Round 2: 'Tolerance' on American Universities???
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 6, 2006 15:10
VIEWED: 8046
PAGE 4 of 6
Quote:Nice quibble, Cartoon. So what ancient texts are you familiar with enough to compare them with the Bible.
Originally posted by cartoon:Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Come again? You know "absolutely nothing" about the Koran, and no doubt many other ancient texts, and yet you have the guts to say in the very next breath that there is no ancient text with more solid manuscript evidence than the Bible? How in blazes can you know that without studying other texts? 'Cause all your favorite Biblical scholars say so?
In the terminology of textual verity, "ancient" means pre-fall of the Roman empire. The Koran is after that. I assumed that people would realize the Koran isn't "ancient". Apparently, they do not.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Come again? You know "absolutely nothing" about the Koran, and no doubt many other ancient texts, and yet you have the guts to say in the very next breath that there is no ancient text with more solid manuscript evidence than the Bible? How in blazes can you know that without studying other texts? 'Cause all your favorite Biblical scholars say so?
In the terminology of textual verity, "ancient" means pre-fall of the Roman empire. The Koran is after that. I assumed that people would realize the Koran isn't "ancient". Apparently, some do not.
Regarding the integrity of ancient texts, no, I have obviously not studied (or read) all ancient texts in existence. I have, however, studied manuscript evidence for ancient texts as a field of study, and have a basic knowledge of what still exits in the field of ancient manuscripts.
And, as I've said (and apparently must keep saying as people cannot seem to grasp it) -- most texts we have from antiquity were written centuries after the fact (I again point to my example about Alexander's two earliest biographies). That's the norm for ancient most ancient documents. However, the New Testament was written within decades (not centuries) of the events described therein.
Secondly, as a rule, we have no surviving, early manuscripts for most ancient documents which come anywhere near the dates of original authorship. However, we have surviving manuscripts of books from the New Testament from approximately only a century after the date of original authorship.
(That one papyrus of the Book of John is within a few decades of authorship. But, I already mentioned that, and shouldn't have to be continually repeating myself.)
And thanks to the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the middle of the last Century, we now also have more surviving ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament than we'd ever had, previously.
To finalize (hopefully for the last time):
#1) The authorship of the Bible is generally closer to the events it portrays than the vast majority of other texts from antiquity.
#2) The earliest known, surviving manuscripts from the New Testament which we currently possess are closer to the dates of original authorship than any other known, surviving manuscript from antiquity.
The point being -- there is more evidence that the Bible has been reliably preserved than most of the ancient history and literature upon which most of us would never cast even a shadow of doubt.
Quote:
Originally posted by Signym: And you know this... how? I get the feeeling that your reasoning is running in circles. You believe the Bible because it is the word of god, and you believe it's the word of god because it says so.
But that's where the Koran comes in. I strongly suggest you read some religious texts BESIDE the bible.
If you don't mind me saying, your reasoning is bizarre at best.
According to your beliefs (as I understand them from your statement), a man should never marry a woman until he has checked out every single other woman on the planet? Because I have not studied other belief systems, I cannot know that Christianity is correct?
Of course, this is complete nonsense.
As my full answer explained (which began several paragraphs before the point you snipped for a quote in your response), the textual integrity of the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) is matchless in all of antiquity. Those scriptures declare that there is one God (the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob), that Jesus was the Messiah (predicted from as far back as Eden) who would come to take away the sin of the world. Jesus, Himself, boldly declared to be that Messiah, and that He was God (liberals like to deny He said that, and to them I only say, instead of believing everything the Bible's critics have said about it, read the Bible, itself), and that He was the only way to salvation, and that no one could come to the Father except through Him.
If
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm genuinely glad to hear this.
Originally posted by cartoon:
Regarding the integrity of ancient texts, no, I have obviously not studied (or read) all ancient texts in existence. I have, however, studied manuscript evidence for ancient texts as a field of study, and have a basic knowledge of what still exits in the field of ancient manuscripts.
Quote:I was more or less with you up to this paragraph. I'm one of these, history-is-written-by-the-victors type o' people. I don't place a lot of trust in documentary history. Certainly not 3rd person stuff written 40 or more years after the fact. I pretty much assume the story's been doctored/sanitized/sexed-up by then to suit the writers or the men who pay them (gimme primary texts: diaries, letters written by eye-witnesses, etc). The difference between most ancient texts and the Bible is that no one is trying to get laws changed so we can all do as Herodotus dictates, or even Aristotle. For the most part, history is simply history.
