layi:

Thats d nferyn i know. I understand it easy to get things mixed up since all we all we can see his the writng (and not the motives). Its all good. Apologies accepted. I hope i wasnt insultive callin i Mr know-it-all. I'm sorry.

No, you were not. If I feel strongly about a subject, I can appear to be a Mr know-it-all. Comes with the passion

layi:

First let me go through your links. The seat is gettin hotter but i don't quit. Luv ya nferyn U r sure a brillant fella.
I'll be back after readin through your freferences...we've got scores to setlle.

I'm far from brilliant, I just matured a little
If only I had 10% of the insight I have now when I was studying, life would have been different

My personal motivations in the matter come from the history of what my parents had to go through because of a fundamentalist catholic upbringing. I do respect people that feel strongly and emotionally about their faith. Religion - for those that subscribe to it - should be a beacon of communalism and moral values - something that is sometimes lacking in the more fundamentalist churches.

When religious people get literalist and close their minds for opposing views, especially when they hold political power or have a big influence on politics, it can become quite dangerous. If I think about the way in which embryonic stem cell research has been opposed in the US, i get quite sad. Closing so much promising avenues for medical progress, possibly even cures for Alzheimer disease, other neurological disorders and paralysis brings down my spirits.

That's why I feel so strongly about the matter. It's not religion, it's the fundamentalist, literalist tradition that gets to me.

layi:

I know it existed but we're talking about when it started evolving. I still maintain my stance on the writing issue. Writing may have existed before Christ but it evolved in the ADs.
Reason?
Before Christ we didn't really have formal schools. A lot of people were not learned. In fact in Israel, the scribes were the ones called upon to read scrolls written by priest and prophets. Most people who are learned were either philosophers,kings,prophets and priests by the nature of the 'leadership' position they carry. They hav to form a way of writing. Hieroglyphics were initially used in Egypt (where civilization started) He was a revolutionary. His exit spurned the world to delved into research and knowledge. This had secondary effect on writing as every tribe had to put down sumthing as history. Jesus changed the world Reason why the TIME is recorded wit him as the focal point; AD and BC. Let me not divert too much

"before christ we didn't really have formal schools"
hahhahahahaha you make me laugh. you didn't learn much about socrates, plato, aristotle and the likes did ya?
remember, jesus didn't exist in the old testament. i wonder how that book was written.

"In fact in Israel, the scribes were the ones called upon to read scrolls written by priest and prophets"

you're making me laugh harder. 
do you know what ancient scribes are at all?  you can't just think of everything in terms of religion and israel. they've been in existence way before christ and they started in Egypt. the ones in Israel are just a more modern form of scribes. the real old ones were in egypt. being a scribe in the ancient days was a profession. much like being a journalist, secretary book keeper and so on today. their job was to write letters,  draw up contracts for villagers, record the harvest and taxes, calculate the amount of food needed to feed the tomb builders. keep accounts on estates and order supplies for the temples and the Egyptian army. In this way, they kept the government working.
sounds cool huh? makes me want to say well done to one. 

"writing may have existed in the BC's but it evolved in the AD's"

this sentence needs serious clarification! when we use the word "evolve" it's something that's continuous. when something is evolving, it's everchanging even though the changes might not be significant.
i interpreted you sentence as "writing came in the BC's, stayed the way it was and only started to improve or change when jesus was born!". now that don't sound right. unless you think of the coming of christ as something like a miracle upon the face of the earth or something. jesus was just a normal if not an outcast guy in his days. it's not like he was special and changed the world or something.  it's only in the present times that he's regarded seriously. in his days he was nobody. 

do you know how many years there were before christ? thousands of years. so looking at all those years, and writing didn't evolve? trust me it did. people wrote latin e.t.c before christ was born!

you know what part of your post made me laugh the most? this part:
"His exit spurned the world to delved into research and knowledge. This had secondary effect on writing as every tribe had to put down sumthing as history. [b]Jesus changed the world Reason why the TIME is recorded wit him as the focal point; AD and BC"

history had been in the making A LONG TIME BEFORE CHIRST. at least do a little bit of research before posting wrong facts.
Jesus didn't have any effective role either primary or secondary in EVERY tribe that put down history (maybe in the religion secton it did).. .  keep in mind, there's more to history than religion. there are the political, social, economical aspects of life that have always been recorded that has nothing to do with christ!
his exit didn't spurn any world to delve into any research and knowledge. did you know about Copernicus, Galileo and other contemporary scientists?  their pioneer works were secular and even went against what the chistians believed (the earth was the center of the universe) they proved the christians wrong and Galileo was almost put to death by the christians for that. it's from their research and subsequent (improved) ones that we have greater knowledge about how the earth works today and also why we question the existence of God. many scientific findings (prooved) go against biblical contents.

now to the reason why we use AD and BC. i copied this info from a site:

"Many different calendars have been used since man began tracking time.  Most start with some epoch event or person.  The use of BC and AD for numbering calendar years was invented by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD.  His purpose was to determine the correct date for Easter under the direction of Pope St. John I. 
Prior to this time, one method for determining Easter was based on a 532 year calendar cycle stemming from the Alexandrian era.  Other methods were also used which led to the confusion.  Dionysius was asked to determine a method for calculating Easter that would then be used by the entire church."

this is to prove your point that the reason we use AD and BC is because "Jesus changed the world" and he has to be the "focal point" WRONG!

by the way, did you know that CE standing for "Common Era."  is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and is eventually expected to replace AD.
BCE stands for "Before the common era." It is eventually expected to replace BC ?

in the words of someone who's answering why this change is needed:
"The world is becoming more integrated financially, politically, socially and religiously. A universal calendar notation is needed. Recall that for every Christian there are about two non-Christians in the world. References to Christ and to the Judeo-Christian God offend many of the latter. A universal notation needs to be religiously neutral in order to be generally accepted. CE and BCE meet these requirements".

