Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » 101 Atheist Quotes 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

• 

  Aug. 30, 2008 9:09 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  OK, so I didn't quite disappear yet.

  On the miraculous:

  I'm not sure I'd agree that they are the "primary evidence for the "Jesus was the Messiah/Son of God" claim that is core to any Christian tradition based on the divinity of Jesus"

  The problem with this idea is it leads to the question, "So, why didn't Jesus heal everyone?" He healed some, but not all. Was He toying with people? Was He able but not willing?

  If Jesus was not much more than the magicians of Pharoah, then I'm not that impressed.

  The primary evidence for Jesus being the Messiah was not the miracles. It was the depth and extent in which He fulfilled the prophecies that had been given hundreds of years earlier regarding the Messiah.

  The Messianic prophecy was detailed. It had lots of information in it, much of which appeared to be in conflict with itself. For centuries Jewish scholars debated on what the coming Messiah would be like, and couldn't come to a consensus because no one could put the pieces together in a way that made sense. Some said He would come as a conquering King, some said as a humble servant. The places and times of His birth appeared to conflict, and many other details.

  Yet, He fulfilled them all.

  I'll offer another perspective on the miracles. Let's just say for a minute that He really was God (give me a little slack for a moment). Let's say that the omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe actually became flesh and walked among us (I know, I'm asking for a lot of slack). But imagine it for a minute. What would happen?

  I would suggest that the miracles happened not to prove anything at all. They happened simply because of His character- that when God walks among us miraculous stuff just happens as He walks by. Creation can't help itself.

  OK, I really am going to bed now.

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 8:01 a.m. JohnSSC New Reader

  No offense, but when it comes to a core source (Lamsa) or something like Wikipedia, I'll go with the core source. Wiki is extremely useful to get that broad brush intro to things, but it is no replacement for the extant scholarship that is out there - and this is no knock on anyone - it is amazing on what is out there when you start digging into a subject.

  Anyway, I think what people forget is that God is working through Jesus when the miracles are performed (in my view) not that Jesus himself is possessing God-like powers. The whole problem with Christianity is that it really has gone through so many metamorphosis' - from early times where Jesus was thought of as a teacher and the "movement" was simply a part of Judaism - today's devout Christians forget that Jesus was a practicing Jew - and later it morphed over and over again to suit political aims. Constantine used it particularly. But even after the Reformation where Martin Luther purged the RC Church of graven images and praying to saints, you still have a lot of that saint imageryor veneration in the Protestant sects.

  But I digress.

  I am amazed at the attempt to slough off the significance of the language factor. I wasn't going (and won't) to quote the whole thing but the Aramaic can be traced back very directly to that spoken at the time. I don't know what y'all think Jesus and company were speaking, but it wasn't Greek and it sure wasn't Latin. I will have to look it up later, but there is a striking difference in the Lord's Prayer when rendered from Aramaic to English - makes more sense actually.

  Much of this becomes secondary though to the notion that even the apostles seem to have their own agenda as to what THEY wanted Jesus to represent. Some felt he was a teacher. Some felt he was God and some aligned themselves with whoever...

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 8:18 a.m. GregTivo New Reader

  I will have to look it up later, but there is a striking difference in the Lord's Prayer when rendered from Aramaic to English - makes more sense actually.

  I'd like to see this

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 8:40 a.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

  SVreX wrote:

  Jensenman wrote:

  I said i would continue my thoughts later. Here's a part of it:

  When Christianity says God/man/spirit (the trinity) are all one, to me that is like saying all the decisions for good or bad come from inside oneself. In short, there's no deity other than what we believe. Using the whack the sister over the head analogy above, the whole decision to do that would have come from inside the brother's head, along with the afterwards 'Satan made me do it, but God forgives me' part. George Carlin did a bit where he said (among other things) 'Religion is how we abdicate responsibility for our actions.' That thought has always stuck with me. Yeah, he was a comic and not a philosopher, but I swear most stuff comedians come up with is from being very sharp observers of humanity.

