"The Religion thread" Part II

[Mulu]

Oh, there is no doubt that Vaelahr and I are not going to change either of our minds, or probably any others. But it can be fun to think about. I mean, if you're going to have religious or anti-religious beliefs at all, you should at least understand and be able to defend them. Otherwise your beliefs are arbitrary.

And I still owe Vaelahr a list of conflicts between the gospels, though he also still owes me an explanation of whether or not he believes in every other superstition, and why. Heck, I'll make it easy and limit it to Mormonism. Garden of Eden in Missouri and all that. Even Mr. Civil Rights himself Al Sharpton said of Mormonism, "My God is better." Funny, since it looks to me like they worship the same god.

[Mulu]

Top Ten Signs that You're a Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You require proof of reality, but take the supernatural on faith.

[Mulu]

As a side note, early Christianity did steal one very important ritual from Judaism after its formation: Prayer.

Jews and early christians solicited god with sacrifice. That means Jesus sacrificed animals. That tradition changed when the Romans destroyed the temple around 70 CE. Jews, no longer having their temple to make sacrifices in, changed their manner of communication to prayer. Christians adopted this changed practice as well, even though it didn't come from Jesus....

Alright, on to the gospels. As we have already discussed, Christianity was an oral tradition for awhile before anything got written down, and those early writings didn't survive, so ultimately when we are talking about "early christianity" or the "life of Jesus" what we are really referring to is a recording made many decades if not centuries later that may or may not have had any strong similarity with actual events, basically a big version of the kindergarten telephone game. Also, those gospels were changed over time, which makes any claim of divine inspiration spurious, as any divinely inspired work shouldn't require later editing. It's also important to note that the disciples are not considered to be the authors of the gospels even by most biblical scholars, and on that note, I'm going to start cutting and pasting.

The headings which read "The Gospel according to . . ." were second-century additions called pseudepigraphia--authorship by an anonymous person which is then attributed to a famous biblical character for authority. Pseudepigraphical works flourished in ancient Palestine from two centuries before Jesus to around 300 CE after. The unknown Jewish and early Christian authors of pseudepigraphical works felt that, while they themselves had something important to say, their material might not be taken seriously unless it seemed to come from the pen of a famous person such as a disciple or a prophet. All four of the gospels are pseudepigraphical works and today we use the names "Matthew" or "John" merely as convenient labels for the work.

The manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Greek. It is argued that there may have existed an Aramaic source for the Synoptic gospels, especially Mark's gospel, but the evidence is still inconclusive. The earliest incomplete texts of the NT--the Beatty papyri and the Bodmer papyri--date from the third century CE. Unfortunately these exist only as tiny fragments of various texts. Papyrus was in use prior to the fourth century and was a very perishable substance. Beginning in the fourth century, the more durable vellum, made from the scraped skin of goats and sheep, quickly replaced papyri as the preferred writing medium. The first complete manuscripts we have--the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus--date to the fourth century. These complete codices are also in Greek and their dates of composition have been well-established among biblical scholars and linguists. We have no original autographs, extant fragments or manuscripts which date to the first or second centuries and to the time of Christ. With respect to everything that we know about Jesus, these manuscripts are our only authority and despite the 300-year gap between these two extant codices and Jesus, they will have to suffice.

Before there existed any writings of Jesus on papyri, stories about Jesus were spoken orally between people and communities. If the earliest manuscripts began appearing around 50 CE as many scholars conclude, then the oral tradition, as it is known, preserved the deeds and activities of Jesus for around 13 years prior to their eventual codification. These "proto-gospels" were copied and reproduced well before the invention of the printing press and so they had to be copied by a scribe, line for line and word for word in a very time consuming and expensive process. In the centuries after Jesus' death, most people could not afford to own a copy of a gospel themselves and those Christian communities that could afford a copy used only a single gospel that they read aloud to each other on the Sabbath. Since most communities did not own a copy of a gospel, they preserved the teachings and sayings of Jesus by retelling these stories to each other. Most of these communities preferred to use only their own gospel tradition and so a proliferation of gospel traditions arose.

