Continuation of Christianity debate.

[CrazyAnglican]

And when did these events supposedly take place place? 2000 years ago. Who witnessed them? People who are long dead.

Pretty much anything that happened in antiquty we have to go on the eyewitness testimony of individuals at the time. No reason to disbelieve everything that happenend in ancient times. Roman historians frequently use graffitti as evidence to support their histories. Fact is there just isn't that much to go on.

We're supposed to just take the Church's word for it that everything in the Bible is right and true, even though it is to their direct advantage to lie through their teeth about anything and everything to do with "God"?.

Ah yes, those Christians and that book of lies! Um.... actually no. I've read "Beowulf" four times, and it's a different story with just about every version. Even one particular travesty in which Beowulf defeats the dragon by setting bees loose on him (Really, it's "Beowulf" by Robert NYE). By contrast to the Bible "Beowulf" is probably only about 1,000 to 1,500 years old. The stories we have in the Bible are not messed with. We even have the dead sea scrolls, hidden for two thousand years. The stories present in them are very similar to the ones in the Old Testament. Samuel has some more detail and I think Jonah is missing some parts, but the essence of the stories are not changed. You can make a claim that the Bible must have been falsified, but I'll warrant you cannot prove it. Perhaps you can come up with five lines of Mark (which is clearly marked as a different ending in my NIV), or a word here or there which one translator took to mean A and another B. I would really like to see you prove this stance, though. Rather than just making an accusation.

I mean, where does their power come from? Believers like you who blindly follow. Like sheep.

What power? Influence certainly, representative governments tend to represent their populations. When all goes well that is. So with a largely Christian population you tend to get Christian interests coming to the fore. Where, however, are the Christian theocracies? My Roman History professor (who made no bones about her antipathy for Christians) complained that Christians brought down the Roman empire. Her argument, "The best and brightest Romans started becoming Christians and lost interest in governing". Some monarchs have claimed divine right sure, but the Church really governing? It isn't there. The only exception that comes to mind is Vatican City. I'll grant that there were certainly countries in which churches held a lot of influence, but The Protestant Reformation really broke a lot of that. With the infallibility of the Pope gone for a lot of Europe there was never any real attempt for the Church to supplant the states.

If the church told you to walk off a cliff because God willed it I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to do so.

There are no omnipotent superbeings, but you happen to know my innermost thoughts and drives?

[nunz]

All I can say is this, those who claim that they don't feel empty are simply lying to themselves.

... Does it scare you that people may actually not feel an obligation to act a certain way because of the results of that action when they die? We can still be moral without the suggestion of reward or punishment.
.... I'm not saying that you can't take your morals from religion but I do think it is naive to think that atheism has none.

.

One of the things I am enjoying about this discussion is picking up on prejudices I have had about atheists and reasons for living and also seeing the prejudices atheists have about theists.

Some examples: (TP = Theist prejudice, AP = Atheist prejudice)

AP - Theists who believe in creation via a creator don't or cannot believe in evolution. However Intelligent design would be a case in point where creationism's and evolution have been combined to some extent (depending where on the ID scale one stands).

TP - Atheists can find no joy or meaning in life without a belief in an afterlife or guidance from a divine being. I think it was Guiscard who said having one short life makes friendships much more precious. A truly insightful response.

AP - Theists only act in moral ways because we fear judgment or are trying to earn some eternal reward. As a Christian theist I believe I cannot ever truly act in a completely moral way and also that my reward is going to be given to me no matter how good or bad I manage to be in this life. Rather it is an act of love to act morally and holds its own rewards.

TP - Atheists have no spiritual beliefs and don't believe in an afterlife. Buddhism is an atheist religion (be definition) yet they hold very strong spiritual beliefs about an afterlife.

AP - Christians are generally against science, believe that the Bible holds all the answers to everything (including science questions) and cannot appreciate the atheist point of view.

TP - All atheists are some how evil or deliberately avoiding 'god' rather than potentially on their own journey of discovery.

[Guiscard]

Pretty much anything that happened in antiquty we have to go on the eyewitness testimony of individuals at the time. No reason to disbelieve everything that happenend in ancient times. Roman historians frequently use graffitti as evidence to support their histories. Fact is there just isn't that much to go on.

I don't think any atheist would argue that NONE of the events in the Bible bear any relation to real life (although Jesse does argue that Jesus didn't exist). There are numerous cases which correspond with other non-Christian accounts, both in the Old and New testaments, but I'm afraid that doesn't make the spiritual interpretations true. I've studied the ancient empires of Assyria and Babylonia pretty extensively, and I can tell you that both the Bible and Assyrian inscriptions tell us that in 701BC Sennacherib marched on Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that he was turned back by the wrath of the Angel of the Lord, whereas the Assyrian chronicle tells us that Judah paid him the tribute he requested and he left. Valid historical sources certainly confirm events, but they do not confirm the spiritual implications. As with ANY other historical source, you must read it critically. We could read Homer and conclude the Greek Gods must exist because he references real places and real events. But we don't, and I doubt you do either.

The stories we have in the Bible are not messed with. We even have the dead sea scrolls, hidden for two thousand years. The stories present in them are very similar to the ones in the Old Testament. Samuel has some more detail and I think Jonah is missing some parts, but the essence of the stories are not changed. You can make a claim that the Bible must have been falsified, but I'll warrant you cannot prove it. Perhaps you can come up with five lines of Mark (which is clearly marked as a different ending in my NIV), or a word here or there which one translator took to mean A and another B. I would really like to see you prove this stance, though. Rather than just making an accusation.

We could easily make arguments for the translation of words from Hebrew and Greek being erroneous. I've previously made the case of the words used to describe homosexuals, "arsenokoitēs" and "malakoi" are both very ambiguous. Malakoi is used by Jesus elsewhere to refer to the cloth used in fine garments, yet in this context it is interpreted as homosexuality by the vast and overwhelming majority of modern Christians. Arsenokoitēs is an even worse translation, as it was a word which there is no evidence for before Paul. There is a perfectly good and widely used Greek word for homosexuals, ("paiderasste"), but he doesn't use it. The complete and utter accuracy i entirely disputable and this is just one example.

What power? Influence certainly, representative governments tend to represent their populations. When all goes well that is. So with a largely Christian population you tend to get Christian interests coming to the fore. Where, however, are the Christian theocracies? My Roman History professor (who made no bones about her antipathy for Christians) complained that Christians brought down the Roman empire. Her argument, "The best and brightest Romans started becoming Christians and lost interest in governing". Some monarchs have claimed divine right sure, but the Church really governing? It isn't there. The only exception that comes to mind is Vatican City. I'll grant that there were certainly countries in which churches held a lot of influence, but The Protestant Reformation really broke a lot of that. With the infallibility of the Pope gone for a lot of Europe there was never any real attempt for the Church to supplant the states.

What power? The Church was the overbearing and major power in Euopre (hence Christendom) for a near millennia! Whether they 'claimed' power falsely or were genuinely speaking Gods word, you cannot dispute the fact that religion held a massive sway over medieval society, leading to such massive events as the Crusades! The Church really governed over Medieval Europe. It may not be active governance, but their influence was colossal.

[MeDeFe]

Ah yes, those Christians and that book of lies! Um.... actually no. I've read "Beowulf" four times, and it's a different story with just about every version. Even one particular travesty in which Beowulf defeats the dragon by setting bees loose on him (Really, it's "Beowulf" by Robert NYE). By contrast to the Bible "Beowulf" is probably only about 1,000 to 1,500 years old. The stories we have in the Bible are not messed with. We even have the dead sea scrolls, hidden for two thousand years. The stories present in them are very similar to the ones in the Old Testament. Samuel has some more detail and I think Jonah is missing some parts, but the essence of the stories are not changed. You can make a claim that the Bible must have been falsified, but I'll warrant you cannot prove it. Perhaps you can come up with five lines of Mark (which is clearly marked as a different ending in my NIV), or a word here or there which one translator took to mean A and another B. I would really like to see you prove this stance, though. Rather than

A quick word about Beowulf, according to Wikipedia the earliest manuscript is from about 1000 CE, the events in the story take place some 500 years earlier. And it's estimated that it was composed about 400 years before the earliest known manuscript.

If that's true we have 400 years in between possibly several hundred of oral tradition where things might be misremembered, deliberately changed or simply left out or added.



The bible by contrast has no such tradition, it's been written down ever since it was first compiled from the older texts. Changing the bible would have been unthinkable, because it was the word of god because the church said so and they ought to know and if you did you'd first get hell on earth and then afterwards, too. So said the church at least...
In short: you just can't compare the two.



