PaulS

Indeed there are many Thormas and I know you are more aligned with this sort of Christianity. Agreed. Sorry, I wasn't trying to align you with Burl but rather explaining why I was arguing for what I was arguing for. Buddhism? Whilst they don't exactly spell out the afterlife, I think they allude to one that they acknowledge they cannot know anything about which follows a person's final rebirth and the attainment of Nirvana. Possibly also people who believe humans were created by aliens and maybe tribes who practised ancestor worship instead of theistic worship?. I'm yet to read his book, but I've recently learnt a little about Robert Lanza's Biocentrism which seems to explain death and continuation without God in a new way. Yes, or a new paradigm as Marcus Borg might say.

I know many Christians who would argue with you that their faith is anything but uncertain! But as we can see from Burl's reaction, precise categorisation is required, less one wish to be called a coward. There are many Christians that would simply not care about a person's agnosticism - It's just a shame there aren't more. I'd say the point Huxley was making is that there could be an afterlife without there being a God, because we simply don't know what happens after we die. Afterlife and God might not necessarily be related should one or the other or both exist. I'd say rather than science demonstrating truth, it demonstrates how we currently understand something and rules out what cannot be (as is currently known). Plenty of scientific conclusions have changed throughout history (nutrition science, medical science etc). Gravity explains what we experience but if some day there was to be an alternate scientific explanation, then the truth might change.

Yes, that is how I understand Huxley also. Indeed, uncertainty is a very powerful tool, even threatening to some.

In isolation, that sentence is correct. It was mainly Burls other words that were wrong. If he cannot consider a theistic god to be a possibility he is an atheist. - Incorrect. He may indeed think it is a possibility, but he just doesn't believe in a theistic god. It can be confusing because it is very close to agnostic. That's why strict definition and criteria, like all words, are indicators but not always good at defining every single thought or variation to the theme. Sometimes an atheist will call himself an agnostic out of social cowardice. Darwin was a good example of that. - Incorrect, Darwin's views on God were changing throughout his life and he didn't know precisely where he landed on the matter but felt that as he didn't know, agnostic was a better label for him (Darwin understood the shortcoming of hard-line categories and definitions in this area). Atheists need a pride flag to wave like the gay rainbow flag. Maybe just waving a stick with nothing on it would be appropriate.- This comment overlooks everything else in an atheists life such as logic and reason and evidence. It's a juvenile put-down. There is nothing wrong with being a proud atheist, but if one feels the need to use sophistry and weasel-words to avoid the label they must be having some sort of inner conflict. - Apart from being another juvenile put down, it fails to recognise that we all don't fit neatly into little boxes and definitions. As Rom points out, the majority of atheists he has come across do not believe there is no god; they simply don't hold a belief in god. That meets Burl's definition of atheist, so why the insult? Back to your comments, Thormas - "Agnostic atheists are a bit confusing because if one does not believe in the existence of any deity then it does not matter if such non existence is knowable or unknowable: they do not believe! I would hope a true atheist would still not believe even if there were evidence - otherwise they were just an agnostic and not firm in their atheism". This is the problem with rigorously trying to exclude one from the other, as Burl tries. They may be separate words but they overlap also. One can have a foot in both camps and not be bound by a word that was coined to try and capture some thoughts. You're probably aware that the term Agnostic was only coined as recently as 1869 (13 years before Darwin died) by Thomas Huxley. "Being a scientist, above all else, Huxley presented agnosticism as a form of demarcation. A hypothesis with no supporting objective, testable evidence is not an objective, scientific claim. As such, there would be no way to test said hypotheses, leaving the results inconclusive. His agnosticism was not compatible with forming a belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim at hand. Karl Popper would also describe himself as an agnostic. According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in this strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist". But these people would have also fallen under the definition of Atheist as they didn't believe in a theistic God - so rather than being cowards we can see they are meeting both definitions. That is the problem with trying to narrow down these groups. There is overlap. True - atheists are non-theists, but so are agnostics. Agnostics can also be atheists. These definitions guide or indicate to us what a person thinks, but they are not perfect boundaries. Just like the term Christian also means a wide variety of different thoughts pertaining to the same definition (eternal damnation or universal reconciliation, progressive or fundamental Christianity, etc).