It is important to realize that not everything which was preserved in the oral tradition automatically made its way into the written texts. By the end of the second century, early church fathers like Serapion and Irenaeus argued for the acceptance of only four gospels. Irenaeus was especially passionate for acceptance of only the four, but many other bishops and leaders disagreed. It was not at all clear in the second century which of the various forms of Christianity then in existence--Marcionian Paulinism, Montanism, Gnosticism, Soteriology, or Catholocism--could claim a superior criteria of legitimacy. Many early Church Fathers who led these Jesus movements fought bitterly amongst themselves and each declared the others heretical. Also, each leader preferred his own oral and textual traditions. Papias seems to have been familiar with at least Mark, Matthew and John, but preferred the authority of the continuous and dynamic oral tradition that still circulated instead. Justin Martyr quotes frequently from the early gospels, but also from the oral tradition as well.[4] Marcion, a colorful church leader preferred his own edited version of Luke where he pulled out all references to the Jews and rejected all other gospels. (Marcion seems to have been aware of the charges of pagan critics like Celsus that the gospels were self-contradictory and so this may have influenced his drastic measure of relying only on Luke.) In one interesting case, a very popular writer named Tatian composed a gospel "harmony" that smoothed out the discrepancies that appeared in the gospels. The Syrian community used Tatian's harmony as their sole gospel until the fifth century. In the end however, Irenaeus' views won. In a now famous passage, Irenaeus declares the reason for choosing no more or fewer than the four gospels:

It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are, since there are four directions of the world in which we live, and there are four principal winds. (adv. Haer. 3.11.8 )

By the end of the second century, the canon had taken shape and from then on the oral tradition slowly died out to be replaced by the authority of the written word.

Christian Trajectories
Almost from the beginning this "Jesus movement" was split among many different communities who each had their own ideas about who Jesus was and what his teachings meant to them. Over time a kerygma emerged, a message "which is proclaimed" (the literal translation of kerygma from the Greek). But it wasn't always clear what this proclamation was in the decades immediately following Jesus' death since each community enjoyed the freedom to interpret their stories about Jesus for themselves. Bauer [1934] first realized that this diversity existed throughout the early communities and regions of the Jesus movement.[5] Koester developed Bauer's work three decades later, calling this diversity Gnomai Diaphoroi. Today, scholars refer to the diversity of those early Jesus movements simply as "Christian trajectories."[6] Fredriksen [1988] describes these communities and how their diversity played an important role in formulating the kerygma:

"[Early Christians] grouped together, preserving some of Jesus' teachings and some stories about him, which became part of the substance of their preaching as they continued his mission to prepare Israel for the coming of the Kingdom of God. At the same time or very shortly thereafter, these oral teachings began to circulate in Greek as well as in Jesus' native Aramaic. Eventually, some of Jesus' sayings, now in Greek, were collected and written down in a document, now lost, which scholars designate Q (from the German Quelle, "source"). Meanwhile, other oral traditions--miracle stories, parables, legends, and so on--grew, circulated, and were collected in different forms by various Christian communities. In the period around the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE) an anonymous Gentile Christian wrote some of these down. This person was not an author--he did not compose de novo. Nor was he a historian--he did not deal directly and critically with his evidence. The writer was an evangelist, a sort of creative editor. He organized these stories into a sequence and shaped his inherited material into something resembling a historical narrative. The result was the Gospel of Mark."[7]

