Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 07-30-2002, 12:42 AM

Beach, your responses are largely misunderstandings and errors.

Vork:

indifference to geographical and political realities – Mark's geographical boners, Matthew's depiction of a Jewish crowd shouting "His blood be on us forever!", the constant depiction of Roman centurions faithful to the Jewish god

What you can conclude from geographical mistakes is that the writer of Mark wasn't familiar with area in the similar way that if you wrote about the Middle East and used a wrong word for something. And are there people in Middle Eastern countries that believe in Christianity? Yes. But you would suggest that be impossible because they're from a different culture?

The second half of this is gibberish -- can you clarify what you mean? The first half amounts to saying what I've been saying: Mark was not familiar with his topic. Since he was not familiar, nor does he appear to have made any attempt to become familiar, why should we take seriously his representation of events?

The issue is that many events in the gospel -- and I am not talking about the supernatural ones -- are blatantly unreal. For example, in Acts we meet the pious Centurion of the Italica legion. The Italica legion was so lawless and ungovernable that Vespasian had to disband it. How likely is it that an officer of that division was a devout Christian? How likely is it that Jewish crowd stood before the most brutal of the Roman rulers, Pilate, and said "Hey, blame us!"

depiction/re-arrangement of history in religious/supernatural frameworks – John's Seven Signs

You can't say a book that is based on a supernatural being, God, is invalid because it contains references to the supernatural. Such an argument is ridiculous.

I DID NOT say that it is invalid because there are references to the supernatural. I said it appears legendary because the story has been reconstructed around a supernatural framework, and pointed to John's "seven signs" as an example of this reconstructing.

few or no critical views of subject

What sort of critical views are you looking for? The NT constantly depicts the disciples as not fully understanding what's going on, which seems rather critical of those disputed to be the authors.

I probably wasn't clear. By "critical" I do not mean "negative." Rather, I mean, in the sense of an objective, well-rounded, informed, critique of the subject's strengths and weaknesses in relation to his mission or goals. Imagine if Luke had written "Jesus' great strengths were his imagination and crowd management; but he had a short temper and little tolerance for initiative in his subordinates." Such remarks are common in among people writing and thinking about history. But Luke is writing a novel and creating a legend.

no details of personal characteristics, habits and attitudes – did Jesus like art? Spicy food? Was he afraid of spiders? Ancient historians frequently gave detailed descriptions of character, because it was a widespread belief that it would give clues as to why events occurred the way they did

The Bible does give many details about Jesus, but didn't focus on every mundane detail. In the book of John it says that he didn't include everything.

Again, the issue is what was included, and what is not, not whether everything can be included. Apparently four writers on Jesus' life were completely uninterested in any personal details about him.

not merely the mentioning of, but the constant presence of the supernatural that permeates the work

We discussed this earlier. The mention of a supernatural event in a book about a supernatural being is not a valid argument that it's flawed.

Again, it is not the presence of the supernatural. It is that the history itself is supernatural. Jesus is the son of god, he performs miracles, he fulfills prophecies....it's entirely legendary in nature. Its not like Tacitus, where the supernatural appears from time to time. The role of the supernatural in the gospels is entirely different.

the use of passages and stories from earlier works to construct the NT – reliance on the OT prophecies and stray verses. Subtract these and what is left?

Jesus and most of the writers were probably Jewish, so why wouldn't they make reference to the OT? If anything, if they didn't I would question it.

They don't just reference the OT, they build stories out of it. Otto of Friesing wrote a history of Frederick Barbarossa; but died and his secretary completed it. His secretary unfortunately completed it by copying events and speeches from Roman historians, particularly Sallust. Consequently, no one considers it reliable. When gospel writers do the same thing, how do you think we should regard it?

few or no historical asides/digressions to explain to the reader what is going on, or who was such-and-such in history.

A couple do exist but not many because again they didn't focus on every mundane detail and wouldn't most people of the time know the people involved. Why would you explain to Jewish readers about the historical situation in Jerusalem? They were living it.

