Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[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.

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

I am not with you?

[Hope]

Of course, I read it with an open mind and subsequently failed to accept its supernatural premise or extra-scientific claims ...

Can you honestly do the former, and necessarily do the latter?  After all, many others have done the former and come to an opposite conclusion regarding the later. 

A definite improvement on the first work in the series, but the later attempts went downhill again, I'm afraid.

What would those 'later attempts' be?

Regarding the moral framework, I can understand why you and others are less than keen on it since it challenged so many of the social mores of the day, and continues to challenge the social mores of today.

[Hope]

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

Some people, including those outside of religion continue to refuse that gay marriage is permitted on the grounds that marriage can't be between two or more people of the same gender.   The idea that this is 'religiously motivated' seems to ignore the fact that, as we are constantly told, the concept of sexual orientation didn't exist at the time that the Scriptures of the main world religions were written. 

If we hadn't accepted the right die shouldn't be permitted?

Has British society accepted it?

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.

It seems to be the 'argumentuum ad populum' that is winning at present, even though there is a general agreement that it doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct, so 'winning' might not be the rifght term.

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.

Sums up my opinion on the belief in science that some here seem to profess.

[trippymonkey]

Why are there so few Christians in the world, relatively speaking?

[Hope]

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.

So, religious people are really no different to other people: many groups have attempted to force people to comply with their (often political) 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.

Do they?  If you really think this, then I pity any children you are/have been responsible for.

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

Why walk away from issues that I believe have serious impacts on society?  After all, why would I walk away from my belief and long-time campaigning for the disestablishment of the Church of England.

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.

Which is largely why I dismiss your position.

[Hope]

Why are there so few Christians in the world, relatively speaking?

Are there?  Perhaps we might ask why there are fewer atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims in the world - relatively speaking?

[Hope]

Once you do it all kinda makes sense...

What, in your opinion, is the correct order?

Bumped for Thrud's addressing.

[trippymonkey]

Why are there so few Christians in the world, relatively speaking?

Are there?  Perhaps we might ask why there are fewer atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims in the world - relatively speaking?

That's what I'm on about. Put Christians on ONE side & everybody else on the other. Who's group will be far biggest???

[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?

I am not with you?

You're saying no-one really has in depth knowledge of the NT, just their own interpretations of it.

[Hope]

That's what I'm on about. Put Christians on ONE side & everybody else on the other. Who's group will be far biggest???

But lumping everyone 'else' together on one side is nonsensical.  If you really want to be logical and rational you have to put those who believe in a God/supreme being/gods - external being(s) in other words - on one side, and those who don't on the other.  Currently, the one side totals (on 2010 figures - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) about 12%; the other about 88%.  Lets say that globally there has been a change of 2% year on year towards the nons - such that they are now about 25%, and the others about 75%.  (Does anyone have any such global figures, as opposed to those for the West alone?).  That's still quite some deficit for you to explain, Nick.  I suppose we could even break the figures down to practising and nominal, but that might suggest that the 9+% of non-religious (as opposed to atheists) in 2010 have to be given their own statistical segment, such that in 2010, atheists were only 2.01% of the world population.  The concept of your question simply doesn't make sense.

[trippymonkey]

Are you really telling me Christians appreciate & respect ALL other faiths even if they're contrary to Christianity ?!?!?

That if they could 'change' them they wouldn't ?

[Hope]

Are you really telling me Christians appreciate & respect ALL other faiths even if they're contrary to Christianity ?!?!?

That if they could 'change' them they wouldn't ?

Where do you get this idea from?  I base my argument on the fact that, whilst people of different faiths may not agree with or even accept the details of other faiths, at least they have the same underlying concept in their minds - that of the existence of a supra-natural being/entity that is outside of space and time.  Why would you lump atheists in with Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs, animists and Buddhists? 

[trippymonkey]

I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ?

NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!

What does this mean?

[floo]

I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ?

NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!

What does this mean?

Nothing, the father of Jesus was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way. Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him. The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.

[trippymonkey]

WELL YOU'RE not a Christian, are you ?!?!!?!?

[Hope]

I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ?

From your posts #28 and 32.  You say "Put Christians on ONE side & everybody else on the other." (#32)

NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!

What does this mean?

John 14:6 & 7 actually says

λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ. εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἂν ᾔδειτε· ἀπ’ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτὸν καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν.

which translates as

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. (NIVUK)

The Message combines verses 6 and 7 and goes

Jesus said, "I am the Road, also the Truth, also the Life. No one gets to the Father apart from me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him. You’ve even seen him!"

