In the valley of the blind.

Christians..

A whole lot of evangelists 'invade' the agnosticism forum daily...

Occam thought he might wander into your realm and say

EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE IS SHIT...

This is what we get from the knuckleheads that evangelise their 'faith' without the slightest recourse to reason....
Control your flock...

They are eaten by the dozens,,even with the best Jesuit logic.
For it concentrates on the controlling of children..
Not the accurate understanding of reality...
And jesuit logic is only mentioned because reason allows it respect.
[it tries to be logical in an illogical framework]

So consider this...
Like the actual creation of the internet that we speak with.
Logic/reason is proved viable by real phenomena...
religion has created WHAT besides pictures of god and jesus on walls.

Reason...
Has created the world you live in... Not religion. [though religion served as a repository of knowledge during the age of un-reason...now why did they do that?]

Religion is your fail safe to eternal life....
IF YOU BELIEVE IN ETERNAL LIFE
And occam does not

No more invasion of reason by unreason

The arguement COMES TO YOU...
Occam asks ..WHY as a good man... and called so by his sister,, a born again christian.
He WILL go to hell...

What do ALL OF YOU think hell is?

Occam thinks christians are too self centered to even think about hell
They spend all their time trying not TO THINK ABOUT IT.
Funny.. because there is NOTHING to think about...

Hell is just as real as winnie the pooh..

Show EVIDENCE that it is not...
Not words.
Not ideas.
Evidence...
Show me hell

[no evasions accepted ... hell IS or it IS NOT]
Show me hell. [fire , brimstone and such]
If you cannot.
Then how the HELL do you know it exists?

Words in a book???

Well by that reasoning
Is not the 'origin of species' the word of god...???
Suely it is... for it is writen in a book..
Just like the bible.
It says it is truth.
Just like the bible...

So..it must be,,,
But occam does not believe the words of DARWINS "origin of species"
Its just a book..no?

As is the bible...Just a book..No?



Occam

 

it is interesting to note that many Christians go to the agnostic forums presumably in an attempt to 'convert' you,however noone has replied to this post.

I think that trying to argue faith is real is a non starter, because the answer will always come back to 'because I believe it,'

Similar to this is trying to argue from a Bible perspective, but it does have historical quedos (sp). Now of course it could have been modified... for example Islam have one interpretation of JC, Christianity has another.. whos is more valid. In todays age where we have no physical evidence to support one or discredit another, the answer comes down to faith... simple as that

this is why I think trying to argue these points is fruitless. Although i myself am a christian (a youth worker in a church in fact) i feel that reason, education in importance of self in terms of value and virtue (to be uncovered by the individual) are the ways to bring enlightenment.

Now the christians may ask how do i reconcile this to my christian teaching... simple! i do, because I do the pointing... God does the rest! forcing anyone to believe what they dont want to is NOWHERE endorsed in the Bible! and that i am sure is a point occum may agree with. (not that i am putting words in his/her mouth)

I probably havent answered any of the points above.. then again, im not trying to!

 

I just want to know why you feel the need to refer to yourself in third person? I can't give you an explanation for all your questions when you are asking to prove something that is intangible. I know it is all real by miracles that happen in my life. God does wonders for me. I can't show you hell, but if he shows me miracles, let's just assume all the rest that is in the Bible is real. God hasn't lied about anything else.

 

Perpetualstuent

Thank you for the considered reply
And occam does agree with you last point...
He comes to this thread out of interests sake....
to see what christians say about his evangelistic intrusion

Occam

 

Northernlight

What has occams use of personal pronouns to do with the questions he asks in his post...? Are you suggesting that a valid question is less valid depending on who it comes from?
Is this not the worst sote of irrational bigotry?

Ok..he shows you miricles....you believe that...
If occam is to believe it...he must experience them...
Can you arrange that??
Do they exist as external [to you] phenomena...?

If they dont...then what are they?

Occam

 

PS

The original post has a 'furvour''
Intentional..
An emulation of a righteous evangelist.
[but more structured,, like a TV one]

 

If you turn your life to God I can promise you that you will have miracles in your life. God is great. Your life will be 100% better. I don't ever test God, that's not what Christians do. So sorry I will not be demanding a miracle for you anytime soon. I was just wondering why you refer to yourself in the third person? It was an honest question. I'm not trying to denouce your question in any kind of way.

