Religulous

[Gryeyes]

[quote=Pinchandroll;1101973]

The original Christian Church never supported them because they were written by apostles or by prophets and were never considered to be inspired by God.

Oh that makes perfect sense. The books that they didn't accept were never inspired by god. And the ones they liked naturally are inspired by god. Thats some good ole religious logic there.

And even if i were to accept this strange logic you would still be incorrect. The book of Enoch is mentioned in the new testament as a prophetic book. Was widely known and accepted by the early church leaders. And was slowly pushed aside. So to argue that canonized biblical material has anything to do with "history" and or "god" is pretty stupid. Books were arbitrarily accepted or rejected based on what they said. Not their legitimacy as documents.

So, no 'editing' was done in terms of these books because they were never considered part of the Bible in the first place.

This is about "editing" in the context of when the bible is being composed and material being ignored as the "message" was being crafted. This wasn't until the 1500's during the Council of Trent. By this time period most "differing" Christian belief systems had been expunged and demonized for centuries. Their writings considered heresy their members persecuted. We are talking about the editing of a religion not just a simple book. The creation of "the bible" is just the last step of the process.

The editing occurs over a period of centuries it just culminated with the council of Trent. Entire branches of Christianity were purged. Dont see to many gnostic Christians around do ya?

The religion as a whole was constant: no individual can "arbitrarily decide to 'edit' the word of God" like you say.

Of course not what they rejected was never the word of god to begin with! What a convenient line of reasoning.

[Pinchandroll]

Oh that makes perfect sense. The books that they didn't accept were never inspired by god. And the ones they liked naturally are inspired by god. Thats some good ole religious logic there.

I'm not arguing whether or not the logic makes sense. I am simply saying the books I listed were never supported. Your opinion about the correctness of their methods is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the books were sanctioned by the Church.

And even if i were to accept this strange logic you would still be incorrect. The book of Enoch is mentioned in the new testament as a prophetic book. Was widely known and accepted by the early church leaders. And was slowly pushed aside. So to argue that canonized biblical material has anything to do with "history" and or "god" is pretty stupid. Books were arbitrarily accepted or rejected based on what they said. Not their legitimacy as documents.

First, the book of Enoch was never 'widely' accepted by the early church leaders. In fact, it is one of the pseudepigraphal books I mentioned in my previous posts. Certain advocates, namely Tertullian (who ended up becoming a heretic by the way, but for different reasons...), thought it should be included in scripture. This was never, ever confirmed by the Christian church, and today the Book of Enoch exists only in obscure sects that do not follow accepted canon.

Second, some argue that the exclusion of the Book of Enoch was a Jewish conspiracy to get rid of prophetic books that could be linked to Jesus. This argument is flawed because
a) there are numerous other books with parallel ideas, and the BoN was even quoted in Jude as you mentioned above, so why weren't these books brought into question as well?
b) If the refusal to endorse the BoN was a Jewish movement, then why wasn't it reinstated during later councils when the Jewish and Christian churches had drifted far apart and become distinct?

Third, the reasons for excluding the BoN from the Bible were not because it was somehow un-Christian or because it would tarnish the image of the Church - it was simply because the Church leaders reached the consensus that it was not inspired directly by God, and thus could not be counted as canon. That doesn't mean the Book of Enoch is full of secrets that would undermine the Church's authority, it just means the leaders carefully considered its merits and concluded that there was not enough evidence to count it as an inspired work.

There was nothing arbitrary about how the Book of Enoch, or other non-canonical books, were treated. I don't understand how you think the existence of these books is evidence of the Church's corruption, or of its unreliability. If anything, it is a testament to the constancy of the doctrine that there have been so few changes made to scripture, and those changes have not affected the Christian beliefs at all. So, what is your point in bringing up a book I have already mentioned multiple times? It isn't a valid reason to mistrust the church and it certainly isn't evidence against the validity of the Scripture because it went through the same process as every other considered book before it was rejected.

