Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

MR. Nate · Post by **MR. Nate** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:29 pm

Symmetry:
This entire post is going to sound like a cop out, I will confess to throwing the word manuscript about too freely. I like to be precise, and in my rush to post and get out the door, I failed to reread and edit.

I'm going to guess that you've got the Peter von Minn article. Note on his sources that nothing is newer than '87. There has been a lot of debate since, and we certainly have fragments of Matthew from the 1st century,(contested, of course, but everything is) as well as the mentioned ones of John from 125. (also contested) The Manuscripts you mentioned are later than 300, but the attestation to those books canonicity by the church fathers is concreted much earlier, by 200. If your debate is here, I can only say that the discrepancies which are found tend to be spelling errors, inconsequential word substitutions, and word order changes which don't change the meaning. These are clerical errors, not, as has been previously suggested, rewrites. Keep in mind also that you've got, simultaneous to the remaining written record, the oral tradition. John the elder lived into his late 90's, probably putting his death sometime after 100. His students would then still be alive through the early dates of the Muratorian canon.

I don't care to debate what is considered non-canon, I will not, cannot defend it. The canon lists varied early on, but once the criteria were established, they became consistent. Certainly there is some schism here between the Catholics and Protestants, on the cannon, but that occurred much later, so I'm not exactly sure what 2 books your referring to.

The ending of Mark is in debate, certainly. But the "addition" does not contain anything not attested elsewhere. If you choose to view Mark as the source for Matthew and Luke, than it may be a problem. However, Luke states that he did original research, so we would expect him to verify any of Marks material prior to using it.

I find your last statement very troubling. You go from "There are some books which were not included in the canon, and some additions to mark, and the dates aren't as close as I would like" to "We don't have the original intent of the authors" which seems to be a leap of faith colored by a previous commitment unbelief.

comic boy:
Belief in God is innate. Feel free to argue with me, the fact is, people tend to believe in God, even if they don't have any allegiance to a particular expression.
Christianity is the most logical and internally consistent belief system about God. Again, feel free to argue with me, but the system as a whole works better and is more satisfying than any other.

I find your accusation of arrogance a tad hypocritical, if only because you are insisting you are more valid than I, which would, by your argument, be arrogant as well. I don't find studying the evidence and asserting a truth claim about it arrogant, I find it prudent.

As for agnosticism, I find that agnostics tend to be those who (in the words of a philosophy professor) punt on first down. Don't just throw up your hands and say "We can't know" - study it, work with it, figure it out.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:23 am

MR. Nate wrote:comic boy:
Belief in God is innate. Feel free to argue with me, the fact is, people tend to believe in God, even if they don't have any allegiance to a particular expression.
Christianity is the most logical and internally consistent belief system about God. Again, feel free to argue with me, but the system as a whole works better and is more satisfying than any other.

I find your accusation of arrogance a tad hypocritical, if only because you are insisting you are more valid than I, which would, by your argument, be arrogant as well. I don't find studying the evidence and asserting a truth claim about it arrogant, I find it prudent.

As for agnosticism, I find that agnostics tend to be those who (in the words of a philosophy professor) punt on first down. Don't just throw up your hands and say "We can't know" - study it, work with it, figure it out.

We finally agree on something and you have to ruin it with everything else...

I think agnostics should make a decision, but to each his own, I suppose.

But, I wouldn't call Christianity logical, or internally consistent, though you are saying that it is the most logical and consistent of all the religions, which I suppose I can't disagree with, though I'm extremely hesitant to agree with you.

However, your assertion that belief in god is innate still irks me. I was raised Christian and was uncomfortable with the belief throughout my whole time as a Christian. Yet, even as a child, I knew that something was not quite right with what I was being told. I was never more comfortable with my beliefs than I am with my atheism (after passing through deism and agnosticism). I was fed religion, as are most people on earth, and just assumed it was true because of the authority of those who fed it to me. To assert that this state is natural just because it is the norm is assuming a lot.

