My Story, My belief and why...

[Grogan]

I told you how. god is an idea that has evolved to stick in our brains.  It plays on the built-in functions of the brain - consiousness, agency seeking, confirmation bias, fear.

Time after time this get's put out there as a reason why human beings tend to "feel" or "find" their god.  It's no coincidence that the vast majority of recorded, observed, and discovered cultures have a creation myth, a creator or creators, and a reason why Things Are What They Are.

I have to attribute most theists responses (or more often, non-response) to this point to intellectual dishonesty, arrogance in terms of their place in the universe, and down right ignorance of neurological behaviors.

Many cognitively advanced animals, including humans exhibit this behavior. Coincidences alert the brain to possible causal relationships between events. Through the apprehension of such relationships, the world appears as more orderly and more predictable.

Even though the scientific method has created a systematic way of determining the validity of possible causal connections between events, the human brain persists in its often non-scientific interpretations of coincidences, such as luck, chance, speciality, divine intervention...."god".

 The same brain processes that manage coincidence interpretation can yield the strangest superstitions as well as new ideas about the nature of reality.

Science knows this. It's rather humbling to realize that many instances where I'm searching out answers, or knowledge, or just understanding in general, boil down to my brain doing what it's evolved to do, and nothing more.

The fact is, the brain seeks patterns.

Each of our brains is predisposed to use coincidences to create or discover patterns.

Personally relevant coincidence interpretation is influenced by a person’s biases. This is why most religions cultures, artifacts, characters and the character of their deities reflect the people who created them.

It's why it's uncommon for people of one culture to abandon their religion outright, in favor of another.  Their religion works for them. They've adapted, so to speak, culturally, their religion---to meet their needs.

I struggle with the personal experience theist, whose evidence is untestable, unverifiable, and, scientifically, useless.

Fatty....do you know that many of us, who post and lurk (like me 99% of the time) here were at one time model Christians, raised in the doctrines and faith that you do now?

Many of us had personal experiences, that we attributed to god and a relationship/understanding of that god....things that were as powerful as what you describe.

Ultimately, we kept searching and experiencing, and living, and we discovered no god, no objective morality passed on from a creator, nothing, ever.

You searched for answers, for truth, for understanding and stopped. 

That's a tragedy.

[Positiveaob]

Once again, I just thought I would share my story. Its so simple. I came to this site through some Internet search, after reading some posts, I saw people having well thought out discussions about god, beliefs and dis beliefs. So, being that I had a perspective of my own, I decided to share. Why? Because everyone else was sharing their ideas and thoughts. Am I not allowed to add to this?  Why do you seem to want to attach a false motive to my actions? How am I different than someone who comes on here and explains why they are atheist? Im not different, just different views. Yet you seem to want to find motive. Which you never will, because the only motive was to give my own point of view.

You’re welcome to come on this forum to share your thoughts.  Just understand that describing subjective good feelings of how wonderful you feel when talking about your god really isn’t getting far with anyone here and is therefore really just wasting everyone’s, including your, time.  If you want to discuss evidence, logic, or reason we’d love to hear it.  But when you state:

I do believe in evolution. I believe in evolution for adaptation. You see it everywhere. I dont believe that one species can change into another. Darwin was wrong, there is no missing 'chimp'  like creature binding man with monkey. We know this now. We didnt evolve from apes or monkeys.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
But I do agree, things evolve. Only to adapt. Thats how life works.

Then you show a complete ignorance of the subject.  Sorry if that sounds rude, but it’s true.  I don’t think you really understood at all the article you referenced.  It in no way refutes what Darwin theorized.  Just the fact that you state “We didn’t evolve from apes or monkeys” shows that you don’t at all understand evolution.  No one, or at least no scientist, believes or ever believed that we evolved from apes.  The idea is that we both evolved from a common ancestor, as did all life on earth.

The fossil record absolutely supports this.  There seems to be this myth out there that’s passed around church groups that “there are huge unexplainable gaps in the fossil record” or that “more and more scientists are rejecting evolution”, etc., but it’s BS.  Where are these gaps in the record you speak of, where are the growing number of disillusioned scientists? 

There is also this recent concept among non-scientific, church groups of “micro” vs “macro” evolution.  There is no such distinction.  The only distinction is what religious people have come to accept based on compelling evidence vs what they are still refusing to accept. 

I am not really here to educate you on basic concepts of evolution and natural selection.  If you want to learn more about it, there’s plenty of non-faith based websites I can recommend you to.  The talkorigins archive is a good resource.  If you still don’t understand, I would be happy to explain.

Or, don’t worry about it.  If you don’t understand it, then fine.  You’re probably not in a science-based career field and therefore really have no major need to know in your everyday life.  Just don’t try to discuss it without understanding what you’re talking about.

[singlecrochet]

Ones personal beliefs, no matter what they are, is a very personal thing. I dont think anyone has any right, whatsoever, to call anyone delusional for their beliefs. Thats yours to have.

So, folks who genuinely believe they are hearing voices talking to them, sometimes telling them to do things which would be harmful to them or others, should just be left to have those beliefs with no intervention?  It's often diagnosed as schizophrenia and requires medication.

You're alright with people believing god is talking to them and telling them to kill the abortion doctor today? 

I could go on, but my point is, we must be careful with allowing folks to have ANY belief.  Believing in an invisible sky-daddy who sacrificed himself to himself to save us from being the creatures he made us to be is only the tip of the iceberg and a slippery slope to some other crazy beliefs which result in the deaths of many.

[FattyG]

RaymondKHessel, Thanks? lol. I dont know if its that I have big balls, im actually a very shy person. But thank you. But im not trying to take people on, I know that may not be the context you are talking, but im only voicing my ideas and opinions. Im not here to challenge peoples beliefs, just share mine.

Mommykicksbutt, well im glad your comments are directed at more people than just me. You have told me you have said the same to others, and I believe you. But to YOU, you assume that they are looking for pleasure. Unless you ARE them, you cant know this. You can only assume. And I assure you, and I wish you could just believe me when I say I did it for NO REASON other than to share. I see your perspective wont change, so im not going to argue with you any more about it because seeing as I am me, and I know why I did what I did, I know my intentions and my motives, I am the only one here who can say with 100% certainty why I did what I did. Label me a liar, do what you will that fits your ideals. It makes no difference to me. I know the truth in this matter.

