*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

[Atheos]

When I was a preacher I was an inerrantist. If God inspired someone to write something in the bible I believed God would ensure that the written word was without error. If God inspired Paul to write that sentence then God knew about all the people in Africa, the rest of Europe, Asia and the Americas. God wouldn't have let Paul say that if it weren't true. Somehow, in the space of 40 years, Christianity had exponentially spread and been preached throughout the world. Not everyone accepted it, but everyone had had opportunity to hear it. Paul repeated the same sentiments at least 3 other times to my recollection.

I know better know, and obviously if you aren't an inerrantist you won't have any problem rationalizing this passage as a mistake of ignorance made by Paul.

 

[bilby]

Yeah, you would think that, as the guy who actually made them, God would have at least been aware of the existence of the Americas and Australasia. And that he would have made sure to tell the guys (when he tasked them with telling the entire world about his manifestation as Jesus), that the 'entire world' was quite a bit bigger than they realised.

It wasn't until the arrival of Abel Tasman in 1642 that the first Tasmanians could possibly have heard of Jesus (and even then it was in a language they didn't understand). If only God had thought to tip off Paul about the extra little continent He made to separate the Indian and Pacific oceans in the Southern Hemisphere, the missionaries could have made it there far sooner. So why didn't He?

Not once does the Bible mention the Americas, or Australasia. Not even when Noah was (presumably) being given the special instructions on separating the placental mammals from the marsupials.

It seems like an odd omission.

 

[Learner]

With the phrase " Go out and be fruitful and multiply". I don't think it means imo, ONLY within certain geographical boundry limits ... and beyond that, the Americas and Australasia were to be off limits, (if you were considering God would know these places).

 

[Learner]

True ... Christianity was not so well known throughout the Roman empire at that time, it seems to me. Christianity only became the main faith later in Rome.

You're still inserting 'practiced' when Jesus said 'preached.'
Does it make any difference to what Jesus said, and what Paul said, if it was mainstream or cult?

No I mean where there were people who have not yet heard of the Gospels. In Britain the earliests bibles arrived around the 1500's and even then, the poor had no knowledge of Jesus especially when they couldn't own one let alone being able to read, although knowledge did spread from those believers who went out preaching to the poor., just as Jesus said to do.

 

[bilby]

With the phrase " Go out and be fruitful and multiply". I don't think it means imo, ONLY within certain geographical boundry limits ... and beyond that, the Americas and Australasia were to be off limits, (if you were considering God would know these places).

Well you might assume that God had to know about them (being omnicognisant and all). And He should also have known that His audience didn't know about them. So it would be reasonable to expect that He would mention them - sending people out to tell EVERYONE the Good News, while omitting to mention that there's a bunch of folks on the other side of the Atlantic, and a few more south of the Far East, neither of which his messengers were aware of, sounds like very poor planning.

I mean, perhaps not as poor as forgetting to include a commandment about washing your hands after using the bathroom, and before eating or performing surgery; Or one about making sure to dig the lattine downstream of your drinking water supply; Or avoiding mosquitoes in Malaria country; Or about slavery being forbidden. He was obviously too busy telling people not to put the other Gods ahead of Him in importance - which is rather strange in itself, as you would think He would know He was the only one. Or three. Or... You know, none of this makes any sense at all, when you start thinking about it.

It's almost as though the whole thing was invented by people who didn't really know much about the world, but wanted to be in charge nonetheless.

 

[Keith&Co.]

True ... Christianity was not so well known throughout the Roman empire at that time, it seems to me. Christianity only became the main faith later in Rome.

You're still inserting 'practiced' when Jesus said 'preached.'
Does it make any difference to what Jesus said, and what Paul said, if it was mainstream or cult?

No I mean where there were people who have not yet heard of the Gospels. In Britain the earliests bibles arrived around the 1500's and even then, the poor had no knowledge of Jesus especially when they couldn't own one let alone being able to read, although knowledge did spread from those believers who went out preaching to the poor., just as Jesus said to do.

So how do you take Paul's claim tgat thgry were done? That everyone had received the Word and they were done with that requirement?

 

[bilby]

True ... Christianity was not so well known throughout the Roman empire at that time, it seems to me. Christianity only became the main faith later in Rome.

You're still inserting 'practiced' when Jesus said 'preached.'
Does it make any difference to what Jesus said, and what Paul said, if it was mainstream or cult?

