If the Bible has been edited, then why leave in the bad bits about God?

[methamaniac]

^
1000words,
History shows any position of power can be abused.
ie boy/girl scout leaders, summer camp leaders, school teachers , baber sitters, family members, coaches, etc.
also
Statistical evidence showing Christianity makes your claim easier?

 

[ebola?]

See where im going?

Not really. You listed a positive effect of charitable activity undertaken by Christians (without establishing a clear causal role of the religion--yes, I'd imagine that in a world without Christianity, there would exist alternate institutions fulfilling such charitable functions...as for which institutional frameworks would work best, we have little idea.

But the point here is that by listing this positive effect, we're nowhere closer to some general assessment of Christianity's ethical merit. I could list a negative effect or two. We'd still be nowhere closer to our goal.

The commandment of love thy neighbor as thyself stands on its own merit and needs zero defense.

It also flows directly from human empathy; people generate these types of maxims through irreligious means rather routinely.

You need to show harmful effects of Christianity that cancel out the benefits of Christianty and at the same time show how these examples even tip the scales in reverse direction.

What I'm saying is that it's theoretically impossible to even establish such a 'conceptual scale', let alone use it to make comparisons (note: as I hope you've inferred, I'm not trying to make a case that Christianity is overall bad either...as it follows that that too is impossible).

ebola

 

[methamaniac]

As ebola said, it is not an easy argument. You're saying it's easy to compare something unmeasurable to something else unmeasurable? It is, by definition, impossible.

Meant to write measurable not unmeasurable.
I gave examples one doesnt have to except them.
They are still there tho.

Everyone has exactly as much permission to dismiss Christianity as they do to accept it.

Yep,
But not to making sweeping statements without evidence as you pointed out and I agreed.

So you're going to measure something that is so vast it cannot be measured, by measuring little bits of it?
Couldn't you do the same for the bad Christianity (and other religions) have caused?

Proving the bad of Christianity or any other religion isnt my burden/responsibility. It would be the opposite opinion aire's



[

My counter would be similar examples of bad things that are still happening that are arguably caused by organized religion.

Again were talking about Christianity.
How do I test your arguement?
Even generally?

You haven't shown that, by holding a foot long ruler up to an infinite spectrum, any more or less than you have shown the opposite. It is impossible to accurately analyze history and split it into two categories: religious-influenced and non religious-influenced events. Let alone, deciding which ones of those events turned out for the better or for the worse, creating some sort of grading system so that unrelated events can be directly compared, then - finally - adding up the score for good and bad.

Actually prove to myself everyday.

If you believe in a single infallible God, there is no good and bad.

Actually there can be good and bad.
Free will allows that.
Good and evil is defined by me doing opposite of infallible God defines as Good for me.
But yes, no good or bad for God.

Everything that has happened has to have happened, for us to be here.

Nature is harsh. Evolution is harsh. Survival is harsh. Life is messy.

Yes we are in a fallen world.

People are always asking: "If God exists, why do bad things happen?" -> "Is God bad?"

In the context of this thread: "If religion is representative of God, why do bad things happen in the name of religion?" -> "Is God bad?"

Answer: Bad things happen, because they have to happen for good things to happen. -> No. God is neither good nor bad.

I forgot you believe in God.

Here's where faith, revelation, and conviction comes in.
Anyone free to reject any of them.

 

[ForEverAfter]

people generate these types of maxims through irreligious means rather routinely

It's difficult to separate religious and nonreligious, though, isn't it? I mean, most (all?) societies have a moral code... and practically all societies throughout history have been religious/spiritual in some way. The early religions were, arguably, just stories. Word of mouth was all that existed. So stories were everything. The early moral compasses built by man were spoken. Mythology was a distribution system for their moral code. You can't separate the two, really, and say that people have come to the same conclusion - after the fact - without (indirect) influence from within existing mythology. Unless there's some record of a non-religious civilization, untouched by other cultures, that developed the idea of a moral code. Empathy may seem obvious now, but you may be taking for granted organized religion's role in marketing the idea.

Love Thy Neighbor doesn't exist in the animal species.
Animals are territorial and violent towards themselves. So are we.
That's why we incorporated it into our stories. Into our law. Into our religion.

Religion is so tightly woven into the fabric of our society, that it cannot be discounted as a contributing factor towards anything: good or bad.

 

[ForEverAfter]

meth, I'd like you to measure the good and the bad accurately.

You said it's possible and that you do it every day?

Go ahead.

 

[methamaniac]

Not really. You listed a positive effect of charitable activity undertaken by Christians (without establishing a clear causal role of the religion--yes, I'd imagine that in a world without Christianity, there would exist alternate institutions fulfilling such charitable functions...as for which institutional frameworks would work best, we have little idea.

But the point here is that by listing this positive effect, we're nowhere closer to some general assessment of Christianity's ethical merit. I could list a negative effect or two. We'd still be nowhere closer to our goal.

All I need to do is demonsrate good of Christianity and how many people it helps.
Which I beleive I did.
The opposite opinion"aire" has to demonstrate how Christianity is more negative if he or she takes opposite position.
ie show demonstrate (even abstractly) how more people are harmed by Christianity.
I dont have to prove the negative of my statement in this instance. I've made the positive statement.
Like I said easy arguement for me.

It also flows directly from human empathy; people generate these types of maxims through irreligious means rather routinely.



What I'm saying is that it's theoretically impossible to even establish such a 'conceptual scale', let alone use it to make comparisons (note: as I hope you've inferred, I'm not trying to make a case that Christianity is overall bad either...as it follows that that too is impossible).

ebola

I disagree. Morality isnt that hard to prove to oneself.

 

[methamaniac]

meth, I'd like you to measure the good and the bad accurately.

You said it's possible and that you do it every day?

Go ahead.

Not exactly what I said.
I said I prove it (good of Christianity)to myself everyday.
My life is better than it was when I didnt practice Christianity.
Its an easy comparison.

 

[ForEverAfter]

To provide a couple of examples doesn't indicate that it is measurable.
You would have to come up with every example, on both sides, to justify a comparison.

It isn't an easy comparison, if you want to carry it out objectively and you want the results to be accurate.
If your life is better with Christianity that's great. But that doesn't prove anything, in the grand scheme.

There have undoubtedly been atrocities committed in the name of religion.
Perhaps there have been more good deeds done in the name of religion, than bad. I would agree to that.
But the question is, how do you value a murder against a charitable deed? Do they just cancel each other out?

 

[Ninae]

Before Christianity the Celts and Britons had Druidism. Which was a savage and cruel religion. Traitors would be skinned alive and left to die inside an oak tree (as a sacrifice to the oak god).

It's funny how people tend to romanticise other religions than Christianity. Mostly because they seem more exotic and it's not something that's been forced upon them all their lives. Teaching children Christianity almost has the opposite effect in most cases.

But there's also the thing that the most worthwhile things can be hidden in plain view. In this case, the good example that Jesus was and what it can do for your life. Most kids grow up thinking they know all about Jesus, and there is nothing of value there, mostly because they lack experience and understanding yet. Typically, Westerners are more open to Eastern religion when they feel ready to explore that stuff. Familiarity breeds contempt, etc.

 

[Journyman16]

Remember though, mostly we know about Druidism from the conquerors, who had every reason to vilify and destroy any reputation the religion may have had. The scraps that survived seem to have had the common people quite willing to risk all to keep going with the old ways - the upkeep of the White Horse and other ancient sites show they weren't all that eager to discard their beliefs.

And if the scanty evidence of Jesus is correct, the one in the bible doesn't seem to have had much to do with the reality - which may be why so many books mentioning him were removed and destroyed after Nicaea.

Ralph Ellis has put together some very convincing evidence of the Hebrews (actually the Hyksos) and just who Jesus was as well as which families he came from. While personal beliefs may require ignoring what evidence there is, the story is, to me, all the more interesting and makes a lot more sense when the evidence IS considered.

 

[ForEverAfter]

There are so many examples of barbaric and inhuman practices (by today's standards) committed by primitive societies, I don't know how you can seriously suggest that we came from relatively peaceful origins... while writing off any record of barbarism as conspiracy...

(It is unlikely that Jesus was a real person.)

 

[methamaniac]

To provide a couple of examples doesn't indicate that it is measurable.
You would have to come up with every example, on both sides, to justify a comparison.

It isn't an easy comparison, if you want to carry it out objectively and you want the results to be accurate.
If your life is better with Christianity that's great. But that doesn't prove anything, in the grand scheme.