 

God does do great things, but to people of all religions! You do not have to assume that the bible is 100% literally true because some of it has guided you. Would you believe Muslim teachings were 100% literally true if you saw them guiding a friend of yours?

I would say it's status, on the basis of experience. Wisdom. Plus, internet personas around the philosophy and religion forum tend to be quite bland.

 

It's not the Bible that has done miracles, it's God. And there is only one God. The God who brought us his son Jesus. All those other religions have a god you're right. But it's not God. They make idols. And God said one should have no other gods before him. So by them worshipping a god that's not the God they are breaking a commandment.

 

Im not sure you can offer that guarantee to anyone... doing so insinuates that God will reward us for being good, or punish us for being bad... sort of like saying someone in a wheelchair is like that because God didnt like his face or something just as ludicrous!

Plus my experience of life is still as difficult with God in it, as much as it was with God out of it.. in fact it may have gotten harder. The way I see it, God wants our sacrifice. Sacrifice of our wants and demands, to what he wants... what does God want? I hear you ask... well thats simple, to love him, and to love each other! Period (as the americans say!)

 

I have often wondered why people sometimes post two replies straight after one another... and here i am doing just that..!

Anyway I just wanted to point out that saying God said 'dont worship any other god before me' may be true, however to use it in the context of trying to rubbish another faith (especially Islam may I add) is futile. Basically Islam probably has one of the highest regard for (their) God, and tey claim the very same command, Allah means 'The God' as in the only true God. Islam has the same claim on the idol thing. By saying they are worshipping an idol is dangerous, because the foundation of your argument is flawed.

What is to stop a Muslim coming here and saying, You Christians are worshipping an idol... Jesus!? They do have a strong case against JC in alot of ways.

All im saying is if you say that to anyone in that context, you wouldnt get very far... most likely because they would say... 'so what..'

 

Perpetual student

Occam agrees

Yes..Life seems no easier with belief that a god does not exist..as athiesits believe
Than it is for those who believe the propositions of the bible.

Occam knows many christians...
How is it that he constantly offers suggestions to them that life is a gift?
That we should not cry and scream over injustice and pain.?

That no-thing is organised to make their lives painless.
Even your god says..."god helps those that help themselves..."
How do you help yourself? reason.

USe your brain, your reason.. to discover how god moves...
In this you may find purpose.
For god made reality...
Is it not possible that god will alow only those who undertand his creation
To be with him?
And if his reality is based on reason.
Then SCIENCE is the way to god...

Think about it.
Religion SAYS science is NOT the way of god...
This is lies.
Science is only one thing..a method.
Not a philosophy about what is.
It tries to explain what we see..

Religion tries to explain..what we do not...

Right now in science and religion...
Science sees more indicative evidence than religion has ever had...
And religiopn..does not know if it get behind the only method of understanding that works..
Or be a stupid prick about it and stick to bible teachings...

Science sees evidence of god...
And religion is SO conservative as to reject it....

Occam

 

Okay. Then read up on hermeneutics, the SCIENCE of textual interpretation. Then look at the New Testament and you will begin to understand why the Bible is unique. It is not just another book.

Here, take ten people from different walks of life and ask them to write an essay on any controversial topic. You will get ten different essays. Some will have the same thing, but you will probably have strongly differring opinions. The Bible has over 60 authors written over a 2000 year period from all walks of life from kings to peasants and through different cultures and yet there is no change in opinions regarding controversial topics. The attitude is ALWAYS the same. Given that ten ordinary people probably couldn't agree on an essay, how do you explain the moral consistency of scripture?

Anyway, read up on hermenuetics, get good at it, and then look at Scripture. You still will probably disagree with it, but at least you will have open eyes and understanding of what was being said and just how reliable the New Testament is as a historical document.

 

Alsharad

Hairsplitting...
The bible is ink on squashed trees...

How it relates to existent phemnomena is what will verify it.
A book contains ideas..Those ideas are the things needing verification.
Not the book.

When does the bible speak of WHAT IS...?
SHOW occam the christian god.
Show occam hell
Show him heaven
SHow him an angel
Or a demon..