The gospels were all written at least after 70 and Luke/Acts after 95. I personally believe them all to be second century, but don't feel like arguing that at this point. They refer to events that happened prior to 65. The history had already happened and no one was "living it." Practically everyone who knew something about it was dead or scattered. Further, they were written for non-Jewish audiences who had no idea what the historical record was.

no stated commitment to history such as Tacitus, Thucidydes or Polybius made

Did we suddenly decide that the Bible was meant solely as a historical book. Luke does say that he took great pains to investigate and gather accounts, but simply saying "this is historical" doesn't mean anything, nor does it's omition.

We didn't "suddenly decide" anything. I am putting a list of reasons, when taken together, show that the gospels (not "the Bible") should be properly regarded as legendary material.

Luke investigates nothing, although s/he did take great pains to copy, sometimes badly, from other texts, Mark, Q and Josephus. If you read Luke's gospel, you will soon find that events in Jesus' life are simply strung together like beads on a string, without reference to time, date, cause, order, or consideration of their relation to the larger pattern of events in Palestine. Luke does not at all think like a historian. He is creating a legend.

Nowhere do the gospelers affirm a commitment to a balanced view of the subject.

the description of Jesus' life using themes from legends and myths – miraculous birth, redemptive death

little or no explanation by historical/naturalistic/supernatural causation; causation is often supernatural – "and this was done that they prophecy might be fulfilled" Compare with explanatory remarks in Tacitus: "His men were lukewarm in their allegiance, for many came from Dalmatia and Pannonia, and these provinces were now in Vespasian's hands" or describing Vespasian's success in Judea: "Good luck, a distinguished record and excellent subordinates enabled him to within a space of two summers…."

You keep coming back to the fact that it uses supernatural events which should be expected and the very definition of something supernatural is that it can't be explained using the natural world.

You keep missing the boat. When Matthew wants to give Pilate a reason for reluctance to kill Jesus, he does not give a few paragraphs referring to the political situation in Palestine, or Pilate's relation to Herod, or his personality, the way Tacitus, Josephus or Themosticles might. Rather, Pilate's wife has a dream.....in the gospels, supernatural explanation is the first explanation reached for, not the last. Additionally, it is often the only explanation given.

overt declaration of propaganda motives in writing

What propaganda?

What is the purpose of Luke and Mark's writings, as they themselves say? Is it to set down a history, fair in consideration and balanced in approach, like Tacitus or Josephus says? (whether the latter succeeds is another thing altogether).

knowledge of appropriate laws, habits, customs and procedures. Is Jesus' trial really a possible and legal trial? Compare to Tacitus' detailed knowledge of how political procedures operated.

You're right his trial wasn't legal, but does that make it invalid? Have we ever had an illegal trial? How about the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials? Were those made up too?

Again, the boat has sailed without you. The ignorance displayed by the gospel writers of Jewish legal procedure makes a mockery of any claim to truth on their part. It does not "invalidate" the trial; it turns it into fiction.

BTW, the Inquisition trials, as Bede has taught me, were conducted with intense attention to legality and prisoners often went free on technicalities.

It is not the presence of a single one of these failings that convicts the gospels of being legends (I could list more, and probably will in another post), it is the presence of all of them in a single set of stories that shows that the gospels belong to the genre of Robin Hood, King Arthur and Roland. There are few, if any accurate historical details about the "character" who is their central concern; in any, he appears to be a composite made up of several different stories.

Vorkosigan

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

scumble · 07-30-2002, 12:57 AM

Beach, I don't think you're grasping what I'm saying.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you think you have, there is still such a lot of doubt surrounding the whole thing. Given that there is absolutely no record of people rising from the dead in living memory, I find it odd that anyone can think a handful of ancient accounts is enough to verify the resurrection of Jesus with complete certainty.
What appears to be happening is that you are treating the Bible as "true until proven false".
When you talk about the authors of the Bible spanning long periods of time and authors who never knew each other, how do you know what you're saying is true? The bible was compiled, at the earliest, at the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, several thousand years after Moses is supposed to have lived. You seem to be satisfied that the sources the scribes used were accurate, even though we haven't got them now. How do you know everything wasn't nicely written to fit into a long story, eh?
I would put it to you, that you just believe it all to be true until some evidence proves it wrong.

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scumble:
Beach, I don't think you're grasping what I'm saying.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you think you have, there is still such a lot of doubt surrounding the whole thing. Given that there is absolutely no record of people rising from the dead in living memory, I find it odd that anyone can think a handful of ancient accounts is enough to verify the resurrection of Jesus with complete certainty.
What appears to be happening is that you are treating the Bible as "true until proven false".
When you talk about the authors of the Bible spanning long periods of time and authors who never knew each other, how do you know what you're saying is true? The bible was compiled, at the earliest, at the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, several thousand years after Moses is supposed to have lived. You seem to be satisfied that the sources the scribes used were accurate, even though we haven't got them now. How do you know everything wasn't nicely written to fit into a long story, eh?
I would put it to you, that you just believe it all to be true until some evidence proves it wrong.

I do understand what you're saying. You're saying that there isn't enough evidence and simply too much doubt surrounding the Bible to prove what it says is true. We're simply coming at this statement from two different sides, because I believe there isn't enough evidence to prove the Bible to be wrong which is also true. The Bible is the most criticized and scrutinized book in history and still no one has undoubtedly disproven it. Could it have been fabricated? Perhaps, but how then are ideas and places that are contained in the Bible there that we didn't prove scientifically/arcaeologically until hundreds of years after they were compiled into one book. I don't dispute that there is doubt about the Bible, but I would rather put my trust in what the Bible claims that hasn't been disproven, than in our limited understanding and knowledge which undeniably changes daily.

Benjamin Franklin · 07-30-2002, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:


The Bible is the most criticized and scrutinized book in history and still no one has undoubtedly disproven it. Could it have been fabricated? Perhaps, but how then are ideas and places that are contained in the Bible there that we didn't prove scientifically/arcaeologically until hundreds of years after they were compiled into one book. I don't dispute that there is doubt about the Bible, but I would rather put my trust in what the Bible claims that hasn't been disproven, than in our limited understanding and knowledge which undeniably changes daily.

Do you think there is enough evidence to conclusively disprove the Koran. If we adopt the philosophy that things are true until proven false
with regards to religous claims, then we end up with too many conflicting truth claims and this is clearly not a logical/rational position

Tjun Kiat

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]

Jayhawker Soule · 07-30-2002, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
The Bible is the most criticized and scrutinized book in history and still no one has undoubtedly disproven it.

As a Young-Earth Creationist, you 'doubt' the general consensus of astrophysics, geophysics, biology, botany, and paleontology, proclaiming this consensus "absurd". This leaves one to wonder what methodology, other than revelation, you might use to ascertain that something is, or is not, "undoubtedly disproven".

And how populated is this class of "undoubtedly disproven" things? Does it include Kali and the Faerie Kingdom? Does it include unicorns and satyrs? If not, by what reason do you select virgin birth and resurrection over Kali and reincarnation?

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
Perhaps, but how then are ideas and places that are contained in the Bible there that we didn't prove scientifically/arcaeologically until hundreds of years after they were compiled into one book.

What ideas and places? Proved how? Compiled when? How is this different than the real ideas and places found in Greco-Roman or Summerian myth? If anything can be considered noteworthy, it is that the Bible is so obviously flawed that fundamentalists cling thankfully and vociferously to the slightest hint of real history underlying the many layers of folklore.

CX · 07-30-2002, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
There are many scholars, such as Herzog and Finkelstein, who take a small piece of evidence that doesn't definitively prove anything and draw conclusion after conclusion upon it. They then draw conclusions based on their conclusions which began with an incorrect or unwarranted assumption.

Have you actually read Finkelstein's book?

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-30-2002, 07:12 AM

Far more than just two seminaries teach their students the stuff is myth. I read a testimonial from a former Pentecostal whose preacher admitted in private it was myth. This from a Pentecostal!
And a year ago, when I was still a believer, my mother told me one of her friends went to a Baptist church and was told there that the "Young ministers coming out of Baptist seminaries aren't even Christians. They're being taught horrible things about the bible not being true."
I fully expect Christian historians and archaelogists to attempt to debunk guys like Finkelstein. They have to, it's their belief and they're losing congregation members in ever increasing numbers who are realizing on their own or through studies it's myth and leaving the church.
TV evangelists are screaming about it, because their tax-free cash cow is dwindling.

That being said, I'm on this board because I don't believe in written books being definitive words of "God".
I believe a Supreme Being might exist, but it doesn't interfere on earth, doesn't favor any one race, one belief, of people over any other, and certainly did not come to earth in the flesh and put itself to death to satisfy its own bloodlust. Humans developed religious beliefs out of superstition, trying to figure out the world around them in the age they were living based on what their limited knowledge of science and other ideas at the time. As we have grown over the centuries in what we know about how the universe runs, we have gradually stripped beliefs out of the bible to accomodate it, such as women being given equal rights, slavery being abolished. Both women and slaves are property in the bible and ok in God's eyes, according to the bible. If this is indeed the inspired word of God, everyone who today believes women should have equal rights and work outside the home are going directly against the spoken word of God. And I charge that the exact reason people interpret the bible to suit society's needs is in the back of our subconscious, we don't really think it's true.
If the story of Jesus is true, he didn't waste his living years teaching the Sermon on the Mount, love your enemies, give to all those who ask to borrow from you, etc, so Christians can cast all that aside and think they're saved just because they accept the Trinity, Jesus' virgin birth, resurrection, and have dipped their head in water while largely living their lives ignoring his actual teachings.
A supreme whatever did not create humans in its loving image, then turn around and give a bunch of impossible rules to completely follow, resulting in eternal condemnation. I honestly fully cannot believe any sensible person would believe that. I think it's incredible that it is still a belief in this enlightened, scientific age.
But that's just me.

scumble · 07-30-2002, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
while largely living their lives ignoring his actual teachings.

It does seem that way. I think it's because a lot of Christian approaches teach that if you believe the x things about Jesus, you suddenly become a great person. People can spend more time worrying about the ritual rather than improving themselves.

Beach - You seem to be admitting that you agree about the inherent uncertainties surrounding the Bible. In effect, what you are saying, as BenjaminFranklin may be pointing at, that you'd rather believe a story that merely hasn't been shown to be false explicitly, than hypotheses based on vast amounts of evidence.
As such, you don't have a rational basis for your Christian belief. You don't have assurance that what you believe is true.
From my point of view, I can't tell why you actually have this belief. Where you brought up to be a Christian?

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-30-2002, 08:24 AM

My girlfriend said once, when I was still a believer, "Why is it so important to insist that a person believe in a virgin birth and a resurrection, rather than practice the teachings to make try to make the world a better place?"

It kills me when religious people attack humanism. Treating everyone with dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs and their race, yes that sounds evil to me.
How dare us try to make the world a better, more peaceful place to live by treating everyone with dignity, rather than force our religous beliefs on them and convert them to our way of thinking!
Yes, that's a much better way to go.

Who cares if person A believes in the same god as person B, or believes in a god at all?

Society needs to deal with the bad, criminal elements. What does belief or non-belief in a god have to do with that? Atheists are not evil people controlled by Satan. Neither are terrorists. Terrorists are just evil people out for their own gain any way they can get it, and have no regard for humanity.
For someone to start preaching that these people are controlled by Satan, and that God will get them is ludicrous. We need to make things work in the here and now, not concern ourself with some afterlife we have no knowledge even exists.

Forgive me for going off on a rant. This probably should not have been posted in this topic, but I got carried away.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
...we have gradually stripped beliefs out of the bible to accomodate it, such as women being given equal rights, slavery being abolished. Both women and slaves are property in the bible and ok in God's eyes, according to the bible. If this is indeed the inspired word of God, everyone who today believes women should have equal rights and work outside the home are going directly against the spoken word of God
....while largely living their lives ignoring his actual teachings.