  Jman: I don't get this. The man part of the Trinity is Jesus, not me.

  I wish I could honestly say Satan made me do it. My sins are usually my own, and I am (sadly) probably never enough of a threat to Satan for him to deal with me directly himself.

  Since Jesus was, by Biblical account, the Son of God by a human woman that would make him a half breed. Part God, part man. Thus, fallible Man is part of the trinity. We hear of those who say they are filled with the Holy Spirit; think of it as a (hopefully) benevolent possession of a human being. I see no way to separate Man from the Trinity.

  IMHO, the whole religion thing is an attempt to describe the duality of man; how good and bad can be present in the same bag of meat. That's a helluva hard thing to explain anyway, particularly when we hear of a John Wayne Gacy or similar.

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 12:40 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  I'm not "sloughing off the significance of the language factor"

  I'm merely observing that no one here speaks Aramaic, ancient Hebrew, or ancient Greek and we are all therefore at the mercy of the translators.

  Jesus spoke Aramaic. He likely also spoke other languages (it is only in the ethno-centric U.S. of A. that we think everyone should speak our one language).
  

  Aramaic's written form is essentially Hebrew. So it is not incorrect to state it was written in Hebrew.

  Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was a doctor, Paul was a Roman. Pretty likely other languages were spoken and written.

  There's no such thing as "literal" translation. Translation conveys meaning, which is contained in a cultural context. If you could actually have the original text and did a literal word-for word translation you would loose the meaning because you would translate language colloquialisms and mannerisms into meaningless dribble.

  How would we translate phrases like, "raining cats and dogs" or "straight from the horse's mouth" into Aramaic? A literal word translation would fail to convey the meaning.

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 1:01 p.m. Osterkraut Reader

  jamscal wrote:

  Osterkraut wrote:

  jamscal wrote:

  Osterkraut:

  I submit any crosses on the walls where abuse was committed were dire warnings and not sanctions of that behavior.

  Refresh my memory, what are you responding to?

  You said "mentioning children in a religious thread..." (and I wasn't really clear on what you meant) then others said don't go there...I thought you were talking about the clergy sex abuse scandal.

  Sorry if I misunderstood.

  -James

  Whoops! Didn't mean that. What I meant was that it's impossible for children to be religious. I mean, the gullible sponges believe in the tooth fairy, you're expecting me to accept that they freely choose a religion? Up to a point they're pretty much mimicking their parents, and then by the time they can actually understand a religion, they're stuck in it.

  The sexual abuse is bad, but is it any worse than the mind-berkeley a fire-and-brimstone preacher deals to a child?

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 1:48 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  JohnSSC wrote:

  No offense, but when it comes to a core source (Lamsa) or something like Wikipedia, I'll go with the core source. Wiki is extremely useful to get that broad brush intro to things, but it is no replacement for the extant scholarship that is out there - and this is no knock on anyone - it is amazing on what is out there when you start digging into a subject.

  I already conceded the limits of Wiki.

  What does it mean to be a "core source"?

  Lamsa is certainly NOT a primary source- he was a scholar that died in 1975. He had opinions, like many scholars.
  

  He was a contemporary scholarly source.

  Lamsa's hypothesis was that the original text for the New Testament was the Pe-Sheet-A (mis-spelling- attempt to get around the auto-censor), an ancient Syriac (Aramaic) text. However, some of his peers (other scholars, not me) disagree. Some say the Pe-Sheet-A was strongly influenced by the Byzantine reading of the Greek manuscripts, written in a dialect much younger than that which Jesus would have spoken.

  While I am absolutely certain Dr. Lamsa's understanding of Aramaic was significantly beyond my own (as a native modern Aramaic speaker), he likely had weaknesses in his English. His translations are as suspect as anyone else's.

  I generally prefer translations that involve schools of scholars working in teams in defined methodologies. Individual translations are subject to the whims and agendas of individuals.

  For example, I love Eugene Peterson's version, "The Message". It reads easy and is easily understood in contemporary English. However, I treat it like Wiki's when I am looking for hard facts. ;)

  I will happily accept the hypothesis that the original written texts were in Aramaic if it is important to you. It doesn't change my position that the scriptural writings in their original form were without error.

