Comparing religions

[marct]

I have to disagree, Marc. Most of the early (pre AD 60) churches, such as those in Ephesus, Thessalonica etc, did accept Paul as one of the messengers of the gospel. If there was any argument about Paul's authority, it was over whether or not the gospel was meant for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

It's certainly open to debate. Most of Paul's churches weren't accepted by the Church in Jerusalem for exactly the reason you listed. I wouldn't call them "original" partly for that reason, and partly because Paul wasn't a first hand witness. I tend to think of them as a set of "first round expansion teams" to use a hockey analogy .

Yes, the Gospels (and the rest of the NT) were written after Jesus's death, but the gospel writers were all eye witnesses of His ministry. Speculation here, it wouldn't surpirse me if Luke (the Dr.) kept a journal, seeing how specific he was in his writing.

There is some really serious question about the Gospel of John beingn written by an eye witness. Most of the non-conservative theologians I know or have read tend to place it fairly late, say ~85-95, and generally conclude that it wasn't written by the disciple of that name. At least when I studied it, the general agreement was that the Johanine community derived from Paul's churches rather than from John. I'll agree with you on the synoptics, however.

[skiguy]

Yes, definitely debatable...as is most everything in the Bible. (the authorship and dating of the NT probably being one of the bigger debates)
I'll just leave it at this: there's a big difference between studying the bible (or any religious text) for scholarly purposes, and studying it because you believe it.

The original question was because I think there are a lot of moral similarities between the 2 religions, and those similarities can be used for peacekeeping. Just wondering if Sarajevo would agree.

[wm]

More to the point raised by Sarajevo is the divine nature of all the texts. The Gospel of John may have been written by Mary Magdalene's great grandson or some out-of-work wino sitting in the ruins of Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba revolt. I submit that the wielder of the writing instrument does not really matter. The important issue is whether the works are the revealed word of a supreme deity. This claim is differentially made for the Koran and for the elements of the Bible, including the Apocrypha and the so-called Gnostic gospels, among others. It is likewise made for the Book of Mormon and the Eleusian Mysteries, to list a very small sampling of a very long list of foundational religious texts. Can any of us refute these claims? The claims of faith are not usually subject to refutation using rational argumentation.

[marct]

Hi Wayne,

Can any of us refute these claims? The claims of faith are not usually subject to refutation using rational argumentation.

A good point. Of course, that still leaves open their refutation by irrational arguments - something that was certainly the case with many of these texts.

[wm]

Hey Marc,

. Of course, that still leaves open their refutation by irrational arguments - something that was certainly the case with many of these texts.

Irrational argument--isn't that an oxymoron? Or did you mean to use that as a polite euphemism for "knuckles" and associated exercises of brute force?

[marct]

Hi Wayne,

Hey Marc,
Irrational argument--isn't that an oxymoron? Or did you mean to use that as a polite euphemism for "knuckles" and associated exercises of brute force?

I was thinking more along the lines of "God says..." or "credo qua absurdam est", but the knuckle dusting refs will do as well .

[wm]

Marc,

I was thinking more along the lines of "God says..." or "credo qua absurdam est", but the knuckle dusting refs will do as well .

The argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to (false) authority is an example of the exercise of brute force; at least that's how I have taught it in critical reasoning classes. By the same token, in the argumentum ad batulum , that stick is a false authority, as is the insult in the argumentum ad hominem, wouldn't you agree?

[marct]

no i don't think that there is any similarities in this case. but there are many other similarities between these two religions.

Which two religions? You seem to be making a whole series of comments in all of the threads on religion (in general), but no specific points.

[Sarajevo071]

The original question was because I think there are a lot of moral similarities between the 2 religions, and those similarities can be used for peacekeeping. Just wondering if Sarajevo would agree.

And Sarajevo wonders why didn't you ask him that directly!?

To save you that hassle of talking to me (obviously you are not big fan of it) let me answer... Do I agree? Yes, I do. But how, when and under which circumstances?! That's something else.

[marct]

Do I agree? Yes, I do. But how, when and under which circumstances?! That's something else.

I agree, it really does change things. So, when do you think it would be a good idea, and when not?

[Sarajevo071]

Generally speaking (we are speaking generally, right?) it will depend who is in question, where, when and why? But I would say not before killings are stooped, invasions are halted, fair reparations are made and respect and trust is gain back... Without that you will have just bunch of people screaming on each others, accusing them for this and that, defending they of guilty sides and spiting on opposites.

This is just my personal opinion from top of my head this night. For something more precise or deeper (!?) I will need to get back to you. Sorry.

[marct]

Generally speaking (we are speaking generally, right?) it will depend who is in question, where, when and why? But I would say not before killings are stooped, invasions are halted, fair reparations are made and respect and trust is gain back... Without that you will have just bunch of people screaming on each others, accusing them for this and that, defending they of guilty sides and spiting on opposites.

Yup - I think we are best off using the general right now. Hmm, okay, I can see why you would say that. I was thinking that it has been used during actual conflicts (I'll try and get the refs, but a couple of places in Africa and Northern Ireland come to mind) as a way to stop the conflict.

This is just my personal opinion from top of my head this night. For something more precise or deeper (!?) I will need to get back to you. Sorry.

No worries - I'm pretty much done for the night myself (too much work, too little sleep), Take care,

Marc

[Sarajevo071]

Yup - I think we are best off using the general right now. Hmm, okay, I can see why you would say that. I was thinking that it has been used during actual conflicts (I'll try and get the refs, but a couple of places in Africa and Northern Ireland come to mind) as a way to stop the conflict.

No need to go far like Africa. Stay closer. Bosnia? Or, since you mention Northern Ireland... Didn't they need for talks to start (and results to shown) new people in charge, different mentalities and let down in fighting (attacks)? IMO, generally speaking something need to really change so people will start thinking about peace and not about revenge for they killed and wrongs they suffer. Do you believe that one can have talks/conversations about peace and mutual understanding while attacks/invasion/war is still going strong?! I am not so sure.