"You hold delusional beliefs in imaginary things that are illogical, irrational, and have no supporting evidence."
You are attacking my intellect. If my delusional beliefs are illogical, irrational and have no supporting evidence, then I, being the person who believes these thing, I have to be delusional and irrational myself. Right? Or am I wrong?
Your claims that they are imaginary, illogical and irrational with no supporting evidence is false too. Imaginary, hows about the historical record of Jesus. Though there might not be a LOT, there is something, therefore it can NOT be imaginary, 2-3 billion people are wrong?. Illogical, I have sound reasoning. I have read through the bible for the most part, I have read other accounts of non-Christan witnesses to Jesus, I have researched history, I have felt within my own self, and I have seen with my own eyes. To me, its not illogical. You, obviously it is. No supporting evidence, I dont need to bother there.

I did NOT say I was smarter than anyone. I have different views. And as I have said before, and many times already, in MY opinion, what you believe in has nothing to do with your intellect. I was trying to understand your point of view. I used my statement to try to understand your perspective. My statement was not a statement about me, my intellect or my opinion on anyone or myself. Im not crossing wires. If I am, I dont see how.

What are your beliefs? Where do YOU think we came from, how did it all start? Im not asking for evidence either. Im curious.

Velkyn, you dont present any facts there. Just questions. Which is good, but no facts. Yes, with limited understanding it does come across like all the other bronze aged gods. But there are many other things that make it different and unique. It is Jesus who demonstrated that he had the attributes of God [e.g., the power to forgive sins and heal the sick (Matthew 9:1-7); to calm the wind and waves (Mark 4:37-41; Psalm 89:8-9); to know us, being perfectly acquainted with us (Psalm 139; John 1:46-50; 2:23-25), to raise the dead (John 11; Luke 7:12-15; 8:41-55) There are a great number of prophecies concerning Jesus’s birth, life, resurrection, person, and purpose. All were fulfilled by Him and no other (Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2; Psalm 22; Zechariah 11:12-13; 13:7; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 53; Psalm 16:10). Yes, these are from the bible, and you could easily just brush it off as being fairytale, but im just showing you how he was different, and how the god he represents was different than other gods. All other religions tell man to reach up to God and grasp hold of him through their own efforts and deeds, as if to say we need to make ourselves worthy. In Christianity, God reaches down to man, showing we are all worthy no matter what our walk of life. Other religions are systems of do’s and don’ts to appease God and gain favor; whereas Christianity is a relationship with God (still containing do's and donts, but the focus is on relationship, not the deeds). Christianity is based upon truly the most unique event in all of human history—the Resurrection, which, as you all say, and I cant deny, is impossible to REALLY prove. But as I said, this is just an example of uniqueness.
"why does it play hide and seek and do I need to lift every rock in the universe to see if it is under it"
All of these answers you find in the bible. Sometimes we need to lift every rock in the universe until we actually change our heart and want to find him with every cell in our body. If you turn every rock KNOWING deep inside youre not going to find something, then you wont.
I wont ask you to imagine anything, seeing as I now know i cant, I will explain my thoughts.
 I believe that there is a god, obviously lol, and I also believe there is a devil, or Satan. What better tool to use my the devil, then the tool of doubt. Yes, I know how it sounds.. But I see it everywhere. I see how distracted we can get as people, how temptation fills every corner. We are under a constant barrage of things to occupy our minds and fill our desires and temptations. Im guilty of it too. You can call me crazy, but I can tell in my own personal life when I drift from god. I see the effects. I also see what happens when I get closer. And its really simple. The way I look at god, he is like a best friend. Someone you talk to, tell your problems to and just communicate with. You DO get answers. I get them. I see results from my prayers. I know in my heart I have a great relationship with god. And because of that relationship, I feel I understand him better. Through my communication with god I have seen things/problems in my own life that I needed to deal with. And it has ALWAYS been for the best. I have never had a single negative consequence from it. But see, I believe in god. So maybe my delusion is something you all dont understand or think is logical or rational, but in my OWN life, I see the difference. If my delusional thoughts, or beliefs, make my life better, reveal more about who I am and why I do what I do, which in turn makes my life better and fuller, I would rather be looked at as delusional then. I love my life. I love how I see beauty all around me. I love so much about all of it. Of course, someone wouldnt need god to see that too, anything is possible, but for me, and many others, it works. Its something that even defies my own mind. But I feel and see its results. So why would I try to pick apart what im feeling, trying to explain it all by science, when I know inside, and feel,  something that makes me feel awesome inside, and gives me a brighter look at life. My relationship with god has gotten me where I am today. I am working at a career that I love, I have amazing friends, I have amazing parents and I have seen gods hand in my life. But see, I didnt believe at one point either. But I turned my heart to god 100% then asked him to show himself to me. Since then, I havent looked back. I have questioned things here and there, like anyone should, but I have a different understanding. I cant explain it any other way, but you just see things different. But in the big picture, I would honestly rather go through life being labelled as delusional, living my life as honest as I can, with a relationship to a floaty man with a big grey beard, feeling good about myself, life and others, not feeling alone, than to NOT believe, only to find out I was wrong in the end. Because even if I am wrong, with my beliefs and ideals, then at least I enjoyed my life, with a positive look on things. I have nothing to lose besides the way people see me from their outside perspective.

"Yes, you are allowed, but you are also expected to interact"
Am I not interacting though? I think im doing a pretty good job interacting with people. Answering the piles of questions. While giving respect to everyone.
What I mean by what happened being special, not me.... Its like if you went to a fair and rode a bunch of rides. You had an awesome time. Your experience was special. This doesnt mean youre special. The experience was. If someone else were to go to the same fair and have a horrible time, their experience was horrible, not the person that was there.
And I assure you, and EVERYONE, again, im not looking for anything. No intent, no motive. I promise you. Im here to share my views. So please, just take my word because as anyone who KNOWS me, knows that I am a man of my word.

I will be the first to admit I dont know much about Evolution. Im ignorant in that fact, I havent read many articles, I havent done a lot of research, and you are very right, I dont quite understand how it ALL works, or how science explains it. I have never felt the need to. I will however look at your links because I would like to learn more and I like to keep an open mind, so thank you for providing links. I will look at them as soon as I can (Im off work in 30 minutes and I still want to fit a game of counterstrike in lol)
But I promise I will. I still have to read a few other things people have linked...

[anthony_retford]

FattyG, I apologize for saying you are not a xtain. I have not been here for a short time. In reading your last post I thought to myself that you show the old adage "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" has validity. I don't have time to tell you where you have been learning too little right now, but if someone else does not I will tomorrrow.

[Grogan]

Your claims that they are imaginary, illogical and irrational with no supporting evidence is false too. Imaginary, hows about the historical record of Jesus. Though there might not be a LOT, there is something, therefore it can NOT be imaginary, 2-3 billion people are wrong?. Illogical, I have sound reasoning. I have read through the bible for the most part, I have read other accounts of non-Christan witnesses to Jesus, I have researched history.

Please cite your sources.

I'm interested in reading about this evidence and historical record.

