I was speechless. In case you missed it last night.

[mismused]

******

 

[JackLuis]

Cool

I read about the way that the way the New Testement was ammended to exclude some of the testements and they dropped out whole chapters taht the "Church" found offensive at a ( Conference of Nicocia?) when I think it was Constantine was Emporer and Pope too(?)

I'm sure if your interested Wikapedia has most of the story.

Help me Lit readers.

But it appears both Old and New Testements are shaped by the respective priesthoods to serve thier needs.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm only interested in getting fundies to watch it-- and we already know that they will say it's the devil's work.

 

[Lee Chambers]

If there's one place I would love to storm and raid above all others it would be the Vatican. I can only imagine the things we would discover buried in their archives.

The only reason I keep a bible is because it was given as a gift, has my name inscribed on the cover, and it serves as a good reference tool. It sits on my shelf next to The Art of War.

 

[mismused]

******

 

[mismused]

******

 

[trysail]

I, too, enjoyed the program.

The fact that there are ulterior ( political ) motives underlying a goodly portion of the archaeological work being done in the area was readily apparent.

It never fails to amuse me when archaeologists take to flights of fancy in their imaginative reconstructions of history based on, at a minimum, ninety percent conjecture— in that regard, the program did not disappoint. Their were moments when it became necessary for me to burst into laughter at some of the presumptions.

While there are undoubtedly traces of actual historical events present in the Bible ( like the Iliad and the Odyssey ), it is an indisputable fact that both the New and Old Testaments contain substantial amounts of fabulation contributed by the novelists responsible for their recordation.

 

[JackLuis]

I, too, enjoyed the program.

The fact that there are ulterior ( political ) motives underlying a goodly portion of the archaeological work being done in the area was readily apparent.

Oh Hell just what we need Political Archaeologists!

 

[emap]

Lee I am rather curious, what sort of research do you use the bible for?

I'll have to look this up, it sounds amusing to watch.

Though the fundementalists and the devoutly religious, yeah there is actually a difference are either going to denounce it as wrong, or say nothing. See that is the funny thing about religion, it's there when you need it and easily tossed aside when you don't. When you need it there is nothing to make you go oh this makes no sense what was I thinking. When you don't need it, you already know it's false and hobbled together bits of older religions and stories.

The only people who care about why it was written thusly ar ethe non religious because they want something thay can shove in the face of the religious and go see your wrong, and historians. Semi religious will watch, because they are unsure and want to find either a reason to believe, or a reason to not.

Funny thing though, even the most devout atheists are known to call for a last blessing on their death bed. Not to mention there apparently can't be an atheist in a foxhole. No think about it, when you got explosives falling around you head, are you going to just hope, or are you going to pray for help and hope? Covering the bases I believe is a good term for dying or foxholes and praying.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

Lee I am rather curious, what sort of research do you use the bible for?

I'll have to look this up, it sounds amusing to watch.

Though the fundementalists and the devoutly religious, yeah there is actually a difference are either going to denounce it as wrong, or say nothing. See that is the funny thing about religion, it's there when you need it and easily tossed aside when you don't. When you need it there is nothing to make you go oh this makes no sense what was I thinking. When you don't need it, you already know it's false and hobbled together bits of older religions and stories.

The only people who care about why it was written thusly ar ethe non religious because they want something thay can shove in the face of the religious and go see your wrong, and historians. Semi religious will watch, because they are unsure and want to find either a reason to believe, or a reason to not.

Funny thing though, even the most devout atheists are known to call for a last blessing on their death bed. Not to mention there apparently can't be an atheist in a foxhole. No think about it, when you got explosives falling around you head, are you going to just hope, or are you going to pray for help and hope? Covering the bases I believe is a good term for dying or foxholes and praying.

Having been in said fighting holes (proper term vs foxhole BTW) there are damn few atheists, but there ARE a lot of people that believe the bible is pretty much pure fiction. Belief in a higher power has no relationship to a book a bunch of church mongers put together to sell their particular flavor IMO.

 

[cloudy]

Believe in a higher power has no relationship to a book a bunch of church mongers put together to sell their particular flavor IMO.

Amen.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is really nothing new. This is the "minimalist" theory of biblical scholarship and has been around since the 70's at least.

For a very good overview of this, see "Who Wrote the Bible" by a scholar names Richard Friedman or Friedkin. It's a fascinating book that tells you what scholars know about not only how the bible was written but why. Apparently it was written as political propaganda to give a feeling of history to the new nations of Israel and Judah. They made up the Exodus to give themselves a feeling of shared origins and specialness.