This is about "editing" in the context of when the bible is being composed and material being ignored as the "message" was being crafted. This wasn't until the 1500's during the Council of Trent. By this time period most "differing" Christian belief systems had been expunged and demonized for centuries. Their writings considered heresy their members persecuted. We are talking about the editing of a religion not just a simple book. The creation of "the bible" is just the last step of the process.

The editing occurs over a period of centuries it just culminated with the council of Trent. Entire branches of Christianity were purged. Dont see to many gnostic Christians around do ya?

Your history is mixed up. If you examine the history of the Christian canon, you'll notice the Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Bibles contain the same books, except for the aforementioned apocryphal books, which are unique to Catholicism. In fact, the Orthodox and Catholic churches parted ways 500 years [b]before[/before] the Council of Trent yet they maintain the same beliefs and mostly the same practices as Protestants and Catholics? How is this possible if each Church has its own agenda and was constantly "editing" their religion on their own for hundreds of years prior? The Council of Trent was a response to the Protestant reformation, that's it. End result? Protestants split, now we have 3 major churches yet we still have 3 identical Bibles. Fast forward 500 MORE years and the Bible STILL hasn't changed and the core beliefs are still identical. So the Bible hasn't changed for nearly 2000 years, the beliefs haven't changed for nearly 2000 years, and the practices have only minor differences despite two major schisms. This either means all 3 denominations have done their own thing and come to the same conclusions and we are looking at the biggest coincidence in history, or all 3 denominations have kept most things the same because their core beliefs haven't changed. The answer is pretty obvious - the religion is still largely intact and unchanged. Ask a Catholic priest what they believe, then ask an Orthodox priest, then ask a Protestant pastor. I think you would be surprised at how much they have in common, despite the fact that they have been distinct from each other for hundreds of years (or a thousand, in the case of Orthodoxy). You can trace back the vast majority of these beliefs the the original Christian Church.

Of course not what they rejected was never the word of god to begin with! What a convenient line of reasoning.

In terms of this discussion, yes, it's logical. If a bill gets passed in our government, and we end up voting it down, then it was never a law. It might be a major point of contention still, and it might have a lot of support, but the fact is it never became a law. If it gets enough support, it will become a law. So I might support the gay marriage movement, and I might vote YES on it, but if it doesn't get passed, I can't really argue with the line of reasoning. If the law eventually comes to pass, then I'd probably be happy because my beliefs are now backed by the law, hooray! Similar case when we're talking about scripture. The Church debated these books, and they considered them, but ultimately never decided to accept them as canon. Some people disagreed, but the fact remains that the Church came to a consensus and decided to exclude those books. You can disagree with their explanations, or disagree with their beliefs, but you can't really argue with their reasoning. It's the way most effective governments function.

[Zeste]

God's will and plan is beyond our comprehension.

God is all knowing and all powerful. ALL. He saw the entire span of existence in an instant.

He created evil, and he seems to choose not to stop it. And yet, he is capable and willing.

The reasoning and actions of God are not understandable by Man. All the logical fallacies and paradoxes that seem to not make sense only serve to reinforce the existence of God. God is not required to conform to our understandings of logic, paradoxes, physics, or the universe itself.

Which is why all the lack of evidence of God, all the paradoxes, all the logical fallacies only serve to strengthen my faith and love of God. He is so great that His Will and His Plan MUST appear to be complete fantasy, paradoxical, and totally make no sense.

His plan is far to great for any of us to comprehend, let alone dissect with our puny, puny intellect compared to his. Of course he can create a rock he cannot lift, but he can also lift it. We cannot understand god.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

how'd I do? How is my Fundie impersonation?

[Gryeyes]

[quote][quote=Pinchandroll;1102871]I'm not arguing whether or not the logic makes sense./QUOTE]


Supported by fucking whom? They were read and recognized by Christians. This entire topic is about the church editing comparable material as valid/invalid. That is the entire fucking premise of the nicean councils the officiating of theological disputes. To say that the book of enoch was not widely known and regarded as a prophetic text is either stupidity or ignorance. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and blame the latter.

What matters is whether or not the books were sanctioned by the Church.