I have a question though: Are you willing to let go of these, if they are scientifically, historically, and archeologically proven to be false or unreliable?

Velkyn, you dont present any facts there. Just questions. Which is good, but no facts. Yes, with limited understanding it does come across like all the other bronze aged gods. But there are many other things that make it different and unique. It is Jesus who demonstrated that he had the attributes of God [e.g., the power to forgive sins and heal the sick (Matthew 9:1-7); to calm the wind and waves (Mark 4:37-41; Psalm 89:8-9); to know us, being perfectly acquainted with us (Psalm 139; John 1:46-50; 2:23-25), to raise the dead (John 11; Luke 7:12-15; 8:41-55) There are a great number of prophecies concerning Jesus’s birth, life, resurrection, person, and purpose. All were fulfilled by Him and no other (Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2; Psalm 22; Zechariah 11:12-13; 13:7; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 53; Psalm 16:10).

Yes, these are from the bible, and you could easily just brush it off as being fairytale, but im just showing you how he was different, and how the god he represents was different than other gods.

Look, you seem to be a nice enough guy. However, there is a distinct pattern you're displaying that I'd rather not see end up where most of Christian apologetic posters end up....and that's getting huffy and saying GOOD DAY TO YOU SIRS!! and never logging on again.

That's going to come at a cost to you, and us. It means we'll be breaking down your claims when necessary. Ones like this above, regarding the uniqueness of your particular religion's savior-character.

Do you know about Dionysus?  Do you know that the belief in that god predated Judaism?  Here are some "facts" about Dionysus that might interest you:

He was immaculately conceived:

His mother was a mortal woman. Semele, the daughter of king Cadmus of Thebes, and his father Zeus, the king of the gods. Zeus' wife, Hera, a jealous and prudish goddess, discovered the affair while Semele was pregnant. Oops.

He engaged in miracles involving water and wine. Many believe that Jesus' impressive water-to-wine miracle was written to show he was a bit more of a big deal than Dionysus.  

He was "resurrected" by being restored to life from his heart after being destroyed by the Titans. Then he Ascended to the underworld.

Sound familiar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus for more....


Or Hermes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes

Hermes was son of a god (Zeus) and performed miracles and is the gateway to the underworld, the deity by which human beings are guided to the afterlife.....

Sound familiar?

Oh? you need a healing savior? Fine, use Horus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus



The list goes on and on and on...in a myriad of cultures and religions. Krishna, Orpheus, Osiris, etc...

You have GOT TO do research before you make these claims. You need to be prepared to learn that your god, and your savior are not unique. They are like many other pagan myths, most of which pre-dated yours.

This is an important thing to note. Many of them came first.

 I believe that there is a god, obviously lol, and I also believe there is a devil, or Satan. What better tool to use my the devil, then the tool of doubt. Yes, I know how it sounds.. But I see it everywhere.

Here. Let's play a game. You pretend you are your god. You have undefinable power and knowledge.

You have created everything that ever was, is, or will be.

Would you create a Satan?

Of course not.

If my delusional thoughts, or beliefs, make my life better, reveal more about who I am and why I do what I do, which in turn makes my life better and fuller, I would rather be looked at as delusional then.

You are looked at as delusional. You are delusional. Your foundation is based on things that do not exist. They do not reveal anything about who you are, they only reflect your reliance on delusion.  

You are capable of having this full life, that you have now, without the threat of a make believe being punishing for eternity if you if you don't be his friend. Don't take away what you've accomplished as a good human being and attribute it to anything but who you are.

It's a disservice to yourself.

"Yes, you are allowed, but you are also expected to interact"
Am I not interacting though? I think im doing a pretty good job interacting with people. Answering the piles of questions. While giving respect to everyone.

I think you're doing great! I think if your faith is important to you, you should kick the tires on it. You should test it, and examine it, and justify it. This is a good place to do so.

I post here and read here daily, because it reinforces to me, that I'm not alone. It lets me know that my decision to abandon faith and religion was the most amazing, brave, and honest thing I've ever done as a human being.

I hope you stick around here a long time.

I will be the first to admit I dont know much about Evolution. Im ignorant in that fact, I havent read many articles, I havent done a lot of research, and you are very right, I dont quite understand how it ALL works, or how science explains it. I have never felt the need to. I will however look at your links because I would like to learn more and I like to keep an open mind, so thank you for providing links. I will look at them as soon as I can (Im off work in 30 minutes and I still want to fit a game of counterstrike in lol)
But I promise I will. I still have to read a few other things people have linked...

I did this too early on in my de-conversion. It reinforced my position, and made me understand my place in the universe.

I hope that you take the same position on issues and contentions of faith, biblical veracity, and historical accuracy.  It will open your eyes and bring you to a better, more tenable position.

[Dkit]

Christianity is based upon truly the most unique event in all of human history—the Resurrection, which, as you all say, and I cant deny, is impossible to REALLY prove. But as I said, this is just an example of uniqueness.

Whever did you get this idea?  The dying and rising godman is one of the more recycled myths.

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/osiris_agriculture_astral_interpretation.htmhttp://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/comparsison_horus_jesus_chart.htm
http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/index.htm
http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/jesusoutline.html
http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/solarmyth/startyear.html



I can't imagine how anyone hasn't heard of other cultures and their gods following the same storyline as Jesus.  I'm going to guess you have, but have determined it to be false/lie thus dismissing them.

[Positiveaob]

Christianity is based upon truly the most unique event in all of human history—the Resurrection, which, as you all say, and I cant deny, is impossible to REALLY prove. But as I said, this is just an example of uniqueness.

If the god you believe in truly existed, and the bible were a true story, it wouldnt be impossible to prove at all.  It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, but not at all impossible to prove the existence of something. 

Then again, if the god you believe in truly existed, there would be no reason whatsoever to stay hidden from his creation.  Especially since, if you take the bible as a true story, he wasnt shy at all about revealing himself in the past. 

[superfly]

Wonder why god never answers you? Its because of your heart. You can find numerous examples of this in the bible. Look at how often the heart is used. If you have a hardened heart towards god, he isnt going to show himself to you. Sure, I cant say with 100% accuracy that he WONT, maybe he will.. But its not his nature to sway the minds of men. Thats someone elses job.

Really? You don't know your bible very well:

Exodus 10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

[I am become relevant]

As stated somewhere else in this post, I could argue the same for Islam (mb even better), still doesn't make what I say true.

[screwtape]

I told you how. god is an idea that has evolved to stick in our brains.  It plays on the built-in functions of the brain - consiousness, agency seeking, confirmation bias, fear.

Time after time this get's put out there as a reason why human beings tend to "feel" or "find" their god.  ...