WesleyanA:

[SNIP]
you know what part of your post made me laugh the most? this part:
"His exit spurned the world to delved into research and knowledge. This had secondary effect on writing as every tribe had to put down sumthing as history. [b]Jesus changed the world Reason why the TIME is recorded wit him as the focal point; AD and BC"

history had been in the making A LONG TIME BEFORE CHIRST. at least do a little bit of research before posting wrong facts.
Jesus didn't have any effective role either primary or secondary in EVERY tribe that put down history (maybe in the religion secton it did).. . keep in mind, there's more to history than religion. there are the political, social, economical aspects of life that have always been recorded that has nothing to do with christ!
his exit didn't spurn any world to delve into any research and knowledge. did you know about Copernicus, Galileo and other contemporary scientists? their pioneer works were secular and even went against what the chistians believed (the earth was the center of the universe) they proved the christians wrong and Galileo was almost put to death by the christians for that. it's from their research and subsequent (improved) ones that we have greater knowledge about how the earth works today and also why we question the existence of God. many scientific findings (prooved) go against biblical contents.
[SNIP]

This part makes me think again about why many Christians have such a self-centered view on their religion's role in history and especially about the infallibility of the contemporary interpretation of the Christian faith.

There are no records of the life of Jesus by any historian of that time, none whatsoever. The only writings we have are the apostolic writings that later became part of the Bible. Writings that had only a propagandatory role within the early Christian communities, for which the scientific discipline of historical criticism has found that those writings were copies of each other and for which no text could possibly have been written by a[b] contemporary of Jesus.
[/b]
Actually one of the few non-christian historical references to Jesus, the account by the famous Roman historian Flavius Josephus, is a later addition to the original text by Christian copyists. Other sources do not even entertain the possibility of a historical Jesus, but only make references to the many Christian sects that sprung up after the destruction of the temple and the banning of the Jewish people.

There is actually no conclusive evidence that Jesus actually was a real person. In view of the religious traditions of that time, it is even more likely that the gnostic interpretation of a transcendental Jesus, a mediator between the sphere of the divine (Heaven / God) and the mortal world. Through Jesus could the people of the world reach a very limited understanding of God, as the divine sphere is beyond human comprehension. In this Christian tradition, there is no and has never been a historical Jesus. These Christian sects were harshly persecuted by the established Roman church up 'till a point where hardly anybody even knows about them today.

To learn more about this, you can always have a look at the following address:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Umm, the works of Gallileo, Copernicus, and others cannot really be considered secular. In fact, Gallileo himself was deeply religious. A mistaken belief that the world is flat does not constitute a divide between secular and religious minds.

allonym:

Umm, the works of Gallileo, Copernicus, and others cannot really be considered secular. In fact, Gallileo himself was deeply religious. A mistaken belief that the world is flat does not constitute a divide between secular and religious minds.

their scientific works were secular. why do you think galileo suffered in the hands of church inquisitors? because his work didn't conform with what the christians beleived.

look at this quote:

"Galileo Galilei was an Italian astronomer and physicist who lived between 1564-1642. He challenged Aristotle's ancient proposition that heavenly bodies were divine and therefore perfect and blemish-free.

In 1609, Galileo became first person to use a telescope to look at the heavens. He discovered sunspots, and craters and peaks in Earth's moon.

The telescope also allowed Galileo to confirm the work of Copernicus in that the planets circle the Sun (as opposed to all heavenly bodies circling the Earth). Galileo's work offended the Roman Catholic Church and he was convicted of heresy in 1616 by the Inquisition. It wasn't until 1992 that Pope John Paul II announced that the Catholic Church erred in condemning Galileo's beliefs. Sentenced to house arrest for the later years of his life, Galileo is remembered as a martyr for scientific truth".

Their work was not secular. It was neither. Their study was not for benefit of the secular world at the expense of the church, neither would it benefit the church at the expense of the secular world. Additionally, they sought the truth, which is the same whether in the secular or spiritual world. Therefore, what they did cannot be classified as secular. Just because they were persecuted by the church does not make it secular anymore than being persecuted by romans making someone chrisitan

secular = non religious.
so if it's not religious, it's secular. there's no "it's neither".

nferyn:

This part makes me think again about why many Christians have such a self-centered view on their religion's role in history and especially about the infallibility of the contemporary interpretation of the Christian faith.

There are no records of the life of Jesus by any historian of that time, none whatsoever. The only writings we have are the apostolic writings that later became part of the Bible. Writings that had only a propagandatory role within the early Christian communities, for which the scientific discipline of historical criticism has found that those writings were copies of each other and for which no text could possibly have been written by a[b] contemporary of Jesus.
[/b]
Actually one of the few non-christian historical references to Jesus, the account by the famous Roman historian Flavius Josephus, is a later addition to the original text by Christian copyists. Other sources do not even entertain the possibility of a historical Jesus, but only make references to the many Christian sects that sprung up after the destruction of the temple and the banning of the Jewish people.

There is actually no conclusive evidence that Jesus actually was a real person.

There are records of his coming on earth. THe Bible is one.and if u call that bluff note this; His coming was to turn back d world. Everything he did then was seen as opposing authority and just like magicians and other mystic worker..he was thrown to d doldrums. I do not expect the world to hail his coming and every historian write about him. History then was centred around the kings and what they do not approve usually do not get archived as history. His sole purpose was not to become a political leader but to redeem humanity (..sounding preachy right?).
Its his followeres who can tell us more about him and thats why we study their books today.
the fact that we hav the supernatural followin the tenets we read is enough proove that its divinely ordained and the interpretation has not changed.