Jesus is such 'realistic' human as to be probable [as a man]

All the theistic stuff is fiction...
It is called that because NONE have ever shown it to exist...
Or even being probable of existing except in the bible.

You, the bible, and every religion on this earth has provided not one iota of a real thing called heaven.hell, or the holy trinity.

Words , words and more words...

THAT is the decider...DOES IT EXIST and can you show it to another human...
You cannot,,,

None of your quasi logic produces any REAL THING...

While human understanding based on reason provides a whopping
REAL THING,,,The screen you look at as you read this.

Occam

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

So wh does the book occam reads now on the events in germany prior
to ww2,,, classify as probable?
Because the world will lives in fits with the results of that situation.

It is also ink on squashed trees...
But ,, How do you or occam or germany benifit if it is lies or truth?
We do not.
It is impartial..

The bible however has a million ego trips of power stamped into it,,
It is a dogma used by organised power...
It is a tool to control the faithfull

Will germans kill you is you can show their preww2 history is not accurate.?
No
Will catholicism kill you if you can show that christ was not ressurected.?
Yes

Just as religion has killed millions of time previously
It is not the word of christ.
It is the word of itself.

 

Just read a theological essay by Sir Isaac Newton (who, besides getting hit by apples in his spare time, was a very spiritual man). In it, he said that 'the beast' would arise within the church, bending the churches teachings back against it. The beast would use meaningless ritual and law to draw worship away from the one true God. The victors that arise will exist outside of the church- they will be those who do not worship falsely, they are the ones who know God.

The point is, the bible is like any tool- it can be used for Good or Evil, depending upon the intent and insight of its wielder. Even if someone believes that something evil has happened, it is quite likely that they do not know the reason for the action- and would not judge the action as evil if they had true insight.

 

Bandit thinks occam refers to himself in the third person for attention, much as the actor known as The Rock does. I don't think it reflects on his inteligence, to me it is just annoying.

As far as proof. Well, I invite occam to prove to me that God does not exist. I also suggest that if occam does not believe in God, then he should stop using The Bible as an example in his arguments, because, from his pov, The Bible is invalid.

 

to counter that, i think occam bring up some very real and interesting points...

points which are relevant to everyday people, points which highlight Christians oppressive beliefs and points which should bring us back to the roots of what it it we believe as Christians.

If we cant at least have a respectful debate online with someone who disagrees with what 'we' say then what hope is there for 'us' when we leave the bubble of the net and go back to the real world. Surely this is the place where learning should happen?

 

another interesting observation is that it is very rare for them to actually participate and join in on an intelligent argument, and defend their so called thoughts and beliefs...

also, how can one book be ANY more magical than something that i myself the nonchristian could create out of thin air? how could this 'magical' book defy the limitations that words impose, what is the magic word man?!? what makes it so different?

another thing a lot of christians probably dont consider is that it WAS, like everything, created out of thin air, and it is possible to create absolutley ANYTHING from thin air, possibilities never end... an example being, misses long thin deep bush has bonus sizes for thirty three percent? often i feel like this is what i am reading when i visit this forum, but that creation is completley original, i could create any variation of bullshit like that at the second i chose to, as simple as that.

 

Well it is possible to join in intelligent arguments, but what is required for that to happen is respect by both parties... something which is lacking in both sides on this forum i think (with the exception of a few)

For you to claim that a book (not necesarily the Bible, just any book) cannot bring increased learning to ones life implies you are all knowing, or at least know enough to get by without the help of any outside influence.

Saying that you are the finished article (you may not be saying that, that is what I interpret from your post) means that you deny the evolutionary process man has gone through, learning from his inumerable mistakes which allows us to live in this 'civilised' or free democratic society we live in today.

What makes it (Bible, Torah, Qu'ran etc) different, is that it does tell us radical things (and bear in mind it was very much more radical when it was first read 2000 years ago) to put others first, to speak out against oppression, and when you want change to happen, to start with ourselves... Now you may rubbish those claims as being normal to us, but they are foundational teachings which make up many of todays modern ethics and teachings on charity.

