Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
JonSnow:
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 03 Jan 2009, 21:25 ---
--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 03 Jan 2009, 21:15 ---OK, so what is the argument here? Or did you not know about the translations which have been made, not from the Latin or form the KJV's Textus Recepticus, but from the many manuscripts available?
--- End quote ---
... um... I'm pretty sure the argument is that many manuscripts were/are available.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 03 Jan 2009, 22:22 ---OK. This is bad in exactly what way?
--- End quote ---
Because of the plethora of manuscripts, and all of them different on multiple instances doubt is shed on the events described in the manuscripts. You're saying we find errors by looking at the other manuscripts that are available. A manuscript with a copying error was also copied, taking the errors along and adding more errors every time it was copied. The possbility of there being more faulty manuscripts then correct one is greater. So the errors they removed might actually not be errors.
If every physics manual had a different way of presenting Newtons laws of physics they would never been used. So why use the Bible, a book that describes supernatural events and has more possible interpretations then any other book in the world... A book which has had more revisions then it has stories in it, another example like this would be the stories of the Brothers Grimm, the original stories are quite gruesome and dark, right now we know them as fairytales like snow-white, cinderella, sleeping beauty,... these stories hardly show any resemblance to the original except for maybe a rough plotline and character names. Of the fairy tales there also was a plethora of manuscripts available yet still the originals are lost to mainstream public. The stories of the brothers grimm were written down roughly 1800 years after the Bible and was still that susceptible to change...
jtheory:
--- Quote from: JonSnow on 04 Jan 2009, 04:07 ---If every physics manual had a different way of presenting Newtons laws of physics they would never been used. So why use the Bible, a book that describes supernatural events and has more possible interpretations then any other book in the world...
--- End quote ---
I think an even more important point is that this is a physics book that is nearly 2000 years old (some of it much older). And it was written in a time when people had very different standards for accepting "truth" and very different ideas of what might realistically happen vs. what should be examined more closely before accepting it as true.
Let's simplify this whole discussion a bit, actually. The accuracy of copies is a distraction, anyway. The gospels could be completely consistent, no conflicts could exist, copies could all be perfect, and STILL it need not be any more convincing than the Book of Mormon or the texts on the wrappers of Dr. Bronner's soap.
tragic_pizza, even if you are personally convinced that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what a couple of the apostles were telling people....
Well, if those guys were here in front of you, today, telling you their personal experiences with this miraculous Jesus guy, how would you respond? Would you say "you both agree... that's pretty convincing. Let's go spread the good word!"
The only difference I can see here is that in the case of Jesus:
* whatever did happen, happened a very long time ago
* a lot of people still believe in the stories about Jesus
I don't understand how either of those supports the truth of the stories, though. The "long ago" aspect just makes it impossible to verify any of it. The best you can do is say "well, if it convinced a bunch of fishermen in Ancient Rome", as far as I can think (I'm guessing you'll have some response to this).
It seems more likely that the philosophy was interesting and timely, some people were convinced, and the whole thing snowballed.
AngelofShadows:
is hoping something exists the same as believing? I hope that there is some sort of afterlife, a higher power above all this who does have some notion of a plan that we can't fathom. Otherwise, our existence is nothing but a long string of coincidences and accidents, and when it's done, it's done. Game over, out of quarters, and your mom is to bitchy to give you more to keep going, even though you were at the last fucking level, and you had it beat.
That's kinda depressing to think about. So I hope that when my life here is over, there is something beyond, some next chapter of a journey I didn't know I was apart of until I was was already to far in.
Jackie Blue:
--- Quote from: jtheory on 04 Jan 2009, 08:15 ---It seems more likely that the philosophy was interesting and timely, some people were convinced, and the whole thing snowballed.
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately, to the point where most modern Christians don't practice half of what Jesus actually suggested.
JonSnow:
--- Quote from: AngelofShadows on 04 Jan 2009, 10:30 ---is hoping something exists the same as believing? I hope that there is some sort of afterlife, a higher power above all this who does have some notion of a plan that we can't fathom. Otherwise, our existence is nothing but a long string of coincidences and accidents, and when it's done, it's done. Game over, out of quarters, and your mom is to bitchy to give you more to keep going, even though you were at the last fucking level, and you had it beat.
That's kinda depressing to think about. So I hope that when my life here is over, there is something beyond, some next chapter of a journey I didn't know I was apart of until I was was already to far in.
--- End quote ---
Nothing is wrong with hoping there is an afterlife, I would even call this believing in an afterlife. But dont just believe blindly, keep an open mind on other opinions, and act out your beliefs, otherwise you'll always be a hypocrit in my eyes
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version