This gospel, written around 70 CE, was the Original Mark. Original Mark was much shorter than Canonical Mark, the Mark which is in the Bible today. It did not contain Canonical Mark's 6:45-8:26 verses or the resurrection appendix of 16:9-20. Those passages were interpolated (or inserted) after 70 CE, but sometime prior to canonization in the fourth century. What may have happened was that a dominant community took the gospel and incorporated their own oral traditions into it, with the result being passages 6:45 through 8:26. This provided them with a complete codified form of their own values along with the authority of the written gospel, all in one book. In the earliest versions of Mark and Q, Jesus' resurrection account was not yet included. At some point in the second century however verses 16:9-20, the resurrection account, was included in order to harmonize it with the other gospels. This editorializing was common and acceptable practice in the ancient world.[8] There existed many different varieties of proto-gospels, each based on the local communities own oral tradition as it was preserved from the time of Jesus. Although Q is the most famous of these early Sayings Sources (as Q is also called) it was not the only one. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is based on a more primitive strata of Q; a strata that swapped stories about Jesus before the apocalyptic expectations that came to be attributed to Jesus and the "Son of Man" sayings found their way into the Q. In other words the Jesus sayings--from oral tradition to the final canonized form that we have today--constantly evolved in a dynamic process which reflected the zeal and enthusiasm of the early Christians who preserved them. Robertson remarks on the reasons why it is difficult to separate the various Jesus traditions from each other:

"Within a hundred years from the date commonly assigned to the Crucifixion, there are Gentile traces of a Jesuist or Christist movement deriving from Jewry, and possessing a gospel or memoir as well as some of the Pauline and other epistles, both spurious and genuine; but the gospel then current seems to have contained some matter not preserved in the canonical four, and have lacked much that those contain."[9]

So, not only is the story recorded very late in the game, but it's a product of continual aggrandizement and change by the early Christians themselves, which actually makes it unnecessary to bother with showing conflicts between the gospels, since the origin of the gospels is sufficient to support the thesis that they are not divinely inspired. Also, the early gospels were criticized as being in conflict with each other, and were later largely harmonized, so apparently I'm several centuries late with my charge. Nevertheless, there are still significant differences between them, and even a few contradictions.

That second site also has this gem.

Most modern liberal theologians have generally rejected the virgin birth, and classify it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century CE and was triggered by a mistranslation of the book of Isaiah. Its purpose was to make the religion more competitive with contemporary Pagan religions in the Mediterranean region, most of whom featured a virgin birth of their founder.

[Charlie]

Mulu, I think in the end you're arguing for the reasons why you think all Christians are dumb.

You need to be careful in a line of thinking where you believe those of your own beliefs are somehow superior, smarter, a greater-than. A good many people in the Pre World War Berlin's educational system agree with your line of thinking. This led to fascism.

There are people in this world who would gather up every person dedicated to a organized faith, and subdue them, or deny them basic liberties, and eventually dispose of them and their inferior thinking.

Try not to be one of them; this is tolerance.

And to correct some of your facts: the current best translation is clay, not dirt, and it may be symbolic. Animal sacrifice was of edible animals, meaning they were eaten after all the blood and lard was burnt away. It was as the good old Sunday barbeque. It served many purposes in addition to being a show of love and devotion to one's patron.

Nobody expects you to believe or see what some people have seen. Good portions of Christ's students take what instruction is offered on faith, and on such we accept our teacher's credentials. Christianity is also a system for living based on benevolence rather than puerile selfishness. Unfortunately some of us become so obsessed with the teaching, they forget that sometimes the students aren't willing able or ready, and these potential teachers get quite excitable.

[Jeppan]

A good many people in the Pre World War Berlin's educational system agree with your line of thinking. This led to fascism.

Germany was never fascist, like for instance Italy. Germany was nazi, which is quite different in terms of economical policies (state ownership, unions among other things).

and was that not an elaborate way of evoking Goodwins law???

[Swift]

A good many people in the Pre World War Berlin's educational system agree with your line of thinking. This led to fascism.

Germany was never fascist, like for instance Italy. Germany was nazi, which is quite different in terms of economical policies (state ownership, unions among other things).

and was that not an elaborate way of evoking Goodwins law???

For the love of all that is holy, get a moderator in here to acknowledge the invocation of godwins law and lock this thread away already

[Mulu]

Mulu, I think in the end you're arguing for the reasons why you think all Christians are dumb.

Well, misled anyway.

[Veilan]

[Stormseeker]

That comic hits the truth right on the head...it is the start down a road to the downfall of this country.