And again, as with Homer (quite some time ago someone tried to make a point by saying that there are several different versions of Homers works, too, and that noone seems to be complaining about that and try to "debunk" the whole thing), noone's trying to base a religion on Beowulf and use it to tell people how to live.

[Guiscard]

The bible by contrast has no such tradition, it's been written down ever since it was first compiled from the older texts. Changing the bible would have been unthinkable, because it was the word of god because the church said so and they ought to know and if you did you'd first get hell on earth and then afterwards, too. So said the church at least...
In short: you just can't compare the two.

This is bollocks I'm afraid. The Church chose just what WAS the Bible. Do you think the Bible came down from heaven fully formed? There were many more gospels and books than the current canon, and the Church chose which ones were to be considered canon over a period of time. Changing the bible didn't really matter, because they could simply pick the version which fitted best with the current Church world view. Hence the widespread denunciation of 'heretics' and 'blasphemers' who followed other variants of Christianity based on books which had not been included in the actual Bible. You can attribute their choice of books to god if you want, and still hold the Bible as entirely holy, but you cannot deny they DID pick what went into the bible itself in the early church.

And as for your comparison between the Bible and Beowulf I'm afraid that's distinctly flawed as well... The whole of the Old Testament is basically made up of texts passed down which describe events much further in the past than it was written. Do you think they wrote Genesis directly after God created the world or did they write Exodus straight after Moses appeared? They're descriptions of events hundreds of years in the past, and their origins are just as confusing and little-known as Beowulf. There is IMMENSE debate over the dates of scriptures included in the Old Testement. Just take a look at wikipedia for various theories about dating the Bible texts. Beowulf is, arguably, MORE trustworthy as a source because it only details one event and it doesn't bring in political motivations in the same way as the Bible does (e.g. The book of Isaiah is considered by the majority of scholars to be an account written and subsequently edited to encourage unity within Judah by showing how God's promise of salvation applies specifically to the Judeans as a result of their exodus).

no-one is trying to 'debunk' the Bible as a theistic history of a Semitic people, or as a record of a Jewish prophet 200 years ago who was crucified by the Romans. What people DO wish to debunk, however, is the claim that the theism presented in the book is true, valid and provable. Everyone ASSUMES that acts ascribed to the Gods by the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians in various texts and inscriptions are just that - a theistic interpretation of very non-spiritual events - but for some reason people think the Bible is different.

[MeDeFe]

'to compile' v. to make (a report, a book, etc.) from stuff you find in other places (my paraphrased version in italics)


The Bible (that's the book we have today, or one very much like it) was compiled from several older texts. (I have said so in several threads already) It hasn't changed much (Spelling and punctuation and stuff, and some apocrypha in some versions) since it was compiled because the church said that was a big no-no. (Other churches might say the same about their versions)

Read what I say before you post. My point is that there is little to no oral tradition of the bible. I never said anything about the texts which were used to compile (I like that word) the bible.

[Guiscard]

'to compile' v. to make (a report, a book, etc.) from stuff you find in other places (my paraphrased version in italics)


The Bible (that's the book we have today, or one very much like it) was compiled from several older texts. (I have said so in several threads already) It hasn't changed much (Spelling and punctuation and stuff, and some apocrypha in some versions) since it was compiled because the church said that was a big no-no. (Other churches might say the same about their versions)

Read what I say before you post. My point is that there is little to no oral tradition of the bible. I never said anything about the texts which were used to compile (I like that word) the bible.

I did read your post.

Your post makes no sense. We could say that about Beowulf. There were several older texts that were combined into the, say, 1965 Penguin version and it hasn't been changed since then... It says nothing about the origin of the story or its validity!

And there IS a massive oral tradition, specifically for the Old Testament. As I said, they didn't write down the story of Genesis directly after it happened, nor did they Exodus... They were passed down orally until someone wrote them down.

All you prove is that the Church canonized a set of books based on older texts (passed down from oral tradition) which, somehow, makes them true!

Read this article if you want to read a bit more about oral tradition...

[MeDeFe]

My point is that there is no oral tradition after the bible was first compiled.

Before that they might have been rewriting the texts daily for all I care. I don't believe the bible fell from the sky, I don't believe a book is a suitable guide to divining into the nature of supernatural beings that might or might not exist.

gtg, I'll be back in a while

[Guiscard]

My point is that there is no oral tradition after the bible was first compiled.

