• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NAACP backs gay marriage

Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

and which isn't that much different than claims of other people of different religions in their own explanations for things they could not otherwise understand.
Why does it matter which texts were first? So the others didn't waste paper writing down their beliefs. Why does that matter? It doesn't change what they believed or the reasons why they believed them, in either case. And many of the Christian stories began as word of mouth, not written texts. They just happened to last long enough to become written text, and not just hieroglyphs or pictures or passed down.

It does matter. But it wasn't the first text either, as noted by dates given. However, being first to write it down has no bearing on anything.
The claim was, by Rouge, that other religions have a similar account to Christianity. I was merely showing that the Bible was written before any of those religions that have a similar history.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

FYI:

The oldest known religious texts are Pyramid texts of Ancient Egypt that date to 2400-2300 BCE. The earliest form of the Phoenician alphabet found to date is the inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos. ( The Sumerian Temple Hymns [1]). The Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria is also one of the earliest literary works dating to 2150-2000 BCE, that includes various mythological figures. The Rigveda of Hinduism is proposed to have been composed between 1700–1100 BCE[2] making it possibly the world's oldest religious text still in use. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE.[citation needed]

The majority of scholars agree that the Torah's composition took place over centuries.[3] From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BC).[4]

The first scripture printed for wide distribution to the masses was The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, and is the earliest recorded example of a dated printed text, bearing the Chinese calendar date for 11 May 868 CE.[5]

Source

And calling the Old Testament the oldest is wrong on two counts. One as described above and two, because it wasn't the OT but the Torah you're talking about. The OT is a damaged and rewritten copy of the Torah. The Bible itself, including the OT, is a compilation of Christian religious texts put together much later in the game and by a Church congress that were "selective" on which texts would solidify the Church.
 
Last edited:
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

The claim was, by Rouge, that other religions have a similar account to Christianity. I was merely showing that the Bible was written before any of those religions that have a similar history.

I never claimed those other religions had to be written down to have any bearing on this. You are the one who kept making the claim about the Bible being written first. Okay, great. It really isn't completely true, since other religious writings were made earlier, even if they weren't an actual "book". But it has no bearing on whether that gives the Bible more credibility or not in its claim to be the truth or in whether those writers weren't just trying to use "God" to explain those things which they were unable to find a reason for happening.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

The claim was, by Rouge, that other religions have a similar account to Christianity. I was merely showing that the Bible was written before any of those religions that have a similar history.

See her reply.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

I never claimed those other religions had to be written down to have any bearing on this. You are the one who kept making the claim about the Bible being written first. Okay, great. It really isn't completely true, since other religious writings were made earlier, even if they weren't an actual "book". But it has no bearing on whether that gives the Bible more credibility or not in its claim to be the truth or in whether those writers weren't just trying to use "God" to explain those things which they were unable to find a reason for happening.

A) I ceded that one text was written before the Bible. Although that text isn't along the same lines as the Bible and doesn't reflect redundant points in history. You can read can't you?
B) Like I said, you insinuated that the Bible copied other religions because the texts were similar. I showed that it was not possible because the Bible was written before them. If anything, they copied the Bible, not vice versa. Whether you believe the Bible is true or not wasn't the issue. You're moving the goal posts. The issue was Christians copying other religions texts. I showed the Bible was written before similar texts, so if anything its the opposite.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

A) I ceded that one text was written before the Bible. Although that text isn't along the same lines as the Bible and doesn't reflect redundant points in history. You can read can't you?
B) Like I said, you insinuated that the Bible copied other religions because the texts were similar. I showed that it was not possible because the Bible was written before them. If anything, they copied the Bible, not vice versa. Whether you believe the Bible is true or not wasn't the issue. You're moving the goal posts. The issue was Christians copying other religions texts. I showed the Bible was written before similar texts, so if anything its the opposite.

The stories are similar, whether they were written down or not. It is very easy for something that is heard by word of mouth from another religion to be taken in by this other religion and used as their own. So what if they wrote it down first? They weren't copying other texts, they were taking from other religions.

And you started this argument about what came first with this statement:#214

You do know that the Bible existed before any other religious documents correct? So, who's religion is based off who's? What proof do you have of your god?

And I pointed out to you that we did not need religious texts to know about a culture's religious beliefs. Their beliefs existed, whether written down or not, prior to the Bible. Those past religions still had beliefs that were very similar to those of the Bible's but even before many of those things in the Bible were occurring. It almost sounds like a game of telephone, looking back on it, where someone finally wrote down what was being said as if it were the absolute first thing said, but none of us really knowing the truth since it was basically all word-of-mouth til that first time it got written down which was long after the story started.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

I find it fascinating that, uniquely with regards to religion, people find the existence of multi-source reporting to be a discrediting factor.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

And I pointed out to you that we did not need religious texts to know about a culture's religious beliefs. Their beliefs existed, whether written down or not, prior to the Bible. Those past religions still had beliefs that were very similar to those of the Bible's but even before many of those things in the Bible were occurring. It almost sounds like a game of telephone, looking back on it, where someone finally wrote down what was being said as if it were the absolute first thing said, but none of us really knowing the truth since it was basically all word-of-mouth til that first time it got written down which was long after the story started.

Telephone is a bad example - only the individual sender and receiver are aware of the message that is passed. Group telephone (which is what oral tradition is) offers instant correction to account corruption.

That being said, you can't really say that last bit about "the Bible", because the Bible was neither written in a single place, or in a single time, nor is it a single text. You have some documents that were clearly written by primary sources, and some that are clearly written down portions of an oral tradition.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

I find it fascinating that, uniquely with regards to religion, people find the existence of multi-source reporting to be a discrediting factor.

I often wonder why republicans on these forms did. Not sure what you're refering to here, but often things reported in mutiple sources are not accepted by republicans on these boards.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

Telephone is a bad example - only the individual sender and receiver are aware of the message that is passed. Group telephone (which is what oral tradition is) offers instant correction to account corruption.

That being said, you can't really say that last bit about "the Bible", because the Bible was neither written in a single place, or in a single time, nor is it a single text. You have some documents that were clearly written by primary sources, and some that are clearly written down portions of an oral tradition.

The whole "others would correct those that said something wrong" is such bull. First it would require others that actually knew about what was being written to correct those that were wrong. Second it is disproved by the group-think mindset that leads to people who should have known something was wrong accepting that thing as right because they doubt their own knowledge of the incident.

So lets say two or three guys start talking about something they heard. And one tells the others that he heard something particular that the others don't remember hearing. So now the other two should correct him right? Psychology easily proves that it is more than possible that instead of correcting him, the other two will start believing that not only did he hear it, but that they actually may have heard that too. Now you have three people believing the mistake. Those three talk to others who may or may not have been there, and even if they are contradicted, they are slowly getting more and more credibility to turn the story to something that didn't happen but is believed anyway.

Plus, much of the stuff in the Bible is not large groups of people getting together and being able to confirm every point in the Bible. They were small groups of people talking to one another and the stories spread about what others think they may have heard. The first person to write it down or the person with the most influence likely gets his version believed, despite his not necessarily being the true account. There are so many possibilities for change or errors or mistaken explanations pertaining to the Bible, not to mention the fact that there is no way there could be proof for things like God talking to specific people, that we can't possibly know how accurate the Bible truly is.

What we do know is that science contradicts the Bible. I'm going with science here until other actual evidence exists to show otherwise.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

The Bible was not written to be a science text book. It's contents are designed to guide man to God and teach humanity how to obtain salvation and live a Godly life. As a scientist I can say that science does not contradict the Bible and neither does the Bible contradict science. That's just an ignorant accusation made by others to undermine Biblical validity. Christians are also guilty of wanting to use the Bible as a science text book and take things from it that were not meant to be taken as scientific fact.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

I find it fascinating that, uniquely with regards to religion, people find the existence of multi-source reporting to be a discrediting factor.

We don't truly have multiple sources though. Particularly for the details or the lesser stories of the Bible. We have texts that many of us can't even understand in their original language. We have things that we know are wrong, such as no proof whatsoever that there was ever a world-wide flood, particularly since man has existed nor that the planet/universe kinda popped into being around 6K-8K years ago. We have proof for another species kind of like us that lived along side us for at least a small amount of time in our very distant past.

Even if there are multiple sources for some of the stories of the New Testament, that doesn't mean this is so for everything. For example, many of the things taken from the disciples and put into the Bible is letters to various religious people talking about what God/Jesus wants as told by the disciples. So why wouldn't they all match? We know they don't since all the disciples basically believed in at least some things the others didn't. Paul comes to mind as being one of those who certainly spoke about much more than the others.

Then we have the translation thing. There are serious theological debates about the meanings of certain words in the Bible and whether they were really translated correctly. And it isn't a small minority thinking that some words were translated wrong. There is debate by many.

And it still begs the question about the authenticity of the writings. How do we know that those who are credited with writing those texts actually did or were truly there at all? Why couldn't they have heard the stories from the other people? The stories in the Bible are honestly not that descriptive.
 
Re: NAACP Backs Same-Sex Marriage

The stories are similar, whether they were written down or not. It is very easy for something that is heard by word of mouth from another religion to be taken in by this other religion and used as their own. So what if they wrote it down first? They weren't copying other texts, they were taking from other religions.
The Bible was the original document showing the "stories" you are speaking of. Unless you have proof that other religions believe it first, then this is simply hyperbole.
And I pointed out to you that we did not need religious texts to know about a culture's religious beliefs. Their beliefs existed, whether written down or not, prior to the Bible. Those past religions still had beliefs that were very similar to those of the Bible's but even before many of those things in the Bible were occurring. It almost sounds like a game of telephone, looking back on it, where someone finally wrote down what was being said as if it were the absolute first thing said, but none of us really knowing the truth since it was basically all word-of-mouth til that first time it got written down which was long after the story started.
How do you know they existed prior to the Bible though? What proof do you have?
 
Back
Top Bottom