Once you understand this, a lot of puzzling stuff in the bible makes perfect sense, like why there are two versions of Genesis and the Flood (one each for Judah and Israel), why God is sometimes called YHVH and sometimes Elohim (YHVH in Israel, Elohim in Judah), and why the Hebrew kings were always backsliding and worshipping Canaanite gods (because they'd basically just been converted to Judaism).

It's all very facinating. But it doesn't matter. Believers just reject it all.

 

[Guest]

. . .

Funny thing though, even the most devout atheists are known to call for a last blessing on their death bed. Not to mention there apparently can't be an atheist in a foxhole. No think about it, when you got explosives falling around you head, are you going to just hope, or are you going to pray for help and hope? Covering the bases I believe is a good term for dying or foxholes and praying.

That's very insulting.

And just wrong.

 

[cloudy]

That's very insulting.

And just wrong.

I quit paying attention to her run-on, punctuation-less posts a long time ago.

(STS. )

 

[Shwenn]

Funny thing though, even the most devout atheists are known to call for a last blessing on their death bed. Not to mention there apparently can't be an atheist in a foxhole. No think about it, when you got explosives falling around you head, are you going to just hope, or are you going to pray for help and hope? Covering the bases I believe is a good term for dying or foxholes and praying.

What is funny is that religious people are the only people who believe that.

We atheists actually deal with the prospect of death very thoroughly and early on in our lives. We have no illusions about an afterlife. This is a very powerful thing. It's something we tend to face with honesty and courage and come to terms with.

It's only religious people who don't have to do this who imagine the moment of death to be unimaginably terrifying. That's why you believe these lies you just told. You have yet to make peace with your own mortality.

 

[oggbashan]

There are many versions of the Bible.

The King James version is the most widely used in English. It is a wonderful work of literature and possibly the only time a committee has produced a great work of art. They argued long and fiercely about some of the translations and what should, or should not, be included as part of the Old and New Testaments.

There are reasonable arguments that suggest that more books could be included, that more should be left out, that some readings of the original/early texts are flawed, and that everything except the Four Apostles - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - could be discarded without affecting mainstream Christian belief.

It is possible to be a believing Christian without accepting the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth by considering that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and that he died for our sins. It is even possible not to accept the Resurrection and still believe in God.

Many of the concepts that are now apparently central to the Church's teaching are accretions since the time of the Apostles and established by various councils of the Church before 1000AD.

Belief in God is all that is required to become a Christian. Beyond that, everything else is minor.

Og

 

[Shwenn]

It is possible to be a believing Christian without accepting the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth by considering that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and that he died for our sins. It is even possible not to accept the Resurrection and still believe in God.

Here is where the problem arises with this.

The only historical evidence of Jesus is from the bible.

Once you cast doubt on the reliablitly of that text, you open the door to doubt the very existence of Jesus himself.

 

[oggbashan]

Here is where the problem arises with this.

The only historical evidence of Jesus is from the bible.

Once you cast doubt on the reliablitly of that text, you open the door to doubt the very existence of Jesus himself.

Wrong! He is mentioned by Josephus.

Og

 

[Shwenn]

Wrong! He is mentioned by Josephus.

Og

Do you mean the forgery replete with anachronisms or the mention of there being some guy named Jesus?

 

[oggbashan]

Do you mean the forgery replete with anachronisms or the mention of there being some guy named Jesus?

The latter. Josephus

 

[mismused]

******

 

[Shwenn]

That isn't evidence of the existance of the Jesus the bible is talking about.

In fact, there would almost certainly have been a prophet named Jesus at the time. And the bible may have used his name.

As an example, we know that there was a philosopher named Socrates. That doesn't offer evidence or even bear on the debate about Plato's Socrates. There is still no real evidence that that man existed.

 

[cloudy]

That isn't evidence of the existance of the Jesus the bible is talking about.

In fact, there would almost certainly have been a prophet named Jesus at the time. And the bible may have used his name.

As an example, we know that there was a philosopher named Socrates. That doesn't offer evidence or even bear on the debate about Plato's Socrates. There is still no real evidence that that man existed.

Dear god...are you this much of an insufferable know-it-all all the time, or just when you're here?

Fuck...no wonder you're unemployed.

 

[mismused]

******

 

[FallingToFly]

If the Church is the Bride of Christ, does that mean that the Pope is going to take one for the team?