Bump, set, spike.  Well put.  Thanks for elaborating.  And welcome to the forum.


Fatty,

I understand you are responding to many people.  I would appreciate if you could respond to my comments when you are able. Thanks. 

I have just a bit to add to your last post:

I will be the first to admit I dont know much about Evolution. Im ignorant in that fact, I havent read many articles, I havent done a lot of research, and you are very right, I dont quite understand how it ALL works, or how science explains it. I have never felt the need to.

I'd wager you do not understand the science behind plasma tvs either.  But you do not posit supernatural explanations for how they work.  Why do you feel the need to do so with regards to our origins?  In other words, you are satisfied that your digital watch, your car, your computer monitor all follow natural laws and have explanations that comport with science.  Yet, when it comes to "how we got here", you go running for the supernatural.  That makes no sense to me.

[FattyG]

Well hello everyone! Hope you all had an awesome weekend. Mine was. I actually had an experience this weekend that im going to share with you all as soon as I can put everything together into a way you can all see my point of view as clearly as possible. I assure you, some of you will not change your thinking, and I know that some of you are going to just blow it off, but I know that some of you will think.. Once again, I feel given the audience, I need to present this is a way that can be at your level. So I promise you, when I have written it, I will share it with you all. And im looking forward to hearing what your intelligent minds think of it. As iv said before, and will continue to say, you guys on here are some of the brightest, intelligent people I have had the honor of talking to. I humble myself and admit that you guys on here are smarter than I am in your thinking, so please have patience with me...

Grogan, some resources I have read have been accounts like that of Jewish historian Josephus (written in the late first century AD). He was known as someone who did NOT accept Jesus as the Christ, after all, he was someone who stuck with solid Jewish tradition. Yet he claimed he was the Messiah. (Or could have been depending on the translation) But that being besides the point, he talks of a Jesus, someone who was killed, and came back three days later. Not only that, he notes the prophets that came before him and said many wonderful things about him. His focus was not on Jesus, but his brother, but he is mentioned. Of course you could argue all the translations, the validity, but it IS another account outside the bible. Of course you have to also take into account that words could have been PUT INTO the account, you could argue a lot of things, but im just giving you some of the few examples.

Tacatis (55-120 CE), "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate".
This quote was taken from his writings. This could all be just an account of what christians TOLD people, but at least it shows christians existed in his time. From my reading, its also noted that Tacatis had access to Roman records, though he called Pilate by the wrong title, and referred to jesus as the Cristus, which, COULD have been someone else all together. So this could totally be blown off. But, it COULD be something. Who knows. Never the less, it points out Christians.

In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, (around 120 CE)

    "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)

But, of course, there are serious problems with this interpretation

"Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a misspelling of "Christus", meaning Christ. The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a direct reference to Jesus. Even if its referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus actually lived during the first half of this century. But it proves christians. Christians who believed and claimed to have witnessed Jesus live, die, and rise again.

Julius Africanus, a writer from the 3rd centry refers to a lost book in where he states that Jesus death was followed by an earthquake and darkness. Of course, this is claimed as a LOST text, so once again, you can say this doesnt hold water.

And see, ALL of this could be refuted, and I would have to agree with anyone who said so because I can not, nor can anyone, PROVE that these are ALL untouched and untempered accounts. But, on the other hand, when you understand God, Jesus and what it means to be Christian, you can understand why there would be so little evidence in history. Its funny, they say that actions speak louder than words. I have heard that ALL my life. And looking back into history, sure we cant provide TOTAL evidence of jesus through words, but look at how many people have turned to Jesus over the years. His impact IN history is proof enough for ma and those who believe.

"I have a question though: Are you willing to let go of these, if they are scientifically, historically, and archaeologically proven to be false or unreliable?" See, thats a tough question because even O.J simpson was found not guilty. When something we already know is close to impossible to prove, its easy to cast doubt on it. Even if the evidence is stacked TOWARDS it, one can still instill doubt. I'll tell you what, I will turn in ALL my beliefs, when science, which you hold so close to your heart, proves to me that God doesnt exist, which I hold close to mine. Once science can tell me with 100% accuracy where we came from, why and for what purpose... When science can explain to me my experiences in life, when it can explain why my non-believer friend was thrown to the floor in church, and why my friend with brain cancer who was given 3 weeks to live by top doctors was cured 100% overnight,  then I willturn in all my beliefs. Promise.

Thank you too! I think im a nice guy. I love it and hate it. But I dont change it. Not enough of us out there lol..  I have heard of Dionysus. And yes, it does sound VERY similar. There are MANY stories that are very much like that of the story of Jesus. I have read that, and many others. I have also read the story of Gilgamesh from the Sumerians which date as far back as 4000+ years ago. Which also tells of a flood tale MUCH like Noah.. Which also has VERY similar accounts of things, just lightly different... The Sumerians themselves, first human civilization in history also have a creation story. 7 tablets of creation, which is VERY similar to the 7 days of creation. Stories much the same, but with slight differences. Believe me, I have looked into a lot of these things. And yes, these did come first... BUT.. There is also explanation for it, and I think its very valid and more realistic. Which, is what im working on.

And yes, I would create Satan. Satan was a great creation by god. Did you know that God had made Satan one of the most powerful and beautiful angels in heaven. He was VERY important. Satan was used by god to Tempt Adam through Eve to see if he could truly love god. After all, what better way to test true love than to give someone a choice.. They can CHOOSE you, or the other. In the other is every wonderful thing you could ever want or imagine, knowledge of how and why things work, every desire could be filled, every thought possible... This becomes a TRUE and failsafe test of love.  In order to create something that was capable of PURE and free willed love, god needed Satan.

My foundations are based on things that dont exist? Well if you want to say that, I can say that about your whole reality. Look at quantum mechanics and quantum theory. When we break things to down to the smallest of small, those rules which science tell us are fact, break down. Gravity and everything just disappear, like they dont even exist. Therefore even the foundations of our own reality are based on things that dont exist or even things we can prove.

Believe me, I have kicked the tires and done research. "Don't take away what you've accomplished as a good human being and attribute it to anything but who you are" But isnt that looking at myself as someone great, who has accomplished everything on his own? Isnt that self boasting? Thats me believing that there is no power higher than I am. I think, in my own personal opinion, the disbelief in god is sprouted from mans disbelief that there is something bigger and better than he is. Since mans nature is to think that, its easy to believe that we are the greatest thing. Thats part of why jesus came. Look at how, according to the bible, that even people who had heard of him, or had seen him, denied his power. How could HE, this MAN, be greater than me or have powers greater than my own. Thats where I think is the root of it all. God hardened Pharaohs heart because even after all the miracles were witnessed by him, he STILL didnt believe. He thought that he, PHARAOH of the time, the king of kings, was all powerful.. He didnt believe there could be anyone higher than him. Moses came back to him over and over again showing him gods power, but he still refused to believe. Their hearts were hardened towards god. Not allowing them to accept of see the power of god.