[Lusipher]

This thread should have been locked pages ago. Its nothing but christian bashing from Mulu. I love how this community would throw you out the minute you call someone a faggot but if you say anything about christianity its all fair game and good. Thats bias and total horseshit, but backed up by the majority of folks who frequent this community.

[Veilan]

Eh?

I could call you a faggot any day I want here. Or Mulu for that matter, you two could call me that... etc..

Also, I'm not offended by Mulu's views and posts, and I -am- a Protestant. Though likely not in the eyes of most funda-mental-ists. I think part of the idea of Christianity is about tolerance and not being offended and instead of spiralling into insult and counter-insult, to try de-escalation by turning the proverbial other cheek.

Let's puff the pipe of chill, and then why not continue engaging in spiritted debate? If we do so open-minded, there's the serious risk we may be getting smarter for it . I certainly did pick up some interesting thoughts from the points both sides presented.

[AlmightyTDawg]

Though Mulu has a penchant for crossing the lines of good taste in his zeal, ultimately he's making largely historical and logical arguments. And there is something fairly considerable regarding the posture of criticism that clearly differentiates anti-homosexual bile and anti-dogmatic arguments. One is a criticism of someone for who they are regardless of what they do to you, the other is a criticism of a pattern of beliefs that either tacitly or explicitly declares superiority over other beliefs.

I submit Dan, if you don't see a difference between them, that's pretty much the QED of the problem.

Rest assured that given the opportunity and information Mulu would gladly tear into a fanatical Muslim all the same.

The beautiful thing about all of this epistemologically is that there's rarely such a thing as proof regarding the past. Modern, and even one-generation-after-the-fact-ancient scholars are merely making educated inferences based on available materials. Even actual direct observation is not necessarily the answer to the question, as Penn and Teller would like to point out. The mere editing of documents and changing of stories need not take away from the fundamental quantum of "truth" worth believing in. The fact that we all possibly subscribe to dogma or rulings or teachings which may be in error need not undermine the value of faith in and of itself.

The real dangers of religion are in competition (which religion would/should an unbiased tabula rasa visitor choose, and on what basis), and the willingness of mortals to co-opt and/or corrupt dogma to their own ends or per their own visions. But here's the kicker - while the Richard Dawkins view might attack organized religion for its celebration of illogical methods, no one can conclusively disprove the existence of God or fully rule out the bases for most religions. Of course you have to accept the possibility of the supernatural as a given, and the willingness of someone to do that probably is a good guidepost to how they feel anyway.

But take evolution v. intelligent design: if you seriously grapple with the philosophical ramifications of omnipotence, there is nothing that says that God could not have envisioned the universe arising from a big bang, created everything (including fossils, etc.) at some time t=X billions of years after, and then hit the go-button. In that way, all of the world around us, including the fossils, becomes evidence by which we learn and discover about the universe. And the early stories and fables are created because they speak to the particular intellectual capacities of that age.

The point being, so long as people aren't using religion as a tool to bash others' views (e.g. intelligent design advocates), we can all get along pretty well together.

[Mulu]

But take evolution v. intelligent design: if you seriously grapple with the philosophical ramifications of omnipotence, there is nothing that says that God could not have envisioned the universe arising from a big bang, created everything (including fossils, etc.) at some time t=X billions of years after, and then hit the go-button.

Or as Spinoza and Einstein believed, the Big Bang *was* the go button, and the creator spirit hasn't been involved directly since. But this POV fails under Occam's razor, since there is no reason a being has to push the go button in the first place. If you seriously grapple with the origin of the idea of gods and monsters, they come from the stone age, and there is no reason to believe such ancient fantasies have any basis in reality. That's the crux of the whole thing. Our concept of the creator spirit comes from pre-history, a time when we understood exactly nothing. Yet, the idea has been too attractive to give up for most people, despite our accumulated knowledge, which I suppose is proof of the persistence of ideas at least, if not the underlying premise of the supernatural.

[Rusty]

Even by ATD's standards, that's an arcane post.

[Mulu]

I love how this community would throw you out the minute you call someone a faggot but if you say anything about christianity its all fair game and good.

And yet, you are still here.