WesleyanA:

"before christ we didn't really have formal schools"
hahhahahahaha you make me laugh. you didn't learn much about socrates, plato, aristotle and the likes did ya?
remember, jesus didn't exist in the old testament. i wonder how that book was written.

The fact that we had philosophers and few learned people around then who had their way of passing messages accross didnt mean that there were formal schools then. Geddit!.
Jesus Lived in the old testament. He only came to give us the new. U wonder how the books were written? the old was wrtiien in greek and not several wrttings. I've not disputed wrting before him.. I disputed urbanisation of writing...evolution into so many forms as we have today.

WesleyanA:


do you know what ancient scribes are at all?  you can't just think of everything in terms of religion and israel. they've been in existence way before christ and they started in Egypt. the ones in Israel are just a more modern form of scribes. The real old ones were in egypt. being a scribe in the ancient days was a profession. much like being a journalist, secretary book keeper and so on today. their job was to ..........................

When i said scribes were called to read up scrools in Isreal...I never said there werent scribes elsewhere neither did i say (in any part of my posts) That isreal was the only place in the wrold then. I used isreal as a case study because its was considered developed based on the political activity present in that part of the world. it wont derail us to measure the world by standard in that place as at the time.

WesleyanA:


this sentence needs serious clarification! when we use the word "evolve" it's something that's continuous. when something
is evolving, it's everchanging even though the changes might not be significant.
i interpreted you sentence as "writing came in the BC's, stayed the way it was and only started to improve or change when jesus was born!". now that don't sound right. unless you think of the coming of christ as something like a miracle upon the face of the earth or something. jesus was just a normal if not an outcast guy in his days. it's not like he was special and changed the world or something.  it's only in the present times that he's regarded seriously. in his days he was nobody.  do you know how many years there were before christ? thousands of years. so looking at all those years, and writing didn't evolve? trust me it did. people wrote latin e.t.c before christ was born!

The nature wit which writing evolved is very obvious...check out history. How many different kind of writings were there before christ. How many were there after christ. Almost all forms (not all..but a whole lot) of writing today evolved after christ.
Remeber its not the number of years that matter. Its the need for its evolution. Do u know how many years man stayed without writing at all?

WesleyanA:

jesus was just a normal if not an outcast guy in his days. it's not like he was special and changed the world or something.  it's only in the present times that he's regarded seriously. in his days he was nobody. 

U were very wrong there. Immediately after christ exit. the world experience a great revolution. The acts of the apostles changed the gentile world. Although those who believed in judaism then were still expecting him till date simply because they don't want to come to facts that they killed him.
He wasnt a nobody even when alive because everywhere he went multitudes gathered round him. It was for the fact that  the kings/preists then forsee him usurpin their government that he was killed. Jesus was a 'somebody' when alive and even after he died.

WesleyanA:

It is eventually expected to replace BC ?

That fact needs not to be argue. AD means Anno Domini (in the yr of the lord-referring to christ) and BC means Before Christ. If he was a nobody. Time wont be caliberated after him. in fact its because he caused a revolution that history made him a focal point. No history can surpas HIS STORY and i'll want us to wait till its changed....

WesleyanA:


history had been in the making A LONG TIME BEFORE CHIRST. at least do a little bit of research before posting wrong facts.
Jesus didn't have any effective role either primary or secondary in EVERY tribe that put down history (maybe in the religion secton it did).. .  keep in mind, there's more to history than religion. there are the political, social, economical aspects of life that have always been recorded that has nothing to do with christ!
his exit didn't spurn any world to delve into any research and knowledge. did you know about Copernicus, Galileo and other contemporary scientists?  their pioneer works were secular and even went against what the chistians believed (the earth was the center of the universe) they proved the christians wrong and Galileo was almost put to death by the christians for that. it's from their research and subsequent (improved) ones that we have greater knowledge about how the earth works today and also why we question the existence of God. many scientific findings (prooved) go against biblical contents.

The church (or religion has it was known) wasnt seperated from the state then. Kingdom ruled by belief in deities. So the
coming of Jesus wasnt a religious event. It was HISTORY. It affected the political, social and economic life. Cos the Enitire Nation of Isreal looked forward to him. I used Isreal as an example because its 1 of the oldest (if not the oldest) nation whom's complete history was put down for the world today. Its a good reference point to the world then. We had the greek kingdoms etc then who also believe in their own dieties.


Now the big part. Most scientific findings go against biblical tenets because Science aims to explain life from the standpoint of humanity and do not believe in the supernatural while biblical tenets explain life from the standpoint of the supernatural which subsequently explains the physical.
They (both schools) do not stand on the same pedestal and thus are not expected to agree. Science has limited itself by believin that every occurence on earth started from evolution...any findings outside that wont be accepted...therefore i conclude that science is fallible.its still growing.

then I guess what they did is NOT secular because it DOES have something to do with religion. specifically, they were studying God's creation, therefore, it was not secular

allonym:

then I guess what they did is NOT secular because it DOES have something to do with religion. specifically, they were studying God's creation, therefore, it was not secular

I guess you must be in a Jesuit school After all nobody can turn and twist words in such a way that they serve their position although in essence, they doesn't support it at all. It's a great skill.

