Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

Are you describing your moral system?  I thought you were a "because christ" guy, not a "because we evolved to do it" guy....?  We're omnivores...too, you don't see me running out to roast people on a spit.

The fuck is wrong with you?

I'm sorry, since I am so stupid and you are so smart I assumed that you would be able to tell when I was stepping into your worldview to say something. I'll talk slower and be more clear.

I'm telling you there is no agreed upon moral system among humans, as evidenced by the fact that you and I don't agree on morality.

[pocaracas]

There is still something wrong on your end. Use the "Preview post" button to check what you wrote.


About Peter's Gospel, you don't seem to have ever read it...
Here's a version of it: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...brown.html

Here's some more stuff:
The crucifixion takes place in Rome, not Jerusalem.

Wrong.
It has no mention of Rome at all.
It mentions that it was dark in all Judea.... that he was buried in the "Garden of Joseph"...
I'd say it's implicit that it's in Jerusalem.

Joseph of Arimathea is said to be a personal friend of Pontius Pilate.

He is said to be a friend... perhaps on the same level as "the Lord", perhaps not. It is unclear.
"But Joseph, the friend of Pilate and of the Lord, had been standing there"

Jesus is “taken up” from the cross, and His death is not mentioned.

I read that as euphemism.

"And the Lord screamed out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up.
[20] And at the same hour the veil of the Jerusalem sanctuary was torn into two. [21] And they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord and placed him on the earth"

Clearly, he was still attached to the cross after being "taken up".

Two supernatural beings enter the tomb, and three emerge.

And they were seen by the guards who then swore never to tell anyone about it... but somehow the writer knows about that. Curious, huh?

The cross is described as floating out of the tomb and saying “Yes” to a voice from heaven.

No, it is not.
Where did you get this idea?

There is no mention of witnesses seeing Jesus alive after He was dragged out of the tomb.

Oh, shucks... It's like the original gospel of Mark with a bit more, but not the whole story like it then came to be.
Couldn't someone have done to Peter's gospel the same that they did to Mark's?

Also, no one but no one thinks it's authentic. This would fall under scholarly consensus: believers and unbelievers alike think this is a forgery. I don't think you're advocating its authenticity, though.

Are any of them authentic?
At best, you have agreement that some of Paul's letters were written by the same person whom we can call Paul.
Everything else is dubious, at best.

This is where I get most hung up. What about this theory is provable? You're looking back through time and telling me what people 2000 years ago thought without producing evidence, like a letters between Christians that affirm what you're saying. Why would I agree to this over just accepting what's written in the Bible? And I mean that as a real question, not a rhetorical challenge.

I did say explicitly that I was presenting you a guess.
It would be expectable that the religion that ended up prevailing in Turkey+Greece would have ensured that any writing against it would be "lost". So no, I don't have any writing from the period of 60CE to 300CE that attest to anything I guessed.
There are, however, many writings from many times and many places that tell stories that you would not accept as factual. However, you do accept the particular story of the collection that is the bible.
Even though, for those other stories, there are also several versions of the same story written by several people. Let's give you the example of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
For me, both Gilgamesh and the Bible are equally believable. For you, one is more trustworthy. Why?

There is so many assumptions weaved into what you say. This is the most cynical, skeptical, biased way to look at the development of the NT canon.

And yet, it may as well been like I say.

We know, nowadays, that Paul's Christianity is pretty much the one that ended up becoming the Catholic Christianity.
It is explicit that Paul never even met Jesus, so what reason is there to trust his version of things?

From https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christian..._b_2200409:
‘‘The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity, namely that Christ is God "born in the flesh", that his sacrificial death atones for the sins of humankind, and that his resurrection from the dead guarantees eternal life to all who believe, can be traced back to Paul—not to Jesus. Indeed, the spiritual union with Christ through baptism, as well as the "communion" with his body and blood through the sacred meal of bread and wine, also trace back to Paul. This is the Christianity most familiar to us, with the creeds and confessions that separated it from Judaism and put it on the road to becoming a new religion.’’
[...]
‘‘In contrast, the original Christianity before Paul is somewhat difficult to find in the New Testament, since Paul's 13 letters predominate and Paul heavily influences even our four Gospels. Fortunately, in the letter of James, attributed to the brother of Jesus, as well as in a collection of the sayings of Jesus now embedded in the Gospel of Luke (the source scholars call Q), we can still get a glimpse of the original teachings of Jesus. ’’
— Professor James D. Tabor



My cynical view perfectly accounts for this phenomenon.
Your seemingly blind acceptance seems to ignore this crucial detail of history.


My point of view assumes only people. And we do know quite a great deal about people, here in the very psychological friendly 21st century.
Your point of view assumes that the text is perfectly accurate and represents what really happened. No one embellished it, no one had any ulterior motive when writing it, no one dared go against the will of god for fear they would be stricken from this Earth.

Methinks you trust the wrong people too much.

