|
Feeding Frenzy League Sites |
2009 Feeding Frenzy |
2008 Feeding Frenzy |
2007 Feeding Frenzy |
2006 Feeding Frenzy |
SAC'D League Sites |
2009 SAC'D |
2008 SAC'D |
2007 SAC'D |
2006 SAC'D |
|
Thread Tools |
January 31st, 2006, 08:28 PM | #1 | |
*****istrator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,125
|
Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Yes, this paper is 110 years old, but a good read nonetheless for believers and non-believers alike.
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist..._agnostic.html Quote:
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters) Email: preds1@gmail.com Cell: 716-481-8823 |
|
February 1st, 2006, 12:53 PM | #2 |
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Very interesting essay. While I haven't independantly verified his claims, if they are true, I'd love to hear a Christian response to the similarities between Jesus and the multitude of other god stories. Other similarities, that if true, seem damning are that the cross was previously a symbol of life and immortality, and the paganist eucharist.
|
February 2nd, 2006, 05:34 AM | #3 |
Ghost in the Machine
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Kingdom*
Posts: 620
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Oh no Preds! You have awoken the beast that slumbered. Prepare yourself for a plague of a thousand illogical, patronising posts
cue Rami & Randilover..............................j/k |
February 6th, 2006, 09:52 AM | #4 | |
PredsFF.com Portal News Reporters
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,210
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
I'll read it. You read "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel |
|
The Immortal Ramirez |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by The Immortal Ramirez |
February 6th, 2006, 10:04 AM | #5 | |
*****istrator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,125
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters) Email: preds1@gmail.com Cell: 716-481-8823 |
|
February 6th, 2006, 11:29 AM | #6 |
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Hey, this was an "interesting" read. If you feel it falls to the category of illogical, patronising, I'll consider it just as good as the above.
My basic thoughts: 99% of what he disagrees with, with a simple reading of the Bible, would discount or explain what he writes to be untrue. It’s kind of a rehash of old cliché arguments, which don’t really hold water. I could deal with each (but it’d take a while). He’s mostly just venting emotion, not dealing with truth, and really tips his hand with the whole "I'm free!" statements. His problem is not with the facts or details, he has a moral problem with the whole thing. But before I do that, I’d like someone to answer this question first. I’d still like to know where he gets the idea of how unfair God is? If there is no God, there is no moral law, and if there is no moral law, what in the world is he appealing to to claim God is at fault, or God is wrong, or God is horrible? If there is no moral law giver, and therefore no moral law, then his whole essay is worthless, because what right does he have to call God "an eternal fiend"? He asks how can the Orthodox Christian explain these things. I’d ask how can you validate any question without belief in a God? P.S.- This one’s for free: Votaire’s house currently serves as the distribution center for the Geneva Bible. From a man who claimed to make the Bible obsolete in 100 years no less. The divine irony… Last edited by randilover; February 6th, 2006 at 12:04 PM. |
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
February 6th, 2006, 12:02 PM | #7 | |
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Does that makes sense? I’m really butchering the argument, but in his book Reflections on the Psalms he writes about it. Good book. Check it out if you like reading. You won’t be let down. You kind of get a modern example with cubism in Europe in the last century. Both Picasso and Braque both developed it, but neither ever had any contact with the other. It was due to the direction that art was taking that those schools of thought reached the same conclusion. Make sense? Not to mention, Christianity has its roots in history, not in myth like many other religions do. Ingersoll seems to neglect that point. As for the cross, the Roman invented the cross and it is truly the most agonizing form of punishment probably ever invented. It in no way what so ever took on a note of peace or life or immortality for Christ or anyone of his contemporaries. It wasn’t until after the generation of those who last saw a crucifiction that you see it take on the romantic feel of some kind of icon. When Christ said, "Take up your cross and follow me," he was not being vague. Those who heard him knew he calling them to something hard, dying to self. It’d be like you lifting up the electric chair as a call to peace. Ingersoll seems to have lost that point through his lens of the 19th century. |
|
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
February 8th, 2006, 10:34 AM | #8 | |
PredsFF.com Portal News Reporters
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,210
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
|
|
The Immortal Ramirez |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by The Immortal Ramirez |
February 14th, 2006, 04:49 PM | #9 | ||||
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
I overlooked this post somehow.
