But what does that have to do with whether the apostle paul actually existed? And Paul never claimed to be a witness to the events that took place in the gospels.
U.S Becoming Less Religious, The Observant Become More Devout
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
But what does that have to do with whether the apostle paul actually existed? And Paul never claimed to be a witness to the events that took place in the gospels.
There is no acvtual proof that all the writing attributed to Saul were written by the same person.
Often times, in the Bible one figure is in fact a recollection of several people. And Sometimes, One person is showed as several figures with different.
One telling example of that is the figure of Mary Magdalene whose sometimes refered to as Mary of Magdala or The Magdalene. Several names, one person. In 591 A.C. Pope Gregory I assimilated her to the unnamed sinner who annoited Jesus' feets (Luke 7 ; 37-40) and even Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and Martha, who also annoits Jesus' feets in John 11 ; 1-2. In 1969, Pope Paul VI officialy stated that these 3 persons were different and that Mary Magdalene shouldn't be refered to as a repented sinner. Mopst biblical scholars agree with him.
The Bible is not like other books, it changes over time. The biblical canon was fixed in the late XVIth Century, before that, some writing that are in your bible weren't in the Bible and some that aren't in your bible were in the Bible. And, I'm not an expert in that area and I don't know if your an evangelist, a baptist, an pentecotist, or whatever but I'm pretty sure that my catholic Bible (yes I do posses a Bible, even if I'm an atheist) is different from your Bible.
I'm not saying Saul didn't existed, I say we have no proof he did.
You have to remeber that, in the old times, religion was used for political reasons much more than now, much more than even Huckabee would ever dream. For example, kings were anoited by the Pope, because they were supposed to be choosen by God to rule over their countries. eligion was a mean to control people so the Church had to control the Bible; They choosed carefully which writings woul be canon and included in the Bible and which wouldn't. And refering to those who hadn't been considered canon was considered to be heresy. Anything barely related to religion that wasn't controled by the Church was banned. Joan of Arch was burned at stake because she said she heard angels' voices ; The Church said that if god o Angel had something to tell to mortals, they would tell it to the Pope, no to some random teenage peasant girl.
The Bible is a spiritual book. You can believe what's in it if you want or you can not belive it. It's not an History book, nor a science book, you can't use the Bible as proof to bas a scientific or an historical claim, as you would do with writing from Pythagoras or Pliny the Elder.
Often times, in the Bible one figure is in fact a recollection of several people. And Sometimes, One person is showed as several figures with different.
One telling example of that is the figure of Mary Magdalene whose sometimes refered to as Mary of Magdala or The Magdalene. Several names, one person. In 591 A.C. Pope Gregory I assimilated her to the unnamed sinner who annoited Jesus' feets (Luke 7 ; 37-40) and even Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and Martha, who also annoits Jesus' feets in John 11 ; 1-2. In 1969, Pope Paul VI officialy stated that these 3 persons were different and that Mary Magdalene shouldn't be refered to as a repented sinner. Mopst biblical scholars agree with him.
The Bible is not like other books, it changes over time. The biblical canon was fixed in the late XVIth Century, before that, some writing that are in your bible weren't in the Bible and some that aren't in your bible were in the Bible. And, I'm not an expert in that area and I don't know if your an evangelist, a baptist, an pentecotist, or whatever but I'm pretty sure that my catholic Bible (yes I do posses a Bible, even if I'm an atheist) is different from your Bible.
I'm not saying Saul didn't existed, I say we have no proof he did.
You have to remeber that, in the old times, religion was used for political reasons much more than now, much more than even Huckabee would ever dream. For example, kings were anoited by the Pope, because they were supposed to be choosen by God to rule over their countries. eligion was a mean to control people so the Church had to control the Bible; They choosed carefully which writings woul be canon and included in the Bible and which wouldn't. And refering to those who hadn't been considered canon was considered to be heresy. Anything barely related to religion that wasn't controled by the Church was banned. Joan of Arch was burned at stake because she said she heard angels' voices ; The Church said that if god o Angel had something to tell to mortals, they would tell it to the Pope, no to some random teenage peasant girl.
The Bible is a spiritual book. You can believe what's in it if you want or you can not belive it. It's not an History book, nor a science book, you can't use the Bible as proof to bas a scientific or an historical claim, as you would do with writing from Pythagoras or Pliny the Elder.
How do you prove that? Aside from actual handwriting samples. All we have to go on is the writing style and consistency of message and even that isn't foolproof. Times change and people change. We don't have a DNA sample of Paul sealing each letter but we can go on reasonable assumptions.
I don't know how these kind of things can be proven. What I know is that scholars can tell for sure that it was Homer and Homer alone who wrote the Illiad and the Odyssey but they cannot tell for sure that the writings attributed to Saul were written by Saul himself and only him.
For sure? How? There's no debate about whether Homer existed?
.
Hitchens knows the truth now.
It's a weak argument because of course moral people can be agnostic or atheist..
Even Christ said that man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven by works alone.
Christianity isn't based on the morality and works of those who follow but on the one they follow.
It's whole premise is that NO ONE is or can be "good enough."
So yeah, pouring one for Hitchens
That's the argument that many religious make against non-believers. That non-believers have no values, no moral compass. This belief is best summed up by good ol' Phil Robertson:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...phic-anti-atheist-speech-at-prayer-breakfast/
I'm an atheist so therefore I don't know right from wrong because I don't have Jesus in my life. Because of course that's the only way you learn morals...from the Bible
Define morality then. What is right and wrong for an atheist? And who defines?
If you can harm someone for personal gain and get away with it, why wouldn't you?
There's no separate right or wrong for atheists. I'm sure most of us on here would agree on the definitions of right and wrong. The difference is that you came to it through reading an ancient book whereas I didn't because human decency isn't derived from religion
One, you're making assumptions. I've never stated my religious beliefs here and two, you didn't answer my question. What defines right and wrong for an atheist?
You do realise that it's a weak argument since atheist think there's no heavens and no hell, do you ?
All religions claim they wanna bring peace, yet all they bring is war.
All religions claim they wanna unify mankind, yet they tear men apart.
All religions claim they wanna answer to questions men have been asking for centuries, yet more and more of their answers are proven wrong every day.
One, you're making assumptions. I've never stated what my personal religious beliefs are. Two, you didn't answer my question. Who defines what is right and wrong for an atheist?
double post
What defines right or wrong to an atheist ? Our conscience. Basically, as Confucius said : Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you is the rule.
Would I like this to happen to me ? If not, I shouldn't make it happen to other people.
Your conscience. But what is that? And can it vary from person to person. Some people have no conscience. Then what?
this board is being wonky as hell hence the repeat posts.
And who is confucius to define morality for me? Don't tell me what to do.
Nope, there isn't people without conscience. Just some people who can ignore it. They know what they're doing is wrong, they just don't care. Or sometimes they have their morals all messed up for various reason, just lie Anders Breivik.
Confuciius was a chinese philopher who lived around 500 BC. He's not telling what to do, he's giving you a tip a know wether what you do is good or wrong. It's up to you to judge the morality of your actions and to decide what to do.
Unlike your imaginary friend in the sky, Confucius treat you as an adult capable of making his own decision and assuming their consequences.
the golden rule :coolthumb:
it's beyond my understanding how anyone, religious or not, could fail to understand the logic of this idea
and that it can form the basis of an individual's morality
Similar threads
