Cheerful Charlie

Some documents are obvious lies. The four badly contradictory gospel tall tales of the resurrection and the women at the tomb. The contradictory tall tales of the infancy of Jesus. The saints who came alive at Jesus's death and wandered around Jerusalem. Archaeology has debunked any idea of an exodus as related in the Torah, no exodus, no Moses on the mount, no bloody invasion of Canaan as per Joshua.
Noah's flood, Adam and Eve, tower of Babel, none of these old bible tales are true, all were lies made up by tellers of tall tales.

There is no more truth in these things than there is truth the Greek Gods were involved in the Trojan war as told by Homer, or the legends of Mithraism as rewritten for the Roman age version of Mithraism.

It is convenient of course for religious fanatics to ignore the lies at the heart of their religion, whether it is the obvious contradictory lies of the gospels, or the book of Mormon, or Dianetics.

Amazingly, even though we have universities stuffed with experts who point out these errors and lies, the lies still go on full blast as beliefs of hundreds of millions.

"A good lie will go around the world while the truth is still putting on her boots"
- Mark Twain

CC

Cheerful Charlie

Excellent post. Roger, back to you.

CC

Cheerful Charlie

The bible makes claims that lead otherwise intelligent men into error.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm

Chapter 9.—Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes.

But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man. Wherefore let us seek if we can find the city of God that sojourns on earth among those human races who are catalogued as having been divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages. For it continued down to the deluge and the ark, and is proved to have existed still among the sons of Noah by their blessings, and chiefly in the eldest son Shem; for Japheth received this blessing, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem.

cc

Minimalist

A quote from Titus Livy on the birth of Romulus and Remus. After telling the tale of how surviving Trojans landed in Italy he works his way down to this point.

Note how the fanciful tale is carried on until the end, when he tosses in another theory!

In any case, recent genetic studies have confirmed that the Etruscans did originate in Turkey. So how did Livy get that right while telling what I hope all would agree is a fairy tale?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy01.html

Chris Weimer

What is nonsensical about Herodotus seeing bones?

GakuseiDon

"Excellent post"??? Notice how Johnny is putting words into Roger's mouth. Johnny simply assumes what others believe. I don't know how many times I had to tell him I wasn't a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian before he got the message. Johnny is as monomaniacal about the Bible as any fundy. I understand that he has an agenda just like the rest of us, but still, assuming what others believe is aggravating, if not rude...

Cheerful Charlie

You must remember, I and Roger have been going on in this vein some years. Roger assumes Christianity is true and has for a long time. I would indeed like to see him show us a reason to assume this.

Back to you, Roger.

CC

Johnny Skeptic

What does Roger believe? Is he a liberal, moderate, or conservative Christian?

Am I correct that you do not believe that God inspired the writing of the Bible?

Do you believe that the Bible adequately describes what God is like?

Johnny Skeptic

Several weeks ago I started a thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum that it titled "Written records are not the best way for the Christian God to promote his agenda." Following is a post that I made in that thread:

Who said anything about knowing? The issue is believing, not knowing. No one can prove who they are beyond any doubt. The Bible does not require that people know anything, only that they believe some things. God withholds evidence that would cause some people to BELIEVE that he exists, not evidence that would cause anyone to KNOW that he exists.

No being who is not able to speak a new galaxy into existence can possibly be a God. If the God of the Bible exists, if he showed up and created a new galaxy, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

God deliberately limits the size of the Christian church, with no apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else.

Consider the following post from another thread:

You are kidding, right? If Pat Robertson prayed for an amputee to receive a new arm, and the amputee instantly received a new arm, would the miracle convince some people? Well of course it would. Are you not aware that some people have become Christians because of supposed miracles that were a lot less convincing than an amputee getting a new limb?

Miracles would convince me to become a follower of a supposed God if I also got some satisfactory answers to some questions.

It is interesting to note that when the first airplane was built, if it had been taken to some remote jungle regions in the world and shown to some of the natives, and the pilot had claimed to be a God, it is probable that he could have fooled at least some of the natives at least some of the time.

Without demonstrations of miracles, how can anyone reliably determine whether or not a message came from God? Power validates words. Words do not validate power. Anyone can speak words, but not just anyone can perform miracles. Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)

They believed "When they saw the miracles which he did," not "when they heard the words that he spoke."

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (KJV)

"For no man can do these miracles that thou doest," not "for no man can speak the words that thou speakest."

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. (KJV)

"Because they saw his miracles," not just "because they heard his words."

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

Those people would not believed based solely upon Jesus' words. They wanted to see some miracles firsthand, and the texts say that they got what they wanted.

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

The message of his grace was confirmed with miracles, not with words. As I said previously, "Anyone can speak words, but not just anyone can perform miracles." If a being speaks words, he may or may not be a God, or a representative of a God. If a being performs miracles, he may or may not be a God, or a representative of a God. If a being is unable to perform miracles, he definitely is not a God, or a representative of a God. While the ability to perform miracles provides a POSSIBILITY that a message is from God, the inablity to perform miracles provides PROOF that a being is not a God, or a representative of a God. The logical conclusion is that no one should assume that a message is from God without having firsthand evidence that the being who delivered the message is able to perform miracles. There are not any good reasons that I am aware of why a loving, moral God would refuse to provide that kind of evidence today.

Are you suggesting that words alone are suffiicient evidence that Christianity is the one true religion?

Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that you can draw a crowd of people in New York City much faster by performing miracles than you can by just speaking words. As I said previously, John 6:2 says "And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased." To that I will add that Matthew 4:24 says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them." That verse is about miracles, not about words.

Apologist, pastor, and author Dr. John MacArthur dealt with the issue of miracle healings by claiming that if God typically healed people, many people would become Christians for the wrong reasons. I will be happy to discuss his absurd position with anyone who wants to defend it.

[I apologize if this post is not appropriate for this forum. If anyone is interested in visiting the thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum, the link is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=211251].

Sauron

Herodotus does more than just see bones - he connects the dots and tells his readers that they are the bones of winged serpents. And there is no evidence that Herodotus finds this story fantastic, or has any problems accepting it.

Now, did the Egyptians tell him this? Yes, clearly; that is what the text says. But Herodotus apparently didn't think their account was unbelievable. Herodotus takes this claim, doesn't challenge or investigate it, and accepts it at face value. And he does this, in spite of the fact that in several other places in The Persian Wars, he stops and gives several conflicting opinions, tells the reader their strong and weak points, or even gives his own point of view:

[2.73] They have also another sacred bird called the phoenix which I myself have never seen, except in pictures. Indeed it is a great rarity, even in Egypt, only coming there (according to the accounts of the people of Heliopolis) once in five hundred years, when the old phoenix dies. Its size and appearance, if it is like the pictures, are as follow:- The plumage is partly red, partly golden, while the general make and size are almost exactly that of the eagle. They tell a story of what this bird does, which does not seem to me to be credible: that he comes all the way from Arabia, and brings the parent bird, all plastered over with myrrh, to the temple of the Sun, and there buries the body. In order to bring him, they say, he first forms a ball of myrrh as big as he finds that he can carry; then he hollows out the ball, and puts his parent inside, after which he covers over the opening with fresh myrrh, and the ball is then of exactly the same weight as at first; so he brings it to Egypt, plastered over as I have said, and deposits it in the temple of the Sun. Such is the story they tell of the doings of this bird.

See Book 2, Euterpe, for several other examples.

Herodotus lived in an age where such things were considered believable; if you lived in medieval Europe and someone tells you that a unicorn or a satyr exists, why would you contest it? But that is the root problem of an excessive reliance upon manuscripts. Both

(a) accepting what one is told uncritically and
(b) acceptance of the fantastic

are common issues affecting the reliability of ancient manuscripts. This includes the ancient manuscripts that Roger venerates, as well as the mss of the bible.