I can't imagine not believing in God.

by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private

NewChapter

Welcome WTfever.
wtfever

thanks for the welcome
still thinking

It is atheists (not all) tend to give the bible more authority than christians (not all).
As an atheist I give the bible NO Authority about anything. It is simply a tool for discussing belief...and the contradictions of belief...since that is what christian belief is based on....ie..the writings of unidentified people who are supposedly quoting the apostles and other followers who are supposedly quoting christ. And the revelations of other people who have never met christ but had revelations of the supposed truth.
Etude

tec :
I did not make a conclusive statement Etude. You did. You said that Acts 4:13 shows us that the apostles were illiterate; that the bible supports this. (a - this verse in acts does not have to mean what you claim, and b - it does not have to apply to all the apostles; especially since the bible also states that one of the disciples wrote his testimony down) ".
Tammie, I think that you're obfuscating the point. The original point I made was to show that the gospels and epistles could not have been the work of the disciples and apostles because Acts 4:13 indicates that they were unschooled. Later, I showed you what that meant, even in the likely event that they (one or all) could actually write. The evidence is there that even so, it would be VERY unlikely that they could write to the level of the canon. Now, you're getting hung up on whether or not "ALL" the disciples or apostles were illiterate. You're missing the point that the number of them is inconsequential because one or two literates do not justify how the level of writings in the NT could have come about or account for more than two literate writers. Besides, the evidence you suggest about one that could possibly have been literate only confirms that the one who wrote the book of John was literate and not that the writer was indeed John the apostle. Even then, people made things up.
The verse in Acts gives very little wiggle room to assume anything more than what "unschooled" meant in those days. Besides, we also know that would have been their condition given their station in life. Do you have any other evidence to show the contrary instead of speculating that it doesn't have to be what I demonstrated to you? Please, reason this out. If I were to make a concession right now and say that positively one disciple was literate, why must you then jump to the conclusion that because one was literate then they all (all who wrote) must have been? There is no evidence for that, period. I really would like to hear that explanation because in my mind, I'm already guessing what type of logical fallacy it would be.
" Process of elimination only words if you have ALL of the information on the life of Christ and His disciples. We have some written testimonies, but not all. We certainly do not have every event recorded. "
Exactly right. So it does no one any good to speculate on what we don't know and declare other open possibilities. The conclusion I cited is based on the Bibles own accounts. Instead you launch yourself into a conclusion when you suggest that the one Jesus "loved" the most was somebody else when there is no room to assume as much based on what the accounts alone suggest.
" If the scholarship of the person you quote is correct... and there are other scholars who discount this (there always are)... then once again, you are still making a statement according to acts, that is not corroborated by the bible, as you said that it was. Why is it so hard for you to admit that perhaps a disciple or two was not illiterate. What about Matthew the tax collector, for instance? "
OK. You seem to be pretty certain that there will be some scholarly contradiction to the citation I found. Well, I can tell you that I did my best to investigate it. So, until you or I find one (and don't use as argument the possibility that there may be one), it is really premature and illogical for you to assume that what is presently demonstrated is nothing but true. Also keep in mind that any conjecture is made on the partial knowledge that has been established for that time (short of actually having been there). So, we are really speaking about strong indications. But that is better any day than weak conjectures. That's the way you build mounting evidence.
All I said is that Acts 4:13 indicates that Peter and John were common, uneducated men. Elsewhere in the Bible it is established that the individuals Jesus selected were men from common professions and not from an elite layer of society that would have been privileged to receive sufficient education to write the canon. That fact that Acts 4:13 mentions John specifically means that the one Jesus "loved" most was indeed incapable of writing a gospel.
So, there is no indication from the Bible that only one or two disciples or apostles were illiterate. The indication is that the majority were illiterate and that even if one or two were not, their literacy did not amount to anything close to produce the language of the canon.
" Why could some of these writings not have been re-written later by someone who was literate in Greek? "
