H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Religion is a matter of faith Josie … you won’t find anything like corroborating evidence I can assure you.
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
I was refering to the early church fathers some of whom knew the apostles, they wrote letters and such, and therefore their witness would corroborate the Bible.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
like Polycarp who is said to have been a disciple of John, or Ignatius (or even Clement who some say is mentioned by Paul in Philippians). As far as anyone knows none of those men witnessed any miracles. By the time we get down to people who we can reasonably ascertain were in fact martyred in defense, or in support of the Christian religion, none of them can be reasonably said to have witnessed any miracles. So like I said before, there is no empirical evidence.
All we have is second hand reports. In other words Polycarp believed John (if in fact he was a disciple of John, we’re really not entirely sure). I don’t want to get into the scholastics of this issue (I mean we can talk about the reliability and authorship of the manuscripts we have … not exactly very reliable to say the least).
I will say we do have quite a bit of documentation regarding Christianity as compared to some other historical events we readily accept as fact. However, even that’s a misleading fact. We have to look to the root of the story before we can ascertain the reliability of the volumes of writings we have that were made in support of it. Plenty of people wrote about pagan mythology as well … doesn’t make it true right? So the bottom line is there is no reliable evidence supporting religion. Let me put it this way, if I were adjudicating a case on behalf of atheists, in support of the proposition that the bible is false, I think I would readily win (if it were possible to find an unbiased jury that is).
Religion is a matter of faith in the unseen and unproven. This is my point. It’s not that I’m unwilling to believe ancient men, it’s that I’m unwilling to believe the story as presented. When I examine religion from an objective standpoint there is one common factor. The god of all world religions has never shown himself in an objectively verifiable way to modern man. He is claimed to have shown himself in a verifiable way to the ancients, yet there’s always a profound reason why he doesn’t show himself today. My conclusion, case closed!
J
josie_L
Guest
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
as far as using those types of witnesses in court, no that would be called inadmissible hearsay (did I tell you one of my degrees is a law degree and I’m lawyer?). A friend who told a friend who perhaps then told another friend (assuming they were even friends to begin with; and it wasn’t simply a teacher student type of relationship) is about as reliable as me saying there were flying pink elephants in new york last night …
Think about it … you would say this about any other issue, just not you’re faith. Well, I started thinking this about my faith, and logic drove through the cloud of mythology and superstition to the undeniable truth.
At any rate … NO, none of this could be admitted into evidence (at least not in an Anglo-American courtroom using something like our Federal Rules of Evidence [FRE], which most states in the US roughly adhere to).
As far as using reason, Paul would appeal to reason, but he did so fallaciously and under a outdated standard. Reason and faith have nothing in common, as Martin Luther so accurately pointed out. Faith is unreasonable and illogical … so science and reason will never help you win your point (and in fact I’m really not sure what can?) … I sometimes can’t believe modern man is still religious. I guess fear of death and nothingness & not being able to explain the mysteries of the cosmos (or some profound **** like that).
Think about it … you would say this about any other issue, just not you’re faith. Well, I started thinking this about my faith, and logic drove through the cloud of mythology and superstition to the undeniable truth.
At any rate … NO, none of this could be admitted into evidence (at least not in an Anglo-American courtroom using something like our Federal Rules of Evidence [FRE], which most states in the US roughly adhere to).
As far as using reason, Paul would appeal to reason, but he did so fallaciously and under a outdated standard. Reason and faith have nothing in common, as Martin Luther so accurately pointed out. Faith is unreasonable and illogical … so science and reason will never help you win your point (and in fact I’m really not sure what can?) … I sometimes can’t believe modern man is still religious. I guess fear of death and nothingness & not being able to explain the mysteries of the cosmos (or some profound **** like that).
P
prodigalson12
Guest
sorry, I have to giggle here, you are a Lawyer, this means you are supposed to represent knowledge of the law, yet in most cases, it’s your paralegal that’s knowledge is being drawn upon in regards to the application of it, yet you take the bulk of the return for it, simply because you hold the title of Lawyer.
Ok, will take your stance into context with what I deal with in most lawyers, some of which they become good friends, others, mortal enemies entirely because I learn their fields since I have to know them with the line of work I do. I now put into context, you are not doing well with your practice, otherwise you would have no time to waste here. I suppose you could say the same to me with my time,. yet with Jesus as being my business partner, I will always be drawn towards discussion with his children which leads me to the next conclusion. You clearly try to put on the illusion of not wanting to be part of his fold, yet you want to be part of this fold here online, and this fold is largely, overwhelmingly Christian, Catholic to boot, and this reveals much to me.
You want to be part of Christs flock, just going about it in a different way because you don’t want to admit it in regards to stating it. That’s ok though, Paul “you know one of the apostles”, used to murder us and God turned him into one of the most influential of all Christians.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
what are you a paralegal? Not to minimize the contribution of paralegals, but they don’t have a law degree (obviously you have no clue how hard it is to finish law school). Sure, a “good” paralegal will know how to file a brief, how to deal with the court, and so on; but they don’t know how to write a brief, argue in court, the rules of evidence, and so on.
If you’re going to opine in this area then identify yourself. Are you a paralegal or not? If not then what gives you any inclination of what goes on in a law office? Maybe you were in a car accident one day and ran into an ambulance chaser … hardly the prototype for a quality lawyer.
even better one for yah, I work for the government & I’m traveling right not (in a hotel room with not much to do after business hours). Whatever this reveals to you is surely fallacious (and obviously you’re already predisposed to illusion … so I guess it’s of no surprise).
Man you guys are delusional … you seem more delusional than most. Anyways … whatever
P
prodigalson12
Guest
ok, so you reveal more here, the reason you face so much flack, you are not giving your paralegals their due credit, standing up in court, Christ knows all about it, you have no idea, he really does… silent to the end of his trial… case in point…
J
josie_L
Guest
as far as using those types of witnesses in court, no that would be called inadmissible hearsay (did I tell you one of my degrees is a law degree and I’m lawyer?). A friend who told a friend who perhaps then told another friend (assuming they were even friends to begin with; and it wasn’t simply a teacher student type of relationship) is about as reliable as me saying there were flying pink elephants in new york last night …
I didn’t say “a friend who told a friend who perhaps then told another friend” you did, I said " a friend who told a friend" full stop. That means that someone like Ignatius of Anthioch who knew John and the other disciples/apostles, had knowledge of the events from the people who witnessed the resurrection. How is this not permissible in the court of law? Aahhh, so your in New York (maybe), I’ll be going there soon for my cousin’s wedding.
Think about it … you would say this about any other issue, just not you’re faith. Well, I started thinking this about my faith, and logic drove through the cloud of mythology and superstition to the undeniable truth.
I have thought about it, and I’m sorry you think of it this way.
At any rate … NO, none of this could be admitted into evidence (at least not in an Anglo-American courtroom using something like our Federal Rules of Evidence [FRE], which most states in the US roughly adhere to).
Is this an attempt to fool me? I mean you know how lawyers are, no scruples and such.
As far as using reason, Paul would appeal to reason, but he did so fallaciously and under a outdated standard. Reason and faith have nothing in common, as Martin Luther so accurately pointed out. Faith is unreasonable and illogical … so science and reason will never help you win your point (and in fact I’m really not sure what can?) … I sometimes can’t believe modern man is still religious. I guess fear of death and nothingness & not being able to explain the mysteries of the cosmos (or some profound **** like that).
Who cares what Martin Luther said, it’s a fact humble, that I’m not Lutheran, and I have no love whatsoever for him as a result of what he did to the CC. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, in fact, many famous scientists were or are religious. And again, you seem to think that Paul or the first century Christians were idiots, I wish Paul were alive so he could run circles around you with his outdated logic/reason. Again, this all boils down to the question, did they see the risen Christ?, and if they did, how does this have anything to do with logic per se. I’m sure eyes worked just as well then as they do now.
I need to get ready for Church, write to you later. God bless. And by the way, I don’t think I’m afraid of death.
P.S. You can do a point by point argument, with this post, just click on quote you’ll see.
J
josie_L
Guest
Oh it didn’t work, I’m sorry!!! I’ll format my responses differently. Please no “I told you so” I hate that.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
No, even if I learned information from another person (who purportedly witnessed an event or series of events), I could NOT testify to the truth of the matter asserted in a court of law. Only the actual witness could testify (this is the classic hearsay rule).
So John telling Ignatius or Polycarp that he witnessed the resurrection is hearsay. The fact is when you get down to it … this stuff is so remote in time – all we have is copies of copies of other copies (I’m talking of the manuscripts of scriptural documents, early church father letters, and so on). So you could get virtually no evidence admitted into a court of law; but of course whether or not we can prove the veracity of any of the claims of any world religion in a court of law cannot be the standard you use to judge religion, if you’re an adherent to that religion (if it were guys like me would make quick work of religion
).
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Christ knows about what? That I treat my paralegals poorly … didn’t I say in my last post I work for the government (and I don’t have any paralegals right now). But you raise an interesting point. Nietzsche, when describing Christianity, pointed to its appeal to the poor and underprivileged. Here you say if a lawyer were to treat his or her paralegal poorly (or not give them the credit due to them) Jesus knows about it and that lawyer will (I assume) pay for his sins come judgment time.
This is how your religion spread like wildfire. Most people in the Roman world during the first century could be described as underprivileged and downtrodden. Now they had an invisible god who would take up their cause, and make those wicked rich people pay for their injustices. Well, it’s all fiction, and none of it is true. There is no invisible god who will reap justice for the downtrodden, they need to reap justice for themselves. See, Christianity really is a slave religion. I’m sorry to put it that way, but this is how Nietzsche frames it … and he’s right. It’s designed to keep the poor and downtrodden mute. It preaches obedience to your earthly master, rather than self-determination.
The men who have fought for and achieved progress throughout western history could have never done so if they lived their lives according to your scriptures.
J
josie_L
Guest
Well, History doesn’t work that way, so well, all this arguing is for nothing.No, even if I learned information from another person (who purportedly witnessed an event or series of events), I could NOT testify to the truth of the matter asserted in a court of law. Only the actual witness could testify (this is the classic hearsay rule).
So John telling Ignatius or Polycarp that he witnessed the resurrection is hearsay. The fact is when you get down to it … this stuff is so remote in time – all we have is copies of copies of other copies (I’m talking of the manuscripts of scriptural documents, early church father letters, and so on). So you could get virtually no evidence admitted into a court of law; but of course whether or not we can prove the veracity of any of the claims of any world religion in a court of law cannot be the standard you use to judge religion, if you’re an adherent to that religion (if it were guys like me would make quick work of religion
J
JackWms
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
Firstly, Nietzsche went insane towards the end of his life (I believe it was due to Syphillis), he thought he was Jesus, and a few other people besides.
Secondly, how is Christianity a slave religion, I mean you can’t just throw things like this without giving a plausible explanation?
Thirdly, Christianity was in essence a religion that helped the poor and the needy, the fulfillment of Christianity is love. Love is at the root of Christianity. Jesus is love. Don’t you miss him?
I understand that you’re an atheist, but what you’ve said is completely untrue. You should know this you were once Christian. I don’t understand your hostility towards religion, you seem somewhat angered and embittered? Is this due to your time spent in Iraq?
P.S. And yes, the men who fought for and achieved progress throughout western history could have not lived their lives according to scripture because they created a world full of violence. To what purpose did we need WMDs, chemical gases, and other violent apparatuses?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
it was not due to an STD, it was brain cancer; and no Nietzsche never though he was Jesus (to the contrary).
first I was more citing Nietzsche as opposed to taking up his banner (though the concept does make some sense for a variety of reasons). You will say god protects you from injustice. Paul, talked about loyalty to masters (instructing slaves to remain obedient). He tells slaves that god will avenge any injustices they suffer, while they should passively obey their masters and even pray for them (in the hope that they too might be saved).
In fact the only way slavery has ever been eradicated was through rebellion and fighting oppressive forces. No god has ever reached down and ended slavery. You might say god works through men, but how is this any different than simply saying we did it ourselves? After all there’s no proof that divine providence was behind Lincoln and the civil war. If there is a god who avenges his elect and works toward justice for mankind, and he possesses the power to move men to do his bidding, then why allow any injustice at all?
None of it makes any sense whatsoever.
there’s nothing to miss … but if I had to choose a fairy tale that I was fond of I guess it would be Santa Clause? At least he came bearing gifts … LOL!
I’m not angry … that’s the point. You guys think that any objection to religion must be premised on a negative emotion, but you’re whole line of thinking is based on a fallacious premise.
I’m not talking about wicked men, I’m talking about the likes of Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Hobbes, Kant, Voltaire, Descartes, Spinoza, Einstein, etc. These men, all either atheists or men who held awkward religious views, were largely responsible for the world we live in today.
At any rate … this conversation is sort of winding down I think. You’re apparently hoping I will suddenly rediscover Jesus & I’m just killing time because I’m bored (though I have no delusion that I’ll pull anyone away from their faith).
I just hoped that there could be some harmony between faith and reason … but I see it’s pretty hopeless?
P
prodigalson12
Guest
Einstein was Jewish not athiest.
Faith and reason is harmony, you just have never experienced what many of us have, it makes total sense, not because if appeases weak minds, it’s because we have an understanding of things you cannot at present. Some day though, God willing you may.
J
josie_L
Guest
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Donald De Marco is a Catholic professor at a seminary. Hmmm, he doesn’t like Nietzsche, go figure? If you only get your information from religious zealots then expect bad information (at least a substantial portion of the time).
With regard to your question, sadly mankind it seems will always need a religion (until we ourselves can provide an alternative). However, it is a force that only serves to make us less informed and less rational. At the same time it does seem to temper some people (with regard to their personal behavior). So it’s a mixed bag. To answer your question I guess I wish religion would evolve (perhaps like American Episcopalians have; along with their liberal protestant counterparts like PCUSA).
J
josie_L
Guest
SLAVERY AND THE FIRST CHRISTIANS
But did the early Church endorse slavery? Certainly, the early Christians more or less tolerated the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and the fact that after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, slavery was not immediately outlawed. Even so, this doesn’t mean Christianity was compatible with Roman slavery or that the early Church did not contribute to its demise. In that regard, there are a number of important points to be kept in mind.
First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery as such, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order which he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor 7:29-31).
Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.
Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).
Fourth, the Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself”) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.
Fifth, while the Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it. But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.
Sixth, some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation’s common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.
Seventh, even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, the slaves and freemen had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with slavery.
Eighth, the Church ameliorated the harsher.aspects of slavery in the Empire, even trying to protect slaves by law, until slavery all but disappeared in the West. It was, of course, to re-emerge during the Renaissance, as Europeans encountered Muslim slave traders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
Also,
I. THE CHURCH AND ROMAN SLAVERY.—The first missionaries of the Gospel, men of Jewish origin, came from a country where slavery existed. But it existed in Judea under a form very different from the Roman form. The Mosaic Law was merciful to the slave (Ex., xxi; Lev., xxv; Dent., xv, xvi, xxi) and carefully secured his fair wage to the laborer (Dent.,) cxiv, 15). In Jewish society the slave was not an object of contempt, because labor was not despised as it was elsewhere. No man thought it beneath him to ply a manual trade. These ideas and habits of life the Apostles brought into the new society which so rapidly grew up as the effect of their preaching. As this society included, from the first, faithful of all conditions—rich and poor, slaves and freemen—the Apostles were obliged to utter their beliefs as to the social inequalities which so profoundly divided the Roman world. "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal., iii, 27-28; cf. I Cor., xii, 13). From this principle St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian equality either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions are not effected of a sudden. Christianity accepts society as it is, influencing it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls. What it demands in the first place from masters and from slaves is, to live as brethren—commanding with equity, without threatening, remembering that God is the master of all—obeying with fear, but without servile flattery, in simplicity of heart, as they would obey Christ (cf. Eph., vi, 9; Col., iii, 22-4; iv, 1).
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Slavery
But did the early Church endorse slavery? Certainly, the early Christians more or less tolerated the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and the fact that after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, slavery was not immediately outlawed. Even so, this doesn’t mean Christianity was compatible with Roman slavery or that the early Church did not contribute to its demise. In that regard, there are a number of important points to be kept in mind.
First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery as such, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order which he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor 7:29-31).
Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.
Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).
Fourth, the Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself”) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.
Fifth, while the Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it. But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.
Sixth, some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation’s common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.
Seventh, even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, the slaves and freemen had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with slavery.
Eighth, the Church ameliorated the harsher.aspects of slavery in the Empire, even trying to protect slaves by law, until slavery all but disappeared in the West. It was, of course, to re-emerge during the Renaissance, as Europeans encountered Muslim slave traders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
Also,
I. THE CHURCH AND ROMAN SLAVERY.—The first missionaries of the Gospel, men of Jewish origin, came from a country where slavery existed. But it existed in Judea under a form very different from the Roman form. The Mosaic Law was merciful to the slave (Ex., xxi; Lev., xxv; Dent., xv, xvi, xxi) and carefully secured his fair wage to the laborer (Dent.,) cxiv, 15). In Jewish society the slave was not an object of contempt, because labor was not despised as it was elsewhere. No man thought it beneath him to ply a manual trade. These ideas and habits of life the Apostles brought into the new society which so rapidly grew up as the effect of their preaching. As this society included, from the first, faithful of all conditions—rich and poor, slaves and freemen—the Apostles were obliged to utter their beliefs as to the social inequalities which so profoundly divided the Roman world. "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal., iii, 27-28; cf. I Cor., xii, 13). From this principle St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian equality either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions are not effected of a sudden. Christianity accepts society as it is, influencing it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls. What it demands in the first place from masters and from slaves is, to live as brethren—commanding with equity, without threatening, remembering that God is the master of all—obeying with fear, but without servile flattery, in simplicity of heart, as they would obey Christ (cf. Eph., vi, 9; Col., iii, 22-4; iv, 1).
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Slavery
- Status