I guess another difference is that (aside from your belief that the Bible was made out of thin air) the teachings make sense... No matter what religious material you read (if you strip away the obedience to a higher power) the moral teachings are very valid and are the fore runners to freedom and equality of opportunity. (bar the fanatics in each movement, which come about through interpretation, as does everything else I guess.) your thoughts are neither original nor do they make sense... So yes, your variation is bulshit (your words) and tried and tested teaching and learning from books (like the Bible and Qu'ran and Aristotles writings) are alot more valid and bring something which contributes validiity and virtue to the world around us!

That is the difference I guess!

 

Space limitations do not permit me to present a definitive study on our topic; I cannot do this topic justice in the space I have in this paper. Thus, it is beyond my scope to go into great detail here. Due to the overwhelming amount of pertinent data, the following is simply a highlight, a mere outline of the available information. However, I want to demonstrate why one should trust the Bible and therefore the biblical teaching on a given concern (e.g., on the occult), and know that it was not tampered with by the early Church. ​

Methodology ​

Theologian, historian, and lawyer, John W. Montgomery rightly remarks:

The historic Christian claim differs qualitatively from the claims of all other religions at the epistemological point: on the issue of testability. Eastern faiths and Islam [witchcraft, and so forth] ... ask the uncommitted seeker to discover their truth experientially: the faith-experience will be self-validating. Unhappily, as analytical philosopher Kai Nielsen and others have rigorously shown, a subjective faith-experience is logically incapable of `validating God-talk'.... Christianity, on the other hand, declares that the truth of its absolute claims rests squarely on certain historical facts, open to ordinary investigation.1



​

In addressing among other questions the issue of whether the New Testament documents are historically reliable Montgomery states:

Here, let it be noted, we do not naively assume the "inspiration" or "infallibility" of the New Testament records, and then by circular reasoning attempt to prove what we have previously assumed. We regard the documents...only as documents, and we treat them as we would any other historical materials. Our procedure in determining documentary reliability will ... go directly to the documents themselves and subject them to the tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism."2



​

Thus, I will not simply assume the authenticity, historical reliability, or trustworthiness of the biblical text. We will examine or test it to see whether it is trustworthy or has been tampered with by the church. By this process, based upon sound principles of research, I will survey the issue and establish the biblical text's reliability by testing it in light of the facts. The point is that we should practice proper research, not merely make assumptions one way or the other.


Our approach will be to present some basic findings or information and principles of research relative to the disciplines of archaeology, history, law, literary criticism, logic, early manuscripts, and textual criticism to discern whether the Bible was tampered with by the early Church and therefore whether it is trustworthy.3

Eight Evidences ​

First, what does archaeological research have to tell us relevant to our concern?4 How does the Bible match-up with secular history and facts? Montgomery writes:

Far from avoiding contact with secular history, the New Testament is replete with explicit references to secular personages, places and events. Unlike typical sacred literature, myth, and fairytale ("once upon a time ..."), the gospel story begins when "there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed....



​

Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history....To take but a single striking example: after the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then in 1961 came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography.5



​

The same can be said for the reliability of the Old Testament based on archaeological evidence; the evidence is overwhelming for its trustworthiness and reliability as well.6 For example, Old Testament and language scholar, Gleason Archer says concerning the Dead Sea Scroll copies of the book of Isaiah (of course, this is also manuscript evidence):

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known [the Masoretic text] (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.7



​

The Old Testament scholar Roland Kenneth Harrison commenting on part of the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls states, "The Biblical manuscripts from Qumran have unquestionably confirmed the general tradition regarding the tremendous care exercised in the transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures...."8


Norman Geisler and William Nix tie this point together for us:

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars have Hebrew manuscripts one thousand years earlier than the great Masoretic Text manuscripts, [ca. 900s A.D.] enabling them to check on the fidelity of the Hebrew text. The result of comparative studies reveals that there is a word-for-word identity in more than 95 percent of the cases, and the 5 percent variation consists mostly of slips of the pen and spelling....



