Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Ricky Spanish]

Once you do it all kinda makes sense...

[jeremyp]

Once you do it all kinda makes sense...

What, in your opinion, is the correct order?

[trippymonkey]

And how do you KNOW it's the 'correct order' anyway.??

What about all those 'ADDED EXTRAS'??

[Hope]

Once you do it all kinda makes sense...

Are you referring to the order in which it was written - so some of Paul's stuff first, followed by Mark's Gospel, followed by more of Paul's stuff, etc., etc.?

[BashfulAnthony]

The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?

[cyberman]

The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?

?

[BashfulAnthony]

The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?

?

I'm suggesting these atheists haven't actually read it at all;  and some Christians, too.

[Outrider]

I'm suggesting these atheists haven't actually read it at all;  and some Christians, too.

I've read it. I can't speak for anyone else. Of course, I read it with an open mind and subsequently failed to accept its supernatural premise or extra-scientific claims whilst like some (but not all) of the underlying, clumsy attempts at a moral framework. A definite improvement on the first work in the series, but the later attempts went downhill again, I'm afraid.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?

?

I'm suggesting these atheists haven't actually read it at all;  and some Christians, too.

which atheists?

[BashfulAnthony]

The correct question should have been: Have tried tried reading the New Testament?

?

I'm suggesting these atheists haven't actually read it at all;  and some Christians, too.

which atheists?

From my considerable experience, almost all atheists.  I wonder why a person who rejects theism would still read about it in detail. The honest truth is, they don't.  I suggest the few who do, do so without the help of any kind of commentary  -  we all need that to even begin to understand much of what is being said:  and again, what atheist allocates the hours of time needed to read through such a commentary, and also acquaint themselves with all the necessary historical back ground?  Even theists, committed people, find it hard to follow such a disciplined and demanding regime  -  it's a long way off from doing a quick google.  Even allowing some odd atheists do all that, it doesn't mean they understand it all, or appreciate all the nuances inherent.

[Outrider]

I wonder why a person who rejects theism would still read about it in detail.

... because we live in a world where some people who believe it have positions of authority and influence and attempt to impose those beliefs on everyone. 'Know your enemy', as they say.

I suggest the few who do, do so without the help of any kind of commentary  -  we all ned that to even begin to understand much of what is being said:  and again, what atheist allocates the hours of time needed to read through such a commentary, and also acquaint themselves with all the necessary historical back ground?

Any number of atheists theologians, philosophers, historians and amateurs with an interest. I have read a variety of commentaries, from the obviously informed to the obviously uninformed, and I still don't accept the underlying premises.

Even theists, committed people, find it hard to follow such a disciplined and demanding regime  -  it's a long way off from doing a quick google.  Even allowing some odd atheists do all that, it doesn't mean they understand it all, or appreciate all the nuances inherent.

Or, conversely, it doesn't mean that theists, having spent all that time encountering various commentaries, actually understand it, or appreciate all the nuances inherent, and therefore still think that it has some validity. Either is possible, you actually have to justify falling on one side or the other, not just say that it's possible as an implication that it is the case.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

... because we live in a world where some people who believe it have positions of authority and influence and attempt to impose those beliefs on everyone. 'Know your enemy', as they say.

Sorry, don't accept that.  If you don't accept it, move on.  Simple as that  And to call theists your enemy is plain silly.

And of course, not all theists, by any stretch, fully understand it all:  I don't pretend to, and it was one of my college subjects;  and it has been a life-time study.  For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.

[Outrider]

Sorry, don't accept that.  If you don't accept it, move on.  Simple as that  And to call theists your enemy is plain silly.

And if we hadn't accepted the religiously motivated (amongst others) idea that gay marriage shouldn't be permitted? If we hadn't accepted the right die shouldn't be permitted?

Some of these religious ideas have profound negative effects on actual people's actual lives. We don't just 'accept it and move on', we research, we learn, we construct arguments and we argue back, we campaign and, increasingly, we win.

To call theists our enemy is not silly - on specific issues they are if not 'the enemy', then certainly amongst them.

And of course, not all theists, by any stretch, fully understand it all:  I don't pretend to, and it was one of my college subjects;  and it has been a life-time study.  For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.

Not really. I don't need to read every study on leprechauns to know that they aren't real. I don't need to exhaustively research treatises on the contents of the pot at the end of the rainbow to know that it's not a pot of gold.

You can't dismiss any idea out of hand, but if you read the widely regarded commentaries and there's still nothing logically valid in any of it, it it's all based on circular arguments, question begging and developing ideas from baseless assertions then you can stop researching and just wait for someone to proffer something new.

Life's too short - when you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.

O.
[/quote]

[trippymonkey]

For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.

SO what you're saying is....
If NON Christians understand it they'll become Christian ?
Do you fully understand Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism? No should be your answer, eh?

[BashfulAnthony]

Sorry, don't accept that.  If you don't accept it, move on.  Simple as that  And to call theists your enemy is plain silly.

And if we hadn't accepted the religiously motivated (amongst others) idea that gay marriage shouldn't be permitted? If we hadn't accepted the right die shouldn't be permitted?