Wrong during this time period the "church" was just forming there was dozens of offshoots. But once again the topic isnt the "church" its Christians and the material that is the foundation of Christianity. Official cannonization didnt occur untill the 1500's. You dont seem to understand the concept of "editing" as it relates to the church and the bible.

First, the book of Enoch was never 'widely' accepted by the early church leaders.

Utter bullshit will elaborate further.

In fact, it is one of the pseudepigraphal books I mentioned in my previous posts.

I see the concept of earlier acceptance to later be banned seems beyond your ability to comprehend.

Certain advocates, namely Tertullian (who ended up becoming a heretic by the way, but for different reasons...), thought it should be included in scripture.

Wait wait namely Terutullian? What about the Clement of Alexandria,Origen and fucking St. Augustine.

This was never, ever confirmed by the Christian church,

Confirmed? what in the ever loving fuck are you talking about. It was considered the work of a patriarch The book of enoch is fucking quoted in the new testament. It heavily influenced later works and was accepted by some of the most influential Christian leaders of that time period. It was recognized for hundreds of years till its culling somewhere around 400's. It was included on lists of "Canonical scriptures" that the church produced. Its quoted various times in the bible.How much more confirmed can something get?

Im not sure what mythical act of "confirmation" you are alluding to.

and today the Book of Enoch exists only in obscure sects that do not follow accepted canon.

Ya thats what happens when something is deemed heretical and banned. Amazing huh?

Second, some argue that the exclusion of the Book of Enoch was a Jewish conspiracy to get rid of prophetic books that could be linked to Jesus. This argument is flawed because

This arguement is flawed because its off topic and has no bearing on the fucking subject. Please stop trying to flex your wikipedia base of understanding it makes you look like an idiot.

a) there are numerous other books with parallel ideas, and the BoN was even quoted in Jude as you mentioned above, so why weren't these books brought into question as well?

It was just for that very fucking reason.

There was nothing arbitrary about how the Book of Enoch, or other non-canonical books, were treated.

Do you not understand what the word "arbitrary" means? The book of enoch was accepted and heavily influenced Christianity for hundreds of years. It was later deemed heretical because the message it contained conflicted with that of the CHURCH. Not with god or Christianity but with the CHURCH.

There was nothing arbitrary about how the Book of Enoch, or other non-canonical books, were treated. I don't understand how you think the existence of these books is evidence of the Church's corruption

Who said anything about corruption? Can you read? Or do you just respond with random shit you have googled. 90% of your response has absolutely no bearing on this conversation in any fucking remote way.

THE BOOK WAS ACCEPTED BY SOME OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL CHRISTIAN LEADERS OF THE TIME PERIOD. ITS QUOTED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH IS CONSIDERED CANNON. AND WAS LATER DEEMED HERETICAL. WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?


I wont even respond to the rest of your irrelevant blathering. You obviously dont understand the history you are speaking about.

The Book of Henoch (Ethiopic) - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online


It influenced not only later Jewish apocrypha, but has left its imprint on the New Testament and the works of the early Fathers. The canonical Epistle of St. Jude, in verses 14, 15, explicitly quotes from the Book of Henoch ; the citation is found in the Ethiopic version in verses 9 and 4 of the first chapter. There are probable traces of the Henoch literature in other portions of the New Testament .

Passing to the patristic writers, the Book of Henoch enjoyed a high esteem among them, mainly owing to the quotation in Jude. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas twice cites Henoch as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and even St. Augustine suppose the work to be a genuine one of the patriarch. But in the fourth century the Henoch writings lost credit and ceased to be quoted. After an allusion by an author of the beginning of the ninth century, they disappear from view.

How fucking wrong can one person be?

[Surlok TP]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

This conversation really has nothing to do with the behavior of members of the Catholic church. I understand that you view the entire Church as an entity that is only concerned with money and power. I prefer to see it as a Christian church filled with imperfect people. It's unfortunate, but it is reality that in an organization that big, you are going to have bad apples. However, I believe the Catholic church has honest, righteous intentions. I do wish you would respond to the points I'm trying to make instead of taking pot shots at the Church and calling all religious people crazy based on the actions of a few people.

I am not calling them crazy based on the actions of a few,I am calling them crazy because they believe in something that I think is ludicrous to believe exists. I point out the few because it's a hypocritical organization. Much like the books that were tossed out because they were written simply by mere men which is ridiculous since as far as I am concerned that's no different than the Bible. They pick and choose what parts they want to believe and anything and everything that might prove them wrong or interfere with whatever law or social order they are currently involved in. Like how they are currently trying to spin the Bible in anyway they can to make it seem like it isn't against gay people because that seriously fucks with thier hopes of getting more followers.


Anytime Science proves religion wrong, Religion bad mouths science,anytime Science supports religion it's the motherfucking shit. Christians outside of Christians Science followers will happily take medicine and rely on Science to cure them of their ailments while at the same time belittling the studies anytime they date something to not fall in line with religious beliefs.


This is why your historical fact holds no weight for me since your basing that fact off of what scientists have discovered,unearthed and dated, or conversely simply accept that it occurred because someone wrote it down somewhere and that someone also followed what you followed and they couldn't possibly be lying, since they are all good, (see face fucking priests for argument). You'll happily accept their theories on when something existed if it confirms your own belief system, thats as hypocritical as it comes. Science will take a theory and attempt to prove it,often in doing so they prove the theory wrong but the basis of science does not revolve around proving anything wrong, it revolves around proving something right. Religion on the other hand would rather disapprove everything else, there by giving a person no possible solution but to believe them. They don't bother trying to prove their own theories ; they work off the lack of other options scenario.


when Religion stops trying to force themselves on people by simply telling everyone they are wrong, and they stop depending on studies outside their belief system like science to support their claims , then they might have something to argue. That would require the type of faith very few Religious people possess.

[Schatze]

Just to clarify; God is bound by logic. If you have any familiarity with Christian apologetics at all, you'll in fact know that this has been a central tenet of theology for over a millennium. God cannot make 1+2 != 3. 1+2 = 3 period. For you, for God. Asking if God can make 1+2 != 3 is like asking if God can make a stone so heavy that God himself could not lift it.

The idea that good and evil are opposite substances, or that good is a lack of evil or that evil is a lack of good, has been discredited for a LONG time, and in fact does not make sense given Christian theology.

If you're going to argue apologetics, at least know something about them. Even a 100 level philosophy class (or theology) will hit on these two.

[Zaniel]

Originally Posted by Surlok TP

Science will take a theory and attempt to prove it,often in doing so they prove the theory wrong but the basis of science does not revolve around proving anything wrong, it revolves around proving something right. Religion on the other hand would rather disapprove everything else, there by giving a person no possible solution but to believe them. They don't bother trying to prove their own theories ; they work off the lack of other options scenario.

Sorry to but in but this shows a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of most scientific experimentation and investigation. Science most definitely tries to prove things wrong. When you have a theory you try to see if it can predict certain results but if you succeed all this often means is your theory has a +1 against it for being "more likely to be the right one than the other theory". A large portion of science's efforts are spent trying to test the robustness of a theory by tearing it down. If a theory can resist attacks to disprove it on all fronts it gains further credence but the first time it fails it becomes obvious that your theory is wrong/incomplete/misguided/whatever. Voila, new theory, science advances.

So yes, scientific progress is most definitely heavily based on tearing down sacred cows.

[Gryeyes]

All theories are inherently incomplete. Its part of the whole "theory" thing. No theory is sacred or held to be reflective of the "truth" so id have to say the scientific process of refining theories as our knowledge changes is just a tad bit different than what you are portraying.

[Schatze]

Rofl, I can't believe I missed that. The logic used in stuff like hypothesis testing relies upon falsification. You don't try to prove something right, you try to see if, given the data, what is the likelihood that your hypothesis is wrong?

That's the whole point of those little asterisks and crosses you see after little bits of data, p. < .05, .001*, .000**. It's not "This is right 999 times out of 1000", it's "a result this extreme would only be arrived at 1 out of 1000 times".