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 2:49 p.m. fastEddie Dork

  Re-reading my post and the ones since then, let me clarify, correct, and expound a bit.

  Regarding the inerrancy of the Bible, I don't think I quite typed what I was thinking or meant but SVreX has already essentially corrected me for me in that it is not necessarily the versions today I trust but the original manuscripts in and of themselves and the direct translations from them.

  As for why or how I ended up where I’m at with Christianity all I can say is that it involved some straying, soul searching, and ultimately a decision on my part throughout my early 20s to go back to what I knew. That is not to short-change Christianity and say I only went back because I was familiar with it but ultimately the end result was the same.

  And yes, understanding the Trinity and how God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three and yet one, confuses me at times too. All my other points have basically been accurately and fairly stated (IMHO) by SVreX so I won’t bother rehashing them – sorry for taking so long to jump back in here!

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 2:55 p.m. Salanis Dork

  SVreX wrote:

  It doesn't change my position that the scriptural writings in their original form were without error.

  Again, I go back to my point that, if they were without error why the need for multiple accounts of the same events. If all of them are without error, how can there be any inconsistencies between the accounts?

  Edit: How did you reach the conclusion that the Bible is without error? Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Bible is without error?

  I've already made my argument that the original chroniclers of the old and new testament did not believe they were without error.

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 6:01 p.m. JohnSSC New Reader

  GregTivo wrote:

  I will have to look it up later, but there is a striking difference in the Lord's Prayer when rendered from Aramaic to English - makes more sense actually.

  I'd like to see this

  Here you are:

  This is from Matthew Chapter 6, Verse 9 -

  "Therefore pray in this manner: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth. Give us bread for our needs from day to day. And forgive us our offences, as we have forgiven our offenders. And do not let us enter into into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

  To me, particulary striking is the "And do not let us enter into temptation" rather than "Lead us not into temptation..." That line of the Lord's Prayer never made sense to me. Why would God lead me into temptation?

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 7:31 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  Jensenman wrote:

  Since Jesus was, by Biblical account, the Son of God by a human woman that would make him a half breed. Part God, part man. Thus, fallible Man is part of the trinity.

  Whoa, whoa, whoa, J-man!

  While I would not have chosen the phrase "half breed", what you are essentially describing is the humanity of Christ. On that point we agree.

  But fallible man is not part of the Trinity. Man is, as God intended us. A perfect man who did not sin.

  There is a big difference between the humanity of Christ and attributing human fallibility to the Godhead.

  One worships the Creator, one worships the created.

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 7:50 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  JohnSSC:

  I too am fond of the way that translation reads on that verse. Is it accurate? I really don't know.

  As I noted earlier, some scholars suggest the Pe-Sheet-A used a later form of Aramaic than the one Jesus would have spoken. Could this version have been compromised?

  Clearly Dr. Lamsa would disagree with these other scholars..

  Dr. Lamsa is one scholar, and I respect his knowledge on the subject.

  As a comparison, responsibility for the NIV version layed with 15 Biblical scholars from 5 countries and more than 13 different denominations (to avoid sectarian bias) who translated from the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Greek.

  We have dozens and dozens of translations that used many different scholars.

  Most translations use the word "lead".

  I'm willing to work with either one. Neither version will rock my faith.

• 

  Aug. 31, 2008 9:11 p.m. jamscal HalfDork

  Osterkraut wrote: Whoops! Didn't mean that. What I meant was that it's impossible for children to be religious. I mean, the gullible sponges believe in the tooth fairy, you're expecting me to accept that they freely choose a religion? Up to a point they're pretty much mimicking their parents, and then by the time they can actually understand a religion, they're stuck in it.

  The sexual abuse is bad, but is it any worse than the mind-berkeley a fire-and-brimstone preacher deals to a child?

  Agree on the first point, and I'd never agree that a child freely chooses his/her religion.

  But, you've got to teach your children something, and it's what you know.

