About other gods-question for theists

[Jenny A]

Listen. Evaluate. Learn.

In order to evaluate the excerpt properly I'd like to listen to the full debate. I'm sure Bart Ehrman didn't agree with Craig Evan's line of reasoning. Mr Evans mentioned a few textual variances which don't declare any doctrine that's not supported by other verses in the bible. He talks of "hundreds of thousands" of mistakes in transcription. He failed to mention whether or not these "errors" changed any doctrine. That would have been a strong argument for his position if they had. What were the quality of the errors? Were they mostly leaving out an inconsequential word? How many actually changed the meaning of the verse? When the dead sea scrolls were discovered they found ancient copies of old testament scriptures, and experts were amazed that they read almost identical with copies 900 years apart. No meaning had been changed. He cited a couple of verses that were considered textual variances concerning the trinity and the divinity of Jesus as if these were the only verses that supported these doctrines. If I am to believe in an omnipotent God who created the universe, I'm surely going to believe that he can assure that his word is passed from generation to generation without changing what he wants to be contained in that word. And it doesn't have to be by ensuring that no transcription errors occur. I love how God uses imperfect humans to carry out his work. You say "if there's a transcription error that kills it all." I get a kick out of how you guys jump all over fundamentalist christians, but when you try to interpret scripture you interpret it in a wooden literal sense far more strictly than the most fundamental of fundamentalists.

The reason I posted the video for you is because it explains why it is that we are really really sure that the authors attributed to the gospels are not the authors.

But by all means listen to the whole debate. I did: Bart Ehrman vs Craig Evans Whole Debate on "Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?" It's about an hour and a half long.

As to whether these things matter? They matter to me when someone tells me the Bible is divinely inspired and proves god. They also matter when trying to see how Christianity evolved.

Whether it matters to you and why depends on how much and in what way your faith depends upon the Bible. Miss-transcription of the Bible or even proof that is a miss-transcribed second -hand account certainly doesn't prove there was no Jesus. But it may alter your view of him or how much you think you know about him.

[psychoslice]

Because Jesus speaks to their hearts, silly! :p

But why Jesus silly ???.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

My view is all knowledge of the authors had faded away with time, and no one preserved this knowledge (as far as I know).

An English committee formatted the current stories using bits and pieces from earlier manuscripts.

[Confused Ape]

A question for Christians about another deity.

Odin Sacrifices Himself To Himself To Gain Knowledge Of Runes

Odin is attributed with discovering the runes. In a sacrifice to himself, the highest of the gods, he was hanged from the world tree Yggdrasil for nine days and nights, pierced by his own spear, in order to learn the wisdom that would give him power in the nine worlds. Nine is a significant number in Norse magical practice (there were, for example, nine realms of existence), thereby learning nine (later 18) magical songs and 18 magical runes.

Do you believe this? After all, runes really exist.

Runes

Runes (Proto-Norse: ᚱᚢᚾᛟ (runo), Old Norse: rún) are the letters in a set of related alphabets known as runic alphabets, which were used to write various Germanic languages before the adoption of the Latin alphabet and for specialised purposes thereafter. The Scandinavian variants are also known as futhark or fuþark (derived from their first six letters of the alphabet: F, U, Þ, A, R, and K); the Anglo-Saxon variant is futhorc or fuþorc (due to sound changes undergone in Old English by the same six letters).

[ignoramus]

This is worse than Where's Wally!

[Lek]

The reason I posted the video for you is because it explains why it is that we are really really sure that the authors attributed to the gospels are not the authors.

As to whether these things matter? They matter to me when someone tells me the Bible is divinely inspired and proves god. They also matter when trying to see how Christianity evolved.

Whether it matters to you and why depends on how much and in what way your faith depends upon the Bible. Miss-transcription of the Bible or even proof that is a miss-transcribed second -hand account certainly doesn't prove there was no Jesus. But it may alter your view of him or how much you think you know about him.

Okay. That makes sense.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does it really make that much more sense coming from a pro like him than one of us saying the bible smells of bullshit?

No, not really, it's the work that he's done that can be shown - that grants him any measure of authority on the matter. It's not some personally vested quality. Anybody can call bullshit on just about anything, the part that matters is the "and this is why".

One of the more amusing things about Ehrman, and another user danced around the periphery of it, is that "respected scholars" generally agree with Ehrmans research - they just don't agree with his conclusions. "Respected scholars" being, in this case, fairly loaded with jesus freaks. It's difficult to outright deny his evidence (because there is so little - and he uses the same stuff that everyone else does) while arguing some other point about christ or the authorship and history of the gospels. While no one -has- to spend thirty years to figure out whether or not there's a fairy at the bottom of the garden, isn't it nice to know that someone did it anyway? - And that it didn't have to be you.

[orangebox21]

Getting back to the original point of this thread. . . .?

Which is: why choose one God over another?

The question I have to ask is would you ever turn yourself in such mental knots to defend the truth of any other book?

Yes. I believe logic to be reliable despite the numerous 'alleged contradictions' logicians and philosophers have amoungst themselves.

Having been a former apologist myself, it is useless trying to convince a convicted apologist that there are contradictions in the Bible as they always figure out how to explain away the discrepancies.

