That's a huge and ill-founded exaggeration. Given that the earliest portions of the New Testament that are extant are from the 3rd century, we have little original text with which to compare the current text.

And Babe, given that the earliest extant alternative Biblical material is dated to the 2nd century, that is after the dating of the four Gospels.

So you believe 100% in the translations? And believe that these 3rd Century documents are 100% the words of Jesus?

Religion is control over people. I'm very spiritual and believe in God. Just not God in text form.

No. What I believe is that you have no factual basis for writing that the Bible has been "messed with." If you do have a factual basis, state it. It's just common sense. If you don't have the original Aramaic or Greek texts with which to compare the current text (or just a few small fragments), how do you conclude that it has been messed with? Also, you might want to define the the universe of textual material you are appraising. Are you referring to the entire New Testament? Or just one or a couple of its books? Or portions of one or more books?

And what is this about control? People make up their own minds about how to conduct their lives. Follow religion or don't. In the end, there's only what we do.

Conspiracy theorists must have so much fun It's so easy to fill in the blanks with outrageous stuff and there's no way to prove they are wrong. And for some reason people end up wanting to believe the conspiracies more than not. Most people want to believe there is something bigger and better going on behind the scenes, whether it is religion or a secret society pulling all the strings.

Jesus' real name was Paco, but he kept that a secret because it didn't sound Godly enough. Can you prove me wrong? Nope, it must be true then.

^^^ This is BibleBlabble.

Haha, I remember when I first signed up here some members kept calling me that not realizing there was an "L" in there.

It's common sense to realize that over all these years, as if the Bible hasn't been changed and "touched up". The King James version doesn't have the extra ?Middle" that the Catholic version has etc.

Also, very true about free will etc, But religion is definitely still a form of control. A person my choose to become a "Christian" and then his mind is pummeled with "you're going to hell if you etc etc" "Oh you fucked ya girlfriend, you ain't married, naughty naughty, repent etc"

Subliminal scare tactics in some cases. But also, I'm happy for the folk who find happiness in religion too. I'm looking for peace as we speak.

Anyways, all I'm saying is, all the religious books have been altered to some degree and you're tripping if you think otherwise.

"Could there really be anything worse than what is on the way?"

Trilateralism, The Illuminati, The Media, Novus Ordo Seclorum, The Church, Fascism, (Neo)Conservativism.

Etceteraism.

Did you listen to that album, whisper?

Not yet Capo. I've downloaded it, Just gotta go buy some blank discs to burn it onto. My computer speakers wouldn't give it the play it deserves.

And so what? To some degree? What degree?

The Douai-Rheims Catholic Bible has 73 books, 7 more than the King James Bible version. Those seven books are found in the Old Testament.

Again, I ask you, control of what? You abide by your religion's articles of faith or you don't. You make the choice of behaviors knowing the consequences. If you don't adhere to a religion, does that change the consequences? If you are willing to risk the consequences, then there is no "control" is there?

I know nothing about the Catholic faith and I was wondering why do they have a seperate Catholic bible?

The Catholics Bible is based on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It contains 7 more books than the Protestant Bible which also contained those 7 books until the Reformation when Martin Luther influenced their exclusion.

There you go.

What consequences?

But you're saying "willing to risk the consequences" as if the consequences are necessarily there to risk.

Eternal damnation, for instance; going to Hell.

That's a concept applicable only to the intrinsic politics of the faith pertaining to it. Heaven and Hell do not exist beyond the religions that fabricate them.

Fear factors play a large part in controlling any collective. Convince someone that their independence and happiness relies (absurdly) on a higher force or adherence to a wider system, and they can be quite hard to individualise again. Hence, "Blind Faith"; upholding Faith in spite of all arguments put before you.

And God's light is bright enough to blind all who see it.

Use your head. Consequences are what you "believe" are or will be the possible outcomes of your behavior whether those consequences actually happen or not

And, please, tell us all how in the world you know that heaven and hell don't exist. If you can be that definitive, then you can probably also pick winning lottery numbers for us if you'd be so kind.

Why have you put "believe" in quotation marks?

And I'm not sure I agree. Consequences are real, visible products of a causal chain of events. They're not what you believe. And if they are, then you're contradicting yourself. If consequences are only what you believe to be the product of one's behaviour, if it settles on that claim of relative subjectivity, then, for an atheist, Heaven and Hell are by definition definitely non-existent.

I could ask you the same thing; how do you know they do?