​

The thousands of Hebrew manuscripts, with their confirmation by the LXX [the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament] and the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the numerous other crosschecks from outside and inside the text provide overwhelming support for the reliability of the Old Testament text.9



​

Second, certainly in the case of the New Testament, since most of it was written and circulating at such an early date (relative to the events recorded) there was no time for the accrual of myth or legend or "editing" by the early Church.10


John W. Montgomery points out based on the objective evidence--manuscript and other evidences--that "the time interval between the writing of the New Testament documents as we have them and the events of Jesus' life which they record is too brief to allow for communal redaction ["editing" or tampering with] by the Church."11

After a through examination and application of the three standard historiographical and literary tests for discerning the authenticity and trustworthiness of an alleged ancient document Montgomery concludes: "On the basis, then, of powerful bibliographic, internal, and external evidence, competent historical scholarship must regard the New Testament documents as deriving from the first century and as reflecting primary-source testimony concerning the person and claims of Jesus...."12

The scholar Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who served as the director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated based upon the existing Greek manuscripts of the New Testament:

he interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.13



​

Third, the biblical writers and their successors had to advance and defend their claims, both what they orally communicated and had committed to writing. Thus, logically I must note that their claims could have been easily disproved if they had distorted or tampered with the biblical teachings or text (e.g., the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament). Relative to the life and teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, for example, F.F. Bruce says:

And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said "We are witnesses of these things," but also, "As you yourselves know (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.14



​

Thus, had the early Church or those in the Old Testament, tampered with the true teachings of the biblical text, they could and would have been easily corrected or refuted by contemporaries who knew better and had both motive and means to do so.


Moreover, in the face of hostile charges and witnesses and resulting hardships for their teachings the biblical writers and their successors had every reason to recant if they had tampered with the biblical text.

Fourth, the biblical writers and their successors are noted for the virtue of honesty, both in teaching and practice. It is incongruous that the same individuals are at the same time guilty of gross misrepresentations and falsehoods--lying.

Indeed, they lived exemplary lifestyles. For example, the New Testament writers (and the same can be said for most of the Old Testament writers) lives were marked by a dedication to teaching and standing for honesty and truthfulness. They underwent incredible hardships and suffering for what they taught, such as social ostracism, confiscation of their property, beatings, imprisonment, and other sacrifices to preach their message (e.g., the gospel). Many died as martyrs. They had no motive to lie by misrepresenting the teachings of Christ and the Bible. These people and their successors were not the type who would promulgate what they knew to be false or tamper with the biblical teachings (e.g., of Christ). The virtue of truthfulness is extolled throughout the entire Bible (e.g., Exod. 20:16; Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:17, 19; 12:22 19:22; Zech. 8:16; Acts 5:3; Eph. 4:25; Col. 3:9; Rev. 22:15). Lying is inconsistent with their lifestyles and teachings. Note the following quotes from some of the New Testament writers regarding the nature of their writings and testimony.

Luke the personal physician and aid of the apostle Paul writes:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may now the certainty of the things you have been taught.



​

- Luke 1:1-4


​

​

The apostle John writes:

The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.



​

- John 19:35


​

​

The apostle Peter writes:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.



​

- 2 Peter 1:16


​

​

The people to whom Jesus' disciples passed the gospel on to and in turn their disciples were of the same caliber (2 Tim. 2:2) and communicated the exact same teachings.


For example, consider Papias (ca. A.D. 60-70-ca. 130-140), who was either a direct disciple of the apostle John or of the direct students of the apostles. Papias became the bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor and was a contemporary and colleague of Polycarp (see below). Around A.D. 130 he wrote his five volume work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord of which only fragments exist today, and at that are only cited in the works of later writers (e.g., the Church father Irenaeus and the early Church historian Eusebius [ca. 265-ca. 340], bishop of Caesarea [315-340]. Eusebius records Papias as stating:

I will not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, everything I carefully learned then from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth....



​

And the Elder [either the apostle John or another leader in the early Church whose name was also John] used to say this: "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them."...



​

So Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language....



​

- Ecclesiastical History, 3.3915


​

​

The teachings of the New Testament were also faithfully taught and handed down by Polycarp (ca. A.D. 70-ca. 155-160), who was a student of the apostle John. Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor and was martyred for his faith. His student Irenaeus (see below) said of him that "He always taught what he learned from the apostles, which the Church continues to hand on, and which are the only truths."16