WesleyanA is right. Their works were secular. The purpose was entirely secular. Every single text that was written at that time had some reference to God, creation or whatever, even technical manuals about windmills and the like. If you read the great philosophers of the enlightenment age, you will see that they refer to God all the time, even when it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand - kind of like a lot of people on this board

layi:

There are records of his coming on earth. The Bible is one.and if u call that bluff note this; His coming was to turn back d world. Everything he did then was seen as opposing authority and just like magicians and other mystic worker..he was thrown to d doldrums. I do not expect the world to hail his coming and every historian write about him. History then was centred around the kings and what they do not approve usually do not get archived as history. His sole purpose was not to become a political leader but to redeem humanity (..sounding preachy right?).
Its his followeres who can tell us more about him and thats why we study their books today.
the fact that we hav the supernatural followin the tenets we read is enough proove that its divinely ordained and the interpretation has not changed.

Layi, can you give me some evidence that supports your position? The kind of things Jesus supposedly did when walking this earth are quite extraordinary. It must have popped up somewhere. The strange thing is, there are no sources from his followers.
No-one that ever lived during the time Jesus lived has written down anything.
And if you caused such an uproar in front of the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilatus there must have been some records. On top of that , the trial that Jesus supposedly went through is in complete contradiction with the legal rules of the Sanhedrin. That alone should make you wonder if the people that wrote about Jesus were in fact his Jewish followers of that time. They would never show the kind of ignorance of the Jewish traditions that the writers of the gospels show. The authors were most certainly not Jewish.

layi:

The fact that we had philosophers and few learned people around then who had their way of passing messages accross didnt mean that there were formal schools then. Geddit!.

And there were after Jesus death? The first formal schools that are somewhat comparable to what we have now were started by emperor of the Frank Empire, Carolus Magnus (Charlemagne), the one that stopped the Muslims from breaking out of Spain and invading Western Europe, the savior of Christianity in Europe. That was some 750 years after Jesus death.
I suppose you're not aware of the fact that during Roman times, all children of patrician (noble) families were receiving schooling by usually Greek teachers and were quite litterate, something that disappeared for centuries in Christian Europe.

layi:

Jesus Lived in the old testament. He only came to give us the new. U wonder how the books were written? the old was wrtiien in greek and not several wrttings. I've not disputed wrting before him.. I disputed urbanisation of writing...evolution into so many forms as we have today.

It was not. The old testament, the Talmud, to use it's proper name, was written in ancient Hebrew, not Greek. The evolution of writing as both you and [b]WesleyanA [/b]put it, is very recent and actually stems from the time the church was losing its grip on society.
It happened during the late middle ages when more and more people started writing in their mother tongue instead of Latin. I must grant you this, literacy was on the rise after the reformation of Martin Luther and the start of Protestant Christianity. The Roman Catholic church did everything in it's power to hold the monopoly on literacy in Middle Age Europe. After the floodgates of reformation opened though, they could do nothing anymore to stop the tide

layi:

When i said scribes were called to read up scrools in Isreal...I never said there werent scribes elsewhere neither did i say (in any part of my posts) That isreal was the only place in the wrold then. I used isreal as a case study because its was considered developed based on the political activity present in that part of the world. it wont derail us to measure the world by standard in that place as at the time.

This is so very wrong. Israel at that time was not exceptional at all. In most societies, you had a literate clerical caste. The big rise of literacy among the Jewish people actually started after the destruction of the temple and the banning of the Jewish people from Israel. It was the only way they could maintain their religion and roots in an extremely hostile Christian world.

layi:

The nature wit which writing evolved is very obvious...check out history. How many different kind of writings were there before christ. How many were there after christ. Almost all forms (not all..but a whole lot) of writing today evolved after christ.

see before

layi:

Remeber its not the number of years that matter. Its the need for its evolution. Do u know how many years man stayed without writing at all?

Literacy arose by necessity during the formation of big agricultural empires, during the rise of civilization. Christianity has given nothing to the world in that regard - except maybe after the reformation, but that's much later.
Writing is not needed in small farming communities and hunter-gatherer populations. For them an oral transfer of knowledge is sufficient.

layi:

U were very wrong there. Immediately after christ exit. the world experience a great revolution.

This is plainly false, it took several hundreds of years before Christianity caused any significant changes to society and only after Justinianus did it become a power factor.

layi:

The acts of the apostles changed the gentile world. Although those who believed in judaism then were still expecting him till date simply because they don't want to come to facts that they killed him.

The root of Christian anti-semitism. More than 7 million dead and counting (if you want to argue with me about this, go ahead, but in another thread)

layi:

He wasnt a nobody even when alive because everywhere he went multitudes gathered round him. It was for the fact that the kings/preists then forsee him usurpin their government that he was killed. Jesus was a 'somebody' when alive and even after he died.

Sources?

layi:

That fact needs not to be argue.

It most certainly does need arguing

layi:

AD means Anno Domini (in the yr of the lord-referring to christ) and BC means Before Christ. If he was a nobody. Time wont be caliberated after him.

Christianity was most certainly a major factor in history and that's why our time is calibrated after Jesus. It's proof of the enormous power of the Catholic Church. It does not prove that Jesus was a historical person.

layi:

in fact its because he caused a revolution that history made him a focal point. No history can surpas HIS STORY and i'll want us to wait till its changed....
The church (or religion has it was known) wasnt seperated from the state then. Kingdom ruled by belief in deities. So the
coming of Jesus wasnt a religious event. It was HISTORY. It affected the political, social and economic life. Cos the Enitire Nation of Isreal looked forward to him. I used Isreal as an example because its 1 of the oldest (if not the oldest) nation whom's complete history was put down for the world today. Its a good reference point to the world then. We had the greek kingdoms etc then who also believe in their own dieties.