You've said investigated this thoroughly, but I'm surprised that you miss the fact that Jesus talked to many women, which would have been quite unexceptable during that time period. You are correct that many people were "slaves" but in a lot of cases, if you study the time period, "slavery" or probably more accurately servanthood was better than being free and starving. Jesus never claimed to want to start a political movement which is what you're assuming that he should have done; to transform their culture in an instant.

07-30-2002, 12:42 AM	#111
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Beach, your responses are largely misunderstandings and errors. *Vork:* indifference to geographical and political realities – Mark's geographical boners, Matthew's depiction of a Jewish crowd shouting "His blood be on us forever!", the constant depiction of Roman centurions faithful to the Jewish god What you can conclude from geographical mistakes is that the writer of Mark wasn't familiar with area in the similar way that if you wrote about the Middle East and used a wrong word for something. And are there people in Middle Eastern countries that believe in Christianity? Yes. But you would suggest that be impossible because they're from a different culture? The second half of this is gibberish -- can you clarify what you mean? The first half amounts to saying what I've been saying: Mark was not familiar with his topic. Since he was not familiar, nor does he appear to have made any attempt to become familiar, why should we take seriously his representation of events? The issue is that many events in the gospel -- and I am not talking about the supernatural ones -- are blatantly unreal. For example, in Acts we meet the pious Centurion of the Italica legion. The Italica legion was so lawless and ungovernable that Vespasian had to disband it. How likely is it that an officer of that division was a devout Christian? How likely is it that Jewish crowd stood before the most brutal of the Roman rulers, Pilate, and said "Hey, blame us!" depiction/re-arrangement of history in religious/supernatural frameworks – John's Seven Signs You can't say a book that is based on a supernatural being, God, is invalid because it contains references to the supernatural. Such an argument is ridiculous. I DID NOT say that it is invalid because there are references to the supernatural. I said it appears legendary because the story has been reconstructed around a supernatural framework, and pointed to John's "seven signs" as an example of this reconstructing. few or no critical views of subject What sort of critical views are you looking for? The NT constantly depicts the disciples as not fully understanding what's going on, which seems rather critical of those disputed to be the authors. I probably wasn't clear. By "critical" I do not mean "negative." Rather, I mean, in the sense of an objective, well-rounded, informed, critique of the subject's strengths and weaknesses in relation to his mission or goals. Imagine if Luke had written "Jesus' great strengths were his imagination and crowd management; but he had a short temper and little tolerance for initiative in his subordinates." Such remarks are common in among people writing and thinking about history. But Luke is writing a novel and creating a legend. no details of personal characteristics, habits and attitudes – did Jesus like art? Spicy food? Was he afraid of spiders? Ancient historians frequently gave detailed descriptions of character, because it was a widespread belief that it would give clues as to why events occurred the way they did The Bible does give many details about Jesus, but didn't focus on every mundane detail. In the book of John it says that he didn't include everything. Again, the issue is what was included, and what is not, not whether everything can be included. Apparently four writers on Jesus' life were completely uninterested in any personal details about him. not merely the mentioning of, but the constant presence of the supernatural that permeates the work We discussed this earlier. The mention of a supernatural event in a book about a supernatural being is not a valid argument that it's flawed. Again, it is not the presence of the supernatural. It is that the history itself is supernatural. Jesus is the son of god, he performs miracles, he fulfills prophecies....it's entirely legendary in nature. Its not like Tacitus, where the supernatural appears from time to time. The role of the supernatural in the gospels is entirely different. the use of passages and stories from earlier works to construct the NT – reliance on the OT prophecies and stray verses. Subtract these and what is left? Jesus and most of the writers were probably Jewish, so why wouldn't they make reference to the OT? If anything, if they didn't I would question it. They don't just reference the OT, they build stories out of it. Otto of Friesing wrote a history of Frederick Barbarossa; but died and his secretary completed it. His secretary unfortunately completed it by copying events and speeches from Roman historians, particularly Sallust. Consequently, no one considers it reliable. When gospel writers do the same thing, how do you think we should regard it? few or no historical asides/digressions to explain to the reader what is going on, or who was such-and-such in history. A couple do exist but not many because again they didn't focus on every mundane detail and wouldn't most people of the time know the people involved. Why would you explain to Jewish readers about the historical situation in Jerusalem? They were living it. The gospels were all written at least after 70 and Luke/Acts after 95. I personally believe them all to be second century, but don't feel like arguing that at this point. They refer to events that happened prior to 65. The history had already happened and no one was "living it." Practically everyone who knew something about it was dead or scattered. Further, they were written for non-Jewish audiences who had no idea what the historical record was. no stated commitment to history such as Tacitus, Thucidydes or Polybius made Did we suddenly decide that the Bible was meant solely as a historical book. Luke does say that he took great pains to investigate and gather accounts, but simply saying "this is historical" doesn't mean anything, nor does it's omition. We didn't "suddenly decide" anything. I am putting a list of reasons, when taken together, show that the gospels (not "the Bible") should be properly regarded as legendary material. Luke investigates nothing, although s/he did take great pains to copy, sometimes badly, from other texts, Mark, Q and Josephus. If you read Luke's gospel, you will soon find that events in Jesus' life are simply strung together like beads on a string, without reference to time, date, cause, order, or consideration of their relation to the larger pattern of events in Palestine. Luke does not at all think like a historian. He is creating a legend. Nowhere do the gospelers affirm a commitment to a balanced view of the subject. *the description of Jesus' life using themes from legends and myths – miraculous birth, redemptive death* little or no explanation by historical/naturalistic/supernatural causation; causation is often supernatural – "and this was done that they prophecy might be fulfilled" Compare with explanatory remarks in Tacitus: "His men were lukewarm in their allegiance, for many came from Dalmatia and Pannonia, and these provinces were now in Vespasian's hands" or describing Vespasian's success in Judea: "Good luck, a distinguished record and excellent subordinates enabled him to within a space of two summers…." You keep coming back to the fact that it uses supernatural events which should be expected and the very definition of something supernatural is that it can't be explained using the natural world. You keep missing the boat. When Matthew wants to give Pilate a reason for reluctance to kill Jesus, he does not give a few paragraphs referring to the political situation in Palestine, or Pilate's relation to Herod, or his personality, the way Tacitus, Josephus or Themosticles might. Rather, Pilate's wife has a dream.....in the gospels, supernatural explanation is the first explanation reached for, not the last. Additionally, it is often the only explanation given. overt declaration of propaganda motives in writing What propaganda? What is the purpose of Luke and Mark's writings, as they themselves say? Is it to set down a history, fair in consideration and balanced in approach, like Tacitus or Josephus says? (whether the latter succeeds is another thing altogether). knowledge of appropriate laws, habits, customs and procedures. Is Jesus' trial really a possible and legal trial? Compare to Tacitus' detailed knowledge of how political procedures operated. You're right his trial wasn't legal, but does that make it invalid? Have we ever had an illegal trial? How about the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials? Were those made up too? Again, the boat has sailed without you. The ignorance displayed by the gospel writers of Jewish legal procedure makes a mockery of any claim to truth on their part. It does not "invalidate" the trial; it turns it into fiction. BTW, the Inquisition trials, as Bede has taught me, were conducted with intense attention to legality and prisoners often went free on technicalities. It is not the presence of a single one of these failings that convicts the gospels of being legends (I could list more, and probably will in another post), it is the presence of all of them in a single set of stories that shows that the gospels belong to the genre of Robin Hood, King Arthur and Roland. There are few, if any accurate historical details about the "character" who is their central concern; in any, he appears to be a composite made up of several different stories. Vorkosigan [ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

07-30-2002, 08:24 AM	#119
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	My girlfriend said once, when I was still a believer, "Why is it so important to insist that a person believe in a virgin birth and a resurrection, rather than practice the teachings to make try to make the world a better place?" It kills me when religious people attack humanism. Treating everyone with dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs and their race, yes that sounds evil to me. How dare us try to make the world a better, more peaceful place to live by treating everyone with dignity, rather than force our religous beliefs on them and convert them to our way of thinking! Yes, that's a much better way to go. Who cares if person A believes in the same god as person B, or believes in a god at all? Society needs to deal with the bad, criminal elements. What does belief or non-belief in a god have to do with that? Atheists are not evil people controlled by Satan. Neither are terrorists. Terrorists are just evil people out for their own gain any way they can get it, and have no regard for humanity. For someone to start preaching that these people are controlled by Satan, and that God will get them is ludicrous. We need to make things work in the here and now, not concern ourself with some afterlife we have no knowledge even exists. Forgive me for going off on a rant. This probably should not have been posted in this topic, but I got carried away. [ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ] [ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ] [ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

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

07-30-2002, 12:57 AM	#112
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	Beach, I don't think you're grasping what I'm saying. It doesn't matter how much evidence you think you have, there is still such a lot of doubt surrounding the whole thing. Given that there is absolutely no record of people rising from the dead in living memory, I find it odd that anyone can think a handful of ancient accounts is enough to verify the resurrection of Jesus with complete certainty. What appears to be happening is that you are treating the Bible as "true until proven false". When you talk about the authors of the Bible spanning long periods of time and authors who never knew each other, how do you know what you're saying is true? The bible was compiled, at the earliest, at the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, several thousand years after Moses is supposed to have lived. You seem to be satisfied that the sources the scribes used were accurate, even though we haven't got them now. How do you know everything wasn't nicely written to fit into a long story, eh? I would put it to you, that you just believe it all to be true until some evidence proves it wrong.

07-30-2002, 07:12 AM	#117
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Far more than just two seminaries teach their students the stuff is myth. I read a testimonial from a former Pentecostal whose preacher admitted in private it was myth. This from a Pentecostal! And a year ago, when I was still a believer, my mother told me one of her friends went to a Baptist church and was told there that the "Young ministers coming out of Baptist seminaries aren't even Christians. They're being taught horrible things about the bible not being true." I fully expect Christian historians and archaelogists to attempt to debunk guys like Finkelstein. They have to, it's their belief and they're losing congregation members in ever increasing numbers who are realizing on their own or through studies it's myth and leaving the church. TV evangelists are screaming about it, because their tax-free cash cow is dwindling. That being said, I'm on this board because I don't believe in written books being definitive words of "God". I believe a Supreme Being might exist, but it doesn't interfere on earth, doesn't favor any one race, one belief, of people over any other, and certainly did not come to earth in the flesh and put itself to death to satisfy its own bloodlust. Humans developed religious beliefs out of superstition, trying to figure out the world around them in the age they were living based on what their limited knowledge of science and other ideas at the time. As we have grown over the centuries in what we know about how the universe runs, we have gradually stripped beliefs out of the bible to accomodate it, such as women being given equal rights, slavery being abolished. Both women and slaves are property in the bible and ok in God's eyes, according to the bible. If this is indeed the inspired word of God, everyone who today believes women should have equal rights and work outside the home are going directly against the spoken word of God. And I charge that the exact reason people interpret the bible to suit society's needs is in the back of our subconscious, we don't really think it's true. If the story of Jesus is true, he didn't waste his living years teaching the Sermon on the Mount, love your enemies, give to all those who ask to borrow from you, etc, so Christians can cast all that aside and think they're saved just because they accept the Trinity, Jesus' virgin birth, resurrection, and have dipped their head in water while largely living their lives ignoring his actual teachings. A supreme whatever did not create humans in its loving image, then turn around and give a bunch of impossible rules to completely follow, resulting in eternal condemnation. I honestly fully cannot believe any sensible person would believe that. I think it's incredible that it is still a belief in this enlightened, scientific age. But that's just me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.