Fair enough on two counts, but RID has also mentioned he's not religious more than once.
The Bible: Truth or Fiction?
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
Are you suggesting that 50% of the content of the Bible deals with miraculous events?
Really?
In my view, his claim that there are no more historical sources for the existance of Alexander the Great than for Jesus, puts him in the religious bucket.
Is that what I said?
And how have you gone about checking the facts behind it?
Or is it just more ill informed opinion?
And are you so biased as to believe that anyone who has a view that differs from yours on a historical question must be religious? It is you who are acting as an irrational fanatic in your rejection of the claim without evidence.
Or are you unable to distinguish between a historical and a religious question?
And how about the tough questions you choose to ignore?
You have decided to disagree but will not answer what you have done to fact check the claim. I suspect it is because you have not.
If you had, you would know my claim is bang on.
With the insertion of the word "many" between bad and followers I agree with your completely.
You have to remember that the Bible is a collection of stories written over hundreds and maybe thousands of years, a lot of it by primitive people trying to get their heads around natural phenomena. It is as much an idealized historical record of the Israelites as it is a scientific document. There are parallels between most mythologies - dying and rising gods, floods, etc. - that are borne out in the Bible. It is probably not all literal truth but certainly has the ring of truth. Whether or mot it is true, though, is moot! The real significance of the Bible is that it has motivated so much history, belief and conflict.
Yes, and let's not forget, the people writing the Bible, were writing under the direction of powerful members of the church or political figures, and, written or re-interpreted over different centuries.
That is not what we understand about how the bible was written. Especially the NT...
My personal observation are that most bible thumpers are inherently evil by nature. The Ten Commandments are the only direct quotes from God himself, the rest being third party interpretation or moralizing yet 'Thou salt not kill' seems to take a back seat to revenge, death penalties, dealing with non-Christians, etc. They are typically racist, hypocrites, greedy, uncharitable and have little appreciation for freedoms that conflict with their religious views.
The most religiously tolerant from my observation are the Buddhists. Tied for intolerance (judging from a child coming home announcing a marriage with a person of a different intolerent faith) would be: Christians, Jews & Muslims in no particular order.
The most religiously tolerant from my observation are the Buddhists. Tied for intolerance (judging from a child coming home announcing a marriage with a person of a different intolerent faith) would be: Christians, Jews & Muslims in no particular order.
You unfairly characterize Christians. They tend to be more charitable than than the secular and are involved in hard work in the worst parts of the world.
Why I am not surprised that you have your facts backwards. Do you make this stuff up or did someone feed it to you?
Do you think the death penalty is a christian/secular issue? Are you suggesting that all non-christians are opposed to the death penalty? Are you suggesting that the ten commandments prohibit the death penalty?
Why do you think christians are more focussed on revenge than anyone else?
It is funny what you say about racism because there was this guy I heard of, his name was Martin Luther King Jr. and he ran this organization called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I recall him as being a Christian guy. I seem to have read something about him working against racism and being pretty important. Have you heard of him?
You also clearly have not opened the bible, there are many many more direct quotes from God (in theory), and most Christians think that the direct quotes from Jesus are kind of important.
Nice to see you make up some facts to support preaching hate though. It is a very old tradition.
Now that is not what you said above, but nice to watch you dance away from your previous error.Pay attention rid.
Even though the OT and NT are radically different they are still a compilation of religious myths not much different than Greek Mythology or myths found in other religions or cultures trying to explain things primitive man had no knowledge of....
Having said that, the OT and NT are quite unique and very different from other ancient religions. They also don't tend to have very much if any text devoted to explaining natural phenomena now do they? There is no explanation for rain, or a chariot pulling the sun, or bowling with Walrus heads or a Titan stealing fire and bringing it to the earth. There is a creation myth, and that is about it.
One of the things most students of religion say separates Judaism from other ancient religions is a lack of explanations for natural phenomena.
And of course the NT has almost nothing like that in it.
The NT is based around the account of the life of a man that the vast majority of historical scholars accept existed. Unlike say Zeus or Hercules...
The Abrahamic faiths are qualitatively different from the pre-existing and co-existing religions. Despite what a few crackpots like say...Harper might contend...
Horse Poop, my smug little religious apologist!
The 'error' was you were too stupid to see the point being made and just went off on some JAJAesque obfuscation.
BTW Book of Genesis is devoted to explaining natural phenomena and says all was created in 7 days.....but you knew that already!
Obfuscate away my silly little friend....
You are simply showing your ignorance again. No surprise.Horse Poop, my smug little religious apologist!
The 'error' was you were too stupid to see the point being made and just went off on some JAJAesque obfuscation.
BTW Book of Genesis is devoted to explaining natural phenomena and says all was created in 7 days.....but you knew that already!
Obfuscate away my silly little friend....
So do you disagree that the Abrahamic faiths were qualitatively different from their prior and contemporary religions?
I am not missing the point, I am pointing our your inaccuracies and clear ignorance on the topic. You may be upset about it, and I of course notice you offer no substantive response. Just more hot air...
The best indicia for the future survival of religion is that those who are really opposed to it are woefully ignorant and dishonest. Thank you for helping the cause.
Oh look, more cute slogans with no content. What a surprise.
Here is a word that might help your research "monotheism." Start there.
Call us back when you have learned something on the topic we are discussing.
And if you don't like hanging with religious folks, I guess you spend a lot of time with Mao and Stalin...
Infidels debating Christians often made this mistake. That is
they put themselves in a unnecessarily difficult position debating
the Christians with the claim that Jesus is non-historical or never
existed. To me this is a sign of frivolity. Some Christian scholars
would show more intellectual integrity by opening to evidences
against their faith. For instance the authenticity of the famous passage
of Josephus was actually first questioned by a Lutheran theologian.
To this day many Christians would have no problems to admit that
Josephus acknowledgement of Christ could be a forgery.
As an unbeliever I could still see that there is a strong likelihood that
Jesus once lived and left behind a vivid memory among one
segment of the early Christians. That doesn't in anyway impact my
belief that many aspects of Pauline Christianity being untrue. To say that
Jesus is unhistorical is too much of a stretch and would just weaken
your position.
they put themselves in a unnecessarily difficult position debating
the Christians with the claim that Jesus is non-historical or never
existed. To me this is a sign of frivolity. Some Christian scholars
would show more intellectual integrity by opening to evidences
against their faith. For instance the authenticity of the famous passage
of Josephus was actually first questioned by a Lutheran theologian.
To this day many Christians would have no problems to admit that
Josephus acknowledgement of Christ could be a forgery.
As an unbeliever I could still see that there is a strong likelihood that
Jesus once lived and left behind a vivid memory among one
segment of the early Christians. That doesn't in anyway impact my
belief that many aspects of Pauline Christianity being untrue. To say that
Jesus is unhistorical is too much of a stretch and would just weaken
your position.
