Bible Contradictions

jakerz96 · January 21, 2011, 2:44am

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
RyuuKyuzo,

I’d like to ask you a question if I may; what exactly do you hope to gain by all this?
[/quote]

I enjoy the art of debate, but more so I would like to help persons detach from their safety nets. Make no mistake, I would debate an atheist or anyone else in much the same manner. [/quote]
I dug back to find this, because I remember it raising my eyebrows. Safety nets… Depending on how you look at it being held to a higher standard (one that is downright unachievable really) and only having hope that if you act in God’s grace and do your best you’ll be spared eternal torment is hardly a safety net compared to atheism where it doesn’t matter what you do when you’re dead, you’re dead.

jakerz96 · January 21, 2011, 3:04am

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“Psychohistory is the controversial study of the psychological motivations of historical events.[1] It combines the insights of psychotherapy with the research methodology of the social sciences to understand the emotional origin of the social and political behavior of groups and nations, past and present. Its subject matter is childhood and the family (especially child abuse), and psychological studies of anthropology and ethnology.”

“There are no departments dedicated to psychohistory in any institution of higher learning, though some history departments have run courses in it.”

Just a couple quotes from that wikipedia article. A brief reading of that psychohistory babble really makes one realize that it is as you say “bunk” or what I would call a pseudo-science.

Just something for you… If you want people to talk to you about their religion you really ought to change your approach.

[/quote]

Psycho-history isn’t the only source that points toward early man being dumber than his contemporary counterpart, but it’s the first one to organize these inter-subjective trends into classes. It’s a relatively new field of study (especially relative to psychiatry anthropology) which is why there are no departments dedicated to psychiatry in any institution of higher learning.

I implore you to look into psychohistory in at least a little more detail than a brief overview on wikipedia before dismissing the entire study as “pseudo-science”. It’s not as though I did that for Christianity. Believe it or not, I’ve spent more than a few minutes looking into Christianity and exactly what it is. =p[/quote]
So, I looked into it on this site: http://www.psychohistory.com/index.html and nothing, I mean nothing, changed my mind about it being pseudo-science. There may be some things to learn from it, but it is not a science.

Plus, I really don’t understand how you can even ascertain that ‘early man’ was ‘dumber’ than modern man. Do you mean their respective cognitive abilities? Or are you talking about the difference in knowledge base that they have to draw on? [/quote]

What makes you say this isn’t science?

Obviously they didn’t have the knowledge base we have today to draw on, what I’m talking about is their cognitive ability. Early man was prone to “waking dreams” aswell as several forms of Psychosis and neurosis (though, it wasn’t considered psychotic or neurotic behavior back then as it was the norm) that impaired their cognitive ability.

Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today. Psycho-history makes the connection between different forms/frequency of psycho/neuro-sis with their relative class.

This is what lead to the early polytheistic religions. As man advanced through psychoclasess and became more “aware”, a more logical (and humane) monotheistic religion had to be put in place if the ruling class wished to remain in power. Where polytheistic religions comes from heavy psychosis and neurosis (multiple voices, multiple Gods), monotheistic religions come into play via parental projections (Our Father in heaven). [/quote]

What makes me say this isn’t science is the huge amount of conjecture involved. It reads like history with someone’s bent on personalities and their interplay. I’m not saying it has no value, just that it isn’t science. Where does this evidence of ‘early man’ being prone to waking dreams come from? It doesn’t seem like something we can know about really.

“Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today.”
How in the hell could we possibly know that ‘early man’ heard voices in their heads?[/quote]

This is a critic of the “soft sciences” in general, not of psychohistory exclusivley. There will always be a level of conjecture when speaking of the mind. I’m not a psychohistorian, so their exact methods are beyond me, but from the articles I’ve read published by Lloyd DeMause, it seems he studies a lot of ancient “diaries” so to speak, as well as general observation of history and contemperary societies that exemplify the same attriutes and seem with early man in different psychohistorical stages.

Every religious story ypu hear of God/Satan talking to a person, that’s an example of early man “hearing voices”. This sort of psychosis is a suprisingly well documented phonomenon; so long as you aren’t under the assumption that all these stories of “talking to God” are true. [/quote]
You say soft I say pseudo. Semantics I suppose.[/quote]

There’s more at work here than mere semantics. “Pseudo” implies false. If you find psychohistory to be a false science despite the vast historical accounts supporting this theory then would I be correct in assuming you find psychiatry and sociology to be false sciences in much the same manner?[/quote]
Sociology mostly yes, psychiatry (or did you mean psychology? then a lot of it yes) not as much. Pseudo-science rears its ugly head in almost every scientific discipline. To reiterate: I don’t think there is no value in these particular pursuits, I just don’t consider them sciences. Sociology is like studying history, only very recent history and it seems that psychohistory is much like this only reaching way back. Both are trying to figure out what was going on, but neither has all or even most of the evidence. They both are trying to find the emotional component which is quite elusive especially the more time that has past. They are studies of humanity dealing with emotion and personality only in large groups over time. Useful information no doubt, but I wouldn’t want my ass on a rocketship built on the knowledge gained from them (it’s too shaky and has too much influence from the personalities of the researchers, in other words it is not objective).