You totally overlook that most atheist don't say "we don't believe in a theistic God" but rather that most will say they don't believe in ANY Gods, theistic or not. Whilst the root of the word does indeed come from not believing in deities, it's most likely coined from the perspective of only a theistic God being considered, so to not believe in God at that time was a-theistic. If you check out a few atheist websites you will see that pretty much none of them adhere to atheism as only being non-belief in a theistic God. These are not weasel words or sophistry but rather how the label of atheist is actually used by most people today, irrespective of its technical latin root. As for agnostics, one does not need to call themselves an atheist if he cannot consider a theistic god to be a possibility. Rather, he is an agnostic because he says that we cannot know if a theistic God exists. He can consider it a possibility, but without knowledge (or gnosis) he cannot argue for or against such a God. And then there are degrees of agnosticism: Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism") The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you. Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism") The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out. Apathetic agnosticism The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. And then just to make it even more inconvenient that people just won't fit neatly into all these little tiny boxes us humans like to create, there are also Agnostic Atheists. Theirs is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. It's just not cut and dried like you pretend it is.

He was in favour of it Rom. Some of the 'logic' he drew on to support that position was 'God's sovereignty' and also his reasoning that there would otherwise be no need or existence of commands, prohibitions, or rewards and punishments if free will did not exist.

Your comments totally ignore the many shades of grey between these points that you seem to think are set in concrete. Just like there are a zillion shades of Christianity between Progressive Christianity and Fundamental Christianity, so to are there varying degrees of agnosticism and atheism. It's not as black and white as you portray. Don't be fooled into labels being the definitive factor for classifying every single last philosophy or thought a person holds. Labels like agnostic and atheist (and christian) give us an indication of somebody's beliefs, but to pretend that one is either in or out of a certain label based on strict criteria, is an outdated concept. And then to insult such people when you don't even know all of their thoughts and beliefs, is just rude.

It does seem to go on and on Thormas, hence my abandonment last post just because we keep saying the same things generally, yet disagreeing. It has been very interesting though to a point. But in response to your post: Aquinas (who lived in the 13th centruy hence why I called his cosmology a 13th century notion) basically proposed that creation needed a prime mover and that that prime mover was God. In one of his works, the Summa Theologiae, he laid out his 5 proofs for the existence of God and drew some conclusions that Burl has repeated here. I think this one-pager will better explain Aquinas' notions than I could - http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_aquinas.htm For some, what Aquinas presumes may be 'common sense', whereas for me, I think Aquinas is just making things up to suit his view of God and none are supported by any actual evidence or supported theories. In relation to Christianity maybe being more comfortable with unknowns - I like your positivity but I think by far Christianity likes certainties and answers as opposed to just accepting a "we just don't know". There are certainly many churches and versions that do take a more progressive approach, but I am confident they are the minority. Hope you're having a very Merry Christmas. I have been and have enjoyed a quick swim and a break from the champagne, but our next guests are soon to arrive so gotta get back up on that horse! Cheers Paul

I think this is going around in circles, so probably not much point repeating that I think all of the above you reference, is an illusion. You think it's choice/logic/rationality - I don't. But, you have your opinion, I have mine. It seems neither of us can make a convincing case that the other will accept. Not that we need to, but it does seem to just be a case of rinse and repeat which is a bit boring for me. Have a great Christmas, Burl. Ooroo.

May I wish all of my friends here (and everybody for that matter) a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New year! I hope this time of year brings your family and friends together, creating closer bonds and happy memories. I hope 2018 holds happy surprises and wonder for you all. Cheers Paul

Mockery and insult may occur, but I still don't think it 'works' - unless we are measuring the degree to which the mocker feels satisfied. Indeed, they may feel well satisfied that their insult scores a point, but clearly it does nothing to convince the other of their reason and evidence (which up to this point seems to be severely lacking, no matter how much they say things are evident). I suppose it makes them feel superior though, so maybe it works in that sense for them too.

Atheism and uncertainty is far from cowardice, it is simply a preparedness to say "Theism makes no sense, I think there is something else to the story". You may call stories that support theism as 'evidence' if you like - millions and millions would disagree. You 'know' you are right - others very much doubt it. I don't think that makes them cowards, intellectual or otherwise. As for anything being free will - I don't choose to not believe in theism, I just don't as a result of what I have read and experienced. You don't choose to believe what you believe, you just do from what you have read and experienced. I don't see that as free will. You can't help yourself believing or not believing, it just happens from what you read and experience and the conclusions one draws. True free will would mean that you can choose your beliefs. One can't.

