Feed on Posts or Comments 12 February 2016

Christianity Thomas on 24 Apr 2012 12:46 am

Where is the Christian Moral Code?

This article makes a statement about Christian morals:

Without God there can be no good

The statement:

In their attempt to argue that effective and binding codes can be developed without a deity, atheists often mistake inferior codes – “common decency” – for absolute moral systems.

The Golden Rule, or doing as you would be done by, is such a code. But the fact that men can arrive at the Golden Rule without religion does not mean that man can arrive at the Christian moral code without religion.

Christianity requires much more, and above all does not expect to see charity returned. To love thy neighbour as thyself is a far greater and more complicated obligation, requiring a positive effort to seek the good of others, often in secret, sometimes at great cost and always without reward. Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words, “Great love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Two questions must be asked:

  1. Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?
  2. Do all Christians abide by it? Do even half? One tenth? Less?

Christians, care to answer?

573 Responses to “Where is the Christian Moral Code?”

  1. on 16 May 2012 at 11:14 pm 1.Chris said …

    Prime –

    Please, outside of the first one in this list, quote where I said:

    “Evidence for God please?
    “Jesus.”
    But what about Muhammad?
    “Obviously false.”
    Why?
    “Not Jesus.”

    …..Please, quote me VERBATIM where I said that Muhammad was “obviously false” because he’s “not Jesus.”

  2. on 16 May 2012 at 11:16 pm 2.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “JUMP THROUGH HOOPS?! He allegedly does that throughout the bible stories of 2,000 years. All I want him to do is just show-up once. Your entire reply is nothing but one big rationalization and excuse as to why he won’t.

    In short, your answer is – he won’t.”

    No sir, it’s a challenge to YOU. I laid it down and YOU are backing away.

    YOU do the praying Lou, if you want God to reveal himself to you DIRECTLY.

    You won’t tho…and use me as your reason. Weak Lou.

    Heck, Lou, you could come back in seven days and say nothing happened! Here’s your chance! Just pray for seven days to God…and you can’t even do that!

    Guess you might think God is real after all…

  3. on 16 May 2012 at 11:20 pm 3.Prime said …

    Cool, Chris is playing “moving the goalposts” again. Quick, everyone watch!

  4. on 16 May 2012 at 11:21 pm 4.Prime said …

    “I see anger. Anger at something you don’t believe in!

    I don’t believe in Allah as the Muslim believes, but I sure don’t have anger toward Him…I don’t believe in him!”

    Actually, Chris, we’re angry at you, not silly non-existent “God” thingies.

  5. on 16 May 2012 at 11:23 pm 5.Prime said …

    “Heck, Lou, you could come back in seven days and say nothing happened! Here’s your chance! Just pray for seven days to God…and you can’t even do that!”

    Or…
    “Heck, Chris, you could come back in seven days and say nothing happened! Here’s your chance! Just pray for seven days to Allah…and you can’t even do that!”

    See how silly that is, Chris? See how you’re asking Lou(DFW) to pray to something he doesn’t believe in and then trying to accuse him of doing it wrong when he doesn’t do it?

  6. on 16 May 2012 at 11:26 pm 6.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “See how silly that is, Chris? See how you’re asking Lou(DFW) to pray to something he doesn’t believe in and then trying to accuse him of doing it wrong when he doesn’t do it?”

    No, Prime, what I doing is showing that Lou DOESN’T WANT God to exist, which fuels his disbelief.

    What harm for Lou is there to pray to God…after all, Lou ASKED ME to…all I’m asking is for Lou to do the work he wants me to do.

    If Lou WANTS God to reveal himself, then he should ask God to.

    If Lou doesn’t, then Lou should be able to say that plainly rather than try to ditch it off on me and use ME as an excuse NOT TO.

  7. on 16 May 2012 at 11:28 pm 7.Prime said …

    No, what I doing is showing that Chris DOESN’T WANT Allah to exist, which fuels his disbelief.

    What harm for Chris is there to pray to Allah…after all, Prime ASKED HIM to…all I’m asking is for Chris to do the work Prime asked him to do.

    If Chris WANTS Allah to reveal himself, then he should ask Allah to.

    If Chris doesn’t, then Chris should be able to say that plainly rather than try to ditch it off on Jesus and use JESUS as an excuse NOT TO.

  8. on 16 May 2012 at 11:29 pm 8.Lou(DFW) said …

    405.Prime said …

    “See how silly that is, Chris?”

    Now it’s clear why I keep referring to any “discussion” with him as being one with a five year old about the tooth fairy.

    It’s similar to the schoolyard “I know you are, but what am I?” defense.

    When someone can’t reply in their own reasonable way, they simply try to reverse the argument on you.

  9. on 16 May 2012 at 11:30 pm 9.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “Cool, Chris is playing “moving the goalposts” again. Quick, everyone watch!”

    This would be funny if only for a couple things.

    1) I again, showed that I am willing to discuss.
    2) You missed quoted me, and I showed that, to even include things I didn’t say.
    3) Tried to post verses to mean ONE THING, when in fact they mean something else…call it tripe to save face, and still avoid discussing ANYTHING but posting these rants

    and, please show, how I have moved the goal posts?

    But it is clear Prime: you want to spout, not discuss…

  10. on 16 May 2012 at 11:30 pm 10.Prime said …

    Nothing “fuels our disbelief,” you simpleton. I thought you were cottoning on to that default position thing where disbelief is what you have before you have any good reasons to believe, but it’s apparent that you don’t get it.

    Why don’t you believe in Allah? Why don’t you want to believe in him?

  11. on 16 May 2012 at 11:31 pm 11.Prime said …

    Okay, speedy, you caught me.

    Cite me a bible verse where God or Jesus *clearly and unambiguously* says “you can’t own slaves” to make up for the 11 (that I know of) where says you can and how hard you can beat them.

  12. on 16 May 2012 at 11:32 pm 12.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “No, what I doing is showing that Chris DOESN’T WANT Allah to exist, which fuels his disbelief.

    What harm for Chris is there to pray to Allah…after all, Prime ASKED HIM to…all I’m asking is for Chris to do the work Prime asked him to do.

    If Chris WANTS Allah to reveal himself, then he should ask Allah to.

    If Chris doesn’t, then Chris should be able to say that plainly rather than try to ditch it off on Jesus and use JESUS as an excuse NOT TO.”

    LOL.

    Still avoiding discussion, though I see…

  13. on 16 May 2012 at 11:33 pm 13.Prime said …

    Again, you don’t want to discuss. If you wanted to discuss, you’d start with providing real evidence for God, then you’d provide real substantiation for why anyone should accept that your bible is a source worth considering on any matter other than ancient literature, laws, and customs. Once you do that, the discussion can begin. Until then, you’re posturing, and we’re making fun of you for it. Don’t keep moving the goalposts.

  14. on 16 May 2012 at 11:35 pm 14.Prime said …

    Here’s the goalpost:

    PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

    Here’s you, paraphrased:

    You didn’t discuss with me why this horrible bible verse can be hermeneutically covered up to not be horrible in the context of God, upon whom I simply assume a priori normal rules of good and bad don’t apply.

    You moved the goalpost.

  15. on 16 May 2012 at 11:38 pm 15.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “Again, you don’t want to discuss. If you wanted to discuss, you’d start with providing real evidence for God, then you’d provide real substantiation for why anyone should accept that your bible is a source worth considering on any matter other than ancient literature, laws, and customs. Once you do that, the discussion can begin. Until then, you’re posturing, and we’re making fun of you for it. Don’t keep moving the goalposts.”

    I provided a list of what i believe IS evidence for God…even said we could discuss them. ARe you saying that you don’t want to discuss ANY of my list?

    How do you know the Bible isn’t real evidence? We didn’t discuss it? Or the life of Jesus…we didn’t discuss it…or sex? We didn’t discuss it…you say you want REAL evidence…well, i presented to you a short list of what I beleive evidence is.

    What’s wrong with discussing THOSE?

    Or what’s wrong with ALSO discussing the verses you posted?

    Pick from my list, and we shall discuss…after all the Bible IS REAL. The question is: is it good evidence?

    Let’s talk about it…or pick one from my list.

  16. on 16 May 2012 at 11:41 pm 16.Prime said …

    Chris:

    “How do you know the Bible isn’t real evidence?”

    You didn’t prove that it is. Nobody has proven that it is.

    “We didn’t discuss it?”

    Do you really want to?

    “Or the life of Jesus…we didn’t discuss it…”

    There is no credible evidence for the life of Jesus outside of the bible, so without the previous claim PLUS proof of God (since otherwise Jesus was just a nutbar, if he existed), this is empty.

    “or sex? We didn’t discuss it…”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA… Still laughing about that one. It’s on my list too, you might have noticed. Maybe we should spar over sex! That’s kinky!

    “you say you want REAL evidence…”

    Yes.

    “well, i presented to you a short list of what I beleive evidence is.”

    You suck at knowing what evidence is.

    “What’s wrong with discussing THOSE?”

    Because they’re not evidence.

    Or what’s wrong with ALSO discussing the verses you posted?

    Pick from my list, and we shall discuss…after all the Bible IS REAL. The question is: is it good evidence?

    Let’s talk about it…or pick one from my list.

  17. on 16 May 2012 at 11:41 pm 17.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “ROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

    Here’s you, paraphrased:

    You didn’t discuss with me why this horrible bible verse can be hermeneutically covered up to not be horrible in the context of God, upon whom I simply assume a priori normal rules of good and bad don’t apply.

    You moved the goalpost.”

    No, I did provide EVIDENCE, you even made a list to make fun of it – did you discuss it?

    Nope. You made FUN of it.

    It was right there, you saw it…did you continue the discussion? Nope. You made fun of it.

    THEN you interject into DPK’s post. Provided verses you thought meant something they didn’t. I showed you why, offered to discuss it AS WELL (in addition to my list, which still stands) however, you call it tripe because it showed you didn’t really know what you were talking about, thus I can see why you don’t want to discuss it.

    Not moving the goal post, my friend, just offering up a discussion in MANY areas.

    That is, my offer to DISCUSS my evidence is still valid.

    Oh…hows finding that quote of mine going? Find it or did you misquote me?

  18. on 16 May 2012 at 11:43 pm 18.Prime said …

    Oops…
    “Or what’s wrong with ALSO discussing the verses you posted?”

    It’s pointless. That book is a barbaric piece that you can’t prove is anything otherwise.

    “Pick from my list, and we shall discuss…after all the Bible IS REAL. The question is: is it good evidence?”

    It’s not. Throw up whatever you want. I’m not picking from your idiotic list of non-evidence, particularly since you didn’t even attempt to substantiate how any of it constitutes evidence for anything.

    “Let’s talk about it…or pick one from my list.”

    SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  19. on 16 May 2012 at 11:45 pm 19.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “Because they’re not evidence.”

    LOL…ah, now I see your issue Prime.

    you want evidence YOU agree with, however none will exist so you get to claim you don’t see evidence and none has been provided.

    That’s just intellectually lazy Prime.

    If the Bible isn’t evidence, why do so many atheist scholars waste so much time on it? If it’s not evidence, it’s waisting their time?

    Bart Ehrman has made a nice living on this “non-evidence” that is the Bible.

    Good enough for him to write books about, but not enough for you to discuss on a blog.

    Okay, Prime. I see we won’t have a discussion.

    I tried.

  20. on 16 May 2012 at 11:46 pm 20.Prime said …

    Chris…
    “No, I did provide EVIDENCE, you even made a list to make fun of it – did you discuss it?
    Nope. You made FUN of it.”

    That’s how much discussion it was worth.

    “It was right there, you saw it…did you continue the discussion? Nope. You made fun of it.”

    Apparently your list of “evidence” didn’t hit me very seriously then, did it?

    “THEN you interject into DPK’s post. Provided verses you thought meant something they didn’t. I showed you why, offered to discuss it AS WELL (in addition to my list, which still stands) however, you call it tripe because it showed you didn’t really know what you were talking about, thus I can see why you don’t want to discuss it.”

    No you didn’t. Those things are in your bible, and they’re disgusting, however much hermeneutical bullshit you learned in bible college to cover up for it.

    “Not moving the goal post, my friend, just offering up a discussion in MANY areas.”

    The goalpost is over there, where you provide evidence for your god (you might want to include how any of those things on your fancy list constitute evidence if you don’t want people making fun of it next time).

    “That is, my offer to DISCUSS my evidence is still valid.”

    Bring it. You start, by telling us HOW IT IS EVIDENCE.

    “Oh…hows finding that quote of mine going? Find it or did you misquote me?”

    I paraphrased.

  21. on 16 May 2012 at 11:46 pm 21.Chris said …

    Prime –

    ““Or what’s wrong with ALSO discussing the verses you posted?”

    It’s pointless. That book is a barbaric piece that you can’t prove is anything otherwise. ”

    Oh, but it was okay to “discuss” it when it seemed to fit what you needed it to, but now THAT was shot down it’s just a barbaric book that I can’t prove otherwise…well, no I can’t Prime if we don’t DISCUSS it.

    So, play it safe, yep…you can’t prove it, so I won’t discuss it so you won’t even have an opporunity to prove it.

    Sound logic

  22. on 16 May 2012 at 11:47 pm 22.Prime said …

    Chris: “I tried.”

    Um, no, you didn’t. Or maybe some advice: Do or do not, there is no try.

  23. on 16 May 2012 at 11:48 pm 23.Prime said …

    Why don’t you stop posturing about all of this “discussion” you want to have and just start a fracking discussion? It’s really, really getting old.

    Give us evidence for your God. Show us how “rainbows” and “unicorns” (also paraphrased) are evidence for the Trinity.

  24. on 16 May 2012 at 11:49 pm 24.Prime said …

    Why do people discuss the bible if it’s not evidence. Could it be because of people like you who assert, simply and without substance, that it’s evidence?

  25. on 16 May 2012 at 11:50 pm 25.alex said …

    Chris, you know why you don’t get Christmas gifts? You’re not fucking good enough. If you are truly, and honestly good, you will. I know you’ve tried in the past, but I’m telling you, honest to God, you will get presents if you are truly, truly good.