"I post here and read here daily, because it reinforces to me, that I'm not alone. It lets me know that my decision to abandon faith and religion was the most amazing, brave, and honest thing I've ever done as a human being."

Im glad you find reinforcement here. But at the same time, say you have someone who smokes weed all the time. One day he smokes some crack and its better. He starts hanging out with crackheads and all they tell you is how great it is to smoke crack and not weed. They look at the potheads and laugh, reassuring themselves that smoking crack is better. See, I dont need that. I dont, nor am I on, ANY christian forums or websites. I dont feel the need to have people reinforce what I believe. If I need people to reinforce it, then you have to question if you believe it with 100% of yourself.

[velkyn]

Velkyn, you dont present any facts there. Just questions. Which is good, but no facts. Yes, with limited understanding it does come across like all the other bronze aged gods. But there are many other things that make it different and unique. It is Jesus who demonstrated that he had the attributes of God [e.g., the power to forgive sins and heal the sick (Matthew 9:1-7); to calm the wind and waves (Mark 4:37-41; Psalm 89:8-9); to know us, being perfectly acquainted with us (Psalm 139; John 1:46-50; 2:23-25), to raise the dead (John 11; Luke 7:12-15; 8:41-55)

wow, I didn't know we'd go so soon in to the "magic decoder ring" claims.  Let's get soemthing clear, your book makes these claims and we see no evidence of your Jesus existing, much less having magical powers.  

There are a great number of prophecies concerning Jesus’s birth, life, resurrection, person, and purpose. All were fulfilled by Him and no other (Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2; Psalm 22; Zechariah 11:12-13; 13:7; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 53; Psalm 16:10). Yes, these are from the bible, and you could easily just brush it off as being fairytale, but im just showing you how he was different, and how the god he represents was different than other gods.

Hmmm, where did Jesus become respected by all worldly leaders of his time?  Where are his children that the prophecies have claimed he would have?  Why do Christians insist on keeping obvious mistranslations to support their claims? Why did Christians have to make up a "second coming" to excuse all of their supposed "messiah's" failures?

All other religions tell man to reach up to God and grasp hold of him through their own efforts and deeds, as if to say we need to make ourselves worthy. In Christianity, God reaches down to man, showing we are all worthy no matter what our walk of life.

Yep, sure it does with telling people that they are dirty rags and that parables are taught to make suren some people never are saved?

Other religions are systems of do’s and don’ts to appease God and gain favor; whereas Christianity is a relationship with God (still containing do's and donts, but the focus is on relationship, not the deeds). Christianity is based upon truly the most unique event in all of human history—the Resurrection, which, as you all say, and I cant deny, is impossible to REALLY prove. But as I said, this is just an example of uniqueness.

ROFL.  Oh, yes, Christianity doesn't have any of those (commandments, anyone?)  Just why are your fellow Christians so hot on the first ten of the commandments?  Why do they invoke them to spread their hate of certain people?  Your supposed event, the resurrection, has no evidence that it ever happened.  And there is little unique about a sacrifice of a god for others.  Your ignorance of mythology is telling with these ridiculous claims.  

"why does it play hide and seek and do I need to lift every rock in the universe to see if it is under it"
All of these answers you find in the bible. Sometimes we need to lift every rock in the universe until we actually change our heart and want to find him with every cell in our body. If you turn every rock KNOWING deep inside youre not going to find something, then you wont.

Yawn.  Read the bible at least twice now, once as a believer, once as not and been through it a bunch of times since reading it straight through that second time.  Again, you are just one more theist who is sure that I am somehow doing it "wrong" when contacting your sky god and claiming to be psychic in that you somehow know what I think and do.

You want to believe in your God and your devil.  What better way to relinquish any responsiblity for yourself?  And yes, I'm sure you do feel a personal connection, just like every other theist, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, etc.  You all think you are ever-so special.  God talks with you!  Your delusions are fine, but so many who claim as you harm others.  We have others claiming that God tells them things, like drown their children or "those" people are evil and you should kill them because you deserve their stuff.  You also seem to think that no one but yuo can love life, see beauty, etc.  You say that oh, it may be *possible* for us non-believers to feel that way but you show how special yuo think yourself to be.  

But in the big picture, I would honestly rather go through life being labelled as delusional, living my life as honest as I can, with a relationship to a floaty man with a big grey beard, feeling good about myself, life and others, not feeling alone, than to NOT believe, only to find out I was wrong in the end. Because even if I am wrong, with my beliefs and ideals, then at least I enjoyed my life, with a positive look on things. I have nothing to lose besides the way people see me from their outside perspective

Pascal's Wager.  You assume you are right with your choice of this god.  What if you aren't?  and again, you make the ludicrous assumption that only beleivers can be happy.  Sad.  You can lose much, time, resources, etc. I watch Christians constantly wasting money in making pretty homes for their god, printing books (just how many kids could have been fed by Ray Comfort's bastardization of Origin of the Species?)

you argue that it's not the person but the experience that is "special".  If so, why does your God say that only some people get to ride at his "fair"?  


please answer, why would an omnipotent/ ominscient being have to "test" anything? 

[superfly]

Did you know that God had made Satan one of the most powerful and beautiful angels in heaven. He was VERY important. Satan was used by god to Tempt Adam through Eve to see if he could truly love god.

beep beep, back up the bus.

1. Where in Genesis does it say the talking snake was Satan?
2. So your omniscient god who knows everything that will ever happen, knew when he put the tree, snake, Adam, and Eve in the Garden, that they would disobey god. But biblegod did it anyway. Was he expecting a different result other than the one he already knew would happen?

the stupid...it burns.

[FattyG]

Positiveaob,
"If the god you believe in truly existed, and the bible were a true story, it wouldnt be impossible to prove at all.  It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, but not at all impossible to prove the existence of something."

Seeing as its the god I believe in, and not you, maybe I will be able to shed better light on it. See, the key youre missing here is the whole reason behind god and Jesus. Jesus message was the same throughout his teachings. If you believe in me, you shall have everlasting life. Think about that.. Hard. If god, and Jesus, wanted to PROVE that they were real (which they did at the time through miracles ect) then there would be NO reason to have faith or just believe. Which is the WHOLE message of Jesus. Why do you think Jesus jumped around in joy when he said "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
Do you not see how beautiful this statement was? The tree of knowledge was never to be eaten from, but that was Adams test. The test of LOVE. The tree of knowledge was understanding gods creation. The science behind everything. How and why things worked.. Through this knowledge, im sure he could have thought, "Well, I know how its done, I bet I could do this".. which, would bring into frame what I said earlier. Mans belief that he can do anything and everything, and no one could be greater than him, is where we fell. This happened to Adam. And, not only there, you see the same thing mirrored with Satan. He wanted to receive the praise that god was getting. He believed he should be equal to god. That very thought it was caused him to fall from heaven, where, in the Garden, he planted that same seed in Eve, which was used to tempt Adam. Which worked because Adam did not see his own nature. God saw it, but Adam didnt.