Before that they might have been rewriting the texts daily for all I care. I don't believe the bible fell from the sky, I don't believe a book is a suitable guide to divining into the nature of supernatural beings that might or might not exist.

gtg, I'll be back in a while

That's a meaningless point... What are you trying to prove?

After the original Beowulf manuscript was compiled there was no meaningful oral tradition either, at least no different to people telling Bible stories in their own words around the fire, but we don't hold that up as a verifiable true story do we?

The accuracy of the Bible since its compilation ending around the 7th century isn't really that debatable. It is no less accurate than any other major text compiled around the same time (and Beowulf is a brilliant example).

[MeDeFe]

I said it, gtg, Got To Go, like quickly. I left it there to remember where to pick up.



But lets just go through What Happened So Far. That should clear things up a lot.

First
Crazy_Anglican brings up a bad example of a book where there are different versions which noone seems to be complaining about.

Second
I point out that it's a bad example and that the books (here: Beowulf and the bible) are completely different in the meaning people attached to them. I point out that the bible due to its religious nature would be far less likely
to be altered by the ordinary mortal once it had been compiled than, say, a work like Beowulf would. Also that noone is trying to base a religion on Beowulf and claiming it's sent from god.
In short, I give a reason that includes no premises of supernatural beings whatsoever for why a book like the bible might be more likely to stay consistently more or less the same. Admittedly I use some irony, I thought that would be clear when I wrote the post. It seems it wasn't.

Third
You, that's Guiscard, seem to completely misunderstand me, thinking I'm claiming that the bible fell from heaven and hasn't been tampered with ever. Effectively saying the same things I said (or tried to say), only in a few more words and detail. Also missing where I quite clearly was paraphrasing another persons position.

Fourth
I try to make clear that I was NOT claiming what I perceive you to think I was. Admittedly in a rather ironic way, e.g. "big no-no". I also emphasise the bible by underlining it in an attempt to clarify that I mean the book after it was compiled, up until then it only existed in potentia in the various religious texts that judaism had been based on. Most of which did not find their way into the bible.

Fifth
You still did not get what I was trying to say. I guess I should have made it absolutely clear that I was not talking about what went on 3000 years ago, but rather in more modern times, say 1600 years ago or so. About when the first councils that tried to unite the various christian groups under one creed and one text that was to be binding for all.

Sixth
I got ready to reply and tried to lay some groundwork for clarifying my position, but had to leave the pc because they were closing for the night. Therefore my short post that wasn't very forthcoming.

Seventh
Another, almost sarcastic one, by you.


And now this one.
Feel free to post again if anything's unclear.

[Guiscard]

I point out that the bible due to its religious nature would be far less likely
to be altered by the ordinary mortal once it had been compiled than, say, a work like Beowulf would.

This is what I disagree with.

To me the chance of it being altered after the compilation is no different to that of Beowulf, and in fact perhaps a greater chance exists because of political motives.

The original manuscript of Beowulf (or at least the very first Icelandic translation) has remained unchanged since it was 'compiled' around the same time as the Bible was. The Bible, however, has been translated and interpreted differently (see my example about homosexuality) because it suits the purpose of the Church to translate it in a certain way. Beowulf, on the other hand, has no political ramifications and has no reason to be translated in a non-accurate way.

THAT is what I've been arguing, and at no point did I assume you believed the Bible was spiritual truth. You just seem to be making pretty unfounded assumptions about the Bible being a book which, since canonisation, hasn't been changed whatsoever.

There is no difference between the two in terms of accuracy in regards to the original translation.

[Jenos Ridan]

I point out that the bible due to its religious nature would be far less likely
to be altered by the ordinary mortal once it had been compiled than, say, a work like Beowulf would.

This is what I disagree with.

To me the chance of it being altered after the compilation is no different to that of Beowulf, and in fact perhaps a greater chance exists because of political motives.

The original manuscript of Beowulf (or at least the very first Icelandic translation) has remained unchanged since it was 'compiled' around the same time as the Bible was. The Bible, however, has been translated and interpreted differently (see my example about homosexuality) because it suits the purpose of the Church to translate it in a certain way. Beowulf, on the other hand, has no political ramifications and has no reason to be translated in a non-accurate way.

