models of competition more closely resembling real life, it's not so clear that it is the most productive strategy. Indeed, psychologically, we tend to "over punish" defectors in real life instances of social behavior, even when doing so is objectively against our own self-interest. So it would seem that in real life, there are things going on that aren't adequately accounted for by this example from game theory.

[Bucky Ball]

As Requested


Ok, here's my problem. This is what clinched it for me.

Red is not purple.

Matthew says that the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says that “they clothed Him with purple ” (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put “a purple robe” on Him (19:1-2)

I've heard any number of takes on this and none of them are convincing.

Matthew could have been colourblind. Fine, but that means the human limitations of the authors have to be allowed for. Which means someone else might have written something wrong because of perspective.

It could be that one has to COMBINE the gospels to get to the truth. In which case we have a bible which all together leaves us a robe 2/3rds of the way between purple and red. Which is a different colour which is NOT RED AND NOT PURPLE. Read any one gospel and its wrong.

Or we could go down the route that it was a FADED red robe which was starting to look purple. In which case it wasn't red any more.

Some people have it that the romans used the same word for red AND purple. Bully for them. We don't. Red is not purple. Purple is not red.

I've read (ha) a few other explanations but fundamentally it boils down very simply. Red and purple are different. Thus if it was one thing, it was not the other thing. And if it was a THIRD thing (purply red or reddish purple) then it was NEITHER red nor purple.

That's it. Red is not purple.

Actually Red is purple. Rather Purple is a mixture of two primary colors blue and RED.

More over the color being described is what we now call tyrian purple (As it was the only known source for that color in the region durning that time.) Tryian purple would be considered a majenta which is a cross between light red and purple. and depending on how long one's eyes were exposed to direct sun light will determine how that particular person would ultimatly see or identify this color.
The Link below gives to color ranges for tyrian purple. and one looks scarlet and the other maybe a magenta which I would identify as purple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple

So both are correct from their own POVs.

Ooooohhh Drich the Stupid tries to use a big word.
Except it's "moreover", and Tryrian is capitalized.
Did this guy gradumatate from Third Grade ?

[Minimalist]

Obviously a victim of home-schooling, eh Bucky?

[Rampant.A.I.]

*magenta

[ThomM]

As Requested


Ok, here's my problem. This is what clinched it for me.

Red is not purple.

Matthew says that the soldiers “put a scarlet robe” on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says that “they clothed Him with purple ” (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put “a purple robe” on Him (19:1-2)

I've heard any number of takes on this and none of them are convincing.

Matthew could have been colourblind. Fine, but that means the human limitations of the authors have to be allowed for. Which means someone else might have written something wrong because of perspective.

It could be that one has to COMBINE the gospels to get to the truth. In which case we have a bible which all together leaves us a robe 2/3rds of the way between purple and red. Which is a different colour which is NOT RED AND NOT PURPLE. Read any one gospel and its wrong.

Or we could go down the route that it was a FADED red robe which was starting to look purple. In which case it wasn't red any more.

Some people have it that the romans used the same word for red AND purple. Bully for them. We don't. Red is not purple. Purple is not red.

I've read (ha) a few other explanations but fundamentally it boils down very simply. Red and purple are different. Thus if it was one thing, it was not the other thing. And if it was a THIRD thing (purply red or reddish purple) then it was NEITHER red nor purple.

That's it. Red is not purple.

While I find that particular point pretty petty on which to base the lack of belief - one needs only to actually read the bible - read it and understand it - to see just how it is convoluted - contradictory - and has numerous factual errors - some coming supposedly directly from the christ itself.

I prefer to ask = what were the last words of the christ on the cross?
Why is it that there is no agreement on that.

I prefer to refer to 1 Timothy 2 - and point out that according to the christ - women are supposed to be Submissive - Silent - and bear children because of the sin of "EVE" - when we KNOW that the story of adam and eve is a fairy tale.

I prefer to refer to the story of the christ wandering the desert - when the devil took him to a high place from which HE could see ALL the kingdoms of the earth - when the god would have known that cannot be true - there is NO such place on earth from which you can see ALL of the kingdoms mentioned in the bible at that point. AND since that story can have only TWO sources - the devil - or the christ - why would the christ LIE about it?
OR why did they include a devil sourced part of the bible?

The problem is that there are simply TOO many of these things to accept the bible as being true. Once you accept that there are things in the bible that are not true - then the "truth" of the rest of the bible rests with the proof NOT IN THE BIBLE - and we have NOT a single piece of evidence from the supposed time of the christ that even mentions his name.


However - the basic problem I have with the religion is somehow XTIANS are incapable of living a good - honorable - moral - and ethical life without the bribe of eternal reward. AS a sentient intelligent human - I am capable of living such a life for the most basic reason - it is the correct thing to do. THE need for a reward negates the action.

ANd if a truly intelligent god actually did exist - it would know that too.

[Jacob(smooth)]

The color is indeed petty, but there is a reason I picked that.

All the other contradictions you mentioned are more involved, more complex. The more elements involved, the easier it is to rationalise, or explain it away by context, hermeneutics etc. The last words of Jesus is a good one, and I raised it on this very thread.

The point of the red / Purple thing is not its significance, it's it's simplicity. An explanation with turn "red is not purple" into "red IS purple" is much harder to to accept than one which explains Timothy s letter as context based or misunderstood.

[Esquilax]

The point of the red / Purple thing is not its significance, it's it's simplicity. An explanation with turn "red is not purple" into "red IS purple" is much harder to to accept than one which explains Timothy s letter as context based or misunderstood.

The problem you'll face there is that christian apologetics is the enemy of language, and as deeply wrong as "red and purple are the same color," sounds to you, it'll sound perfectly fine to an apologist or those willing to accept the word of one, simply because to them, words mean whatever they need to in order to preserve the bible.

This is just another one of those things that's only convincing if you let your views be shaped by the evidence, rather than shaping the evidence to fit your views.

[Jacob(smooth)]

However - the basic problem I have with the religion is somehow XTIANS are incapable of living a good - honorable - moral - and ethical life without the bribe of eternal reward. AS a sentient intelligent human - I am capable of living such a life for the most basic reason - it is the correct thing to do. THE need for a reward negates the action. 

This is not a good argument because it can't be tested. The scientific principle is to generate a falsifiable hypothesis, yes? This hypothesis is not falsifiable because eternal reward is integral to Christianity. Thus whether a Christian was capable of living a moral life without eternal reward or not, you could never tell.

I'm very recently not considering myself a Christian. I consider I'm living a moralish life. One month ago you'd have said that I was living a moral ethical life because of an eternal reward, but was I? Or was I living a moral life anyway, irrespective of eternal reward. How many Christians are there like that?

Youre incorrectly inferring the NEED for reward for the presence of it.