First, you and I have the benefit of 2000 years of study and debate to rely on. These people didn't. They were hashing out the fundamental truths that we take for granted. And there was a real attack on the church happening. Persecution by the state, theological perversion by the Gnostics, and opportunists profiting off of the early church were all real obstacles. You had people leaving pagan religions trying to reconcile their lives in light of Christ. There was a lot happening and the foundational beliefs had to be defended.

Indeed, wherever you have lots of people, you have lots of things going on.
Why did they have to hash out the fundamentals truths? Wouldn't you expect the son of God to convey them adequately and unequivocally?

When was this attack on the Church happening? This persecution by the state??... which state?

The Gnostics claimed that "the principal element of salvation [is] direct knowledge of the supreme divinity in the form of mystical or esoteric insight." (wiki). Why do you paint this as a perversion?
I'd say it puts the bar to belief a bit higher and could easily lead to many people going astray of religion.... however, it was going strong some 100 years after it surfaced and had to be put out as heresy by the then prevailing Church.

Opportunists would be profiting off of all churches, not just the one that followed Paul's teachings. Such is the nature of opportunists, they strike wherever there is profit to be made.

As for "foundational beliefs"... let them be damned in favour of getting more followers. Even if the cause is a good one, like to make people lead happy fulfilled lives.

Second, you're painting a conspiracy here that texts were rejected purely for not agreeing with Paul. I reject the idea of Pauline Christianity. That's not an accurate way to say it. Paul didn't hijack Christianity. That's just not true. I can harmonize Paul, Peter, John, James, and the rest of the NT scholars no problem.
In fact, the apostles were all working together. Peter references Paul. Luke talks about Paul. Paul references other apostles. This idea that Paul just happened to have the message that stuck is just simply not true. It's unfounded. His ministry was foundational to the church's growth, but he didn't hijack Christianity.

Then how do you explain the fact that several christianities existed in the region of Israel, but the one that becomes prevalent is the one that the Turkish guy spreads in Turkey?
Have fun reading: https://archive.org/details/lostchristianiti00ehrm

Third, I also reject this idea of Pauline Christianity as the canon dividing line. That's just not true. Yes, the message in the other writings was important, as was their theology, authorship, and authenticity. The exact same way any historian today would try to determine the truth an account of a historical event. He has to weigh all of those things to determine if an account is reliable. That's not odd or conspiratorial.

It is widely known that, back then, things were definitely not approached the same way an historian does today. Especially in religious texts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...e_Apostles

Fourth, because of the way that the NT was spread through multiple lines of independent transmission the idea that there was a governing body that decided what Christians could read was just not true. The canon of scripture was already being organically collected. By the mid 2nd century 22 of the 27 books of the NT were considered the core writings, way before Laodicea.

Yes, I never said otherwise.
It just so happens that Paul's view of Christianity organically became the prevailing one and thus only those texts which aligned themselves with it would become accepted by the followers. All other texts were discarded (if they ever even saw them).

This is secular scholarship 101 and it's not based on any evidence that Christian scholarship isn't looking at. There are two ways to view the same information. Worldview matters.

My worldview sees a world full of people.
My worldview sees a world where these people need to get along.
My worldview sees many historical attempts at getting people to behave decently towards one another and religion as a major player in this arena.
My worldview sees all religions as arbiters of how people should behave.
My worldview sees religions as made up of people.

Do you dispute any of these sentences above?

Well, you have yet to demonstrate that my initial claim is false... sooooooooo?

How about you demonstrate that it is true first? If it is indeed true, it would be far far easier.

Oh, no. No, no, no. Haha. I don't accept an atheist's appeal to logic. We don't have to hash that out, but I also won't just let you start appealing to transcendent, immaterial standards of truth. You don't get to appeal to logic unless you can justify it.

What is your issue with logic, now?

Are you under the impression that humanity requires the divine in order to accept the immaterial mind that emerges from the material brain?

[ayost]

All kinds of things happen when moral systems collide.  Hardly matters, to me, that there are people who believe that there's nothing wrong with torture..just like it doesn't matter, to me, that there are people who believe that there's nothing wrong with killing the better man to pay for their profligate sins.  

Is the answer to all of those things, better and worse, also "because christ"?

Only it does matter to you because you're on here colliding with me and complaining about kids being curbstomped.

Over and over again you say something stupid, I challenge what you say, then like a pouting child you say "I don't care, so what? because Christ?"

[The Grand Nudger]

Never occurred to you that you don't know what my worldview is, did it? OFC not..because you came here thinking that there was some "atheist worldview" to argue against in the first place.

Meanwhile, I'm still wondering if you believe the things you say. Are you certain that outside of christ life is a moral black hole? Hope you never stop believing, for fear of what you might do...I guess? I've always maintained that religious extremism isn't overly zealous piety, but a crisis of faith. That people don't look to establish gods kindgom themselves unless they're tired of waiting for the big man to fix it, concerned that he might never get around to doing as much in their lifetimes.

