God is Imaginary
Options
Replies
-
Faith or conviction in the existance of a higer being or god - the only acceptable form of schizophrenia?
What a wonderful contribution to this mature, respectful debate. You've just convinced me there is no God! :noway:
it's not my job to convince your of anything but the belief in an imaginary, all seeing, all knowing being would be considered a form of mental illness except when that being is "god". Then it is sanctioned & accepted. It's fascinating.0 -
Obviously the new evidence is whatever made the editors of the New American Bible cite the later range of dates in the Introductions to Mark and Matthew. You have studied this question in enough depth to know what that evidence is. You are of course free to choose to reject the new evidence.
As already mentioned, no new information has been added to change the validity of the conclusion drawn in that source on this topic. If you have new information, please share it. Historical snobbishness is not a good argument.
I found a 2004 book by James Crossley (Lecturer in New Testament Studies at the Univ. of Sheffield), "The Date of Mark's Gospel." According to the fairly long list of scholars who reviewed the book (including a number of widely-recognized scholars and a number of leading journals) and the description given on Amazon, he argues that Mark was written between the 30's and the 40's of the first century. One scholar comments that the book "clearly shows that the consensus date around 70 CE is based on arguments of doubtful validity." This took me about 30 seconds to find. From my own library I could list, without exaggeration, 30 scholars (with doctorates in New Testament or Christian Scriptures from recognized institutions) who wrote books in the last 50 years defended a pre-AD 70 date for the Gospel of Mark. How many is enough? Do you think we should take a poll and go with the majority? Have you really even studied the primary data on this issue?0 -
You're probably right that what made so many scholars change their minds between the ~1910 Catholic Encyclopedia and the ~1990 New American Bible was not new evidence but a new method for evaluating the evidence. My mistake.
How many of the "30 scholars (with doctorates in New Testament or Christian Scriptures from recognized institutions) who wrote books in the last 50 years" are part of the apostolic succession?0 -
Have you really even studied the primary data on this issue?
No, I have not. This question doesn't impact my faith one way or the other, and I choose to accept the dates given by the interpretation aids commissioned and distributed by the American Catholic bishops.0 -
I will be back with more but I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about Acts.
Who was Acts written for?
Why was it written?
Would it be a good idea to alienate people you are trying to sway by pointing out that your hero was put to death as an enemy of their state?
Acts was written directly to a man named Theophilus, apparently a Christian who was doubting his faith. Luke researched and gathering reliable sources to give him a trustworthy account. More generally, it was written to Christians to show that Christ is the universal savior. He does this by giving a description of the ministry of Jesus and the growth of early Christianity, eventually reaching to the capital of the Roman empire.
On your third question, the early Christians loved the stories of their martyrs (see Acts 7). This showed they gave the ultimate witness to their faith and also were most perfectly conformed to the life and death of Christ. The New Testament nowhere conceals the suffering of Christians either under Jews or Romans (see the book of Revelation for many such references, not to mention the numerous references in Paul’s writings). Are you suggesting that Luke would conceal the martyrdom of the two main characters of his book out of fear of alienating them? If they had already died, the stories would already be widely known. Your suggestion appears profoundly “stretched” and unreasonable.0 -
You can refer to the first several pages of this thread to see my reply to this statement. I've argued proof (through the life of Jesus), logic, reason, and science for the existence of God. You've offered nothing here other than insulting my mental state.it's not my job to convince your of anything but the belief in an imaginary, all seeing, all knowing being would be considered a form of mental illness except when that being is "god". Then it is sanctioned & accepted. It's fascinating.0 -
You can refer to the first several pages of this thread to see my reply to this statement. I've argued proof (through the life of Jesus), logic, reason, and science for the existence of God. You've offered nothing here other than insulting my mental state.it's not my job to convince your of anything but the belief in an imaginary, all seeing, all knowing being would be considered a form of mental illness except when that being is "god". Then it is sanctioned & accepted. It's fascinating.
What was the science again? I thought we agreed that God can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven.0 -
I haven't insulted you or anyone else. I have offered up a point of view for discussion.That you chose to take it personally & be insulted is entirely your call. You have a choice to respond or not.0
-
I haven't insulted you or anyone else. I have offered up a point of view for discussion.That you chose to take it personally & be insulted is entirely your call. You have a choice to respond or not.
I disagree with wineplease on pretty much every point she's made, but I still think you were being a jerk.0 -
If this poster wants to take offense then I have no control over it. If the poster is so sure of their convictions then why would they need to be offended by my post?0
-
To answer the op, yes I do think god is imaginary, i do not accept holy books as proof of anything. I think these stories were created to keep people in line at a time where the world was thought to be flat & religious leaders were the be all of life. In this day & age we should not need such stories in order to do right & live right & I certainly do not think that religion should play any part in schooling or government. imo it has no place outside of churches or the privacy of the believers own home.
fyi, This view applies to all religions0 -
If this poster wants to take offense then I have no control over it. If the poster is so sure of their convictions then why would they need to be offended by my post?
I may be wrong, but I don't think she was actually offended. Just calling you out.
And I agree with your view on religion.0 -
It was stated that I insulted her mental health (I didn't) & a snide comment made about how I offered nothing to a mature discussion.
They seem to be words of the offended. not my intention but I cannot control what others be offended by.0 -
It was stated that I insulted her mental health (I didn't) & a snide comment made about how I offered nothing to a mature discussion.
They seem to be words of the offended. not my intention but I cannot control what others be offended by.
And to your original point, having a religious belief doesn't qualify as a mental illness according to the DSM.0 -
I was just referring to my arguments about the Big Bang.What was the science again? I thought we agreed that God can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven.0 -
I don't think it is so much a new method of evaluating things as it is a new mood or collection of biases.You're probably right that what made so many scholars change their minds between the ~1910 Catholic Encyclopedia and the ~1990 New American Bible was not new evidence but a new method for evaluating the evidence. My mistake.
How many of the "30 scholars (with doctorates in New Testament or Christian Scriptures from recognized institutions) who wrote books in the last 50 years" are part of the apostolic succession?
What do you mean by"part of the apostolic succession"? If you mean how many are bishops, none that I can think of. I didn't know you were so committed to the Catholic hierarchy. Bishops don't tend to write on technical questions about dating biblical
books. It is certainly quite rare for one to write a critical commentary on a biblical book. I'm not sure how much you know about Catholicism but those are not common tasks bishops perform.0 -
You would be correct.I may be wrong, but I don't think she was actually offended. Just calling you out.0 -
I was just referring to my arguments about the Big Bang.What was the science again? I thought we agreed that God can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven.
I just looked back and I didn't see any scientific arguments. I saw you said that evolution and the big bang suggest a creator because you can't get something from nothing. That argument makes no sense about evolution, and "something from nothing" isn't really the only option. Your arguments weren't really scientific, and were more arguments from incredulity.0 -
Guess this one is done. And there was no proof of god.0
-
Guess this one is done. And there was no proof of god.
I'll get back to you.
Going for a long walk. I shall ponder how to respond to this.0
