Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Seditious, Oct 12, 2006.
Where did this supposed consciousness arise from? A cosmic accident?
Uhm, no. The methond of the New Testament's canonization is the only thing that is needed to refute it's legitimacy. Sure, there are many copies of this single canonization, because it was the most popular religion of the western world throughout much of history. That only shows it wasn't altered and changed after it's initial canonization, but it says nothing of the legitimacy of the original. If I remember correctly, there are a few hundred of other canons of biblical text that were rejected by a body of human officials during the New Testament's canonization. Are you going to tell me that these governmental & religious leaders were inspired by god to do this canonization by his will? That seems to be a somewhat big gap of "god did it." Some of the canons that were thrown out are even mentioned within the texts that are in the New Testament! This hardly seems truly legitimate, more like an extensive job of editing done by the gov't to further their purposes, followed by a whole mess of propaganda to "prove" it's legitimacy & bury the truth. The use of the bible from then forward even backs this up. Throughout European history the bible has been used by greedy power-hungry corrupt officials and religious/governmental bodies to gain more power and wealth, to justify their wars and atrocities. Seems the original canonization did a very good job of creating something that governments can use to control the people.
We could talk about this, but would that be better discussed in a separate thread (keep in mind I'm new to the forum, still getting used to the "tempo" here)? If not I'd be happy to discuss that here.
Moogle, you should know better, we've already had this debate elsewhere. Ah well, it can't be helped. Conspiracy theories *shakes head*
First of all, I don't think you understand the term Canon. Canon refers to the finalized collected works of Scripture, the group of books considered to be legitimately the inspired Word of God, as opposed to a single book (which seems to be the case you're referring to).
Many of the fragments and copies studied by Priinceton predate the single canonization (which I believe you're referring to the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.) you speak of. Some fragments are dated just after the time when the books were believed to have been written. You must realize that the councils that finalized the Canon did exactly that: Finalize. They didn't vote on what to keep or take out. They didn't edit and remove and scatter books everywhere, that's a myth propagated by the opponents of Christianity and has no basis in the study of History. Ever since the writings of the early Church Fathers (Irenaeus for example), it's been clear that the books that are now in the Canon (especially the Gospels) have been in use since the time of the early church. By the time of the Council of Nicea, the Church had reached a general conscensus of what was and what was not the Word of God. The writings of the early Church fathers over 100 years before that condemned many of the false documents and forgeries which were beginning to creep up with the rise of Gnosticicm, which reared its head around 150-200 A.D.
There were not 100's upon 100's of rejected [books] (you referred to them as canons), that's wishful thinking on your part. The main debates were over a particular handful, less than 10, called the Apocrypha, also called the Deuterocanonical books (the books that Catholics still have as part of their Bibles that many Protestants reject). Here's a good paraphrased history of the Canon:
Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's a description of what books the different groups place as Canon:
Books of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Council of Nicea was sanctioned by the recently converted emperor Constantine I. The reason is there were many heretics causing unrest among Christendom at the time, so the council was a convention of all the current church leaders from local areas and abroad to re-affirm the teachings of the Church all the way back to the beginning, to bolster it against the subversion of Gnostics and other Heretics.
And yes, the Bible does mention other books and volumes of text within its pages, here's a list:
Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do note that this list isn't comprised entirely of books written, but also books attributed to figures mentioned in Scripture (i.e. say a Book of Nebbechudnezzar exists but the existence of a book by King Nebbechudnezzar is never mentioned in Scripture), but there's no mention. Many of these books "supposedly" survive, but there's a lot of ambiguity as to whether or not they're really the books they claim to be, or forgeries written long after the originals were lost in the ravages of time. For instance, most scholars have determined the Gospel of Thomas, attributed to Christ's disciple Thomas (often called doubting Thomas, as he doubted the apparition of the ressurected Christ until Christ allowed him to touch the scars/holes made from his execution) was not actually written anywhere near the time of Thomas, but was written later, most probably by Gnostics.
But what's evidenced by that study that Princeton did (which included the Dead Sea Scrolls), is that the books that DID make it into the Canon have not been tampered with, as so many opponents of Christianity have claimed. Now whether or not there are other books out there that are true, or at least contain some truth, only God knows for sure. But as a Christian, I have faith that what we ended up with is what God intended us to have at this time.
