• This topic has 12 voices and 95 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 97 total)
  • Author
  • #347662



    I’ve created this thread so we don’t have to hijack other ones anymore! About time! ;)
    So if you’re on a PC (full site), hit that star icon to the right of the thread’s title, so you can easily find this thread any time.


    If you have time, I’d like to hear your opinion. Why are you Christians so divided in your claims and arguments?
    You told me things like time in the Book of Genesis is not literal and that the general public never believed that Earth was flat.
    I often watch scientific debates on YouTube and I’ve noticed that Christian scientists don’t agree with your statements (or statements of their fellow Christian scientists).
    OK, you’re a Catholic, while most of those scientists are probably something else.
    But here’s a video in which a Catholic scientist (who works directly for Vatican) says that 3000 years ago everybody believed the Earth was flat.
    He says that around 2:20 minute.

    Why does he claim that?
    You always say people misinterpret the Bible. So what’s the correct interpretation?
    Christians always present the Bible as the ultimate truth, yet there are no universal definitions of God, soul, creation, afterlife, etc. Science can work only with properly defined stuff!
    Why don’t you Christians just rewrite the Bible in form of scientific literature in modern language without any metaphors, so everyone can interpret it the right way?



    The metaphors are there for two reasons:
    1. To filter out the unworthy.
    2. To explain a spiritual concept by association with the mundane.

    Point 1 cannot be stressed enough.



    @aaaaa I’m sure @srdceleva has a different opinion about it. Another example of 2 Christians having different views.



    Yeah, most people are wrong most of the time, cptn Obvious.



    @aaaaa Did you just admit you’re wrong?



    No. This is my area of competence. If you’re interested in cosmetics otoh, I could give you my seriosly uninformed opinion, though.



    I’d love to start on the Filioque.  But the question at hand: We are divided because some people felt so strongly about something that they’d split an organisation just to get it.  For example: the Council of Chalcedon.  The Copts felt that they were right about what they felt, so instead of going with the rest of the Council, they packed their bags and formed a rival Church in Alexandria.  It’s a little more complicated with the Catholics, because what we know today as the Catholic Church really solidified under Charlemagne, who was appointed by the Pope as Roman Emperor (not legitimately with there already being a Roman Empress in Constantinople).  This essentially was the statement that the Pope was going to ignore what actual authority he had, and it created a series of competition between the Western and Eastern Churches that resulted in two major schisms, the Photian Schism and the Great Schism.  I’m not going into Protestantism, I understand it only basically because of how many Protestant denominations and churches there are.



    @MikhailA I have an impression that religion is weak at its core. Everyone says “the truth is only one”, while everyone has a different opinion about stuff. Everyone interprets holy books differently. Everyone believes something else. Even members of the same church have vastly different views.
    And they all want science to admit their “truth” is the right one. Crazy world.



    But here’s a video in which a Catholic scientist (who works directly for Vatican) says that 3000 years ago everybody believed the Earth was flat.

    I can safely answer that: Because Eratosthenes wasn’t born yet 3000 years ago. 😉

    Btw, the book of the guy from the video again reminds me of C. S. Lewis’ “Space Trilogy”. I recommend it, especially to @srdceleva, it’s quite good. It also reminds me of the medieval arguments about whether the dog-heads/cynocephali/pesoglavtsi should be baptized or not.



    @”Kapitán Denis” Thank you for starting this topic! Just in time for Holy Week!  :D Protestant and Catholic Palm Sunday today. 

    While the bf watched the basketball, I watched this Jesus movie.  A scene in Garden of Gethsemane. 



    I will answer this thread tomorrow as it demands a more responsive answer, also no offense to @aaaaa but his views arent in agreement with all forms of Christianity 90% of the time. 



     I’m sure has a different opinion about it. Another example of 2 Christians having different views

    first off If you want to have a serious discussion about this topic, you have to stop assuming things before you hear my actual view. @aaaaa’s first comment I dont disagree with. 

    to your flat earth comment. The man clearly says genesis was never meant to be a science book, he clearly says the main point is that God created everything, and that people used their own knowledge of science to interpret what God actually had done. Even though genesis speaks massively in metaphors and parables, and is not and was not ever meant to be take 100 percent literally. We will get to that later. 

    says that 3000 years ago everybody believed the Earth was flat.

    3000 years ago Christians didnt even exist. The common myth is that the Catholic church taught the earth was flat during its existence and that they didnt change this view till science came around and proved them wrong. 

    the wiki page actually explains this very well, lets look at one excerpt from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

    Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims “with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat”, and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William DraperAndrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.[2][6][7]

    whats interesting is as I pointed out, no one even debated this issue till 1870-1920 when people were debating the topic of evolution.  Also, anyone who brings up this topic, honestly just shows how little theyve actually read about this topic, i dont mean that offensively. 

    Not all protestants believe in a literal interpretation of genesis, so I wont lump them all together, but those that do came around later in history. The Catholic church and Orthodox church for that matter never claimed the earth was 6000 years old, and that creation happened in 7 24 hour days. Im sure you can find various opinions about it from early christians but this view was never held. It is a modern evangelical type of Protestantism that developed mainly in america which came up with these views. IMO it came about in the same way hyper correcting yourself in your own language came about, people start thinking something is correct but actually are saying something that never was said before. 

    this is a good paragraph written on the topic. 

    3) Most Christians Across History Have Not Read the Bible Literally
    We tend to think of anything that is labeled “conservative” as being older and more traditional. Oddly enough, however, the doctrine of inerrancy that literalists aim to conserve is only about a century and a half old. Not only did many of the Christian Church’s brightest theologians not subscribe to anything like inerrancy, many adamantly opposed such a notion. St. Augustine – rarely described as a liberal – lived for many years at the margins of the church. An impediment to his conversation was precisely the notion that Christians took literally stories like that of Jonah spending three days in the belly of a whale. It was not until Ambrose, bishop of Milan, introduced Augustine to allegorical interpretation – that is, that stories can point metaphorically to spiritual realities rather than historical facts – that Augustine could contemplate taking the Bible (and those who read it) seriously.
    The point isn’t that pre-modern Christians approached the Bible with the same historically conscious skepticism of the Bible’s factual and scientific veracity that modern interpreters possess. Earlier Christians – along with almost everyone else who lived prior to the advent of modernity – simply didn’t imagine that for something to be true it had to be factually accurate, a concern only advanced after the Enlightenment. Hence, four gospels that diverged at different points, far from troubling earlier Christians, was instead seen as a faithful and fitting recognition that God’s truth as revealed in Jesus was too large to be contained by only one perspective. Flattening the biblical witness to conform to a reductionist understanding of truth only limits the power of Scripture. As Karl Barth, arguably the twentieth century’s greatest theologian, once said, “I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.”

    you also need to realize, Catholics and all Orthodox differ very little when it comes to interpretation of the Bible, most differences between them are about hierarchy in the church and semantics. Main differences are between Catholics/Orthodox and protestants, and protestantism is where most of the confusion is coming from. 

    @MikhailA we should open up a different thread about Orthodoxy and Catholocism if we want to discuss that. Here we should just discuss Christianity vs Atheism. It would be too complex to start discussing every religious issue. 


    from dust you came to dust you shall return

    not a contradictory statement. Obviously meant to tell us we are mortal and not to become to proud. 


    I watched the passion last thursday to prepare myself for holy week. its probably the most accurate film account of the gospels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm97Ie49ULM



    In honor of holy week it might be interesting to discuss the actual existence of Jesus. Lets see some non Christian accounts about Jesus. 

    Flavius Josephus, these writtings are from around 94 ad. 

    Josephus’ reference to James the brother of Jesus
    And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
    Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1[23] For Greek text see [3]

    Josephus referring to the execution of John the baptist. Just thought it was interesting. 

    Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man… Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion… Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.[34

    this passage from Josephus is thought to have been altered by early Christians to make it sound more positive, but historians dont doubt the passage with out the positive remarks to be legitimate 

    [About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.]
    Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the JewsBook 18, Chapter 3, 3[52] 

    Tacitus writing about Jesus and how early Christians suffered (interesting people tried to claim here early Christians didnt suffer that bad)

    Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their 


    centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
    Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

    there are more, but these are just a few to describe what was happening 2000 years ago. 



    OK, I misunderstood your claim about the flat Earth. I thought you said people never believed it in the whole history, while you were referring only to the era of Christianity.

    first off If you want to have a serious discussion about this topic, you have to stop assuming things before you hear my actual view. @aaaaa’s first comment I dont disagree with.

    So you basically agree that faith is not for everyone. It’s only for the people who understand metaphores “correctly”. Understanding metaphores has to do with ability of people to use abstract thinking and connecting the context together. The holy text can be understood only by some kind of elite and people with autism basically have no place in Christianity because they’re not able to understand metaphores. Do I get it right?



    My favorite Slavic food is…wait, wrong thread.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 97 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.