There have undoubtedly been atrocities committed in the name of religion.
Perhaps there have been more good deeds done in the name of religion, than bad. I would agree to that.
But the question is, how do you value a murder against a charitable deed? Do they just cancel each other out?

The fallacy in your argument is you are declaring Christianity requires you murder in its name.
That and when you use phrase "in name of religion" you are premitted to superimpose any religious belief on Christianity.
Christianity teaches love and kindness.
To win this argument one needs to show at least abstractly that it teaches the opposite.

And if i did subscribe to your supposition I would say charitable deed counts as good and murder as evil.
But that's immaterial to this discussion.

 

[methamaniac]

Remember though, mostly we know about Druidism from the conquerors, who had every reason to vilify and destroy any reputation the religion may have had. The scraps that survived seem to have had the common people quite willing to risk all to keep going with the old ways - the upkeep of the White Horse and other ancient sites show they weren't all that eager to discard their beliefs.

And if the scanty evidence of Jesus is correct, the one in the bible doesn't seem to have had much to do with the reality - which may be why so many books mentioning him were removed and destroyed after Nicaea.

Ralph Ellis has put together some very convincing evidence of the Hebrews (actually the Hyksos) and just who Jesus was as well as which families he came from. While personal beliefs may require ignoring what evidence there is, the story is, to me, all the more interesting and makes a lot more sense when the evidence IS considered.

This is more a question than a response.

Im sure you are aware of the prophecy, forshadowing, symbols, numerology, and allegory of bible.
(U seem to have studied Bible)
How do you explain the connections?
Conspiracy?
Just curious

 

[methamaniac]

(It is unlikely that Jesus was a real person.)

Come on man. Do you believe apostles where "imaginary" too?

 

[ebola?]

^^^^^
It doesn't really matter, as the Bible's functional role doesn't depend on literal historical accuracy except in conditions of fundamentalist interpretation. However, due to the way in which the Bible was compiled, it's highly likely that the Jesus we know was an amalgam of several moderately well-followed prophets, subject to errors in recollection and severe embellishment.
...

Before Christianity the Celts and Britons had Druidism. Which was a savage and cruel religion. Traitors would be skinned alive and left to die inside an oak tree (as a sacrifice to the oak god).

Er...it's a fairer point of comparison to think of the "pre-Christian world" as Greco-Roman, Chinese, and Hindu, not the relatively primitive groups inhabiting NW Europe at the time.

ebola

 

[methamaniac]

^^^^^
It doesn't really matter, as the Bible's functional role doesn't depend on literal historical accuracy except in conditions of fundamentalist interpretation.

Yeah it does,
Historical accuracy is what gives credence to authors of Bible.

However, due to the way in which the Bible was compiled, it's highly likely that the Jesus we know was an amalgam of several moderately well-followed prophets, subject to errors in recollection and severe embellishment.

Highly likely?
Examining the evidence easily shows consistency of testimony of Jesus is iron clad.

 

[swilow]

^It's really only the most basic facts regarding Jesus, such as name, place of birth, execution and so forth that seem to be considered "iron clad", or so I thought...? Its hard to claim that the gospels are accurate historical documents.

 

[methamaniac]

What about the gospels are not historically accurate?

IMO people wouldnt be willing to die for a known fabrication.

 

[ebola?]

What about the gospels are not historically accurate?

We probably don't have sufficient historical data to determine this (the records get pretty sparse that far back).

IMO people wouldnt be willing to die for a known fabrication.

It's not a "fabrication" but rather a compendium of myths, parables, and other series of metaphors, providing a particular interpretive framework. People are willing to die for this framework insofar as they give it ethical weight (and thus make its power real by using it to guide social action, biblical text in turn functioning as the symbolic expression of this social force).

ebola

 

[methamaniac]

We probably don't have sufficient historical data to determine this (the records get pretty sparse that far back)

Dont you think if people in the mid first century knew Jesus didnt exist it would be hard to fool them.

It's not a "fabrication" but rather a compendium of myths, parables, and other series of metaphors, providing a particular interpretive framework. People are willing to die for this framework insofar as they give it ethical weight (and thus make its power real by using it to guide social action, biblical text in turn functioning as the symbolic expression of this social force).

ebola

Your missing the point.
If you were the apostles would you go to your death for a made up man?
That just isnt logical.