[ayost]

I appreciate all of the work you put into that post, but we are going in circles citing authors that support our side. I know what these secular scholars say. I also know I could teach someone about the death of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice from any one of the Gospels. But besides that I'm also OK with theology developing. Not in the sense that new beliefs developed that didn't originate with Jesus, but in the sense that the pinpoint language used to describe them grew, for example the trinity. And that's what Paul does, he develops the words used to express the theology that was taught by Jesus and the OT.

I have read these arguments and I don't find them compelling. You're not giving me anything new that I haven't already sifted through. And that's not a criticism of you by any means, just that we aren't going anywhere or adding anything new. Same evidence, different understanding of that evidence. I'm not trying to be rude, I've just already gone through this.

Are you under the impression that humanity requires the divine in order to accept the immaterial mind that emerges from the material brain?

I know you will accept the immaterial mind that emerges from the material brain, you just won't be able to justify that belief.

---

Never occurred to you that you don't know what my worldview is, did it?  OFC not..because you came here thinking that there was some "atheist worldview" to argue against in the first place.  

Meanwhile, I'm still wondering if you believe the things you say.  Are you certain that outside of christ life is a moral black hole?  Hope you never stop believing, for fear of what you might do...I guess?  I've always maintained that religious extremism isn't overly zealous piety, but a crisis of faith.  That people don't look to establish gods kindgom themselves unless they're tired of waiting for the big man to fix it, concerned that he might never get around to doing as much in their lifetimes.

I asked you in a previous post if you believed in evolution and you said yes.

Also the oldest atheist trick in the book is to stay worldview fluid so you can't be pinned down to believing anything because as soon as you do I will dismantle it.

I believe that you have an innate, if inadequate, understanding of a general idea of good because you're made in the image of God and He wrote that knowledge on your heart. Whether you like it or not you live in God's world according to God's rules. I do also believe that humans are bad and left to their own devices will stoop to the very bottom.

God's Kingdom is already here, my friend, and Jesus reigns at the right hand of God until He makes all of His enemies His footstool.

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't feel any need to constrain yourself to one silly assertion about other people at a time? Also not in your christ code? Minds, cuz christ..nothing to do with brains, no justification for any other position.

Meanwhile, you still don't know what my worldview is - you're just here to repeat stupid things that someone told you, and you, believed. Here, though, go ahead..try your best.

I'm a moral realist. Dismantle away.

[ayost]

Don't feel any need to constrain yourself to one silly assertion about other people at a time?  Also not in your christ code?  Minds, cuz christ..nothing to do with brains, no justification for any other position.

Meanwhile, you still don't know what my worldview is - you're just here to repeat stupid things that someone told you, and you, believed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Will you be dismantling moral realism, or no?

[Spongebob]

---

What I mean is Christian scholars are not running from, hiding, or in fear of any contradictions or in the history of the transmission of the text. We don't have to be. History is what it is, let's talk about it. Pick a contradiction and let's talk about it.

Ok, there are believing Christians that have spent their lives exploring the historical roots of Christian texts as well. Textual Criticism isn't a purely secular pursuit. The people that I have chosen to believe, and that's what you and I do, choose who we will believe, see the same information and come to a different conclusion. Now, you may say that their religious background gives them a bias, ok fine, but that same critique should be leveled at the secular scholar. So i say consensus from who? Secular and believing scholars?

You won't hear me defend the KJV Bible. It's not the best translation. While they did the best the could, it can't be because translators of the King James version didn't have near the wealth of manuscript information that we have now. And with CBGM it's only getting better. KJV onlyism is  bad theology, it's indefensible really.

I will look into this, but I can admit that I am skeptical of judging motivation without documentation of the motivation. We have to have 2 or 3 independent lines of contemporary testimony to the political alteration, otherwise its speculation. Maybe you could point me to those lines of testimony?

I will be willing to post some things, but this is where I am most astounded by Christians.  You guys always come at us like a bull in a China shop and when we announce our objections, you want an itemized list with references, footnotes and so on.  I stopped reading & studying Christianity over 20 years ago.  I don't regularly read up on the newest research and problems and I certainly don't keep a notebook of all the reasons and sources that I used to form my opinions; I did all of that long ago and don't need to keep revisiting it.  But you guys seem to expect us to do the work for you.  I literally have this same conversation often with Christians I know.  They say (insert Christian aphorism here) and I respond with, you know that stuff about Paul isn't true....and the response is always, show me all your research and I'll believe you.  All we can say is this stuff is not even hiding in plain site; it's out there for everyone to see and you just ignore it, then criticize atheists for having read and understood things that you won't investigate yourself.  It's astonishingly lazy is what it is.  Do you know why I'm no longer a Christian?  It's because I decided to question things and investigate.  Christians who have no intention to consider new information shouldn't proliferate atheist forums.

All that said, let me give it some thought and I'll pick a topic of translation or contradiction or some sort of biblical issue and post it on a separate thread.  There's probably already a section for that on the forum.

Bible scholars are both secular and religious and many come to the same conclusions.  There are in fact Christians who promote the idea of a Christianity that doesn't include the mysticism.

[brewer]

No evidence, just belief, OK by me, time to move along @ayost. You've got nothing even remotely convincing.