But that's a sceptical dead-end, and it's cyclically self-defeating.

I'm a pragmatist; I go with what I know to be the case, not with what I want to believe is the case. I see what I see and don't see what is not there to see; I'm not one to invest upon one's own emptiness.

I'm not saying Heaven and Hell don't exist. They obviously do, as concepts. They don't exist as physical places, though; not definitively, not beyond the faiths that apply them as the consequential polemics of morality.

And saying non-believers go to Hell for their non-believing is about as controlling and fascistic a scare-tactic I can think of.

But if you give me all of your pocket money, I'll convert to the Christian Cause.

Again, how do you know that heaven and hell don't exist? Present your evidence, not just your words.

And believe is in quotes because behavior is predicated on perceived consequences.

This is quite an unusual stance. Scepticism usually questions the dubious lack of evidence regarding the positive notion that there is a God, that Heaven does exist, etc. The Faithful can't have their cake and eat it too. As I said, I could just as easily fire your question right back at you, and it would at least make a lot more sense.

"Where's your evidence, beyond words, that Heaven and Hell do exist?"

That's a lot more coherent than,

"Where's your evidence, beyond words, that Heaven and Hell don't exist?"

What evidence am I suppose to come up with? If I did and if I could, then I'd be here right now with evidence in hand, undermining my entire argument.

Like I said, this is a cyclical dead-end, and dangerous to everyday common sense.

Surely you're the one who should be providing evidence. The lack of physical evidence is evidence enough, so far (that is, definitively but not necessarily infinitely), that they do not exist.

But at least science is, by nature alone, willing to question itself; it's constantly re-writing its own understanding of the world as it is. You get none of that in the Church - it's the be all and end all of meaning.

Your argument makes as much sense as asking me to provide evidence that there isn't a place called Neverland full of children and a baddy with a hooked claw for one of his hands.

So, I reiterate; just as God does not exist outside theism (because theism is defined by a belief in God), Heaven and Hell are concepts that, by definition, can not exist beyond the faith that prescribes to them.

I don't understand how this definition is relevant to this discussion.

You originally stated that,

"Consequences are what you 'believe' are or will be the possible outcomes of your behavior whether those consequences actually happen or not,"

which, actually, doesn't make much sense. Unless you're distinguishing a difference between probable outcomes and actual outcomes (which isn't clear).

Refer to my comment above (which I've quoted here):



What you're saying, or what I think you're implying (by extension of your argument) is that non-believers (atheists) can only believe Heaven and Hell don't exist, but that in actual fact Heaven and Hell do exist, regardless of said beliefs.

We're all damned!!!!

Why aren't you Catholic?

Well Capo, I'll walk you through part of this anyway.

One of the problems I have associated with several Board members over the years is their failure to throughly read posts.

So, if you reread my posts, you'll discover that I never stated that heaven and hell exist. Didn't you notice that? You should have. On the other hand, you stated "They [heaven and hell] don't exist as physical places..." Once again, given your surety, provide us with your evidence.

Your thinking is, apparently, one-dimensional. Behavior can be predicated on perceived consequences through observation, personal experience, or speculation.

Harding Alert.

Another problem is their failure to thoroughly write posts, too. But that's ad hominem; we'll stick with the discussion at hand.

You didn't, no. But the stance is implied in your questioning alone. I'm not saying you did say it; I'm saying that the question you put to me could just as easily be reversed and put back to you. And they become meaningless questions.

Any physical evidence I could put forth as to the existence of anywhere, be it Heaven, Hell, Neverland, Mordor, Tatooine, whatever, would inherently prove that the place did exist. I can't bring a rock back from the Grand Canyon as evidence of its absence. It's unavoidably self-defeating; not to mention a curious method of proof.

If anything, Heaven and Hell are spiritual places; their physicality should never be argued for (and rarely is).

Said the pot to the kettle.

Maybe it's me, maybe it's you, but I'm not quite following. I'm not well schooled in behavioural theory.

I've been using "Heaven and Hell" as an example; perhaps it was a bad one. This all came about by a discussion on whether or not religion is a form of control.

You said:

Control of what? You abide by your religion's articles of faith or you don't. You make the choice of behaviors knowing the consequences (my italics).

Then:

Consequences are what you believe are or will be the possible outcomes of your behavior whether those consequences actually happen or not (my italics).

In the above two quotes, you contradict yourself. There is a huge difference between knowing the consequences of a decision, and believing what the consequences of a decision will be.