RyuuKyuzo · January 21, 2011, 3:22am

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
RyuuKyuzo,

I’d like to ask you a question if I may; what exactly do you hope to gain by all this?
[/quote]

I enjoy the art of debate, but more so I would like to help persons detach from their safety nets. Make no mistake, I would debate an atheist or anyone else in much the same manner. [/quote]
I dug back to find this, because I remember it raising my eyebrows. Safety nets… Depending on how you look at it being held to a higher standard (one that is downright unachievable really) and only having hope that if you act in God’s grace and do your best you’ll be spared eternal torment is hardly a safety net compared to atheism where it doesn’t matter what you do when you’re dead, you’re dead.[/quote]

That’s exactly what makes it a safety net. Life is dynamic and has no set rules of conduct. This can be scary and living things tend to be scared of that which they are ignorant of.

There is little in life more liberating than accepting that at the end of the day, nothing you do is permanent. It’s all just for fun. You can waste your life hiding from your ignorance by torturing yourself to please some mythical sky-daddy, but this is merely an example of holding on to your childish fears. And I’m not saying childish to be demeaning, these are childish fears in a very factual manner.

These so-called religions are mere echoes of bygone psychoclassess where child-rearing methods where so fucked up that even as adults you would crave parental attention. Why do you think it’s called the “holy father” or the “founding fathers” or “mother Gaia” or “the father land”? These are all parental projections built to make you feel safe. It’s a way to redirect responsibility of your own life onto something else much as your life would be as a child. This is why I call Christianity a mere safety net.

RyuuKyuzo · January 21, 2011, 3:29am

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
“Psychohistory is the controversial study of the psychological motivations of historical events.[1] It combines the insights of psychotherapy with the research methodology of the social sciences to understand the emotional origin of the social and political behavior of groups and nations, past and present. Its subject matter is childhood and the family (especially child abuse), and psychological studies of anthropology and ethnology.”

“There are no departments dedicated to psychohistory in any institution of higher learning, though some history departments have run courses in it.”

Just a couple quotes from that wikipedia article. A brief reading of that psychohistory babble really makes one realize that it is as you say “bunk” or what I would call a pseudo-science.

Just something for you… If you want people to talk to you about their religion you really ought to change your approach.

[/quote]

Psycho-history isn’t the only source that points toward early man being dumber than his contemporary counterpart, but it’s the first one to organize these inter-subjective trends into classes. It’s a relatively new field of study (especially relative to psychiatry anthropology) which is why there are no departments dedicated to psychiatry in any institution of higher learning.

I implore you to look into psychohistory in at least a little more detail than a brief overview on wikipedia before dismissing the entire study as “pseudo-science”. It’s not as though I did that for Christianity. Believe it or not, I’ve spent more than a few minutes looking into Christianity and exactly what it is. =p[/quote]
So, I looked into it on this site: http://www.psychohistory.com/index.html and nothing, I mean nothing, changed my mind about it being pseudo-science. There may be some things to learn from it, but it is not a science.

Plus, I really don’t understand how you can even ascertain that ‘early man’ was ‘dumber’ than modern man. Do you mean their respective cognitive abilities? Or are you talking about the difference in knowledge base that they have to draw on? [/quote]

What makes you say this isn’t science?

Obviously they didn’t have the knowledge base we have today to draw on, what I’m talking about is their cognitive ability. Early man was prone to “waking dreams” aswell as several forms of Psychosis and neurosis (though, it wasn’t considered psychotic or neurotic behavior back then as it was the norm) that impaired their cognitive ability.

Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today. Psycho-history makes the connection between different forms/frequency of psycho/neuro-sis with their relative class.

This is what lead to the early polytheistic religions. As man advanced through psychoclasess and became more “aware”, a more logical (and humane) monotheistic religion had to be put in place if the ruling class wished to remain in power. Where polytheistic religions comes from heavy psychosis and neurosis (multiple voices, multiple Gods), monotheistic religions come into play via parental projections (Our Father in heaven). [/quote]

What makes me say this isn’t science is the huge amount of conjecture involved. It reads like history with someone’s bent on personalities and their interplay. I’m not saying it has no value, just that it isn’t science. Where does this evidence of ‘early man’ being prone to waking dreams come from? It doesn’t seem like something we can know about really.