CoffeeCream · Post by **CoffeeCream** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:41 am

I just wanted to say that you guys can continue to argue about this if you want between yourselves, but I've already made the decision for myself on the matter. I became a Christian last week.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:51 am

CoffeeCream wrote:I just wanted to say that you guys can continue to argue about this if you want between yourselves, but I've already made the decision for myself on the matter. I became a Christian last week.

congradulations on finding something at the end of your search. While i may disagree with you, i am glad that after investing your energy into searching you have found the answer you deem worthwhile.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:36 am

CoffeeCream wrote:I just wanted to say that you guys can continue to argue about this if you want between yourselves, but I've already made the decision for myself on the matter. I became a Christian last week.

I'll second the congrats. I admire your willingness to discuss the issue at length before you decided. I hope it works for you.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:41 am

CoffeeCream wrote:I just wanted to say that you guys can continue to argue about this if you want between yourselves, but I've already made the decision for myself on the matter. I became a Christian last week.

I hope it brings you comfort,you have made an informed decision and nobody can argue with that.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:27 am

MR. Nate wrote:Symmetry:

I find your last statement very troubling. You go from "There are some books which were not included in the canon, and some additions to mark, and the dates aren't as close as I would like" to "We don't have the original intent of the authors" which seems to be a leap of faith colored by a previous commitment unbelief.

I didn't mention intent. I said that we don't have what was originally written. Intent is a tricky area to navigate. We can't possibly confirm what was intended by an author without reading their mind. In most academic criticism this is referred to as the intentionalist fallacy.

My point is that we don't have what the original authors of the Bible wrote. In addition, there is serious evidence that somethings were changed in even the earliest copies we have available. Clerical errors aside, there is evidence that Mark was altered and has at least two authors.

My issue with your earlier arguments is with the evidence and the way you presented it. You stated that there was no scholarly debate suggesting changes after 300, and hopefully I've shown that serious debate exists.
I'm interested in the evidence for the 4th century manuscripts being canonical in the 3rd though. It looks to me as if the writings were altered to more fully justify the canon of church teaching rather than the writings being canon. (Not that I suggest the original ending contradicted canon, but rather that someone added a happy ending where there had been an inconclusive one- think Bladerunner)

As for my belief or disbelief colouring my argument, I can't argue for or against that except to say that it seems a double edged sword for you to be wielding.

It takes a greater leap of faith for me to believe that the text that we have from the mid 4th century is identical to what was written so long before. I have no great argument with leaps of faith- I believe that they are important for all of us. I just think that they should be acknowledged as such and not diminished by claims that evidence exists where there is none.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:53 am

CoffeeCream wrote:I just wanted to say that you guys can continue to argue about this if you want between yourselves, but I've already made the decision for myself on the matter. I became a Christian last week.

Some people need religion...some people don't. If it helps you get your life in order, good for you.

Just try to be humble about it and don't get all nutty & preachy around your non-christian friends and family. :lol:

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:25 am

MR. Nate wrote:Christianity is the most logical and internally consistent belief system about God. Again, feel free to argue with me, but the system as a whole works better and is more satisfying than any other.

Hahahaha.

I find your accusation of arrogance a tad hypocritical, if only because you are insisting you are more valid than I, which would, by your argument, be arrogant as well. I don't find studying the evidence and asserting a truth claim about it arrogant, I find it prudent.

How was the previous statement about Christianity being the most logical anything but arrogant?

As for agnosticism, I find that agnostics tend to be those who (in the words of a philosophy professor) punt on first down. Don't just throw up your hands and say "We can't know" - study it, work with it, figure it out.

Honestly, we can't know.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:34 am

I haven't met very many nutty/preachy Christians myself. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses in Japan who knock on my door are very civil while they do something they believe they must do.

CoffeeCream: I'm happy that you've found Christianity. I really hope that you don't leave the arguments among ourselves though. I believe that Christianity has a lot to offer the world, and faith without doubt or argument is no faith at all.

Mr Nate: CoffeeCream has brought this argument back down to earth pretty effectively

, so I think I should have apologized to you if my post earlier was overly critical, or if it read as an attack on the intentions of Christianity. I'm pretty much agnostic, but I can feel Christmas spirit too. PM me if you'd like to discuss textual evidence further, but I can't claim any ground on what the original authors did or didn't intend.

Everyone else: four days to Christmas! (here in Japan at least)

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:34 pm

Symmetry wrote:I haven't met very many nutty/preachy Christians myself.

Forest for the trees, etc.

Kampai! (Ni hongo demi des).

Heimdall · Post by **Heimdall** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:56 pm

MR. Nate wrote:Christianity is the most logical and internally consistent belief system about God.

Logical? I think not:

World is 4000 years old... huh? Dinosaurs for one

World created in 7 days... Impossible say geologists

Earth center of the universe... Not even the center of our solar system

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:57 pm

Heimdall wrote:
MR. Nate wrote:Christianity is the most logical and internally consistent belief system about God.

Logical? I think not:

World is 4000 years old... huh? Dinosaurs for one

World created in 7 days... Impossible say geologists

Earth center of the universe... Not even the center of our solar system

Don't even get started on this shit.

MR. Nate · Post by **MR. Nate** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:00 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:How was the previous statement about Christianity being the most logical anything but arrogant?

By your argument, it is impossible to have a firm opinion on anything without being arrogant. For instance, the sentence "This toast is burnt" is arogant, because someone else may not agree, while ignoring the blackened state of the toast. The sentence "My car needs gas" will be disputed by the rabid environmentalist who wants to do away with motor vehicles altogether, therefore, it is an arrogant opinion.

I have studied a variety of religious and non religious belief structures. The one which is the most consistent and has the fewest logical leaps is Christianity. If you'd care to debate this with me, start a thread, outline your main points, and lets get started. If you're just going to laugh, that's fine, but be aware that your not contributing anything to the conversation.

Heimdall · Post by **Heimdall** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:08 pm

MR. Nate wrote:I have studied a variety of religious and non religious belief structures. The one which is the most consistent and has the fewest logical leaps is Christianity. If you'd care to debate this with me, start a thread, outline your main points, and lets get started.

The concept of the Christian God is incoherent. Note that I am not just saying that belief in God is false. Rather, there is an incongruity in basing one's religion on a belief in God and having this idea be incoherent. What could be more absurd than that the central concept of a religion is inconsistent? Some of the properties attributed to God in the Bible are inconsistent. In some places God is described as merciful and in other places as lacking mercy; in some places as a being who repents and changes His mind, in other places as a being who never repents and changes His mind; in some places as a being who deceives and causes confusion and evil, and in other places as a being who never does; in some places as someone who punishes children for their parents' wrong doing and in other places as one who never does. God is like Jekyll and Hyde

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:11 pm

MR. Nate wrote:I have studied a variety of religious and non religious belief structures. The one which is the most consistent and has the fewest logical leaps is Christianity.

You found what you wanted to find, having already been a "dyed-in-the-wool" christian when you started school.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:15 pm

MR. Nate wrote:I have studied a variety of religious and non religious belief structures. The one which is the most consistent and has the fewest logical leaps is Christianity. If you'd care to debate this with me, start a thread, outline your main points, and lets get started. If you're just going to laugh, that's fine, but be aware that your not contributing anything to the conversation.

Book of Revelations.

Logical Nightmare.

MR. Nate · Post by **MR. Nate** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:42 am

Heimdall wrote: In some places God is described as merciful and in other places as lacking mercy; in some places as a being who repents and changes His mind, in other places as a being who never repents and changes His mind; in some places as a being who deceives and causes confusion and evil, and in other places as a being who never does; in some places as someone who punishes children for their parents' wrong doing and in other places as one who never does. God is like Jekyll and Hyde

God is never described as not being merciful. He is merciful and just. Sometimes He punishes people according to their sin, other times he allows it to go on for a time, ultimately, he is both. Divine repentance is used to help us understand the immanence of God. His attitude toward the situation changes when He has completed punishment, or when someones attitude toward Him changes. God is never described or portrayed as a being who causes evil. I don't ever see God punishing people for their parents evil, either. Specific examples are much more helpful than broad, sweeping statements.

