exactly it comes from the source, it has too, and im ok using god for the term as long as we don't accidentally make him human. Like saying he is male.

probably not the way you define intelligence.

Ok, so, since somewhere above there was a post where you used proper spelling, punctuation and capitalization, can I just assume that whenever you don't you're mmt'ing? Makes it easier to sift through the noise.

somewhat.

he was made a man temporarily and he is the source as well

John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

again just quoting random things and posting them won't help conversation. If they in fact do at all relate...you'll have to give the context and meaning cause there is none so far.

i just assume you already knew what the trinity was :O

sorry

does the actual topic scare you?

what the trinity

no

when did the topic move to the trinity thats not the topic, we are talking about whether or not Jesus took refuge in a book, then you change the topic, i pointed that out, you did it again, and now you are suggesting the topic is the trinity...

Are you avoiding topics?

why does it matter
he knows whats in the book always

thats what i thought.

you see you laughed at me, but i was clearly right, the bible blocks your connection with jesus and thefore god, just like the torah blocks peoples connection to god.

it doesnt block it assists the connection

you say oh well we should be connected to god directly and thats probably how it will be in heaven but since our relationship with god has been severed since the fall of man we have to work with what he has given us

I appreciate this response because you've become re engaged into the discussion. You've said a lot we should go slower.

See when you lol'd at me that was the bible that blocked your direct understanding.

or better said or differently, if we were connected to god, we would be in heaven.

see here you imply time, but when we return to the connection (bookless one) to god the time you are implying will cease to have ever existed.

god gave us everything we see, but you only work with 1 book.

i dont know what you mean

god has revealed to us the truth through his word

there is only one truth

any "knowledge" that is contradictory to what god says is a lie

That what you are told, but the bible and the priest come between that word.

For example the ten commandments, written by gods finger, was gods word. Not a transcription, certainly not a different language that was created by man.

thats not what you get told
thats just what you choose to believe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_Scriptura


the language doesnt matter

Topic is: Is the new testament the actual word of GOD.

And of course language matters because words can lose meaning through translation, through the translator, through culture, through time.

nvm

Ok, I need to restate this as an actual premise (guarded). I guess where I am is saying: The significant similarities between the religious scriptures of cultures that were aware of each other and had an opportunity to plagiarise beliefs suggest that they may have done so and this may be indication that religions are man made constructs since the stories werre simply copied rather than being an accurate record of events.

AND that the complete failure of the exact same religion to have occured in two (or more) isolated cultures completely independently of each other may also be indicative of the fact that religions are man made constructs.

Two seperate premises really. Very basic, poorly researched at this point, no idea if I'm simply parroting/murdering other more sophisticated versions of it, curious to see what happens next.


I did respond to that and accepted that I probably do have biases but I try to be objective. I consider the existence of any of the gods to be an argument from ignorance (bear with me, I'm a beginner at this) and since that can work either way but there's no evidence to support the existence of gods (nothing that everyone can agree is evidence) then I probably do focus on evidence that might disprove the existence of gods.

I'll first note that I've already laid out a clarifying historicity standard for what accounts for opportunity and that this goes beyond mere similarity.

The second thing to note is that the underlined is of questionable value. What does claiming that religion is a man-made construct mean? What is the actual content of that claim? At this point, the claim is basically similar to another claim from another poster in which it was stated that "all beliefs are man-made." If you push your definition of "man-made construct" to the point where it is obviously true, you'll find you've made a useless category that makes no meaningful distinctions.

To put it another way, suppose that there was a historical flood that was accurately recorded in Gligamesh and that the early Hebrews adapted that story by changing the theological content. Does the fact that the theological content was adapted imply that the flood didn't happen? (We can push this further and suppose that the theological content injected into the story was TRUE theological content. Does this negate either the historical event OR the theological truth?)

So if you're going to construct arguments of this type, you need to be clear what exactly you're attempting to show and that the types of claims you're making are supported by the argument.

