The dinosaurs.
- Thread starter Mucker
- Start date
Ok you can't put God in the same category as Santa in terms of faith to believe in. There's also a book aboout God, the Bible. Now you might refute the Bible authenticity, but the authors had no reason to make up all that it contains. It says "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." I have no reason to doubt that, so that's what I believe.
In my opinion, it takes less faih to believe in God creating the universe than it does to believe that matter just existed or something like that
In my opinion, it takes less faih to believe in God creating the universe than it does to believe that matter just existed or something like that
jcarl,
Shouldn’t your position be - do I have reason to believe what is stated? I.e. do you have any facts? Isn’t simply believing something told you by others who can offer no factual basis an act of gullibility?
If faith is defined as a belief without proof then your statement is false unless you have proof for either God or Santa.
The origins of the bible and especially the NT have been the subject of many debates here. The issues are significant and very detailed and controversial. But there are indeed scholars who are prepared to state and justify their claims that at least the NT is entirely mythical and fictional. I’ll quote some reading material for you if you wish. Start with this one anyway - http://www.truthbeknown.com/jesuspuzzle.htm
Why do you not doubt it? Do you know the authors? Do you have evidence that a god exists and that he is capable of the claim?
Shouldn’t your position be - do I have reason to believe what is stated? I.e. do you have any facts? Isn’t simply believing something told you by others who can offer no factual basis an act of gullibility?
OK then why believe either? You could simply accept that neither case has been proved and withhold belief until you do know for sure. Why believe anything on faith (i.e. where no facts are available)?
It is a constant source of amazement to "freethinkers," rationalists and assorted (other) scholars and scientists that it is considered virtuous to blindly believe in the words of a man or a group of men concerning the matters of "faith" and "religion," when, if religion were to have any meaning at all, it would be about reality, honesty and integrity. There is little honest or righteous about blindly accepting and then promulgating beliefs one has not thoroughly investigated. Such behavior – and subsequent name-calling and threats when the sale of these sacrosanct shoddy goods falls through – should be considered the realm of the con artist, rather than that of a seeker of truth.
-We believe the Bible because there is no real motive the authors could have had that would have led them to create it. Above all, you have to accept that the Bible is through by men with inspiration by and from God. If you don't accept that, then there's not much I can do for you to make you believe
There is nothing reasonable about accepting a story on its face value – particularly if it defies logic and the laws of nature.
-First you have to actually believe that there is a God, which many of you don't. If you did, then it would make sense that a God can do things not of this world. You wouldn't limit something not of Earth to Earthly standards.
And from beginning to end the gospel tale does just that. It is a cruel tale that reveals a deranged god. And a tale not even original to Christianity but falsely presented as such. In actuality, the gospel story has been demonstrated repeatedly to be a mishmash of mythical and ritualistic motifs found in older, "Pagan" and "Jewish" (Hebrew/Israelite) cultures.
-What's the Old Testament? It's also known as the Torah, in essence the Jewish "Bible". They had to perform the rituals because at the time they were told by God that they had to burn sacrifices for their sins. They had nothing to refute what God said, so they did it. After Jesus--The Ulitmate Sacrifice--came and died, they no longer had to perform the rituals.
Knowing this fact, many erudite and enlightened individuals have attempted to explain how Christ and Christianity really came about.
-II Timothy 3:7. "always learning and never able to come and accept the truth."
In dissecting the Christ myth, Doherty focuses on demonstrating the lack of historicity found in the earliest of canonical Christian texts, the epistles. Like so many others, he wonders why "Paul," considered by numerous Christians to be the "greatest apostle" and the truest establisher of Christian doctrine, makes nary a mention of Jesus's purported life, deeds and sayings.
In fact, Doherty does an excellent job outlining that the Christ of the epistles is non-historical and transcendental, and that Paul and the other epistle writers had no awareness of the gospel tale and its "historical Jesus." Says he:
"If we had to rely on the letters of the earliest Christians, such as Paul and those who wrote most of the other New Testament epistles, we would be hard pressed to find anything resembling the details of the Gospel story. If we did not read Gospel associations into what Paul and the others say about their Christ Jesus, we could not even tell that this figure, the object of their worship, was a man who had recently lived in Palestine and had been executed by the Roman authorities with the help of a hostile Jewish establishment." (2)
-Is it necessary for Paul to rehash what 4 other guys have already done?
After 50 pages of relentless demonstration of this fact, one must throw up one's hands in surrender: Paul, the "truest apostle" of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ whose teachings are often placed above those of Christ himself, had never heard of the "historical" Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the gospels. In establishing this fact, Doherty includes a witty (fictional) "conversation between Paul and some new converts" that shows how absurd is the apologist claim that Paul's silence regarding the sayings, deeds and life of Jesus is because the apostle had "no interest in them."
But Paul and the other canonical epistle writers are not alone in their ignorance of the "historical Jesus." As Doherty further remarks:
"In all the Christian writers of the first century, in all the devotion they display about Christ and the new faith, not one of them expresses a desire to see the birthplace of Jesus, to visit Nazareth his home town. No one talks about having been to the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he held his Last Supper, the hill on which he was crucified, or the tomb where he was buried and rose from the dead. Not only is there no evidence that anyone showed an interest in visiting such places, they go completely unmentioned. The words Bethlehem, Nazareth and Galilee never appear in the epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used in connection with Jesus." (73)
-Since when was true Christianity about seeing where someone was born, or other such places? These guys weren't tourists; they were busy carring out the Great Admonition of Matt. 28:19-20.