THAT is what I've been arguing, and at no point did I assume you believed the Bible was spiritual truth. You just seem to be making pretty unfounded assumptions about the Bible being a book which, since canonisation, hasn't been changed whatsoever.

There is no difference between the two in terms of accuracy in regards to the original translation.

The story of Beowulf happened long after the Bible was compiled. Check your facts.

[MeDeFe]

Note "ordinary mortal", I was being ironic again, sorry. I have a hard time imagining the ordinary god-fearing scribe or monk or story-teller changing things in a book he sees as sacred, though. Granted, what a council of bishops might do is another question.

[Jenos Ridan]

Note "ordinary mortal", I was being ironic again, sorry. I have a hard time imagining the ordinary god-fearing scribe or monk or story-teller changing things in a book he sees as sacred, though. Granted, what a council of bishops might do is another question.

And then, towards what end?

[Guiscard]

I point out that the bible due to its religious nature would be far less likely
to be altered by the ordinary mortal once it had been compiled than, say, a work like Beowulf would.

This is what I disagree with.

To me the chance of it being altered after the compilation is no different to that of Beowulf, and in fact perhaps a greater chance exists because of political motives.

The original manuscript of Beowulf (or at least the very first Icelandic translation) has remained unchanged since it was 'compiled' around the same time as the Bible was. The Bible, however, has been translated and interpreted differently (see my example about homosexuality) because it suits the purpose of the Church to translate it in a certain way. Beowulf, on the other hand, has no political ramifications and has no reason to be translated in a non-accurate way.

THAT is what I've been arguing, and at no point did I assume you believed the Bible was spiritual truth. You just seem to be making pretty unfounded assumptions about the Bible being a book which, since canonisation, hasn't been changed whatsoever.

There is no difference between the two in terms of accuracy in regards to the original translation.

The story of Beowulf happened long after the Bible was compiled. Check your facts.

From wikipedia (for want of a more viable source, but I know the facts anyway so it doesn't really matter...):

The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the fourth century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).

So the Bible in its current form was compiled between the 4th and 16th centuries... Beowulf was compiled between 700-100AD. Roughly contemporary when we consider the massive scale of the Bible. I know my facts thanks.

[Guiscard]

Note "ordinary mortal", I was being ironic again, sorry. I have a hard time imagining the ordinary god-fearing scribe or monk or story-teller changing things in a book he sees as sacred, though. Granted, what a council of bishops might do is another question.

Who do you think copied and translated the Bible for the majority of its history? Just those people who had a vested interest in it...

[Jenos Ridan]

Note "ordinary mortal", I was being ironic again, sorry. I have a hard time imagining the ordinary god-fearing scribe or monk or story-teller changing things in a book he sees as sacred, though. Granted, what a council of bishops might do is another question.

Who do you think copied and translated the Bible for the majority of its history? Just those people who had a vested interest in it...

What is this "hidden agenda" you're intent on searching for? Conspiricies are generally the work of fevered minds. What is the end being work towards here?

[Guiscard]

Note "ordinary mortal", I was being ironic again, sorry. I have a hard time imagining the ordinary god-fearing scribe or monk or story-teller changing things in a book he sees as sacred, though. Granted, what a council of bishops might do is another question.

Who do you think copied and translated the Bible for the majority of its history? Just those people who had a vested interest in it...

What is this "hidden agenda" you're intent on searching for? Conspiricies are generally the work of fevered minds. What is the end being work towards here?

I think you misinterpret me a little... I don't think its some huge conspiracy or 'new world order' type thing, but you cannot argue that the Church have a vested interest in the Bible, as it is the direct representation of Gods word (to a theist) and therefore must be obeyed.

The books picked to be considered canon were those that were in line with the politically powerful within the church, and those that suggested a different way of thinking (e.g. those that suggested a more Arian or Gnostic viewpoint) were cast out. It isn't a conspiracy, just a non-spiritual interpretation. To many theists, the hand of God was guiding there choice but to many atheists it was the hand of popular power politics.

When we look at translation, the translation used is the one which most fits the 'Church line' on whatever issue it refers to. Translations (rather than canonisations) bring to the fore the issue of specific words such as those for homosexual I mentioned earlier. The translations fall into line with rising intolerance in Europe at the time (see Boswell's 'The Church and the Homosexual as a reasonable discussion of this issue.)

