Yellow is Really Cool!

Historical accuracy is not a matter of faith.

it is related though. if what's written in the Bible, in particular the New Testament, is historically accurate...then Jesus really lived. He really said what he said. He really died on a cross. And He really rose again from the dead 3 days later. And that carries a lot of religious significance.

The only difference is that while Goldie is accusing MVP of being too stupid to argue because he's so stupid as to believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible, it is in fact Goldie who has gone off the deep end with ignorant claims based in his own dogma-based deficiencies.

Goldielax's response to this was extraordinarily brief. If he isn't an expert in this subject, and doesn't wish to rebut what has been said, that's fine, but perhaps he should be more respectful towards those who have differing opinions to him on a subject he knows little about in future.

Not at all. You learn in life that the most irrational people are the ones who let faith drive their arguments. I would bring facts to the table, they would not be challenged by virtue of being facts, but rather holes would be attempted to be poked in my arguments like 'nuh uh, they were totally alive when Jesus was' or 'yea they were just rewriting stuff other people wrote', as well as countless others people decide to make up.

The facts are that the gospels are accepted to have been written at the minimum, over 4 decades after the death of Jesus, and at the longest, over eighty years after. The people who wrote them were not experiencing what may or may not have happened first hand, and therefore can not be accepted as 'gospel'. Seeing how much the Christianity story has changed in the period since these books became canonized, it is safe to say that the word of mouth stories that were passed around prior to these writings probably picked up a lot of fluff and a whole lot of made up !@#$ along the way.

My criticism is not of Christianity, because I'm not dumb enough to debate things like that with people who want to argue on faith rather than fact. My criticism rather was of if people want to use things that so clearly are not true depictions of what Jesus may or may not have done, and accept them as such, and then unilaterally believe them to be true, then it is the true sign of someone who would rather believe something someone tells them, instead of finding out for yourself what is true and refusing to simply believe what you are told.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true"

Some of the people defending the New Testament's validity are not people I would have pegged as men of faith.

Carry on.

These are actually the exact people I would have pegged.

it is related though. if what's written in the Bible, in particular the New Testament, is historically accurate...then Jesus really lived. He really said what he said. He really died on a cross. And He really rose again from the dead 3 days later. And that carries a lot of religious significance.

How's the story go again? They put the corpse in a cave and covered the opening with a boulder? Ah, yes. Once you put a boulder in front of a cave, it's obviously immovable by someone else. Also, whenever I put corpses in caves, I always check three days later to see if they're still dead. Obviously, if the corpse is missing after three days, it got up and moved on its own. There's no other explanation for it!

People keep referencing other ancient works and the dating of their earliest still-extant manuscripts, but I think that opens another can of worms. If you read Herodotus, Thucydides or any number of roughly contemporaneous documents, it is clear that you are not getting the kind of factual accuracy that anyone would expect from modern documents. Most historians recognize the limitations of the time periods and I don't think you'll see many historians who wouldn't accept that there is some level of doubt inherent to anything professed in these works. I mean, if you take Thucydides as gospel, you'd have to believe that he was able to recite numerous speeches he was not even present for from memory perfectly. I (and many other historians) suspect instead that it was history from his point of view, even to the extent that some believe it was written as a subtle way to argue for Lacedaemonian superiority after being spurned by Athens.

Yet, we don't see this same level of skepticism in the religious community. If an ancient historian writes about the supernatural, it is instantly considered suspect, especially without the presence of corroborative works to support them. You have obviously suspect actions in the New Testament like: the raising of dead, God walking on earth and existing as a three-part entity simultaneously, resurrection, foresight, curing the blind and numerous other such unverifiable examples of the supernatural. Instead of questioning all of this with the same level that is expected of other ancient documents, it is accepted at face value. I know that the definition of faith is to believe even when there isn't necessarily evidence, so the idea of people believing these things doesn't bother me. But, when other ancient documents are brought up that typically undergo much closer scrutiny and aren't considered to be totally historically accurate as justification to why the Bible must be historically accurate, it just doesn't seem to make sense. Just because there are thousands of copies doesn't make it any more valid if the source isn't totally accurate and especially when the sources are going to have obvious reason to strengthen their stories through claims of supernatural influence and be biased towards their movement when they aren't accepted by mainstream society at the time and have a goal of spreading their religion throughout the world.

