Ultrathread I: Thread of the Year - 2014

[muzby]

Costco sell boxes of like 80 Peppermint Freddos for like $10-$20

so far you are winning....

 

[Misanthrope]

Shut the front door! All of this religious talk is totes cray cray and it's making me #bored...Not!

Like, I find debate amazeballs. It's right up there with my P4F (passion for fashion, yo), LMFAO!

Haters can talk to the hand, #justsayin. I'm just chillaxing and thinkin' 'bout my homeboy, Jesus. Don't you think it was like #awkward and a bit funky that his homeboy, Judith or whatever, was all emoshee about their bromance and totally bitched him out? Like, weren't they #besties or something?

IMHO, he was all edgy coz Jesus had... like... other besties. Matthew and Paul and Ringo and those other dudes. It's like my friend, Dutchy. She's a total fashionista and she can't handle that boys are all about my superior lumps, y'know?

They like-eee my lumps, LMFAO! But she's all like "Shut the front door!" What a bitch. She's just jealous of my #swag. My bad! I can't help that I'm always #winning.

Anywho, what I was sayin' is that Jesus was the bestest and all ya'll are just making it awks coz you don't get it. WTF? Like, your parents didn't love you right, ho! #YOLO and you gotta live and let live. #WWJD stands for What Would Justin (Biebs!) Do and you know he's all about tolerance. #love

Peace out,

Kendra

 

[Drew-Sta]

By 'heavily edited' I mean that the Romans chose what went into their Bible and what was left out.

Easy to select things that support your current way of thinking and conveniently leave out and lose those that did not.

Again, incorrect. The earliest full canon listing was part of the Muratorian fragment, which accepted 95% of the current NT bible as 'canon', nearly 200 years before the Romans were even near it.

The canon was widely accepted by Christians well before the Roman 'claim' over it was made. All the Council of Nicaea did was officially recognise what was a known truth.

You say that, but who says the writers did any embellishing? Luke was written a minimum 40 years after Jesus died. Matthew the same, Mark 30, and John 50. That's a lot of time for Chinese whispers.

Muslim "martyrs" die for far less than the Apostles did.

Oral culture where oral history was far different to what we have now. There's been tomes of literature written on this suggesting the gospels weren't some chinese whipsers. They simply were not written in such a way.

I accept you don't accept it, but the weight of scholarly and historical research is well against you. I will state that the claim of the gospel is extraordinary though, and accept it is not something you swallow simply.

 

[Bazal]

I was going to do it. But now Bushy has, it'll just seem passe.

 

[Bazal]

Again, incorrect. The earliest full canon listing was part of the Muratorian fragment, which accepted 95% of the current NT bible as 'canon', nearly 200 years before the Romans were even near it.

The canon was widely accepted by Christians well before the Roman 'claim' over it was made. All the Council of Nicaea did was officially recognise what was a known truth.



Oral culture where oral history was far different to what we have now. There's been tomes of literature written on this suggesting the gospels weren't some chinese whipsers. They simply were not written in such a way.

I accept you don't accept it, but the weight of scholarly and historical research is well against you. I will state that the claim of the gospel is extraordinary though, and accept it is not something you swallow simply.

We must read different research then. How does one write in such a way so as to be obviously recounting Chinese whispers? It's a silly point.

I simply have to point you to the works of Homer regarding the Trojan War. Oral tradition, based on real events, written down later. More obviously embellished in many areas as it was based on the works of bards and written down much later, granted, but no less based in reality and no less distorted. Oral history is inaccurate at best, wildly overwrought at worst.

 

[afinalsin666]

#bored was gunna do 1 but C dubs already done it wtf awks. #awkward

 

[muzby]

Shut the front door! All of this religious talk is totes cray cray and it's making me #bored...Not!

Like, I find debate amazeballs. It's right up there with my P4F (passion for fashion, yo), LMFAO!

Haters can talk to the hand, #justsayin. I'm just chillaxing and thinkin' 'bout my homeboy, Jesus. Don't you think it was like #awkward and a bit funky that his homeboy, Judith or whatever, was all emoshee about their bromance and totally bitched him out? Like, weren't they #besties or something?

IMHO, he was all edgy coz Jesus had... like... other besties. Matthew and Paul and Ringo and those other dudes. It's like my friend, Dutchy. She's a total fashionista and she can't handle that boys are all about my superior lumps, y'know?