Because given everything that we have on the canon today, there is no indication that any earlier manuscripts in Aramaic ever existed or that there was a concerted effort to translate them. There is only one indication of an earlier manuscript for the gospels called "Q" and that is only deduced. So why force a conclusion where there is no basis for making one? You can speculate that someone translated the canon into Greek, but then you have to admit that it is speculation and not evidence. That's where you need to say: "I don't know" and move on. The arguments available for the source of the earliest manuscripts suggest that other "writers" originated the manuscripts.
" Once a person has gone to Christ... as He says to do... and has the Spirit of Christ to teach and lead them into all truth, then one no longer needs someone else's words to teach them. That one can go to the source and ask Him (since He should know,having been there) ".
That makes no sense at all. It's like saying: "I studied Mathematics in order to learn to count when given change at the store and to calculate measurements in fractions when I'm in my workshop building some project. But once I can count and add fractions, I no longer need Mathematics." To say you no longer need the Bible when you refer to it constantly is somewhat disingenuous.
" I might suggest that if you, yourself, were abducted by an ET... then you would have personal verification. Even if no one else saw it and you could not prove it... that would not make it any less real. YOU would know. Even if others thought you were nuts. "
I tend to agree with you. However (wouldn't you know there would be one), what investigations into this whole business of space aliens have shows is that, the very idea of being abducted by an ET is so unlikely as to be out of the realm of possibility. Mind you that failing to detect ETs does not discount how real the experience might seem to the person. Therefore, that last thing I worry about is that it would happen me or to you. But in keeping with your type of thinking, it is not the unlikelihood of an event but the possibility (however remote it may be) that is intriguing to you and makes you pursue an issue to interminable ends. The reason I don't agree with you 100% is because no matter how real such an experience may seem to me, I think I have enough wherewithal to consider that I either had a very vivid and intense dream or that I'm losing my marbles in light of evidence opposing that or that I smoked some really good fungi. I would not jump to your conclusions.
" Christ shows us God. His nature (of love, mercy, forgiveness, truth) That is fairly simple. As to the the full power of God, an eternal Being who is spirit... that is harder for us to grasp. At least for now. But we can learn. My evidence however can be natural... just not natural as we understand it... yet. "
Well, He hasn't showed it to me, especially via what I can read in the Bible. I don't see any power, I can't perceive any spirit and I don't have a problem conceptualizing intangibles. Be serious, there aren't two types of "natural" events. Either a thing is or it isn't natural. If it's the kind of natural which as you call it "we don't understand yet", then it simply isn't until it can be explained. This is yet another way you force a conclusion when no evidence supports it. This is why it's so easy for you to say " The 'rules', however, make sense and apply to the spiritual. " Yes, your own rules, rules that no one else can verify.
" The 'rules', however, make sense and apply to the spiritual. We simply do not have the means to phsyically measure something that is not physical in some way. We must go by the spiritual 'rules' to measure and test and question the spiritual. "
That makes it perfectly understandable to you why there is no need to "measure something that is not physical in some way". You accept it now because, after all, you have "rules". The implication is that something which is spiritual will remain immeasurable and incalculable for you and you will be OK with that. Our physical reality will never jibe with that other "spiritual reality" because they are bound by different rules, rules that cannot be possibly understood in this physical reality. And, you're OK with that. At least the people that are regularly abducted by space aliens will concede that even the aliens operate by the same rules of the universe we acknowledge, which can yield advance technologies we don't yet have.
So please, let us not discuss any more "rules" understood by no one besides you and that cannot be seen or understood by the rest of the world. There is no point to it and will lead to a total impasse. We can also dispense (for the sake of our discussion) with any "internal witness" you may have as a show of any type of evidence whatsoever. Again, the reason is I cannot confirm such "witness", hence there's no place to go from there. Let's stick to the Bible or something we can both put our hands on or at least examine intellectually. If I fail to "separate the bible from Christ, in regard to faith" it is because they are intrinsically bound. I would never be able to speak to you about Christ and his exploits and teachings but for the Bible, which is the only tome that makes reference to him. You certainly don't expect me to separate to a Christ that only speaks to you. That would be unnatural.
tec