Even the argument about Paul not possibly lying about what he said because people would have called him a liar is suspect since we just don't know enough to say either way, especially when early Christians were obviously going to be more biased to their version of events than others. If you already accept the possibility of the supernatural, its only natural to be more willing to accept further supernatural events, especially if it furthers your group of people.

There's just too much doubt here, too much bias to really go ahead and say "the Bible must be historically accurate", but really, why should most Christians care? If your faith is shaky enough that doubts about historical accuracy is enough to break it, is it even worth remaining religious? Isn't the message supposed to be the important part?

Not at all. You learn in life that the most irrational people are the ones who let faith drive their arguments. I would bring facts to the table, they would not be challenged by virtue of being facts, but rather holes would be attempted to be poked in my arguments like 'nuh uh, they were totally alive when Jesus was' or 'yea they were just rewriting stuff other people wrote', as well as countless others people decide to make up.

The facts are that the gospels are accepted to have been written at the minimum, over 4 decades after the death of Jesus, and at the longest, over eighty years after. The people who wrote them were not experiencing what may or may not have happened first hand, and therefore can not be accepted as 'gospel'. Seeing how much the Christianity story has changed in the period since these books became canonized, it is safe to say that the word of mouth stories that were passed around prior to these writings probably picked up a lot of fluff and a whole lot of made up !@#$ along the way.

My criticism is not of Christianity, because I'm not dumb enough to debate things like that with people who want to argue on faith rather than fact. My criticism rather was of if people want to use things that so clearly are not true depictions of what Jesus may or may not have done, and accept them as such, and then unilaterally believe them to be true, then it is the true sign of someone who would rather believe something someone tells them, instead of finding out for yourself what is true and refusing to simply believe what you are told.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true"

These are actually the exact people I would have pegged.

Ok, Goldie, we get it, it's an ego thing. We're automatically drooling retards because we go to church, you're automatically super smart and independent because you don't. Pretty self-serving. All you've managed to do is show that your religion has made you just as prone to make stupid arguments as anyone else's

Nippy,

I don't want to get wait-deep into the bush, but you're not really characterizing the cononization of the current Bible correctly. In ancient times there were tons of religious writings floating around. Some local groups used these, some used those, some made up their own stuff. What it comes down to is that not every single thing written about Jesus is important enough to put in the Bible. There have been tons of groundbreaking religious texts in the last 200 years but they don't get added to the Bible. Books that included stories of young Jesus might be interestng and fun to read, but they don't merit inclusion. Some systems like Arianism were deemed to be heretical, so their teachings weren't included in the Bible. That's just the way that an organization operates. We've all got wikis, CoJ has a wiki. I have opened a lot of threads since we formed, but there isn't a list of all of them on our wiki, just the ones that are central to CoJ. The other threads are there, if people are interested they can go find them and read them.

Nippy,

I don't want to get wait-deep into the bush, but you're not really characterizing the cononization of the current Bible correctly. In ancient times there were tons of religious writings floating around. Some local groups used these, some used those, some made up their own stuff. What it comes down to is that not every single thing written about Jesus is important enough to put in the Bible. There have been tons of groundbreaking religious texts in the last 200 years but they don't get added to the Bible. Books that included stories of young Jesus might be interestng and fun to read, but they don't merit inclusion. Some systems like Arianism were deemed to be heretical, so their teachings weren't included in the Bible. That's just the way that an organization operates. We've all got wikis, CoJ has a wiki. I have opened a lot of threads since we formed, but there isn't a list of all of them on our wiki, just the ones that are central to CoJ. The other threads are there, if people are interested they can go find them and read them.

I'm sorry, but you really didn't explain how I was wrong. I didn't say that everything written about Jesus was considered for addition to the final product. I said that actual gospels were discarded....gospels written by followers of Christ, not by random 'local groups'. Regardless of who wrote them, who sifted through them, and who translated them, all these feats were conducted by men. To call a book 'the word of God' is a joke.

People keep referencing other ancient works and the dating of their earliest still-extant manuscripts, but I think that opens another can of worms. If you read Herodotus, Thucydides or any number of roughly contemporaneous documents, it is clear that you are not getting the kind of factual accuracy that anyone would expect from modern documents. Most historians recognize the limitations of the time periods and I don't think you'll see many historians who wouldn't accept that there is some level of doubt inherent to anything professed in these works. I mean, if you take Thucydides as gospel, you'd have to believe that he was able to recite numerous speeches he was not even present for from memory perfectly. I (and many other historians) suspect instead that it was history from his point of view, even to the extent that some believe it was written as a subtle way to argue for Lacedaemonian superiority after being spurned by Athens.

Yet, we don't see this same level of skepticism in the religious community. If an ancient historian writes about the supernatural, it is instantly considered suspect, especially without the presence of corroborative works to support them. You have obviously suspect actions in the New Testament like: the raising of dead, God walking on earth and existing as a three-part entity simultaneously, resurrection, foresight, curing the blind and numerous other such unverifiable examples of the supernatural. Instead of questioning all of this with the same level that is expected of other ancient documents, it is accepted at face value. I know that the definition of faith is to believe even when there isn't necessarily evidence, so the idea of people believing these things doesn't bother me. But, when other ancient documents are brought up that typically undergo much closer scrutiny and aren't considered to be totally historically accurate as justification to why the Bible must be historically accurate, it just doesn't seem to make sense. Just because there are thousands of copies doesn't make it any more valid if the source isn't totally accurate and especially when the sources are going to have obvious reason to strengthen their stories through claims of supernatural influence and be biased towards their movement when they aren't accepted by mainstream society at the time and have a goal of spreading their religion throughout the world.

Even the argument about Paul not possibly lying about what he said because people would have called him a liar is suspect since we just don't know enough to say either way, especially when early Christians were obviously going to be more biased to their version of events than others. If you already accept the possibility of the supernatural, its only natural to be more willing to accept further supernatural events, especially if it furthers your group of people.

There's just too much doubt here, too much bias to really go ahead and say "the Bible must be historically accurate", but really, why should most Christians care? If your faith is shaky enough that doubts about historical accuracy is enough to break it, is it even worth remaining religious? Isn't the message supposed to be the important part?

This makes perfect sense but it misses the issue. We're not the ones that bring up whether or not we know if the Bible on the shelf at Barnes and Noble says the same thing as a copy that was transcribed 2000 years ago, or whether or not a book written 40 years after an event can be trusted to accurately describe that event. If people like Goldie are going to insist on bringing it up as some sort of killshot for 1000 years, fine, happy to show you why he's wrong. The point is that the Bible's accuracy of transcription (modern copies compared to ancient copies) can be shown better than any other book under the same circumstances on the planet. As far as do the things in quote marks in the Bible equal exactly what was said? Sure, no one can prove that, but if people think that any historical account that cannot be 100% verified by primary documents has to be thrown out, then there goes everything we know. I am satisfied that the Bible is accurate not because I'm afraid my whole world will come crashing to the ground if it isn't (I haven't gone to church in almost a year, myself), but because it meets and exceeds the same standards set up for other ancient documents. I'm also confident that if the books now contained in the Bible were a bunch of made up crap, then the people that were around would have said so and we wouldn't still be reading them. Some Christians need that affirmation, some don't.

But basically, if someone is going to stand up and make claims that are just wrong, they can expect people to tell them they're wrong.

Couldn't find this while I was writing above.

I also have confidence that if the Dong people (you love it, GOONS) can preserve their entire history in a song, so also could ancient people have: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89943080

That also comes with the acceptance that, sure, over time, some alterations are made. Not a huge concession or dealbreaker for me; the community regulates and if all of a sudden one guy takes it off the reservation, it doesn't fly.

I also have confidence that if the Dong people (you love it, GOONS) can preserve their entire history in a song

Yakety Sax doesn't have lyrics.

I think others have admirably argued that the period of time a document is written after the events is not necessarily pertinant to its accuracy. I have no issue with a document or groups of texts written 100 years or even 1000 years after an event could be credible and accurate. Has the said document been edited over time, i am sure it has. Has it altered its basic concepts, probably not. There is good archaelogical evidence for events portrayed in the bible having occured.

I know this is not part of the original intent of this blog but my issue has always been not whether Jesus existed, the person could have existed, my issue is the whole son of god part, it is the leap of faith that i cannot take.

Ok, Goldie, we get it, it's an ego thing. We're automatically drooling retards because we go to church, you're automatically super smart and independent because you don't. Pretty self-serving. All you've managed to do is show that your religion has made you just as prone to make stupid arguments as anyone else's

Well, other than having some sort of deficiency, why do you believe what you are told without question, when the foundations of what you hear from your priest/bible are based on stories written by people who weren't present for them, which have changed hundreds of times over the years, with new things inserted as the Church deems necessary, with stories revised, eliminated, and inserted without any regard for you, the follower? Believing that is the easy way out.

There are answers out there I'm sure, you just would rather accept what people tell you are the answers as such, whereas I'll keep looking.

Honestly I think this discussion is centered around the wrong facet of Goldie's argument. Yes, you can dispute that the people who wrote the Bible were alive when Jesus was, but that still leaves:

"stuff people wrote in a book decades after the supposed Jesus lived is what we will consider to be gospel and you will abide by these laws"

The weakest part of his statement has been rebutted (or at least put into reasonable doubt), but the core of his point remains. To be fair, what's left isn't exactly that strong, but other things such as the total age of the text, translations over time, revisions, etc., could have been added to give it more weight.

Well, other than having some sort of deficiency, why do you believe what you are told without question, when the foundations of what you hear from your priest/bible are based on stories written by people who weren't present for them, which have changed hundreds of times over the years, with new things inserted as the Church deems necessary, with stories revised, eliminated, and inserted without any regard for you, the follower? Believing that is the easy way out.

There are answers out there I'm sure, you just would rather accept what people tell you are the answers as such, whereas I'll keep looking.

The point is that what you're saying isn't correct. The benefit of having more extant copies of the Bible than any ancient book is that we can read the ones closest to the original publication and ensure the accuracy of the copies we have now, and guess what? They're accurate. The only instance I can tell you about without digging is the ommission of several verse about incest from the King James Bible because, surprise, James had a thing for a cousin or something. And, tada, the system works, we all know about it thanks to the plethora of ancient copies, and they're back where they belong. I have clearly done my own searching, if these huge historical discrepancies exist, why haven't I found them?

You're standing here spouting a bunch of canned lines that I have refuted using a book that was written in the 70s (Skeptics Answered, D. James Kennedy). You understand? You're using an argument that has not held water for over 40 years yet you're accusing me of "believ[ing] what told without question." You say that you are the one looking for answers when the questions you're raising have been answered for over 40 years? If you're looking for answers, you're not looking very hard. You're looking for questions; you're looking for any excuse whatever to keep the blinders on. That's fine with me--its sad to me--but it's not intellectualism or intelligence, I won't have my intelligence or independence of thought questioned by someone that cannot demonstrate his own. Even when faced with the answer, you simply repeat the question to reassure your own well-worn, comfort-blanket, lock-step misconceptions.

Honestly I think this discussion is centered around the wrong facet of Goldie's argument. Yes, you can dispute that the people who wrote the Bible were alive when Jesus was, but that still leaves:

[goldie quote]

The weakest part of his statement has been rebutted (or at least put into reasonable doubt), but the core of his point remains. To be fair, what's left isn't exactly that strong, but other things such as the total age of the text, translations over time, revisions, etc., could have been added to give it more weight.

The age of the text doesn't matter; 1,885-year-old segments of the Bible are legible and we know that it stayed the same with minor variances in vocabulary that dont effect meaning. Translation is not an issue effecting meaning in presence of the ancient copies; open a thesaurus, there are 53 synonyms for "cold" but ancient languages are more simple. Say a monk translates his Greek for cold to "frigid" in France, and one in Turkey tranlates his as "glacial" are the two copies different? yes. Is what they mean different? No. With every discovery, the Bible is revised for accuracy. "Revise" is not a bad word when we have the originals in hand and know what was said, and continually find that revisions have actually had no big effect precisely because the people taking care of the business of transribing these texts knew the importance of their fidelity.

The point is that what you're saying isn't correct. The benefit of having more extant copies of the Bible than any ancient book is that we can read the ones closest to the original publication and ensure the accuracy of the copies we have now, and guess what? They're accurate. The only instance I can tell you about without digging is the ommission of several verse about incest from the King James Bible because, surprise, James had a thing for a cousin or something. And, tada, the system works, we all know about it thanks to the plethora of ancient copies, and they're back where they belong. I have clearly done my own searching, if these huge historical discrepancies exist, why haven't I found them?

You're standing here spouting a bunch of canned lines that I have refuted using a book that was written in the 70s (Skeptics Answered, D. James Kennedy). You understand? You're using an argument that has not held water for over 40 years yet you're accusing me of "believ[ing] what told without question." You say that you are the one looking for answers when the questions you're raising have been answered for over 40 years? If you're looking for answers, you're not looking very hard. You're looking for questions; you're looking for any excuse whatever to keep the blinders on. That's fine with me--its sad to me--but it's not intellectualism or intelligence, I won't have my intelligence or independence of thought questioned by someone that cannot demonstrate his own. Even when faced with the answer, you simply repeat the question to reassure your own well-worn, comfort-blanket, lock-step misconceptions.

Again, you show why this thread is ridiculous. Arguing with people who base their debates on faith rather than fact make the possibility of interesting debate nil, and the probability of banging heads against the wall dangerously high.

I could throw out any number of arguments to refute your points, but where is the end game? I'd just be wasting my time trying to get through to someone who has decided on their conclusions based on stories they have been told in a book, why do I think I can get through to you when logic and reason can't?

Ah, I see. Shown that you are wrong, you bury your head in the sand and claim that your inability to argue due to your incorrectness has something to do with my faith. In point of fact your false claims haven't got anything to do with faith, that's why I have used archaeology to disprove them, not unicorns and leprechauns. You claim that a person of faith cannot argue, yet you are the one with no argument.

The age of the text doesn't matter; 1,885-year-old segments of the Bible are legible and we know that it stayed the same with minor variances in vocabulary that dont effect meaning. Translation is not an issue effecting meaning in presence of the ancient copies; open a thesaurus, there are 53 synonyms for "cold" but ancient languages are more simple. Say a monk translates his Greek for cold to "frigid" in France, and one in Turkey tranlates his as "glacial" are the two copies different? yes. Is what they mean different? No. With every discovery, the Bible is revised for accuracy. "Revise" is not a bad word when we have the originals in hand and know what was said, and continually find that revisions have actually had no big effect precisely because the people taking care of the business of transribing these texts knew the importance of their fidelity.

I don't see this entirely as an issue of accuracy, but also an issue of relevance.

Even if we knew that the 1885-year-old text was 100% accurate, 1885 years ago was still a nearly unrecognizably different time. Stonings and slavery are no longer all that common, for instance. Why is it that some things advocated by the Bible have fallen out of common usage, while others haven't?

Yes, there are a lot of words that have synonyms that don't lose meaning, but there are also examples of the opposite. The infamous line which calls homosexuality an "abomination" means it in a far different context than we use the word today. In context, eating shellfish is also an abomination of the same severity.

As for revisions - yes and no. I agree that revision is not implicitly a bad thing, but "because the people taking care of the business of transribing these texts knew the importance of their fidelity." is simply a matter of your opinion. It's a nice thing to assume, but the mindset of those transcribing these revisions is pretty much unknowable. The more a document is revised, especially when the weight of the document is so reliant on its historical accuracy, not just its total accuracy, the more I will doubt it. Not the messages contained within but the context under which it is presented.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is when the interpretation of an ancient document is being used to dictate how people decide to live a virtuous life, and has been used in the past and present to persecute groups of people, its veracity and relevance should both be held to a much higher standard than any primarily historical document. And in my mind, any small doubts will be scrutinized in much higher detail.

This blog is great. We have "religious nut-jobs" backing up their claims with evidence, while the "logical fact driven truth seekers" are using faith as their primary argument.

I don't see this entirely as an issue of accuracy, but also an issue of relevance.

Even if we knew that the 1885-year-old text was 100% accurate, 1885 years ago was still a nearly unrecognizably different time. Stonings and slavery are no longer all that common, for instance. Why is it that some things advocated by the Bible have fallen out of common usage, while others haven't?

Yes, there are a lot of words that have synonyms that don't lose meaning, but there are also examples of the opposite. The infamous line which calls homosexuality an "abomination" means it in a far different context than we use the word today. In context, eating shellfish is also an abomination of the same severity.

I do not have answers for all of the changes, but for some of them.

First with your example of eating shelfish, Christians believe that God changed that law here in Acts.

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

A second reason for not obeying some laws or directions in the Bible is a matter of culture. I believe some directions in the Bible are made in terms of a particular culture. For example in one of the New Testament letters a church was told to "Greet one another with a holy kiss" I don't think that means Christians today should do that, it simply means that in that culture greeting each other with a kiss was a good way to build the community of a church.

On the other hand when a rule is counter cultural, then it is a universal rule for every culture. For example when Paul wrote to the Church and Rome and the church in Corinth he spoke out against homosexual behavior*. At that time the homosexuality was comparatively widespread for the Greeks and so it is counter cultural, and culturally universal.

As for revisions - yes and no. I agree that revision is not implicitly a bad thing, but "because the people taking care of the business of transribing these texts knew the importance of their fidelity." is simply a matter of your opinion. It's a nice thing to assume, but the mindset of those transcribing these revisions is pretty much unknowable. The more a document is revised, especially when the weight of the document is so reliant on its historical accuracy, not just its total accuracy, the more I will doubt it. Not the messages contained within but the context under which it is presented.

The thing is we have tons of early manuscripts and writings that quote the scripture that are so early on, we can trust the accuracy of our current scriptures compared to the original. I'd site them but I think that's been talked to death.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is when the interpretation of an ancient document is being used to dictate how people decide to live a virtuous life, and has been used in the past and present to persecute groups of people, its veracity and relevance should both be held to a much higher standard than any primarily historical document. And in my mind, any small doubts will be scrutinized in much higher detail.

The really witty remark: Yeah, I really hate it when people force their religious morals on us too.

In all seriousness though. if you take a look at the Avatar I have used the most here it is William Wilberforce. He was a member of the British Parlimant, and because of his Christian Convictions dedicated his life to a crusade to abolish the slave trade in England.

My country was established on the idea that every man has inherent rights, not given to them by a government, but God given rights. It was then a similar religious that taught us to realize that every many man is created equally and should not be a slave, and led to our civil war in order to free our slaves. We still have a long way again to go in realizing this truth, that all men are created equal, we had the civil rights movement, and still have many people that need to let go of hate and prejudice, but Christianity played a major role in driving those needed changes.

I doubt many Atheists, Agnostics, and Humanists, think that the use of relgioin in these examples was wrong. The issue arises when Christianity is used to push something along the lines that the the a non-Christian disagree with.

I won't say Christianity has always made a good impact. Many times Christians have cited the Bible as a reason to do evil things. For example Christians in the South (US) used the Bible to justify slavery. There is a famous church that It is famous for signs like this

It is my belief that when the Bible is used to justify evil like slavery, and hate, that these people pervert it. They are guilty of one very big sin when they do something in God's name that God does not call for.

Thou shalt not use the Lord's name in vain

* My emphasis on the homosexual behavior is that I separate homosexual attraction and homosexual behavior on theological and sociological grounds.

First with your example of eating shelfish, Christians believe that God changed that law here in Acts.

That is interesting to know, although I brought up the word "abomination" due to the fact that it carries different connotations in English than the original hebrew word that translates to abomination; a counterpoint to Schatt's assertion that translation won't distort meaning. (For an even better example, consider the debate on the translation of the word "arsenokoitai")

*snipped for size*

For the most part I agree with what you say here, and it was all definitely well written and presented. There's a few parts that I understand but don't necessarily agree with, but I don't know enough to make a fair assessment and response. At the very least I'll say that I've taken it all under advisement. I'm glad to recieve such a constructive response to my queries.

One thing I will comment on:

I doubt many Atheists, Agnostics, and Humanists, think that the use of relgioin in these examples was wrong. The issue arises when Christianity is used to push something along the lines that the the a non-Christian disagree with.

If someone does good, I'll support it. If someone is hateful or intolerant, I'll oppose it. I don't really care two hoots about whether or not it's inspired by religion. I just find this discussion to be interesting, and I'd rather form my opinion through discourse with informed people than pore over text.

If someone does good, I'll support it. If someone is hateful or intolerant, I'll oppose it. I don't really care two hoots about whether or not it's inspired by religion. I just find this discussion to be interesting, and I'd rather form my opinion through discourse with informed people than pore over text.

As a Christian that is where I obviously differ from you, as I believe in a God who is the ultimate authority on what is good. However I still believe that a perfect God bases that good on logic and the knowledge of his overall design for us as a creator, and so while I don't reach a decision of what is good based on logic, I believe that what I read in the Bible is good, will stand the test of logic.

As a Christian that is where I obviously differ from you, as I believe in a God who is the ultimate authority on what is good. However I still believe that a perfect God bases that good on logic and the knowledge of his overall design for us as a creator, and so while I don't reach a decision of what is good based on logic, I believe that what I read in the Bible is good, will stand the test of logic.

Not trying to twist around anything here - this is a question purely of curiosity: Do you believe there is anything inherently different between an action taken by a person who has never heard of God simply using their intuition and a Christian taking the same action due to their belief in God? That is - do you believe the motivation behind an act can change its "goodness" even when the outcome is the same? Or are you saying that since "good" is ultimately decided by God, and "good" is based on logic, any action following the course of logic (talking about the logic of survival or how to be a good person, not, say, math logic) will invariably end up at "good" anyways? (sorry if that was worded weirdly, just trying to wrap my head around what you said)

Not trying to twist around anything here - this is a question purely of curiosity: Do you believe there is anything inherently different between an action taken by a person who has never heard of God simply using their intuition and a Christian taking the same action due to their belief in God? That is - do you believe the motivation behind an act can change its "goodness" even when the outcome is the same? Or are you saying that since "good" is ultimately decided by God, and "good" is based on logic, any action following the course of logic (talking about the logic of survival or how to be a good person, not, say, math logic) will invariably end up at "good" anyways? (sorry if that was worded weirdly, just trying to wrap my head around what you said)

hmmm

First, I would like to point out that I believe in Human depravity. There are plenty of verses in the Bible pointing out we are all sinners. If a human tries to find good simply by logic he will inevitably err on some things. Then again I would say a Christian reading the Bible will inevitably err in his use of it on some things as well. Everyone is really stupid from time to time.

Now a person with no knowledge of God in my opinion still does good. I also believe there is a God given conscience that motivates us to do good, and makes us feel guilt when we do wrong.

Here is something relevant from Pauls letter to the Church in Rome

ROM 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature

things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they

do not have the law,

15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their

hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now

accusing, now even defending them.)

Jeremiah 17:9 also says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?

Basically, everything a person does (whether a Christian or not) is going to be tainted in some way with sin. Even the "good" things.

it is related though. if what's written in the Bible, in particular the New Testament, is historically accurate...then Jesus really lived. He really said what he said. He really died on a cross. And He really rose again from the dead 3 days later. And that carries a lot of religious significance.

As I said, there's two arguments here; one is whether the Bible in its various modern translations is an accurate translation of the stuff that was written down not long after Jesus died, which is where you get the historical accuracy analysis and it seems clear that it is, and then there's the argument about whether the stuff that was written down happened exactly as it was described, which is a matter of faith because lots of really important events like the resurrection don't have a lot of witnesses.

It should be noted that I'm not a Christian here.

lots of really important events like the resurrection don't have a lot of witnesses.

I disagree. We have a letter written by Paul in 55 or 54 AD that say s Christ appeared to 500 people at one time, after he died. Such a claim was so close to the event that the account could be shot down on such a large scale that we wouldn't be here talking about it. All people would have had to say is "where are these 500 witnesses?" and if we can't come up with them, then Christianity goes POOF.