Quote:
No, maybe I'll have to read that book. While it is true that similarities between Christianity and other religions does not prove Christianity to be a rip off of other religions, the fact that so many similarities exist provoke questions of the historical accuracy of supposed Christian history. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
February 15th, 2006, 10:47 AM | #10 | ||||
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Sorry my point was lost, it's a good one, if you can get your arms around it. Quote:
(P.S- You'd also have a hard time showing how morals have metomorphasized over time.) Quote:
Christianity is quite authoratatively rooted in history. The Bible itself is dated by Christian and non-Christian scholars as being within the scope of historical accuracy. It's locations and dates line up with what archeology finds with it's spade. Quote:
|
||||
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
February 15th, 2006, 02:55 PM | #11 | |||||
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, if you do nothing else to reply to this post, please provide me with a non-biblical or other religous source that confirms Christ's execution. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
February 16th, 2006, 09:13 AM | #12 | ||||||
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Quote:
If you want a good write up on this, I’d recommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. (You can get it as an audio book, too, if that’s your thing.) The first third of his book is devoted to establishing the existence of God to atheists/agnostic via the moral law argument. He’s much better at it than I am. It’s a good book to have anyway. Whether you believe the subject matter or not. He covers a lot of what Christians believe, and why they believe it. Quote:
Quote:
Check out this link. Some of them have disclaimers on them, but from the studies I’ve done, I believe these are generally accepted but both Christian and non-Christian. Not all reference the crucifixion, but some do. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
February 16th, 2006, 10:40 AM | #13 | ||||
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
That's quite convenient, but it is self serving. Using the Bible to prove the Bible's accuracy? Quote:
Quote:
Oh, I'll be checking out those sources alright. Quote:
However, history is not at all like science. You can't claim something happened with no evidence to show it. History is not a natural science, it is a social science. They are not treated the same way. Any book that contained as many inconsistencies and apparent innacuraces as much as the Bible would not be considered a reliable source in any other context. |
||||
February 16th, 2006, 04:39 PM | #14 | |
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Flavius Josephus, reputation as an historian itself is questioned. The authenticity of his reference to Jesus has been the subject of debate since the 17th century. Tacitus sources for the Annals were secondary souces, and the accuracy of the Annals is questioned, unlike they are for his Histories. Thallus-The website’s reference to Thallus is incorrect (see Wikipedia). The next earliest reference to Thallus’ reference to the supposed darkness is in the 9th Century. From Wikipedia: However, no other author who mentions Thallus before Syncellus makes any mention of Thallus' supposed reference to the darkness. One would expect Christians to make a great deal of such a reference on the part of a well-known chronographer and historian if it supported Christian belief. Africanus may here be in error or Thallus may have only put forth the idea that the darkness that Christians claimed occurred at the death of Jesus was a normal eclipse of the Sun, perhaps referring to the eclipse of the Sun that occurred in AD 29. Pliny the Younger – Not sure what that quote is supposed to verify. It is simply a letter to the Emperor what he is supposed to do about Christians, and how to judge them. It simply states that the believers sing a hymn to Christ, it does nothing to verify Christ was alive. The Talmud- From Wikipedia “The Talmud is a record of rabbinic discussions on Jewish law, Jewish ethics, customs, legends and stories, which Jewish tradition considers authoritative.” Wikipedia states there are many different scolarly opinions of the historical accuracy of the Talmud. Lucian – The source quoted is a satire written by Lucian. It is not a historical document. Lucian was not a historian, and was born 120 AD, hardly a first hand source. If these are the best sources you have, it’s hardly convincing. You expect me to accept the historical accuracy of Jesus based on these sources. Meanwhile, I could provide you with numerous peer reviewed scientific documents, and you’d find fault. |
|
February 18th, 2006, 03:25 AM | #15 |
Ghost in the Machine
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Kingdom*
Posts: 620
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
This is an interesting debate, but I'm not sure where it gets us. For my part, I think the Bible is probably as accurate as a 2000 year old document, written 50-100 years after the events it describes can be.