The point being -- there is more evidence that the Bible has been reliably preserved than most of the ancient history and literature upon which most of us would never cast even a shadow of doubt.
Also, historians get their information from a lot of sources other than scrolls and codices. Books tell us there were amazons and unicorns and one-eyed giants. Now I'm prolly more willing than a lot of people to imagine that such folks and critters may have existed, but history says they didn't. Why not? After all, there are a great many well-preserved pre-modern texts that describe these creatures in detail and with pictures! But history usually demands a little more evidence than a lot of text. I don't know of any archeological evidence that supports Jesus' existence unless you count the Shroud of Turin.
Also, your sources, all the books of the New Testiment, are all Christian and therefore partizan texts. You don't read Pravda to get the truth about Soviet Russia, do you? One of the reasons Josephus is such a big deal for the Christian historians is that he was a non-Christian supposedly acknowledging the events of Jesus' life as Christians have wrote of Jesus themselves. Problem is, his comments about Jesus were a little too much in agreement with Christian dogma, to the point that they contradicted the author's own religious beliefs.
Josephus is kind of the Piltdown Man of Christian historical proof.
In the case of Alexander, history has much more than his biographies to go on. We have archeological evidence of his battles and his influence. We have authors from the cultures he conquered and those which he did not. I'm not an Alexander scholar by any means, but I know our knowledge of his life does not rest entirely on the say-so of a few biographies. Unfortunately for historians, our knowledge of Jesus' does.
Quote:Please find a closer analogy. Loving a woman and deciding what the ultimate truth of the universe is are not comparable opperations for most of us (at least after the honeymoon phase
According to your beliefs (as I understand them from your statement), a man should never marry a woman until he has checked out every single other woman on the planet? Because I have not studied other belief systems, I cannot know that Christianity is correct?
).Quote:The reason the discussion has been limited to manuscripts is because that's pretty much all you have to offer up as historical evidence of Jesus.
The entire discussion about the Bible in this thread has been about the integrity of the manuscripts.
That said, you have given me something to think about, Cartoon. I can see your point that the Christian Bible is remarkably well preserved for a text of such antiquity.
I actually saw an exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls last week and was pretty much in awe of how well they were preserved. How did it happen? And why? Did they have any idea what they were doing? It's all very myst
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look what piled up on my virtual desk .
Razza:
Thanks for the links to the American Legion and ACLU position statements. Maybe my characterization is a bit unfair. But what I’m not sure of is how big a problem this is (this being groups feeling that it is better to settle out of court even though they believe they do not violate the establishment clause). Is this like the voting ID laws (solutions in search of problems that don’t really exist)? Or are there many examples where this is a genuine problem? The Legion statement did make a list of victims but I wasn’t able to determine if these were groups that lost court cases or groups that settled rather than going to court. Two very different things.
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I think both statements have some merit and suspect this has more to do with "exorbitant attorney's fees" than anything. Why are they so exorbitant? I know, that's a whole new can of worms worthy of a whole new thread. Regardless, there must be some happy medium where defendant's aren't intimidated with the prospect of paying a plaintiff's exorbitant attorney's fees and where the defendants should rightly be compelled to take responsibility for their actions which infringe on a plaintiff's constitiutional rights.
Why does the law go for an all or nothing approach? Why not just say that these types of cases are so important that we should cap lawyer fee structures? If there are abuses of an oversight provision you don’t get rid of the oversight provision, you just tighten up the administration. The people who want to make oversight exceedingly rare are those who get dinged when that oversight is applied. In other words, I have a sneaking suspicion that the goal is to minimize establishment clause lawsuits.
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
I agree with your approach to lead by example, and I have also had some folks come to my door trying to "sell" me their religion. One question though, Cartoon has stated that evangelicals are not interested in forcing others to believe as they do. How is going door to door to deliver an informational message forcing you to believe as they do? I have found that a polite thanks for thier time and a statement of disinterest in their message is often enough to make them move on to the next door. While I find it annoying to be bothered with this kind of thing, I don't feel as if they are forcing me in any way. I am not required to listen to them and they have no means to compel me to do so.
Two different directions here. The first is the difference between forcing others to believe as you do (which I agree is impossible and not a goal of the evangelical movement) and forcing others to legally conform to your beliefs and/or learn your beliefs (which is definitely a goal of the evangelical movement). The approach is to influence legislation and what children are taught in public school. Pretty much everyone has an agenda. And every activist is trying to get enacted legislation that, in effect, would penalize those who do not conform to the underlying belief system. There is nothing wrong with that process. But let’s be honest about it. To say that evangelicals are not trying to force belief is side stepping the issue. And when we get to public school that’s where the wheels come off the wagon (creationism morphing into intelligent design, anyone? Abstinence only sex ed?). The ninety percent of American children that attend public schools (I think that figure is correct) are a huge potential growth market for evangelical churches, if they can just get more of their beliefs into the curriculum.
Which kind of leads to the second direction: the difference between a hard sell and a soft sell. Going door to door is a hard sell. Doesn’t matter if it’s setting up appointments to get your carpets cleaned, subscribing people to magazines, trying to get someone to vote for a candidate (guilty as charged), or talking with people about your faith. I personally believe that hard sell techniques are a poor method t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon. first of all, the dates you propose are not accepted fact, they are still being determined. SOME people- mostly notably Xtian fundamentalists- like to say that the documents date back to w/in "decades" of the purported event. Others put that date later- more in the realm of 100-200 years. I looked into this a few years ago, so forgive me if I don't have all of the facts on-hand, but because of incosistencies w/in the Gospels themselves there is the thought that they were trascribed from an original document (Q).
There are other documents from about that (50-100 CE) time which present a different version, most notably the Gospel of Thomas which is also complete and has remained reasonably consistent in translation
www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm
There are many ancient Xtain writings:
Quote:
Charles W. Hedrick writes in the Bible Review ("The 34 Gospels: Diversity and Division Among the Earliest Christians")- In sum, in addition to the four canonical gospels, we have four complete noncanonicals, seven fragmentary, four known from quotations and two hypothetically recovered for a total of 21 gospels from the first two centuries, and we know that others existed in the early period.
www.earlychristianwritings.com
www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html
To place these in context, one must look at the NON-Xtian documents and other sources as well.
EDIT: I'll be willing to discuss this further but happy to wait. I know we're all busy with the holiday season.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
(when was the last time you saw a film where the "religious" person wasn't a total nutcase?).
Three of my favorite American films:
Dead Man Walking
What's Love Got to Do with It
Malcolm X
Quote:Cartoon, I think you're right to talk about seeing the situation from the other guy's point of view. I think that really is the key to tolerance. I recognize from the point of view you describe, the benignity of the Christian mission. I don't believe Christians nowadays, as a group, consciously want to harm anyone. I'm always polite to the Christian missionaries I meet. But the happy non-Christian does not see things at all the same way as the Christian does.
However, just for a moment, try to realize the way a follower of Jesus feels, and then maybe you can better understand why Christians want others to find what we've found.
Firstly, we were all born as sinful wretches, destined for a fairly unpleasant eternity. As the Bible says, not one of us would seek God on our own -- so God takes the initiative and seeks us. And every single one us resists the calling. Some resist subtlely, others violently rebel against the call for repentence and salvation (like the Apostle Paul, who persecuted believers with a frenzy).
But, by God's grace, some are reached -- some in short order, others after years of resistence(like me). They realize their need for a Savior, that the price has been paid, and they fully embrace the outstetched hand.
Try to imagine you owe an infinite amount of value to the richest, most powerful King in the universe -- something you can never, in all eternity repay. Then imagine that someone interceded for you and paid the debt fully. And, as if that wasn't great enough, the person who paid the debt also adopted you (as a full heir) into the family of the King to whom you'd been indebted, to share in King's inheritance.
I imagine you'd be pretty ecstatic about it. What would be the first thing you'd probably do after that happened? (After thanking the one who paid your debt and adopted you into the family, that is.) You'd run back to your family and friends and say, "Hey, guess what? The King paid my debt and adopted me into His family, and I'm going to live with Him in the palace forever. And there's an open invitation. It's not just for me -- you can come, too."
When a believer tells you about the gospel of Jesus Christ it is not because they want you to join a cult (although there are a lot of crazy cults out there). It's not because they want you to join their local assembly and give all your money to their pastor (although, there are some shady people out there, who still have their eyes too much on this world, instead of the next). It's because, for all their faults, stupidity, and horrible inclination to remain in/fall back into their ever-present, old, sinful nature, that they want you to come into the fullness of riches that they were blessed to be given (apart from anything they've done, entirely without merit).
You paint an eloquent picture of a Christian mindset, but can you also imagine how a non-Christian sees all this?
For a Christian like yourself to fully believe the Christian version of reality, you have to believe that there's no positive alternative to Christian belief, right? That's part of your conversion process, "no one comes to the Father, but through Me."
To your mind, only Christians have a chance to be really good people, right? The rest of us are definitively running from God? I mean, seriously, I know you need to walk amoung us and talk to us on the internet like this, so you soft peddle that stuff, but honestly, deep down, you judge us all as sinners and enemies of God, right? (You prolly judge yourself that way too, but, as a Christian, you'd have that covered.)
Can you see how that might come across as deeply hostile to the non-Christian? How your self-concept as a "sinful wretch" might be likewise disturbing?
So,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK, Hi.
I'll not cover things I've already gone over multitudinously, but try to keep this brief and to the main point of your post.
If one does not believe that the Scriptures accurately record the words of Jesus and His Apostles, then nothing else I say here will likely bring them into agreement with the Christian worldview, and they should stop reading here.
However, if one does believe that the Scriptures accurately record the words of Jesus and His Apostles, then they must also recognize that Jesus is God (as He claimed). Given that, they would be compelled to believe His view on #1) their standing with God on all things (including, but not limited to) their indebtedness to God, #2) His being the way to pay the indebtedness, and #3) how they should live their lives from that point on, in gratitude for the gift of salvation.
Indebtness for what? As both the Old and New Testaments testify, the debt of sin. I know I covered this in depth elsewhere in this forum several months ago, but as I have no idea where it was, I will attempt to restate it as briefly and simply as possible...
God demands sinless perfection. None of us meet that mark. The penalty for sin (even one sin) is eternal separation from God. That is the debt we cannot pay. Jesus lived the sinless life required of us, and was/is willing to attribute His righteousness to those who merely #1) admit their need for it and #2) accept the gift.
If you don't trust the Scriptures as reliable sources of Jesus's life and teaching, however, nothing I can say (in quoting from them) will convince you (or anyone else) to believe. If you do trust the Scriptures as reliable sources of Jesus's life and teaching, then read them for yourself (preferably all of them), and you will see what they say about sin, the penalty and the payment for it.
As I said in a previous post, I'm through debating the integrity of the Scriptures. I've specifically covered every contrary point, only to have an argument re-made against something I'd already fully explained elsewhere in the course of this lengthy, two-tiered thread. I can only say "the sky is blue" thirty-five times before I tire of hearing myself say it. If you doubt the statements I made, as such, feel free to disregard them, but I refuse continually reanswer the same points over and over and over again. In that respect, this is over.
I hope I've given the answer you were seeking. Thanks again. 
To Soupcatcher:
Hi, Soup.
We actually have more in common than either of us may've thought possible prior to a few days ago.
Regarding "denominations" of Christendom --
As you've seen somewhat from my previous post, I've been through most of them. The trouble with all of them is that in some respect (some more so than others), they have added to or subtracted from the Scriptures. If you recall, Jesus's biggest beef with the religious leaders of His day was what? Their aggrandizement of the "traditions of men" over the "Word of God". Apparently, little has been learned since then. They do the same thing today -- which is why (for the better part of the last 20 years) I've attended non-demoninational assemblies which go by the Word of God, and not what man has addded to it, or subtracted from it.
If you want to seek God on His terms, read His word, and don't take anyone else's (mine included) for what it says. Read it yourself. After all, you won't be able to stand before God and say, "But, Cartoon said that...(so and so)." That won't wash. 
Read it yourself.
And if there are parts you don't understand -- join the club. Anyone who says they understand it all is a fool or a liar. Thing is, if you're sincere, the Lord will make clear whatever you individually need to know. He promised that He will be found by those who seek Him with their whole heart (and the only way to do that is through an indepth study of His word). And He always keeps His word.
Of course, if you doubt the accuracy of what's portrayed in the Scripture
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Cartoon, you are NOT saying "the sky is blue". If that were the case, we'd all look up at the sky and say "Oh yeah. When I compare it to a color chart it falls within the range defined as 'blue'".
I can only say "the sky is blue" thirty-five times before I tire of hearing myself say it.
What you're saying is FAR more dubious. Even restricting ourselves to canonical Gospels, they show enough inconsistency to indicate interpolation, for example, the inconistencies the "virgin birth". John and Matthew make no specific reference to it; neither does Paul, whose writings predate the Gospels by 10-100 years (depending on whose Gospel dating you reference). Mark and Luke tell different stories about the virgin birth, while contradictorily referencing geneology through Joseph to prove that Jesus was heir to King David.
But in addition to the canonical Gospels, there are ancient religious texts regarding Jesus that make no reference to miracles. Instead, they limit themselves to quoting "what Jesus said". My impression- not a scholar by any means- is that as the writings became more distant in time from the original events more and more "fantastical" elements were added to buttress the belief that Jesus really WAS the Son of God.
Quote:So it is clear that - basically- you only want to talk to those who believe as you believe. I think we ran into this conundrum before, when you asked if it was possible to have a religious discussion. My answer at the time was "Only between those who share the same beliefs. And then, if you run into a serious discrepancy of beliefs you have to end the discussion because there is no way to resolve them". You seemed at the time rather perturbed about my reply. But here is a case in point: there is NO WAY to "discuss" religion with people who don't share your faith, because faith- by definition- isn't arguable.
If one does not believe that the Scriptures accurately record the words of Jesus and His Apostles, then nothing else I say here will likely bring them into agreement with the Christian worldview, and they should stop reading here
In essence, why did you bother posting? You only want to talk to fundies like yourself; to people who will restrict their discussion to YOUR assumptions. Since 90% of what you posted isn't open to discussion, why pretend to have one? You're really just prosyletizing. And no doubt you will feel that I'm being "intolerant".
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Thanks for the links to the American Legion and ACLU position statements. Maybe my characterization is a bit unfair. But what I’m not sure of is how big a problem this is (this being groups feeling that it is better to settle out of court even though they believe they do not violate the establishment clause). Is this like the voting ID laws (solutions in search of problems that don’t really exist)? Or are there many examples where this is a genuine problem? The Legion statement did make a list of victims but I wasn’t able to determine if these were groups that lost court cases or groups that settled rather than going to court. Two very different things.
Why does the law go for an all or nothing approach? Why not just say that these types of cases are so important that we should cap lawyer fee structures? If there are abuses of an oversight provision you don’t get rid of the oversight provision, you just tighten up the administration. The people who want to make oversight exceedingly rare are those who get dinged when that oversight is applied. In other words, I have a sneaking suspicion that the goal is to minimize establishment clause lawsuits.
Soup:
Your welcome for the links! In truth, I'm not sure how big a problem this is either, but it's obviously a big enough problem for the American Legion to support legislation for it. I have no doubt you are correct that there are supporters of the bill who would like to suppress establishment clause cases which is why I hope the bill doesn't pass in it's present form. I think your ideas concerning lawyer fee structures would certainly go a long way towards finding that happy medium I mentioned.
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Two different directions here. The first is the difference between forcing others to believe as you do (which I agree is impossible and not a goal of the evangelical movement) and forcing others to legally conform to your beliefs and/or learn your beliefs (which is definitely a goal of the evangelical movement). The approach is to influence legislation and what children are taught in public school. Pretty much everyone has an agenda. And every activist is trying to get enacted legislation that, in effect, would penalize those who do not conform to the underlying belief system. There is nothing wrong with that process. But let’s be honest about it. To say that evangelicals are not trying to force belief is side stepping the issue. And when we get to public school that’s where the wheels come off the wagon (creationism morphing into intelligent design, anyone? Abstinence only sex ed?). The ninety percent of American children that attend public schools (I think that figure is correct) are a huge potential growth market for evangelical churches, if they can just get more of their beliefs into the curriculum.
Which kind of leads to the second direction: the difference between a hard sell and a soft sell. Going door to door is a hard sell. Doesn’t matter if it’s setting up appointments to get your carpets cleaned, subscribing people to magazines, trying to get someone to vote for a candidate (guilty as charged), or talking with people about your faith. I personally believe that hard sell techniques are a poor method to spread the gospel. But that may just be personal preference. And maybe that preference has been shaped by overzealous evangelizers in the past (nothing to the extent of what’s happened to Frem). I’m much more impressed with the soft sell. Make sure your church is visible and inviting. Be a force for good in the community. And, if people are interested, they will come to you. I guess what it comes down to is that I equate the hard sell with a product that you’re unsure of (and, yes, I do put my shilling for a politician in that category). This product should be good enough. Salvation and eternal life? Why do you need the hard sell for that?
Again, I think we probably agree on this more than not. I'd also like to point out that most
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
As you say, it is a weak method, but free speech is more important to me and I'm willing to endure some annoyance to make sure it is protected.
Razza:
Just wanted to touch on this real quick.
My reason for bringing up door-to-door evangelizing was not to advocate getting rid of it but rather as an example of proactive efforts by some Christian denominations to spread the gospel. It was in response to cartoon's post where he painted the evangelical movement as not wanting to force others to believe as they do. I agree with that particular statement but do not agree with the implication that the evangelical movement is reactive in terms of witnessing (And here I'm equating the soft sell with reactive and the hard sell with proactive). So that's why I introduced door-to-door outreach into the discussion. It was an attempt to say, "Let's be honest. Some groups are very proactive about conversion."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME