"Atheism" is an Irrational Religion

[torchbearer]

Doesn't it stand to reason then, that God used the Catholic Church?

I think it stands to reason that the catholic church used god.

 

[erowe1]

The first complete Bible was Jerome's Vulgate, also known as the Latin Vulgate. The Pope commisioned Jerome, his secretary, around 395 C.E. to put together a book that would combine all the other books that were either inspired or historically accurate. It was completed around 400 C.E. The Catholic Church gave us our first Bible. Doesn't it stand to reason then, that God used the Catholic Church?

First of all, I would not use the word Pope (in the sense we now use the term) to refer to the bishop of Rome, nor the phrase "Catholic Church"(in the sense most people now use that term) to refer to the church in Rome until the time of Gregory the Great. Second of all, so what if a Roman church bishop commissioned Jerome to translate the Vulgate? What does that have to do with the first time the 66 biblical books were combined? Let's suppose we didn't already have proof that such a thing had already happened by that time (we do, since the Greek uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were both made before that time, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend we don't), how could anyone possibly prove that it was the first such project? Nobody knows.

 

[TortoiseDream]

I am not attacking "atheists," but I am attacking their worldview, admittedly. It is my conviction (as it was of our Founders) that "atheism" is a road to tyranny because it strips away any foundation for morals, liberty, and purpose in human lives. Our American culture today is rampant with "atheistic" philosophy, as can be seen in our current government, school system, scientific establishments, media and entertainment, etc. Because of that, our nation is where it is today. We have forsaken God, and in His place have placed Man as the arbiter of all things, whether it's on an individual level or collectivist level.

I disagree that this is the case, but I would like to make a better point rather than confronting your argument straight on.

This is simply not an argument for why atheism is false. You are only saying that you reject atheism because you believe its consequences are repugnant. In other words, it suggests that you are religious not because you truly believe in God but because you want to avoid the consequences that you think would result without him. I'm not saying that's actually the case for you, but your rhetoric here suggests this.

Do you have an argument against atheism that is not simply, "Life would suck without God, therefore God exists." Because this is not an argument.

The time has come for "atheists" to put up or shut up about there not being a God. Their worldview will continue to be under scrutiny and exposed for the fraud that it is until the truth is proclaimed from every realm of human existence. They may continue to attack Christianity, but their own belief system will be engaged in academic warfare, as well. I will not shut up about it, and I will continue to show that "atheism" is a lie, the biggest lie which has ever entered into human history. At the core, if "atheism" is true, then this movement, this forum, and all the principles we espouse have no reason to be believed and made true in the human hearts and minds of all mankind.

Again, your argument is only out of fear for the alternate reality. If God does not exist, would you embrace truth or reject it? Truth often blinds.

 

[YumYum]

First of all, I would not use the word Pope (in the sense we now use the term) to refer to the bishop of Rome, nor the phrase "Catholic Church"(in the sense most people now use that term) to refer to the church in Rome until the time of Gregory the Great. Second of all, so what if a Roman church bishop commissioned Jerome to translate the Vulgate? What does that have to do with the first time the 66 biblical books were combined? Let's suppose we didn't already have proof that such a thing had already happened by that time (we do, since the Greek uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were both made before that time, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend we don't), how could anyone possibly prove that it was the first such project? Nobody knows.

I have read enough material from quailified scholars such as Burton L. Mack, John Dominic Crossan and Randell Helms, including the Catholic Encyclopedia, to believe that the first complete Bible was given to us by Jerome. It was the first project that we know of. What is important, is that it was the basis of future translations, including the beloved King James Bible. In fact, that is why the King James Bible is called a "version" and not a "translation", because King James' people took directly from The Latin Vulgate. The King James Version is not translated from the earliest manuscripts like other translations are. If the Bible is the sacred word of God, written by Him, and protected by Him, then He had a hand in using the Catholic Church to have the different books and codexes combined into one book: the Bible. My point is that God directed the Catholic Church. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[erowe1]

I have read enough material from quailified scholars such as Burton L. Mack, John Dominic Crossan and Randell Helms, including the Catholic Encyclopedia, to believe that the first complete Bible was given to us by Jerome. It was the first project that we know of.

No it wasn't. See, for example Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, or the 50 copies commissioned by Constantine in 331, as described by Eusebius in Life of Constantine 4.36. None of those can be definitively called the first either, though all of them predate the Vulgate.

What is important, is that it was the basis of future translations, including the beloved King James Bible. In fact, that is why the King James Bible is called a "version" and not a "translation", because King James' people took directly from The Latin Vulgate. The King James Version is not translated from the earliest manuscripts like other translations are.

This is false. First of all, if the KJV had been translated from the Vulgate, then using your definition it would still be a translation and not a version. But it wasn't. It was a revision of earlier English Bibles, the Geneva Bible and the Bishops Bible. Both of those Bibles had been translated from original language manuscripts of the biblical books in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. They also consulted the Vulgate, and included things based on it, but were not just a translation of the Vulgate. In revising those earlier versions, the KJV translators also made use of printed editions (as opposed to manuscripts) of the Greek and Hebrew texts that were then available. The end result is that there are only about 100 places in the KJV where it is based on the Vulgate.

If the Bible is the sacred word of God, written by Him, and protected by Him, then He had a hand in using the Catholic Church to have the different books and codexes combined into one book: the Bible. My point is that God directed the Catholic Church. Wouldn't you agree?

While I disagree with your entire line of argument leading up to this conclusion, rife as it is with factual inaccuracies, I agree that God had a hand in using many within the Catholic Church as well as many outside it in preserving and transmitting his Word. God is sovereign. All that happens, both good and evil, is ultimately under his providential control. This includes his superintention over the transmission of the text of the Bible from ancient times until today in the hands of fallible human beings both noble and ignoble.

 

[YumYum]

No it wasn't. See, for example Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, or the 50 copies commissioned by Constantine in 331, as described by Eusebius in Life of Constantine 4.36. None of those can be definitively called the first either, though all of them predate the Vulgate.

I am not talking about codexes, which are a compilation of a few books (for instance, a codex could contain all seven of Paul's writings), I am talking about the complete Bible: all sixty-six books. Jerome's is the first on record to be produced. This is significant because there were hundreds of books in circulation in the late 4th Century and it would have taken God's direction to guide Jerome (who was assigned the task by the Bishop of Rome), to pick the correct ones; especially the New Testament

This is false. First of all, if the KJV had been translated from the Vulgate, then using your definition it would still be a translation and not a version. But it wasn't. It was a revision of earlier English Bibles, the Geneva Bible and the Bishops Bible. Both of those Bibles had been translated from original language manuscripts of the biblical books in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. They also consulted the Vulgate, and included things based on it, but were not just a translation of the Vulgate. In revising those earlier versions, the KJV translators also made use of printed editions (as opposed to manuscripts) of the Greek and Hebrew texts that were then available. The end result is that there are only about 100 places in the KJV where it is based on the Vulgate.

In line with your explanation, I am making a point that the earliest Bibles were based on the Vulgate. Maybe not all of the KJV or the other English bibles completely copied from the vulgate, but they did borrow. My point that I am stressing is that it was the Catholic Church who gave us our first complete Bible.

While I disagree with your entire line of argument leading up to this conclusion, rife as it is with factual inaccuracies, I agree that God had a hand in using many within the Catholic Church as well as many outside it in preserving and transmitting his Word. God is sovereign. All that happens, both good and evil, is ultimately under his providential control. This includes his super intention over the transmission of the text of the Bible from ancient times until today in the hands of fallible human beings both noble and ignoble.