So you're saying that Christianity gave us the separation of Church and state? Don't make me laugh, you are funny
The Greek states with their Philosophy and Democracy and the Roman Republic with its laws and separation of powers were way more influential on the world today.
The Catholic Church was a degenerate perversion of the Roman state, power was their game and not much more than that

And the Bible is a far cry from history. It's so full of factual errors that it even wouldn' t even pass as a high school paper. History, you say?

layi:

Now the big part. Most scientific findings go against biblical tenets because Science aims to explain life from the standpoint of humanity and do not believe in the supernatural while biblical tenets explain life from the standpoint of the supernatural which subsequently explains the physical.
They (both schools) do not stand on the same pedestal and thus are not expected to agree. Science has limited itself by believin that every occurence on earth started from evolution...any findings outside that wont be accepted...therefore i conclude that science is fallible.its still growing.

No, science explains the natural world and limits itself to the natural world. The Bible tries to explain the natural world - and fails miserably at it - and adds divine parts to it to spice it up. It cannot explain the physical at all, it's pseudo science. The only real value it brings is its morality, and even that needs a few serious revisions.

Science does not start from evolution. Evolution is one of the founding principles of modern biology, one of the many scientific disciplines. The evolution theory does not even talk about the origin of life, but only explains life after it started. To say that all science starts from evolution is showing and ill-informed perspective.
Your conclusion is standing on very shaky foundations.
I will grant you this though: your conclusion is correct. Science is fallible, it is growing (and improving constantly). And most importantly: it brings real knowledge. Something that cannot be said about the immutable truth from the Bible

@nferyn
I agree the old testament was written in hebrew. i knew the bible was written in 3 languages, hebrew , greek and aramaic but i misplaced greek for old. A typo there. I accept
I also commend your writeup. Wonderful.

In as much as i do not agree wit a few of ur points above...I hav to ask at this juncture. R u a professor of history? I not only like ur writeup but the style also.

Anyway, I'll be back to 'fight'. Got to gather more ammunitions.

Hi Layi,

Nice of you to drop by

layi:

@nferyn
I agree the old testament was written in hebrew. i knew the bible was written in 3 languages, hebrew , greek and aramaic but i misplaced greek for old. A typo there. I accept
I also commend your writeup. Wonderful.

Most of the new testament was written in Greek. The old testament was most definitely written in Hebrew. I don't know about Aramaic though, it was the tongue of the land, but that's as far as my knowledge here goes

layi:

In as much as i do not agree wit a few of your points above...I hav to ask at this juncture. R u a professor of history? I not only like your writeup but the style also.

Anyway, I'll be back to 'fight'. Got to gather more ammunitions.

No, I'm not. I sometimes think I should have gone for an academic career, but I was young and foolish so I ventured off into the world of the private sector
I have always been interested in history though. I even got a special prize for History and English (not my mother tongue) when graduating from secondary school. Now, enough of that self aggrandizing posturing... I might even start to believe what you write about me

Concerning the fight and ammunition: we're not at war, I'm not trying to defeat you. If I can make you think critically about your position and let you consider opposing pov's, I'm perfectly happy. And what do we have to lose? We can only increase our knowledge.

If I can make you understand that we, atheists, are not the perfect pictures of the devils incarnated that some Christians want to paint of us, I would be very happy. I do not want everyone to agree with me, I just want respect for my position.
I take the forefront here (we're talking in battle terms anyway) because I'm just a crazy foreigner and it won't have any repercussions for me. I would especially like my Nigerian brothers in thought to be offered the same courtesy (something that is currently not happening enough)

nferyn:


Concerning the fight and ammunition: we're not at war, I'm not trying to defeat you. .................
If I can make you understand that we, atheists, are not the perfect pictures of the devils incarnated that some Christians want to paint of us, I would be very happy. I do not want everyone to agree with me, I just want respect for my position.
I take the forefront here (we're talking in battle terms anyway) because I'm just a crazy foreigner and it won't have any repercussions for me. I would especially like my Nigerian brothers in thought to be offered the same courtesy (something that is currently not happening enough)

U r a belgian right? I must say your command of the English is superb. Well i understand where you're standing. Mind you, i used the word ammunition jokingly. You saw the icon after it.

Back to the topic

Trust me I (personally) do not detest people of opposing faith. I wasnt born a christian. I found it along the line but i've never regretted beoign one. My Life is the better for it.
Just like a lot of us do not know how the pressing iron was made, but we know how to make the best use of it.. I might not be a historian or christian philosopher..but i know what christianity is and its effect is evident in my life. the end justifies the means. If I can't delve deep enough into research to know its origin ( i do though)..I can measure the efficacy wit my own Life. What does christianity promise in the NOW...Am i getting it. Experiential knowledge is the best teacher when it comes to matters of faith.

I do not believe christians are in conflict or that the Bible is contarcdictory. i however believe that Christianity has been infilterated and lots of half baked and false teachers have polluted what christianity stands for.
But christianity still ramains what it is. A dirty dog isnt a cow.. The pollution however is timed.

I often ask myself why every othwer religions sects and atheist go against Christianity. They hardly attack themselves. Doesnt that tell us something.?

Christianity has thrived because each church can choose the interpretation of the bible that best suits its target demographic. There are churches for "deeper lifers", churches for "lovers", churches for "balanced Christianity", churches for "prosperity", etc. So if you don't like church A, you might like church B!

This is called market segmentation, and it reminds me of Ka's Concord of Opposite and Conflicting Opinions, which states that "where two people disagree on a matter, the Temple will resolve that in the sprit of harmony and unity, they will both be deemed to be right."

