Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Topic for Atheists

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Eric,

Reductio ad absurdum

Sadly those articles rely upon reduction ad absurdum and hold very little water for the thinking man. Those who enjoy an argument love to put words in their opponent’s mouth so that they can shoot them down but that is not real life – unless you are a blogger preaching to the converted. These blogs may fool some of the people some of the time but I don’t believe any thinking person will be taken in.

Blog 1. “Atheists have proven God Does Not Exist. Right?†No Eric. I have never met any atheist who claims that. The arguments presented in the blog are formulated on the assumption that God exists. No atheist would ever argue that way. The blog also uses faux-science to support some of its points – ‘Both these descriptions of God are confirmed by what we know from science’. Really! All in all a failed effort at providing ‘evidence for God’ (the words in banner headline).

Blog 2. “Are your beliefs consistent with your world view?†A slightly more interesting blog but all it is really saying is that we human beings are inherently prone to fooling ourselves. Yes, I do agree and so would every atheist (Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. Nietzsche).

As far as I can see, there is only one way to hold a consistent world view and that is to accept the Holy Scriptures as a total explanation for everything and reject everything that may contradict it. Unfortunately we all know of inconsistencies and errors in the Bible, let alone anything else and if we reject everything which conflicts with scripture we must, almost by definition, stop thinking for ourselves. No thinking person can possibly have a consistent, unmoving world view OR beliefs. Unfortunately things do change, for example slavery. Early Christians would have been quite relaxed with the notion of slavery, they may not have been happy being slaves but it was a fact of life and there was nothing in the OT or NT against it – quite the contrary.

Blog 3. “Is Christianity a Made-up Myth Written by the Disciples?†Oh dear where should I start? The blog is based upon the bible without any apparent thought of the origins of ‘myths’. So many issues need to be considered, starting with the gospels that did not make it into the bible – Peter, Magdelene, Thomas etc. Remember that the 1st Sinod at Mycea argued for ages about what should go into the bible and only eventually agreed under extreme pressure from Constantine – but that is not the most relevant thing given that the term ‘Myth’ has been introduced.

You really, really ought to be aware that myths about virgin births, dying for our sins, resurrection after three days, being the son of God, having twelve disciples, having a last supper, performing miracles, rising up into heaven, being born on 25 Dec, etc. pre-dated Jesus by thousands of years. Yes, these are very old myths.

According to myth: Augustus (son of Apollo), Agdistis, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Heracles, Korybas, Krishna, Mithras, Osiris (also called ‘Krst’, the Anointed One!!!) Perseus, Tammuz, Zoroaster and others were born of a virgin. Many of them were also born in a cave on 25th December, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, were crucified and were re-born after 3 days.

Osiris and Mythras are probably the most interesting ones if you have never studied them. Osiris was born in a cave of a virgin mother on 25th Dec (so was Mithras). His birth was announced by a star and attended by three wise men. His earthly father was ‘Seb’ which translates as ‘Joseph’. At 12, Osiris was a teacher in the temple and at 30 was baptised by ‘Anup the Baptizer’ who was later beheaded. Osiris performed many miracles including walking on water. He was betrayed by Typhon and crucified between two thieves on 17th Athyr (April?). Buried in a tomb he rose again on the third day which was celebrated each year at the vernal equinox (so was Mithras). He was also called “The Way, The Truth, The Light, Messiah, God’s Anointed Son, The Son of Man (sic), The Word Made Flesh†(Mithras had very similar titles). Interesting myths!

Why would there be so many similar myths about different characters? One possible explanation is that it all stems from the early sun worship. The sun ‘dies’ for three days in December when it appears to stop moving South and can be seen to be coming back again on 25th Dec. The sun could be seen to be coming back into the sky from ‘Virgo’ (virgin), the sun is the Light of the World, the sun ‘cometh on clouds and every eye shall see him’, the rising sun is literally the ‘Saviour of Mankind’, the sun wears a crown of thorns (corona) or a halo, the sun ‘walks on water’, the sun has 12 disciples (months OR signs of the Zodiac). OK, OK, it’s all very fanciful but I have only scratched the surface here.

There is so much myth, dating back to the earliest records of man, that one simply has to consider it OR deliberately ignore it all and choose to live in ignorance of it. The problem is not to explain how logical it is that Jesus really did do all the things described in the bible but why we should believe that Jesus did do them and these other ‘gods’ did NOT. If these others did NOT do any of the things done by Jesus, are we saying that the ‘historical’ records for all these others are all fabricated? I THINK we will all agree that the myths about these other gods were indeed ‘fabricated’, i.e. they are indeed myths, but if those records were fabricated, what about the gospels for Jesus and why did God simply repeat the existing myths when he sent his Son to earth?

Bear in mind that there are NO contemporary written records for Jesus and the earliest gospel was written roughly 30/40 years after his death. Up until then there was undoubtedly an aural tradition passing on the story from person to person but there was plenty of time to conflate these various characters. Mithras was after all the most popular god in the Roman Empire at the time. What a shame that the early Christians burned the great library of Alexandria and that Theodosius burned everything in Rome that differed from the agreed Canon. Sadly we are left with very little solid evidence upon which to base our belief. :confused
 
I'm not an atheist, but articles like these do irritate me somewhat... they never seem to stand up to any real scrutiny. I'm not gonna write an essay explaining why, but I'll mention a couple of things about these three articles.


"Atheists have proven God doesn't exist, right?"


Obviously I believe that the answer is no - as does the article - and I'm also going to have to disagree with Nevalti here: many atheists do cite the problem of evil (PoE)(i.e. the theodice problem) as showing the Abrahamic God to be a logical impossibility. Thus, I think refutations of the problem are important.

However, the refutation given here is not ideal. It offers one - or maybe two - refutations of the PoE, and misses out other important possibilities. The answers it provides are 1) that evil is necessary for some form of greater good (the example given is free will) and 2) that evil is not as simple as people might think.

The free-will refutation is generally considered redundant by atheists who believe that the PoE disproves God, as these tend to be the same atheists that consider omniscience and free-will to be mutually exclusive. The article does not touch on this issue, and so does not convince these atheists at all.

The article also argues that evil does not come from God, but is committed by free-will beings. Now, let us think for a minute. God created everything, and therefore anything that exists necessarily comes (either directly or indirectly) from God. The fact that it is the free-will of beings that causes evil does not really help us here, for we are also aware of the fact that God "created" (for want of a better word) their free will!

When writing an article on theodice, other potential refutations of the PoE that I would include are as follows:
-God may not be omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient - the Biblical evidence for such claims is not absolute.
-the problem is an appeal to ignorance: simply because we cannot see how evil and God could coexist does not mean that they cannot. Indeed, we must remember that God is necessarily transcendent.
-God is omnipotent without the bounds of logic: it may be logically impossible for Him to coexist with evil, but that is no problem for His omnipotence.
-"free will" (which is refutable) may not the only greater good possible: evil may serve a purpose which we just do not understand.
-evil is necessary for goodness; evil and good are just two sides of the same coin. We cannot have one without the other.
-evil does not really exist.



Are your beliefs consistent with your worldview?

I don't believe that anyone's worldview is entirely consistent with all of their beliefs, but that is no real criticism. It would be an unimaginably huge task to try to reconcile every single thing that we have ever believed and will ever believe with our worldview. It is an inconvenience to say the least, but something with which we must deal... unless we are hermits and philosophers with far too much spare time.


"The first and foremost principle [that should govern skeptics' worldviews] is that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence."

Well... this is just wrong. The first and foremost principle of a skeptic's worldview is that all beliefs should be based upon logic. If this requires or involves observational evidence, then fair enough - but this is not necessarily true. Second, it seems to totally neglect the fact that religious writings are pieces of observational evidence. Theists don't have an "extra dimension" or anything with which they can justify their beliefs. Everyone has exactly the same evidence (physical or otherwise); atheists just reject scripture as valid/reliable/accurate evidence.

"Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause."

This is also false. Reading a little into quantum theory helps one to realise that the principle of cause and effect is not really a principle. Indeed, the premise that "all things require a cause" would require further justification even had we not discovered quantum physics.

The article also seems to present a dire misunderstanding of observational evidence. We do not have to directly observe something for it to be considered observational evidence. Were that true, we would have no observational evidence for well... most modern physics. Instead of literally observing the things that are happening at, say, the "quantum scale" (because that is impossible) we observe what happens at a macroscopic scale and then use other techniques to deduce logically what happened at the quantum/microscopic scale. In a similar fashion, we can make observations today in extremely high-energy conditions and use logic and our current knowledge of reality to deduce what might have happened right after Creation (allegedly 13.7b years ago). The fact that we cannot directly observe something does not mean that we cannot acquire observational evidence of said thing.

Assuming, however, that scientific methods and reasoning could not help us understanding Creation... so what? This doesn't give anyone (including us) reason to simply say "ok then God did it!"


The second half of this writing is not worth much. It is almost entirely devoted to the anthropic principle... but firstly I'd just like to point out the dire lack of references in this article, which is comprised almost entirely of scientific material. That is worrying.

Okay so, the argument of this page basically goes "The chances of the Universe existing the way it does is tiny (but not infinitesimal/almost zero). If the Universe existed in a different way, life would be impossible. Therefore the Universe was designed." To be honest, this is quite misleading. When questioning probabilities like this, it is (obviously) important to establish whether or not we are looking at the correct probabilitity. Here, we are not: we should be looking at the possibility of any kind of intelligent life occurring anywhere, in any solar system, in any galaxy, in any Universe. Instead, we are looking at the probability of human life occurring in one solar system, in one galaxy, in one Universe. It's like bumping into someone you know on the street around your home, and expressing surprise at seeing them: after all, what are the chances of you seeing that friend at that time in that place? In reality, you would have been equally surprised to see any friend at any time in any place around town, and the probability of this happening is much much larger.

"Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is: [FONT=&quot]1/10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]⁸⁰[/FONT][FONT=&quot] x 1/10¹[/FONT][FONT=&quot]⁸[/FONT][FONT=&quot] x 1/10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]⁴⁵[/FONT][FONT=&quot] =1/10 ¹[/FONT][FONT=&quot]⁴³[/FONT]"

This, again, is just wrong. Notice that there are no citations and no explanations of the calculation? What has been calculated here is the probability of an event occurring once, when said event could take place at any "real" moment in time (i.e. could happen once every Planck time) and has a probablity of occurring of 1/10⁸⁰, happening since Creation. How, in any way, is this calculation relevant?

EDIT: My mistake, his calculation does not even show that... as far as I can tell, he's just plucked a couple of largely irrelevant numbers from somewhere and then multiplied slightly different numbers together. The number he comes up with means nothing, and is most certainly not "the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe".




Is Christianity a Made-up Myth Written by the Disciples?


This one is better (: There is not much to fault here, except it is probably necessary to point out that more educated atheists don't necessarily believe that Christianity was made up by the disciples. More often, they believe that the writers themselves were simply wrong and/or misguided, and that the collection of books that we call the Bible is entirely arbitrary.





---




Okay I'm sorry.. I said I wasn't going to write an essay and yet, here I have wrriten an essay. Thanks to anyone who bothered to read it all haha! God bless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eric,

Reductio ad absurdum

Sadly those articles rely upon reduction ad absurdum and hold very little water for the thinking man. Those who enjoy an argument love to put words in their opponent’s mouth so that they can shoot them down but that is not real life – unless you are a blogger preaching to the converted. These blogs may fool some of the people some of the time but I don’t believe any thinking person will be taken in.

Blog 1. “Atheists have proven God Does Not Exist. Right?†No Eric. I have never met any atheist who claims that. The arguments presented in the blog are formulated on the assumption that God exists. No atheist would ever argue that way. The blog also uses faux-science to support some of its points – ‘Both these descriptions of God are confirmed by what we know from science’. Really! All in all a failed effort at providing ‘evidence for God’ (the words in banner headline).

Blog 2. “Are your beliefs consistent with your world view?†A slightly more interesting blog but all it is really saying is that we human beings are inherently prone to fooling ourselves. Yes, I do agree and so would every atheist (Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. Nietzsche).

As far as I can see, there is only one way to hold a consistent world view and that is to accept the Holy Scriptures as a total explanation for everything and reject everything that may contradict it. Unfortunately we all know of inconsistencies and errors in the Bible, let alone anything else and if we reject everything which conflicts with scripture we must, almost by definition, stop thinking for ourselves. No thinking person can possibly have a consistent, unmoving world view OR beliefs. Unfortunately things do change, for example slavery. Early Christians would have been quite relaxed with the notion of slavery, they may not have been happy being slaves but it was a fact of life and there was nothing in the OT or NT against it – quite the contrary.

Blog 3. “Is Christianity a Made-up Myth Written by the Disciples?†Oh dear where should I start? The blog is based upon the bible without any apparent thought of the origins of ‘myths’. So many issues need to be considered, starting with the gospels that did not make it into the bible – Peter, Magdelene, Thomas etc. Remember that the 1st Sinod at Mycea argued for ages about what should go into the bible and only eventually agreed under extreme pressure from Constantine – but that is not the most relevant thing given that the term ‘Myth’ has been introduced.

You really, really ought to be aware that myths about virgin births, dying for our sins, resurrection after three days, being the son of God, having twelve disciples, having a last supper, performing miracles, rising up into heaven, being born on 25 Dec, etc. pre-dated Jesus by thousands of years. Yes, these are very old myths.

According to myth: Augustus (son of Apollo), Agdistis, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Heracles, Korybas, Krishna, Mithras, Osiris (also called ‘Krst’, the Anointed One!!!) Perseus, Tammuz, Zoroaster and others were born of a virgin. Many of them were also born in a cave on 25th December, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, were crucified and were re-born after 3 days.

Osiris and Mythras are probably the most interesting ones if you have never studied them. Osiris was born in a cave of a virgin mother on 25th Dec (so was Mithras). His birth was announced by a star and attended by three wise men. His earthly father was ‘Seb’ which translates as ‘Joseph’. At 12, Osiris was a teacher in the temple and at 30 was baptised by ‘Anup the Baptizer’ who was later beheaded. Osiris performed many miracles including walking on water. He was betrayed by Typhon and crucified between two thieves on 17th Athyr (April?). Buried in a tomb he rose again on the third day which was celebrated each year at the vernal equinox (so was Mithras). He was also called “The Way, The Truth, The Light, Messiah, God’s Anointed Son, The Son of Man (sic), The Word Made Flesh†(Mithras had very similar titles). Interesting myths!

Why would there be so many similar myths about different characters? One possible explanation is that it all stems from the early sun worship. The sun ‘dies’ for three days in December when it appears to stop moving South and can be seen to be coming back again on 25th Dec. The sun could be seen to be coming back into the sky from ‘Virgo’ (virgin), the sun is the Light of the World, the sun ‘cometh on clouds and every eye shall see him’, the rising sun is literally the ‘Saviour of Mankind’, the sun wears a crown of thorns (corona) or a halo, the sun ‘walks on water’, the sun has 12 disciples (months OR signs of the Zodiac). OK, OK, it’s all very fanciful but I have only scratched the surface here.

There is so much myth, dating back to the earliest records of man, that one simply has to consider it OR deliberately ignore it all and choose to live in ignorance of it. The problem is not to explain how logical it is that Jesus really did do all the things described in the bible but why we should believe that Jesus did do them and these other ‘gods’ did NOT. If these others did NOT do any of the things done by Jesus, are we saying that the ‘historical’ records for all these others are all fabricated? I THINK we will all agree that the myths about these other gods were indeed ‘fabricated’, i.e. they are indeed myths, but if those records were fabricated, what about the gospels for Jesus and why did God simply repeat the existing myths when he sent his Son to earth?

Bear in mind that there are NO contemporary written records for Jesus and the earliest gospel was written roughly 30/40 years after his death. Up until then there was undoubtedly an aural tradition passing on the story from person to person but there was plenty of time to conflate these various characters. Mithras was after all the most popular god in the Roman Empire at the time. What a shame that the early Christians burned the great library of Alexandria and that Theodosius burned everything in Rome that differed from the agreed Canon. Sadly we are left with very little solid evidence upon which to base our belief. :confused
Didn't find anything on what you said about Osiris but why is this important? The Bible has a lot more evidence that it's claim is true and yet the ancient Egyptian religion has none.
 
Eric,

Reductio ad absurdum

Sadly those articles rely upon reduction ad absurdum and hold very little water for the thinking man. Those who enjoy an argument love to put words in their opponent’s mouth so that they can shoot them down but that is not real life – unless you are a blogger preaching to the converted. These blogs may fool some of the people some of the time but I don’t believe any thinking person will be taken in.

Blog 1. “Atheists have proven God Does Not Exist. Right?†No Eric. I have never met any atheist who claims that. The arguments presented in the blog are formulated on the assumption that God exists. No atheist would ever argue that way. The blog also uses faux-science to support some of its points – ‘Both these descriptions of God are confirmed by what we know from science’. Really! All in all a failed effort at providing ‘evidence for God’ (the words in banner headline).

Blog 2. “Are your beliefs consistent with your world view?†A slightly more interesting blog but all it is really saying is that we human beings are inherently prone to fooling ourselves. Yes, I do agree and so would every atheist (Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. Nietzsche).

As far as I can see, there is only one way to hold a consistent world view and that is to accept the Holy Scriptures as a total explanation for everything and reject everything that may contradict it. Unfortunately we all know of inconsistencies and errors in the Bible, let alone anything else and if we reject everything which conflicts with scripture we must, almost by definition, stop thinking for ourselves. No thinking person can possibly have a consistent, unmoving world view OR beliefs. Unfortunately things do change, for example slavery. Early Christians would have been quite relaxed with the notion of slavery, they may not have been happy being slaves but it was a fact of life and there was nothing in the OT or NT against it – quite the contrary.

Blog 3. “Is Christianity a Made-up Myth Written by the Disciples?†Oh dear where should I start? The blog is based upon the bible without any apparent thought of the origins of ‘myths’. So many issues need to be considered, starting with the gospels that did not make it into the bible – Peter, Magdelene, Thomas etc. Remember that the 1st Sinod at Mycea argued for ages about what should go into the bible and only eventually agreed under extreme pressure from Constantine – but that is not the most relevant thing given that the term ‘Myth’ has been introduced.

You really, really ought to be aware that myths about virgin births, dying for our sins, resurrection after three days, being the son of God, having twelve disciples, having a last supper, performing miracles, rising up into heaven, being born on 25 Dec, etc. pre-dated Jesus by thousands of years. Yes, these are very old myths.

According to myth: Augustus (son of Apollo), Agdistis, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Heracles, Korybas, Krishna, Mithras, Osiris (also called ‘Krst’, the Anointed One!!!) Perseus, Tammuz, Zoroaster and others were born of a virgin. Many of them were also born in a cave on 25th December, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, were crucified and were re-born after 3 days.

Osiris and Mythras are probably the most interesting ones if you have never studied them. Osiris was born in a cave of a virgin mother on 25th Dec (so was Mithras). His birth was announced by a star and attended by three wise men. His earthly father was ‘Seb’ which translates as ‘Joseph’. At 12, Osiris was a teacher in the temple and at 30 was baptised by ‘Anup the Baptizer’ who was later beheaded. Osiris performed many miracles including walking on water. He was betrayed by Typhon and crucified between two thieves on 17th Athyr (April?). Buried in a tomb he rose again on the third day which was celebrated each year at the vernal equinox (so was Mithras). He was also called “The Way, The Truth, The Light, Messiah, God’s Anointed Son, The Son of Man (sic), The Word Made Flesh†(Mithras had very similar titles). Interesting myths!

Why would there be so many similar myths about different characters? One possible explanation is that it all stems from the early sun worship. The sun ‘dies’ for three days in December when it appears to stop moving South and can be seen to be coming back again on 25th Dec. The sun could be seen to be coming back into the sky from ‘Virgo’ (virgin), the sun is the Light of the World, the sun ‘cometh on clouds and every eye shall see him’, the rising sun is literally the ‘Saviour of Mankind’, the sun wears a crown of thorns (corona) or a halo, the sun ‘walks on water’, the sun has 12 disciples (months OR signs of the Zodiac). OK, OK, it’s all very fanciful but I have only scratched the surface here.

There is so much myth, dating back to the earliest records of man, that one simply has to consider it OR deliberately ignore it all and choose to live in ignorance of it. The problem is not to explain how logical it is that Jesus really did do all the things described in the bible but why we should believe that Jesus did do them and these other ‘gods’ did NOT. If these others did NOT do any of the things done by Jesus, are we saying that the ‘historical’ records for all these others are all fabricated? I THINK we will all agree that the myths about these other gods were indeed ‘fabricated’, i.e. they are indeed myths, but if those records were fabricated, what about the gospels for Jesus and why did God simply repeat the existing myths when he sent his Son to earth?

Bear in mind that there are NO contemporary written records for Jesus and the earliest gospel was written roughly 30/40 years after his death. Up until then there was undoubtedly an aural tradition passing on the story from person to person but there was plenty of time to conflate these various characters. Mithras was after all the most popular god in the Roman Empire at the time. What a shame that the early Christians burned the great library of Alexandria and that Theodosius burned everything in Rome that differed from the agreed Canon. Sadly we are left with very little solid evidence upon which to base our belief. :confused

http://christianthinktank.com/copycatwho1.html
 
Didn't find anything on what you said about Osiris but why is this important? The Bible has a lot more evidence that it's claim is true and yet the ancient Egyptian religion has none.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Please do not misunderstand me Eric; I am certainly not saying that there is more evidence for Osiris or Mithras (etc) than Jesus. Most of the widely published Osiris 'history' is simply from Plutarch (Greek historian) and that is probably what you read. There are multiple other myths about most 'gods' including Osiris. I said 'history' very cautiously because it is of course myth and not history. There will undoubtedly be some minor threads of truth hidden in most myths but very little. I suspect that ALL myths have an aural basis which inevitably means that there are multiple versions - as there certainly are with Osiris and indeed Mithras and Jesus.

I would be very interested to hear what you think is historical evidence in the bible or indeed historical evidence for Jesus even being a real person. I THINK he was but I have struggled to find any actual historical evidence. There were of course multiple records (myths?) about Jesus with very widely differing stories and much conflicting information. Those differences led to much inter-sect fighting and eventually wholesale slaughter by Roman based Christians of other Christians such as the Cathars etc. Different beliefs were not tolerated, you were simply killed, usually in the most unpleasant way the priests could devise. THAT is history. When the soldiers asked the Bishop, 'How will we know which ones are Cathars?" the bishop replied, "Kill them all, God will know the difference." THAT is history.

A shameful part of the history of Christianity that you don't get taught in Sunday school. Equally shameful of course was the slaughter of other religions and the destruction and/or assimilation of their temples and property. Christians didn't entirely invent religious wars but not far from it. Until the rise of the power of Christians backed by Rome there was wide tolerance of the multiple religions throughout the known world.

If you want to look to look up REAL history concerning Jesus, I suggest you start by researching the REAL history of 'Nazareth'. It doesn't take long to read as there is no record of any such place until around 1650. Interesting! One could speculate that the place name was invented or assumed as a variant of the word Nazarine (with the obvious Essene connotations). Could that have been a silly misunderstanding that there was a place called Nazareth? Education standards 2,:confused000 years ago were not generally very high so I think that is pretty likely. What do you think Eric?

I would of course be delighted to hear what REAL historical 'evidence' you think you have found to support the bible. I am always on the look out for that. Your assistance would be much appreciated.
 
I skimmed through the pages. I wasn't convinced of the poster's arguments. All I simply have to say is that I'm just not convinced by the Bible's story of how a "God" created the Earth and humans and then sacrificed himself to himself to forgive other people for the actions of other people. There are some cool lessons and stories in the Bible, but I regard it as a book of a specific people telling a specific way of how to live.
 
Nevalti said:
I would of course be delighted to hear what REAL historical 'evidence' you think you have found to support the bible. I am always on the look out for that. Your assistance would be much appreciated.

Something about the way your wrote that doesn't set right with me... Do you have something against our faith?

Nevalti said:
I would be very interested to hear what you think is historical evidence in the bible or indeed historical evidence for Jesus even being a real person.

I'd be more interested in why you question the fact that Jesus was a real person. What evidence would you need to believe that Jesus was in fact a real person?

Nevalti said:
There were of course multiple records (myths?) about Jesus with very widely differing stories and much conflicting information.

And what records would those be Nevalti? Be specific please.

Nevalti said:
Those differences led to much inter-sect fighting and eventually wholesale slaughter by Roman based Christians of other Christians such as the Cathars etc.

I have to assume that you are referring to the teachings of gnostics and Manichean from the first three centuries and are linking those to the 11th century Cathars? You must know that "those" writings were not part of the Canon and were rejected. Are these some of the writings your referring to? I really want to be careful not to assume anything without first having it verified by you.

Nevalti said:
Different beliefs were not tolerated, you were simply killed, usually in the most unpleasant way the priests could devise.

Did you just jump a thousand years? How are you connecting those events with your argument that Jesus 'probably' wasn't a real historical figure?

Nevalti said:
"Kill them all, God will know the difference." THAT is history.
Sure it is, but I fail to see the link between that event and Jesus being a historical figure.

Nevalti said:
A shameful part of the history of Christianity that you don't get taught in Sunday school. Equally shameful of course was the slaughter of other religions and the destruction and/or assimilation of their temples and property. Christians didn't entirely invent religious wars but not far from it. Until the rise of the power of Christians backed by Rome there was wide tolerance of the multiple religions throughout the known world.

While I agree that it is a shameful part of history, you've neglected to mention what the Eastern Orthodox or the Coptic Christians were doing at or around this same time. Do I now say that all Atheists are hateful spiteful and evil because some Atheists are those things? Or do you think it better to judge on an individual basis? Let us start with the Coptic's. What do you know about them from that same time period? Were they a part of those atrocious acts? Were they responsible for the surge of power and authority that Rome sought? And while we're at it, what happened in 1054 that was so significant? Again, I am simply pointing to events in history as well.

Nevalti said:
If you want to look to look up REAL history concerning Jesus, I suggest you start by researching the REAL history of 'Nazareth'. It doesn't take long to read as there is no record of any such place until around 1650. Interesting! One could speculate that the place name was invented or assumed as a variant of the word Nazarine (with the obvious Essene connotations). Could that have been a silly misunderstanding that there was a place called Nazareth? Education standards 2,000 years ago were not generally very high so I think that is pretty likely. What do you think Eric?

You mean go to Wikipedia? :lol You didn't really mean 1650 now did ya?...

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Nazareth
Nazareth is first mentioned in the New Testament, although its settlement antedates historic times.

If Nazareth wasn't a real place until 1650... ehh, we won't even go there. That's just silly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is one of the proofs ... "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to humans, since we a restricted to only one dimension of time. God, existing in two or more dimensions of time can know all properties of all particles, since He can exist at any point on our line of time any numbers of times. Therefore, God can measure both the position of a particle, remain at the same point on our line of time, then measure the speed of the same particle. Two dimensions of time allow one to do some pretty awesome things. Think about the implications of this characteristic of God."

This "proof" assumes the existence of God as well as the nature of God's existence without first offering proof of either.
 
Nevalti said:
Bear in mind that there are NO contemporary written records for Jesus and the earliest gospel was written roughly 30/40 years after his death. Up until then there was undoubtedly an aural tradition passing on the story from person to person but there was plenty of time to conflate these various characters. Mithras was after all the most popular god in the Roman Empire at the time. What a shame that the early Christians burned the great library of Alexandria and that Theodosius burned everything in Rome that differed from the agreed Canon. Sadly we are left with very little solid evidence upon which to base our belief.

wow... You really like Edward Gibbons don't you? Of course, Caesar was innocent, and so were them Muslims. Bad Christians.. bad, bad.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9
So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it.

It is also quite likely that even if the Museum was destroyed with the main library the outlying "daughter" library at the Temple of Serapis continued on. Many writers seem to equate the Library of Alexandria with the Library of Serapis although technically they were in two different parts of the city.

The real tragedy of course is not the uncertainty of knowing who to blame for the Library's destruction but that so much of ancient history, literature and learning was lost forever.
 
I would be very interested to hear what you think is historical evidence in the bible or indeed historical evidence for Jesus even being a real person.
It kinda goes back to the question a biologist I know says. "How do we know George Washington was president?" Well the records say so, that's what we have. You can't go and meet George Washington he is simply gone, but the records say he did exist. Same with Jesus, the Bible can be taken as a record to Jesus being real.
 
It kinda goes back to the question a biologist I know says. "How do we know George Washington was president?" Well the records say so, that's what we have. You can't go and meet George Washington he is simply gone, but the records say he did exist. Same with Jesus, the Bible can be taken as a record to Jesus being real.
For Washington we also have clothes he wore, multiple historical documents he signed, many references to him in history, and descendants that can track their family line to him.
 
For Washington we also have clothes he wore, multiple historical documents he signed, many references to him in history, and descendants that can track their family line to him.
You have clothes he supposedly wore, documents he supposedly signed, many references to him in history written by others, and people who claim to be his descendants. None of it is proof that he actually existed.
 
You have clothes he supposedly wore, documents he supposedly signed, many references to him in history written by others, and people who claim to be his descendants. None of it is proof that he actually existed.
Its quite compelling evidence. Jesus dosen't have this. This isn't a jab at Christianity, but more of a clarification that saying that Jesus and Washington have the same amount of evidence is false. We have more evidence that President George W. Bush Jr. existed then we do of Washington. Dose this means necessarily that George Washington didn't exist, no. But to say say both have the same amount of evidence of existence is false. From a historical stand point, Jesus deserves more speculation then Washington, but Washington deserves more speculation then Bush Jr. That's about it. I have no idea whether Jesus really existed as he was written about in the Bible. I'm more inclined to believe there was a Jesus, but I just don't believe everything said about Jesus. That isn't an attack, just a point of view. Sorry if I made you think otherwise.
 
Its quite compelling evidence. Jesus dosen't have this. This isn't a jab at Christianity, but more of a clarification that saying that Jesus and Washington have the same amount of evidence is false. We have more evidence that President George W. Bush Jr. existed then we do of Washington. Dose this means necessarily that George Washington didn't exist, no. But to say say both have the same amount of evidence of existence is false. From a historical stand point, Jesus deserves more speculation then Washington, but Washington deserves more speculation then Bush Jr. That's about it. I have no idea whether Jesus really existed as he was written about in the Bible. I'm more inclined to believe there was a Jesus, but I just don't believe everything said about Jesus. That isn't an attack, just a point of view. Sorry if I made you think otherwise.
No, I didn't think otherwise. Really, all we have of George Washington are some writings by others who claim to have known him, or about him, and his activities. This is no different than Jesus. Just because it's older doesn't mean it is any less reliable.
 
I skimmed through the pages. I wasn't convinced of the poster's arguments. All I simply have to say is that I'm just not convinced by the Bible's story of how a "God" created the Earth and humans and then sacrificed himself to himself to forgive other people for the actions of other people. There are some cool lessons and stories in the Bible, but I regard it as a book of a specific people telling a specific way of how to live.
I'm pretty convinced, anything that www.godandscience.org approves of is pretty reliable. They're probably the best Christian science website you can find on the internet, they understand the logic of how you put of arguments.
 
I'm pretty convinced, anything that www.godandscience.org approves of is pretty reliable. They're probably the best Christian science website you can find on the internet, they understand the logic of how you put of arguments.
The main reason I'm not convince is that the site works from the assumption that God already exists or that its trying to retro fit modern discovery with vague bible passages. If it works for you, thats cool. For me I just don't see the overall connection and just do what I do best. Dance like a banana. :)
 
I like the banana dance!

Actually, your kind of refreshing! You know what though, I used to drive truck many, many moons ago and I used to have to go to Long Beach California right to the port and they would take the bananas right off the boat and put them right into your truck. It was pretty awesome! Except you had to be careful because you never knew when a big hairy tarantella would come out of them green nanners. Spookey! :waving
 
Spiders are our guards. They are the navy seals of the banana alliance.
 
Back
Top