  26. on 16 May 2012 at 11:50 pm 26.Lou(DFW) said …

    419.Chris said …

    “If the Bible isn’t evidence, why do so many atheist scholars waste so much time on it? If it’s not evidence, it’s waisting their time?

    Bart Ehrman has made a nice living on this “non-evidence” that is the Bible.

    Good enough for him to write books about, but not enough for you to discuss on a blog.”

    Are you claiming that Ehrman is an atheist scholar on the bible?

  27. on 16 May 2012 at 11:51 pm 27.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “I paraphrased.”

    I’ll take the quote that you paraphrased from. As I don’t remember even mentioning Muhammed, so you then are just putting words in my mouth. Huh.

    “No you didn’t. Those things are in your bible, and they’re disgusting, however much hermeneutical bullshit you learned in bible college to cover up for it.”

    Um, no…no hermeneutics when it comes to 1) Jesus using a PARABLE, 2) PUNISHMENT For beating a slave, 3) A POEM not written by God, 4) A WARNING.

    They were quite clear, no dancing or special thinking needed.

    Or please again, show WHY they are wrong…otherwise you are just ranting…

    “Bring it. You start, by telling us HOW IT IS EVIDENCE.”

    Okay, we’ll start with the Bible.

    Unless you have another one you would like more…

  28. on 16 May 2012 at 11:53 pm 28.Chris said …

    Lou –

    Are you claiming that Ehrman is an atheist scholar on the bible?

    I believe that he is, yes…that’s suprising to you? There are quite a few atheist Biblical scholars, this is not a secret, in fact it is well known to even us who are not scholars who study the Bible.

    I have even heard him in debates if you could beleive that!

    I’m not sure why that’s a suprise to you…

  29. on 16 May 2012 at 11:55 pm 29.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “Why do people discuss the bible if it’s not evidence. Could it be because of people like you who assert, simply and without substance, that it’s evidence?”

    Well, we will be look at it then won’t we?

    Sadly, it won’t be tonight, I have a floor drain that I need to get to. I put it off too long as it is tonight.

    But I look forward to our discussion on the Bible.

    We can call our discussion: The Bible: Is it REALLY evidence?

    Pro: Chris
    Con: Prime

    I look forward to it Prime, I am anxious to read what you have to say.

    Have a good night.

  30. on 16 May 2012 at 11:56 pm 30.Prime said …

    “2) PUNISHMENT For beating a slave,”

    Um… no, punishment for beating a slave too hard, not punishment for beating one, not punishment for owning one, not even a suggestion that you shouldn’t own one.

    Actually, if you look back, since you’re so persnickety about precision on some things (and oddly not others), someone said those things are in the bible (beating slaves, ripping pregnant bellies open, dashing babies on rocks), you said “prove it,” I provided verses, and now you’re trying to tell us that those verses mean something else, but the only proof required was that they’re in there.

  31. on 16 May 2012 at 11:56 pm 31.Chris said …

    Alex –

    “Chris, you know why you don’t get Christmas gifts? You’re not fucking good enough. ”

    You probably are right there…that’s why i just buy my own.

  32. on 16 May 2012 at 11:58 pm 32.Prime said …

    429.Chris said …

    “But I look forward to our discussion on the Bible.
    We can call our discussion: The Bible: Is it REALLY evidence?
    Pro: Chris
    Con: Prime”

    You’re framing the debate? Tell me I’m not allowed to tell you anything you don’t want to hear next.

    Here’s my claim: Prove the bible is evidence or it is not. Good luck.

  33. on 17 May 2012 at 12:04 am 33.Prime said …

    Wait… I’m not getting suckered into one of these b.s. arguments where you play a technicality on us all. “The Bible: Is it REALLY evidence FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE?”

    I’m not disputing that it’s really evidence that there is a city called Jerusalem where Jews and Romans have been. That’s pointless stupidity.

  34. on 17 May 2012 at 12:22 am 34.alex said …

    …but, but, the bible mentions the Earth. Isn’t Earth the Truth? There ya go, Evidence enough? Forget all the other bullshit the atheists keep bringing up, all that stuff is metaphor, similes, and/or taken out of context. Sheeyat!

  35. on 17 May 2012 at 12:31 am 35.DPK said …

    “Tripe?
    I showed the versed that YOU quoted and showed how they DON’T portray what you want them to.”

    Except you didn’t. All you did is attempt to tap dance around the unavoidable fact that the god of the bible is clearly an a-moral monster. Owning, beating… whether few or many blows is immoral. Genocide and infanticide is immoral, whether the victims are “wicked” or not, killing people for; working on the Sabbath, wearing 2 different kinds of cloth, being gay, being disrespectful to one’s parents, etc, etc…. is not to be reconciled with the concept of a perfect and infinite intelligence. Your rationalizations are simply difficult and obtuse attempts to reconcile what you want to believe. Sorry, my my perspective, not convincing and certainly nothing new. Fail.

  36. on 17 May 2012 at 1:07 am 36.Anonymous said …

    Chris, for someone claiming to want to have a discussion, you are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to start anywhere other than “prove me wrong” which isn’t a discussion, it’s you playing games.

    Also, let’s be clear, your proof also needs to support your belief in YOUR god. That means you must first define the god that you are going to use the bible in support of. You need to do this first, else it’ll seem like more goalpost moving

    Further, you should be reminded that earlier you said the following: “As I don’t subscribe to ANY denomination. I’m more along the lines of belief as say: Greg Boyd, or Tony Campolo, if that helps. However, the denominational differences aren’t really all that different in CORE beliefs.”

    Hence, your proof also needs to support your non-denominational stance and show why the other 38,000+ versions are incorrect. While you are at it, please define what you mean by core beliefs (plural).

    Have at it.

  37. on 17 May 2012 at 1:28 am 37.Lou(DFW) said …

    427.Chris said …

    “Okay, we’ll start with the Bible.”

    Why do people think the Bible is a great and powerful weapon?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZaZjJg-hk&feature=plcp

  38. on 17 May 2012 at 1:32 am 38.Lou(DFW) said …

    428.Chris said …

    “I’m not sure why that’s a suprise to you…”

    You really are dense. That’s not what I’m surprised at. What I’m surprised at is that you would use him to somehow support your position.

    Hint: he didn’t begin his “career” as an atheist.

  39. on 17 May 2012 at 1:46 am 39.alex said …

    My sister loves to quote the bible when I’m around and so I started reciting random passages from the Illiad just to mess with her. I told her the Illiad is an ancient holy book that predates the bible. She thinks it’s cool that I might actually believe in it and that I may have a purpose in life.

  40. on 17 May 2012 at 1:50 am 40.Lou(DFW) said …

    435.DPK said …

    “Tripe?
    I showed the versed that YOU quoted and showed how they DON’T portray what you want them to.”

    “Except you didn’t. All you did is attempt to tap dance around the unavoidable fact that the god of the bible is clearly an a-moral monster.”

    Of course he didn’t. Let’s look a the first one:

    “Exodus 21:20-21:

    ….So Prime, are you saying you have a problem with a person being punished for beating and killing his slave? Where in this verse does God 1) order one to beat their slaves, 2) find it perfectly moral to do so?”

    You entire response to that verse consisted of questions only. Your reply did not in anyway whatsoever show “how they DON’T portray what you want them to.” In effect, you ONLY DENIED that they don’t say what he claims.

    As I said, discussing this with you is like discussing the tooth fairy with a five year old.

  41. on 17 May 2012 at 2:13 am 41.Prime said …

    37. (or wherever we are) whatever Chris is about to say about the bible.

    Ooh. Look. My first ever poisoning the well!

    38. The tooth fairy.
    39. Bananas.
    40. Adolescents.
    41. Monsanto.

  42. on 17 May 2012 at 2:18 am 42.Anonymous said …

    “Tell you what, you go pray your ass off for god to appear TO ME, not 2,000 years ago only to ancient goat-herders, and DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE TO ME, not through a book they wrote 2,000 years ago – then we can have a REAL DISCUSSION about god. I’m here. you’re here, god isn’t. Until then, you have nothing but bluster to present here.”

    …So you are saying THAT would change your mind? Of course it wouldn’t! What if you did see God in some manner tonight? Would you change? Of course not, you would write it off to something…sorry God doesn’t work the way YOU WANT him to.

    You don’t WANT God in your life, thus he let’s you have that. You are getting just what you want…no God.

    We learn two things from this exchange.

    First, Lou gets what he wants from Chris’ god just by wanting it. Thus he doesn’t need to pray, nor is he subject to “yes, no, or wait”. Lou’s desires trump Christian experiences with prayer.

    Second. By Chris’ account, Lou gets what he wants despite this god’s desire to be loved (narcissistic bastard that Yahweh is). Thus Lou is more powerful than this supposed god.

    Third, sorry Prime but I have my non-material reality-augmented system of counting, Chris has claimed that his god both gives Lou what he wants and simultaneously doesn’t do what Lou wants. Poor Chris, all over the place but not in a place where reality or consistency matter.

  43. on 17 May 2012 at 2:28 am 43.Prime said …

    “Third, sorry Prime but I have my non-material reality-augmented system of counting, Chris has claimed that his god both gives Lou what he wants and simultaneously doesn’t do what Lou wants. Poor Chris, all over the place but not in a place where reality or consistency matter.”

    Nuh uh, Chris’s Allah did it. You can’t prove he didn’t.

  44. on 17 May 2012 at 4:29 am 44.Prime said …

    Of course, Chris, you did put sex on your list, and so did I. Therefore, I’m throwing down my gauntlet there too. I’ll open by mocking the position you espouse, de facto:

    God, in an attempt to make us look totally biological so we can’t be sure he exists so we have to come to him on faith instead of in knowledge, creates us so we have to hump like sweaty beasts in order to procreate, involving all kinds of vaguely icky fluids that the other animals also make, then makes us be equipped to want to do it overwhelmingly via our biological neurochemistry, makes it addictive by that same neurochemistry, makes it inordinately risky and not always successful at the procreation thing, craps on women’s end of the bargain in the whole affair, and then makes it a sin that we are to hate ourselves (and women) over and apologize for repeatedly our whole lives so we don’t burn in a lake of fire forever.
    Seems legit.

  45. on 19 May 2012 at 3:54 am 45.Chris said …

    Sorry for the delay folks,

    Okay, so I was going to present the Bible as evidence for God.

    Here we go!

    Okay, if we are to even THINK of the Bible as being evidence for God, we might want to think of a few things…

    1) what can we expect from a document “inspired” by God?
    2) what can we expect from a document ONLY written by man?
    3) where does the Bible fit into this?

    What I will present is what I would think most people would believe God would make sure of if he did INSPIRE the Bible.

    a) it would stand the test of time…that is, be as relevant TODAY as it was when it was written.
    b) that throughout time, despite the fallibility of man, it would remain INTACT.
    c) no matter WHO was inspired to write, or where they were, or at what time they lived in – it would express the same message, without error, and not contradict itself in such a manner.
    d) be grounded in reality, dealing with real people, places and events.

    Now, perhaps you disagree with the four assertions I have given, if so, please explain why and provide what YOU would think a document inspired by God would contain and be.

    Okay, so, what about the Bible?

    Is it evidence?

    Well let’s take a look at the list above. (though not necessarily in order).

    Let’s look at B first.

    Is the Bible intact?

    Here are some facts:

    Bible contains 66 books.
    Written by 40 authors. from shepherds to kings
    over a span of at least 1500 years.
    in various places
    on three continents
    in three different languages
    at different states of emotion

    Okay, so is the Bible intact? Does it contain the same information as it did when it was first written?

    Short answer: yes.

    But, because you want evidence, let’s look at it:

    In regards to the OT of the Bible: the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to the 3rd century, match almost EXACTLY to the Bibles that are dated to the 14th century (before mass production of the Bible. Despite one’s belief in the supernatural, that fact alone is unheard of…NO other book of antiguity can make this claim.

    Okay, but what about the NT?

    Well, the NT fairs even better:

    NT alone has over 24,000 manuscripts and partials manuscripts of the NT, with the oldest known partial dating within 100 years of it’s origin, which makes it one of the most reliable texts.

    The second?

    the Iliad has 642 copies and partials and the earliest copy is dated at 500 years from the original.

    And some other NT facts:

    • Greek Manuscripts—partial or complete texts that are hand copied in the language of the originals
    • Papyrus—97 in all—paper manuscripts made of plant material – 2nd to 8th centuries
    • Uncials—manuscripts in Greek capital letters—especially famous ones: Sinaiticus (350), Vaticanus (325), Alexandrinus (425)
    • Minuscules—manuscripts in cursive, 9th-16th centuries—2800 in all
    • Versions—copies in any other language than Greek—Latin principally
    • Lectionaries—selections for church reading—over 2,200 in all
    • Patristic quotations— quotes from early church fathers—could reconstruct practically entire NT from these citations, 1st-4th centuries AD of which there are over a million quotations.

    ….yep, over a MILLION quotations that when put together could almost write the NT ALONE.

    Okay, but there are some issues with the NT aren’t there?

    Yep, there are. But of the “errors” found, only 1% put the text in doubt. and NONE of the 1% make a differnce in doctrine. (despite what Erhman would like you to believe)

    Fine, but how close can the NT get to the originals to that of other works of antiguity?

    Here’s a list:

    Tacitus 700 years
    Livy 400 years
    Caesar 900 years
    Catullus 1,600 years
    Aristotle 1,400 years
    Plato 1,200 years
    Aristophanes 1,200 years
    Thucydides 1,200 years
    Euripides 1,500 years
    Sophocles 1,400 years
    Herodotus 1,300 years

    The NT?

    John’s Gospel, Chapter 18: AD 130
    Complete Manuscripts: AD 350
    Chester Beatty Papyri: has MOST of the New Testament – AD 200 – 250

    So, putting it all together. From its INCEPTION to before the printing press, the Bible as a whole document has maintained the SAME TEXT over the passage of time. Compared to other written works of antiguity over such a period of time is, well, not found.

    In fact, is ISN’T found in ANY OTHER written work.

    While alone, this isn’t proof that God inspired the Bible, it does fit the criteria of what we would see IF GOD DID inspire the Bible.

    Next post I will deal with C.

  46. on 19 May 2012 at 3:58 am 46.Chris said …

    Now, to keep from being considered “spam” I left out links to the information presented.