You also said:

If you don't adhere to a religion, does that change the consequences?

But this question needs to be answered before you ask your next one:

If you are willing to risk the consequences, then there is no "control" is there?

The problem here is that the second question relies on the answer to the first question being "No," that the consequences (ie. going to Heaven or Hell) don't change if one doesn't adhere to a religion. Otherwise, if the answer was "Yes," that they do change, then the second question is redundant, because the consequences have changed, and thus there are different consequences to risk.

When you say "willing to risk the consequences" (a curious phrase, but we'll stick with it), you're making two conclusions. The first is a bit complicated due to your previous lack of clarity:

(1) That those who don't adhere to a religion (atheists) are either (a) willing to take the risks of not adhering to a religion (because, you said earlier, consequences are what you "believe" are or will be the possible outcomes of your behavior whether those consequences actually happen or not); or (b) completely exempt from the consequences to which a religion subscribes.

(2) That those who do adhere to a religion (theists) are not under any form of control, because they are willing to take the risks of adhering to a religion.

Essentially, 1A (if you'll indulge me in this scientific rhetoric) says atheists are at risk for not adhering to a religion, because the consequences of one's behaviour (in terms of Heaven and Hell) apply to all, even those who don't believe in it.

1B, on the other hand, says atheists are exempt from Heaven and Hell because Heaven and Hell are concepts to which they don't subscribe.

I disagree with 1A and agree with 1B.

I disagree with 2. "Control" is a broad term, and here it refers to "control of the masses". You could extend conclusion 2 to a wife who remains in marriage despite the domestic violence she encounters from her husband. If you agree with #2 (I don't know because of your lack of clarity and abuse of rhetorical questions, hence why I've taken the time to reply in length), then that's impractical existentialism, no?

Control, in the context of organised hierarchical religion, takes many forms, mostly in the injection of guilt into all who obey to it. And there's a repression, too (repression, actually, might be a better term than control). Passive aggressive oppression in the form of awe (the worshipping of icons; adhering to ten commandments; literal exegeses of stories such as Noah's Ark). All of that's a dangerous threat to individual thought. There's little room for external arguments in religion; and too much time is spent on in-fighting, too. That the Bible, that apparently most grand and moral of guidances, can be (and has been) interpreted in several different ways, says something about its unavoidably frivolous nature.

"So long as authority inspires awe, confusion and absurdity enhance conservative tendencies in society. Firstly, because clear and logical thinking leads to a cumulation of knowledge (of which the progress of the natural sciences provides best example) and the advance of knowledge sooner or later undermines the traditional order. Confused thinking, on the other hand, leads nowhere in particular and can be indulged indefinitely without producing any impact upon the world."
- Stanislev Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery

I should probably say at this point that I take The Church, American Conservativism, Passive Aggressive Fascism, Mass Transparent Guilt Tactics... all of these, and more, in their broadest terms, as interchangeable;or at least closely linked.

Lets not get our knickers in a wad here. Everyone has his and her set of beliefs and I doubt that anyone strictly adheres in every sense to each and every doctrine of the religion, sect, cult or whatever they are in. Bottom line is you cannot empirically prove there is a God, or many gods, or any gods.

What we do know about the human condition is there is a tendency among all religions and all secular legal systems to hold to the view that those who commit bad acts in life will ay for them one way or another --- going to hell, going to jail, being reincarnated into something less than human, whatever.

In essence then the "Golden Rule" do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a life choice that is universally accepted IMHO.

Personally I am a Pascal's wager guy. I am not sure I believe in God or heaven or hell, but I am going to live like a believer just in case.

So you think the consequences of immoral behaviour as set out by organised religion(s) applies to all? That, even if I don't "believe in" Heaven and Hell (I don't think they exist as physical or spiritual places), then they still apply to me?

That completely undermines the second sentence of your post.

Heaven and Hell are notions that do not - cannot, if we aspire to freedom of thought - apply beyond the religions that subscribe to them.

The same goes for God: "God" is a concept; it can only ever be argued as a means of interpreting the world and all its hazards. It can never be argued that God is a conscious being pulling the strings - and as soon as you start to argue the contrary all sorts of juicy hypocrisies pop up.

I can't win Man of the Match if I don't play soccer; I can't be put in the Sin Bin if I don't play hockey.

You cannot lose if you do not play.

(But then, for The Church and all other similar institutions, I suppose the game is rigged.)