Mason Bane

You think there is something special about your friend's question and that is fine but I don't.

I believed the Bible stories as a child, but only because I got the comic book version. When I got older, I simply read a few chapters of Genesis in the original Hebrew and I knew it was all a fake. If you are really on the fence, I would suggest reading the Bible.

You mention God choosing these few people in a strip of land the size of New Jersey. Think about this. God chose this race of Semites and yet they were the least successful of the surrounding lands. Mesopotamia was a superpower that contributed the laws and deluge stories you find in the Bible. Egypt was a superpower that contributed the cross, amen and other things. Anyone who felt the urge came in and easily enslaved Israel. So who were the gods of all the conquering nations? They were greater gods, if at all.

And is this religion really for you? If you are a gentile, then Jesus would call you a dog as he did gentiles in the Bible. Paul brought the teachings of Jesus to the gentiles and invented the whole salvation plan but that is clearly not what Jesus wanted.

Equinox

Half-Life wrote:
Hey, isn’t this another one of those made-up Christian urban legends, like Darwin recanting or NASA finding a missing day in time?

I vaguely remember that there is no basis to the gold-crack story, and that we do have ancient evidence of the Romans taking the gold artifacts out intact, and showing them in Rome as booty – no melting took place.

And wouldn’t it be very uncharacteristically stupid for the smart Romans to destroy their gold booty? I think it’s clear from history that the Romans weren’t idiots, and knew how to properly loot gold booty.

hmm, I wonder if I can find confirmation of this. Has Half-life been lied to yet again?

Equinox

George S

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived by man." --- Isaac Asimov.

I read it word-for-word (KJV) in the summer of my 18th year. Asimov is right.

Equinox

I found it. The image of the Romans carrying the intact gold items out can be seen here:



From this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus

Is there any historical basis to think that there is any basis in reality to the Christians legend of the golden crack? Hey, that sounds like a movie. "James bond and the golden crack"...... :grin:


Equinox

Toto

The only sources that talk about the gold in the cracks are Christian sites, and they ascribe the story to "tradition."

Half-Life

Now I am very confused.

I have been straining my brain really hard to try and think just what was going in that first century.

I can not think of a reason that anyone would just say, "Hey, let's make up a story about jesus and have him fulfill prophecies. I don't know why, but it could be a new religion."

I seriously can not think of any rational reason why the story broke out. Peter WAS martyred in about 64 A.D. and we have some writings dated as early as 40 CE.

http://one-faith-of-god.org/new_test..._testament.htm

I am now more confused than ever. I can not get this thought of "hellfire" out of my head no matter how hard i try and it seems I'm desperately trying to cling to the faith to avoid Hell.

I'm sorry guys but I really am confused beyond belief.

Skeptic_v.1

But H-L, do you ask yourself that question about all the other made up religions that came before or after....why is it just this one that you can't think of a reason for it to be made up? I think it is just from habit, it's been with you for a long time and hard to drop

Toto

I can think of reasons. People make up stories all the time.

NO! We have no evidence of Peter's existence, much less when he was martyred or if he was martyred. Your site says that the Gospel of Thomas dates to 40 CE, but most scholars place it in the second century, and it doesn't mention Jesus' death or crucifixion.

Hell does not exist, but you can create hell on earth by your own actions.

Half-Life

What about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

How could he die in 64 AD if he never existed?

mg01

Intresting to see a mix of those who "de-converted" gradualy vs rapidly. I'm in the gradual camp. It started early on when I first became aware there were actually "other religions". That made no sense for a traditon that was supposed to offer universal salvation. Literalisim was never forced on me so seperating the "God of the Bible" from the idea "God in general" wasn't a big deal for me and for all practical purposes left me agnostic.

In college I just happened to take a World Religion and Psychology class in the same semester while filling in electives. My new perspective was religious phonomonon was just a product of the mind. Read some Freud and Jung and saw it wasn't a new idea.

After not considering the matter for years, I was challenged by someone with a literal interpretation and realized while I had dismissed the Bible as "true", I knew nothing of actual religious history. After discovering just how much was known I was completely sucked in and to a degree even shocked at the idea that religious traditions actually survive. I've read accounts of how people predicted the discovery of Ugarit in 1929 for instance would be the end of western religious tradition, yet here we are.

I thought the earlier note about the poster's dad telling him he had to find out whether or not there was a God on his own was particularly relevent as that's exactly what I've told my children. Children will accept anything from their authority figures. Teaching a child how to think for themselves is the best thing a parent can do.