  It doesn't work to say "I'm going to let my children decide later in life" You have to give them a good (to your view) starting point, and they will take it from there. Anything else is a cop-out.

  We are, after all, taught all we do, from various sources.

  As you question organized religion, someone might question organized government and basic laws. i.e. what is the underlying reason I shouldn't steal if I can get away with it?

  I'm glad we have a basic societal and/or religious system to 'brainwash' our children to our way of life. That's one way to look at it. I guess.

  And yes, an American fire and brimstone preacher putting the scare into children and adults is better than A: Child abuse and B. some of the many examples around the world of Societal and religious prejudices and practices.

  Ex. Mutilation of females, witch doctors, canibalism, human sacrifice, etc. some of which has been erradicated by the spread of western/christian influence (albeit not necessarily in a pretty way). For God's sake, look at the prevailing attitudes in Africa concerning AIDS today, and the people in power propagating those attitudes.

  -James

• 

  Sept. 1, 2008 8:21 a.m. GameboyRMH Dork

  jamscal wrote: For God's sake, look at the prevailing attitudes in Africa concerning AIDS today, and the people in power propagating those attitudes.

  To save everyone some searching: A prominent African politician had sex with a woman he knew had AIDS, but he says he should be OK because he took a shower right afterward.

• 

  Sept. 1, 2008 12:31 p.m. Salanis Dork

  SVreX,

  Putting you back on the spot a bit, and backtracking a bit in the conversations: You were not raised with the beliefs you had now. You developed them over time.

  I am interested in hearing what it was that led you to believe that Jesus, the historical figure, is synonymous with God?

  Was it the testimony of the Bible, which you believe to be infallible? If so, what led you to believe in the infallibility of the Bible?

  I could understand your sentiment about humans being fallible and needing an external force to help us rise above ourselves (even if I disagree on much of that). I do not see how that leads to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is God.

• 

  Sept. 1, 2008 9:23 p.m. njansenv New Reader

  I'm truly sorry if I conveyed a tone of disrespect: it certainly wasn't my intention. I wasn't sure if I should let it slide, but I hate for my (unfortunately flippant) response to be misconstrued: especially by one who's opinions I particularly respect.

  I DO respect those whose beliefs do not "align" with mine. You'll never, ever hear me make fun of them, or have me posting pictures that make fun of "Silly Athiests". Or "Silly XYZ". etc.
  

  My flippant response was aimed at some of that attitude I (thought I?) saw, but reading through the pages of posts after a few days away I see some pretty amazing, constructive discussion.
  

  It's a hard thing to say, but I DO believe that those who aren't Christian ARE in error WRT religion. I am fully aware that this isn't popular in post-modern relativistic society, but it doesn't sit well with me to say "You're right", AND "Your're right" AND "You're right too!". If a Christian professes to believe the whole of Scripture, they can't allow for other religion to be an "alternate route". If he does, he's missing out on some pretty fundamental Scriptural ideals.
  This doesn't in any way lessen my respect for those who disagree with me, and I long to continue to learn more from all of you.

  I'm thankful for SVrex's extremely insightful comments (as well as fasteddie's) with respect to Christianity, and enjoy the discussion from "both" groups. Frankly, I don't believe I can add much (any) valuable explanation to SVrex's comments, except that it really does come down to faith. And at some point, it really goes beyond rational.

  Nathan

  alfadriver wrote:

  njansenv wrote:

  I respect athiests and their (wrong:) ) beliefs. Looking at some of the posts above, it's a shame some of you (not all) don't return that respect.
  

  Nathan

  Um... No, you don't.

  If you did, you would not feel the need to put "(wrong:))." Even with the smiley face, it's still disrepectful.

  I'm a Christian, too. And I'm amazed how some of you view the athiests on this board as intolerant. As far as I can tell, they are bending over backwards to learn and listen, but since some of you pre-judge them as athiests, then they must be intolerant.

  Yea, all 100 "jokes" were very anti Religion. But that IS the thread name.

  The one part of Christianity that I do no buy is that this is the one and only religion. As that, by definition, rules that 80% of the world's population will not be in Heaven. I just can't wrap my head around that.

  But I'm fully up on Christ's teachings of tolerance, love, and forgiveness.

  And if you don't? Fine, I'll still do my best to enjoy the world with you.

  Eric

• 

  Sept. 1, 2008 10:03 p.m. GregTivo New Reader

  njansenv,

  As long as you respect my right to be wrong, we'll get along just fine.

  If you insist that I save myself from damnation, however, we'll have a problem. The only thing the end result of that will depend on is how far you'll go to fix me, because I'll defend my right to be wrong to the time when both of us find out...together.

  Just thought I'd clear that up.

• 

  Sept. 1, 2008 11:02 p.m. Salanis Dork

  GregTivo wrote:

  If you insist that I save myself from damnation, however, we'll have a problem. The only thing the end result of that will depend on is how far you'll go to fix me, because I'll defend my right to be wrong to the time when both of us find out...together.

  God stand on the side of whoever has the biggest, best trained, well equipped, well-lead army.

• 

  Sept. 2, 2008 2:27 a.m. NYG95GA Dork

  I just called my gambling friend in Vegas, where they will bet on anything.

  He said they are watching this thread, and that the odds were 3:1 in favor of SVRex on the theological board, but the odds of an overall winner was dead even, which of course means a useless bet to start with.

  Nevertheless, I've got a C note on SVRex.

• 

  Sept. 2, 2008 4:38 a.m. EastCoastMojo Reader

  In order to lose sleep over the existance of a god, I have to first prove that I exist. I'm still working on that

  I choose to be a person free of organized religions because I see them as a very dangerous thing the way they get misused. I see too much hatred and greed, breeding more of the same, in the name of religion. (Certainly not on the thread here, but in the world at large). I do not see a reason to believe that our actions will not escalate until that point at which our demise is imminent.

  I am convinced that the human race will not be extinguished by fire or flood, bacteria or a meteor from space. Our ignorance and hate will consume us from the inside, starting in the shadow of our soul and devouring every whisp of our being until all that is left is the hand that holds the dagger to our neighbor's throat.

  Either that or zombies.

• 

  Sept. 2, 2008 6:44 a.m. Jensenman UltimaDork

  Ooooh... zombies. I've been needing to do some target practice.

• 

  Sept. 2, 2008 8:12 a.m. pinchvalve SuperDork

  "Religion's in the hands of some crazy assed people." - Jimmy Buffett

• 

  Sept. 2, 2008 8:29 a.m. GregTivo New Reader

  Salanis wrote:

  GregTivo wrote:

  If you insist that I save myself from damnation, however, we'll have a problem. The only thing the end result of that will depend on is how far you'll go to fix me, because I'll defend my right to be wrong to the time when both of us find out...together.

  God stand on the side of whoever has the biggest, best trained, well equipped, well-lead army.

  True, and relativists aren't known to stand together to fight for their right to moral relativism.
  

  Strength of arms has given force to more beliefs than all the philosophical arguments ever put together. Like I said, we'll all eventually find out who was right, but force will determine what the religion de jour is for the living.

• 

  Sept. 2, 2008 10:50 a.m. Salanis Dork

  EastCoastMojo wrote:

  In order to lose sleep over the existance of a god, I have to first prove that I exist. I'm still working on that

  Cogito ergo sum.

  Nothing else can be said with absolute certainty.

• 

  Sept. 2, 2008 11:52 a.m. NoBrakesRacing New Reader

  SvreX wrote: "We have dozens and dozens of translations that used many different scholars.

  Most translations use the word "lead". /quote

  Just on that point of "lead" vs "enter", in Spanish we commonly used "do not let us fall into temptation". Just checked my Spanish Bible and that is also in Matthew 6, 9. Version "Biblia de Jerusalen" from Spain.

You'll need to log in to post.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jump to
• Top
• Grassroots Motorsports
• Off-Topic
• Sprockets
• $200X Classifieds
• Classic Motorsports