Well, most christian sects teach that people should read the bible, educate themselves on what saith the Lord.

So, when the bible cautions a slave from running away from his master and prescribes punishment for such, what am I to think?

layi:

U r a belgian right? I must say your command of the English is superb. Well i understand where you're standing. Mind you, i used the word ammunition jokingly. You saw the icon after it.

Sure, so did I, just teasing

layi:

Back to the topic

Trust me I (personally) do not detest people of opposing faith. I wasnt born a christian. I found it along the line but i've never regretted beoign one. My Life is the better for it.
Just like a lot of us do not know how the pressing iron was made, but we know how to make the best use of it.. I might not be a historian or christian philosopher..but i know what christianity is and its effect is evident in my life. the end justifies the means. If I can't delve deep enough into research to know its origin ( i do though)..I can measure the efficacy wit my own Life. What does christianity promise in the NOW...Am i getting it. Experiential knowledge is the best teacher when it comes to matters of faith.

No problem here, but this can very well be a placebo effect. If it's real for you, the better. And it is indeed a matter of faith, i.e. belief without evidence or proof, otherwise, why would you need faith?
I personally want to know how a pressing iron is made, what physics are behind it, how electricity works, how the steam is generated, etc. That gives me knowledge that can show me whether or not my faith in the pressing qualities of the iron is warranted.

layi:

I do not believe christians are in conflict or that the Bible is contarcdictory. i however believe that Christianity has been infilterated and lots of half baked and false teachers have polluted what christianity stands for.
But christianity still ramains what it is. A dirty dog isnt a cow.. The pollution however is timed.

The bible in itself is contradictory, especially if you want to take a literalist approach. If you take it as a collection of parables hiding an inner truth, you might have a point

layi:

I often ask myself why every othwer religions sects and atheist go against Christianity. They hardly attack themselves. Doesnt that tell us something.?

I think you're seeing ghosts here. I would never prevent any Christian from being Christian, after all, I'm married to one. It's the claim on truth, exclusive righteousness and exclusive morality that I resent. Proselytizing and imposing their truth on others.

This persecution idea is unwarranted.
Am I being rude if I don't appreciate being woken by church bells at 6:00 in the morning on Sunday? Am I being rude when I say to Jehovah's witnesses that I do not want them to bother me on sunday afternoon? Am I being rude when I say that I do not need a pastor visiting me when in the hospital?

What I'm doing is openly engaging Christians in discussions and calling them on faulty logic, false assumptions, bad science and an incomplete knowledge of history. That's all I'm doing and unfortunately some Christians have such shaky faith that they find that oppressive and rather shy away from the discussion.

Mind you, I applaud you for proving to be the exception to my rule

Huh? This was surprising enough that. . i must forgo my usual non quoting strategy:

nferyn:

What I'm doing is openly engaging Christians in discussions and calling them on faulty logic, false assumptions, bad science and an incomplete knowledge of history. That's all I'm doing and unfortunately some Christians have such shaky faith that they find that oppressive and rather shy away from the discussion.

Mind you, I applaud you for proving to be the exception to my rule

This is part of my motivation for this thread. . . .

allonym:

Huh? This was surprising enough that. . i must forgo my usual non quoting strategy:

This is part of my motivation for this thread. . . .

I guess we're in agreement, then. Anyway, are you living in Nigeria and indeed an atheist (my assumption) and if so, do you feel inhibited in expressing your position? Do you feel any hostility when coming out?

I was once talking to my wife's brother, who just arrived in Austria from Nigeria and he just could not grasp the fact that there were people who did not have a god-concept, that were neither christian, nor muslim, nor follower of some traditional belief system, but just a non-believer.

He physically [/i]looked at me like I was coming from another planet. It was proven that I was not the devil, as my wife and I have a good marriage. How come then that I could possibly be [i]an atheist?

Actually, I'm a Christian and currently don't live in Nigeria. I would feel inhibited speaking my mind with people 15 or more years older than I am. With all others, I'm at the point where they are either my peers or my age gives me authority and so I don't feel a need to censor my remarks. Though, with children below a certain age, I would more encourage them having open minds than I would press some of my views (unless of course, they were my own or I was granted enough authority in their lives).

nferyn:

Sure, so did I, just teasing
No problem here, but this can very well be a placebo effect. If it's real for you, the better. And it is indeed a matter of faith, i.e. belief without evidence or proof, otherwise, why would you need faith?
I personally want to know how a pressing iron is made, what physics are behind it, how electricity works, how the steam is generated, etc. That gives me knowledge that can show me whether or not my faith in the pressing qualities of the iron is warranted.
..........................
Mind you, I applaud you for proving to be the exception to my rule

Note however that if you're not an authority in physics ..u may misjudge your findings on the pression iron.
However I'm not against knowledge...but I'm not totally in support of acquiring knowledge at all cost for knowledge sake.
Why must i know the components of the iron...if it presses my clothes? My knowlegde of the mechanism wont make it press the clothes better. Afterall it came with a manual to help me use it. Moreover i can't start researchin the mechaism behind evry gadget in my home. It'll be too burdensome. Why don't I use it for its purpose rather than break my head over the tech behind it.
Nothing wrong in knowin this though...but what good will it add to a functioning pressing iron (or me) if i know the components. Same wit some life issues. I love learning though. If the purpose has been achieved , I see no reason researchin. I could do if i so desire but not out of necessity.
I don't need to ask the taxi driver how many gallons of fuel he used OR how the steerrin was handled. The point is; I got to my destination.

allonym:

Actually, I'm a Christian and currently don't live in Nigeria

My bad. You seen on-line appearances - especially when inferred from posts - can be deceiving.
I like your rational approach to things. Could you explain what exactly makes you a Christian, what parts of the Christian doctrine do you adhere to?

layi:

Note however that if you're not an authority in physics ..u may misjudge your findings on the pression iron.
However I'm not against knowledge...but I'm not totally in support of acquiring knowledge at all cost for knowledge sake.