[paranoid-android]

I'm about to give my grand opinion here....





NUTS TO RELIGION!







that is all.

[Backglass]

I'm about to give my grand opinion here....





NUTS TO RELIGION!







that is all.

NUTS!

[unriggable]

No comment.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hi Guiscard, MeDeFe,


Jenos Ridan, Haven't spoken to you before, nice to meet you.

Wow step away for twenty four hours and things just really have a way of going on and on! I think, however, that both of you are missing my overall point. You both have spoken with me before, and at no time have I told that you are wrong to embrace atheism, if in fact you do. To believe or not is a personal choice, and I'm not about to try to make that choice for you.

That being said, I'm just here defending my beliefs. I was responding to someone who said that the Church (I'm assuming he meant Christendom in general) was "lying through their teeth about anything having to do with God". Of course he qualified it with "had a motive" which is just a backhanded way of saying it, and providing an out if things get too hot. Now you guys have gone on for several pages about exactly what I predicted you'd go on about. That is translations. Well....yeah when your worldview is accepted all over the world you tend to have to translate scripture, and yes when you translate there are choices about specific meanings. This doesn't mean that there was any intention to overtly dupe anyone. To say otherwise is a direct attempt to ascribe a motive to someone you never met (actually don't even know the name of) and have no independent source information on. In short, you can't do that. Whatever you think is likely, however much you would like to believe otherwise. You cannot know what a long dead, nameless transcriber was thinking when he made a choice in a Scriptorium over a millennia ago, and no one around him took any notice. Neither can I, but what I can do is shed a little light on the Christian mindset and attitude toward scripture.
Guiscard, you have some interesting views, however I think that from a position of not believing you are ascribing atheistic motives to believers. That is thinking that we'd presume to think "we have to (spread the faith, condemn homosexuality, fill church coffers, etc.) so we need to change this to mean that so that it will be 'clearer what God meant'". From a believer’s point of view, this is blasphemy and we believe that we'd go to Hell for it. Imagine someone who grew up with a deep love of Davinci’s artwork. He gets a job restoring the portraits. He’s going to say to himself “Ya know, I always thought a little red would go better here, and I’ll just make this person look a little happier”? I don’t think so. How much less if Davinci was looking over his shoulder? It’s even less likely when he views the subject with reverence rather than respect.
The opposite stance seems much more likely, we want the scripture to be as true to the original texts as possible. This can be seen if you open an NIV Holy Bible and look at all of the footnotes “some earlier texts say ------”, and it is usually only one word difference. The scriptures are sacred to us. Please don’t misunderstand this by attributing devious motives to people that you never met.


I for one would rather see the entire worldview fall that put one word in the mouth of God. God is entirely capable of speaking for himself, through the scriptures, and doesn’t need my help. To say that they are lies, understandably, gets my dander up a little. I dispute it and once again challenge you to show something beyond differeing translations (which are common to all translated works). Christians & Jews have gone beyond a good faith effort to keep these scriptures faithfully. Remember according to our beliefs, to tamper with them would be to put ourselves above God. That is contrary to the whole premise of the faith. It might be tempting to invent some altruistic sort willing to sacrifice his own soul for the good of the Church, but this flys in the face of our beliefs as well. IF one goes down that road then whatever comes from it is of the devil and will come to no good. Christians would not take that point of view it would instead be seen as a senseless waste. "He didn't have strong enough faith and turned to the devil; let's toss out what he was working on, it's tainted"

[MeDeFe]

2 things (I'm somewhat in a hurry so this'll be very short)



The word "translations" was mentioned about one time on the previous page and half of the page before that one. That's hardly "going on".


Those are the beliefs you have been taught, you are ascribing beliefs to people you never knew, nor have any unbiased source about.

[flashleg8]

Just an unrelated thing to ponder-
One of my pals is a Christian and he says Christianity is a bit like a magic eye picture (you know- those 3D pictures you have to screw up your eyes to see):
There are two types of people, those that can see the picture clearly; and those that can't see it at all and they think it’s all just a big trick.

I always thought it was a good wee parable.

[Skittles!]

To some Christians:

You have family, yes?
You have a lover, yes?

Would you choose God, someone that you don't even know exists, someone that might not like the way you're doing things at the moment, over people that you know exist, that you know they'd love you no matter what?

Because, I know what I'd choose, and it certainly isn't God.