“Whereas today persons kinda-sorta “hear” God in their heart if they “believe” hard enough, early man actually heard voices in their heads and it was much more common than today.”
How in the hell could we possibly know that ‘early man’ heard voices in their heads?[/quote]

This is a critic of the “soft sciences” in general, not of psychohistory exclusivley. There will always be a level of conjecture when speaking of the mind. I’m not a psychohistorian, so their exact methods are beyond me, but from the articles I’ve read published by Lloyd DeMause, it seems he studies a lot of ancient “diaries” so to speak, as well as general observation of history and contemperary societies that exemplify the same attriutes and seem with early man in different psychohistorical stages.

Every religious story ypu hear of God/Satan talking to a person, that’s an example of early man “hearing voices”. This sort of psychosis is a suprisingly well documented phonomenon; so long as you aren’t under the assumption that all these stories of “talking to God” are true. [/quote]
You say soft I say pseudo. Semantics I suppose.[/quote]

There’s more at work here than mere semantics. “Pseudo” implies false. If you find psychohistory to be a false science despite the vast historical accounts supporting this theory then would I be correct in assuming you find psychiatry and sociology to be false sciences in much the same manner?[/quote]
Sociology mostly yes, psychiatry (or did you mean psychology? then a lot of it yes) not as much. Pseudo-science rears its ugly head in almost every scientific discipline. To reiterate: I don’t think there is no value in these particular pursuits, I just don’t consider them sciences. Sociology is like studying history, only very recent history and it seems that psychohistory is much like this only reaching way back. Both are trying to figure out what was going on, but neither has all or even most of the evidence. They both are trying to find the emotional component which is quite elusive especially the more time that has past. They are studies of humanity dealing with emotion and personality only in large groups over time. Useful information no doubt, but I wouldn’t want my ass on a rocketship built on the knowledge gained from them (it’s too shaky and has too much influence from the personalities of the researchers, in other words it is not objective).[/quote]

Then you’ve already made up your mind about the soft sciences and there’s nothing I can do other than continue with my arguments rooted in the hard sciences.

For what it’s worth, psychohistory is actually less conjectural than, say, psychiatry as psychiatry is ultimately ad-hoc whereas psychohistory is an observation of inter-subjective trends over time. It’s something of an anthropological sociology.

jakerz96 · January 21, 2011, 3:37am

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
RyuuKyuzo,

I’d like to ask you a question if I may; what exactly do you hope to gain by all this?
[/quote]

I enjoy the art of debate, but more so I would like to help persons detach from their safety nets. Make no mistake, I would debate an atheist or anyone else in much the same manner. [/quote]
I dug back to find this, because I remember it raising my eyebrows. Safety nets… Depending on how you look at it being held to a higher standard (one that is downright unachievable really) and only having hope that if you act in God’s grace and do your best you’ll be spared eternal torment is hardly a safety net compared to atheism where it doesn’t matter what you do when you’re dead, you’re dead.[/quote]

That’s exactly what makes it a safety net. Life is dynamic and has no set rules of conduct. This can be scary and living things tend to be scared of that which they are ignorant of.

There is little in life more liberating than accepting that at the end of the day, nothing you do is permanent. It’s all just for fun. You can waste your life hiding from your ignorance by torturing yourself to please some mythical sky-daddy, but this is merely an example of holding on to your childish fears. And I’m not saying childish to be demeaning, these are childish fears in a very factual manner.

These so-called religions are mere echoes of bygone psychoclassess where child-rearing methods where so fucked up that even as adults you would crave parental attention. Why do you think it’s called the “holy father” or the “founding fathers” or “mother Gaia” or “the father land”? These are all parental projections built to make you feel safe. It’s a way to redirect responsibility of your own life onto something else much as your life would be as a child. This is why I call Christianity a mere safety net. [/quote]
So, you’re a psychohistory disciple… My point was that things being permanent (having eternal consequences) versus there being no consequences is hardly a safety net.

Also this idea of redirecting responsibility for your own life onto something else is foreign to Christianity.

Next, what do you mean by so-called religions? Whichever ones you are talking about I am sure they are religions (not just ‘so-called’).

“It’s all just for fun.” You are very young.

RyuuKyuzo · January 21, 2011, 4:13am

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
RyuuKyuzo,

I’d like to ask you a question if I may; what exactly do you hope to gain by all this?
[/quote]

I enjoy the art of debate, but more so I would like to help persons detach from their safety nets. Make no mistake, I would debate an atheist or anyone else in much the same manner. [/quote]
I dug back to find this, because I remember it raising my eyebrows. Safety nets… Depending on how you look at it being held to a higher standard (one that is downright unachievable really) and only having hope that if you act in God’s grace and do your best you’ll be spared eternal torment is hardly a safety net compared to atheism where it doesn’t matter what you do when you’re dead, you’re dead.[/quote]

That’s exactly what makes it a safety net. Life is dynamic and has no set rules of conduct. This can be scary and living things tend to be scared of that which they are ignorant of.

There is little in life more liberating than accepting that at the end of the day, nothing you do is permanent. It’s all just for fun. You can waste your life hiding from your ignorance by torturing yourself to please some mythical sky-daddy, but this is merely an example of holding on to your childish fears. And I’m not saying childish to be demeaning, these are childish fears in a very factual manner.

These so-called religions are mere echoes of bygone psychoclassess where child-rearing methods where so fucked up that even as adults you would crave parental attention. Why do you think it’s called the “holy father” or the “founding fathers” or “mother Gaia” or “the father land”? These are all parental projections built to make you feel safe. It’s a way to redirect responsibility of your own life onto something else much as your life would be as a child. This is why I call Christianity a mere safety net. [/quote]

So, you’re a psychohistory disciple… My point was that things being permanent (having eternal consequences) versus there being no consequences is hardly a safety net.

Also this idea of redirecting responsibility for your own life onto something else is foreign to Christianity.

Next, what do you mean by so-called religions? Whichever ones you are talking about I am sure they are religions (not just ‘so-called’).

“It’s all just for fun.” You are very young.[/quote]

First, the word disciple comes from the Latin discipulus meaning “student”, “one who is ready to learn”. So yes, I am a disciple of psychohistory, in fact, I am a disciple of all science. I fully understood your point and re-asserting it doesn’t make it any more correct nor does it address anything I just wrote.

If redirecting responsibility from your own life onto something else is foreign to Christianity, why are all events considered an act of God? Why is it you must give yourself in totality to God if you are to remain independent at the same time? This is a very hard thing for you to see from the inside, almost impossible, but I assure you that from the outside it is very easy to see how this is a mere parental projection and how it is a matter of surrendering your life and responsibility for it over to “God”.

I call them so-called religions because the root of religiousness is internal search. These colloquial “religions” serve only to corrupt others for personal gain. It is a twisting of language to make otherwise psychotic things seem divine and righteous. How lame would life be if the answers to our deepest selves could be explained in mere words and written down into a book to be generalized over every living person. We’re all individuals. No one book can dictate how everyone should or even CAN be. It’s utterly ridiculous. Persons follow these “holy” books only because REAL internal search requires great courage and effort. Nobody wants to do it. It’s easier to pretend, it’s easier to look to the outside world for a “purpose” and it becomes especially easier when everyone else pretends with you. A truly religious person needs no holy book. His whole existence is his holy book.

If you think that there is ever a time where one MUST be suffering, then this isn’t a matter of me being too young, but of you being too old and accumulating a foolish philosophy to accompany it.

jakerz96 · January 21, 2011, 4:43pm

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

First, the word disciple comes from the Latin discipulus meaning “student”, “one who is ready to learn”. So yes, I am a disciple of psychohistory, in fact, I am a disciple of all science. I fully understood your point and re-asserting it doesn’t make it any more correct nor does it address anything I just wrote.

If redirecting responsibility from your own life onto something else is foreign to Christianity, why are all events considered an act of God? Why is it you must give yourself in totality to God if you are to remain independent at the same time? This is a very hard thing for you to see from the inside, almost impossible, but I assure you that from the outside it is very easy to see how this is a mere parental projection and how it is a matter of surrendering your life and responsibility for it over to “God”.

I call them so-called religions because the root of religiousness is internal search. These colloquial “religions” serve only to corrupt others for personal gain. It is a twisting of language to make otherwise psychotic things seem divine and righteous. How lame would life be if the answers to our deepest selves could be explained in mere words and written down into a book to be generalized over every living person. We’re all individuals. No one book can dictate how everyone should or even CAN be. It’s utterly ridiculous. Persons follow these “holy” books only because REAL internal search requires great courage and effort. Nobody wants to do it. It’s easier to pretend, it’s easier to look to the outside world for a “purpose” and it becomes especially easier when everyone else pretends with you. A truly religious person needs no holy book. His whole existence is his holy book.

If you think that there is ever a time where one MUST be suffering, then this isn’t a matter of me being too young, but of you being too old and accumulating a foolish philosophy to accompany it. [/quote]
I think you have some serious misconceptions about Christianity. Let me attempt, at least, to correct them for you, so you don’t debate with straw men.

First, not all events are considered as acts of God. In fact the view of most Christians myself included is that there are very few occasions that are acts of God with most things occuring within the framework of the universe He created.