    However, what is listed is NOT hard to find.

    Though, if you need help, just ask and I will give you the links should you really need them…but hey, do some leg work first…it’s all right there!

  47. on 19 May 2012 at 3:58 am 47.Chris said …

    Now, to keep from being considered “spam” I left out links to the information presented.

    However, what is listed is NOT hard to find.

    Though, if you need help, just ask and I will give you the links should you really need them…but hey, do some leg work first…it’s all right there!

  48. on 19 May 2012 at 4:01 am 48.Chris said …

    Alex –

    “I told her the Illiad is an ancient holy book that predates the bible. ”

    Well, we see how the illiad stacks up against the Bible in regards to reliablity…

  49. on 19 May 2012 at 4:06 am 49.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “You really are dense. That’s not what I’m surprised at. What I’m surprised at is that you would use him to somehow support your position.

    Hint: he didn’t begin his “career” as an atheist.”

    Lou, you are the one that doesn’t understand. If you can’t see why I used him to support my position – which was, the Bible was worthy of DISCUSSION, which Prime disagreed. If Erhman, who is a scholar and has written books believes it’s WORTHY of that type of attention, then certainly prime could see that it’s worthy of a blog.

    That was my only point and you know it. If not, how else did I use him to support my position? hint: you won’t find it because I just RESTATED the position.

    Certainly he didn’t start out an atheist…that’ isn’t unknown, in fact, this is his calling card: once a believer, now isn’t.

    I know all this Lou, but thanks for repeating it for those who might not.

  50. on 19 May 2012 at 4:37 am 50.Lou(DFW) said …

    445.Chris said …

    “Okay, so I was going to present the Bible as evidence for God.”

    But you realized that you didn’t have any. So you simply invented a bunch of nonsense and called it “criteria of what we would see IF GOD DID inspire the Bible.”

    “While alone, this isn’t proof that God inspired the Bible, it does fit the criteria of what we would see IF GOD DID inspire the Bible.”

    No, such a god wouldn’t inspire men to write a holy book. He simply creates it without any doubt whatsoever being present in the mind of any person who reads it. Or he wouldn’t create any book at all, but rather every human being would be born with an innate knowledge of what god wants known from such a book.

    The idea that an omnipotent god needs to inspire men to write a holy book is absurd, almost as absurd as the idea of god himself. Such a god would directly inspire men.

    And why did it take god thousands of years to create this alleged holy book? After all, he allegedly created the entire universe in six days.

    Chris’ circular reasoning:

    1. God is real
    2. The bible is evidence for god because
    3. The bible is inspired by god

  51. on 19 May 2012 at 4:45 am 51.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “But you realized that you didn’t have any. So you simply invented a bunch of nonsense and called it “criteria of what we would see IF GOD DID inspire the Bible.””

    As I posted, if you disagree, please post what YOU would believe God would do if he inspired the Bible….you didn’t, outside of this:

    “No, such a god wouldn’t inspire men to write a holy book.”

    So, Lou, you KNOW what a God wouldn’t do. How YOU would know what a God would/wouldn’t do…

    “He simply creates it without any doubt whatsoever being present in the mind of any person who reads it. Or he wouldn’t create any book at all, but rather every human being would be born with an innate knowledge of what god wants known from such a book.”

    ….Says Lou, who KNOWS what a God would/Wouldn’t do…

  52. on 19 May 2012 at 4:48 am 52.Lou(DFW) said …

    449.Chris said …

    “If you can’t see why I used him to support my position – which was, the Bible was worthy of DISCUSSION, which Prime disagreed. If Erhman, who is a scholar and has written books believes it’s WORTHY of that type of attention, then certainly prime could see that it’s worthy of a blog.”

    You claimed, and you confirmed it as I asked, that he was an atheist bible scholar. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of him. He wasn’t. He was “an Evangelical Christian as a teen. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible [just as you] and protected its texts from all error.”

    He wasn’t an atheist bible scholar.

  53. on 19 May 2012 at 4:54 am 53.Lou(DFW) said …

    451.Chris said …

    “As I posted, if you disagree, please post what YOU would believe God would do if he inspired the Bible….you didn’t, outside of this:”

    Now you’re back to prove god doesn’t exist.

    “So, Lou, you KNOW what a God wouldn’t do. How YOU would know what a God would/wouldn’t do…”

    THE EXACT SAME WAY THAT YOU CLAIM TO KNOW.

    “….Says Lou, who KNOWS what a God would/Wouldn’t do…”

    What I do know for a fact is that you don’t have have ANY EVIDENCE for your imaginary god except circular reasoning, and that’s only evidence of your convoluted way of thinking.

    You are 100% wasting your time in trying to legitimize the bible in order to present it as evidence of your imaginary god.

  54. on 19 May 2012 at 4:56 am 54.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “You claimed, and you confirmed it as I asked, that he was an atheist bible scholar. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of him. He wasn’t. He was “an Evangelical Christian as a teen. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible [just as you] and protected its texts from all error.”

    He wasn’t an atheist bible scholar.”

    Oh my Lou, do you look silly now.

    1) Is Bart Erhman and atheist? Yes.
    2) is he a NT scholar? Yes.
    3) Did I say he currently is? Yes.
    4) was he a Christian? Yes.

    And I said as much in my posts. And you ONLY know him AFTER he became an atheist like the rest of us…

    you are now trying to make it look like you caught me in a corner I wasn’t in. Which is funny.

    I NEVER misrepresented him…he IS an ATHEIST NOW or do you deny that? and WAS a Christian – as I concurred – he didn’t truly make a career in his writings for himself until when? He wrote his books as an ATHEIST.

    Is he STILL a NT SCHOLAR?

    YES!

    Is he CURRENTLY an ATHEIST? Yes!

    Lou, show me where I misreprested him, since you claim I did…please QUOTE IT VERBATIM.

    Thanks

  55. on 19 May 2012 at 4:59 am 55.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “s I posted, if you disagree, please post what YOU would believe God would do if he inspired the Bible….you didn’t, outside of this:”

    Now you’re back to prove god doesn’t exist.

    “So, Lou, you KNOW what a God wouldn’t do. How YOU would know what a God would/wouldn’t do…”

    THE EXACT SAME WAY THAT YOU CLAIM TO KNOW.

    “….Says Lou, who KNOWS what a God would/Wouldn’t do…”

    What I do know for a fact is that you don’t have have ANY EVIDENCE for your imaginary god except circular reasoning, and that’s only evidence of your convoluted way of thinking.

    You are 100% wasting your time in trying to legitimize the bible in order to present it as evidence of your imaginary god.”

    And Lou proves my point for me!

  56. on 19 May 2012 at 5:00 am 56.Lou(DFW) said …

    451.Chris said …

    “….Says Lou, who KNOWS what a God would/Wouldn’t do…”

    Then take your ball and go home. You set the tone for the discussion, then you whine about it when someone uses it to their advantage against you.

    I wrote it before and I’ll write it again – having a discussion with you is like arguing with a five year old about the existence of the tooth fairy.

  57. on 19 May 2012 at 5:01 am 57.Chris said …

    Lou –

    of what i presented for the Bible…please show my me FACTUALLY what is wrong…

  58. on 19 May 2012 at 5:05 am 58.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “having a discussion with you is like arguing with a five year old about the existence of the tooth fairy.”

    then I shall no more expect ANY comments from you than you shall from me…

    Since all you can do is cherry pick, poorly, what I say to make yourself look good.

    IE – where did I misrepresent Bart Erhman again?

    You still haven’t posted that yet.

  59. on 19 May 2012 at 5:07 am 59.Lou(DFW) said …

    454.Chris said …

    “I NEVER misrepresented him…he IS an ATHEIST NOW or do you deny that? and WAS a Christian – as I concurred…”

    Not as you wrote, but that I WROTE. Don’t try your childish game to attempt to turn the table on me by claiming that your omission is now something I did. I NEVER denied nor implied that he wasn’t atheist.

  60. on 19 May 2012 at 5:11 am 60.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “Not as you wrote, but that I WROTE. Don’t try your childish game to attempt to turn the table on me by claiming that your omission is now something I did. I NEVER denied nor implied that he wasn’t atheist.”

    Wow, this is sad.

    Most people, including YOU, only know him as an athiest. IF YOU HAD READ what I posted about hearing his debates, you would have REMEMBERED that I said I HEARD his debates. In these debates, he PROMINANTLY talks about how he was a BELIEVER when he was YOUNGER.

    YOU again, fail at your attempt…

    My OMISSION as you hope it was, was truly an ASSUMPTION YOU knew his history…

    Or didn’t you?

  61. on 19 May 2012 at 5:16 am 61.Lou(DFW) said …

    457.Chris said …

    “of what i presented for the Bible…please show my me FACTUALLY what is wrong…”

    I don’t have the time nor the inclination to go through everything you write about the bible. But there is one relevant point and one relevant point only –

    THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF GOD – PERIOD

    Even IF, BIG IF, god did in fact inspire men to write the bible, then there is no possible way for that to be known to you or anyone else. So as such, it’s pointless for you or anyone to attempt to show that the bible is evidence of god. The bible would still be second-hand, hearsay evidence. What part of that simple concept can you not understand? I can only assume that you are either willfully ignorant or desperate, or both.

  62. on 19 May 2012 at 5:18 am 62.Lou(DFW) said …

    460.Chris said …

    “Most people, including YOU, only know him as an athiest. IF YOU HAD READ what I posted about hearing his debates, you would have REMEMBERED that I said I HEARD his debates. In these debates, he PROMINANTLY talks about how he was a BELIEVER when he was YOUNGER.”

    We don’t know what you heard or read or saw. We only know what you write here.

    Chris, when a man finds himself stuck in a hole, he usually learns to stop digging. You apparently don’t understand that.

  63. on 19 May 2012 at 5:27 am 63.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “I don’t have the time nor the inclination to go through everything you write about the bible.”

    Because YOU CANT! Simple as that….if you could you would…after all, you have misreprested me with Bart…why stop with the Bible?

    ” But there is one relevant point and one relevant point only –

    THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF GOD – PERIOD”

    ….ONLY because YOU say it isn’t.

    “Even IF, BIG IF, god did in fact inspire men to write the bible, then there is no possible way for that to be known to you or anyone else.”

    ….Oooops! Big mistake here, Lou…For one, I said it’s not proof, but evidence because of what I listed…did you list something different? Nope…just made a desperate claim! the fact that this one sentece sums up your DISBELIEF in God is quite telling.

    “So as such, it’s pointless for you or anyone to attempt to show that the bible is evidence of god. The bible would still be second-hand, hearsay evidence. What part of that simple concept can you not understand? I can only assume that you are either willfully ignorant or desperate, or both.”

    of course it would be POINTLESS to YOU! Your “would still” be “second hand” is proof enough to YOU, despite MUCH of what you believe about ancient history is based on FAR LESS. And you call me ingnorant and desperate…

    And before you reply here, you REALLY need to stop for a second and THINK about what you say…

    Do you think Socrates existed? Why?

  64. on 19 May 2012 at 5:29 am 64.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “We don’t know what you heard or read or saw. We only know what you write here.”

    Lou, do you want me to quote EXACTLY where I said that I heard him in a debate? It’s right there, in plain text…

    Or do you know of a debate he was in where he DIDN’T admit to being a Christian before becoming an atheist?]

    Man, lou, this is getting worse….

  65. on 19 May 2012 at 5:33 am 65.Chris said …

    Lou –

    if you recall, I said that I agree with Greg Boyd and Tony Campollo as it comes to Christ?

    Guess which one went to school with Bart….and which one that pastors a church near me….that I have seen in person…

  66. on 19 May 2012 at 5:34 am 66.Chris said …

    Lou –

    You still want to claim that I MISREPRESENTED Bart Erhman?

  67. on 19 May 2012 at 5:35 am 67.Lou(DFW) said …

    460.Chris said …

    “he PROMINANTLY talks about how he was a BELIEVER when he was YOUNGER.”

    Like you, Chris, he was once just as sure of the bible. But he, AS A XTIAN, became a “scholar” on it. We can all read about his credentials. So before you continue to dispute his studies and conclusions about the bible, please present your credentials to us.

    I’ll give you a way out of doing this – it’s irrelevant what your credentials are (not) because the bible isn’t evidence for god.

  68. on 19 May 2012 at 5:35 am 68.Chris said …

    If you do, I can link up the debates I have heard and the ones that Boyd talks about him in…

    Or you do you want to admit that you were wrong?

  69. on 19 May 2012 at 5:37 am 69.Lou(DFW) said …

    465.Chris said …

    “if you recall, I said that I agree with Greg Boyd and Tony Campollo as it comes to Christ?

    Guess which one went to school with Bart….and which one that pastors a church near me….that I have seen in person…”

    We can read what you originally wrote. Keep digging, and the dirt will cave in on you.

  70. on 19 May 2012 at 5:38 am 70.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “Like you, Chris, he was once just as sure of the bible. But he, AS A XTIAN, became a “scholar” on it. We can all read about his credentials. So before you continue to dispute his studies and conclusions about the bible, please present your credentials to us.

    I’ll give you a way out of doing this – it’s irrelevant what your credentials are (not) because the bible isn’t evidence for god.”

    LOL!

    Now, it becomes about ME!

    Wow, again, if you would like I can link up his debates and Boyd – who WENT TO SCHOOL WITH BART at the same time – I will gladly do so.

    It’s not about me, Lou…But please, again show me where I misrepresented Bart?

    Or admit that I didn’t.

  71. on 19 May 2012 at 5:39 am 71.Lou(DFW) said …

    468.Chris said …

    “Or you do you want to admit that you were wrong?”

    SURE – if you will admit that bible isn’t evidence for your imaginary god and that you have no other evidence to present.

    Stop trying to make this about me being wrong and you being right – simply present some real evidence for your imaginary god. Why won’t god inspire you to write something that will convince us?

  72. on 19 May 2012 at 5:40 am 72.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “We can read what you originally wrote. Keep digging, and the dirt will cave in on you.”

    Do you think so? Really?

    Let’s play this game…please quote me VERBATIM on what I said about Bart…and we will go on from there and QUOTE YOU verbatim as well.