No I mean where there were people who have not yet heard of the Gospels. In Britain the earliests bibles arrived around the 1500's and even then, the poor had no knowledge of Jesus especially when they couldn't own one let alone being able to read, although knowledge did spread from those believers who went out preaching to the poor., just as Jesus said to do.

Are you out of your mind? Christianity in Britian can be traced to the late Roman period - British Christians were present at the Council of Rimini in 353CE, more than a thousand years before the date you appear to have extracted ex-ano.

The Saxons pretty much replaced Christianity with Germanic Pagan Polytheism after the Roman Empire collapsed in Britain; It was reintroduced in stages to the British Isles, first in (what is today) Scotland and Ireland; then in England by the Gregorian Mission led by Augustine of Canterbury between 596 and 653CE. By 735CE cathedrals had been established at both Canterbury and York; These are still the major centres of English Christianity.

The oldest surviving Biblical text from England, the Vespasian Psalter, dates from around the time that these great cathedrals were founded. It's currently in the British Library. At around the same time, the Venerable Bede translated the first English Vernacular Bible - however no copy survives, and it is unclear whether he completed it before his death in that same year - 735CE, some 1214 years ago, and more than 750 years before your claimed date.

By 1500, the current cathedral building at Canterbury had been in continuous use for 430 years (having replaced the 735 buildings in 1070CE).

Are you seriously of the impression that they sat around the cathedral for over four centuries, saying "Well, we could tell the poor about Jesus, but we'd better wait for Tyndale to translate the Bible into Modern English, and that language doesn't exist yet. Never mind; Pass the mead"?

 

[Rhea]

True ... Christianity was not so well known throughout the Roman empire at that time, it seems to me. Christianity only became the main faith later in Rome.

You're still inserting 'practiced' when Jesus said 'preached.'
Does it make any difference to what Jesus said, and what Paul said, if it was mainstream or cult?

No I mean where there were people who have not yet heard of the Gospels. In Britain the earliests bibles arrived around the 1500's and even then, the poor had no knowledge of Jesus especially when they couldn't own one let alone being able to read, although knowledge did spread from those believers who went out preaching to the poor., just as Jesus said to do.

How eternally odd that the god would leave this task to humans who didn’t know th world was round. You’d think, as an omnipotent, that the god could have reached everyone then and there, not leaving many generations to go to hel for not having heard it.

Why do you believe your god is weak and not omnipotent?

 

[Learner]

Are you out of your mind? Christianity in Britian can be traced to the late Roman period - British Christians were present at the Council of Rimini in 353CE, more than a thousand years before the date you appear to have extracted ex-ano.

The Saxons pretty much replaced Christianity with Germanic Pagan Polytheism after the Roman Empire collapsed in Britain; It was reintroduced in stages to the British Isles, first in (what is today) Scotland and Ireland; then in England by the Gregorian Mission led by Augustine of Canterbury between 596 and 653CE. By 735CE cathedrals had been established at both Canterbury and York; These are still the major centres of English Christianity.

Well yes sure, this indicates the start of the missions in regards to England, e.g. Paulinus of York. Not my issue.

The oldest surviving Biblical text from England, the Vespasian Psalter, dates from around the time that these great cathedrals were founded. It's currently in the British Library. At around the same time, the Venerable Bede translated the first English Vernacular Bible - however no copy survives, and it is unclear whether he completed it before his death in that same year - 735CE, some 1214 years ago, and more than 750 years before your claimed date.

By 1500, the current cathedral building at Canterbury had been in continuous use for 430 years (having replaced the 735 buildings in 1070CE).

How many would have access to those old limited number of biblical texts? For petes sake the printing press didn't arrive in England till 1475 close to 1500 coincidently, no wonder there were no copies before then. These are more or less one-offs depending if a scribe was available to copy by "hand" an extra. I know I said earliest bibles (my fault) but I was refering to the earliest bibles-for-the-masses /or poor in my previous post.

Are you seriously of the impression that they sat around the cathedral for over four centuries, saying "Well, we could tell the poor about Jesus, but we'd better wait for Tyndale to translate the Bible into Modern English, and that language doesn't exist yet. Never mind; Pass the mead"?

Waiting for the invention of the printing press maybe?
I could do with some mead.

 

[Learner]

No I mean where there were people who have not yet heard of the Gospels. In Britain the earliests bibles arrived around the 1500's and even then, the poor had no knowledge of Jesus especially when they couldn't own one let alone being able to read, although knowledge did spread from those believers who went out preaching to the poor., just as Jesus said to do.