Tammie, I think that you're obfuscating the point. The original point I made was to show that the gospels and epistles could not have been the work of the disciples and apostles because Acts 4:13 indicates that they were unschooled. Later, I showed you what that meant, even in the likely event that they (one or all) could actually write. The evidence is there that even so, it would be VERY unlikely that they could write to the level of the canon.
I know the point that you were making. You have to ignore or explain away that the bible also states that one of the disciples wrote his testimony down. Because that (even if that person were the rare exception to the rule) conflicts with what you have claimed.
Now, you're getting hung up on whether or not "ALL" the disciples or apostles were illiterate. You're missing the point that the number of them is inconsequential because one or two literates do not justify how the level of writings in the NT could have come about or account for more than two literate writers. Besides, the evidence you suggest about one that could possibly have been literate only confirms that the one who wrote the book of John was literate and not that the writer was indeed John the apostle. Even then, people made things up.
Scribes, people who later wrote down what they heard FROM the disciples/apostles/other witnesses. Not every book in the NT is written by an apostle. Luke was not an apostle for instance; he investigated via testimony and witnesses.
The verse in Acts gives very little wiggle room to assume anything more than what "unschooled" meant in those days. Besides, we also know that would have been their condition given their station in life. Do you have any other evidence to show the contrary instead of speculating that it doesn't have to be what I demonstrated to you? Please, reason this out. If I were to make a concession right now and say that positively one disciple was literate, why must you then jump to the conclusion that because one was literate then they all (all who wrote) must have been? There is no evidence for that, period. I really would like to hear that explanation because in my mind, I'm already guessing what type of logical fallacy it would be.
I have not jumped to this conclusion. I have not even stated this. The only thing that I have been trying to state is that the verse in acts does not show that all the apostles were illiterate. No doubt some (perhaps even most) were. You mention station here, and I will again ask you about the tax collector.

Exactly right. So it does no one any good to speculate on what we don't know and declare other open possibilities. The conclusion I cited is based on the Bibles own accounts.
But you had to ignore the account that directly refuted your statement... that all the apostles were illiterate. Are you sure that you have not jumped to a conclusion, yourself?
Instead you launch yourself into a conclusion when you suggest that the one Jesus "loved" the most was somebody else when there is no room to assume as much based on what the accounts alone suggest.
The writing style suggests it to me.
You also consider the unlikelihood that the writer of John WAS John the apostle. We perhaps attribute different motives for that.
Nevertheless, it is not something that had anything really to do with my point regarding illiteracy. Just a thought to consider.

That fact that Acts 4:13 mentions John specifically means that the one Jesus "loved" most was indeed incapable of writing a gospel.
Um... yes. That is what i have been stating all along.
So, there is no indication from the Bible that only one or two disciples or apostles were illiterate. The indication is that the majority were illiterate and that even if one or two were not, their literacy did not amount to anything close to produce the language of the canon.
There are only four gospels. One is by 'Luke'... not an apostle, and not illiterate since he wrote the letter (and it seems, Acts). One (or at least something that one is based on - John) seems to be written by an apostle who is literate. Then there is also the tax collector. Of the rest are letters in the 'canon'... some are dictated, and some are written by the author, himself. Of how many people who followed Christ, there are not that many authors of letters and testimonies (in comparison); so I really don't see a problem here. At all.
Because given everything that we have on the canon today, there is no indication that any earlier manuscripts in Aramaic ever existed or that there was a concerted effort to translate them. There is only one indication of an earlier manuscript for the gospels called "Q" and that is only deduced. So why force a conclusion where there is no basis for making one? You can speculate that someone translated the canon into Greek, but then you have to admit that it is speculation and not evidence. That's where you need to say: "I don't know" and move on. The arguments available for the source of the earliest manuscripts suggest that other "writers" originated the manuscripts.
I was not forcing a conclusion. I was speculating. You seem to be stating things conclusively, and I am trying to show how they are not conclusive at all.

That makes no sense at all. It's like saying: "I studied Mathematics in order to learn to count when given change at the store and to calculate measurements in fractions when I'm in my workshop building some project. But once I can count and add fractions, I no longer need Mathematics."
No... it is like saying 'I learned all about the President from people talking about him, from the books written about him, from the media reporting on him... I sort of got a picture from all of these. THEN I went to him and got to meet him for myself, and then I KNEW him. I didn't just know about him from others. I knew him for myself. Don't need their testimony anymore, because i can just talk to him myself.

I tend to agree with you. However (wouldn't you know there would be one), what investigations into this whole business of space aliens have shows is that, the very idea of being abducted by an ET is so unlikely as to be out of the realm of possibility. Mind you that failing to detect ETs does not discount how real the experience might seem to the person. Therefore, that last thing I worry about is that it would happen me or to you. But in keeping with your type of thinking, it is not the unlikelihood of an event but the possibility (however remote it may be) that is intriguing to you and makes you pursue an issue to interminable ends. The reason I don't agree with you 100% is because no matter how real such an experience may seem to me, I think I have enough wherewithal to consider that I either had a very vivid and intense dream or that I'm losing my marbles in light of evidence opposing that or that I smoked some really good fungi. I would not jump to your conclusions.
Possibilities do intrigue me, I will admit.
However, even I would need to be abducted (or have proof of it) to believe in aliens and alien abductions. There is something to that... even if that is only in the mind... but there is something for so many people to be affected. I just don't know what that is... and so can state no more.
(As to Christ and God, I did not jump to conclusions there either. The only thing that i can state here is that you would not really be able to make a fully knowledgable call on something until you experienced it and knew what that was for yourself... including in the case of alien abduction)

Be serious, there aren't two types of "natural" events.
You are right... there are not.
There is natural that we know... and there is natural that we do not yet know, understand, grasp. Something that some refer to the supernatural.
I understand that you are stating that something does not get to be delegated as natural until we can test or measure and explain it.
So I cannot give you the evidence you are seeking as to the spiritual. But from the pov of some who have some knowledge of the Spirit, then it has become natural (it always was, it just was not understood)
This probably is getting closer to semantics though, and that could be more my fault than yours, in not understanding your meaning.
Our physical reality will never jibe with that other "spiritual reality" because they are bound by different rules,
Our physical reality will never jibe with that other "spiritual reality" because they are bound by different rules,
No actually, i think the opposite. They will 'jibe' (they are two differnt things in reality... like water and land, as an example, on the same planet; spiritual and physical in the same existence) One day everyone will see that, and then the supernatural... will simply be the natural.

To say you no longer need the Bible when you refer to it constantly is somewhat disingenuous... (tec moved this quote to help make her point)

Let's stick to the Bible or something we can both put our hands on or at least examine intellectually. If I fail to "separate the bible from Christ, in regard to faith" it is because they are intrinsically bound. I would never be able to speak to you about Christ and his exploits and teachings but for the Bible, which is the only tome that makes reference to him. You certainly don't expect me to separate to a Christ that only speaks to you. That would be unnatural.
THIS is why I refer to the bible. Not for my sake... but for the sake of discussion with those who draw upon nothing else in understanding God.
Peace to you,
tammy
still thinking

THIS is why I refer to the bible. Not for my sake... but for the sake of discussion with those who draw upon nothing else in understanding God...tec
LOL...no it's not...it's because you have nothing else to use. And no other evidence.
Take away the bible...and all the quotes, and all you have is...'this is what I heard'....And we would all go...oh...that's nice for you.
transhuman68

Take away the bible...and all the quotes, and all you have is...'this is what I heard'....And we would all go...oh...that's nice for you.

LOL, I think most of us do that anyway... Seriously, personal revelation is meaningless for all practical purposes in a group situation like... an internet forum.
palmtree67

Seriously, personal revelation is meaningless for all practical purposes in a group situation like... an internet forum.
Jesus told me that you're wrong.
And also, he wants you to make me a sandwich. Mayo, no Miracle Whip.
still thinking

Do you have a scripture to support that claim Palmtree?
Was it..."blessed are the sandwich makers"? or something like that?
palmtree67

I don't need no stinkin' scripture!
Jesus told me that Trans is supposed to make me a sandwich! He even specified the condiments!
What more proof do you need?
Incidently, Jesus just happens to prefer mayo over Miracle Whip.........same as me.

I can't imagine not believing in God.

Share this