It is, obviously, full of inconsistencies and contradictions but personally, I am fairly convinced that a historical figure called Jesus Christ, live, preached and died, probably executed. I think there is reasonable evidence in other sources to be able to say that this was the chain of events that originated the Christian Church. What is not proven, and in my mind unprovable is the whole Virgin Birth, Son of God, Resurrection thing. Without that then christinaity is just another personality cult. |
February 20th, 2006, 10:01 AM | #16 | ||||||
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Quote:
Ok, I think there may be a slight problem here: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
February 20th, 2006, 10:09 AM | #17 | |||
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
February 21st, 2006, 09:36 AM | #18 | |||
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
February 21st, 2006, 10:43 AM | #19 | |
Ghost in the Machine
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Kingdom*
Posts: 620
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
By the way, why would you want to try and scientifically prove that man landed on the moon ? What wopuld your hypothesis be? Anyhow, as I stated I think that there is enough historical evidence that JEsus existed, he is mentioned in some contemporary accounts, I have no problem with that. However, the existance of the historical figure Jesus Christ does not mean that the Bible (or even the New Testament) is a completely factual account. As far as I know there are no supporting accounts of the resurrection, or any of the other miracles. The virgin birth is not likely open to historical analysis. j/k AS far as the Biblical contradictions they are many and varied, below is a fairly full list, good luck explaining them all away. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html But frankly, I would expect the Bible to be full of inconsistencies, any collection of historical accounts will be. The Bible is an excellent historical source, but unless it is backed up or supported by other documents then the events it describes will not be accepted as historical fact, especially the more "unusual" events. This is the same test that is applied to any other historical document, for example "Inside the Third Reich" was written by Albert Speer, Hitler's architect and later Minister for Armaments. It is an excellent source, probably the best primary source for the study of the inner workings of Hitler's government. However, there are omissions and inconsistencies that cannot be easily explained away (for a full account please see Gita Sereny's excellent biography Albert Speer:His battle with truth). This is because, as a primary source "Inside the Thrid Reich" is coloured by the fact that its author was not an unbiased observer. The only events that should be accepted as "facts" from the book are those that can be verified from other sources. As a historical document this is how I see the Bible, an excellent primary source. To use an example from the website above, Matthew (27:34) says that Jesus wore a scarlet robe to his trial, Mark (15:23) says it was purple, its a minor inconsistecy that doesn't bother the historian who can reasonably conclude that Jesus wore a robe to his trial. The only problem comes if you are trying to assert that the bible is NOT a historical document but is instead the infallible Word of God. Last edited by smsmith40; February 21st, 2006 at 10:45 AM. |
|
February 22nd, 2006, 12:06 PM | #20 | |||||||
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Quote:
j/k Quote:
Quote:
Second, the Bible is an Eastern document, and despite the fact that it may not seem right in our Western way of thinking, they did not care so much about necessarily getting the right order of things, or things you and I would deem important (like colors of robes). But the concept is there, that Jesus was wearing a royal robe since he was mocked as a king by the Roman guards. Or how they say they have two different accounts of creation and Noah’s flood. There was no problem for the Easterner to go back in the middle of a story and retell a particular part of the story to apply a different point. So there is not really a problem with saying God created man, taking a step back, and then going over how God created the animals in the next paragraph, especially to the Hebrew writer. Get what I am saying? But I’ll take a look at the contradictions. Some of them are amusing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
February 22nd, 2006, 12:07 PM | #21 |
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Taken from the website: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html
My replies: 1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want... >>> This is a really stupid thing to say. Is God restricted to not using metaphors? When it says he separated the Red Sea with a breath of his nostrils, it doesn’t mean that he was there blowing a snotter to get the Isrealites across. It is making the point that with no effort the sea was separated. Duh! When it says the snake eats the dirt of the earth, it is making a point about having his legs removed, not asking you to take it literally. 2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses. >>> This is no good either. If I told you President Bush made an announcement today on his new Fed Reserve Chairman, but then you read a report that a member of his cabinet made the announcement, you would have no problem inferring that Bush probably wasn’t heard to make the remarks, or that possibly one reporter was there when Bush said it, another heard it from a secondary source. This is a silly argument. My history books don't mention little green martians at the battle of Gettysburg, does that mean that my book is invalid? Just weird to say this. 3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you? >>> Again, I’d assume he’s saying this because half of his list is made of verses out of context. You can’t do that with anything, let alone something you are trying to refute. It’s not fair to do so. 4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong. >>>This is a pretty good argument, however, you never really find anything of impact. Maybe a zero dropped off a number, but that means nothing. The content does not change. 5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact. >>> I don’t know what to say to this one. You may not like that there is the possibility of miracles, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the explanation. 6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said. >>>Um, this is kind of just an emotionally charged argument. I don’t know anyone that really answers questions this way. Last edited by randilover; February 22nd, 2006 at 12:10 PM. |
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
February 22nd, 2006, 12:25 PM | #22 |
Ghost in the Machine
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Kingdom*
Posts: 620
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
RL
I should have been more specific in referencing the link. I wasn't suggesting that the author's introduction reflected my views. All I was doing was posting the most accessible list of contradictory "facts" in the Bible as you challenged me to do so. Please feel free to expalin them all away if you feel the urge. Personally I don't think it would change my opinion either way. I'm now a bit lost on where you are at. Are you suggesting the Bible is the infallible word of God are merely a very accurate historical document? |
February 22nd, 2006, 02:10 PM | #23 | ||
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
Really, my point was that most of them arent' contradictions, they are "apparent" contradictions. Quote:
|
||
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
February 22nd, 2006, 06:09 PM | #24 |
Ghost in the Machine
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Kingdom*
Posts: 620
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Well if you are saying that it is the infallible Word of God then you are stuck with trying to prove that everything in the Bible is accurate and factual to the nth degree, it cannot be wrong at any point and minor inconsistencies that don't bother me become very real problems for you because if the Bible is infallible then it can never be wrong. Good luck with that.
If you are saying that it is merely a realtively accurate historical account of divinely inspired events, then that is a significantly lower burden of proof. Which proposition are you making? |
February 23rd, 2006, 06:25 PM | #25 | |
SAC'D
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
|
Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896
Quote:
My point was to just address the fact that people always give the disclaimer of, "It's full of contradictions and not historically accurate," as to why they don't examine it's claims and I was stating that neither of those is really true. The contradictions are usually easiliy understandable or just misinterpreted, and the historical accuracy is, from what I know, not controversial. It may not be provable, but for ancient historical documents, the burden is to disprove them more than prove what they says is accurate, KWIM? However, I believe it is the infallible Word of God. I'm not sure I'm much into proving that, as for the most part, if the problems you have with it are that it classifies bats as birds, or states that rabbits chew the cud, then your really missing the point. If brief animal classifications are what hold you back from seeing the overarching thread of the redemption of man-kind: God creating man, man falling into a depraved unalterable state, God setting into progress the redemption because his nature is love, and the beautiful story it reveals, then proving it as God's Word isn't really a worthy pursuit at this point. Those minor inconsistencies have two fronts. One, they don't bother me that much, namely because I know the author, so to speak. Second, I'm not sure they are all that important. I'd have to think about this one, but I think I kind of explained it above when I descibed Eastern and Western ways of thinking of writing. There's an intent that is more important that timing, etc. Does that make sense? You also have to watch out, because often times there is a tendancy among Christians to idolize the Bible rather than God himself, which is what they can interpret calling it the "Infallible Word of God" to mean. You might be thinking of it the same way from hearing the term used that way. Last edited by randilover; February 23rd, 2006 at 06:31 PM. |
|
randilover |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by randilover |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|