"Then again, if the god you believe in truly existed, there would be no reason whatsoever to stay hidden from his creation.  Especially since, if you take the bible as a true story, he wasnt shy at all about revealing himself in the past."

There is GREAT reason for him to remain hidden as I explained above. Of course he wasnt shy in the past, god HAD to reveal himself, he had to put a stop to what was taking place on earth between the angels and the people, so he used Noah. And even when he did this, after time, people didnt believe it. So, again, he sends Jesus, his son. His son performed his Divine power to people. There were people, who EVEN before Jesus came, believed in God. These people even prophesied that a messiah was coming because GOD had told them. When Jesus came, his followers KNEW it was him. Look at how many people throughout the Bible  who recieved  miracles because they believed. It was that simple. The believed 100%.. But there was even doubt in his OWN followers. He was even betrayed by his own disciple Judas. Judas was a disciple of Jesus, so you can assume he had heard and seen his teachings, yet, even he betrayed Jesus. Peter denied Jesus! He denied him 3 times, yet Peter was one of his disciples. This goes to show you that you can know everything about something, but your disbelief, no matter how strong it may be, will cause you to deny the truth. One thing Jesus even did was after performing a miracle.. He told the person to run to their doctor and tell them what Jesus had done BEFORE telling anyone what had happened so that the doctor could try to explain the Divine act.
Faith is the opposite of fear; it eliminates fear. After saving the disciples from the storm, Jesus says to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?" To the woman trembling at his feet, he said, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease." To Jairus he said, "Do not fear, only believe."
Mark tells us of a woman who was afraid of Jesus, itdoesn’t really tell us why the woman was afraid. She knew that she was healed. We would think that that fact would give her new hope and courage. But she did sort of steal her healing! She snuck up and touched Jesus. She didn’t ask. So maybe she is afraid now that she has overstepped the boundaries. she was gripped by fear.
Jesus tells the disciples that he speaks in parables so that outsiders "may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven."
There are MANY MANY types of stories like this in the Bible, all to illustrate to us that all it takes is belief and faith. This never changes.

Superfly, No, I dont know my Bible very well, but I believe I have a better understanding of what youre talking about in regards to God hardening Pharaoh's heart. I covered this in my last post.

Screwtape, which questions are you talking about, sorry if I have missed them, its been a little hard keeping up.
I have a basic and very limited knowledge of plasma tvs. The reason I run to the supernatural is because science cant tell me anything. Science has NO explanation for what made everything just come into existence. Science hasnt been able to tell me why certain things have happened to myself and people close to me, and science cant explain what happens after death. Science can provide theories of how it all came about, and thats it. But then you need to have 'faith' in the science in that the same results are going to happen exactly the same way when its repeated. Which, we know doesnt happen, which is why science has the "Choas Theory"...  God tells us exactly how he did it. I believe him. God told us how he did it, which mirrors what science is just starting to tell us millions of years later.

[Grogan]

Grogan, some resources I have read have been accounts like that of Jewish historian Josephus (written in the late first century AD). ... Yet he claimed he was the Messiah. (Or could have been depending on the translation) But that being besides the point, he talks of a Jesus, someone who was killed, and came back three days later. ...... Of course you could argue all the translations, the validity, but it IS another account outside the bible. Of course you have to also take into account that words could have been PUT INTO the account, you could argue a lot of things, but im just giving you some of the few examples.

It is accepted by historians and most religious and biblical scholars that the Josephus text is significantly altered.  He came far far after Jesus, for one, and was not a contemporary. If I were to write about a christian giving testimony 50 years ago, and their experience with your god, would that give credence to me as a historian recording actualities, or recording hearsay?

Regarding Josephus, I've bolded the parts which are understood, as fact, to be altered. These parts are the ones you put the most stock in, coincidentally.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

First of all, how embarrassing that it had to be edited that way to give it more substance. Secondly, without the contextual additions, this paragraph is merely someone talking about other people who believed in this figure, Jesus. Nothing more. 

Do you know when he was born? Almost 40 years after the supposed resurrection.

With regards to the Josephus writings....Remsburg wrote....

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly fourty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines."

Tacatis (55-120 CE), "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate".
This quote was taken from his writings. This could all be just an account of what christians TOLD people, but at least it shows christians existed in his time. From my reading, its also noted that Tacatis had access to Roman records, though he called Pilate by the wrong title, and referred to jesus as the Cristus, which, COULD have been someone else all together. So this could totally be blown off. But, it COULD be something. Who knows. Never the less, it points out Christians.

Yes Christians existed. People who believe in Jesus exist today, it doesn't make him any more real now than it did then.

In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, (around 120 CE).....wrote words.....

Julius Africanus, a writer from the 3rd centry refers to a lost book in where he states that Jesus death was followed by an earthquake and darkness. Of course, this is claimed as a LOST text, so once again, you can say this doesnt hold water.

And see, ALL of this could be refuted, and I would have to agree with anyone who said so because I can not, nor can anyone, PROVE that these are ALL untouched and untempered accounts. But, on the other hand, when you understand God, Jesus and what it means to be Christian, you can understand why there would be so little evidence in history. Its funny, they say that actions speak louder than words. I have heard that ALL my life. And looking back into history, sure we cant provide TOTAL evidence of jesus through words, but look at how many people have turned to Jesus over the years. His impact IN history is proof enough for ma and those who believe.

You need to explore your delusion with regards to these points you make above.

You want these to be evidential, but they are little more than anecdotal. They are not first-hand or contemporary historical accounts, you understand that right?

What you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself about, is that you give special clause to Jesus, saying that he alone, out of all the major historical figures of his day does not need the evidence that MANY other historical figures have. 

There were many writers who were responsible for recording the history and major events of the day. They wrote about their governments, and leaders, Caesars, and governors, generals and philosophers, architects and much much more...but nothing of someone who had the purported impact of the Jesus figure on so many people.

A breakdown of some of those historians can be found here:

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm


You accept the veracity of his existence, because you want to, not because the evidence leads you to that conclusion. You start with the conclusion that he existed and work backwards.  You do understand that almost 70% of the human population (now, today) has found the evidence lacking and rejected it as myth, outright?

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/time.html  provides much more information, should you be so inclined to keep searching for truth.

See, thats a tough question because even O.J simpson was found not guilty.

Not to nitpick, but he was found guilty in civil court. Responsible and accountable.

I'll tell you what, I will turn in ALL my beliefs, when science, which you hold so close to your heart, proves to me that God doesnt exist, which I hold close to mine. Once science can tell me with 100% accuracy where we came from, why and for what purpose... When science can explain to me my experiences in life, when it can explain why my non-believer friend was thrown to the floor in church, and why my friend with brain cancer who was given 3 weeks to live by top doctors was cured 100% overnight,  then I willturn in all my beliefs. Promise.

Your friend's survival gives you faith? I've lost many friends to cancer and people worldwide die every day from cancer. Your friend got lucky and had western medicine.

What a glorious god that heals your friend's brain cancer but lets millions of African children starve every day, and thousands of children world wide die of the same cancer your friend survived!

The fact that you attribute that one healing to a being that could, by your own definition, heal each and every one of those children with no effort whatsoever, but chooses to heal your friend is delusional. 

 I would not want to worship a god like that if it existed, because he's surely the most disgusting thing imaginable.  If that's the god you believe in, love, and worship, you should be embarrassed for him.

Thank you too! I think im a nice guy. I love it and hate it. But I dont change it. Not enough of us out there lol..  I have heard of Dionysus. And yes, it does sound VERY similar. There are MANY stories that are very much like that of the story of Jesus. I have read that, and many others. I have also read the story of Gilgamesh from the Sumerians which date as far back as 4000+ years ago. Which also tells of a flood tale MUCH like Noah.. Which also has VERY similar accounts of things, just lightly different... The Sumerians themselves, first human civilization in history also have a creation story. 7 tablets of creation, which is VERY similar to the 7 days of creation. Stories much the same, but with slight differences. Believe me, I have looked into a lot of these things. And yes, these did come first... BUT.. There is also explanation for it, and I think its very valid and more realistic. Which, is what im working on.

I'll be waiting on the explanation! Take your time. (google)

And yes, I would create Satan. Satan was a great creation by god. Did you know that God had made Satan one of the most powerful and beautiful angels in heaven. He was VERY important. Satan was used by god to Tempt Adam through Eve to see if he could truly love god. After all, what better way to test true love than to give someone a choice.. They can CHOOSE you, or the other.

Once again, I'm better than your god and so are you.  I am in many loving relationships, my marriage and as a parent for starters, and I cannot fathom a worse test of their faith, love, devotion and affection than to attempt to test them through deception and trickery.

It's vile.

Also, in the myth of the Garden of Eden, man and woman had no knowledge of good or evil, right or wrong, and therefore had no understanding of the choice they made. You understand that right?

Even in the context of your myth, the snake (nowhere does it say Satan or the Devil) basically fucked with two retards.

My foundations are based on things that dont exist? Well if you want to say that, I can say that about your whole reality. Look at quantum mechanics and quantum theory. When we break things to down to the smallest of small, those rules which science tell us are fact, break down. Gravity and everything just disappear, like they dont even exist. Therefore even the foundations of our own reality are based on things that dont exist or even things we can prove.

What? I'm not much up on quantum mechanics or physics, but the benefit of the theory and the testable and verifiable truths presented by quantum mechanics have had a significant impact on our world, which *IS* real and *VERIFIABLE*.  I'm not going to get into a scientific debate over it, because, to be honest, I'm no authority.

Much of modern technology operates at a scale where quantum effects are significant. Examples include the laser, the transistor (and thus the microchip), the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. The study of semiconductors led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics. 

You accept those things, don't you? You have a radio, maybe lasic surgery, a television, ipod, computer, telescope, have had an MRI right? 

Those things are real. Don't try to sidetrack or undermine the scientific method. It's about finding answers, and when you seek truth, you often find out what you knew to be "fact" wasn't the whole story.



Believe me, I have kicked the tires and done research. "Don't take away what you've accomplished as a good human being and attribute it to anything but who you are" But isnt that looking at myself as someone great, who has accomplished everything on his own? Isnt that self boasting? Thats me believing that there is no power higher than I am. I think, in my own personal opinion, the disbelief in god is sprouted from mans disbelief that there is something bigger and better than he is. Since mans nature is to think that, its easy to believe that we are the greatest thing. Thats part of why jesus came. Look at how, according to the bible, that even people who had heard of him, or had seen him, denied his power. How could HE, this MAN, be greater than me or have powers greater than my own. Thats where I think is the root of it all. God hardened Pharaohs heart because even after all the miracles were witnessed by him, he STILL didnt believe. He thought that he, PHARAOH of the time, the king of kings, was all powerful.. He didnt believe there could be anyone higher than him. Moses came back to him over and over again showing him gods power, but he still refused to believe. Their hearts were hardened towards god. Not allowing them to accept of see the power of god.

"I post here and read here daily, because it reinforces to me, that I'm not alone. It lets me know that my decision to abandon faith and religion was the most amazing, brave, and honest thing I've ever done as a human being."

Im glad you find reinforcement here. But at the same time, say you have someone who smokes weed all the time. One day he smokes some crack and its better. He starts hanging out with crackheads and all they tell you is how great it is to smoke crack and not weed. They look at the potheads and laugh, reassuring themselves that smoking crack is better. See, I dont need that. I dont, nor am I on, ANY christian forums or websites. I dont feel the need to have people reinforce what I believe. If I need people to reinforce it, then you have to question if you believe it with 100% of yourself.

On one hand you admit you kick the tires of your faith and seek out ways to test it, yet you try to equate me to being a crackhead for doing the same.

How insulting. 

Were I to find information that I didn't agree with, or that made me question my philosophy about life, I'd explore what I believed or didn't believe and make the adjustments necessary to keep myself aligned with reality.

[velkyn]

God tells us exactly how he did it. I believe him. God told us how he did it, which mirrors what science is just starting to tell us millions of years later.

not even freakin' remotely. 

[superfly]

Superfly, No, I dont know my Bible very well, but I believe I have a better understanding of what youre talking about in regards to God hardening Pharaoh's heart. I covered this in my last post.

You are correct sir, you don't know your bible at all. You're embarrassing yourself. You do not understand this at all. It really starts here:

Exodus 7:8 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 9 "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake."
 10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. 13 Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.

So Pharaoh's guys did the same trick as god. Pharaoh is unimpressed, wouldn't you be? Plus, God already knew the outcome to this little game of his, didn't he?

But let's keep reading, shall we?
Exodus 7:20 Moses and Aaron did just as the LORD had commanded. He raised his staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. 21 The fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt.

