snip
"conspiracy" is putting words in people's mouth and twisting the issues.
The bible is a result of many councils (aka committees) of frequent hand picked *men*. My opinion ... they were probably all English middle aged (relatively speaking) white guys, were of the few who could read, valued their heads, and were members of the Church of England (no surprise). *One* of those groups created the King James version which resulted in many re-writes, deleted books, an the introduction of so-called errors. The point being is that the King told them what the goal was to be. And later people (more middle aged white guys) "fixed" it.
Council of Nicaea. The 1st assembly was only a few hundred years after Jesus, but I think it there that Jesus was deemed the Son of God versus just another guy that waved his hands in front of lots of people that couldn't read, and either herded sheep or fished knowing nothing else. The Council of Nicaea sorted thru a lot writings and devised an arbitrary set of ambiguous rules to filter out what writing would be *books* and what would not be "gospel".
Witnesses. Any of today's court of laws has considerable difficulty determining what, who, & when anytime there are witnesses. It is possible I suppose that the human race has de-evolved meaning become less intelligent. So perhaps today's man is not nearly as observant as those 2000 years ago. But I have not seen this used as an argument very often. So assuming the we are equal intelligence of those "then". And given that today's witnesses are no more trained observers as they could have been "then" ... not much credence can be given to the witness theory much less argue that surely they would have objected to errors in anyone's written account. Right.
Therefore, the consistency and concordance of the books of the Bible ARE no accident (al-l-lll of those middle aged white guys mentioned earlier) and *IS* by some other white guy's (a King often) directive.
The result is several versions of the Bible. In believing what the Bible says about itself, which one? What about what one version says about a different version?
Finally, to the subject of the thread, I object to proselytizing. Which is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion (clipped from wikipedia). In particular the innocence that so-called Christians live under in the blaming of late, Islam of using the concept to convert the world to Islam.
One of my Sunday School teachers stated quite clearly that if you believe in your faith then you should be talking with and convincing others to believe in Christ. At that time I was wondering about those Methodist sinners across town ... that where in my school class and I saw the rest of the week. THEN, I learned about... Baptists!!! OMG. Wait? What? There are Mormons? Uhhhh, Catholics? Well, clearly most of the world is doomed to Hell and I am lucky to be taught by the correct church from the correct Book.
Islam? Hindu? Please, surely Hell isn't that big.
This thread is going nowhere.
Honestly, what is the point for either side in these things?
It's is no wonder they did not recognize him; Jesus was supposed to be dead! The surprise and the shock of seeing a close companion, or anyone else for that matter, who was supposed to be dead, would be enormous.
Seriously, you are in complete denial. So if you thought your father died and he walked up to you a week later, your first reaction would be mistaking him for the gardener? Seriously?
Christians make the most pathetic excuses.
9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. 15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
"When he had let them out..." This does not specify how much time went by between the previous verse and this one. Nothing here says he must have lead them out moments after the previous verse.When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.
due to various sociological factors, in particular modern recording equipment and television, our method of transmitting spoken-word information and our level of observation of said information is much worse than it was 2000 years ago.Witnesses. Any of today's court of laws has considerable difficulty determining what, who, & when anytime there are witnesses. It is possible I suppose that the human race has de-evolved meaning become less intelligent. So perhaps today's man is not nearly as observant as those 2000 years ago. But I have not seen this used as an argument very often. So assuming the we are equal intelligence of those "then". And given that today's witnesses are no more trained observers as they could have been "then" ... not much credence can be given to the witness theory much less argue that surely they would have objected to errors in anyone's written account. Right.
If I were religion shopping, those 72 virgins sound pretty enticing across the street.
By The Bible:
Hitler - Heaven
Gandhi - Hell
I can't do it. That's a big reason, but many others invade as well.
I'm in for post 432.
If you want a long thread then one about religion especially Christianity will bring home the bacon.
Wow, what Catholic school did you go to? I certainly don't recall that being in the math/science classes when I went to one. Even now that I teach in one, I can say that this isn't how we run science classes at my school.
Now... just to play Devil's Advocate, how do you get Hitler and Heaven?
Hitler killed himself. According to all the religious canon, Suicide = insta-ban from Heaven, regardless of all other trials... and then there's the mass-murder bit...
If you want to understand Hitler you should look to Darwin, not Jesus Christ.
I'm in for post 432.
If you want a long thread then one about religion especially Christianity will bring home the bacon.
COB: had enough time to figure out that I was talking about the value of faith as a variable with high explanatory power in understanding sociological phenomenon as opposed to seeing religion as the destroyer of all things socio-scientific?
and following dante's divine comedy, which is responsible for the fire and brimstone view of hell, ghandi's in the fields without the other enlightened pagans.
i don't understand why people get so animated over religon. believe what you want. if you got the right answer in this life, you'll be golden in the next. ^_^
if you got the wrong answer, sucks for you.
if there was no answer because there is no god, then you're no worse off. so meh. nice to believe that there's something after this.
Negative.
Three cheers for Godwin's Law!If you want to understand Hitler you should look to Darwin, not Jesus Christ.
If you want to understand Hitler you should look to Darwin, not Jesus Christ.