And how do you stop this so-called illogical recursion at the earliest possible instance, Burl - by mockery and insult, or reason and evidence? To me it seems perfectly logical that if one is going to say something can't happen unless there is a prime mover, then the next logical step is to say that that prime mover needs and prime mover. Naturally this goes on unto infinity UNTIL one can demonstrate evidence to the contrary, rather than simply a biased opinion. All to conveniently, some Christians CHOOSE to allocate prime mover status to Bible God without contemplating anything further - based on what? I expect atheism is a lot more comfortable with unknowns than Christianity is, as we mainly know it. If theism can't answer these questions (which it can't with any degree of what is commonly known as evidence) then maybe it's time to move on from theism. That said, many people take comfort out of certainty, so if it helps them in their personal lives, so be it. Nothing has been added to Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument since circa 1250. No further evidence, no further development or improvement of the argument, nothing. It seems some people are happy to accept a 13th century notion and let it lie because the alternate is too difficult to contemplate and doesn't prvoide a convenient hard and fast answer for them.

Wouldn't this include the ramification that this theistic God too needed a prime mover?

Our Parliament voted to pass gay marriage laws last night. Now the law is formally enacted this Saturday which then allows same sex couples to immediately lodge a 'Notice of Intended Marriage', which is a required 1-month notice period here for all marriages. Fantastic stuff Australia!

You are entitled to your opinion Burl, but to call any discussion on biblical interpretation about Paul being gay as absurd and intellectually null, is frankly, absurd and intellectually null. It is disingenuous in the least to pretend that hard evidence to the contrary exists. Perhaps Paul wasn't gay, but even you would have to admit that Spong makes a case (the strength for which is judged to varying degrees). Just as I do not think it is absurd or intellectually null to discuss the potential for alien abductions or the yowie (even though I am reasonably confident the evidence doesn't support either), there is genuine reason to consider Paul being a repressed gay man if one takes the effort to look at him that way instead of blocking it out as though it is a complete impossibility. Why that should be so outrageous to anyone is beyond me. Paul may also well have led the choir, again - not beyond the realms of possibility (although maybe unlikely) but one should feel free to discuss those things without being belittled.

It's far from ignorant Burl and there is merit to the discussion, even f you don't see that. Much biblical scholarship comes from speculation in the first instance, which leads to probing and eventually sometimes, a better understanding. However the information I raise about Paul has in fact been raised by biblical scholars and theologians such as Spong.. Maybe he's wrong, but he makes more of an argument for Paul being gay than you do for him not being gay. But of course, you don't make any assumptions about Paul's sexuality (other than it's ignorant to propose he may have been gay).

I find it of some interest but admit it can really only be speculation. However, imagine if it could be substantiated that Pay was gay - what that could mean to millions and millions of Christians who currently hold and quote Paul's writings as confirmation God considers homosexuality an abomination! It might not be an issue for you but there are certainly millions of gay people persecuted because of how many interpret Paul's writings (and other biblical passages). Open discussion and further learnings may eventually swing that tide (one can only hope).

No. just making the point that of the 'most accurate' Gospel, we have only just over 1/2 of it available some 150 years after the original. I'm sure you've read or heard of speculation about Jesus maybe supporting reincarnation, maybe having a relationship with Mary M, maybe he had gay tendencies? All I am saying is that it is all speculation because we cannot say what the original said. The snakehandlers exists and I've read other pieces about them. A fringe group for sure but one that takes it direction from what modern scholarship identified as the false ending to Mark. A group easily misled by somebody proclaiming this to be the true word of God and no doubt true to the original. As for Irenaeus again - we have no idea what version of Mark he was looking at and I'm not sure how you can call it a relatively complete version when the oldest version we have of Mark is some time after Irenaeus and is far from complete (8 chapters only). I too would be interested to understand what Ehrmann means by 'relatively complete' because as far as I'm aware, we only have Irenaeus quoting some of Mark in his writings and no document of Mark per se. But be clear - I am not making any choices without evidence - I am merely pointing out what the actual evidence truly is. I most definitely agree it is man's take on God throughout the bible. And i completely recognise that my experience with Christianity growing up has it sticking in my craw when people teach the accuracy of the bible (but I think I'm going over old ground). Yes, I was police and although I grew up conservative, that isn't my life today (or so I think). I think I lean more right than left but I don't think I'm a conservative (pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, against the death penalty, pro-gay rights, believe in climate change ). My family are conservative which is why they won't discuss these matters but I see little of them really. My friends simply have no interest in this because they have never been associated with Christianity much and frankly couldn't care less about the bible (my wife included). We will, and all power to them if that is what they chose to believe, it's just that evidence is not in their favour.

