Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wonkothesane · 02-04-2005, 12:06 AM

After installing the Trillian IRC client, I stumbled on accident across the forums sections and blindly wandered into this utterly irrelevent thread: Do You Know Jesus?

I stupidly did not immediately turn tail and run, but actually posted a response HERE

Which prompted the gem of a reply below (also on the same page linked above, only a couple of posts down from mine):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunjo

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

Depends. Can you back up that Jesus was the son of God? Hell, can you back up that anything your religion is based on actually happened?

There is ample medical, geological, historical, astronomical, archeolocial and anthropological evidence to support the varacity of the biblical recordings, from more than 2,000 years before the birth of the Christ to many generations after his death. In short, yes, our theology is based on the bible, and the bible IS based on historical FACT.

No, nothing we have ucovered can prove that Jesus or God existed, but they have proven that most historic aspects of the Bible are uncannily true, and since the bible has never been proven wrong in any area, I see no reason for it to be wrong when it comes to God and Jesus.

We must accept that there is no proof, because our limited sciences cannot prove where we came from or the existance of a God, so any conclusion, whether Christian, atheist or anything else, must be reached by some level of faith.

I just came from another forum where I addressed this in great detail, but as of now I'm a quite tired and more than a bit weary of this topic, thanks to the fact that nobody seems to preach more about God than the people who insist he doesn't exist.... quite sad really, not only that they seem to have nothing better to do than attack other theologies, but that they're so arrogant and dogmatic in their approach that they never seem to research their subject first.

I will be happy to continue this later, when I am rested and fed, but for now, I bid you all good night.

Godspeed,
-Cunjo

Wow, I learn something new every day!!!

Jack the Bodiless · 02-04-2005, 02:43 AM

Looks like someone badly needs an education.

Why not invite him/her here?

Cynical-Chick · 02-04-2005, 05:09 AM

Sad, the first thing I noticed was that "veracity" is spelled wrong.

Yes, invite this person here. :devil3:

Dean Anderson · 02-04-2005, 05:19 AM

Cunjo's claims are utter rubbish.

If you mosey on over to the BC&H forum, the regulars there will be able to tell you in exquisite detail exactly how rubbish Cunjo's claims are - or indeed tell Cunjo themself should they decide to brave the waters here...

IamMoose · 02-04-2005, 05:25 AM

I have the feeling that this needs to be somewhere else, but I am not sure where. Shall we try BC and H, since Pervy mentioned it?

Sensei Meela · 02-04-2005, 08:20 AM

Well, bats are not birds and rabbits don't chew cud, for one thing [both as per Leviticus, IIRC]. You might be interested in getting their level of "proof" down, with regards to inerrancy, but the above are pretty much iron clad. There is also this thread which cites a few other 'areas' in which the Bible has been 'proven' false, most notably the census mentioned in the Gospels.

I'm curious what "medical..." and "astronomical" evidence is being referred to here.

gandolfi · 02-04-2005, 08:31 AM

I guess all the contradictions in the Bible are true as well !

Jack the Bodiless · 02-04-2005, 09:38 AM

...Yep, that must be it.

So 50% of Jesus was born in the reign of Herod (died 4 BC), and the other half popped out in 6 AD during the governorship of Quirinus and fused with the first part. Maybe they split later, which could explain the multiple last words of Jesus and the confusion over who visited the tomb(s) when.

Suddenly the Trinity begins to make sense.

wonkothesane · 02-04-2005, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gandolfi

I guess all the contradictions in the Bible are true as well !

Yeah, I think that in my follow-up to this over on the original sit I said something like "So like the Bible is 100% true! Even that parts that contradict the other parts."

I am still not sure if this guy is for real or just a very clever troll...???

But I would very very much appreciate some examples of obvious (and inarguable*) Biblical flaws, inaccuracies, ect, etc and such. Scientific, historical, etc...ones that can't be easily dismissed or argued away as translation errors or "misunderstandings".

Thanks...

Julian · 02-04-2005, 10:08 AM

You cannot prove a negative so you will fall short. However, you can show that most of the bible is extremely unlikely. There was no exodus. Remember that Canaan was egyptian at that time. So Moses left Egypt and went into Egypt. :Cheeky: Also, in the stories about the patriarchs they use camels as domesticated animals. Camels were not domesticated until much later. Anyways, I recommend The Bible Unearthed for a plethora of hard scientific facts that invalidates most of the bible.

Julian

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2005, 02:43 AM	#2
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Looks like someone badly needs an education. Why not invite him/her here?

02-04-2005, 05:09 AM	#3
Cynical-Chick Contributor Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 11,424	Sad, the first thing I noticed was that "veracity" is spelled wrong. Yes, invite this person here. :devil3:

02-04-2005, 05:19 AM	#4
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Cunjo's claims are utter rubbish. If you mosey on over to the BC&H forum, the regulars there will be able to tell you in exquisite detail exactly how rubbish Cunjo's claims are - or indeed tell Cunjo themself should they decide to brave the waters here...

02-04-2005, 05:25 AM	#5
IamMoose Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: On the fringes of the Lake District, UK Posts: 9,528	I have the feeling that this needs to be somewhere else, but I am not sure where. Shall we try BC and H, since Pervy mentioned it?

02-04-2005, 08:20 AM	#6
Sensei Meela Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: AZ, u.s.a. Posts: 1,202	Well, bats are not birds and rabbits don't chew cud, for one thing [both as per Leviticus, IIRC]. You might be interested in getting their level of "proof" down, with regards to inerrancy, but the above are pretty much iron clad. There is also this thread which cites a few other 'areas' in which the Bible has been 'proven' false, most notably the census mentioned in the Gospels. I'm curious what "medical..." and "astronomical" evidence is being referred to here.

02-04-2005, 08:31 AM	#7
gandolfi Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: maryland, USA Posts: 63	I guess all the contradictions in the Bible are true as well !

02-04-2005, 09:38 AM	#8
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	...Yep, that must be it. So 50% of Jesus was born in the reign of Herod (died 4 BC), and the other half popped out in 6 AD during the governorship of Quirinus and fused with the first part. Maybe they split later, which could explain the multiple last words of Jesus and the confusion over who visited the tomb(s) when. Suddenly the Trinity begins to make sense.

02-04-2005, 10:08 AM	#10
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	You cannot prove a negative so you will fall short. However, you can show that most of the bible is extremely unlikely. There was no exodus. Remember that Canaan was egyptian at that time. So Moses left Egypt and went into Egypt. :Cheeky: Also, in the stories about the patriarchs they use camels as domesticated animals. Camels were not domesticated until much later. Anyways, I recommend The Bible Unearthed for a plethora of hard scientific facts that invalidates most of the bible. Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.