There is simply no reflection in the earliest Christian texts of any "life of Christ" as a human being, divine or otherwise. To the rational mind, this fact would serve as real proof that Jesus Christ is a fictional character imposed upon history, in reality representing the disincarnate Savior of the ancient, pre-Christian salvation cults. Indeed, the epistle writers and other early Christian authorities speak almost exclusively of a phantom or gnostic Christ of the same type of dying and rising savior gods found in the Pagan mysteries for centuries, if not millennia, prior to the Christian era.
-Again why do what four--not one, but four--have already done?
Concerning the religious environment of the world at the time, Doherty says:
"Christianity and other Jewish apocalyptic sects, more mainstream Jewish proselytizing activities, various pagan salvation cults, all had their apostles trampling the byways of the empire, offering brands of redemption and future exaltation for the individual believer. By the middle decades of the first century, the world . . . was a 'seething mass of sects and salvation cults,' operating amid a broader milieu of ethical and philosophical schools only a little less emotionally conducted." (34)
"Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..."
In addition, Doherty states:
"A rich panoply of Son/Christ/Savior expression was rampant across the eastern half of the Roman empire by the late first century. Considering that Christian writers even in the early second century show no familiarity with the Gospel story, it seems ill-advised to trace all these ideas to an historical Jesus of Nazareth who died obscurely in Jerusalem and whose career on earth is not even preserved by those who allegedly turned him into the Son of God." (138)
-The Bible does preserve his career. You guys just don't believe it.
"If among these we begin our quest for non-Christian witness to Jesus, the pickings are extremely slim. The first century philosopher Seneca (died 65 CE), the greatest Roman writer on ethics in his day, has nothing to say about Jesus or Christianity – even though Christians after Constantine made Seneca a secret convert to the faith and invented correspondence between him and Paul. A little later, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus (c55-c135) espoused a 'brotherhood of man' doctrine, aiming his message at the poor and humble masses (he was a former slave himself). But he had apparently not heard of his Jewish precursor. The historian Arrian preserved some of Epictetus' lectures but records no mention of Jesus." (200)
-There were many teachers similar to Jesus in those days. Arrian didn't feel Jesus was important enough to record. Some others did, that's their business.
And on goes the list of first and second century historians who are silent on the subject of Jesus and Christianity.
Chief among the slim pickings are the pitifully few "references" held up by apologists, such as the widely trumpeted passages from Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus, all of which have been demonstrated by many scholars, including Doherty, to have basically no value in establishing a historical Jesus.
Considering that, repeatedly over the centuries, the notorious passage in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, the "Testimonium Flavianum," basically has been proved to be a "rank forgery," it is a pity that Doherty needs to spend so much effort debunking it once again, but he does it well and thoroughly. Likewise he does away with the other "evidence" found in Josephus, i.e., the passage about James, the "brother of the Lord, called Christ."
How exactly does one go about proving an ancient document to be a "forgery"? Fingerprints?
And how does he just "do away" with the James passage?
On pp. 220-221 of The Jesus Puzzle, Doherty springs a sublime trap. First he leads the reader through a discussion regarding a purported "lost reference" in Josephus, as alleged by Church fathers Origen and Eusebius, supposedly reflecting that the historian "believed that the calamity of the Jewish War (66-70) and the fall of Jerusalem was visited upon the Jews by God because of their murder of James the Just." Next, Doherty states:
"Origen brings up the 'lost reference' to criticize Josephus for not saying that it was because of the death of Jesus, rather than of James, that God visited upon the Jews the destruction of Jerusalem. But more than half a century earlier, the Christian Hegesippus had said the same thing. As preserved in Eusebius, Hegesippus witnesses to a Christian view of his time (mid-second century) that it was indeed the death of James the Just which had prompted God's punishment of the Jews."
"But," Doherty continues, "there is a very telling corollary to this. Why did those earlier Christians not impute the calamity to God's punishment for the death of Jesus, since to the later Origen – as well as to us – this seemed obvious?
"The explanation is simple. The need to interpret the destruction of Jerusalem would likely have developed early, even before Hegesippus. At such a time, an historical Jesus and historical crucifixion had not yet been invented, or at least would not have been widely disseminated beyond a few early Gospel communities."
Proceeding to the second century Christian apologists, Doherty also reveals that the majority of them writing before the year 180, such as Theophilus, Athenagoras and Tatian, do not speak of a historical Jesus. These three writers, for example, refer to a disincarnate, non-historical "Son of God" or "Logos." Says Doherty:
". . . Theophilus never mentions Christ, or Jesus, at all. He makes no reference to a founder-teacher; instead, Christians have their doctrines and knowledge of God through the Holy Spirit. . . .
". . . the names Jesus and Christ never appear in Athenagoras. . . .
"In [Apology to the Greeks], Tatian uses neither 'Jesus' nor 'Christ,' nor even the name 'Christian.' . . .
