Hitchens and mortality...

fett on 10/8/2010 at 15:20

Right, but even the most rudimentary research into the ""original manuscripts from which we get our modern translations reveal their origins to be questionable at best. I agree, especially that the NKJV is an incredibly accurate translation of the oldest documents we can get our hands on, but what about the veracity of the documents themselves? They are far enough removed from the actual event as to cause any thinking person to doubt their veracity - and an all knowing god who created a curious human race should know this. The DDS are used all the time to confirm current OT translation, but we've only got partials to compare (with the exception of Isaiah). At the end of the day, the question still remains - why bury the most important message of all history into a book who's authenticity cannot be validated by the common man, one that can be so easily contested, disputed, and rejected? The stakes are too high to take that risk, but that doesn't seem to bother god. Which brings me to another point:

The only reason you and I can have this conversation about the fine points of translation (at least for my part) is because I have been disabled for 12 years and therefore have had 40-60 hours per week for at least 8 of those to study languages, culture, canonization, etc. I was a pastor for 7 of those and therefore it was my job to do so. What about poor Koki over there, who has to work 40+ hours a week at the local xxx theater scrubbing various fluids off the bathroom floors, or Koyla who got his sister pregnant before he was 17 and is doomed to work long weeks at the construction site? How do they begin to amass even 1/10th of the time that an average seminary student spends trying to grasp the most basic tenets of biblical theology? Where do they even start? If God wishes that "none should perish" then he should give everyone an equal shot, correct? But that's not the case - someone like me has a strong advantage over the average person due to circumstance, god-willed or not. Which brings me to another, more disturbing point:

No one since the time of Christ can actually have faith in Christ. What they have is faith in the people who tell them about Christ. I'm not referencing translation issues when I speak of 4th and 5th hand accounts. I'm talking about the "original" writings - Luke being a friend of Paul's, neither of whom ever met Yeshua. Mark being a bystander in a gentile household and getting his account from Peter years after the fact. The very questionable origins of both John and the Acts and the dubious nature of Paul's authorship of the rest. It doesn't matter how good the translation is if the originals are shit - not to mention that they're not originals, they're copies of copies of copies, if I'm being conservative. It begs the question - how is the common man to search through all of this and comprehend it enough to feel comfortable betting his eternal existence on it? He can't. So he relies on a cavalcade of authors, preachers, teachers, seminarians, and theologians who he barely knows or has never met. So who has he placed his faith in, truly? He has no choice but to do so because he has neither the tools nor the time to get to the bottom of it himself. This is how an all-powerful, all-loving god leaves man to "choose" his eternal fate? If the translations are good, and if I live in part of the world where this message is freely preached, and if I happen to hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about, and if I happen to decide to trust what that person says, then I won't spend eternity in hell. This is love? This is wishing that "none should persish?" No, this is a rat in a maze game at best.

No thanks.

Matthew on 10/8/2010 at 15:54
Quote Posted by fett
Luke being a friend of Paul's, neither of whom ever met Yeshua. Mark being a bystander in a gentile household and getting his account from Peter years after the fact. The very questionable origins of both John and the Acts

Clearly the underlying moral is that Matthew is always the most trustworthy.

Brian The Dog on 10/8/2010 at 17:18
Quote Posted by fett
The only reason you and I can have this conversation about the fine points of translation (at least for my part) is because I have been disabled for 12 years and therefore have had 40-60 hours per week for at least 8 of those to study languages, culture, canonization, etc. I was a pastor for 7 of those and therefore it was my job to do so. What about poor Koki over there, who has to work 40+ hours a week at the local xxx theater scrubbing various fluids off the bathroom floors, or Koyla who got his sister pregnant before he was 17 and is doomed to work long weeks at the construction site? How do they begin to amass even 1/10th of the time that an average seminary student spends trying to grasp the most basic tenets of biblical theology? Where do they even start? If God wishes that "none should perish" then he should give everyone an equal shot, correct? But that's not the case - someone like me has a strong advantage over the average person due to circumstance, god-willed or not.

Isn't that more gnosticism though? ie salvation through knowledge? While it's good to know lots of the history stuff, I gather that's not what gets you saved.

Quote Posted by fett
No one since the time of Christ can actually have faith in Christ. What they have is faith in the people who tell them about Christ. I'm not referencing translation issues when I speak of 4th and 5th hand accounts. I'm talking about the "original" writings - Luke being a friend of Paul's, neither of whom ever met Yeshua. Mark being a bystander in a gentile household and getting his account from Peter years after the fact. The very questionable origins of both John and the Acts and the dubious nature of Paul's authorship of the rest. It doesn't matter how good the translation is if the originals are shit - not to mention that they're not originals, they're copies of copies of copies, if I'm being conservative. It begs the question - how is the common man to search through all of this and comprehend it enough to feel comfortable betting his eternal existence on it? He can't. So he relies on a cavalcade of authors, preachers, teachers, seminarians, and theologians who he barely knows or has never met. So who has he placed his faith in, truly? He has no choice but to do so because he has neither the tools nor the time to get to the bottom of it himself. This is how an all-powerful, all-loving god leaves man to "choose" his eternal fate? If the translations are good, and if I live in part of the world where this message is freely preached, and if I happen to hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about, and if I happen to decide to trust what that person says, then I won't spend eternity in hell. This is love? This is wishing that "none should persish?" No, this is a rat in a maze game at best.

I think the idea is that the Spirit is supposed to guide Christians, but mention to that to anyone in the US and they go all Charismatic-Evangelical at you. And for good reason. Anyway, I agree with you :) Most people I know who are Christians here in the UK are Inclusivists, i.e. you're saved by doing the things Jesus wanted rather than by saying some magical words, even if you don't explicitly follow him (e.g. secular charity workers, etc).

Quote Posted by Matthew
Clearly the underlying moral is that Matthew is always the most trustworthy.
Heehee :D

DDL on 10/8/2010 at 17:29
Actually, that's another thing: "you're saved by X" implies that a person's default state is 'unsaved'.

We don't even get the option of falling from grace, we start off right the fuck down there and have to work our way up?

Take home message:

If god is omnipotent, expects so much of us, and yet produces a universe like this, then "fuck you, sadist god".
If god isn't omnipotent, and is thus unable or unwilling to fix what we've got, and yet still expects so much of us..."fuck you, rubbish god".

Either way, if god turned out to be real, I wouldn't be turning up to church anytime soon.

fett on 10/8/2010 at 21:08
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog

I think the idea is that the Spirit is supposed to guide Christians, but mention to that to anyone in the US and they go all Charismatic-Evangelical at you. And for good reason. Anyway, I agree with you :) Most people I know who are Christians here in the UK are Inclusivists, i.e. you're saved by doing the things Jesus wanted rather than by saying some magical words, even if you don't explicitly follow him (e.g. secular charity workers, etc).

But even that notion is so vague. Guide them to what? At what moment am I "saved?" It's obviously that it's a one time event that is triggered by exactly what? What are the "things Jesus wanted" and how many of those are enough? Oh wait, now we're into faith vs. works. :erg:

Tocky on 11/8/2010 at 03:48
I think you are saved right at the beginning of the bible. It let's you know this god punishes those who seek knowledge so you need read no further if that is what you are after. Damned decent of the author when you think about it.