Some of these religious ideas have profound negative effects on actual people's actual lives. We don't just 'accept it and move on', we research, we learn, we construct arguments and we argue back, we campaign and, increasingly, we win.

To call theists our enemy is not silly - on specific issues they are if not 'the enemy', then certainly amongst them.

And of course, not all theists, by any stretch, fully understand it all:  I don't pretend to, and it was one of my college subjects;  and it has been a life-time study.  For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.

Not really. I don't need to read every study on leprechauns to know that they aren't real. I don't need to exhaustively research treatises on the contents of the pot at the end of the rainbow to know that it's not a pot of gold.

You can't dismiss any idea out of hand, but if you read the widely regarded commentaries and there's still nothing logically valid in any of it, it it's all based on circular arguments, question begging and developing ideas from baseless assertions then you can stop researching and just wait for someone to proffer something new.

Life's too short - when you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.

O.

[/quote]

There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes. And for you to assume that the Bible, or aspects of it are unreal by comparing them to pots of gold and leprechauns, is rather silly.  If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away.  Do you really believe blathering on about it all on here, is in any way doing anything to alter anything, outside of the occasional poster here, and even that's most unlikely!.  And I still maintain that with such an attitude, it is highly unlikely that you have spent any appreciable time bothering to read it all in a meaningful and open manner.

[Outrider]

There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes.

There are things they can prevent you doing, and until recently there were a lot more, and if some of them (not all) had there way then there would be attempts to force people to comply with their religious edicts.

And for you to assume that the Bible, or aspects of it are unreal by comparing them to pots of gold and leprechauns, is rather silly.

For you to simply assert that they're different is meaningless. They have exactly as much justification, there's just fewer words and pages used to fail to demonstrate any validity when it comes to unicorns or pixies.

If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away.

Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate. Walk away from the Lords, and from schooling.

Do you really believe blathering on about it all on here, is in any way doing anything to alter anything, outside of the occasional poster here, and even that's most unlikely!.

Make a difference to anyone else? Who knows, I do this for practice and personal amusement.

And I still maintain that with such an attitude, it is highly unlikely that you have spent any appreciable time bothering to read it all in a meaningful and open manner.

You can maintain as much as you like, but that which is asserted without basis can be dismissed on the same grounds.

O.

[cyberman]

There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes.

There are things they can prevent you doing,

If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away.

Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate.

What am I preventing you doing by being religious and engaging in those debates?

[Outrider]

Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate.

What am I preventing you doing by being religious and engaging in those debates?

That rather depends on how your religion informs your view, on these debates, and whether you are of the sort that thinks your religion should have a special place in the law.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate.

What am I preventing you doing by being religious and engaging in those debates?

That rather depends on how your religion informs your view, on these debates, and whether you are of the sort that thinks your religion should have a special place in the law.

O.

The fact is, either you have some manner of psychological hang-up that compels you to spend so much time on your anti-religion complex;  or else, as you suggest, it is amusing to you.  If the former, take some advice; if the latter, don't be so insensitive and offensive.

I might remind you of the title of this thread, and I still maintain that you have not read the New Testament, and most certainly do not have an in-depth knowledge of it, despite any assertions otherwise.

[Outrider]

The fact is, either you have some manner of psychological hang-up that compels you to spend so much time on your anti-religion complex;  or else, as you suggest, it is amusing to you.  If the former, take some advice; if the latter, don't be so insensitive and offensive.

How is it insensitive and offensive to point out that you have a world-view that is based on no reputable evidence? If you don't want to be exposed to those sorts of opinions, why come to a board like this?

I might remind you of the title of this thread, and I still maintain that you have not read the New Testament, and most certainly do not have an in-depth knowledge of it, despite any assertions otherwise.

And you can assert that as much as you like, but you've not done anything to even attempt to demonstrate the fact, you've simply repeated the previous unevidenced and unsupported claim. I could remind you of the title, because I still haven't seen somebody explain what it is that's considered the 'correct' order.

O.

[cyberman]

Love to. Walk away from the right to die debate, and the gay marriage debate.

What am I preventing you doing by being religious and engaging in those debates?

That rather depends on how your religion informs your view, on these debates, and whether you are of the sort that thinks your religion should have a special place in the law.

I can't see how it depends on that. My views might me ones you vehemently disagree with or they might be ones you like. In either case, how does my engagement in debate stop you from doing anything at all?

Nice dodge though.

[floo]

Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of  it.

[BashfulAnthony]

Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of  it.

If you have read it with the help of other views, gleaned from commentaries, then you make up your mind on the basis of what you think, and with the added advantage of other informed views.  I am not talking of those who read it through without researching any of the possible nuances.  If that's what you are doing, then you've wasted a lot of time.  And I suggest that's what atheists do.

[cyberman]

Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of  it.

Nonsense. Just like any other ancient near-eastern document, people spend decades studying it. Why would this one be any different?

[BashfulAnthony]

Those who accuse others of not having read the NT, or having an in depth knowledge of it, are being so very silly! Their 'in depth knowledge' such as it is, is really only their particular interpretation of  it.

Nonsense. Just like any other ancient near-eastern document, people spend decades studying it. Why would this one be any different?

With such an attitude, it once again begs the question, " what the heck are you doing on here blathering about it?"