They like-eee my lumps, LMFAO! But she's all like "Shut the front door!" What a bitch. She's just jealous of my #swag. My bad! I can't help that I'm always #winning.

Anywho, what I was sayin' is that Jesus was the bestest and all ya'll are just making it awks coz you don't get it. WTF? Like, your parents didn't love you right, ho! #YOLO and you gotta live and let live. #WWJD stands for What Would Justin (Biebs!) Do and you know he's all about tolerance. #love

Peace out,

Kendra

that deserves two freddos!

 

[Apey]

Easy to select things that support your current way of thinking and conveniently leave out and lose those that did not.

Drew is a good guy so I'll avoid singling him out, but this is pretty much the cornerstone of many arguments made in favour religion. Intellectual dishonesty and special pleading in abundance, with mental gymnastics thrown in here and there.

The gospels being eyewitness testimony/the early dates for the gospels are a fringe view and not held by the majority of scholars. There is a lack of decent evidence for when they were written and as such their date is often given in a wide time frame spanning decades. It's not the least bit surprising those with a vested interest in it being true believe they were written at the beginning of the period, and those with a vested interest in it being false believe otherwise.

 

[Misanthrope]

Drew is a good guy so I'll avoid singling him out, but this is pretty much the cornerstone of many arguments made in favour religion. Intellectual dishonesty and special pleading in abundance, with mental gymnastics thrown in here and there.

The gospels being eyewitness testimony/the early dates for the gospels are a fringe view and not held by the majority of scholars. There is a lack of decent evidence for when they were written and as such their date is often given in a wide time frame spanning decades. It's not the least bit surprising those with a vested interest in it being true believe they were written at the beginning of the period, and those with a vested interest in it being false believe otherwise.

I use the argument being a Christian myself. I believe in God and I believe in the vaguaries of the Bible.

I have no faith in humans to interpret that without bias, as evidenced by pretty much every organised religion on earth being borderline evil villains when you cut through their holier than thou bullshit.

Not directed at Drew at all, but at the Roman Catholic Church which allegedly started all this shit. It's one of the most corrupt, insipid, hateful organisations out there.

 

[Apey]

Although I may have misunderstood Drew's point on the eyewitness testimony part, which is my bad if so.

I will state that the claim of the gospel is extraordinary though, and accept it is not something you swallow simply.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. It's why the claim of Jesus existing means little to me - I accept that to be true because, well, it's not much of a claim is it? This guy existed. Lots of people who know so much more than me seem to think so, since this claim is very ordinary I'll take their word for it.

When you dive into the supernatural though and the claims go from ordinary and extraordinary, oral tradition and the written "evidence" just doesn't even come close to holding up.

 

[Bazal]

And that's a point I made (probably poorly) earlier. Religion is superstition. Why is religion held to be more true than any other superstition? Based on embellished accounts written after the fact?

And, unrelated to that, why does the Church get to decide which gospels are canon and which aren't? IF god exists, and IF Joshua of Nazareth was his son, WHY do men dictate what is true about the divine? It's utter and complete nonsense

 

[Apey]

I use the argument being a Christian myself. I believe in God and I believe in the vaguaries of the Bible.

I have no faith in humans to interpret that without bias, as evidenced by pretty much every organised religion on earth being borderline evil villains when you cut through their holier than thou bullshit.

Not directed at Drew at all, but at the Roman Catholic Church which allegedly started all this shit. It's one of the most corrupt, insipid, hateful organisations out there.

Agreed.

You identify as a Christian? You seem a bit off again on again if you don't mind me saying. You've made references to it here and there, but I got the impression you had lapsed or whatever.

You sound a bit more like a deist to me than a theist. Though I've always got the impression from some people that they made the jump from deist to theist for convenience.

 

[Misanthrope]

And that's a point I made (probably poorly) earlier. Religion is superstition. Why is religion held to be more true than any other superstition? Based on embellished accounts written after the fact?

Religion is not superstition, though. Elements of it may seem or even be superstitious, but it's more than just a belief without a basis in truth.

It's a community, it's an encouragement for people to be better to one another, it's a set of loose moral 'laws' for people to follow that, generally speaking, do make them better people (aside from the recent shit like homophobia and 'no condoms', which can be attributed to the Church rather than the religion itself), and we've all just been discussing the fact that it does have a basis in history.

Superstitions, by and large, are relatively simple beliefs that revolve around luck (good or bad). Elements of religion may feel that way, but religion is far larger than simple superstition.