Well I can't speak for all Protestants but our faction was of the fundamental variety (I think we've discussed this before) where the bible is literally THE word of God, doubting it is heresy, and challenging it in any way, shape or form is the devil at work putting doubt in your mind. So I think I am, in a way, protective of people who don't actually understand the truth about the veracity of these documents yet get told they are 100% accurate to the originals. I think it's great that you have a more 'relaxed' way of looking at the bible (as one should IMO) but clearly there are those who don't and who will belittle and scoff at others as being 'unknowledgable'. So maybe I am a little sensitive about the issue, but I think it's an important one that Christians would benefit from being reminded of - we can assume all we want but the reality is that much of the New Testament, in it's original form, is unavailable to us (currently).

I'm not sure what the issue is with any differences of upbringing (but yes, I was brought up as a 'proper' christian and not one of those misguided Catholics who worshipped false gods (the Pope and Mary) - yes, we were taught that!). I too am intrigued by biblical scholarship but it doesn't rule my life. But where all of this conversation generated from was you asking me to clarify what I meant about the oldest copies we have of NT writings being potentially inaccurate. I think I have demonstrated (certainly for Mark) that we can't say much about the original other than supposition. The 8 chapters we do have some 150 years after the original may be incorrect and the balance of the 'original' dates some 300 years after the original was written, so who can say how accurate it is. That is my only point. Enjoy it for what it is - certainly. Quote it verbatim as an exact copy of the original and we have an issue.

I don't think the missing Markan chapters is a theory, Thormas. This is what I can find quickly to hand from a blog of Ehrmann's: "In the debate I pointed out that our earliest copy of the Gospel of Mark was P45 (called this because it is the 45th Papyrus [hence “P”] manuscript to be catalogued), which dates to around the year 200 CE – i.e., 140 years after Mark was first written. That’s our earliest copy. Between the original of Mark and our earliest copy there were something like fourteen decades of copying, and recopying, and recopying of Mark. Year after year it was copied. And the copies were being changed at every point. And then later copies were copies of the earlier changed copies. Then those earlier changed copies were lost; as were the copies based on them; and the copies based on them. Until our earliest surviving copy, P45 – which itself is not a complete copy of Mark, but highly fragmentary. Our first complete copy of Mark dates to around the year 360 – nearly three hundred years (count them 300 years) after the “original” of Mark. For Pentecostal snake handling sects, see these two references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_handling https://storycorps.org/listen/they-shall-take-up-serpents/ I certainly don't see the glass as half empty - I simply like to keep it real and not be influenced about how I 'think' it should be. There is some consistency in Jesus' message, but then again there are huge gaps, like half of Mark missing between our earliest 'copy' (200-250CE) and the next available 'copy' 350CE. If you want to think that we can be comfortable thinking the c200CE version of Mark is consistent with the original, even though we have nothing to show us what the original was, that's a choice, not evidence. But it simply cannot be regarded as evidence and/or beyond reproach. And I think you would have to acknowledge, that with the tradition of Christians interpreting the bible and stating what God 'really' means, even small subtle changes can impact on what is taught and believed. As for Irenaeus, who knows what version of Mark he was reading. Was it complete? Was it missing 7 chapters? Had it been copied correctly in the +100 years since it had been written? Maybe it used to talk about snake handling! We should not that just because a manuscript is th eoldest, that does not prove it is a correct copy. I accept Wkipedia is not biblical scholarship (but I don't have a lot to hand), however it would seem that Irenaeus was no less human than the rest of us: "Irenaeus argued that since he could trace his authority to Christ and the Gnostics could not, his interpretation of Scripture was correct.[35] He also used "the Rule of Faith",[36] a "proto-creed" with similarities to the Apostles' Creed, as a hermeneutical key to argue that his interpretation of Scripture was correct.[37] Before Irenaeus, Christians differed as to which gospel they preferred. The Christians of Asia Minor preferred the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Matthew was the most popular overall.[38] Irenaeus asserted that four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were canonical scripture.[39] Thus Irenaeus provides the earliest witness to the assertion of the four canonical Gospels, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which Marcion asserted was the one and only true gospel.[7][25] I wonder where we might be today if somebody else's argument had won out over Irenaeus'? What if earlier Christians meant a more relaxed view of 'scripture' than some Christians take today. It is completely fair enough that you don't lock yourself to the Christian take on God. I don't either. I think people are free to take and leave whatever the want about Jesus (within historical reason) and I do not subscribe to any theory of some divine being sitting behind the curtain waiting for us to get it right, or wrong. So when i discuss these matters it is simply based on fact, and not personal opinion or interpretation. I ask questions which we don't seem to have answers. I challenge people who say "God means this when he says that in the bible" because I don't think we can know for sure what was meant at the time of writing, often, or even if it was written by who the author pretends to be. Now if you want to speculate what something means to you or what you think it may mean, that is a different story, and I genuinely enjoying discussing why one thinks like that and why I might have the same or different opinion. Maybe it's my police experience from decades ago but I see 'evidence' as being of two calibres - 1) beyond all reasonable doubt, and 2)on the balance of probabilities. Both are different, but I see much of Christianity sitting in the latter category, whereas some Christians are rude, arrogant and know it all when they put everything from the Bible in the first category (I am not referring to you). So I enjoy the discussion. I gotta say, apart from participating here, I don't discuss these matters anywhere else because zero/nil/zilch of my circle of friends and family care to discuss these matters. So I enjoy any debate and/or sharing here. I just find it hard being told something is what it is not. Again, I don't think you're preaching that, but others do of course.

I think I'm referring to just about every biblical scholar I've ever read Thormas. As far as what I understand, there is no single, complete book from the NT discovered that pre-dates the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (both dated around roughly 350CE). Admittedly there are 'fragments' of other manuscripts but I am not aware of any complete originals or 'copies' of originals prior to the above-mentioned. I don't think we need to go into chapter and verse of every piece of biblical scholarship, so I hope it suffices to say that much of what I lean on comes from Bart Erhmann himself, or other scholarly work that he has quoted. I'm not restricted to Erhmann and have read several other scholars concerning different bits and pieces, but I don't keep records so find it a bit hard to recall who said what and when. To say that we have 'relatively complete' copies of the Gospels dating around 200CE is certainly a stretch. The oldest 'fragment' we have of Mark for instance dates c250CE and contains 8 of the 15 chapters attributed to Mark - so nearly half of what is later attributed to the Gospel of Mark is missing until we get to the Codex Sinaiticus. And this is the book that some would regard as the most accurate about Jesus and what he said/did (maybe there's a reason much of it went missing in the early centuries?). It is a similar case for many of the other books - some fair better than others, but there are many books that fair a lot worse. Yes, scribes at the time were copying something (presumably) but they were also altering the texts and adding things they thought needed to be added. I wonder how pentecostal snake handling sects who drank poison felt when they found out that the ending of Mark that they so heavily relied upon was a lie? We only know it was a lie because we found older manuscripts. So essentially, we don't know what we don't know because we don't have the original manuscripts. I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater but simply saying that evidence is evidence - we can't change the definition - and if the originals don't exist, and there are large gaps between our earliest versions and later ones, then how can one say everything is hunky dory with the later versions. It simply can't be logically concluded. Particularly in light of the evidence we have for tampering with the older version of the manuscripts. Oxams razor - what is more likely - that the texts remain unchanged throughout hundreds of years of translation and copying, even in light of evidence of editing (some instances significant and thousands less so), or at best we say we have what we have and who knows precisely which missing bits from the earliest available manuscripts are 100% correct or not. I agree it is fascinating stuff and often I have imagined being a Bart Erhmann or other who has gone down this career path. And I certainly agree with you that these books are mostly 'faith statements' but as you know yourself, some people holds these words up as the dictated or inspired word of God and we have all seen the damage adhering to the bible word for word has caused throughtout time. That is just why I find it paramount to be honest about what we have and what we don't have.

I don't quite understand your question Thormas - what manuscripts are you asking me to cite and provide sources for? I am saying that we can't precisely substantiate the original sources of the now canonised works because we simply do not have them. At best, we have copies that date some 200-300 years after the originals. Who knows what changes they could have undergone during that period. People like Irenaeus may well have had a 'standard' they considered appropriate, but who knows how they applied that standard. There were several versions of early Christianity with one eventually winning out above all others, so i don't think it would be unreasonable to think there may have been different translations and copies made as time went on which offered the opportunity for the scribe to alter text, or improve it in their opinion. Of course not having the originals makes it impossible to tell. But we do see signs of tinkering with the writings, such as demonstrated in Mark. That's one particular case but it demonstrates that fiddling with the sources did happen.

I do think I have read speculation by other scholars, but I cannot recall specifically. Certainly Spong is the main antagonist concerning this view and yes, he can make outlandish claims at times. I think it was Borg (I could be wrong) that said Spong was brilliant at breaking things down from the bible, but not as strong in reassembling them. When I re-read Paul with the lens that Spong suggests, I see what Spong is saying. But could he be wrong? - of course.