Backglass wrote:You found what you wanted to find, having already been a "dyed-in-the-wool" Christian when you started school.

You found atheism because you didn't want to obey God. What is your point?

unriggable wrote:Book of Revelations.Logical Nightmare.

In what way? It has a higher concentration of metaphor and imagery, certainly, but I don't think it's a logical nightmare.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:32 am

MR. Nate wrote:God is never described as not being merciful. He is merciful and just. Sometimes He punishes people according to their sin, other times he allows it to go on for a time, ultimately, he is both. Divine repentance is used to help us understand the immanence of God. His attitude toward the situation changes when He has completed punishment, or when someones attitude toward Him changes. God is never described or portrayed as a being who causes evil. I don't ever see God punishing people for their parents evil, either. Specific examples are much more helpful than broad, sweeping statements.

MR. Nate wrote:Sometimes He...

MR. Nate wrote:...other times ...

MR. Nate wrote:His attitude changes

Malachi 3:6 wrote:"I, the Lord, do not change."

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:22 am

MR. Nate wrote: You found atheism because you didn't want to obey God. What is your point?

I think his point was, as as established Christian, you took a cursory look at the other religions and declared Christianity to be superior in every concievable way.

People who are steeped in a particular thing, then claim they have looked at all the options and, suprise, suprise, chose the same one.

MelonanadeMaster · Post by **MelonanadeMaster** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:43 am

Heimdall wrote:
MR. Nate wrote:I have studied a variety of religious and non religious belief structures. The one which is the most consistent and has the fewest logical leaps is Christianity. If you'd care to debate this with me, start a thread, outline your main points, and lets get started.

The concept of the Christian God is incoherent. Note that I am not just saying that belief in God is false. Rather, there is an incongruity in basing one's religion on a belief in God and having this idea be incoherent. What could be more absurd than that the central concept of a religion is inconsistent? Some of the properties attributed to God in the Bible are inconsistent. In some places God is described as merciful and in other places as lacking mercy; in some places as a being who repents and changes His mind, in other places as a being who never repents and changes His mind; in some places as a being who deceives and causes confusion and evil, and in other places as a being who never does; in some places as someone who punishes children for their parents' wrong doing and in other places as one who never does. God is like Jekyll and Hyde

I'm sorry, but what you just presented is a common misconception..

This is what actualy brought gnostisism into the world, a man (I believe a
priest?) read the Hebrew Sriptures for the first time and horrified that in his mind the God of the Hebrews was not the Christian God, and when he put together a canon of scripture he left out the entire Old Testament.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:44 am

MR. Nate wrote:
Backglass wrote:You found what you wanted to find, having already been a "dyed-in-the-wool" Christian when you started school.
You found atheism because you didn't want to obey God. What is your point?

And you found anti-tinypeopleism because you didn't want to obey Leprechauns. :roll:

Looks like I hit a nerve. You better apologize again.

Your magical gods and many other creatures simply don't exist Nate. This would also mean that I don't worship & obey these superstitions either. I also don't worry about stepping on cracks, throwing salt over my shoulder or knocking on wood. I broke a mirror once and walk under ladders too.

Guess I'm just craaazzy like that. :lol:

I can however see into the future:

Nate 25 years later as pastor of his new "Temple".

Neutrino wrote:I think his point was, as as established Christian, you took a cursory look at the other religions and declared Christianity to be superior in every concievable way.

People who are steeped in a particular thing, then claim they have looked at all the options and, suprise, suprise, chose the same one.

Exactly...thank you Nuetrino. Steeped indeed.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:35 am

^^ Is that Ted Haggard?

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:59 pm

Neoteny wrote:^^ Is that Ted Haggard?

Only Ted Haggard has the privilege to rip out the hearts of hopeless children.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:08 pm

I am constantly baffled by the assertion that I and others have rejected God,how can you reject something that doesnt exist

Its true that I have dismissed the idea of a God but thats not the same thing, have to admit that Im far from sold on pixies as well :cry: