Prayers and praying.......

[Maguire01]

Maguire nothing you posted on the authors of the Gospel carries nay weight though if its simply a case of some scholars or most scholars.......

It carries plenty of weight against someone claiming that they were written by first-hand eyewitnesses. Are you saying the work and conclusions of scholars over centuries is of no value? Their conclusions are evidence based, in many cases based on what is in the gospels themselves.

You choose your words well: Mark was someone who heard Peter preach..... come one, He heard him Preach and was able to write an entire account of Jesus' life from this?

I always choose my words well. But that's beside the point. Mark wasn't a first hand account. He didn't meet Jesus. That was the point of discussion. And second-hand account is not going to be as reliable as a first-hand account. It's the same principle that applied to our legal system.

Yes these things do require more research as to the written word. Equally important is the oral traditions that have been based down and carry equal weight.

I don't buy that the oral tradition carries equal weight. Stories develop overtime, and are often embellished. Oral tradition is much more susceptible to this.

My point with skull was that if he could be so off the mark on something as straightforwards as the authors of the 4 Gospels, what else is he or anyone else missing?

But he wasn't so far off the mark at all. It's generally accepted that some of the gospels' authors didn't meet Jesus and there's considerable opinion to that end on the others.

People are quick to rubbish the beliefs of the Church and the faith of believers. My problem is that if people actually took some real time to look into this before they rubbished it I would appreciate and respect their opinion some more.

Maybe not. I was a lot less convinced after my studies.

[Maguire01]

I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.

The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.

I think we have already addressed this.

So what age do you think people lived to 2,000 years ago?

Look lets think about this logically Maguire. Why would Matthew or John or Peter or any of the apostles pen the gospels while Jesus was still alive? They didn't know what they were witnessing until later on in His ministry and they were only with Jesus for 3 years. 60-100 years is Cold Teas' claim - does not mean it is true or correct.

My point was that they would be dead after that period.

[The Iceman]

quote author=The Iceman link=topic=18713.msg928439#msg928439 date=1299524665]
People are quick to rubbish the beliefs of the Church and the faith of believers. My problem is that if people actually took some real time to look into this before they rubbished it I would appreciate and respect their opinion some more.

Maybe not. I was a lot less convinced after my studies.
[/quote]

I respect your right to an opinion and respect it more because you took some time. Do i like the outcome? No but its not on me to Judge is it?

[Myles Na G.]

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The t'ings dat yo' li'ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.

Li'l David was small, but oh my !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !
He fought Big Goliath
Who lay down an' dieth !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !

Wadoo, zim bam boddle-oo,
Hoodle ah da wa da,
Scatty wah !
Oh yeah !...

Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Fo' he made his home in
Dat fish's abdomen.
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale.

Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
He floated on water
Till Ol' Pharaoh's daughter,
She fished him, she said, from dat stream.

Wadoo ...

Well, it ain't necessarily so
Well, it ain't necessarily so
Dey tells all you chillun
De debble's a villun,
But it ain't necessarily so !

To get into Hebben
Don' snap for a sebben !
Live clean ! Don' have no fault !
Oh, I takes dat gospel
Whenever it's pos'ble,
But wid a grain of salt.

Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
But who calls dat livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's nine hundred years ?

I'm preachin' dis sermon to show,
It ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't necessarily ... so !

[andoireabu]

Maguire nothing you posted on the authors of the Gospel carries nay weight though if its simply a case of some scholars or most scholars.......
You choose your words well: Mark was someone who heard Peter preach..... come one, He heard him Preach and was able to write an entire account of Jesus' life from this?
Yes these things do require more research as to the written word. Equally important is the oral traditions that have been based down and carry equal weight.

My point with skull was that if he could be so off the mark on something as straightforwards as the authors of the 4 Gospels, what else is he or anyone else missing?
People are quick to rubbish the beliefs of the Church and the faith of believers. My problem is that if people actually took some real time to look into this before they rubbished it I would appreciate and respect their opinion some more.

is it fair to say that people who rubbish the things you mention have been brought up in a faith based religion and have therefore taken the time to think about their own situations and make decisions based on this? or is this not the "real time you mean?"   

[The Iceman]

The Catholic Church and education system in Ireland has failed miserably to educate people properly in the faith.
Ask any Catholic where the scriptural reference is for Transubstantiation is or what in fact Transubstantiation is and you will likely draw blanks. Ask them what the catechism teaching is on the Marriage, Confession or Celibate Priests and you'll draw blanks. Some homes may have been exceptions, perhaps more instruction was given on the faith but I certainly didn't have access to a Bible growing up, I wasn't taught anything but prayers and whatever was taught in RE in school to satisfy the curriculum.
So to your point I don't think that constitutes "real time".

Ask any young fella who is playing football today at club level what they want, they'll likely tell you they want to win the county title. Ask them what are they going to do to make that happen. Responses might look like: Train hard every day,lift weights, work on drills, practice games and play their heart out every weekend.

Then look at the faith we are taught: Say a few prayers, go to Mass for 45 minutes on a Sunday and don't think about God the rest of the time.

People spend more time on the toilet than they do in relationship with God.

Real time.

[Eamonnca1]

I was given a daily dose of religion for about half an hour a day from the age of 3 when I started school to the age of 16 when I finally escaped the catholic brainwashing system.  We were drilled in great detail about ALL the minute details of the faith. The colours of the vestaments, the meanings of all the ceremonies in the mass, the prayers, the philosophy behind the faith, the scholarly origins of it, line-by-line study of Mark's Gospel, you name it we covered it at least once. 

I spent a great deal of time thinking about this faith business. I looked around me wondering how many people were actually falling for this. I tried my damndest to believe it when I was a child because that's what I was taught was the right thing to do. It was as if to be an atheist was to be synonymous with being an evil devil-worshipper. When I finally admitted to myself that I wasn't buying it (age 12, I remember it well) it was like a huge weight off my shoulders, I felt a huge sense of relief because I could finally stop fooling myself and stop the battle going on in my mind.

Nothing insults me more than the assumption that people throw at me all the time, "Oh you haven't really thought about it."  Excuse me, buster, I've thought about it harder than you'll ever know.

[andoireabu]

then what do you mean by real time? on your knees doing laps of the rosary?  reading the bible front to back a few times?  from my experience when i got to a certain age I started looking for answers to questions I had and found that certain thinks made more sense than others.  does this count for real time even if i didn't end up at the same place as you? or was my time wasted or used wrongly?  maybe I am reading you wrongly but my impression is that if everyone put in as much "time" as you did, we would all share the same beliefs as you, but those who don't just haven't tried hard enough. 

[Eamonnca1]

I think that if evolution by natural selection were properly taught in schools there'd be a lot more atheists out there. That was a huge factor in undermining faith-based reasoning for me.

[andoireabu]

I think that if evolution by natural selection were properly taught in schools there'd be a lot more atheists out there. That was a huge factor in undermining faith-based reasoning for me.

It was taught to me and made sense but didn't make me an atheist.  Does evolution disprove God?

[Eamonnca1]

Well the catholic church fudges it by accepting evolution but saying that God guided the process. It won't make everyone an atheist but it certainly would increase the liklihood of people being atheist if it were better understood since it undermines one of the reasons that a lot of people put forward in support of the God hypothesis. Argumentum ad ignorantum is rampant where this is concerned. I wish I had a dollar * for every time someone told me they believed in God because they don't understand how life could have arisen by natural means, even though science has pretty much nailed it.

There's no such thing as "disproving" God as others have explained, you can't prove a negative. See the Russel's Teapot or Flying Spaghetti Monster comments above.

*Sorry for the cliché.

[thewobbler]

I'd be an agnostic.

My take on Christianity is that it's religion's equivalent to soccer. It took off because it was easy to understand, easy to get involved in, easy to get passionate about. It's cheap and easy to run events, but potentially lucrative due to the sheer numbers willing to get involved. It's worldwide, with strongholds in Europe and America, and is controlled out of Europe by a group of men who, outwardly anyway, seem more interested in power than the thing they're meant to promote.

And like soccer, it has hundreds of thousands of people across the world who can't imagine life without it, people who get so passionate about a simple once-a-week congregation, that they're quite happy to ignore commonsense, hypocrisy and even morality in order to pronounce their allegiance. Plus they're quite happy to ignore the simple fact that most of the time it's not a rewarding experience; favouring instead to keep schtum and stay part of their crowd. Rather sadly, more than a few are quite happy to have stand-up rows, and even kill, just to show how much they care.


Frankly, I don't believe it's possible that a being who is smart and capable enough to create this absolutely baffling and unique universe we inhabit, could then in turn expect, demand or enjoy the repetitive, insular and myopic actions of Christians.

Nor do I believe that even if he did exist, that he must still be alive today; for this would be an unfair and unjust paradox to the universe he created.

If he does exist still, he's either having a bloody good laugh at our expense, or just doesn't care enough to bother with us anymore. We could have been his P6 science experiment, and he's now at university.

By the way, everything on this thread from either side of the argument is little more than conjecture. I personally believe that religion is little more than a self-preservation tool cultivated by society. But, I don't have either intelligence nor the will to understand, and therefore prove to myself, that the baffledom produced by scientists is any more trustworthy. If it was possible to remove ego and agenda from scientists, I might lessen this stance, but it's not, and if Christianity is one woman's lie that got out of hand, then we shouldn't repeat those steps again with science. 

[theskull1]

Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.

Skull you might need to check that out first. Matthew?
Mark also scribed his Gospel on behalf of Peter, maybe you've heard of him? Peter makes reference to Mark is one of his letters.
Luke was a Doctor and co-worker with St.Paul.
John was one of the 12 apostles.
This is what I am talking about folks. Skull can come on here and make bold claims without even fully understanding or doing some research.

In relation to the original post that I had replied to, you had a go at 'the skull', advising him to do some research when he commented that the stories were written by people who 'didn't even meet the man'. You then refer to the authors of the 4 gospels:
- Matthew - Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the 1st century by a Jewish Christian. Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Modern scholars believe that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us. Doesn't sound like this Matthew met Jesus.
- Mark - Author unknown, but thought to be someone who listened to Peter's preaching in Rome, as you refer. Again, sounds like Mark didn't meet Jesus.
- Luke - Pretty much accepted that he didn't meet Jesus.
- John - Most scholars now dispute that John the disciple was the author.

Now of course all of these are open for debate (probably better done by people with a bit more time and knowledge than ourselves), but you were a bit quick of the mark to suggest that another poster needed to do some research.

Nice bit of dodging there Skull. You were completely wrong on your assumptions but of course won't admit or address those.
One of man's greatest disadvantages is that we are too prone to welcome everyone else's wrong solution to the problems of life. There is a natural laziness that moves us to accept the easiest solutions - the ones that have common currency amoung our peers and society.

Not at all IM. I'm trying to find some detailed university lectures I have somewhere on a hard drive. I intend to reply

Many thanks Maguire for setting my mind at ease. Its been 5-6 years since I spent time studying the history of the bible so didn't have the details on the top of my head but I'm happy that I at least remembered the basic facts that I stated correctly. Iceman I wish you had more faith in me.

[thewobbler]

Even though "they" produced the four best selling books in the history of the world, there is simply no way to trace with any accuracy if "they" even existed. The picture you are presented with is always based on assumptions and guesses by scientists and theologians with agendas.

But, because one synposis they heard once upon a time happened to strike a chord, the fellas above have picked up a couple of tidbits that they're happy to believe in above all things else.

The argument above about the authors of the bible is the kind of thing that makes me think of soccer. It's like when your granda tells you Nat Lofthouse was a better player than Ruud van Nistelrooy, and you continue to push this as a fact when people will listen, even though the closest your granda got to Nat Lofthouse was through a wireless in the front room.

[BarryBreensBandage]

I'd be an agnostic.

My take on Christianity is that it's religion's equivalent to soccer. It took off because it was easy to understand, easy to get involved in, easy to get passionate about. It's cheap and easy to run events, but potentially lucrative due to the sheer numbers willing to get involved. It's worldwide, with strongholds in Europe and America, and is controlled out of Europe by a group of men who, outwardly anyway, seem more interested in power than the thing they're meant to promote.

And like soccer, it has hundreds of thousands of people across the world who can't imagine life without it, people who get so passionate about a simple once-a-week congregation, that they're quite happy to ignore commonsense, hypocrisy and even morality in order to pronounce their allegiance. Plus they're quite happy to ignore the simple fact that most of the time it's not a rewarding experience; favouring instead to keep schtum and stay part of their crowd. Rather sadly, more than a few are quite happy to have stand-up rows, and even kill, just to show how much they care.


Frankly, I don't believe it's possible that a being who is smart and capable enough to create this absolutely baffling and unique universe we inhabit, could then in turn expect, demand or enjoy the repetitive, insular and myopic actions of Christians.

Nor do I believe that even if he did exist, that he must still be alive today; for this would be an unfair and unjust paradox to the universe he created.

If he does exist still, he's either having a bloody good laugh at our expense, or just doesn't care enough to bother with us anymore. We could have been his P6 science experiment, and he's now at university.

By the way, everything on this thread from either side of the argument is little more than conjecture. I personally believe that religion is little more than a self-preservation tool cultivated by society. But, I don't have either intelligence nor the will to understand, and therefore prove to myself, that the baffledom produced by scientists is any more trustworthy. If it was possible to remove ego and agenda from scientists, I might lessen this stance, but it's not, and if Christianity is one woman's lie that got out of hand, then we shouldn't repeat those steps again with science.

Fantastic post wobbler - , have appreciated both sides of the discussion, but would be agnostic like yourself. Still searching....

I have a question - with all our new-found wealth of knowledge on this subject do we consign our parents' generation of thinking to the bin? Do we dismiss them as fools or that they were not enlightened, or that their faith was blind?
Because the people I know who have a strong belief in God are neither stupid nor crowd-folllowing.
And as one post stated, faith has helped an awful lot of people through grief which otherwise would have killed them. Are all the examples of good people that I know wrong to believe in something that gives them direction, solace, and comfort?
I am not forgiving religion's influence on the world, but this is where faith and religion separate. Is it foolish to have a faith in a greater power?
To finish off, a list that I found interesting -  of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi

Were they, and our parents all wrong?