Just my character, I'm the inquiring type. Can't help myself. As a kid, I used to read the milk cartons as I wasn't allowed to read while eating. I read all the tags and names of the conservants, the meaning of the bar codes and other useless stuff just to keep my mind occupied

Of course I don't need to acquire in depth knowledge of everything, the basics will do, enough to understand the logical systems behind it. And here comes the wonderfull thing about science in the picture: peer review. If something (a theory, an experiment, a finding) is presented in the scientific world, the peers of the person presenting the novel idea are going to try everything to discredit the finding. If the idea witstands the critical assault, it can become an accepted part of scientific knowledge. No system in the world is so ruthless like peer review in science. What comes out as accepted theory is very solid indeed.

And that's why I trust, why I have faith in peer reviewed scientific findings. I can build on the knowledge acquired by intellectual giants, far superior to me.

layi:

Why must i know the components of the iron...if it presses my clothes? My knowledge of the mechanism wont make it press the clothes better. Afterall it came with a manual to help me use it. Moreover i can't start researchin the mechaism behind evry gadget in my home. It'll be too burdensome. Why don't I use it for its purpose rather than break my head over the tech behind it.

Again, no rational explanation here, that's just the kind of person I am

layi:

Nothing wrong in knowin this though...but what good will it add to a functioning pressing iron (or me) if i know the components. Same wit some life issues. I love learning though. If the purpose has been achieved , I see no reason researchin. I could do if i so desire but not out of necessity.
I don't need to ask the taxi driver how many gallons of fuel he used OR how the steerrin was handled. The point is; I got to my destination.

That's a very utilitarian approach. I personally do value pure knowledge, but I don't expect every person to do so.

Let me answer this by starting with: I have chosen to believe in the God (described in the bible). Logically, I cannot justify this choice but it makes me a christian.

I am still in the process of determining for myself how literally I take parts of the bible. There are some biblical researchers who give estimates of how old the world is based on the bible - I agree with what scientists, geologists, astronomists say. It is my conviction that the bible is a recording of the history of christianity (to the point of the beginings of the early church) and should serve as a major guide for most christians.

I feel that people should use their common sense, experience, and gut conviction as to what is right or wrong to guide their life and how they interpret what's in the bible. There are some things which I feel are either taken out of context or whose meaning cannot really be determined. For example, how do we seperate the opinions of Paul from the will of God? How can I be sure that some things Paul says should not be done are examples of activities that (people of that time) took to excess or were associated with worldy behavior.


I also value pure knowledge. . though the older I've gotten, the less time I have for the general pursuit and the more I have to specialize.

I'm trying to think of how best to continue. In the past, if a woman was raped, a lot of people (probably the majority) would suggest that it was the woman's fault (in her mode of dress, being flirtatious, or some other reason). For many sins which require a consenting man and woman, the woman was more likely to be punished. So what I'm saying is that the advice prophets, leaders, and others in the bible would give would tend to conform towards the prevailing views of their time.

Premarital sex for example is a topic where one can give good reasons from abstaining w/o resorting to the bible. I think that some things in the bible are like that, where something which a parent might tell their kid not to do, but not be able to come up with a good reason at the time is transformed to - God would rather you did not do this thing.

So, now, as a "modern" person, I should endeavor to unravel these. . . filters. . .from the word of God and apply it in a consistent manner. I like discussing my views, alternate and conflicting ones because they only further help me to decide or help me to shape how I apply the bible to my life.

That story about Sleeping Jonah and the Whale is interesting and entertaining. I recommend it to anyone who has little kids or enjoys bedtime stories.

WesleyanA:

That story about Sleeping Jonah and the Whale is interesting and entertaining. I recommend it to anyone who has little kids or enjoys bedtime stories.

You got me lost here. Why are you bringing this up?

allonym:

Actually, I'm a Christian and currently don't live in Nigeria. I would feel inhibited speaking my mind with people 15 or more years older than I am. [SNIP]

You really shouldn't feel inhibited. As long as you're respectful, there is no harm in it. I would have liked to have more wise people around me when I was younger, they might have given me more perspective on things. If you're younger, you are bound to make your own mistakes and sometimes that can be hard to endure. If you can rely on the wisdom of older people, you could end up making less mistakes.

The only real problem you may have in talking with older people is that they don't understand our currently fast evolving society and that it is more difficult to make the intellectual connection that way.

Back to the topic

The Bible was written by 40 different men, none of whom were professional writers. It was compiled over a period of 1600 years. It is not surprising, then, that many people see contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible record. On the other hand, the Bible itself tells us that it is true and accurate in every detail (see Psalm 119:160, 2 Tim 3:16).So, what of the supposed contradictions? Can they be reasonably explained or do they belie the uninspired origins of the Bible?

It is good for us to keep in mind that people often say things that are contradictory but that are, in fact, easily explained or understood. For example, the businessman who gets his secretary to draft, type and send a letter may in good faith tell others that he sent it whereas the secretary can honestly say that she did so. Which one is correct? The answer is that they both are. There are numerous situations like this in the Bible, a notable one being recorded at Matthew 8:5 and again at Luke 7:2,3. Matthew’s account says that an army officer came to ask Jesus a favor. However, Luke says that the man sent his representatives. There is no inconsistency here, merely an adding of detail by Luke.

Some other seeming contradictions in the Gospel accounts follow:
(1) The death of Judas Iscariot.
Matthew 27:5 tells us that Judas hanged himself. However, Acts 1:18 says that ‘pitched foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out.’

A seeming contradiction? Not really. Matthew describes the method employed by Judas to end his life whereas the record in Acts details the results of his actions. It would appear that Judas tried to hang himself from a tree, the branch of which broke, plunging him down to the rocks below the cliff on which the tree stood. The topography around Jerusalem makes such a conclusion reasonable.

(2) Who Carried the Torture Stake
John 19:17 tells us that Jesus bore his own torture stake, yet Matthew, Mark and Luke all say that a certain Simon of Cyrene was impressed into service to carry the stake. This is another instance of added detail. John’s Gospel is in many ways a condensed rendering of the events of Jesus’ life. Jesus bore his own stake, as John says, but later Simon was given this task as is indicated by the other three writers. The Gospel accounts, therefore, harmonize in this regard.

Contradictions. Loose ends. Many people believe that the Bible is full of them. Such ones see these apparent problems as major obstacles in the belief of the Bible’s inspiration. Indeed, a work that was inspired of our creator would be free of such imperfections. So, just what is the truth about Bible contradictions? Can they be reconciled? In my post above this I considered some apparent contradictions in the four Gospel accounts. Now I'll focus in on perceived problem areas with the early Bible record. In doing so, we will confront 3 popularly mentioned difficulties: (1) Where did Cain get his wife? (2) Who sold Joseph into Egypt (3) Who caused David to take a count of the Israelites?

(1) Where did Cain get his wife? Many people believe that after the murder of Abel, only Adam, Eve and Cain were left on the earth. Adam and Eve, however, had a large family as mentioned at Genesis 5:3,4; “The days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters.” Obviously, then, Cain married his sister or his neice. Since mankind was then so close to human perfection, such a marriage did not pose the health risks that may imperil the offspring of such a union today. Additionally, it is the only way that the mandate to fill the earth given at Genesis 1:28 could be fulfilled. (2) Genesis 37:27 says that Joseph’s brothers decided to sell him to some Ishmaelites. But the next verse states: “Now men, Midianite merchants, went passing by. Hence they (Joseph’s brothers) drew and lifted up Joseph out of the waterpit and then sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver pieces. Eventually, these brought Joseph into Egypt.” So, was Joseph sold to Ishmaelites or to Midianites? Well, the Midianites may also have been called Ishmaelites, to whom they were related through their forefather Abraham. Or Midianite merchants may have been traveling with an Ishmaelite caravan. At any rate, Joseph’s brothers did the selling, and later he could tell them: “I am Joseph, your brother, whom you sold into Egypt.” Genesis 45:4 (3) 2 Samuel 24:1 says; Again the anger of God came to be hot against Israel, when David was incited against them, saying: ‘Go take a count of Israel and Judah.’” However, it was not God who moved King David to sin, for 1 Chronicles 21:1 says: “Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.” God was displease with Israel and therefore allowed Satan to bring this sin upon them. For this reason, 2 Samuel 24:1 reads as though god did it himself.

As can be seen from the above examples, it is imperative to take the context and unique surrounding circumstances into account when attempting to resolve apparent conflicts in the Bible text. By doing so, you will find that harmony and completeness are hallmarks of the Bible record.

this is good, because it made me realize i've been misusing the word contradiction with respect to the bible in this topic.

I guess I meant to ask about the apparent discrepancy between what is accepted as "right" and some things in the bible. Slavery and the role of women are ones that I bring up - there is a clear difference between the modern (and sometimes Westernized) view of women's rights and slavery and those expressed in the bible.

layi:

[SNIP]
As can be seen from the above examples, it is imperative to take the context and unique surrounding circumstances into account when attempting to resolve apparent conflicts in the Bible text. By doing so, you will find that harmony and completeness are hallmarks of the Bible record.

Actually, layi, that's because you [b]want [/b]to find harmony and completeness. The language used in the Bible is far from being precise an because of it's sheer size, you can always contextualize until you find harmony and completeness.

If you know a little about how the Bible was compiled, you will understand that only a small part of what was early Christian thought is retained in the Bible. Only the texts that fit the Orthodox Roman Catholic interpretation were withheld for the Bible.

In early Christianity, there were a lot of female pastors. The holy trinity was one of father, son and holy ghost, in which ghost comes from the Hebrew feminine term of spirit ruah. This term was later, during canonization, translated in Greek to a gender neutral term, pneuma. The original trinity was closer to The divine masculine (father), the divine feminine (holy ghost - ruah) and the intermediary, facilitating son (Jesus). Through the son, [b]gnosis [/b]or knowledge about the divine (God) could be reached.

This was very different from the paternalistic church that came to dominate the Roman Empire. and from which sprung the later protestant churches.

nferyn:

Actually, layi, that's because you want [/b]to find harmony and completeness. The language used in the Bible is far from being precise an because of it's sheer size, you can always contextualize until you find harmony and completeness.

If you know a little about how the Bible was compiled, you will understand that only a small part of what was early Christian thought is retained in the Bible. Only the texts that fit the Orthodox Roman Catholic interpretation were withheld for the Bible.
......

How do u know how the Bible was compiled If not for written 'history' (since u werent there). How can u use a written book (ur references) to disproove a written book (Bible)...Its because u too want to disproove the Bible. Simple!!

Like I always say: 2 Corinthians 3:6 - Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: [b]for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


I have the spirit that created the world, the one the bible preach...residing in me. This aint no placebo effect...cos He's as real as life itself.