froggy

Not in my blood. If someone wants to hurt me physically because I have a better argument it does not make his argument become right, nor vice versa. It is an indication of desperate effort, a medieaval way of life.

Amaleq13

I've split out the developing tangent on evolution (per Mr. Brousard's request that was subsequently deleted) and moved it here. Thank you for trying to stick to BC&H relevant topics.

NWT

Now you seem to be implying that I'm advocating violence against religious extremists, which of course I'm not, unless they use violence themselves, i.e. Al Qaeda.
I really don't see how it is immoral in any way to present in various public forums, the strong evidence that Jesus and biblical history is at least mostly a myth. It seems to me, that it is the eminently fair, and just and proper thing to do, in view of the fact that the religious extremists are doing much worse in attacking the science of evolution, for which there is most assuredly at least 1000x (actually a great deal more than that) the evidence than there is for biblical history.

My point is, if the religious (in particular the Christian fundamentalists) were quite happy to keep their religion to themselves, as they used to do mostly, and apply their religious values to their own fellow enthusiasts, then I really could care less if they believe in the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus or Witches on broomsticks. But when they start this concerted effort to impose their religion on others, who do not share their beliefs, then I think it is the right thing, to fight back. After all it is their position that women who are raped should be forced to give birth, that those who are in extreme pain and want to end their lives, should be forced to stay alive, etc

Their fervent belief in the most extreme form of the Jesus Fable (i.e. miracles, rising from the dead, etc), is one area in which they are particularly vulnerable, to the same tactics that they are using against evolution, excepting that evolution has overwhelming evidence in support of, whereas the Jesus Fable has virtually no evidence to support it.

meforevidence

There is actually many evidences supporting the Historical Jesus as well as the Gospels. This includes not only history, but also archeology. Please see my website which will quote from many pre-athiests which set out to disprove the gospels and the history of Jesus. I have to admit though, finding the evidence is not as easy as people may think. I used to be a skeptic too. There are so many mis-translations in our modern English versions today as well as contradictions. I found that the further back you go though, that it makes more sense.
Here is my web page: http://www.geocities.com/bkitc/Bible...04184376984%20
Thanks everyone for being so open minded. I can't really speak about this stuff to a lot of Christians. Most of them will say things like "I just have faith." If that was enough, there would be no need for an empty tomb. I have to have evidences. Take care, Billy

meforevidence

One can not prove either Evolution or Creation with science. That is like trying to prove love and beauty with a math problem. They are apples and oranges. Like you said though, all we have to go by is evidence. I do believe that the evidence supports creation for the following reasons:
Here are the options:
1. Everything came from nothing and formed into a rock which formed into life, intelligence, and emotion as we have today.. or
2. Life, emotions, and intelligence came from a living intelligent emotional being as we have it today.
They both consider a large amount of faith.
As far as support for the evolutionsists, not one stands as sufficient evidence. So many of them were made up. Why is it that the time before the history we have in our Bible is called "Pre-history?" Almost every major civilization in history has had "Seven Days" for the week. Why is that? Most scientists (religious or agnostic) agree that the earliest civilizations come from the fertile crescent (which happens to be where man was created. When some scientists find bones that are the least bit differerent, they call it a "caveman." How many times have you been to a ball-game or public event and have seen the many different body types. I have worked in the medical and phsycological field for many years and have seen people with large bones, small bones, large heads, small heads, crooked backs, humped backs, tall, short, etc. We have dwarfs and pygmies even today. We have tall basketball players and people like the late Andre the Giant.
They have taken signs down at geologicla sites where stalagtites and stalagmites have formed which used to say it took millions of years to form. That was before they found out you can actually film them growing and that one of the largest formation caves in the world was no older than fifty years old. Anyway, my point is, there is not really a lot of "evidential support" for evolution either. For something to be considered "scientific" we have to be able to use the scientific method. We can't for either Creation or Evolution.

Amaleq13

Undoubtedly true with regard to the latter but demonstrably false with regard to the former. I encourage you to pursue this topic in the appropriate forum (ie Evolution/Creation) where it is appropriate subject matter. That is why, if you scan up a few posts, you will see that I split off some posts from here to E/C.

ImmortalTechnique

i'd never heard about any of this before... but this was pretty mindblowing:

The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities, which was used as reference by the author of Luke and Acts.

anyone have anything to say about that one?

ImmortalTechnique

i think that even if a "historical jesus" existed, the question is now largely immaterial, because there is, it seems, ample evidence that any "historical jesus" has little to do (birth, life, OR death) with the new testament jesus...

Dryhad

It doesn't seem to be really aimed at disproving the existance of the biblical Jesus. Rather, it's telling those who don't believe the new testement (mainly Jews in this case) not to just accept Christianity as historical fact.

Thomas II

Toto,
why do you say that they are "completely irrelevant in making the world a better place?" Being a sweet individual at least does not make the world a worse place. I have met some monks who are poor and dedicated and they are nice people...I think people like that make the world a better place...