Second, giving yourself to God is not giving over control of your life it is merely accepting He is your creator and then trying to follow a moral order. It is not a dictated life and there is no surrender of responsibility to God. Rather there is responsibility, because God. I can see how from the outside you find this to be parental projection, but you should understand from the inside it is the opposite, as in parent child relationships reflect (imperfectly mind you) our relationship with God. I could reiterate your words here and say something like this is difficult to see from the outside, maybe even impossible…

Third, as to [quote] Ryuu: How lame would life be if the answers to our deepest selves could be explained in mere words and written down into a book to be generalized over every living person.[/quote] That would be lame. I’m not sure what you mean by [quote] answers to our deepest selves[/quote], but if you mean it lays out our origins it does that and it lays out morals to live by, but I don’t think it generalizes anything regarding everyones lives beyond that.

Fourth, [quote] Ryuu: We’re all individuals. No one book can dictate how everyone should or even CAN be. It’s utterly ridiculous. Persons follow these “holy” books only because REAL internal search requires great courage and effort. Nobody wants to do it. It’s easier to pretend, it’s easier to look to the outside world for a “purpose” and it becomes especially easier when everyone else pretends with you. A truly religious person needs no holy book. His whole existence is his holy book. [/quote] Are you familiar at all with any Christian Saints or mystics? If not I suggest you read some of their works. Christianity confirms individuality and does not dictate in anyway how everyone should or can be. As for following holy books instead of internal search, that is not what Christianity is about. Christian mystics were known for large amounts of internal searching, and I agree it takes great courage and effort (I’ll concede that a lot of people don’t do this, Christian and other). You are wrong that no one wants to engage in this internal reflection. I understand when you say it is easier to pretend when others pretend with you. I get that I really do, but it cuts both ways. As for a truly religious person needing no holy book and their whole life being their holy book, well that just means there is a lot of bad literature out there (sorry, I have to make some jokes in otherwise serious discussion).

Lastly, [quote] Ryuu said: If you think that there is ever a time where one MUST be suffering, then this isn’t a matter of me being too young, but of you being too old and accumulating a foolish philosophy to accompany it. [/quote] This was in response to me saying you are very young after you said [quote] Ryuu: It’s all just for fun. [/quote] There may be some things about which I am foolish, but I guarantee you that if you live by [quote] It’s all just for fun[/quote] you will end up empty and unfulfilled. There are times when one should (not must because no one is forced to do anything) cast aside their own comfort yes. For instance being a parent you will have to sacrifice, being a friend, I think you get the idea. Living by “It’s all just for fun” would make you the most self absorbed person on the planet (unless of course you temper this with realizing that it isn’t fun when your fun hurts others etc…).

Now, it’s late and it’s bed time…

haney1 · January 21, 2011, 5:25am

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
all information is borrowed. I could of written out the arguments outlined in the video[/quote]

I’m sure the great debaters use the same excuse. [/quote]

Excuse? Are you actually criticizing my argument because it ISN’T made up? The information was already organized into this video long before even this thread was started, why would I not use it as opposed to saying the same thing in text? What difference would it make other than filling up this thread with needless posts and killing vast amounts of time?
You’re merely obfuscating the issue again. [/quote]

Actually I am not. If I wanted to debate the author of the video I would click onto YouTube, log on, and debate. Debaters, like the one who created the video, take in vast amounts of data and put it into a short and concise argument. You just posted someone else’s debate.[/quote]

Posted someone else’s debate? Is this going to be your excuse for not addressing the argument? “Oh, well, you didn’t invent it, so it’s not even worth addressing!”

Last time I checked, YOU didn’t write the bible. Should I immediately disregard your arguments because they are rooted in a book you didn’t write? Does that sound logical to you?

Stop being such a baby. My argument is laid out, you can come up with a million and one excuses to ignore it (like this childish attempt here), but at the end of the day both you and me know it is merely an excuse to avoid the reality that your bible is a mere fiction novel with an astounding array of continuity errors.

Either address the argument, or stop pretending that you can. [/quote]

No one wants to debate your weblink because it is a full all out argument. As soon as they respond to point one, you will prevent them from addressing the rest by continually arguing that one point. So it is impossible to ever make any progress.

If you find the argument compelling why not pick a point or two, lay them out and then ask for an answer.

Have you ever even looked to see if there is a response to some of the problems that are outlined in that video?

I found online sources in a matter of seconds for the first couple. I don’t neccessarily accept them, but you don’t have to debate someone to find out if your conclusion is correct.