Also we get the coveted "hypothesis = theory" mistake. Sweet.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Schatze

Just to clarify; God is bound by logic. If you have any familiarity with Christian apologetics at all, you'll in fact know that this has been a central tenet of theology for over a millennium. God cannot make 1+2 != 3. 1+2 = 3 period. For you, for God. Asking if God can make 1+2 != 3 is like asking if God can make a stone so heavy that God himself could not lift it.

I thought the transcendental argument (well not the transcendental argument argument specifically, but natural discourse that follows from it) essentially says that logic must be applied to God not because God is bound by it but because that is how meaningful knowledge arises.

I'm really not up to snuff on apologetics though. Got a link?

[Zaniel]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

All theories are inherently incomplete. Its part of the whole "theory" thing. No theory is sacred or held to be reflective of the "truth" so id have to say the scientific process of refining theories as our knowledge changes is just a tad bit different than what you are portraying.

Sorry, not being critical but given the lack of quotes I am a little unsure of which part of whose post you are replying to. Assuming it is my post above, how so different?

[Schatze]

It depends. The meaning of 1+2 is always the same regardless of how you present it. The only way you can change that 1+2 = 3 is to change what 1 and 2 represent. By changing what 1+2 represent, it no longer is 1+2. The only way to change that 1+2=3 is to change the formulation or the conclusions, but that does not render the argument itself incorrect.

I think you're specifically thinking of Descartes' evil demon. However, the inherent truth of 1+2=3 survives the evil demon hypothesis because if someone's perception was constantly being flipped around of what 1+2 represented, it wouldn't matter. Regardless of where the evil demon decided to interfere, it could only cause the statement to be in error. So the evil demon changes the meanings of 1+4=3 while I am writing them, I can look at that, go wait, I made an error, and 1+2=3. 1+4=5. My bad. But if he messes with me again, and 1+99=3.. wait, that = 100. 1+2= 3. The formulation of the argument can be changed, the conclusion can be changed, but 1+2 = 3 regardless.

I'm not a philosophy nut so if someone can address it better, feel free. Haven't taken philosophy in years.

edit: the apologetic version wouldn't even need to address the evil demon version, as God consistently going around and changing the meaning of things to fool people like the evil demon would be contradictory to the fundamental assumption that God is good.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by Zaniel

Sorry, not being critical but given the lack of quotes I am a little unsure of which part of whose post you are replying to. Assuming it is my post above, how so different?

A theory isnt sacred and does not imply certainty nor truth.

[Tea on tuesday]

That's not what I was getting at.

For 1 +2 = 3 then a couple different things have to happen. First you must take the laws of logic as true, and then define what the individual characters represent.

Once you have done those things then 1 + 2 = 3 is necessarily ture, which is what you were getting at.

I believe the apologetic argument from this goes that we must accept that this holds for God in order to reach meaningful understanding for no meaningful understanding can arise without logic, but this does not dictate that God is likewise bound by those rules.

Because once you throw out logic then 1 + 2 = 5 is valid whether through identity or noncontradiction. In other words 1 + 2 = 3 is necessarily true only so long as logic is upheld.

So, I think the apologetic argument is that in order to understand God logic must be applied to him, but that doesn't necessitate that God is bound by it.

[Schatze]

Yeah, I'm not someone who has a deep breadth of philosophical understanding.* I also think I phrased that poorly, especially "bound". Or I have to do some backpedaling, and admit I was wrong to use the word. (See? It's not that hard, individuals who post to message board everywhere)

I did try to explain sort of the scholastic apologetic approach in that "God is good." is the fundamental assumption, and that any line of thinking that disagrees with it is erroneous.

I can see the above is linked with recognizing the limitations of human reasoning on God in theology etc., but I prefer how it was phrased to me in my philosophy courses because, honestly, I see that as the more honest presentation of scholastic thought. But it also lines up with my biases, so take it as you will. Again, I defer to anyone with more knowledge on the topic.

*I still have some, but it's nothing compared to someone who spends a lot of time/course time delving into it.