  73. on 19 May 2012 at 5:41 am 73.Chris said …

    Lou –

    ““Or you do you want to admit that you were wrong?”

    SURE – if you will admit that bible isn’t evidence for your imaginary god and that you have no other evidence to present.

    Stop trying to make this about me being wrong and you being right ”

    LOL! Yes Lou, I can ACTUALLY prove you were wrong about what YOU thing I said…

    you can’t prove ONE THING of what I said about the Bible….

  74. on 19 May 2012 at 5:44 am 74.Chris said …

    So let’s make it clear lou.

    1) Did I misrepresnt Bart Erhman?

    It’s a yes or no…I bet you won’t answer either way..

    Now, what would Prime say?

    Would Prime agree with you or me? If Prime were honest, which I believe Prime is?

    Quite simple Lou:

    Where did I misreperent Bart Erhman? Please show us again…

    Can you do it?

  75. on 19 May 2012 at 5:45 am 75.Lou(DFW) said …

    470.Chris said …

    “…please present your credentials to us.

    I’ll give you a way out of doing this – it’s irrelevant what your credentials are (not) because the bible isn’t evidence for god.”

    “LOL!

    Now, it becomes about ME!”

    In other words, you don’t have any similar credentials.

    “Wow, again, if you would like I can link up his debates and Boyd – who WENT TO SCHOOL WITH BART at the same time – I will gladly do so.”

    Go ahead, for all the good it will do you, you can link-up his debates until links are flying out of your ass along with the rest of your b.s. But instead, how about you “link up” your credentials?

    What’s next, your dad can beat-up my dad?

  76. on 19 May 2012 at 5:46 am 76.Chris said …

    Disprove about the Bible…as i listed…is what i meant…sorry, thick fingers and fast typing don’t always mix!

  77. on 19 May 2012 at 5:49 am 77.Lou(DFW) said …

    474.Chris said …

    “So let’s make it clear lou.”

    It was clear. You are now trying to muddle it.

    “1) Did I misrepresnt Bart Erhman?

    It’s a yes or no…I bet you won’t answer either way..”

    It doesn’t matter what you or I bet about that because no such bet will ever be collected.

    But there’s one sure thing – you will NEVER, EVER present any evidence for your imaginary god; but rather, you will continue with your childish arguments.

  78. on 19 May 2012 at 5:56 am 78.Chris said …

    Lou –

    Oh my….

    “Now, it becomes about ME!”

    In other words, you don’t have any similar credentials.

    ……1) No I don’t, and I freely admit it… bet you won’t! 2) you still didn’t admit you misrepresented ME! 3) Evidently I know MORE about Bart that you, a fellow atheist does. 4) You still haven’t shown where i misrepresented him…as you claim I did.

    “Wow, again, if you would like I can link up his debates and Boyd – who WENT TO SCHOOL WITH BART at the same time – I will gladly do so.”

    Go ahead, for all the good it will do you, you can link-up his debates until links are flying out of your ass along with the rest of your b.s. But instead, how about you “link up” your credentials?

    MY CREDETIALS have NOTHING TO DO WITH BART ERHMAN’S CREDETIALS! And here you put BART above anyone else! NOT CRITICAL THINKING LOU!

    Also, By this logic, we should dismiss EVERYTHING you have said too, because I’m guessing you have NOTHING near Bart’s credentials…so we shouldn’t pay as much attention to YOU as you would to ME.

    Lou, you aren’t helping your cause…in fact, by your rants (NOT BACKED by fact) are quite childish…I asked you to provide EVIDENCE AGAINST what I proposed…you haven’t.

    ONLY ATTACKED me against Bart.

    Keep going, keep posting about this Lou…Let’s see if any one else backs you in your CLAIMS….

    “What’s next, your dad can beat-up my dad?”

    —–This just shows you still won’t be honest….Did I MISREPRESENT BART ERHMAN or NOT?

    Please answer finally….

  79. on 19 May 2012 at 5:59 am 79.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “This just shows you still won’t be honest….Did I MISREPRESENT BART ERHMAN or NOT?

    Please answer finally….”

    Still holds Lou…….

  80. on 19 May 2012 at 6:04 am 80.Chris said …

    Lou –

    And this will make you feel vidicated, but that’s cool…

    Unless you answer HONESTLY about the questions I posed to you. Which you haven’t, I will ignore your posts toward me…

    If you wish a TRUE discussion, you will be honest about what I have said about whom I have said it…the fact you can’t, won’t, and still haven’t shows you aren’t interested in truth, just in looking “right”….

    However you fail to remember, people CAN and DO look back on these posts on this blog…once you submit, you can’t take back.

    Lou, you are just interested in “looking” good, however fail at it…

    When you are ready to really discuss the evidence for God…I am too

  81. on 19 May 2012 at 6:11 am 81.alex said …

    yawn.. ain’t no evidence here. still waiting.
    bring on the eternal hell…

  82. on 19 May 2012 at 6:14 am 82.Chris said …

    Alex –

    “yawn.. ain’t no evidence here. still waiting.”

    So, just for the sake of discussion: what would consider evidence for God in ancient documents then?

  83. on 19 May 2012 at 6:15 am 83.Prime said …

    What would I say? Two things.

    1. You didn’t prove anything about the bible, as Lou said in his first reply to your little rant up there where you try to frame the debate and then move the goalposts around. It’s not up to us to disprove that what you said is evidence. It’s up to you to make a convincing case that it is evidence. So far, you’ve convinced no one.

    2. Not only is talking with you like playing chess with a pigeon that just knocks the pieces about and craps on the board, you actually go one further and roll in the crap you spill all over the board.

    I don’t know, based on some imprecisely written sentences that are open to interpretation and that appear on a blog comment thread whether or not you or anyone else misrepresented Bart Ehrman, and I don’t care. No one should care. Lou doesn’t care either and has made that plain and only continues to talk about it because you keep ramming it at his face.

    Here’s what I care about: your list of “evidences” for the bible do nothing, not the first thing, to establish the validity of the document as evidence for God since every single thing you mentioned is (a) dubious and (b) easily explained without divine intervention.

    Try again, or don’t, because Lou wasn’t lying when he told you it is a 100% waste of your time to try. You can’t do it, just like golden-boy William Lane Craig can’t do it, just like no one, not no one, can do it.

    Did you know, for what it’s worth, that the entire concept of original sin, and thus the entire doctrine upon which the Christian religion actually rests in its modern form, comes from a mistranslation of a book of Paul from Greek into Latin that Augustine was working with? It turns out that Augustine held the belief that every bible was entirely divinely inspired, and so he held that his poor translation must have been something entirely accurate in the sight of God.

    I don’t want to spam you up with links to prove that, but it’s pretty easy to find. Do some legwork here. Historian Charles Freeman wrote extensively about it, in fact, if you want a starting place handed to you.

  84. on 19 May 2012 at 6:16 am 84.Prime said …

    And it looks like Chris has invented a new variant on the No True Scotsman fallacy: the no true discussion.

  85. on 19 May 2012 at 6:21 am 85.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “1. You didn’t prove anything about the bible, as Lou said in his first reply to your little rant up there where you try to frame the debate and then move the goalposts around. It’s not up to us to disprove that what you said is evdence. It’s up to you to make a convincing case that it is evidence. So far, you’ve convinced no one.”

    Again, where Did i move the goal post? I’m clearly talking about the Bible…Lou, at a loss for evidence attacked me with Bart…which obviously failed.

    So, if you have evidence CONTRARY to what I first presented I’m all for seeing it…otherwise I will move on…

  86. on 19 May 2012 at 6:24 am 86.Chris said …

    Prime

    “Not only is talking with you like playing chess with a pigeon that just knocks the pieces about and craps on the board, you actually go one further and roll in the crap you spill all over the board.

    I don’t know, based on some imprecisely written sentences that are open to interpretation and that appear on a blog comment thread whether or not you or anyone else misrepresented Bart Ehrman, and I don’t care. No one should care. Lou doesn’t care either and has made that plain and only continues to talk about it because you keep ramming it at his face.”

    —Wrong, he DOES CARE otherwise he wouldn’t keep up the appearance that i did something that i didn’t do…the fact that you are now backing him, despite the evidence against Lou, shows you aren’t as honest as you claim to be…which is fine…keep posting on it…as people read this thread they will see…

  87. on 19 May 2012 at 6:27 am 87.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “I don’t want to spam you up with links to prove that, but it’s pretty easy to find. Do some legwork here. Historian Charles Freeman wrote extensively about it, in fact, if you want a starting place handed to you.”

    And what exactly should I pay attention to Freeman about? what in my list of FACTS is wrong?

    Does freeman say something different? If so, please post…nothing in my post, as far as any of you on here have proven is incorrect other than you don’t like the facts.

    Putting names down isn’t the same as being facts…I offer links, if wanted…no one wants me to…interesting.

  88. on 19 May 2012 at 6:30 am 88.Chris said …

    Prime –

    “Did you know, for what it’s worth, that the entire concept of original sin, and thus the entire doctrine upon which the Christian religion actually rests in its modern form, comes from a mistranslation of a book of Paul from Greek into Latin that Augustine was working with? It turns out that Augustine held the belief that every bible was entirely divinely inspired, and so he held that his poor translation must have been something entirely accurate in the sight of God.”

    talk about moving the goal post….I wasn’t yet even talking about original sin…you just DID. I was only talking about written works of antiquity…if you would like to NOW discuss original sin we can, however, deteracting from what I posted…YOU are moving the goal post, not me.

    dispute the fact I listed or don’t…

  89. on 19 May 2012 at 6:36 am 89.Chris said …

    Do we want to talk about the discrepencies of the Bible?

    Would that help?

  90. on 19 May 2012 at 6:48 am 90.Chris said …

    Okay,

    since no one will provide a list of what they will accept as “evidence” from God, we will move on..

    What about the error’s in the Bible?

    (which Bart Erhman has made his living on)

    Well, there really isn’t much there either.

    of what Bart “thinks” is problematic is really nt new to people who study the Bible.

    two, of the 1% that IS PROBLEMATIC to the Bible, is NOTED in the Bible…that is to say, what isn’t attributed to the “original” Bible is said as much….just look at the Bible you hold.

    All one has to do is look for the issues that are “so called” brought up in the Bible and they will find answers…

    the issues brought up are not new…but well answered, even though many wish them NOT to be.

    if links are needed I will provide…unlike what many on here will do.

  91. on 19 May 2012 at 6:51 am 91.Chris said …

    Lou, Prime,

    Or do either of you have something that none of us Christains have ever known that exists in the Bible?

    Google not helping you out?

    Should I continue or wait for you to try and find something?

  92. on 19 May 2012 at 10:21 am 92.Anonymous said …

    Chris is going to play this game forever or until people stop interacting with him. It’s going to be wall-to-wall excuses as to why he can’t produce evidence that his god exists interspersed with “just prove me wrong”.

    What part of You have to prove that your god exists, do you not understand Chris? Fail to do that and you fail to make your case. You can bleat and whine all you like and, gosh, do you bleat and whine, but you can’t redefine that point as much as you clearly wish to.

    No gives a shit if they can’t convince you that your god is made up. You’re delusional or you are trolling. That’s not an insult, it’s a comment on your presentation and argument.

    You want people to prove that the bible is made up but you also say that you don’t follow a particular denomination. In other words you are making up your own version of the 2000 year old goat-herders deity and the bible is a convenient distraction.

    Chris, demonstrate to us how you know this god exists. Provide the linkage between the contradiction that you are claiming divine inspiration with a book that you deviate from when convenient. Here’s my guess. You’re going to equivocate on the meaning of “inspired”. As in, because god exists, people wrote the bible but it’s really the infallible word of god written by fallible man. Or some empty rationalization like that.

    As Lou said. Your games are tiresome. Either prove your god exists or take your ball and your trolling and piss in some other garden.

  93. on 19 May 2012 at 12:56 pm 93.Chris said …

    Anon –

    “As Lou said. Your games are tiresome. Either prove your god exists or take your ball and your trolling and piss in some other garden.”

    Says someone who WONT put their real name to what they post…i put REAL evidence about the Bible on here…NO ONE has yet to dispute it, not even you. Anything I post that is WRONG is fair game…since no one hasn’t said anything CONTRARY to what I posted, guess we call it correct then…

  94. on 19 May 2012 at 1:05 pm 94.Chris said …

    Well since no noe else is bringing this stuff up, I will continue:

    Okay, we have seen that the Bible has withstood the test of time more than ANY OTHER book of antiquity.

    So now: does it stand up, no matter WHO was inspired to write, or where they were, or at what time they lived in – it would express the same message, without error, and not contradict itself in such a manner?

    Yep.

    despite the 40 DIFFERENT AUTHORS the Bible is congruent throughout..if it was’t this would be a major part of the atheist argument AGAINST the Bible…however, as we have seen – the argument AGAINST the Bible doesn’t seem to exist (outside of attacks on me, which we all know, doesn’t truly , logically count).

    But, at least the info is being put out here for those who won’t bother to find out on their own!

  95. on 19 May 2012 at 1:09 pm 95.Scott said …

    Chris I am convinced the Bible is the Word of God. Thanks for providing such compelling evidence.

  96. on 19 May 2012 at 1:14 pm 96.Chris said …

    Okay,

    So, does the Bible speak of REAL people (D)?

    Yes it does!

    In fact the list of REAL people that the Bible talks about is quite interesting…INCLUDING JESUS…

    but we will get to the “evidence” for Jesus later, however, outside of the Bible, there is quite a bit of evidence for Jesus

    So, Prime, if you’d like to continue to say the bible ISN’T evidence for God, you should be able to knock down the veracity of the BIBLE and ANY/ALL claims I have made about it…

    As of yet, no one has done so…just rant about it, but no FACTS to back up the claim…given that, shall we move onto to Jesus as evidence?

  97. on 19 May 2012 at 1:26 pm 97.Chris said …

    Did Jesus truly exist?

    Well, yes.

    It’s pretty much a done deal that Jesus existed. As there IS extra Biblical evidence he lived.

    What NOW is the issue is regarding divinity.

    Can history speak to Christ’s divinity?