Now as for those that would abuse power and Scripture, I have no doubt that many tried to do such, and did so successfully. That's why there came the Protestant movement and separation (under the figurehead of Martin Luther), also called the Reformation. However, people's misuse of Scripture has no bearing on the Scripture's themselves. They were very careful to preserve Scripture's Latin and not translate it to the common language, such that the individuals had to rely on the Clergy's interpretation or teachings, which is how much power was abused. Luther's translation of Scripture to common German is what set the stage for the eventual reconciliation of Scripture to all people, and now all the world has the opportunity to read the Scriptures and decide for themselves, no longer having to rely on the authority of men. Besides, those who misrepresented Scripture for their own selfish ambitions did just that: MISREPRESENTED them. People who are disingenuous in their use of Scripture are not following Christ as he required, and thus are not acting in a Christian manner, and thus have no reflection on me or what I believe. I'd be the first to both rebuke them and denounce their ways if I had the chance.
That is why I don't refer to myself as a Christian, but as a Follower of Christ. I yield not to the authority of men, as the abuse of power is almost inevitable when placed in the hands of men. I instead rely on Scripture as my guide, the Word of God as my codex for life. I believe in the absolute authority in Christianity being in the hands of He for whom it was so named, the One who gives definition to the word "Christian." Christ is the center of my belief, not the Pope, not any priest or pastor. God's Word > Man's Word, essentially.
Ah sorry, I thought everyone was familiar with "The pink unicorn" (Invisible Pink Unicorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) (like the flying spaghetti monster) it is invisible inpercievable, whatever, the point is that it's existence is in no means verifiable. The thought experiment precudes any means of finding out if it exists, and so to my mind the metaphysical claim "the unicorn does/does not exist" is meaningless whichever way you look at it.
Given these it makes little sense to postulate its existence either way then I believe we should be agnostic about it. There are others that say that the entire concept is rendered non-sensical and thus we shouldn't believe it could exist. (any more than a seven sided triangle could exist) If we take the second step towards the unicorn then we are into a brand of atheism. I don't take that view but I think I am probably in the minority philosophically.
I am happy with agnosticism and I think that atheism is a terrible mistake, so I am certainly not envious of the "atheist" title! It's the last thing that I want to become.
Not according to the definition of the terms, no. But feel free to make up your own definitions for personal use. I don't think there is an invisible pink unicorn, I think there is no pink unicorn. I'm not positive, but I have my opinion based in rational deduction. Agnosticism is just the "I'm not positive" part, Atheism is the "opinion based in rational deduction" part.
Arthyron,as i see you are american (i mean,you are not european),so,i will say,that pagan is the ancient relligion for only European (nordic) people.
Christianity is a diagnosis...I live in a country,which is full of churches,(christians),my family members are all christians and i know this relligion very well.I will say that christians have changed many pagan rituals,for example new year and christmas.Both festivals are pagan,but judeo-christians named them as theirs..(sorry for my english).New year is the day,(pagan) when the white god-Belobog created a third human race, known as Noble's kin (europian,nordic people).Belobog visited these people every year and gave presents and gifts to these noble,fair people,but judeo-christians named this god -Santa Claus!And that is false!Christmas is the first week after the fool moon.It is the day when death visited the life.nowadays,we call it the born of jesus christ...so judge yourself...We know,that jesus christ or Jehowah is the god of jews.Than tell me, why should i (european) worship the god of Jews (asian's)?!when we have our ancient relligion-pagan,and pagan gods.
I don's say,that you shouldn't trust in Jehowah,but christianity is just a false for me.
Something to note, however, is that not all "Pagans" are the same. Some believe in a more Odalistic Pantheism (as I believe the forum member "a moogle" prescribes to), while others practice a more literal Paganism, as the ancient practicioners did. So it's rather ambiguous to refer to oneself as a practicioner of "Paganism." That doesn't really define a whole lot in particular other than that you believe in something aside from one of the several Monotheistic religions. There are also more than just the Scandinavian system of beliefs, but the similar Germanic beliefs, the Celtic beliefs, the Finnish beliefs (which are more different than all of them), the Slaavic beliefs, lots of different belief systems which are too incongruous to be the same. So do remember to define yourself more aptly by calling yourself a Nordic Pagan, as not all Pagans practice Nordic Paganism.
I'm also aware that the early Christian church did adopt and modify many pagan festivals in order to make conversion easier for the indigenous people. However, Christmas was a modification of the festival of Saturnalia (in Greek mythology that would be the god Chronos, if I'm not mistaken), which was a Grecco-Roman tradition, not a Nordic one. Secondly, Belobog is a Slaavic diety, not a Nordic diety. So be careful that you get you pantheons straight. It'd be rather silly to fall into a system of random relativist paganism in my opinion (unless you believe in some sort of pantheistic pagan tradition like A Moogle).
As for your reasoning for worshipping Yahweh (not Jehowah, if you read what I said you'd see that Jehowah is just a misunderstanding, and Yahweh is his correct name), well that would be because you believe in him. According to logic, not all the gods can coexist in the same manner that they all claim to exist individually (if they were all real). So either some of them aren't real, or some of them are lying about how powerful they are. Many of them claim to be the most powerful god, but not all of them can be, logically. So it doesn't matter what gods your ancestors worshipped as far as what is True or not. Your ancestors could have been wrong. My ancestors could have been wrong. The Jews ancestors could have been wrong. And any one of them could have been right. But not all of them can be right at the same time. That's why you have to make your decision to worship only the ones that can work out together, or no gods at all.
I'm aware that you believe Yahweh is false, but I was just wondering why you chose to believe in what you did, because you seemed to say that Yahweh and his big white beard were far-fetched, but then you chose to believe in another diety who also is said to have a big beard (Odin).
What has happened to this thread?
Tolkein was rightfully considered crap--with a nice imagination and grasp of mythology-- by his contemporaries and critics. But to take his world seriously, is proof positive of not only idiocy, but a lack of intellectual maturity and no relationship whatsoever with actual philosophy and literature.
I hope he's joking, but reading his previous posts, Im not so sure .
Tolkien was crap? At writing, or what? You do realise he was the first writer to create a literary fantasy world which would influence millions and spawn a new genre with hundreds now writing in the same style. If we reject Tolkien as a bad writer on the basis of his critics, we'd also have to reject Manet as a bad painter and Beethoven as a bad composer on similar bases.
Good points here. I still dont care for Tolkein at all, and still am smarting over being forced to reads his books in high school. But he has been influential, and he did create a new style. My prejudice againt fantasy doesnt help either I suppose. For the life of me I dont understand it. I get sci-fi, even romance novels, but fantasy is just so ridiculous to me.
firstly,i am not a "he".
secondly,Tolkien's "LOTR" is almost a mithologycal "story",there are lot of things from pagan,for example the meaning of Gendalf White (I mean the meaning of the white) and so on and on....So,i wrote, that i believe in his middle earth and to my mind,it isn't as stupid as to believe in Bible...I will add,that if someone is orthodox (christian) here,he should have seen the icon of Yahweh in the church,where he has a white beard!!! But i don't care about his beard...
I simply want to say,that Judeo-christians has and are slowly destroing the beautifull pagan relligion!That is all!
Like Nietzsche said: "It is not the human considerations of the Christians, but the impotence of their human considerations that prevent them from burning the rest of us at the stake"
You do realize that Tolkien was a devout Christian, right, and he laced the Middle Earth saga with Chrisitan allegory/
I don't see the christian allegory there,i haven't heard suche a marazm about Tolkienwhy do you think so?sorry,but i'm sure you have read some stupid article of a stupid critic..i don't know....And i wanted to ask you,are you orthodox or catholic?
It's a fact that Tolkien himself would have, and [I think] did attest to. Sure the world is mostly pagan based, especially when you read "The Silmarilion," but it is a fact that Tolkien being Christian laced some of such into his fantastical world. He did it intelligently, though, without blasting the pagan foundation of his world to rubble as one would naturally think including anything Christian would do. In a way it complemented it, as it is a fantasy world, not realistic in any manner, but still highly metaphorically & symbolically charged. Not the same as myths are, though, as it "realistically" told the story of the world of middle earth in a concrete and objective light; rather than the metaphoric, symbolic, and poetic light of the pagan mythologies. It's an interesting and intelligent perspective, the world is quite genius, but to take it religiously or to be literally true is even more ludicrous than believing Ra, the sun god, sails across the sky every day. It was a creation of a Christian, not even a pagan. It is a story, with many highly intelligent aspects, but still just a story, a fiction tale, a fantasy. And the fact remains that Tolkien did include Christian "allegory" as Arthyron said, into his world.
That's because you haven't been looking for it. How can you not know that about Tolkien. Look it up yourself. He was a very devout Christian. He's one of the people who helped lead the author C.S. Lewis (Chronicles of Narnia, etc) to Christ. Do some research, you'll see I'm not making this up.
I'm neither orthodox nor catholic. You obviously don't know much about Christianity if you think those are your only choices.
I don't even refer to myself as a Christian typically, but as a Christ Follower. If you want to know why or what that means let me know.