And, unrelated to that, why does the Church get to decide which gospels are canon and which aren't? IF god exists, and IF Joshua of Nazareth was his son, WHY do men dictate what is true about the divine? It's utter and complete nonsense

This I agree with whole-heartedly, and it's why I identify myself as purely Christian. I don't trust any one person, let alone a group of rich old men, to decide what is or isn't His word.

 

[Apey]

And that's a point I made (probably poorly) earlier. Religion is superstition. Why is religion held to be more true than any other superstition? Based on embellished accounts written after the fact?

Well there's obviously a huge emotional investment in it.

 

[Misanthrope]

Agreed.

You identify as a Christian? You seem a bit off again on again if you don't mind me saying. You've made references to it here and there, but I got the impression you had lapsed or whatever.

You sound a bit more like a deist to me than a theist. Though I've always got the impression from some people that they made the jump from deist to theist for convenience.

I'm not sure which I would fall into. I do believe in the Holy Trinity and the Divine Revelation, but I do not believe that God is still up there playing a hand in everything that goes on.

I believe that any being that powerful has far better things to do than watch over the lives of people scurrying about on one planet in a vast universe. It's arrogant of us to think we're his most prized creations and to blame all of life's wrongs (and attribute all of life's successes) to him being up there engineering things.

My issue is not with the content of the Bible or the existence of a Supreme Being, it's with assholes here on earth deciding how best to interpret it to serve their needs.

 

[Bazal]

Religion is not superstition, though. Elements of it may seem or even be superstitious, but it's more than just a belief without a basis in truth.

It's a community, it's an encouragement for people to be better to one another, it's a set of loose moral 'laws' for people to follow that, generally speaking, do make them better people (aside from the recent shit like homophobia and 'no condoms', which can be attributed to the Church rather than the religion itself), and we've all just been discussing the fact that it does have a basis in history.

Superstitions, by and large, are relatively simple beliefs that revolve around luck (good or bad). Elements of religion may feel that way, but religion is far larger than simple superstition.



This I agree with whole-heartedly, and it's why I identify myself as purely Christian. I don't trust any one person, let alone a group of rich old men, to decide what is or isn't His word.

I get the feeling you've misinterpreted me and I apologise for my wording. Where I said religion above, and earlier, I meant the beliefs and the story, so to speak. Not the organisation of people. The beliefs are absolutely superstition. Community and morality, and the message we as a people interpret from the story, come later, and are obviously not superstition. The story on which Christianity, and any religion, is based, is superstition by any definition of the word.

 

[Misanthrope]

I get the feeling you've misinterpreted me and I apologise for my wording. Where I said religion above, and earlier, I meant the beliefs and the story, so to speak. Not the organisation of people. The beliefs are absolutely superstition. Community and morality, and the message we as a people interpret from the story, come later, and are obviously not superstition. The story on which Christianity, and any religion, is based, is superstition by any definition of the word.

I'd concede that elements of it are. Given there almost certainly was a Jesus and he almost certainly did things in his time that made him memorable, there's clearly some basis in reality.

The burning bushes and angels and demons? That, I'll agree, is akin to superstition.

 

[Bazal]

Which is more what I meant. Jesus existed, although that was not his name, but so much else is superstition. There is no evidence to suggest he was anything more than a pretty good dude who travelled around helping folk and telling stories.

Which, while I remember, why is that not good enough? Why does he have to be the son of a mythical being? He was, as best I can tell, a peacemaker and a preacher and a healer and a freedom fighter. That's pretty serious stuff anyway.

 

[Dutchy]

Moses totally walked around for 40 years though, when he got to the promised land a big Maori was standing at the door.

"Yeah not in those sandles mate"

 

[Misanthrope]

Which is more what I meant. Jesus existed, although that was not his name, but so much else is superstition. There is no evidence to suggest he was anything more than a pretty good dude who travelled around helping folk and telling stories.

Which, while I remember, why is that not good enough? Why does he have to be the son of a mythical being? He was, as best I can tell, a peacemaker and a preacher and a healer and a freedom fighter. That's pretty serious stuff anyway.

The Supreme Being concept, I believe, springs for a fear of death. Given life for much of human history has been short, hard, and often violent - is it any surprise that people wanted something to give that struggle meaning? Or to know that once it was all done, they'd be given some kind of reward for the shit they had to go through?