Notice that there is no reference to 'my' Father.  The reference is to 'the' Father; the Father of creation. 

[Hope]

Nothing, the father of Joseph was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way. Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him. The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.

As I have pointed out to Nick, there is no reference to 'my' father, Floo.  Rather, the reference is to 'the' father.  Clearly, that is a completely different concept.

[floo]

Nothing, the father of Joseph was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way. Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him. The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.

As I have pointed out to Nick, there is no reference to 'my' father, Floo.  Rather, the reference is to 'the' father.  Clearly, that is a completely different concept.

OK!

[Hope]

The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers.

Good to see that your hackneyed excuses for non-belief being repeated for the nth time, Floo.  Unfortunately, many linguists don't hold your prejudiced, confirmation biased, views - even if they don't believe in the divine nature of Christ.

Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, Floo?  It's a pretty steep claim when the Jewish authorities of the time would have been able to prove it had it been true.

The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.

Only if you believe that science is the be-all and end-all of reality.

[floo]

The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers.

Good to see that your hackneyed excuses for non-belief being repeated for the nth time, Floo.  Unfortunately, many linguists don't hold your prejudiced, confirmation biased, views - even if they don't believe in the divine nature of Christ.

Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, Floo?  It's a pretty steep claim when the Jewish authorities of the time would have been able to prove it had it been true.

The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.

Only if you believe that science is the be-all and end-all of reality.

I doubt the Jewish authorities would have had chapter and verse of what Jesus was supposed to have said, there are no records to that effect, as far as I am aware. As Jesus, died well before anything was written down about him by the gospel authors we don't know for sure how much credibility anything attributed to Jesus has.

I hope scientific verification is the be-all and end-all, and will explain why some people are so hell bent on wanting the 'supernatural' to be their reality. 

[Hope]

I doubt the Jewish authorities would have had chapter and verse of what Jesus was supposed to have said, there are no records to that effect, as far as I am aware. As Jesus, died well before anything was written down about him by the gospel authors we don't know for sure how much credibility anything attributed to Jesus has.

Floo, in view of your clear lack of understanding of 1st century Palestine, of the difference between oral and literary communication traditions and your determination to judge everything and everyone through 20th/21st century spectacles (even to the extent of preferring a culture that seems to revel in some of the most egregious behaviour that humanity can stoop to over less developed, more humane cultures), my I suggest that you give up your uneducated pontifications.

I hope scientific verification is the be-all and end-all, and will explain why some people are so hell bent on wanting the 'supernatural' to be their reality.

As I've said before, if you only rely on scientific verification for your reality, you must be living in a pretty narrow relaity.  After all, we are constantly being told that yesteryear's scientific verification is today's scientific mistake/misinterpretation.

[floo]

Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.

[BashfulAnthony]

I wouldn't, where did you get THAT from ?

NO-ONE comes to My Father BUT BY ME !!!

What does this mean?

Nothing, the father of Jesus was most likely Joseph, who got Mary in the family way. Certain posters with be squeaking that non believers haven't understood the NT, whilst they believe every word Jesus is supposed to have spouted, without any evidence to prove it was actually said by him. The gospels were written many years after he was a rotting corpse, and therefore it could be the man was misquoted or words put into his mouth by the writers. Even if he was quoted correctly, it still doesn't mean it wasn't anymore than the guy sounding off. The idea that the deity had it off with Mary, or just magicked a baby into her womb has no credibility at all.

What a crude and nasty-worded post!  Some people pretend to be so goody-goody, but now and again the veneer of respectability slips.

[ippy]

Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.

Hi there Floo, thought it might be a good idea to wheel out this quote of our Thomas Paine's:

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? 

True two hundred years ago and it hasn't dated yet, thank goodness we live in our U K oasis where terrible bigots like Hope, thank goodness, are on the wane.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

Hope I realise you are desperate for everything attributed to Jesus to be factual! Of course there is a very slight chance it could be, but as there is no verifiable evidence that it is so, I believe the default position is disbelief.

Hi there Floo, thought it might be a good idea to wheel out this quote of our Thomas Paine's:

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? 

True two hundred years ago and it hasn't dated yet, thank goodness we live in our U K oasis where terrible bigots like Hope, thank goodness, are on the wane.

ippy

Here's one for you, Ippy:  "If a scientist says something is possible, he is probably right;  if a scientist says something is impossible, he is probably wrong."    Who said that?