So, you recognize that God used the Catholic Church to deliver to the World His written word. This raises questions for me. You mentioned that "All that happens, both good and evil, is ultimately under his providential control." I believe by this statement you perceive the Catholic Church to be evil. If God used the evil Catholic Church to give mankind His word, this would mislead millions of people into believing that the Catholic Church has God's blessing. Using the evil Catholic Church would violate Jesus illustration of a house divided cannot stand when accused of expelling demons by means of Beelzebub. God cannot spread his righteous word by means of an evil messenger no more than Jesus could expel demons by means of the Devil. I know that you’re bright enough to see what I am getting at, but what apologist will do when confronted with issues that cannot be explained, is to start explaining “why God does this, and why God does that”, when they have really no clue why God does anything. If God used the Catholic Church, it would stand to reason that He did so because He found favor with the Church. My question to you: If God found approval of the Catholics by having them deliver His precious word, who is to judge them “evil” and claim that they are not still His Devine instrument to shed enlightenment and the good news of Jesus?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"Atheists" cannot know for sure there is no God, so all they can do is believe there is no God. Since "atheists" cannot prove the nonexistence of something, they have to believe in something which has no evidence to back it up. Therefore, "atheism" is a religion based on a belief which has no evidence for it to be true, and for that reason, it is the most irrational of all belief systems in history.

I knew you were one of the instigators of RPF flame wars! Don't you think this post goes against Matthew 5:44?

"5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

(King James Bible, Matthew)"

 

[erowe1]

I am not talking about codexes, which are a compilation of a few books (for instance, a codex could contain all seven of Paul's writings), I am talking about the complete Bible: all sixty-six books. Jerome's is the first on record to be produced.

Check your facts again. Just like the Vulgate, Codex Sinaiticus included all 66 books (and more) when it was discovered and all but some parts of the Old Testament are still intact, Codex Vaticanus included all 66 books (and more) and all but some portions of a few books are still intact. The 50 manuscripts Constantine commissioned probably included all 66 books, which we don't know for sure, but they at least were each supposed to be the entire corpus of sacred Scripture, not just a few books. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Vulgate was the first such project. But whoever your source for that information is, they don't know what they're talking about. Everything I'm saying is very easily verifiable in any number of standard reference works on textual or canonical criticism of the Bible, or better yet, with the primary sources themselves. Sinaiticus is now online:http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ . And I gave you the reference for the Eusebius passage, which you can read here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constantine.html .

 

[erowe1]

You mentioned that "All that happens, both good and evil, is ultimately under his providential control." I believe by this statement you perceive the Catholic Church to be evil.

I'm not saying anything either for or against the Catholic Church. I'm not Catholic and I have my convictions about why I'm not that I won't get into now. My point was that God's use of any person or group of people to accomplish any given thing for his own ends is not in itself an endorsement of the virtues of that person or the process by which those ends were accomplished. This is a belief I have because it's biblical. The Bible says a great deal about God accomplishing his own good purposes through the sinful actions of his enemies. Of course he also accomplishes his purposes through the righteous actions of those who gladly serve him.

 

[Bman]

That's pretty much my question too.

I believe in this singularity, but not the controller. I believe we are the controllers, we are the creators, and we always have been. We are existence creating, exploring, expanding and improving itself.

Would you consider yourself a Transcendentalist?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Why do you believe this?

Because, I'm in control of what I do with this state of mind, in this glimpse of time. Everything I do changes the world around me.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Would you consider yourself a Transcendentalist?

I'm not familiar with that term really. Can you explain what you mean by it?

Transcendent:

1 a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent 2
4 : universally applicable or significant <the antislavery movement…recognized the transcendent importance of liberty — L. H. Tribe>

Dictionary.com

 

[ClayTrainor]

Bump...

Would you consider yourself a Transcendentalist?

I'm still curious about this

 

[Bman]

Bump...


I'm still curious about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism

 

[ClayTrainor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism

I suppose i should've looked a little harder :o

Among transcendentalists' core beliefs was an ideal spiritual state that 'transcends' the physical and empirical and is only realized through the individual's intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions.

Yes, this sounds pretty dam close to what i've been thinking, lately. I believe spirituality is a discovery that can only be made on the individual level. We are the creators, we are in control, we make this world as it is, a reality through our perception.

Perception is reality, and when you die, your perception will simply change. No more eyes, ears, nose, brain, etc. It's all going to be combined into something else, but it will always exist. See sig...