I used to rely on the "explanation" that Luke's genealogy of Jesus is Mary's as well in order to explain away the difference in names between the two genealogies listed in the NT.

An absurd and unwarranted explanation, but yeah.

I'm not 'explaining away the difference' in names between the two geneaologies, I admit there is a difference in names. I'm merely pointing out that one list of names is Jesus' ancestors on His father's side, and one list of names is His ancestors on His mother's side. Do you deny the accuracy of the lists?

The existence of a difference does not necessitate an irreconcilable contradiction.

-as a former apologist, care to put that idea to the test? I have a discrepency in mind. The discrepency between what we might call our observational experience of reality and what we might call a religious experience of reality. If you can explain why our experiences and observations cannot be trusted, with regards to religion - whilst our experience of religion -can- be trusted...simultaneously.........without invoking solipsim (thereby creating more questions while answering none) - then I'll concede.

Could you clarify what you mean in saying that our 'experiences and observations cannot be trusted, with regards to religion - whilst our experience of religion -can- be trusted?'

Please define what you mean by solipsim.

[The Grand Nudger]

Could you clarify what you mean in saying that our 'experiences and observations cannot be trusted, with regards to religion - whilst our experience of religion -can- be trusted?'

-as only one possible route to demolishing my opinion of the matter, by no means the only or the most conclusive, I'll elaborate.

When considering apologetics, I'm often being asked to trust the experience of the apologist. In this case, anyone who want's to give me a good bit of hellfire and brimstone and vicarious redemption. If not direct experience, I'm being asked to trust the experience of some other. I am given no common ground or objective point from which to reason other than one of these two choices. The discussion can't even begin until I assume their experiences (or the experiences they refer to) to be in some measure, accurate, authoritative, or informative.

I couldn't tell you if this problem arises out of the fundamental nature of a "god argument" or simply because of the lack of imagination in those who might propose one - but there it is (and I suspect the latter). Demanded by that assumption, and implied within it - is that our experiences are unreliable (mine, specifically). In a rather mystifying way...that same axe doesn't seem to have fallen on the experiences of others (themselves, specifically) -as expounded upon above..

Sure, they may offer plenty of examples as to why they assume their experience to be valid whilst mine is not - but I doubt I'd have to go through with you line by line for you to imagine my opinion of that list of excuses. The effect, from my POV - is that nothing is being offered beyond

"Hey atheist, don't trust your experience - trust mine"

Clearly, I have a fundamental bone to pick with that one.

Please define what you mean by solipsim.

Sure.

-is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind.

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

[orangebox21]

Could you clarify what you mean in saying that our 'experiences and observations cannot be trusted, with regards to religion - whilst our experience of religion -can- be trusted?'

-as only one possible route to demolishing my opinion of the matter, by no means the only or the most conclusive, I'll elaborate.

When considering apologetics, I'm often being asked to trust the experience of the apologist. In this case, anyone who want's to give me a good bit of hellfire and brimstone and vicarious redemption. If not direct experience, I'm being asked to trust the experience of some other. I am given no common ground or objective point from which to reason other than one of these two choices. The discussion can't even begin until I assume their experiences (or the experiences they refer to) to be in some measure, accurate, authoritative, or informative.

I couldn't tell you if this problem arises out of the fundamental nature of a "god argument" or simply because of the lack of imagination in those who might propose one - but there it is (and I suspect the latter). Demanded by that assumption, and implied within it - is that our experiences are unreliable (mine, specifically). In a rather mystifying way...that same axe doesn't seem to have fallen on the experiences of others (themselves, specifically) -as expounded upon above..

Sure, they may offer plenty of examples as to why they assume their experience to be valid whilst mine is not - but I doubt I'd have to go through with you line by line for you to imagine my opinion of that list of excuses. The effect, from my POV - is that nothing is being offered beyond

"Hey atheist, don't trust your experience - trust mine"

Clearly, I have a fundamental bone to pick with that one.

Thanks for the clarification. I do understand your position better as a result. I'm not sure if you'll agree or not, but I would propose that due to the inconsistency of personal experiences, they aren't to be considered the ultimate standard by which truth should be judged. That's not to say they (experiences) don't hold value or explanatory power. It is to say, as you've stated, assuming the basic functioning and reliability of our senses the argument stating that your (human) experience is not to be trusted, but my (human) experience is to be trusted is self-refuting. I think there are more variables involved in the argument, but as you've stated it, I see your point.

So that I can further understand how your position applies please explain. With respect to the alleged contradiction between the geneaologies listed in Matthew and Luke. When I say that one is a geneaology tracing the paternal line and one is a geneology tracing the maternal line, how am I asking you to 'assume my experience' as a starting point and as a result giving you 'no common ground or objective point from which to reason.' It seems to me my experience is irrelevant to these statements and you could simply begin reasoning by evalutating the truth value of my two statements (do the geneaologies follow the lines I have proposed).

Please define what you mean by solipsim.

Sure.

-is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind.

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

Thanks.

In listening to a lecture I heard 'rationalism' explained by this definition as well. Is solipsism the same thing as rationalism? If not, how do they differ.