How eternally odd that the god would leave this task to humans who didn’t know th world was round. You’d think, as an omnipotent, that the god could have reached everyone then and there, not leaving many generations to go to hel for not having heard it.

Why do you believe your god is weak and not omnipotent?

To the underlined, I don't...you do.

 

[bilby]

Well yes sure, this indicates the start of the missions in regards to England, e.g. Paulinus of York. Not my issue.



How many would have access to those old limited number of biblical texts? For petes sake the printing press didn't arrive in England till 1475 close to 1500 coincidently, no wonder there were no copies before then. These are more or less one-offs depending if a scribe was available to copy by "hand" an extra. I know I said earliest bibles (my fault) but I was refering to the earliest bibles-for-the-masses /or poor in my previous post.

Are you seriously of the impression that they sat around the cathedral for over four centuries, saying "Well, we could tell the poor about Jesus, but we'd better wait for Tyndale to translate the Bible into Modern English, and that language doesn't exist yet. Never mind; Pass the mead"?

Waiting for the invention of the printing press maybe?
I could do with some mead.

So your position is that despite having been almost exclusively Christian, and despite having been required BY LAW to attend a Christian church every Sunday, and on a large number of feast days, for several centuries, the English peasantry didn't really know about Jesus until they had their own copy of the Bible, and the ability to read it?

That's ... different.

 

[jab]

And I stood on the sands of the sea, and, lo, I saw Lord Jesus come, riding on nuclear clouds shot through with gold and the blood of the unworthy. And there was a beast at His side, and the beast had 7 heads and 10 horns, and on each horn a crown, and on each crown a MAGA sticker. And riding the beast was Michele Bachmann, in a bronze-tipped brassiere, and carrying the Sword of Judgment, and those that believed, she tapped with the sword, and those that believed not and contributed not, she beheaded.

Melania Trump, not Michelle Bachman
or perhaps kellyanne conway

 

[jab]

Well yes sure, this indicates the start of the missions in regards to England, e.g. Paulinus of York. Not my issue.



How many would have access to those old limited number of biblical texts? For petes sake the printing press didn't arrive in England till 1475 close to 1500 coincidently, no wonder there were no copies before then. These are more or less one-offs depending if a scribe was available to copy by "hand" an extra. I know I said earliest bibles (my fault) but I was refering to the earliest bibles-for-the-masses /or poor in my previous post.

Are you seriously of the impression that they sat around the cathedral for over four centuries, saying "Well, we could tell the poor about Jesus, but we'd better wait for Tyndale to translate the Bible into Modern English, and that language doesn't exist yet. Never mind; Pass the mead"?

Waiting for the invention of the printing press maybe?
I could do with some mead.

So your position is that despite having been almost exclusively Christian, and despite having been required BY LAW to attend a Christian church every Sunday, and on a large number of feast days, for several centuries, the English peasantry didn't really know about Jesus until they had their own copy of the Bible, and the ability to read it?

That's ... different.

no--it's not different. It's a pretty standard Protestant, and rationalist, understanding of have illiterate people go through religious services in Latin,

 

[1ICrying]

Do not be perverse

And here be one of the traps. Who defines what 'perverse' is? You accept these vague terms as important, and then allow other people to tell you what it means. Do you not see how this allows them to control you?

The Bible says:

To the pure, all things are pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Titus

I am convinced and fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
Romans

For one man has faith to eat all things, while another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him.… Romans




So, to answer you Sarpedon, who defines what perverse, under the new covenant, is you and me. That's fair isn't it?

 

[1ICrying]

The greatest big punch I have for ya'll, is the verses contained in the Bible. Go back and give them another read. Even if you're not a card carrying, Jesus died on the cross and was raised again, Christian - , I'm sure you'll agree, it is a book full of wisdom that does nothing less than push all of us towards betterment. What's wrong with that. Do good, flee from evil. Do not be perverse. Do not return evil for good. Are you so opposed to that?

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

- Jesus

Here's on interpretation.

The Lord's teaching throughout, in parable and in direct saying, pressed home to his followers that no home love, no earthly affection, must ever come into competition with the love of God. If home and his cause came ever into collision, home and all belonging to it must gently be put aside, and everything must be sacrificed to the cause.

Stole that from the internet, https://biblehub.com/luke/14-26.htm

 

[1ICrying]

Learning something is great, even religious books have good things to teach, so learn. All those bibles are translations with biases, lies, mistakes, omissions, additions, etc. which is good to remember.