"In fact, the apologists as a group profess a faith which is nothing so much as a Logos religion. It is in essence Platonism carried to its fullest religious implications and wedded with Jewish theology and ethics." (278-81)
Although Doherty is hesitant to date the gospels to this late a period, Charles Waite in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Thousand makes an essentially incontestable case that the four canonical gospels were composed between 170 and 180, which would explain why none of these writers refers to them prior to 180.
-First off, those dates are way off, even by admission of non Christians; secondly, if it was incontestable, then why doesn’t the great Doherty back it up?
Doherty also unearths a "smoking gun" in the Christian apologist Minucius Felix's Octavius, likely written in the middle of the second century. In addressing the untoward charges against Christians, such as the killing of babies and worship of the priest's genitals, Minucius fervently denies that the Christians worship "a criminal and his cross." Felix also ridicules the Pagan ideas of a god becoming incarnate and of a god begetting a son. Says he:
"Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods). . . . Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" (289)
-This guy does not represent what I believe in or any true Christian doctrine. This guy contradicts the Bible, and he is denying or limiting the powers of an unearthly God. So I don’t even consider him to be part of my faith.
Regarding Minucius's reaction to the charge of worshipping a "crucified criminal," Doherty remarks:
"Those who will allow historical documents to say what they seem to be saying will recognize that Minucius Felix is a true 'smoking gun' pointing to a Christian denial of the historical Jesus.
-I find it very tragic that you believe these guys on what ever they say, and yet are so skeptical of the Bible. Why?
"To the dispassionate eye, Minucius Felix is one Christian who will have nothing to do with those, in other circles of his religion, who profess worship of a Jesus who was crucified in Judea under the governorship of Pontius Pilate, rumors of which have reached pagan ears and elicited much scorn and condemnation." (290)
In establishing his thesis, Doherty also explains the need for making Jesus a historical character: In the early Christian communities, in which there was a "riotous diversity" of doctrine, there were too many pipelines to the spiritual Jesus. Thus, it became necessary to create one divine person to say all the things that the "prophets" and brotherhood members were espousing, the same role played by Yahweh in the Old Testament.
-He fulfilled the prophecy not by his words, but by his actions and by what/how people reacted to him. Psalm predicts Jesus’s death on a cross long before crucifixtion—a Roman invention—was thought of. To speed up the process, usually those crucified had there legs broken, but not Jesus’s, fulfilling Psalm 34:20
-We believe the Bible because there is no real motive the authors could have had that would have led them to create it. Above all, you have to accept that the Bible is through by men with inspiration by and from God. If you don't accept that, then there's not much I can do for you to make you believe
There is nothing reasonable about accepting a story on its face value – particularly if it defies logic and the laws of nature.
-First you have to actually believe that there is a God, which many of you don't. If you did, then it would make sense that a God can do things not of this world. You wouldn't limit something not of Earth to Earthly standards.
And from beginning to end the gospel tale does just that. It is a cruel tale that reveals a deranged god. And a tale not even original to Christianity but falsely presented as such. In actuality, the gospel story has been demonstrated repeatedly to be a mishmash of mythical and ritualistic motifs found in older, "Pagan" and "Jewish" (Hebrew/Israelite) cultures.
-What's the Old Testament? It's also known as the Torah, in essence the Jewish "Bible". They had to perform the rituals because at the time they were told by God that they had to burn sacrifices for their sins. They had nothing to refute what God said, so they did it. After Jesus--The Ulitmate Sacrifice--came and died, they no longer had to perform the rituals.
Knowing this fact, many erudite and enlightened individuals have attempted to explain how Christ and Christianity really came about.
-II Timothy 3:7. "always learning and never able to come and accept the truth."
In dissecting the Christ myth, Doherty focuses on demonstrating the lack of historicity found in the earliest of canonical Christian texts, the epistles. Like so many others, he wonders why "Paul," considered by numerous Christians to be the "greatest apostle" and the truest establisher of Christian doctrine, makes nary a mention of Jesus's purported life, deeds and sayings.
In fact, Doherty does an excellent job outlining that the Christ of the epistles is non-historical and transcendental, and that Paul and the other epistle writers had no awareness of the gospel tale and its "historical Jesus." Says he:
"If we had to rely on the letters of the earliest Christians, such as Paul and those who wrote most of the other New Testament epistles, we would be hard pressed to find anything resembling the details of the Gospel story. If we did not read Gospel associations into what Paul and the others say about their Christ Jesus, we could not even tell that this figure, the object of their worship, was a man who had recently lived in Palestine and had been executed by the Roman authorities with the help of a hostile Jewish establishment." (2)
-Is it necessary for Paul to rehash what 4 other guys have already done?
After 50 pages of relentless demonstration of this fact, one must throw up one's hands in surrender: Paul, the "truest apostle" of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ whose teachings are often placed above those of Christ himself, had never heard of the "historical" Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the gospels. In establishing this fact, Doherty includes a witty (fictional) "conversation between Paul and some new converts" that shows how absurd is the apologist claim that Paul's silence regarding the sayings, deeds and life of Jesus is because the apostle had "no interest in them."
But Paul and the other canonical epistle writers are not alone in their ignorance of the "historical Jesus." As Doherty further remarks:
"In all the Christian writers of the first century, in all the devotion they display about Christ and the new faith, not one of them expresses a desire to see the birthplace of Jesus, to visit Nazareth his home town. No one talks about having been to the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he held his Last Supper, the hill on which he was crucified, or the tomb where he was buried and rose from the dead. Not only is there no evidence that anyone showed an interest in visiting such places, they go completely unmentioned. The words Bethlehem, Nazareth and Galilee never appear in the epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used in connection with Jesus." (73)
-Since when was true Christianity about seeing where someone was born, or other such places? These guys weren't tourists; they were busy carring out the Great Admonition of Matt. 28:19-20.
There is simply no reflection in the earliest Christian texts of any "life of Christ" as a human being, divine or otherwise. To the rational mind, this fact would serve as real proof that Jesus Christ is a fictional character imposed upon history, in reality representing the disincarnate Savior of the ancient, pre-Christian salvation cults. Indeed, the epistle writers and other early Christian authorities speak almost exclusively of a phantom or gnostic Christ of the same type of dying and rising savior gods found in the Pagan mysteries for centuries, if not millennia, prior to the Christian era.
-Again why do what four--not one, but four--have already done?
Concerning the religious environment of the world at the time, Doherty says:
"Christianity and other Jewish apocalyptic sects, more mainstream Jewish proselytizing activities, various pagan salvation cults, all had their apostles trampling the byways of the empire, offering brands of redemption and future exaltation for the individual believer. By the middle decades of the first century, the world . . . was a 'seething mass of sects and salvation cults,' operating amid a broader milieu of ethical and philosophical schools only a little less emotionally conducted." (34)
"Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..."
In addition, Doherty states:
"A rich panoply of Son/Christ/Savior expression was rampant across the eastern half of the Roman empire by the late first century. Considering that Christian writers even in the early second century show no familiarity with the Gospel story, it seems ill-advised to trace all these ideas to an historical Jesus of Nazareth who died obscurely in Jerusalem and whose career on earth is not even preserved by those who allegedly turned him into the Son of God." (138)
-The Bible does preserve his career. You guys just don't believe it.
"If among these we begin our quest for non-Christian witness to Jesus, the pickings are extremely slim. The first century philosopher Seneca (died 65 CE), the greatest Roman writer on ethics in his day, has nothing to say about Jesus or Christianity – even though Christians after Constantine made Seneca a secret convert to the faith and invented correspondence between him and Paul. A little later, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus (c55-c135) espoused a 'brotherhood of man' doctrine, aiming his message at the poor and humble masses (he was a former slave himself). But he had apparently not heard of his Jewish precursor. The historian Arrian preserved some of Epictetus' lectures but records no mention of Jesus." (200)
-There were many teachers similar to Jesus in those days. Arrian didn't feel Jesus was important enough to record. Some others did, that's their business.
And on goes the list of first and second century historians who are silent on the subject of Jesus and Christianity.
Chief among the slim pickings are the pitifully few "references" held up by apologists, such as the widely trumpeted passages from Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus, all of which have been demonstrated by many scholars, including Doherty, to have basically no value in establishing a historical Jesus.
Considering that, repeatedly over the centuries, the notorious passage in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, the "Testimonium Flavianum," basically has been proved to be a "rank forgery," it is a pity that Doherty needs to spend so much effort debunking it once again, but he does it well and thoroughly. Likewise he does away with the other "evidence" found in Josephus, i.e., the passage about James, the "brother of the Lord, called Christ."
How exactly does one go about proving an ancient document to be a "forgery"? Fingerprints?
And how does he just "do away" with the James passage?
On pp. 220-221 of The Jesus Puzzle, Doherty springs a sublime trap. First he leads the reader through a discussion regarding a purported "lost reference" in Josephus, as alleged by Church fathers Origen and Eusebius, supposedly reflecting that the historian "believed that the calamity of the Jewish War (66-70) and the fall of Jerusalem was visited upon the Jews by God because of their murder of James the Just." Next, Doherty states:
"Origen brings up the 'lost reference' to criticize Josephus for not saying that it was because of the death of Jesus, rather than of James, that God visited upon the Jews the destruction of Jerusalem. But more than half a century earlier, the Christian Hegesippus had said the same thing. As preserved in Eusebius, Hegesippus witnesses to a Christian view of his time (mid-second century) that it was indeed the death of James the Just which had prompted God's punishment of the Jews."
"But," Doherty continues, "there is a very telling corollary to this. Why did those earlier Christians not impute the calamity to God's punishment for the death of Jesus, since to the later Origen – as well as to us – this seemed obvious?
"The explanation is simple. The need to interpret the destruction of Jerusalem would likely have developed early, even before Hegesippus. At such a time, an historical Jesus and historical crucifixion had not yet been invented, or at least would not have been widely disseminated beyond a few early Gospel communities."
Proceeding to the second century Christian apologists, Doherty also reveals that the majority of them writing before the year 180, such as Theophilus, Athenagoras and Tatian, do not speak of a historical Jesus. These three writers, for example, refer to a disincarnate, non-historical "Son of God" or "Logos." Says Doherty:
". . . Theophilus never mentions Christ, or Jesus, at all. He makes no reference to a founder-teacher; instead, Christians have their doctrines and knowledge of God through the Holy Spirit. . . .
". . . the names Jesus and Christ never appear in Athenagoras. . . .
"In [Apology to the Greeks], Tatian uses neither 'Jesus' nor 'Christ,' nor even the name 'Christian.' . . .
"In fact, the apologists as a group profess a faith which is nothing so much as a Logos religion. It is in essence Platonism carried to its fullest religious implications and wedded with Jewish theology and ethics." (278-81)
Although Doherty is hesitant to date the gospels to this late a period, Charles Waite in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Thousand makes an essentially incontestable case that the four canonical gospels were composed between 170 and 180, which would explain why none of these writers refers to them prior to 180.
-First off, those dates are way off, even by admission of non Christians; secondly, if it was incontestable, then why doesn’t the great Doherty back it up?
Doherty also unearths a "smoking gun" in the Christian apologist Minucius Felix's Octavius, likely written in the middle of the second century. In addressing the untoward charges against Christians, such as the killing of babies and worship of the priest's genitals, Minucius fervently denies that the Christians worship "a criminal and his cross." Felix also ridicules the Pagan ideas of a god becoming incarnate and of a god begetting a son. Says he:
"Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods). . . . Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" (289)
-This guy does not represent what I believe in or any true Christian doctrine. This guy contradicts the Bible, and he is denying or limiting the powers of an unearthly God. So I don’t even consider him to be part of my faith.
Regarding Minucius's reaction to the charge of worshipping a "crucified criminal," Doherty remarks:
"Those who will allow historical documents to say what they seem to be saying will recognize that Minucius Felix is a true 'smoking gun' pointing to a Christian denial of the historical Jesus.
-I find it very tragic that you believe these guys on what ever they say, and yet are so skeptical of the Bible. Why?
"To the dispassionate eye, Minucius Felix is one Christian who will have nothing to do with those, in other circles of his religion, who profess worship of a Jesus who was crucified in Judea under the governorship of Pontius Pilate, rumors of which have reached pagan ears and elicited much scorn and condemnation." (290)
In establishing his thesis, Doherty also explains the need for making Jesus a historical character: In the early Christian communities, in which there was a "riotous diversity" of doctrine, there were too many pipelines to the spiritual Jesus. Thus, it became necessary to create one divine person to say all the things that the "prophets" and brotherhood members were espousing, the same role played by Yahweh in the Old Testament.
-He fulfilled the prophecy not by his words, but by his actions and by what/how people reacted to him. Psalm predicts Jesus’s death on a cross long before crucifixtion—a Roman invention—was thought of. To speed up the process, usually those crucified had there legs broken, but not Jesus’s, fulfilling Psalm 34:20
Last edited:
Jcarl,
Why does science contradict the bible? Thats a huge red flag for me personally.
You ask what possible motive the authors could have had to invent the bible, well I can think of many, but first; what possible motives could scientists have to keep accidently stumbling upon information that mocks everything you believe in? Do you think they are making it up to be a pain in your ass?
Why does science contradict the bible? Thats a huge red flag for me personally.
You ask what possible motive the authors could have had to invent the bible, well I can think of many, but first; what possible motives could scientists have to keep accidently stumbling upon information that mocks everything you believe in? Do you think they are making it up to be a pain in your ass?
What information mocks at everything I believe in? Nothing science related can mock my belief that Jesus is the one and only way to God the Father/Heaven. Please be more specific. Also please answer the answer I first posed to you; you yourself said that you can think of many reasons, so please name some instead of spinning to another topic.
No problem.
See religion was required to make functioning societies. People don't cooperate with strangers naturally, a false sense of "what is good" had to be ingrained into them so order could be formed. Its that simple. The motive behind the authors of the bible was to scare people into acting the way they wanted them to.
As for how does science mock your beliefs? How about this thread? how about ecological science? For example Why do you think scientists assume the earth is over a billion years old? What do you think their motives are?
The truth is they didn't have motives, thats what they discovered, no one was trying to disprove the bible, they accidently did by learning about the real world around them. The age of the earth is just one of many examples. Every little tidbit of knowledge learned seems to gravely contradict the bible.
You'd think that would make some more people suspicious
See religion was required to make functioning societies. People don't cooperate with strangers naturally, a false sense of "what is good" had to be ingrained into them so order could be formed. Its that simple. The motive behind the authors of the bible was to scare people into acting the way they wanted them to.
As for how does science mock your beliefs? How about this thread? how about ecological science? For example Why do you think scientists assume the earth is over a billion years old? What do you think their motives are?
The truth is they didn't have motives, thats what they discovered, no one was trying to disprove the bible, they accidently did by learning about the real world around them. The age of the earth is just one of many examples. Every little tidbit of knowledge learned seems to gravely contradict the bible.
You'd think that would make some more people suspicious
spoilsport
Registered Senior Member
Nothing has ever disproved the Bible to my knowledge. Chances are if you show me a modern scientific theory that disagrees with the Bible, I'll show you a Jew that lived before the scientific theory existed that realized the same thing from a reading of the original Hebrew.
A good example is the big bang and Nahminades, or String Theory and Cabalists.
Again, I have to ask, what makes you so sure of that? You call it "tragic" that we believe the words of scientists, yet you believe the words of authors from thousands of years ago? Please, explain why you take them at their word.
See, this is the means used by priests and preachers over the millenia since the inception of organized religion. It's the soothing words and the promises of nirvana for your complete and utter subserviance to "God" that made it easy to believe. That, and no one had a real understanding of how things worked back then; as in they had no real idea of ecology or any science. Saying "God did it" was sufficient, because they knew no other way. Today, we know better. We know alternatives to the "God" idea, and there is no reason to believe in "Him."
That said, why do you "Have" to accept God?
That's a cop-out. That's like saying "Well, Roger Moore already was James Bond, why should Pierce Bronson rehash it?"
So there were other teachers preforming miracles and proving themselves to be the Son of God? Be realistic. If Jesus was the son of God, and everything written about him actually happened, then there would not be a book from that time that did not mention it, nor a person during that time who did not have His miracles on his lips.
Again, if Jesus was and had done what he is purported to be and have done in the Bible, then there would be no way he could appear unimportant to anyone.
So "Don't believe the outsiders," right? That's the fastest way to the truth, I'm sure...
Again, I ask why you would call it "Tragic" to believe the words of those who carry evidence, yet you believe the words of faceless authors from thousands of years ago based on nothing? Honestly, when you break it down, you base your belief on belief itself, not on fact. You come at this whole situation from the stance "You must accept; you must believe; God simply has to exist" and not from the stance "I need evidence; I need proof; God cannot exist without it."
I mean, you said yourself that something "HAD to have created the sun," right? Well, what is that based on? That is the platform of your reason. From there, you look at the Bible, which, when bent and shaped (with a lot of parts ignored or the contradictions forgotten) will make you say "See? I told you!"
But when asked of why you believe the Bible was not a work of fiction, or simply the means of controlling and/or manipulating a people, you say "The authors simply could not have had any motives." That is the platform of your reason.
I appreciate this conversation, becuase you are intelligent, interesting, and interestED, which is very, very important to discussion. You know what you're talking about, at least, and can compete in this discussion without sounding like a brainwashed minion. Your only problem...not that it's even a problem, just something you're missing...is your logic. You are always skipping something in your process of reason. The Biblical authors could very well have had motives, but you miss that and say "They did not." The sun did not have to have been created by any being or entity, but you miss that and say "It HAD to have been." Progress is achived through questioning and experimenting, but you miss that and say "You must accept..."
Do you see where the gap is, jcarl? I'm not mocking you, or insulting you, or criticizing you. I'm just pointing this out, and hoping you can answer my questions. I really dig this!
JD
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
So far you're two for two. I'm sure you'll do better next time.
That's impressive writing Dr. Lou!
So you think it's highly improbable that humans killed the dinosaurs?? I don't.
I think our intelligence alone would have given us a distinct advantage over them. I think that large groups of humans living in caves etc, could venture out more and more as they made their weapons, such as spears etc, and then with the advent of chemistry they could create more lethal weapons. Our intelligence would also have given us a fire advantage, and our grasping of physics could easily have given us the ability to make traps etc to kill off the larger lizards such as the Tyranosaurus Rex.
If evolution is true then where does the objective forces within us come from?? By objective forces I mean reason and the psychological phenomenon that is present in humans (at least), from birth. There are no explanations really, except if early humans (on which depended the survival of the human species) had some distinct advantage by procreating with immediate family members (this would increase the population numbers greatly) and with the more fit and able younger male(s) killing the older, more feeble, and resourcefully wasteful male(s).
So you think it's highly improbable that humans killed the dinosaurs?? I don't.
I think our intelligence alone would have given us a distinct advantage over them. I think that large groups of humans living in caves etc, could venture out more and more as they made their weapons, such as spears etc, and then with the advent of chemistry they could create more lethal weapons. Our intelligence would also have given us a fire advantage, and our grasping of physics could easily have given us the ability to make traps etc to kill off the larger lizards such as the Tyranosaurus Rex.
If evolution is true then where does the objective forces within us come from?? By objective forces I mean reason and the psychological phenomenon that is present in humans (at least), from birth. There are no explanations really, except if early humans (on which depended the survival of the human species) had some distinct advantage by procreating with immediate family members (this would increase the population numbers greatly) and with the more fit and able younger male(s) killing the older, more feeble, and resourcefully wasteful male(s).
I agree!
Last edited:
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
No problem.
See religion was required to make functioning societies. People don't cooperate with strangers naturally, a false sense of "what is good" had to be ingrained into them so order could be formed. Its that simple. The motive behind the authors of the bible was to scare people into acting the way they wanted them to.
As for how does science mock your beliefs? How about this thread? how about ecological science? For example Why do you think scientists assume the earth is over a billion years old? What do you think their motives are?
The truth is they didn't have motives, thats what they discovered, no one was trying to disprove the bible, they accidently did by learning about the real world around them. The age of the earth is just one of many examples. Every little tidbit of knowledge learned seems to gravely contradict the bible.
You'd think that would make some more people suspicious
There's nothing wrong with order,but why do you suggest that it is a scare tatic? Many of the authors were not political leaders; they were simply relaying God's message to His people.
Tell me how "every tidbit" of information contradict the Bible?
Originally posted by JDawg
Again, I have to ask, what makes you so sure of that? You call it "tragic" that we believe the words of scientists, yet you believe the words of authors from thousands of years ago? Please, explain why you take them at their word.
-This is going to sound simple-minded, but by faith we believe. As Paul said in 2 Cor 11:3-"I pray that you are not corrupted by the simplicity that is in Christ." It takes child like faith to believe, which is simple. You guys over complicate this in that,"Faith is the belief in evidence in things not seen."Heb. 11:1. Also ,"Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he that comes to God must believe that he exists and is a rewarder of them who seek him."Heb. 11:6.
That said, why do you "Have" to accept God?
you take it as faith, as said before. That's a fundamental platform of Christianity.
That's a cop-out. That's like saying "Well, Roger Moore already was James Bond, why should Pierce Bronson rehash it?"
Wouldn't it be stupid if Pierce Brosnon remade Goldfinger?
So there were other teachers preforming miracles and proving themselves to be the Son of God? Be realistic. If Jesus was the son of God, and everything written about him actually happened, then there would not be a book from that time that did not mention it, nor a person during that time who did not have His miracles on his lips.
Many people ignore many great things that great people have done.
So "Don't believe the outsiders," right? That's the fastest way to the truth, I'm sure...
No, don't believe those who claim Christ who then deny the powers thereof.
I mean, you said yourself that something "HAD to have created the sun," right? Well, what is that based on?
It's utterly fantastic that it could just happen.
That is the platform of your reason. From there, you look at the Bible, which, when bent and shaped (with a lot of parts ignored or the contradictions forgotten) will make you say "See? I told you!"
Contradictions? Show me some.
But when asked of why you believe the Bible was not a work of fiction, or simply the means of controlling and/or smanipulating a people, you say "The authors simply could not have had any motives." That is the platform of your reason.
The authors had no incentive to make up the Bible. Once again you have believe that the Bible is from divine inspiration. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
I appreciate this conversation, becuase you are intelligent, interesting, and interestED, which is very, very important to discussion. You know what you're talking about, at least, and can compete in this discussion without sounding like a brainwashed minion. Your only problem...not that it's even a problem, just something you're missing...is your logic. You are always skipping something in your process of reason. The Biblical authors could very well have had motives, but you miss that and say "They did not."
I believe they were inspired by God to write the Bible. God wanted some order, then he sent them something like the 10 commandments, "God is a God of order" 1 Cor. 14:33,40
The sun did not have to have been created by any being or entity, but you miss that and say "It HAD to have been."
I find it hard to believe that it just popped into being.
Progress is achived through questioning and experimenting, but you miss that and say "You must accept..."
Do you see where the gap is, jcarl? I'm not mocking you, or insulting you, or criticizing you. I'm just pointing this out, and hoping you can answer my questions. I really dig this!
I apprecitate the comments. I find this very entertaining
JD
Ok, because nobody has brought it up, and most will know my main area of interest by now, i thought i'd get all Sumerian.
Jcarl: Do you know the origins of a large portion of the OT? Have you ever studied or read any Sumerian/Babylonian texts?
I would honestly urge you to do so. There are stories, vastly predating the bible, of everything in the bible. Creation itself- (Tiamat etc etc).
The garden of eden.... hmmm ever wondered why it was called eden? It's a sumerian word meaning: house of purity. In the sumerian version Adama, (hmmm strange name), was put to work in the garden of the house of purity where the gods lived.
Even the serpent and tree of life/knowledge are common stories among countless cultures. Even in Gilgamesh- when he gets a plant of eternal life which is subsequently eaten by a serpent. Further Sumerian artifacts image a woman reaching her hand out for the "fruit of enlightenment" on a tree which is guarded by a serpent.
I could honestly make this a long post, but i've done this countless times so if you really want to know, private message me.
It is most obvious these stories were handed down, and open to "chinese whispers". The bible itself puts the garden of eden slap bang in the middle of Sumeria, Noah has the sumerian counterpart- ziusudra, as does moses etc. Abraham also comes from Sumeria- so the bible says.
Of course..... the sumerian *gods* were mortal space travelling aliens. Now.... as the basis to the work YOU believe, must you now accept (on faith) the existence of alien beings who created mankind?
I dunno... tell me when you're read some Sumerian texts.
Even the jesus story isn't unique, (although somewhat changed to fit the times). I will post other versions of the same story shortly.
Faith has a major problem: No need to look at evidence. I asked one very devout theist to read some sumerian. The reply: Why should i? If god really does exist and is exactly what you think you have nothing to lose. If he doesn't, you can only gain from learning.
History is not there to be ignored, but to be studied.
Jcarl: Do you know the origins of a large portion of the OT? Have you ever studied or read any Sumerian/Babylonian texts?
I would honestly urge you to do so. There are stories, vastly predating the bible, of everything in the bible. Creation itself- (Tiamat etc etc).
The garden of eden.... hmmm ever wondered why it was called eden? It's a sumerian word meaning: house of purity. In the sumerian version Adama, (hmmm strange name), was put to work in the garden of the house of purity where the gods lived.