Again, take a close look at "man-made construct" and try to figure out what you mean. At this point, it's far from clear that you're making a meaningful statement about anything in this second premise. Right now, you're perilously close to using the phrase in a completely vacuous way.

I'll read back but I may have to ask some indulgence with points already covered since I'm seeing quite a few things in a whole new light. I plan to reread some of my threads to see if I can pick out what I simply wasn't aware of the first time around.

By 'man made construct' I mean that there are no gods (now using the word 'gods' purely for accuracy rather than as a provocation [polemic?]) and that all religious beliefs and doctrines have been entirely invented by humans.

Since it seems to me that proving this (if that were possible) would entirely refute all religious beliefs, I don't see why it's not meaningful? As a source/cause of religious doctrine, I wouldn't argue that it must be the case purely because it's possible, but some causes are more likely than others and I think this one has legs.


Can we accept that the flood, or a series of floods, probably did happen but the effect was most likely localised and then the scale of it exaggerated in the retelling?

I'm not disputing the historical event, only that the version in the bible is neither accurate in the scale of the flood nor accurate in that it happened to a biblical character called Noah who collected two of every animal and then repopulated the earth from 8 people etc etc. This doesn't prove the bible is full of lies, it certainly suggests it though, and supports that certain elements could be invented by humans. If some of it could have been invented, it all could have been invented.


Attempting to improve it as I go along, on the job, so to speak.

Hopefully rectified that now.

I just throw this out for you to sticky to your to-think-about list that you can come back to when you've worked through the other stuff you plan on revisiting.

In saying things like the bolded, you are taking a very factual view on both how we interpret reality and what the intent is of whatever piece of writing we're talking about. Meaning, that if some Pharao puts up a stele in 2000pre saying "here we gained a great victory, slaughtering the hordes of XY" and it turns out we find a handful of arrow heads, five sceletons and no other accounts everywhere around - did he lie? Or did he just recount a version of reality that you may - having read acconts of wars with millions of dead etc. - put into perspective and say "meh - pissy fight in some god-forlorn corner of the world."

Similar with many other accounts. If a King in an Encomium is being praised of having been always just, gentle and fair-minded - is that a lie? Or - within the boundaries of both the genre and the setting - a true statement?

in short - not for every piece of literature/writing is the metric of "true - false" really applicable or (even if applicaple) ultimately fruitful.

If the bible is not in fact the word of god but was invented by humans, whatever their intent, is that something that can be 'put into perspective' or would it have severe consequences? And, doesn't it have further implications with regard to whether or not god is actually real? If the greatest piece of 'evidence' that exists to support the existence of god was shown to be nothing more than a collection of fictional stories, doesn't that also have consequences?

Probably depends on how you "put it in perspective."

I'm not gonna answer these up-front as they require agreement on (or at least shared understanding of) some further notions (such as: evidence of what kind, fictional in what sense). Let's assume I have an answer.

But here's an example, more to illustrate what I wanted to say, than to answer your question: Your boy of 5yr witnesses an accident. Nothing major, but there's blood involved and an ambulance. Hence, commotion, shouting and a lot he doesn't quite understand. First time he sees that, too. He comes home and tells a story that makes you think "Did WWIII happen and I missed it?" You know your boy, so you know he isn't lying (he's way too agitated etc.), but it also can't really be true what he's saying. You rightly conclude that something did happen and that he probably didn't quite understand what he was seeing. Next day you read about the accident in the paper and go "Ah, so that's what he meant!" So, would you say your boy was lying, or that the accident your boy told you about didn't happen? My answer would be: No, he wasn't lying and the accident he told you about - not the one you read in the paper! - did happen. In a very real sense I'd go as far as claiming that what he was telling was the truth. But given this understanding of mine, the notions of truth, lie and "conforming with reality" etc. become fairly meaningless when I refer to the experience of your boy (and his subsequent account of that experience).

In short, you seem to be at a point where you realize that a number of previously held beliefs and conceptions may have been too rigid and black-or-white. What I'm saying is that the way you discuss matters that relate to bliblical accounts etc. is probably among those.