Argument by web link is considered by most people that I know a complete waste of time, and very unrewarding.[/quote]

Your first paragraph is hilarious. So my argument is unfair because it’s a “full all out argument”? It’s just simply too concrete to even begin debunking? The video may seem overwhelming, but it’s actually a very simple premise. All he is doing is laying out the life of Jesus as accounted for in the bible, then he actually goes out of his way to try and reconcile them FOR the Christians. Of course, this can’t be done, so at the end of the video he turns the question over to the Christians and that brings us to this point.

All you (or anyone else for that matter) has to do is reconcile these contradictions about the life of Jesus and the entire argument falls apart. This should be easy as I’m sure you all have read and comprehended your bible… Right?

Understand, the only reason why there is more than one issue to deal with here is because there is more than one contradiction in your so-called “flawless” Holy book.

[/quote]

Then you must not have understood my first paragraph. I never said the video was unfair. I said that as soon as someone answered the first objection and started to move on you would begin to stall the debate with objections.

I am not interested in responding to the video because I have answered many of these issues on this board, as well as others. It gets old repeating the same conversations over again. If you would like though we could simply post responses to your video argument from the web and wait for you to answer them.

Here I will get you started on point one of the video.

http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

By the way the statement that scholars have been tying to reconcile these issues like it is a crissis in Christian theological circles is just blatantly false. They are recycled arguments that have been answered, but not everyone accepted the answer.

acceptance though is not the mark of an answer. If it was we wouldn’t have the wonderful(sarcasm) flat earth society.

Tiribulus · January 21, 2011, 5:35am

Jake, ya need to learn how to use the quote tags. I mean no insult, but I gave up trying to decipher with the tiny quotation marks who was saying what in this post.

Try this:
Anything between an opening tag without the / before the word for the tag and the closing tag with the / appears as a different color quote.

Using the quote button and then some surgical copying and pasting of the existing tags is even easier. If you want any help lemme know. Seriously, no offense, but this last post is a visual quagmire.

Brother_Chris · January 21, 2011, 5:38am

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
all information is borrowed. I could of written out the arguments outlined in the video[/quote]

I’m sure the great debaters use the same excuse. [/quote]

Excuse? Are you actually criticizing my argument because it ISN’T made up? The information was already organized into this video long before even this thread was started, why would I not use it as opposed to saying the same thing in text? What difference would it make other than filling up this thread with needless posts and killing vast amounts of time?
You’re merely obfuscating the issue again. [/quote]

Actually I am not. If I wanted to debate the author of the video I would click onto YouTube, log on, and debate. Debaters, like the one who created the video, take in vast amounts of data and put it into a short and concise argument. You just posted someone else’s debate.[/quote]

Posted someone else’s debate? Is this going to be your excuse for not addressing the argument? “Oh, well, you didn’t invent it, so it’s not even worth addressing!” [/quote]

Where did I say invent? Or, say it is not worth addressing?

Brother_Chris · January 21, 2011, 5:45am

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Your first paragraph is hilarious. So my argument is unfair because it’s a “full all out argument”? It’s just simply too concrete to even begin debunking? The video may seem overwhelming, but it’s actually a very simple premise. All he is doing is laying out the life of Jesus as accounted for in the bible, then he actually goes out of his way to try and reconcile them FOR the Christians. Of course, this can’t be done, so at the end of the video he turns the question over to the Christians and that brings us to this point.

All you (or anyone else for that matter) has to do is reconcile these contradictions about the life of Jesus and the entire argument falls apart. This should be easy as I’m sure you all have read and comprehended your bible… Right?

Understand, the only reason why there is more than one issue to deal with here is because there is more than one contradiction in your so-called “flawless” Holy book.

[/quote]

You’re being emotional, which is not conductive to civil discourse.

pat · January 21, 2011, 2:17pm

Wow! This thread has gone into a quagmire…
Are you guys really going to try to educate this kid in a debate format over a forum?

I have read a few of his posts and they are so incredibly errant I wouldn’t know where to begin. It is very clear the opinions are emotive and is very loosely based on scattered facts.
The problem is a lack of education on the matter. Trying to wrestle all strawmen presented, contending with the hubris, and the "I know you are, but what am I"s has to be daunting.

forlife · January 21, 2011, 2:53pm

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
RyuuKyuzo,

I’d like to ask you a question if I may; what exactly do you hope to gain by all this?
[/quote]

I enjoy the art of debate, but more so I would like to help persons detach from their safety nets. Make no mistake, I would debate an atheist or anyone else in much the same manner. [/quote]
I dug back to find this, because I remember it raising my eyebrows. Safety nets… Depending on how you look at it being held to a higher standard (one that is downright unachievable really) and only having hope that if you act in God’s grace and do your best you’ll be spared eternal torment is hardly a safety net compared to atheism where it doesn’t matter what you do when you’re dead, you’re dead.[/quote]

That’s exactly what makes it a safety net. Life is dynamic and has no set rules of conduct. This can be scary and living things tend to be scared of that which they are ignorant of.