    Well, yes, but it can’t PROVE IT which is what atheists hang their hat on…

    But given the fact that the NT ALONE is fairly untouched by the hands of time, SHOULD speak volumes…however, as we have seen on this thread – if it doesn’t FIT with the atheist agenda, then it ISN’T true.

    So far, outside of attacks at ME, we haven’t seen ANY evidence AGAINST the Bible – let alone God.

    I guess I see why no one wants to have a discussion on here about these facts….

    Prime – ready to discuss your EVIDENCE AGAINST GOD? Or should I continue with being the only one that has evidence to back up their proposition?

  98. on 19 May 2012 at 1:42 pm 98.Chris said …

    Scott –

    “Chris I am convinced the Bible is the Word of God. Thanks for providing such compelling evidence.Scott”

    1) I provided no such thing…what I presented are FACTS.
    2) Don’t take ANYTHING I have put up here without looking into it yourself…if I have said something in error, I want to know about it…given that, it doesn’t seem I have…

  99. on 19 May 2012 at 1:52 pm 99.Lou(DFW) said …

    498.Chris said …

    “1) I provided no such thing…what I presented are FACTS.”

    First the delusion…

    “2) Don’t take ANYTHING I have put up here without looking into it yourself…if I have said something in error, I want to know about it…given that, it doesn’t seem I have…”

    Then the denial.

  100. on 19 May 2012 at 1:56 pm 100.Lou(DFW) said …

    493.Chris said …

    “Says someone who WONT put their real name to what they post…i put REAL evidence about the Bible on here…”

    Yes anon, nothing is true unless the poster includes “their real name.” You should know that’s the way things work in Chrisland.

    BTW, “Chris,” maybe I missed them, but I’m still waiting for YOUR credentials as a bible “scholar.” And now, according to your newest condition, your credentials must include your real name, or they’re not true.

  101. on 19 May 2012 at 2:02 pm 101.Chris said …

    Huh…

    “BTW, “Chris,” maybe I missed them, but I’m still waiting for YOUR credentials as a bible “scholar.” And now, according to your newest condition, your credentials must include your real name, or they’re not true.”

    According to Lou, facts are ONLY facts because of someone credentials…not because they are actually facts.

    Also, this is from someone who evidentally doesn’t read what people post…

  102. on 19 May 2012 at 2:08 pm 102.Lou(DFW) said …

    497.Chris said …

    “Did Jesus truly exist?

    Well, yes.

    It’s pretty much a done deal that Jesus existed. As there IS extra Biblical evidence he lived.”

    Even if he did, then that doesn’t make him the son of god anymore than Saint Nicholas actually living makes him Santa Claus. You have a big problem distinguishing between truth and fact.

    And we know that must be true because the bible is the inspired word of an imaginary god for which nobody, including “Chris,” has any evidence. That is a done deal, not just “pretty much” so.

    Chris, the truth is that you are too busy trying to convince YOURSELF, not anybody else, about the bible. So much so that you can’t understand that the bible is PART OF YOUR CLAIM, NOT PART OF YOUR EVIDENCE.

  103. on 19 May 2012 at 2:10 pm 103.Lou(DFW) said …

    501.Chris said …

    “According to Lou, facts are ONLY facts because of someone credentials…not because they are actually facts.”

    Chris, now you are becoming an outright liar. What happened to your xtian morals?

    Regardless, you didn’t provide your credentials. You danced around the issue exactly as you do to avoid providing evidence of your imaginary god.

  104. on 19 May 2012 at 2:12 pm 104.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “Even if he did, then that doesn’t make him the son of god anymore than Saint Nicholas actually living makes him Santa Claus. You have a big problem distinguishing between truth and fact.”

    …Please show me where I have such a problem?

    “And we know that must be true because the bible is the inspired word of an imaginary god for which nobody, including “Chris,” has any evidence. That is a done deal, not just “pretty much” so.”

    …Well, I DID provide evidence as to why the Bible can be trusted…do you have evidence to the contrary?

    “Chris, the truth is that you are too busy trying to convince YOURSELF, not anybody else, about the bible. So much so that you can’t understand that the bible is PART OF YOUR CLAIM, NOT PART OF YOUR EVIDENCE.”

    Lou, I love that you keep posting…please provide where I make a claim FACTUALLY without evidence?

    What, that I have listed about the Bible is NOT TRUE? What did I present that AREN’T facts?

  105. on 19 May 2012 at 2:16 pm 105.Chris said …

    lou –

    “Chris, now you are becoming an outright liar. What happened to your xtian morals?

    Regardless, you didn’t provide your credentials. You danced around the issue exactly as you do to avoid providing evidence of your imaginary god.”

    As I had posted, you DON’T READ what is posted…1) show me to be a liar, 2) I admitted I didn’t have the credentials of Bart Erhman…and said the same of you…or didn’t you see that? Should I quote it for you? It’s right there, did you not see it?

    and again, you are equating credentials with FACTS, which isn’t the case.

    Keep posting Lou, I await for the one where I lied…..

  106. on 19 May 2012 at 2:17 pm 106.Chris said …

    lou –

    I’m still waiting on where I misrepresented B.E on his position…as you claim I did…

  107. on 19 May 2012 at 2:41 pm 107.Lou(DFW) said …

    505.Chris said …

    “As I had posted, you DON’T READ what is posted…”

    Correct, I don’t read ALL of what you write.

    “1) show me to be a liar,…”

    “According to Lou, facts are ONLY facts because of someone credentials…not because they are actually facts.”

    I never wrote nor implied any such thing. What you wrote about me is a lie.

    “2) I admitted I didn’t have the credentials of Bart Erhman…and said the same of you…or didn’t you see that? Should I quote it for you? It’s right there, did you not see it?”

    If you did, I did not see it because if you did you did not do so as a direct reply to my original request.

    “and again, you are equating credentials with FACTS, which isn’t the case.”

    No, I am not. “Credentials” do equate to facts. They “equate” to legitimacy, something you don’t have. The only credentials that I might ascribe to you is being somewhat proficient in the Gish Gallop.

    Chris, you can continue these childish pissing matches as long as you want to, but they won’t change one indisputable, fundamental fact – you have not provided any evidence for your imaginary god.

  108. on 19 May 2012 at 2:42 pm 108.Lou(DFW) said …

    504.Chris said …

    “What, that I have listed about the Bible is NOT TRUE? What did I present that AREN’T facts?”

    The single most important part – that it’s the inspired word of god.

  109. on 19 May 2012 at 2:45 pm 109.Lou(DFW) said …

    506.Chris said …

    “I’m still waiting on where I misrepresented B.E on his position…as you claim I did…”

    I answered you about that. Give it a rest. It wouldn’t matter whether or not you did or didn’t if you would simply provide evidence for your imaginary god. You can wipe the slate clean and the floor with me if you can do that one thing.

  110. on 19 May 2012 at 3:10 pm 110.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “Correct, I don’t read ALL of what you write.”

    Which explains a lot…

  111. on 19 May 2012 at 3:39 pm 111.Chris said …

    So, we should all take what Lou says about me – depsite the fact Lou ADMITS to not reading ALL of what I write – as fact and correct assertions.

    Huh…bet if I said the same thing, I wouldn’t be taken seriously on here…But Lou get’s a pass because he’s an atheist…

  112. on 19 May 2012 at 3:40 pm 112.Lou(DFW) said …

    507.Lou(DFW) said …

    CORRECTION: “Credentials” do NOT equate to facts.

  113. on 19 May 2012 at 3:42 pm 113.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “CORRECTION: “Credentials” do NOT equate to facts.”

    Then why are you bothering with MY credentials in light of the facts I presented?

    Either show what I said is wrong, or admit you can’t…don’t be silly and argue my “credentials”

  114. on 19 May 2012 at 3:43 pm 114.Chris said …

    Lou –

    ““What, that I have listed about the Bible is NOT TRUE? What did I present that AREN’T facts?”

    The single most important part – that it’s the inspired word of god.”

    So at the very least EVERTHING ELSE that I said about the Bible is true?

  115. on 19 May 2012 at 3:45 pm 115.Lou(DFW) said …

    511.Chris said …

    “So, we should all take what Lou says about me – depsite the fact Lou ADMITS to not reading ALL of what I write – as fact and correct assertions.

    Huh…bet if I said the same thing, I wouldn’t be taken seriously on here…But Lou get’s a pass because he’s an atheist…”

    Chris, you AREN’T taken seriously, and now you’re so frustrated about it that you’re taking it personally. And I don’t get “a pass” for something I didn’t do. Rejection of beliefs in imaginary beings and not reading paragraph after paragraph of mind-numbing blabbing doesn’t require a pass.

  116. on 19 May 2012 at 3:48 pm 116.Lou(DFW) said …

    514.Chris said …

    “So at the very least EVERTHING ELSE that I said about the Bible is true?”

    Unfrickin’ believable….

  117. on 19 May 2012 at 3:49 pm 117.Chris said …

    Lou –

    “Chris, you AREN’T taken seriously, and now you’re so frustrated about it that you’re taking it personally. And I don’t get “a pass” for something I didn’t do. Rejection of beliefs in imaginary beings and not reading paragraph after paragraph of mind-numbing blabbing doesn’t require a pass.”

    I love that you keep posting.. I’m not frustrated! i love that you keep posting stuff that shows you 1) admit that you don’t read ALL that I post, 2) Don’t know what YOU posted…

    I posted facts about the Bible, you haven’t yet posted ONE THING that shows 1) that I’m wrong, 2) that the Bible is wrong.

    Please Lou, keep posting…you are doing me and theists a service more than you know…

    You have been shown to NOT be as HONEST as you would like to claim and, if needed, I can quote them for you…

    However, they are right there in print…posted…all you have done so far, in light of what I have presented (facts) is state what you want to BELIEVE, but have not stated any facts…

    Huh…

  118. on 19 May 2012 at 3:51 pm 118.Chris said …

    Lou –

    ““So at the very least EVERTHING ELSE that I said about the Bible is true?”

    Unfrickin’ believable….”

    this is why I LOVE that you post….because this is what you said. You said, I “failed” to show that the Bible is inspired by God, yet didn’t say that ANYTYHING i posted about the Bible was wrong…

    I love ya lou!

    Keep posting, you are helping prove my case more than you know!

  119. on 19 May 2012 at 3:53 pm 119.Chris said …

    Lou –

    since you don’t ever answer a question directly, I will ask you directly.

    1) What did I list about the Bible that is wrong?
    2) how did I misrepresent B.E? (I didn’t, and you can’t show how I did, because you know this)

    Bet you won’t answer either of those…

  120. on 19 May 2012 at 3:58 pm 120.Lou(DFW) said …

    519.Chris said …

    “Bet you won’t answer either of those…”

    I already did, and I’m not going over this again. So take your schoolyard taunts and shove ’em.

  121. on 19 May 2012 at 4:03 pm 121.Chris said …

    lou –

    “I already did, and I’m not going over this again. So take your schoolyard taunts and shove ‘em.”

    LOL!

    Okay, Lou you’re right, you answered these…serious, do you NOT KNOW that what you post is put up here?

    You said ONE THING about the list I provided: it didn’t PROVE God inspired it…that is IT, that is all you SAID…you haven’t provided ONE CONTRARY PIECE of EVIDENCE against it…

    Just shows that you reject the evidence based on Bias, not facts.

    As for Bart, you were schooled on him…I showed how you think I misrepresented him yet, didn’t because YOU failed to read all that I wrote – which is what you admitted to…You just post, without READING what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN.

    Sad that you can’t even admit when you are wrong…and you call ME Delusional…

  122. on 19 May 2012 at 5:36 pm 122.Scott said …

    Chris

    Just to save you sometime here. Lou is not taken seriously. He is irrational; he knows very little and thinks everyone is a liar who doesn’t agree with him. He doesn’t lack belief as he claims, he is resolute and no amount of evidence will persuade him. This is the point that makes Lou a liar.

    He claims to desire proof but in reality there is no proof that would persuade him since he has no grasp of metaphysics ontology, epistemology or axiology.

    My comments further up were not because of all you presented. I knew these facts and have been convinced the Bible is divinely inspired.

    My counsel is just to ignore Lou and save time and repute.

  123. on 19 May 2012 at 5:45 pm 123.alex said …

    i’m convinced. i’m a fucking christian now. save all your blather. now, where are all the faggots, the adulterers, and the women. let the beatings begin. all ye black people, get ready to be enslaved. the englightenment has begun. hallelujah!

    you children better straighten up, or else. freaking muslims, better not show your face. all you atheists will be rooted out and beaten too.

  124. on 19 May 2012 at 6:01 pm 124.alex said …

    this chris idiot is just another asshole fanatic masquerading as some kinda intellect. he thinks by trolling and antagonizing here, he can somehow make his point and convince people?

    he’s no different than the idiot in the park, trying to talk to people about the “second coming” or the morons holding up signs with biblical verses. so how’s that working out?

    critical thinking is not rocket science. encouraging logical thought is not a revolution, but the morons are scared and their methods show it.

    extolling pseudo converted witnesses, biblical grafitti, passing religious handouts, righteous indignation, etc. the list goes on.

  125. on 19 May 2012 at 6:50 pm 125.Prime said …

    Holy fucking shit.

    Chris, if you wonder why people don’t read all of what you write, it’s because you’re blathering on and on and on and calling pissing contests on people left, right, and center before they have a chance to breathe. There have been 80 comments on this thread, about 75% of them you, Chris, in the last 20 hours.

    How did you move the goalposts:
    1. Did not define the god you’re talking about;
    2. Set up a list of criteria you think would validate the bible as evidence of this god (based on complexity arguments and other mish-mash that is not evidence);
    3. And then said “I’m only wrong if you can prove me false about any of these four points.”

    Then you proceeded to strut around like a pigeon on a chessboard because everyone with any sense knows you’ve already engaged in circular reasoning and haven’t even established a single premise yet.

    I read your list of four things that are supposed to convince me the bible is from God. Even if you were to establish all of those things 100%, it wouldn’t be convincing because “people could have done it just fine” would work just as well. Not only would that work, it would work better because you don’t need magic to make it happen.

    Let me give you one example: your “consistency” claim.
    That MIGHT hold water if you could prove conclusively that the bible was written by 40 authors who had absolutely no knowledge of any of the other authors’ works and no traditions shared in common. Unfortunately for your case, not only were they ALL JEWS in the same tradition, they engaged in all kinds of cross-bred practices like pseudographical additions to and modifications of the text. They also, because they wrote these things, were literate, and thus it is very likely that they had read some of the works of the others, which is exactly part of the Jewish tradition, “inspiring” them in a much more mundane way–the same way you’ve been inspired to spew this trash all over the forum here.

    Here’s another example: “The bible talks about real people.” So what? If I go write a realistic fiction novel set during the American Civil War and talk about Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, etc., in that book, does it validate it as authentic evidence of the fictional details I write (like maybe if I throw in Superman, he was clearly there, right?). The Harry Potter novels talk about King’s Cross Station, which is real and in London, so there really is a Hogwarts, right? The story of Hercules talks about a lot of real places in and around Greece, so that clearly happened to and Hercules is real, right?

    If you want a real challenge about the bible’s authenticity, try the classic modus tollens one, where you have to overcome the fact that an all-knowing, all-loving God inspired men to write a holy book that he would know would rule history for thousands of years and yet didn’t inspire them to write a single thing about the actual physical world they live in that wouldn’t be available to Bronze-Age people. Antibiotics? No. Advanced agriculture? No. People are often allergic to wheat? No. That sheep that mate in front of a striped stick will come out striped? Oddly, yes, even though that’s not true.

    It’s worded the same way as your first point: “What would we expect if an all-knowing, perfect God wrote the bible?” A damn sight better than what we have, that’s what.

  126. on 20 May 2012 at 12:31 am 126.Lou(DFW) said …

    522.Scott said …

    “This is the point that makes Lou a liar.”

    A “point” doesn’t make make anybody a liar. Lying makes someone a liar. I haven’t lied about anything.

    “He claims to desire proof but in reality there is no proof that would persuade him since he has no grasp of metaphysics ontology, epistemology or axiology.”

    Irrelevant. Philosophy doesn’t have anything to with evidence of god, nor does it have anything to with any of the evidence that Chris presented. On the other hand, if you want to claim that the existence of god is nothing but a philosophical issue, then go for it.

    “My counsel is just to ignore Lou and save time and repute.”

    Yes, Chris, ignore me. As I wrote, this isn’t about me being wrong. It’s about your inability to present any legitimate evidence for your imaginary god.

  127. on 20 May 2012 at 12:41 am 127.Lou said …

    alex

    When you post I always come away enriched and with a warm fuzzy feeling.

    Your love, compassion and class cause me to pause and ask what makes you such a wonderful individual? I desire to know more so I can be more like you.

  128. on 20 May 2012 at 1:31 am 128.Lou(DFW) said …

    525.Prime said …

    “Holy fucking shit.”

    Crude, but accurate.

    “It’s worded the same way as your [Chris’] first point: “What would we expect if an all-knowing, perfect God wrote the bible?” A damn sight better than what we have, that’s what.”

    To put it another way, does the universe, and more specifically, earth and humanity, fit the idea of a creation born of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and all-loving, perfect god? Obviously not.

  129. on 20 May 2012 at 3:00 am 129.Prime said …

    I said…
    “What would we expect if an all-knowing, perfect God wrote the bible?” A damn sight better than what we have, that’s what.”

    I actually think about this a lot as a side project with a friend of mine (an escaped fundamentalist). If the bible was legit, what would it be like.

    If I was going to guess, honestly, it would contain a lot less rambling than it does. It would also contain a lot less pointless history and stuff that is flatly embarrassing to God. It would also surpass all other books in quality, obviously to every reader on the first try, both in terms of prose (or verse) and clarity of message. It would also have to account for a time (ostensibly known to God) that comes later than the Iron Age, in which the men who wrote it lived. It really fails here.

    It would also be organized a lot differently. First and foremost, it would be organized to actually help people instead of to confuse them. In that, I figure it would probably be broken into two parts (maybe more, but I doubt it). The two parts would be of astounding clarity and consistency and would detail (1) EXACTLY how to get into heaven and avoid annihilation or hell, and (2) how to live well, meaningfully well, with long, productive, fruitful lives while here. There would be no King Ahaz, no Judah or jawbones of asses, no Moses the Terrible, and Jesus would be redundant. The matter would just be as clear as day with a high level of specificity and clarity.

    The part dealing with getting into heaven would be an absolutely clear instruction manual of step-by-step instructions with instructions that are clear, abundantly clear, and not pathetically arbitrary. The clarity cannot be understated. There would be NO division on the matter, no interpretation necessary. Thus, there would be one religion. The requirement can’t possibly be something as stupid as belief in the unbelievable and unprovable. That literally flies in the face of anything a loving God could ask.

    The part dealing with life on earth would be an absolutely clear set of instructions that teach us how to optimize life and morality without making unrealistic assumptions about people and nature (again, which were available to people in the Bronze and Iron Ages). Of particular note would be abundantly clear instructions on how to minimize suffering, so I figure a lot of it would be medical in nature. Almost any modern medical textbook completely, utterly outstrips the bible in that regard. It would *have* to talk about microorganisms and not demons as the cause of disease; it would *have* to talk saliently (instead of haphazardly and foolishly) about hygiene. Various bits of (maximally) useful engineering would probably need to be there–including a lesson in renewable, clean energy and closed-loop economic systems from the get-go. It would have to be unflinchingly clear and detailed about a moral code, instead of simplistic, barbarous, and vague in the extreme. There would be *no room for interpretation* because of the clarity and salience.

    I also see absolutely no reason that it would have had to have been “inspired” and thus written by men and subject to clerical errors and translation problems.

    Further, it really would need to be a lot older. Humans lived for tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of years before the bible was written. It seems odd that God couldn’t have written it himself a lot earlier instead of throwing them all under the bus on that one. There’s absolutely no good reason that God couldn’t have had this document clearly available 50,000 or more years ago, in every language, among every people.

    We see none of that. The bible is as bogus as the Iliad as proof of anything.

    Chris, save your breath. Your bible does not meet these requirements by a long shot, even with two millennia of hermeneutics and exegesis trying to make up for that fact.

  130. on 20 May 2012 at 3:45 am 130.Lou(DFW) said …

    445.Chris said …

    “a) it would stand the test of time…that is, be as relevant TODAY as it was when it was written.
    b) that throughout time, despite the fallibility of man, it would remain INTACT.
    c) no matter WHO was inspired to write, or where they were, or at what time they lived in – it would express the same message, without error, and not contradict itself in such a manner.
    d) be grounded in reality, dealing with real people, places and events.”

    529.Prime said …

    “Further, it really would need to be a lot older. Humans lived for tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of years before the bible was written. It seems odd that God couldn’t have written it himself a lot earlier instead of throwing them all under the bus on that one. There’s absolutely no good reason that God couldn’t have had this document clearly available 50,000 or more years ago, in every language, among every people.”

    Prime, I almost started to write something similar, because as you can see in 445.Chris, he refers to “time” several times. The bible fails in meeting the very standards that Chris creates for it. The bible can’t “stand the test of time” because it didn’t exist for all “time.” Right then and there all of the rest of what Chris wrote about the bible can be discounted and ignored.

  131. on 20 May 2012 at 4:02 am 131.Lou(DFW) said …

    529.Prime said …

    “We see none of that. The bible is as bogus as the Iliad as proof of anything.”

    Exactly.

    But how could the bible be evidence for the god who inspired it? Simple – things that happened in “bible times” would happen similarly today. God would make himself known to us now as he did in “bible times.” As such, there wouldn’t even be a requirement for a bible. In effect, the bible is evidence for why there isn’t a god who inspired it.

    Remember in Star Trek V when Kirk asked why does god need a starship? Why does god need a bible? After all, he’s god, isn’t he?

  132. on 20 May 2012 at 4:07 am 132.Prime said …

    Did you notice that the Pyramids of Giza essentially satisfy those four criteria perfectly as well?
    (a) They’re still here, almost to the point where it’s hard to believe how well they were constructed.
    (b) See (a).
    (c) Tombs still mean death. Grandiose tombs still mean death worship.
    (d) I think the Egyptian Pharaohs are unequivocally real (with actual and veridical outside sources to authenticate them–including the bible!) and are really in Egypt.

    Conclusion: Ra is the one true god, with Horus as savior.

    Hey Chris, do you see the non sequiturs I used here? How about the circularity (where I just assumed Ra is real and then concluded Ra is real)? Do you see how they apply to yours?

    Here’s a shift of burden of proof: it’s not my job to prove that I’m right, it’s yours to prove that I’m wrong.

    Here’s a pre-emptive moving the goalposts: That’s not the interpretation of the pyramids I meant when I called them tombs.

    Here’s poisoning the well: Anything you say to contradict this contradicts your own premise as well…
    …except in this case, I’m not committing a fallacy, just putting you in checkmate.

  133. on 20 May 2012 at 4:08 am 133.Prime said …

    531.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Remember in Star Trek V when Kirk asked why does god need a starship? Why does god need a bible? After all, he’s god, isn’t he?”

    No. I’m a mathematician, not a dork. Good point, still.

  134. on 20 May 2012 at 4:26 am 134.alex said …

    My holy? book would contain:

    1. DO NOT impose the contents of this Book to anybody else. In due time, this book will be read and understood.

    2. Respect other people’s beliefs. When other people’s beliefs are imposed upon you, resist vigorously.

    3. All human beings are considered equal and this includes all races, homosexuals, women, dwarfs, atheists, and everyone else.

    4. When you die, THAT’S IT. There is no life after death. Enjoy your life.

    5. If your behavior offends, cease. If someone’s behavior offends you, try to work it out. Let’s all try to be nice.

    6. …..others to follow

    just a start.

  135. on 20 May 2012 at 5:55 am 135.Anonymous said …

    And Chris makes the excuse of not having my “real” name to avoid answering any and all questions that I posed. Nice way to prove yourself a troll and to have absolutely no intention of honest debate.

    More and more this is becoming the same thing as did the other long running “I’ll prove it” farce that I read with Curmudgeon who never, ever, intended on doing anything but be a total asshole. Again, nice way to continue that tradition.

    Still, it’s absolutely my turn. “Chris”, when you provide, and prove without a shadow of doubt, details on your “real” name then you can certainly have mine. But you raised it, so you need to show me how it’s done.

    In the interim, what were your answers to DPK’s question about your god’s attributes? Is it Omniscient? Is it Omnipresent? Afraid to answer or no intention of doing anything other than be a total asshole on an essentially anonymous internet blog?

    Don’t forget, we now need your “real” name to be able to take your posts as being authentic. This is an application of your rule (diversion?) in action.

  136. on 20 May 2012 at 2:30 pm 136.DPK said …

    I was about to comment that in light of Chris’ propensity for demanding people disprove his claims, it seems ironic that he has consistently avoided answering ANY of my direct questions regard what he stated was the very nature of his god. Not only once, but multiple time.
    I think we should rename him “Dodger”.
    Thanks for pointing it out “A”…
    Yes, Chris seems to have failed to win any converts or do anything more than highlight the absurdity of his long winded contentions.

  137. on 20 May 2012 at 4:42 pm 137.Lou(DFW) said …

    536.DPK said …

    “I was about to comment that in light of Chris’ propensity for demanding people disprove his claims, it seems ironic that he has consistently avoided answering ANY of my direct questions regard what he stated was the very nature of his god. Not only once, but multiple time.”

    Just wait, he will either claim that he somehow did answer them, or he will present questions to you that you must answer before he will answer yours.

  138. on 20 May 2012 at 5:11 pm 138.Prime said …

    536.DPK said …

    “I was about to comment that in light of Chris’ propensity for demanding people disprove his claims,”

    This is pretty much the whole religious paradigm caught in a sentence, though, right?
    Step 1: Say stuff about how you think the world/universe/cosmos works without seeing a single piece of data about it.
    Step 2: Demand people disprove it.
    Step 3: Shift the goalposts.

    If I want to say that I think gravity works by a mechanism involving the Higgs boson, then no matter how useful any theory is in terms of explaining the universe w.r.t. gravity, if no one can show evidence for a Higgs boson, I’m back to the drawing board.

    Innocent until proven guilty? That means “false until proven true.” Chris’s reversal here is essentially “true until proven false,” which is the same as guilty until proven innocent–such a bad, pre-Enlightenment way to go about the matter, just like religion.

  139. on 20 May 2012 at 6:43 pm 139.Suh said …

    #527

    Lou,

    :) I don’t know what it is but it is contagious, yes? I almost mistook him for Mother Theresa.

  140. on 20 May 2012 at 8:44 pm 140.Prime said …

    The real reason Chris doesn’t want the bible to be evidence for God is also worth mentioning. Let’s use the New Testament to examine a particular thorn.

    Consider:
    1. Matthew 7:15
    “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” -Jesus

    2. Mark 9:1
    And [Jesus] said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

    Since (2) didn’t happen, and Jesus warned about (1), we can only surmise that Jesus was wrong about himself and that he was, indeed, a false prophet.

    Might we interpret that by the bible as well? Let’s look at Jeremiah 14:14-16, which is relevant to the matter:
    “Then the Lord said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries[a] and the delusions of their own minds. Therefore this is what the Lord says about the prophets who are prophesying in my name: I did not send them, yet they are saying, ‘No sword or famine will touch this land.’ Those same prophets will perish by sword and famine. And the people they are prophesying to will be thrown out into the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and sword. There will be no one to bury them, their wives, their sons and their daughters. I will pour out on them the calamity they deserve.”

  141. on 20 May 2012 at 8:47 pm 141.Prime said …

    That Jeremiah verse hits a little close to home, doesn’t it?
    Didn’t Jesus say something about not worrying about the morrow (“no sword or famine will touch this land” seems pretty close to that)? Didn’t he go hungry often and then get put to death involving a spear, which is a weapon, which swords are a metaphor for? Didn’t the disciples scatter from Jerusalem after it happened?

    I mean, that’s a better set of prophesies (post hoc, of course) about Jesus than most of the ones that are alleged to be about him.

    Funny how that exegesis thing works, isn’t it? How you can spend enough time with a sufficiently jacked-up text and find just about anything you want to support within it?

  142. on 20 May 2012 at 11:27 pm 142.Anonymous said …

    Prime said:

    536.DPK said …
    “I was about to comment that in light of Chris’ propensity for demanding people disprove his claims,”

    This is pretty much the whole religious paradigm caught in a sentence, though, right?
    Step 1: Say stuff about how you think the world/universe/cosmos works without seeing a single piece of data about it.
    Step 2: Demand people disprove it.
    Step 3: Shift the goalposts.

    True and it leads to one of the most damaging things in religion in that adherents are led to believe that taking something on “faith” is a good thing. In other words, they are emotionally rewarded for a lack of critical thinking skills.

    I see this in action with some of my Xtian friends. Several are having “a crisis of faith”. Rather than examine the aspects that have led them to that point, they have immersed themselves in evening classes so that they can “learn” how to “correctly interpret” the bible in light of their fears, anxieties, and experiences all of which have led them to have major doubt in their faith.

    It seems that losing their religion is exactly like losing an emotional crutch. They cannot bear to face the world without this “belief” that someone out there loves them and that they are going to go to heaven.

    It’s sad to see nice people so desperate to be convinced that their holy book isn’t anything other than a story book.

  143. on 21 May 2012 at 1:07 am 143.Prime said …

    542.Anonymous said …

    “I see this in action with some of my Xtian friends. Several are having “a crisis of faith”. Rather than examine the aspects that have led them to that point, they have immersed themselves in evening classes so that they can “learn” how to “correctly interpret” the bible in light of their fears, anxieties, and experiences all of which have led them to have major doubt in their faith.”

    Indeed. I read (I believe from Al Stefanelli) a piece that contained a line I really liked: A divinity degree (or other theology degree) is little more than an “advanced degree” in overcoming one’s doubts.

  144. on 21 May 2012 at 4:10 pm 144.Lou(DFW) said …

    “Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible” – Richard Dawkins

    http://tinyurl.com/c8k2whr

  145. on 25 May 2012 at 6:05 pm 145.anthem said …

    Hi there, just was alert to your blog through Google, and found that it is really
    informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels.
    I will be grateful if you happen to proceed this in future.
    Lots of other people shall be benefited out of your writing.
    Cheers!

  146. on 29 May 2012 at 9:53 am 146.Supply Chain Innovation said …

    Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in fact was
    a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable
    from you! However, how could we communicate?

  147. on 24 Mar 2013 at 1:57 am 147.Billy Butcher said …

    LOL. Does Jeebus exist? Well, yes said the liar. The facts are that Bible historians have already closed the book on trying to find any evidence for the historical Abraham, David, and Moses (which is the most ludicrous story ever told). Jesus is very near to being the next to close the book on. Over 80 known historians and writers were alive in the area at the time J.C. alledgedly lived, yet not one wrote a word about him while the author and Jeez were alive at the same time. The most read and respected of them was Philo of Judea, or Philo of Alexandria who lived almost exactly at the same time J. was supposed to, and lived in many of the same towns at the same time. He was in Jerusalem the day of the alledged crucifixtion, the attending earthquake, and the dead coming alive. But the greatest investigative writer of the time didn’t see any of it. You can’t call Philo indifferent or biased because he’s considered one of the fathers of Christianity. Apparently when he finally heard of him he backed his teachings (why, I have no idea), but his writings never explained how he could have possibly missed those events. I think he knew he was fictional, but what’s the harm in following. Oh Philo, what a sorry mistake that was.

  148. on 24 Mar 2013 at 4:47 am 148.The messenger said …

    The Christian moral code is located within the entire bible, but mainly the new testament.

  149. on 24 Mar 2013 at 5:11 am 149.The messenger said …

    547.Billy Butcher, the reason that he did not witness it, was because he was not at the location at which the crusifiction took place. And he had no knowledge of the capture of the crusifiction or resurrection, until after it happend. And even after that, he still did not record those events, due to the fact that he was Jewish for his entire life, and he always thought that Jesus was a false prophet.

    You concoct such feeble arguments.

    The reason that Philo is considered a father of Christianity is because his writing influenced how the bible(mainly the old testament), and the original church was organized.

    He never wrote about Christianity directly because he had no affiliation with it and he was loyal to Judism, not Christianity. Philo was Jewish, so the fore he only wrote about issues that conserved the Jewish people, he had no reason to write about the resurrection, or crusifiction.

    I do not know why you forge such feeble arguments.

  150. on 24 Mar 2013 at 5:20 am 150.The messenger said …

    Brother 547.Billy Butcher, here are some philosophers that did write about Jesus.

    Church Fathers

    The Church Fathers, an 11th-century Kievan miniature from Svyatoslav’s Miscellany
    The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were early, often influential Christian theologians, some of whom were eminent teachers and great bishops. The term is used of writers or teachers of the Church, not necessarily “saints”, and not necessarily ordained, though many are honoured as saints in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran Churches, and other Churches and groups.

    Origen Adamantius and Tertullian, often considered Church Fathers, were not canonized as saints by the Catholic Church[1][2] due to their holding views later deemed heretical.

    HideApostolic Fathers

    Main article: Apostolic Fathers
    The earliest Church Fathers, (within two generations of the Twelve Apostles of Christ) are usually called the Apostolic Fathers since tradition describes them as having been taught by the twelve. Important Apostolic Fathers include Clement of Rome,[3]Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. In addition, the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas are usually placed among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers although their authors are unknown; like the works of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, they were first written in Koine Greek.

    Clement of Rome

    Main article: Clement of Rome
    His epistle, 1 Clement (c.96),[3] was copied and widely read in the Early Church.[4] Clement calls on the Christians of Corinth to maintain harmony and order.[3] It is the earliest Christian epistle outside the New Testament.

    Ignatius of Antioch

    Main article: Ignatius of Antioch
    Ignatius of Antioch (also known as Theophorus) (c.35-110)[5] was the third bishop or Patriarch of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John. En route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, the role of bishops, and Biblical Sabbath.[6] He is the second after Clement to mention Paul’s epistles.[3]

    Polycarp of Smyrna

    Main article: Polycarp of Smyrna
    Polycarp of Smyrna (c.69–c.155) was a Christian bishop of Smyrna (now ?zmir in Turkey). It is recorded that he had been a disciple of John. The options for this John are John the son of Zebedee traditionally viewed as the author of the Gospel of John, or John the Presbyter.[7] Traditional advocates follow Eusebius in insisting that the apostolic connection of Polycarp was with John the Evangelist, and that this John, the author of the Gospel of John, was the same as the Apostle John.

    Polycarp tried and failed to persuade Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, to have the West celebrate Passover on 14 Nisan, as in the East. In c.155, the Smyrnans demanded Polycarp’s execution as a Christian, and he died a martyr. His story has it that the flames built to kill him refused to burn him and that when he was stabbed to death, so much blood issued from his body that it quenched the flames around him.[3] Polycarp is recognized as a saint in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

    HideGreek Fathers

    Those who wrote in Greek are called the Greek (Church) Fathers. Famous Greek Fathers include: Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Peter of Sebaste, Gregory of Nyssa), Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus.

    Irenaeus of Lyons

    Main article: Irenaeus
    Irenaeus was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyon(s), France. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology, and he is recognized as a saint by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. He was a notable early Christian apologist. He was also a disciple of Polycarp.

    His best-known book, Against Heresies (c.180) enumerated heresies and attacked them. Irenaeus wrote that the only way for Christians to retain unity was to humbly accept one doctrinal authority—episcopal councils.[3] Irenaeus proposed that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all be accepted as canonical.

    Clement of Alexandria

    Main article: Clement of Alexandria
    Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens) was the first member of the church of Alexandria to be more than a name, and one of its most distinguished teachers. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine and valued gnosis that with communion for all people could be held by common Christians. He developed a Christian Platonism.[3] Like Origen, he arose from Catechetical School of Alexandria and was well versed in pagan literature.[3]

    Origen of Alexandria

    Main article: Origen
    Origen, or Origen Adamantius (c.185–c.254) was a scholar and theologian. According to tradition, he was an Egyptian[8] who taught in Alexandria, reviving the Catechetical School where Clement had taught. The patriarch of Alexandria at first supported Origen but later expelled him for being ordained without the patriarch’s permission. He relocated to Caesarea Maritima and died there[9] after being tortured during a persecution.

    Using his knowledge of Hebrew, he produced a corrected Septuagint.[3] He wrote commentaries on all the books of the Bible.[3] In Peri Archon (First Principles), he articulated the first philosophical exposition of Christian doctrine.[3] He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a stoic, a Neo-Pythagorean, and a Platonist.[3] Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages before incarnation as a human and after death, eventually reaching God.[3] He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was not Yahweh but the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him.[3] His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, “the fabulous preexistence of souls”, and “the monstrous restoration which follows from it” were declared anathema in the 6th century.[10][11] Because of his heretical views, Origen is technically not a Church Father by many definitions of that term but instead may simply be referred to as an ecclesiastical writer.[1]

    Athanasius of Alexandria

    St. Athanasius, depicted with a book, an iconographic symbol of the importance of his writings.
    Main article: Athanasius of Alexandria
    Athanasius of Alexandria (c.293–2 May 373) was a theologian, Pope of Alexandria, and a noted Egyptian leader of the 4th century. He is remembered for his role in the conflict with Arianism and for his affirmation of the Trinity. At the First Council of Nicaea (325), Athanasius argued against the Arian doctrine that Christ is of a distinct substance from the Father.[3]

    Cappadocian Fathers

    Main article: Cappadocian Fathers
    The Cappadocians promoted early Christian theology and are highly respected in both Western and Eastern churches as saints. They were a 4th-century monastic family, led by Saint Macrina the Younger (324–379) to provide a central place for her brothers to study and meditate, and also to provide a peaceful shelter for their mother. Abbess Macrina fostered the education and development of three men who collectively became designated the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great (330–379) who was the second oldest of Macrina’s brothers and became a bishop; Gregory of Nyssa (c.335 – after 394) who also became a bishop of the diocese associated thereafter with his name; and Peter of Sebaste (c.340 – 391) who was the youngest brother and became bishop of Sebaste.

    These scholars along with a close friend, Gregory Nazianzus, set out to demonstrate that Christians could hold their own in conversations with learned Greek-speaking intellectuals. They argued that Christian faith, while it was against many of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle (and other Greek Philosophers), it was an almost scientific and distinctive movement with the healing of the soul of man and his union with God at its center. They made major contributions to the definition of the Trinity finalized at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 and the final version of the Nicene Creed.

    Subsequent to the First Council of Nicea, Arianism did not simply disappear. The semi-Arians taught that the Son is of like substance with the Father (homoiousios), as against the outright Arians who taught that the Son was unlike the Father (heterousian). So the Son was held to be like the Father but not of the same essence as the Father. The Cappadocians worked to bring these semi-Arians back to the Orthodox cause. In their writings they made extensive use of the formula “three substances (hypostases) in one essence (homoousia)”, and thus explicitly acknowledged a distinction between the Father and the Son (a distinction that Nicea had been accused of blurring) but at the same time insisting on their essential unity.

    John Chrysostom

    Main article: John Chrysostom
    John Chrysostom (c.347–c.407), archbishop of Constantinople, is known for his eloquence in preaching and public speaking; his denunciation of abuse of authority by both ecclesiastical and political leaders, recorded sermons and writings making him the most prolific of the eastern fathers, and his ascetic sensibilities. After his death (or according to some sources, during his life) he was given the Greek epithet chrysostomos, meaning “golden mouthed”, rendered in English as Chrysostom.[12][13]

    Chrysostom is known within Christianity chiefly as a preacher and theologian, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox Church; he is the patron saint of orators in the Roman Catholic Church. Chrysostom is also noted for eight of his sermons that played a considerable part in the history of Christian antisemitism, which were extensively cited by the Nazis in their ideological campaign against the Jews.[14][15]

    Cyril of Alexandria

    Main article: Cyril of Alexandria
    Cyril of Alexandria (c.378–444) was the Bishop of Alexandria when the city was at its height of influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Archbishop of Constantinople. Cyril’s reputation within the Christian world has resulted in his titles “Pillar of Faith” and “Seal of all the Fathers”.

    Maximus the Confessor

    Main article: Maximus the Confessor
    Maximus the Confessor (also known as Maximus the Theologian and Maximus of Constantinople) (c.580–13 August 662) was a Christian monk, theologian, and scholar. In his early life, he was a civil servant and an aide to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. However, he gave up this life in the political sphere to enter into the monastic life.

    After moving to Carthage, Maximus studied several Neo-Platonist writers and became a prominent author. When one of his friends began espousing the Christological position known as Monothelitism, Maximus was drawn into the controversy, in which he supported the Chalcedonian position that Jesus had both a human and a divine will. Maximus is venerated in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. His Christological positions eventually resulted in his torture and exile, soon after which he died. However, his theology was vindicated by the Third Council of Constantinople, and he was venerated as a saint soon after his death. His feast day is celebrated twice during the year: on 21 January and on 13 August. His title of Confessor means that he suffered for the faith, but not to the point of death, and thus is distinguished from a martyr. His Life of the Virgin is thought to be the earliest complete biography of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

    John of Damascus

    Main article: John of Damascus
    Saint John of Damascus (Arabic: ????? ??????? Yu?ann? Al Demashqi; Greek: ??????? ?????????? (Iôannês Damaskênos); Latin: Iohannes Damascenus; also known as John Damascene, ??????????/Chrysorrhoas, “streaming with gold”—i.e., “the golden speaker”) (c.676–4 December 749) was a Syrian Christian monk and priest. Born and raised in Damascus, he died at his monastery, Mar Saba, near Jerusalem.

    A polymath whose fields of interest and contribution included law, theology, philosophy, and music, before being ordained, he served as a chief administrator to the Muslim caliph of Damascus, wrote works expounding the Christian faith, and composed hymns which are still in use in Eastern Christian monasteries. The Catholic Church regards him as a Doctor of the Church, often referred to as the Doctor of the Assumption because of his writings on the Assumption of Mary.

    HideLatin Fathers

    Those fathers who wrote in Latin are called the Latin (Church) Fathers.

    Tertullian

    Main article: Tertullian
    Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (c.160–c.225), who was converted to Christianity before 197, was a prolific writer of apologetic, theological, controversial and ascetic works.[16] He was born in Carthage, the son of a Roman centurion.

    Tertullian denounced Christian doctrines he considered heretical, but later in life adopted views that themselves came to be regarded as heretical. He wrote three books in Greek and was the first great writer of Latin Christianity, thus sometimes known as the “Father of the Latin Church”.[17] He was evidently a lawyer in Rome.[18] He is said to have introduced the Latin term “trinitas” with regard to the Divine (Trinity) to the Christian vocabulary[19] (but Theophilus of Antioch already wrote of “the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom”, which is similar but not identical to the Trinitarian wording),[20] and also probably the formula “three Persons, one Substance” as the Latin “tres Personae, una Substantia” (itself from the Koine Greek “????? ??????????, ?????????; treis Hypostases, Homoousios”), and also the terms “vetus testamentum” (Old Testament) and “novum testamentum” (New Testament).

    In his Apologeticus, he was the first Latin author who qualified Christianity as the “vera religio”, and systematically relegated the classical Roman Empire religion and other accepted cults to the position of mere “superstitions”.

    Later in life, Tertullian joined the Montanists, a heretical sect that appealed to his rigorism.[16] He used the early church’s symbol for fish—the Greek word for “fish” being ????? which is an acronym for “?????? ???????, ???? ????, ?????” (Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Saviour)—to explain the meaning of Baptism since fish are born in water. He wrote that human beings are like little fish.

    Cyprian of Carthage

    Main article: Cyprian of Carthage
    Saint Cyprian (Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) (died September 14, 258) was bishop of Carthage and an important early Christian writer. He was born in North Africa, probably at the beginning of the 3rd century, perhaps at Carthage, where he received an excellent classical (pagan) education. After converting to Christianity, he became a bishop and eventually died a martyr at Carthage.

    Hilary of Poitiers

    Main article: Hilary of Poitiers
    Hilary of Poitiers (c.300 – c.368) was Bishop of Poitiers and is a Doctor of the Church. He was sometimes referred to as the “Hammer of the Arians” (Latin: Malleus Arianorum) and the “Athanasius of the West.” His name comes from the Greek word for happy or cheerful. His optional memorial in the Roman Catholic calendar of saints is 13 January. In the past, when this date was occupied by the Octave Day of the Epiphany, his feast day was moved to 14 January.

    Ambrose of Milan

    Main article: Ambrose of Milan
    Saint Ambrose[21] was an archbishop of Milan who became one of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of the 4th century. He is counted as one of the four original doctors of the Church.

    Jerome of Stridonium

    Main article: Jerome
    Jerome (c.347–September 30, 420) is best known as the translator of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin. He also was a Christian apologist. Jerome’s edition of the Bible, the Vulgate, is still an important text of Catholicism. He is recognised by the Roman Catholic Church as a Doctor of the Church.

    Augustine of Hippo

    Main article: Augustine of Hippo
    Augustine (13 November 354–28 August 430), Bishop of Hippo, was a philosopher and theologian. Augustine, a Latin Father and Doctor of the Church, is one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. Augustine was radically influenced by Platonism.[22] He framed the concepts of original sin and just war as they are understood in the West. When Rome fell and the faith of many Christians was shaken, Augustine developed the concept of the Church as a spiritual City of God, distinct from the material City of Man.[3] Augustine’s work defined the start of the medieval worldview, an outlook that would later be firmly established by Pope Gregory the Great.[3]

    Augustine was born in present day Algeria to a Christian mother, Saint Monica. He was educated in North Africa and resisted his mother’s pleas to become Christian. He took a concubine and became a Manichean. He later converted to Christianity, became a bishop, and opposed heresies, such as Pelagianism. His works—including The Confessions, which is often called the first Western autobiography—are still read around the world. After his word work to proclaim the word of God, he is now regarded as a father saint to many institutions, and some have been named after him.

    Gregory the Great

    Main article: Gregory the Great
    Saint Gregory I the Great (c.540–12 March 604) was pope from 3 September 590 until his death. He is also known as Gregorius Dialogus (Gregory the Dialogist) in Eastern Orthodoxy because of the Dialogues he wrote. He was the first of the popes from a monastic background. Gregory is a Doctor of the Church and one of the four great Latin Fathers of the Church (the others being Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome). Of all popes, Gregory I had the most influence on the early medieval church.[23]

    Isidore of Seville

    Main article: Isidore of Seville
    Saint Isidore of Seville (Spanish: San Isidro or San Isidoro de Sevilla, Latin: Isidorus Hispalensis) (c.560–4 April 636) was Archbishop of Seville for more than three decades and is considered, as the historian Montalembert put it in an oft-quoted phrase, “le dernier savant du monde ancien” (“the last scholar of the ancient world”). Indeed, all the later medieval history-writing of Hispania (the Iberian Peninsula, comprising modern Spain and Portugal) was based on his histories.

    At a time of disintegration of classical culture and aristocratic violence and illiteracy, he was involved in the conversion of the royal Visigothic Arians to Catholicism, both assisting his brother Leander of Seville and continuing after his brother’s death. He was influential in the inner circle of Sisebut, Visigothic king of Hispania. Like Leander, he played a prominent role in the Councils of Toledo and Seville. The Visigothic legislation which resulted from these councils is regarded by modern historians as exercising an important influence on the beginnings of representative government.

    ShowOther fathers

    ShowModern positions

    ShowPatristics

    ShowSee also

    ShowReferences

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Last modified 2 days ago

    DesktopMobile
    Page by contributors like you
    Content available under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Terms of Use
    PrivacyAboutDisclaimers

  151. on 24 Mar 2013 at 1:42 pm 151.alex said …

    more cut/paste, bullshit messenger?

    how this for a simple code? i will not kill, unless i have to. how’s that, asshole?

    or course, you don’t know, but your lame appeal to authority is crap. look it up, you ignorant dick.

    you haven’t noticed, you stupid moron, the other theists have not replied with their moral code, because it doesn’t exist.

    inasmuch as it looks pointless, i will continue to call out your bullshit until my keyboard runs out of ink. fuckhead.

  152. on 24 Mar 2013 at 3:09 pm 152.The messenger said …

    21.alex, all Christians have a moral. It is the bible.

    I pray for you.

  153. on 24 Mar 2013 at 3:50 pm 153.alex said …

    “I pray for you.”

    how about letting the gay people get married? how about condemning the pervert priests? it’s way easier than praying for me, you fucking hypocrite. if you were drowning, i’d still throw you line, you ass.

  154. on 24 Mar 2013 at 8:50 pm 154.The messenger said …

    I do not support false Preists. But I will not support gay marriage.

    Homosexuality is against nature, and it is wrong.

    I do not hate gay people, I just do not support gay marriage, or gay sex.

  155. on 24 Mar 2013 at 9:02 pm 155.The messenger said …

    Alex, In what way am I a hypocrite?

    I support love and kindness.

    You on the other hand, express hate and arrogance towards others in your comments.

    I pray for you, because I want you to become a kinder person.

    You hate your enemies.

    I love my enemies, and I try to help the become better people.

    You show hate towards others.

    I show love and kindness.

    I pray for you to stop your inane hate.

  156. on 24 Mar 2013 at 9:05 pm 156.The messenger said …

    Homosexual sex is awful.

    It serves no purpose in reproduction, and it encourages lust between the same gender.

  157. on 24 Mar 2013 at 11:11 pm 157.DPK said …

    Messenger.. This is from the bible.
    Is this part of your moral code?

    “When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. “[Exodus, chapter 21]

  158. on 24 Mar 2013 at 11:14 pm 158.DPK said …

    Messenger.. This is from the bible.
    Is this also part of your moral code?

    Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am the Lord your God. Keep my statutes, and observe them; I am the Lord; I sanctify you.
    All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them.

    If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

    If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them.

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. [Leviticus, chapter 20]

    What a laughing stock you are. Have you ever even READ the bible?

  159. on 24 Mar 2013 at 11:17 pm 159.DPK said …

    How about this messenger?
    Is this your moral code?
    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

    Or how about:
    also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.

  160. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:16 am 160.Lou said …

    “Philo of Alexandria who lived almost exactly at the same time J. was supposed to, and lived in many of the same towns at the same time. He was in Jerusalem the day of the alledged crucifixtion”

    Billy you are full of such crap that I can smell you through the keyboard. First learn to spell. You guys cut and paste information from atheist websites and believe you are reporting facts.

    Jesus was not a big deal outside of Israel during his lifetime. He was a traveling Rabbi with 12 disciples. Why would Philo in Alexandia write about him? He was a philosopher not a news reporter. Second, you don’t know for a fact he did not write about him. The manuscripts may have not survived, No evidence exists that Philo was in Jerusalem during the crucifixion. We have numerous authors in Israel who did witness Jesus and write about him. John, John Mark, Levi and Luke. Paul quite possibly witnessed the crucifixion as well.

    Lastly, Rome and the Jews regularly down played all of Jesus’ miracles and resurrection ascribing them to tricks and thieves. Such is to be expected in order to keep the peace and this Philo never heard what Jesus actually accomplished.

    Stop with the MSNBC analysis and your argument from silence. You failed.

  161. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:19 am 161.alex said …

    “Alex, In what way am I a hypocrite?”

    motherfucker, this has been answered many times, you piece of shit.

    “You on the other hand, express hate and arrogance towards others in your comments.”

    laughable. you theists fuckers already condemn atheists to eternal damnation and you wah wah, over my silly comments? eternal damnation = arrogance.

    you should be happy. i’m using the language of the bible. curse this and curse that. fucken shit.

  162. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:24 am 162.The messenger said …

    Brother 558.DPK, yes, I have read the bible.

    That bible passage means that if you disrespect your mother and or father, you will be punished by GOD.

    That bible passage also means that if a man and a woman commit adultery together, they will both be punished by GOD.

    That bible passage also means that if a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter in law, they will both be punished by GOD.

    That bible passage also means that if a man and a man have sexual intercourse together, GOD shall punish them.

    Yes brother, that is a part of my moral code.

  163. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:29 am 163.The messenger said …

    Brother 557.DPK, that bible passage means that if an employer punishes a worker too severely, the employer shall be punished.

    But if the worker is not punished too severly, the employer shall not be punished.

  164. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:33 am 164.The messenger said …

    Brother 561.alex, I have not condemned you to damnation.

    Only GOD can do that.

    I am teaching you kindness, and I am trying to save you from having to spend time in hell.

    P.S. Hell is only temporary.

  165. on 25 Mar 2013 at 2:36 am 165.The messenger said …

    Brother 561.alex, the launguage of the bible is of peace and love.

    You are utilizing the language of Lucifer.

  166. on 25 Mar 2013 at 3:00 am 166.The messenger said …

    Brother 559.DPK, that first bible passage when it states the selling of a daughter, it does not mean a litteral selling, it means an arranged marriage.

    That first bible passage means that if a woman is forced into an arranged marriage by her father, if she does not please him he has no right to leave her. He must not try to force her to marry anyone else. And if he decides to marry anouther woman, he must treat both of his wife’s equally, and if he fails to do that, the first wife can leave him and will not owe him anything.

    The second bible passage means that a woman should not dress with expensive jewelry, because GOD wants us to be humble and not flaunt our wealth. A woman should not have command over a man, because we are all equal under GOD. And a woman must keep silent in debates, because it is our job as men be the gentalmen and speak for the wemon.

    Both of these passages are a part of my moral code. But the second passage was used more for that time period. Since then, wemon have learned to speak for them selves. That second passage guides us to protect wemon so that they may speak without fear of being attacked.

  167. on 25 Mar 2013 at 3:47 am 167.DPK said …

    ” We have numerous authors in Israel who did witness Jesus and write about him. John, John Mark, Levi and Luke. Paul quite possibly witnessed the crucifixion as well.”

    Lou seems to be claiming that the gospels of the New Testament were written by eye witnesses. Is that what you are claiming. Lou?

  168. on 25 Mar 2013 at 4:12 am 168.The messenger said …

    567.DPK, some of the aposiles did witness the crusifiction.

  169. on 28 May 2013 at 2:52 am 169.lesportsac Canada said …

    I’m curious to find out what blog platform you have been utilizing? I’m having some minor security issues with my latest site and
    I’d like to find something more risk-free. Do you have any solutions?

  170. on 03 Jun 2013 at 12:35 am 170.nadruki na koszulkach said …

    They have also focused on the security aspect apart because of providing a loads of
    free space.

  171. on 04 Nov 2014 at 12:14 pm 171.Peter said …

    The Bible does not provide a moral theory for the simple reason that the Bible provides the doctrine of grace for salvation, where no person can save themselves through some moral theories or codes.

    God commands us to love him with all our heart mind and soul. But, only a person elected by God can do this, it’s not available to the unelected. If you’re not elected by God, you don’t believe in God, and you think you can still do this, then I challenge you to actually do it. You will however fail because you can’t. That is, you don’t have any free will or choice on the matter and are completely incapable.

    God commands us to do unto the other as you would have done unto yourself. This is not morally consistent. A moral person would seek to comply here because they wish to be moral before man and God. However, by taking the commandment to be a moral code, they equally deem those not complying as immoral. This however is a charge that they would not have done unto themselves, thus, they become hypocrites and thus immoral through the assumption that the command is a moral code. This command cannot function as a consistent moral code. Again, only those elected by God can keep this command, because God fulfils that command within the person through grace, such that there is nothing about the person in keeping the command, moral, immoral or otherwise.

    Every person is a completely corrupted, wretched, hateful sinner. The reason that our world is full of war, rape murder, theft, perversion, greed, lies and deceit, is because every single person is completely corrupted with sin, to a level where it is innate and no person can save themselves. It is only when one can admit this truth to themselves, that the person, God willing, might have a chance to turn to Jesus Christ for salvation (as the bronze serpent was raised in the desert).

  172. on 13 Jan 2016 at 2:20 am 172.click the next internet site said …

    click the next internet site

    click here for the top high end flashlights currently available anywhere plus at the best price.

  173. on 13 Jan 2016 at 5:37 am 173.Click on %url_domain% said …

    Click on %url_domain%

    go here for the greatest Bright Cree LED Flashlight currently in stock around and at the best price.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply