What does a person mean when they say, "God made me," or, "God made you?"

[MrFun]

Be honest with yourself. The OP was dismissive, not searching. Intended to provoke rather than intended to gain understanding.

okay

[MrFun]

Historically, it's far more likely that the text of the bible we have today is the text of the original when compared to everything else.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, you'd think that, but there are so many people like BEN, you wonder. I'm sure he's nowhere near the ass in real life that he acts like here but the amount of examples that we've seen make me wonder.

Even then... I mean we humans are wonderful at the "do as I not as I do" stuff. Heck, the Apostle Paul even speaks of it (I do that which I despise, etc). Actions are just as important as belief and a lot of times we may not live up to our desired actions - the question is do we try to do better, or do we just say **** it? And which of those actions indicate which beliefs we consider to be the ones to follow?

He's not exactly wrong there. I mean Ben is Ben, but sometimes he's on the right track. I mean there are tons of manuscripts of the Bible and there has been a ton of historical discovery, analysis, etc. I mean there are far, far more copies of the Old and New Testaments that have been found than copies of the Illiad, for example.

[MrFun]

He's not exactly wrong there. I mean Ben is Ben, but sometimes he's on the right track. I mean there are tons of manuscripts of the Bible and there has been a ton of historical discovery, analysis, etc. I mean there are far, far more copies of the Old and New Testaments that have been found than copies of the Illiad, for example.

alright, fine

[rah]

I think that only tells me that it probably contains a kernel of truth. How much is still debatable.
Like there probably was a real Jesus type person. But not definitive proof that he rose from the dead.

[Ben Kenobi]

He's not exactly wrong there. I mean Ben is Ben, but sometimes he's on the right track. I mean there are tons of manuscripts of the Bible and there has been a ton of historical discovery, analysis, etc. I mean there are far, far more copies of the Old and New Testaments that have been found than copies of the Illiad, for example.

An order of magnitude more. And the Iliad is number 2. It would be like having a Michael Jordan who scored 300 points every game. Or a Jim Brown averaging 50 yards a carry.

[Ban Kenobi]

Spamming more copies of something makes it true. Jon Miller is the most accurate poster on this site. His posts are like Tiger Woods getting a hole with only half a shot.

[Ben Kenobi]

Like there probably was a real Jesus type person. But not definitive proof that he rose from the dead.

"he"? What evidence is there that you're dealing with a man?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Spamming more copies of something makes it true. Jon Miller is the most accurate poster on this site.

Interestingly enough, Jon Miller probably IS the most accurate poster on this site .

Though, the claim I was responding to was that "it's far more likely that the text of the bible we have today is the text of the original".

[rah]

What evidence is there that you're dealing with a god? Or are you implying that Jesus was a woman.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spamming more copies of something makes it true. Jon Miller is the most accurate poster on this site.

It is odd that the only source which is considered to be corrupt is the one that's the most attested not the ones that are least attested. Most historical documents of the time (the Iliad is a notable outlier), have maybe one or two copies extant before 1200 AD. This is true for some really, really important books like the Algamest.

Yet - you don't see anyone out there attacking the reliability of these sources. Relatively - we can be more certain that the gospel we have today actually contains what the original did than we can for any other historical source.

[Ben Kenobi]

What evidence is there that you're dealing with a god? Or are you implying that Jesus was a woman.

That's my point here - your perception of who Christ is, is colored by the Gospel account. You're trying to cut out parts you don't like while retaining the parts that you do. There's some problems with this approach.

Where do you draw the line? Why should we prefer rah's 21st century analysis over anyone else's? What goes and stays? I'm arguing that if you're going to rely on the Gospel for some things, then we can't reject other parts we don't like. There are exactly two approaches - one, reject all of it as false, and two, accept all of it as an accurate account.

[rah]

Please reread my original post.

I think that only tells me that it probably contains a kernel of truth. How much is still debatable.
Like there probably was a real Jesus type person. But not definitive proof that he rose from the dead.