There is little in life more liberating than accepting that at the end of the day, nothing you do is permanent. It’s all just for fun. You can waste your life hiding from your ignorance by torturing yourself to please some mythical sky-daddy, but this is merely an example of holding on to your childish fears. And I’m not saying childish to be demeaning, these are childish fears in a very factual manner.

These so-called religions are mere echoes of bygone psychoclassess where child-rearing methods where so fucked up that even as adults you would crave parental attention. Why do you think it’s called the “holy father” or the “founding fathers” or “mother Gaia” or “the father land”? These are all parental projections built to make you feel safe. It’s a way to redirect responsibility of your own life onto something else much as your life would be as a child. This is why I call Christianity a mere safety net. [/quote]

Setting aside the actual truth of any religion, I agree that generally it serves as a safety net. It provides a sense of purpose, intrinsic worth, and comfort in a world that can be pretty shitty at times. Think how lost most people would be if their religion was indisputably proven to be false. I think this is why people fight so hard to defend their beliefs, and are so driven by subconscious forces to rationalize those beliefs with reality.

Of course, being a safety net doesn’t inherently prove the religion is false, but it does call into question the convictions people have about their faith, and the evidence used to justify it.

haney1 · January 21, 2011, 3:32pm

[quote]pat wrote:
Wow! This thread has gone into a quagmire…
Are you guys really going to try to educate this kid in a debate format over a forum?

I have read a few of his posts and they are so incredibly errant I wouldn’t know where to begin. It is very clear the opinions are emotive and is very loosely based on scattered facts.
The problem is a lack of education on the matter. Trying to wrestle all strawmen presented, contending with the hubris, and the "I know you are, but what am I"s has to be daunting.

[/quote]

I am not going to. I just figured if he was serious about getting somewhere with his posts I would atleast tell him why no one wants to even bother with his posts in a satisfactory way.

forlife · January 21, 2011, 3:24pm

RyuuKyuzo, to echo what others have said, if you want to have a substantive debate you will need to get more specific. Choose what you consider to be the most compelling discrepancy in biblical accounts of the life of Jesus, and I’m sure people will be more motivated and better able to respond.

jakerz96 · January 21, 2011, 4:32pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Jake, ya need to learn how to use the quote tags. I mean no insult, but I gave up trying to decipher with the tiny quotation marks who was saying what in this post.

Try this:
Anything between an opening tag without the / before the word for the tag and the closing tag with the / appears as a different color quote.

Using the quote button and then some surgical copying and pasting of the existing tags is even easier. If you want any help lemme know. Seriously, no offense, but this last post is a visual quagmire.[/quote]

Got it, sorry about that.

Brother_Chris · January 21, 2011, 4:22pm

[quote]pat wrote:
Wow! This thread has gone into a quagmire…
Are you guys really going to try to educate this kid in a debate format over a forum?

I have read a few of his posts and they are so incredibly errant I wouldn’t know where to begin. It is very clear the opinions are emotive and is very loosely based on scattered facts.
The problem is a lack of education on the matter. Trying to wrestle all strawmen presented, contending with the hubris, and the "I know you are, but what am I"s has to be daunting.

[/quote]

Notice I haven’t actually argued anything…because I am not sure where to start. He’s got a I win, you lose non-argument argument and a video he posted and expected answers to, and lack of religious knowledge.

RyuuKyuzo · January 21, 2011, 8:59pm

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

First, the word disciple comes from the Latin discipulus meaning “student”, “one who is ready to learn”. So yes, I am a disciple of psychohistory, in fact, I am a disciple of all science. I fully understood your point and re-asserting it doesn’t make it any more correct nor does it address anything I just wrote.

If redirecting responsibility from your own life onto something else is foreign to Christianity, why are all events considered an act of God? Why is it you must give yourself in totality to God if you are to remain independent at the same time? This is a very hard thing for you to see from the inside, almost impossible, but I assure you that from the outside it is very easy to see how this is a mere parental projection and how it is a matter of surrendering your life and responsibility for it over to “God”.

I call them so-called religions because the root of religiousness is internal search. These colloquial “religions” serve only to corrupt others for personal gain. It is a twisting of language to make otherwise psychotic things seem divine and righteous. How lame would life be if the answers to our deepest selves could be explained in mere words and written down into a book to be generalized over every living person. We’re all individuals. No one book can dictate how everyone should or even CAN be. It’s utterly ridiculous. Persons follow these “holy” books only because REAL internal search requires great courage and effort. Nobody wants to do it. It’s easier to pretend, it’s easier to look to the outside world for a “purpose” and it becomes especially easier when everyone else pretends with you. A truly religious person needs no holy book. His whole existence is his holy book.

If you think that there is ever a time where one MUST be suffering, then this isn’t a matter of me being too young, but of you being too old and accumulating a foolish philosophy to accompany it. [/quote]
I think you have some serious misconceptions about Christianity. Let me attempt, at least, to correct them for you, so you don’t debate with straw men.

First, not all events are considered as acts of God. In fact the view of most Christians myself included is that there are very few occasions that are acts of God with most things occuring within the framework of the universe He created.

Second, giving yourself to God is not giving over control of your life it is merely accepting He is your creator and then trying to follow a moral order. It is not a dictated life and there is no surrender of responsibility to God. Rather there is responsibility, because God. I can see how from the outside you find this to be parental projection, but you should understand from the inside it is the opposite, as in parent child relationships reflect (imperfectly mind you) our relationship with God. I could reiterate your words here and say something like this is difficult to see from the outside, maybe even impossible…

Third, as to [quote] Ryuu: How lame would life be if the answers to our deepest selves could be explained in mere words and written down into a book to be generalized over every living person.[/quote] That would be lame. I’m not sure what you mean by [quote] answers to our deepest selves[/quote], but if you mean it lays out our origins it does that and it lays out morals to live by, but I don’t think it generalizes anything regarding everyones lives beyond that.

Fourth, [quote] Ryuu: We’re all individuals. No one book can dictate how everyone should or even CAN be. It’s utterly ridiculous. Persons follow these “holy” books only because REAL internal search requires great courage and effort. Nobody wants to do it. It’s easier to pretend, it’s easier to look to the outside world for a “purpose” and it becomes especially easier when everyone else pretends with you. A truly religious person needs no holy book. His whole existence is his holy book. [/quote]

Are you familiar at all with any Christian Saints or mystics? If not I suggest you read some of their works. Christianity confirms individuality and does not dictate in anyway how everyone should or can be. As for following holy books instead of internal search, that is not what Christianity is about. Christian mystics were known for large amounts of internal searching, and I agree it takes great courage and effort (I’ll concede that a lot of people don’t do this, Christian and other). You are wrong that no one wants to engage in this internal reflection. I understand when you say it is easier to pretend when others pretend with you. I get that I really do, but it cuts both ways. As for a truly religious person needing no holy book and their whole life being their holy book, well that just means there is a lot of bad literature out there (sorry, I have to make some jokes in otherwise serious discussion).

Lastly, [quote] Ryuu said: If you think that there is ever a time where one MUST be suffering, then this isn’t a matter of me being too young, but of you being too old and accumulating a foolish philosophy to accompany it. [/quote] This was in response to me saying you are very young after you said [quote] Ryuu: It’s all just for fun. [/quote]
There may be some things about which I am foolish, but I guarantee you that if you live by

[quote] It’s all just for fun[/quote] you will end up empty and unfulfilled. There are times when one should (not must because no one is forced to do anything) cast aside their own comfort yes. For instance being a parent you will have to sacrifice, being a friend, I think you get the idea. Living by “It’s all just for fun” would make you the most self absorbed person on the planet (unless of course you temper this with realizing that it isn’t fun when your fun hurts others etc…).

Now, it’s late and it’s bed time…[/quote]

God is omnipotent and all power, yes? Therefore EVERYTHING that is allowed to happen is God’s will. If it is not his will, he wouldn’t allow it to happen. Sure you can say “but we have free will and can choose to do evil in spite of god’s will”, fine, but you’ve opened up yet another contradiction. If God already knows every action we will ever make then how do we have free will? All our actions are already predestined by God’s knowledge. If they aren’t, then God is not omnipotent, if they are, then we have no free will and everything is God’s will.
So, how do you reconcile free will with God’s supposed omnipotent?

Christianity is about individuality and not conformity? Then I suppose the ten commandments really should have been called the “ten suggestions”. =/

Selfishness is not a bad thing. It can be a very beautiful thing if you understand it. Selfishness is simply considering your happiness first, greed is when you wand others to consider you first and there is nothing more greedy than saying to someone “you shouldn’t be so selfish!” because you are essentially saying they should put YOUR wants before their own. You never have to put yourself second and anyone whom says you do is merely expressing their greed. This is an important difference. You must first love yourself before you can love others, this is selfish, but it is also unnecessary. A greedy persons expects to be loved without having to give any. When you consider yourself first, nothing has to be a suffering. Pain will come, sure, pain come with change and is inevitable, but suffering only happens when you resist change. Pain is cause by change, suffering is cause by you.
If you are ever suffering in your life, it’s because you are swimming against its tide.

RyuuKyuzo · January 21, 2011, 9:11pm