• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Agnosticism

The bible was constructed by men at the Council of Nicea and has been ammended thru numerous translations
Click to expand...

Including the Old Testament? Wasn't the 'Old Testament' "constructed" at the Council of Jamina, called by the Pharisaic Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, around 70A.D. Then again, it's a universally accepted historical fact that the books discussed therein had been used by the Jews for centuries. Apparently what was discussed at Jamnia was whether the books we know as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and Esther should continue to be recognised. Although the discussions held there were informal they nonetheless helped crystallise and fix more firmly Jewish tradition in this regard. The books were accepted.

As for the 'construction' of the New Testament, the manuscripts had been around since at least 100-150AD (witness the John Rylands fragment) or even earlier if we consider the dead sea scrolls 7Q5 and 7Q4. The Council of Nicea was the last and lasting attempt to ascertain what was genuine and what wasn't, following the attempts of the likes of Marcion (140AD) to draw up their own and the use of many spurious texts for services in Eastern churches.
The rejected books were not burnt - you can still read them today. Having said that, it's surprising anything survived the Emperor Diocletian's edict to torch the lot in 303AD, 22 years prior to the Council of Nicea.

Nicea far from settled all things canonical. Remember the Roman Catholic Church accepted several apocryphal Jewish books into its version of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent whilst Luther rejected the canonicity of the Letter of James.
 
Ok, hospitaller - largely constructed. We don't know what was completely destroyed because .....
We should consider ourselves lucky to have those fragments that did escape any purging because they were hidden or forgotten or preserved by those who didn't play along.

Your observations do not invalidate my point that there were a group of men who sat down in AD 325 and decided what we should regard as the Holy Book. It wasn't Jesus or the apostles. Sure the Western and Eastern churches had differences. That ended in the Great Schism. Oh, and didn't the Coptic walk out of the proceedings? To the uninitiated this might indicate that the Council was not exactly divinely inspired.

It also does not hide the fact that most people do not read the original Greek text (of the New Testament). Fewer still the Hebraic and Aramaic OT. Remember, the most commonly quoted bible in English is still the King James version

So which of the bibles should be used to support pro-belief arguments? New English? King James? Vulgate? perhaps Siniaticus or the Torah?

Finally there in the matter that the Bible has been used to support both sides of many disputes I've even heard it used to support pantheism, reincarnation and diabolism. Quoting the bible to support your belief is - to modify a translation - building on sand
 
Many interesting points intaglio.
A great deal more than fragments escaped, I have entire gospels which are not canonical.
If the Council of Nicea were really out to produce a seamless and unassailable book why are there so many apparent contradictions in the bible? Why didn't they iron them all out?
I agree with you as regards the "Holy Book" though. Christ never set a canon. I think many Christians today, particularly evangelicals, have the Bible for their God. Subsequently, it is this 'God' which their detractors attack.
Each individual book has to be taken in its own context and on its own merits. People elevating the entire "Bible", or attempting to debunk the entire "Bible", are equally missing the point, and I am as equally riled by bible bashing anti-Christians as I am by bible bashing fundamentalists. Both abuse ancient literature for their own narrow minded, bigoted ends.

As a non-practising Roman Catholic I reckon that divine inspiration of Church Councils is exclusively a Roman Catholic belief.

Criticism of translations is essential to the proper study of biblical texts (and indeed all ancient literature). The "King James debate" within evangelical Christianity is very interesting and the "King James only" party tragically amusing!
As for Copts walking out, I am looking for info on Copts being thrown out - of Ireland that is. I've heard of a theory that the snakes banished by St. Patrick were in fact Coptic bishops with their snake headed croziers...

As for "pro-belief arguements", frankly I don't see much point to them. People are going to believe what suits their own morality and worldview regardless. Christian theology itself asserts that all than can be saved will be saved and therefore there is no point in trying to convert the unelect. Technically though, I reckon anyone arguing anything from biblical literature should use as many translations as are relevant - comparing and contrasting variant readings etc. in order to get the broadest possible view.

The first Christians had no bible. Oral traditions and faith preceded and formed the basis for the bible and I would hope no-one would rely solely on a written text to provide proof for their beliefs, or non-belief.
 
Will admit I'm now unsure about the Copts. Tried to find my original ref and couldn't. It may well be that they weren't even invited.:eek:

Or the evidence may no longer be available :D

Essentially the whole debate comes down to this interpretation matter. Example the KJV gives "and lead us not into temptation" which to modern eyes implies that god is doing the leading. This is a trifle blasphemous. The latin of the Vulgate is clearer (et ne nos induccas in tentationem) but not understood by most people.

Similarly the atheist and the believer look at the same evidence and interpret it different ways. The good agnostic (and who says I am one) says there are at least 2 interpretations. This is what worries me about my little thought experiment.

Most people want clarity and persons purporting to provide such gain great followings. Also a proof of survival after death removes one of the great inhibitors of extreme action, fear. It only needed 4 of the (?) taliban to believe - tho more of them may have done. Now imagine millions with proof of the same - :eek!!!!:
 
THe KJV had two purposes:-

1) to be the most accurate translation of the Canon available
2) to be 'readable', as in something that sounded good read aloud.

THerefore sometimes point 1 was sacrificed to point 2.

As a personal opinion, it is as good a work of literature as Shakespeare's collected works.

8¬)
 
Hear Hear! (hear, hear???? who am I kidding) and they had better sources than St Jerome.
 
At the risk of stirring up more than I want to handle...

1. It would make sense that any complicated subject would appear upon casual examination to have internal contradictions. Deeper study would resolve these to a greater or lesser degree (can't be totally resolved or we'd lose interest).

2. To study a religion (a truly complicated subject), one would need to conduct a deeper study of the foundational materials. Simply pointing out seeming contradictions and thus "proving" the absurdity of the religion is a bit self-serving. Re: the strawman comment a few posts ago.

3. Rejecting a religion's god, God, or goddess, claiming unjust treatment or illogical reasoning, is to set oneself above that god--making oneself a god. "I reject you so go ahead and send me to hell" sounds very like "Give me my cookie or I'll hold my breath" and is just as effective an argument.

4. If the hell one is referring to is the Judeo/Christian hell, I don't think it sounds like a party kind of place. Don't invite me, thanks.

Just some thoughts from the land of the Big Hats.
 
It's nice to know there's more to Texas than "King of the Hill"!
(Even tho' I like KOTH.)
 
txlibrarian said:
At the risk of stirring up more than I want to handle...
Click to expand...

Complicated subjects often appear to have non-intuitive consequences it is true but outright contradictions between two elements mean that there is no consistent or rational theme or theory behind the subject as it is currently presented.

To study the foundation materials of some religions is impossible. The foundation materials are vanished. The faith then complicates itself by using the old construct as foundation for a new orthodoxy. The conflict between the various arms of Christianity shows this. It is no longer possible to say what is nearer to the "original" vision, Or even if there was an original vision.

Rejecting or doubting a Religions God or Gods is not setting yourself above the Deity or Deities concerned. It is only allowing yourself equality with the humans who constructed the original orthodoxy that you are challenging. Your not saying "give me a cookie or I'll hold my breath" it's more like "I think it's unconstitutional, so prosecute".

If punishment follows then Hell is a place for parties in the sense of groups of people. Far more people will not have followed the true faith (whatever it was) than will have held to it. Your orthodoxy is someone elses heterodoxy.
 
Religion is not God. Religion is what people do with God. This is true both for the paradigm wherein God is a being and the one wherein God is an idea.
If God is a being, religion is how people have reacted to him, given their own peculiar culture/predisposition/worldview.
If God is an idea or archetype, religion remains the forum through which people have chanelled their efforts towards that idea or archetype.
The bottom line is that religion is more indicative of the worshipper than the worshipped. Religions come and go, but the idea of 'God' remains forever with us, forming the basis for faith as a psychological process.
Even the faith that drives the athiest - faith that there is no God - is impossible without there first being at the very least an idea or archetype of 'God' which predates and will outlive that faith.
 
If religion is what is done to a god, what if the deity doesn't like it? :confused:
But it brings us back to one of the early point in the forum, that atheism is as much a faith as any other - (including agnosticism?). So, should Atheists get the same deal as other faiths. Insist on their faith being given equal weight as more traditional belief systems in education. Get the same tax breaks and grants?
 
Religion is not what is done TO a god, but WITH a god.
And if the deity doesn't exist in the first place but is an archetype, well then its likes/dislikes - like the deity itself - exist only in the minds of its worshippers.
I agree with the points about the Atheistic faith! Why shouldn't it should be respected within a society as other faiths?
 
hospitaller said:
Religion is not what is done TO a god, but WITH a god.
Click to expand...

English can be so wonderfully imprecise. Lets deliberately misunderstand H.
surely what can be done with something is worse than what can be done to something. :devil: What can be done with a gun is worse than what can be done to a gun
 
Agreed. A writer can do nothing TO alien life-forms as he can't get his hands on them. However, the entire genre of sci-fi is what writers innumerable have done WITH alien life-forms.
It's the idea you see. A gun being a tangible object...

However, I do agree that regardless of the objective/subjective differential, that what religions have done WITH their gods could be called "worse" within the paradigm of an objective morality.

Then again, if there are no dictating deities there can be no objective morality - so nothing is worse than anything else, as each person will have their own subjective morality (do what thou wilt).
This, I reckon, more than any logic, is the driving subconscious psychological force behind atheistic faith - the resistance of an objective morality and the desire for moral indpendence.
 
But when all the clever language is removed, what happens if there IS a god and we didn't follow the directions? Just asking...
 
hospitaller said:
Then again, if there are no dictating deities there can be no objective morality
Click to expand...

An interesting suggestion. Who here believes that objective morality is impossible without divine approval? I do not.. I think it is possible to have a scientific morality... that is, we are evolved to cooperate, and cooperation is more beneficial to the species than antagonism. This is not just my "personal subjective morality" (although that is the one I value most.. I think too many people live on second-hand moralities), but can be argued for using evidence from evolution, animal behaviour and Game Theory.
 
I sometimes wish there were a supreme being who would punish the evildoers at the time of reconninig, but then again, as most faiths tell us that even after a lifetime of sin, if one repents then all sins are forgiven, I ask you what's the point in that?
 
Too many people treat the deity like a TV dinner, with religion as the carton. "Follow the directions on the reverse. Do not invert". They end up with something easy to do, thoroughly bland and not very nourishing. They enjoy it but they don't know what they're missing.

Others think the godhead is a destination. "Here are the directions. Turn right at abortion and left at slavery when you come to the freeway follow route 1. Enjoy your trip." More difficult than the microwave method but you do see more. Some are even willing to make short side excursions to look from the Viewpoints. Even these miss out on the wilder grandeur that is available.

A few ignore the instructions. They have burnt eggs, salmonella and poison mushrooms, also fresh lobster and Krug and home-made bread. They find volcanoes, earthquake and flood but see sunsets at Cape Cornwall, deer in the dawn, the sea throwing waves against the shore whilst lightening dances with the snow. Sure, there is danger in not being religious but that assumes that the Directions are sound.

My own beliefs are informed at the moment by two ideas.

The first is one of the few statements of pagan philosophy that has survived. To precis it runs, "The world is like a mead-hall full of feasters. The life of Man is like a sparrow who for a time flies in before departing. From dark into the light he comes and from the light into the greater dark again he goes. Whatever knowlege of what lies beyond that hall is welcome,"

The other is Taoist again a precis. Hear the words and when you have found the meanings behind the words - discard the words. Examine the meanings and when you have found the thoughts behind the meanings - forget the meaning. Meditate on the thoughts, and when you can discard those thoughts you have taken the first step to enlightenment.

H+ and I play with words but that is because that is how the Directions are given. Each of us is seeking knowlege of that greater dark
 
Some great home-brewed parables there, Intaglio! Have you ever thought of setting up in business as a messiah? On second thoughts, don't bother - about the only part of it that all previous candidates agreed on is that coming to a sticky end is part of the package. "Good Career move", and all that.

Not sure about the sparrow flying through the hall beng a pagan thing, though. I'm sure I heard that from some ancient Christian writer - the Venerable Bede, perhaps, or St Augustine...?

Still, all the best phrases get requoted down the years; much of Churchill's stirring stuff was based on things he'd read in history.
 
I believe its quoted in Bede about the conversion of the Northumbrians. Things were going badly until an old noble spoke up saying that the Christian should not be encouraged to discover about heaven for himself for he brought news about what lay beyond and whatever could be found out about that greater dark was welcome
 
Nature of God

In general I don't believe in an all powerful deity, but on the odd days when my mood changes I like to think this - that God created the Universe and everything in it, and that God gave me life - I would be pretty arrogant to expect anything else after those two gifts. I also think that most of what has been written in religous texts such as the Bible and the Koran is so much guff, and that talking with the supreme being is highly unlikely as you are hardly going to have anything with which to converse other than how wonderful the sunrise was today and how impressed you were with the whole gravity thing.

Question - why do all prayers rejoice in the glory of God, I didn't realise he/she was that vain and required the praise of something as insignifcant as man.
 
Divorced father loses custody of his three children 'because he's agnostic'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:08 PM on 2nd December 2010

A divorced father-of-three claims he has lost custody of his children because he's agnostic.
Craig Scarberry, of Indianapolis, Indiana, had shared equal custody of his three young children with his former wife, a practising Christian, for four years.
Then last month a judge ruled the Navy veteran's visitation time be limited to four hours each week and custody reduced to once every other weekend.

Mr Scarberry said the only possible reason he can find in the ruling for the judge's decision is his comment that 'the father did not participate in the same religious training as the mother... father was agnostic.'
The ruling also stated: 'When the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.'

'I don't see any other verifiable explanation [for the judge's decision].' Mr Scarberry said in an interview with MSNBC television host Cenk Uygur.
'There are a few other things that were listed on the order. However, we were able to refute all those things with our own evidence while we were in court.'

Mr Scarberry said his agnosticism may have been taken into account because the custody ruling was made in light of the divorced couple's inability to 'communicate effectively' about issues including their religious beliefs.
He said: 'They did address my religion with me on several different occasions during the hearings.

'However, I never posed a situation for my children or ever forced my beliefs onto the kids. Matter of fact, they continue to go to a Christian daycare.
'When I had joint legal I agreed to take them to Church functions such as the Mother's Day Choir. As well as allow them to go to church with my mother who attends on a regular basis, in addition to Church camp, those kinds of things.
'We were able to show that in no way, shape, or form do my personal beliefs and decisions reflect onto the children at all.'

Mr Scarberry believes the judge's decision is a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
He has now successfully applied for a permit to stage an equal rights protest outside the government office in Madison County, Indianapolis, on December 16

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1736BlBft

The wife's beliefs still constrains his actions. It seems very one-sided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top