Go ahead and be religious but be rational first. Really think about those magic creatures you idolize. Are they real or does it just feel good to pretend?

There is nothing rational about God

God could create anything he wants, as exemplified by this complex and wondrous universe. What is the difference really between say a flying fairy and an elephant. Is the elephant not just as amazing? Is an egg full of liquid turning into a chicken after just a few days not a miracle? Miracles and magic are all around us - like hurtling through space on this rock, having this conversation.

Is it real, or are we just having fun pretending? Is there a Church on every corner, a bible in every hotel room, and 33% of people who believe it? In my world there is.

In comparison, do you know how many people believe in Greek mythology these days. There is a group in Greece of about 30 people who claim to be into it.

1I

 

[1ICrying]

Here ya go 1I. These are a few of my favorite verses in the NT. I'm using the KJV version since conservative Christians usually like that one.

From Matthew 7, I think.


Judge not, that ye be not judged.
[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
[3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
[4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
[5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I know that Christians try to interpret this simple concept in all kinds of weird ways, maybe because there are a lot of Christians who love judging other people. And, while it's not always easy not to judge someone else's behavior, especially based on their beliefs or political ideology, I do like the concept of not judging others, and try to remind myself not to be too critical of others because If I were influenced by the same genetic heritage and environmental things as they were, I'd be a lot like them.

So, sure there's some pieces of wisdom in the Bible, but there's a lot of other places to find wisdom as well, especially considering that the Bible is a very old book, with many different interpretations, translations, and versions, along with numerous contradictions. So, try and cherry pick the sweet fruit and throw out the bitter cherries.

And yeah. I know that bothers a lot of my atheist friends, but atheists are not easy to herd and we all have vastly different opinions when it comes to how we feel about religion. Diversity of opinions is what makes life more interesting.

I'm meeting up with a small local group of my fellow atheists tonight and I'm sure we will have different opinions about most everything we discuss tonight. Or not!

I'm not judging you Sohy, but you seem like a cool person.

As mentioned, I have mostly atheist friends, same as you, and we do not discuss religion. We've brushed up against it a few times, but nothing too serious. As one of my friends (re)quoted: religion/beliefs are like private parts; we know we all have them, but we don't go around showing everybody.

I think that some of you guys, especially like in the Bible belt there, have been thrown off of what the Bible is truly teaching by a bunch of people who really have taken it and twisted it and done very little to uphold it. Like the quote that you posted: 'Judge not lest ye be judged'. Many 'Christians' do nothing more than go around judging everybody else - like those who hold signs that 'God hates Gays', etc., when really they are committing the bigger sin - of judging. So, do not be mislead by a bunch of 'do-gooder christians' who are then going to try to tell you what is and what is not a sin. As mentioned: that is between you and God. And what might be a sin for you is not a sin for me, and vice versa.

 

[1ICrying]

The first time you quoted me here, Rhea, you left out the happy face after that comment. Nicely edited. Here though, you can see that there is a little happy face, which to some, would mean that I am joking.

Oh yawn. Wake up girl!

You think the smiley-face takes away the insult? Gives you a free pass? So did my boss. So does Donald Trump.

All I did was post in chat room somewhere in cyber space that I would 'educate you' and then followed that up with a happy face, and now I'm Donald Trump and your pervert boss rolled into one.

Draaaaaamaaaaaa!!!

If you have rep power here of 80, I thank the moderators for keeping me at 1.

: )

That's all folks

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you have rep power here of 80, I thank the moderators for keeping me at 1.

Not how it works, but at least that makes more sense than thanking a god for existing.

That's all folks

And another final transmission, again?

 

[Rhea]

So, sure there's some pieces of wisdom in the Bible, but there's a lot of other places to find wisdom as well, especially considering that the Bible is a very old book, with many different interpretations, translations, and versions, along with numerous contradictions. So, try and cherry pick the sweet fruit and throw out the bitter cherries.

And yeah. I know that bothers a lot of my atheist friends, but atheists are not easy to herd and we all have vastly different opinions when it comes to how we feel about religion. Diversity of opinions is what makes life more interesting.

Here’s the issue I have with Christians. They never throw out the bitter cherries.

They tote that whole bible around and call that whole bible holy. And they WILL NOT tear out the pages with vile cruelty. If any of them ever did that, I’d be with you, SoHy. But they won’t. Never seen it.

They consider the whole barrel holy, even the fetid stench of the rotted, bitter fruit.