Even the serpent and tree of life/knowledge are common stories among countless cultures. Even in Gilgamesh- when he gets a plant of eternal life which is subsequently eaten by a serpent. Further Sumerian artifacts image a woman reaching her hand out for the "fruit of enlightenment" on a tree which is guarded by a serpent.
I could honestly make this a long post, but i've done this countless times so if you really want to know, private message me.
It is most obvious these stories were handed down, and open to "chinese whispers". The bible itself puts the garden of eden slap bang in the middle of Sumeria, Noah has the sumerian counterpart- ziusudra, as does moses etc. Abraham also comes from Sumeria- so the bible says.
Of course..... the sumerian *gods* were mortal space travelling aliens. Now.... as the basis to the work YOU believe, must you now accept (on faith) the existence of alien beings who created mankind?
I dunno... tell me when you're read some Sumerian texts.
Even the jesus story isn't unique, (although somewhat changed to fit the times). I will post other versions of the same story shortly.
Faith has a major problem: No need to look at evidence. I asked one very devout theist to read some sumerian. The reply: Why should i? If god really does exist and is exactly what you think you have nothing to lose. If he doesn't, you can only gain from learning.
History is not there to be ignored, but to be studied.
Moses wrote Genesis around 1400 BC. That means that Genesis--especially the Creation and Fall of Man--happened well before the Sumerians. Also the stories told in the Bible--including the Fall of Man--just so happen to fall into the common thread of salvation that the entire Bible has.
Why believe the Bible? First it's faith, but I find it hard to believe that the 40 or so authors of the Bible could talk of similar principles and deal with the common thread of redemption/salvation over a span of 1500 years w/o there being some thing supernatural involved.
The Sumerian texts have been dated to, (Sargon- who is the equivalent character you know as moses): 2,279 - 2,334 BC
As you can see, the Sumerian texts vastly predate that of the genesis accounts. Close i guess- just 1,000 years earlier.
Now, kindly go study some Sumerian.
Also the stories told by the Sumerians just happen to be the originals of what you're reading.
Faith plays no part as far as search for truth is concerned.
Great reason...
Maybe having older stories to work from gave them some incentive...First off I asked you for the texts and have yet to receive them.
Secondly, God didn't give Adam a pen and a pad to write stuff down on. Moses would write it by inspiration of God. Where would he get the Gilgamesh Epics from, the library?
Thirdly, my search for truth involves faith, I don't know about yours so I can't talk about yours. By the same token you can not talk of what is relevant in my search of truth. And also, my search is not a search. I have found it, the Bible. Whether you believe it or not. Again that's my truth. I don't know about yours.
Fourthly, the authors don't always talk about things that have already happened. They talk of things yet to come, some of which will come twice, in a double fufillment.
Secondly, God didn't give Adam a pen and a pad to write stuff down on. Moses would write it by inspiration of God. Where would he get the Gilgamesh Epics from, the library?
Thirdly, my search for truth involves faith, I don't know about yours so I can't talk about yours. By the same token you can not talk of what is relevant in my search of truth. And also, my search is not a search. I have found it, the Bible. Whether you believe it or not. Again that's my truth. I don't know about yours.
Fourthly, the authors don't always talk about things that have already happened. They talk of things yet to come, some of which will come twice, in a double fufillment.
Well my apologies but i still can't see where you've asked for the texts... Ok admittedly it is 6:30am and i've been awake for the past 27 hours, but could you kindly help me out and show me where you asked.
I will provide relevant data on my next post.
As people spread around: Sumerians/babylonians/akkadians etc etc, stories spread with them. For example: babylonian/akkadian storied match sumerian stories but with slight variations such as names etc..
Furthermore, if we are to trust the bible, it states Abraham was Sumerian of origin. He then travelled north- and would undoubtedly take his beliefs and ideas along with him.
In essence these people would have been "next door neighbours", and would have undoubtedly shared/swapped their stories and beliefs. They had no tv's/radios/newspapers and as such everything would have been transferred via word of mouth- leading to extreme "chinese whispers", especially after such long periods of time. You can test this right now. Tell someone a story and ask them to pass that story on through a small line of just 10 people. Then get the tenth person to recite the story to you.
Faith is belief in something without need for evidence of anything to suggest it's plausability. How can that be a search for truth? Yes, i can believe aliens exist and live on mars but without studying the evidence, without searching for each and every minsicule detail that might prove their existence i wouldn't actually be searching for anything, i'd just be accepting what i want to accept.
Well that then makes your former quote completely irrelevant. You can't be searching for truth if you've already found it. But tell me, where is this "proof", (seeings as you have the truth)... can you share it with me or is it in your head alone?
That's quite easy to do. Let me have a quick attempt:
In 100 years time the world will end.
In 90 years time a big bomb will land somewhere in the middle east.
In 80 years time a big fire breathing dragon will appear in the sky and sing nursery rhymes.
See, wasn't all that difficult.
People have been "predicting" the future since who knows when. There are the well known, (Nostradamus etc), then there are the not well known, (Insert name here).
You can find meaning in a garbled prediction as easy as you can find a face in the clouds.