I didn't make any claim with surety. I question all of it. Lord knows I used probably more than once.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or it could be that I fully understand it and don't consider it true wisdom.

So then you're saying that there's wisdom in yourself, not anywhere else.

And this proves it 100% true how?

I don't see you going around and questioning Herodotus. If you're willing to accept Herodotus, we can be more certain of the Gospel text is what was actually written than we can of Herodotus. All I'm doing is applying your logical skeptical argument to it's full conclusion.

You start with the principle that all history is false and a pack of lies. Then you ask the question - "how can we be certain that anything we receive is the truth?" There are a couple methods that historians use to assess reliability.

One of the big ones is the textual accuracy. If the text itself isn't accurate than we cannot be sure that the book as we think of it today is the same as the book that was actually written.

This is a major, major, impediment to the empirical studies of ancient history - the lack of documentary evidence. It may surprise you but as late as the 6th and 7th century in Europe, there are only a few authors of which we are aware of today that actually wrote anything about the period and we rely on them a tremendous amount in order to have any understanding at all of what actually happened.

I teach my students this. Imagine of all the books written on the 20th century, the only one to survive was 'Mein Kampf'. What would historians of this period conclude about the period as a whole if this were the case?

This is the breadth and depth of our ignorance here.

Just because I have limited wisdom doesn't mean that I'm going to blindly believe that it's 100% correct.

Again, you're perfectly willing to accept what you've read about Julius Caesar. I'm not asking you to blindly accept it. I'm asking you to understand the paucity of historical evidence in support of the things you actually do believe.

Are you trying to say that wisdom doesn't really matter since you have faith?

I'm saying that our understanding is profoundly limited.

1. "There is no universal truth". I've never seen one proven and doubt anyone ever will. Faith does not equal universal truth.

Eating your family is wrong.

2. "Truth is perception - not reality. One's truth is dependent on each individuals concept of the world. Yep

But you don't really believe this. Gale Sayers was a San Diego Charger, was he not?

3. "Biblical content can only be apprehended by the individual. Yep, just like religion is really an individual thing and not the cookie cutter thing that you think it is.

There are problems with this interpretation. If the individual determines what precisely is religious faith - then how does one establish what is biblical canon? How do you point to this book and say, "this is what Jesus taught?"

4. "Teaching authority does not exist in Christianity" They can teach, but it is my right and responsibility to understand/learn.

I see it like a math equation. Trinity in unity is no different than 3 = 3.

You don't get to judge what percentage of it that I believe and judge whether I'm entitled to consider myself a christian.

So what percentage of math are you allowed to reject for you to call yourself someone who understands it? Algebra? Calculus? In order for Christianity to have any sort of meaning there has to be a generally accepted set of principles that comprise the definition of what Christianity is. That's my point. It's like saying, "blue is defined as a color range of so many nm". In order for educated people to be able to discuss the concept of 'blue' there has to be a generally accepted definition.

Otherwise - some people could argue that 'blue' doesn't really exist and is just a delusion because they are colorblind.

I know that no matter what I say will convince you otherwise and I'm equally sure that I can't budge your FAITH. So don't expect me to futilely argue it back and forth.

These are actually meta-ethical principles that apply just as much to Christianity as any other faith.

[rah]

As I said there is no discussing with you.

You say things that you don't know

I don't see you going around and questioning Herodotus.

How do you know?

Again, you're perfectly willing to accept what you've read about Julius Caesar.

How do you know? I don't automatically belief any history. (ancient that is. Modern I'm more inclined to believe)
Yes there's probably a kernel of truth in all historical documents but as they say "the winner writes the history" so you must always be critical of what you read.
Yes, when there's multiple sources the credibility rises but that doesn't constitute PROOF.

But you don't really believe this.

How the F*CK would you know?

You always claim knowledge of what people think. You claim we all hate you because you're Catholic.
I must hate my mother then too.

You always claim I can't be a Catholic because I don't blindly believe everything that you do.
You make a judgement that is not yours to make.
People would be a lot nicer to you if you actually acted like a true Christian.