Now that's some trick. I know that would convince me. My heart is softening. How about you?
Wait there's more:

Exodus 7:22 But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret arts, and Pharaoh's heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.

And you expect Pharaoh to believe anything Moses and Aaron say about their powerful almighty god?

Then we have some plagues, flies, frogs, and each time Pharaoh's heart remains hardened, "just as the LORD has said." Until the plague of boils, and this is were it get's interesting.

Exodus 9: 8 Then the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Take handfuls of soot from a furnace and have Moses toss it into the air in the presence of Pharaoh. 9 It will become fine dust over the whole land of Egypt, and festering boils will break out on men and animals throughout the land."
 10 So they took soot from a furnace and stood before Pharaoh. Moses tossed it into the air, and festering boils broke out on men and animals. 11 The magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils that were on them and on all the Egyptians. 12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

Wait, what? Why did god have to harden Pharaoh's heart this time? That doesn't make any sense.

Then we have Hail, and this time Pharaoh hardens his own heart...


Exodus 9:33 Then Moses left Pharaoh and went out of the city. He spread out his hands toward the LORD; the thunder and hail stopped, and the rain no longer poured down on the land. 34 When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. 35 So Pharaoh's heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the LORD had said through Moses.

But now we have this:

Exodus 10: 1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials... i cut the quote for a reason, please read on.

Hmmm, so god again hardens Pharaoh's heart. I wonder why?

Oh, wait. You covered that in your last post, didn't you?
you wrote: "God hardened Pharaohs heart because even after all the miracles were witnessed by him, he STILL didnt believe. He thought that he, PHARAOH of the time, the king of kings, was all powerful.. He didnt believe there could be anyone higher than him. Moses came back to him over and over again showing him gods power, but he still refused to believe. Their hearts were hardened towards god. Not allowing them to accept of see the power of god."


That not really true is it. here's the whole quote from EXODUS CHAPTER 10:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

Your god is a mean and nasty bully.

There's more plagues after this, and more of your god hardening Pharaoh's heart to make his point. Why didn't he appear to Pharaoh? He appeared to Moses. I suppose if he did appear to Pharaoh and Pharaoh believed, it would have taken all of the fun out of it for god.

[screwtape]

Satan was a great creation by god.  Did you know that God had made Satan one of the most powerful and beautiful angels in heaven. He was VERY important. Satan was used by god to Tempt Adam through Eve to see if he could truly love god.

Eh, no.  That was a talking snake that got around by means other than slithering.  Maybe it coiled up like a spring and bounced?   And that story was not about love.  It was about obedience enforced by threat of violence. 

After all, what better way to test true love than to give someone a choice.. They can CHOOSE you, or the other.

Why would an omniscient being need to test anything?

Screwtape, which questions are you talking about, sorry if I have missed them, its been a little hard keeping up.

I understand.  You have a lot on your plate.  Reasonable theists are rare here, so when they appear we tend to look like a school of piranhas on a cow. My comments are here.

I have a basic and very limited knowledge of plasma tvs. The reason I run to the supernatural is because science cant tell me anything.  Science has NO explanation for what made everything just come into existence.

That is called a god of the gaps argument.  You are saying “We have no answer for this, so it must be a man with super powers.”  The two major problems with that argument are 1. we have no evidence for this superman and 2. we find out new things, so the gaps in which your god lives, get small and smaller and smaller.  They used to say lightning was from yhwh.  Turns out, it isn’t. 

Did you know the invention of the lightning rod caused a major theological dilemma at the time?  They were afraid they were usurping yhwh’s plan. 

And your premise is not true.  There are some theories and some hypotheses.  If you keep going back and asking “where did that” come from you bump up against an “I don’t know”.  But the same is true of yhwh, is it not?  The difference is when we ask “where did your god yhwh come from?” xians do the dishonest thing and say “He was always there.”  Well, pardon me, but if it is plausible that your deity can be eternal, I think it is possible that the universe was also eternal and cyclical, as Hawking has hypothesized.  And we do not have to introduce a super man into our theory either.

Science hasnt been able to tell me why certain things have happened to myself and people close to me, and science cant explain what happens after death.

Science can explain what happens after death - you cool off and are digested by some other organism.

I think you missed my point entirely.  You accept that there are natural laws.  You benefit from the fact that we are aware of them.  Your entire life in the west hinges on our understanding of them.  However, you are oblivious to what that means.  That means that when we have questions about something – like how plasma tvs work, or what causes lightning, or what that euphoric feeling you had at the xian rally was or other things we do not understand – we should not jump to superstition to explain them.  It means there is an explanation.  It just might not be accessable or knowable for us.

Science can provide theories of how it all came about, and thats it.

Do you understand what a theory is, in the context of science?  It is not the same as a theory in the context of every day conversation between non-scientists.

But then you need to have 'faith' in the science in that the same results are going to happen exactly the same way when its repeated.

No, we don’t.  That is not how it works.  If we do not get repeatable results, the theory is thrown out or modified.  Theories only exist to explain and predict reality.  If they do not do that, they are thrown away.

Which, we know doesnt happen, which is why science has the "Choas Theory"... 

You are talking out your ass again, Fatty. Chaos theory is a branch of science that is near mathematics.  It deals with non-linear systems.  It is not spackle to fill in poorly functioning theories.  I caution you to reign in your commentary on things you apparently know nothing about. 

God tells us exactly how he did it.

That is not quite accurate.  Other people tell us how they think god did it. And they heard it from other people.  No one actually got it straight from yhwh.

I believe him. God told us how he did it, which mirrors what science is just starting to tell us millions of years later.

Millions of years?  that has two problems.  For one, scientists believe humans have only been civilized for about 250,000 years.  For two, the old testament is only about 4000 years old, maybe less.  So you are off the mark either way.

And what the bible says matches with science poorly. 

[FattyG]

Velkyn, no magic decoder ring needed. Its very easy to understand. And I think its safe to say that Christianity is a pretty good way to know Jesus existed, not to mention other notes as I have stated. Sure Josephus could have just been talking about some guy names Jesus, but he puts a name to a character and tells of the people who followed him. What about other gods? We have books about them AND, we even have stories and followers... Yes, but are they still around today? If they WERE in fact the TRUE god, dont you think there would be more people who would realize it as truth? There is even something  where they take the accounts of a bunch of people, the average of their response is usually the closest. They used this to find a ship in the ocean. They had many accounts of people SAYING where they saw it, but no one was right. So, the gathered all the info, and they averaged it out. Thats sort of a scientific method. So apply that to religion and tell me what you get.

I dont know where Jesus became respected by world leaders. But dont confuse worshipped with respected. People didnt have to believe who he said he was, but I think they would still be able to respect the power in his teachings and how many people followed him.
"Why do Christians insist on keeping obvious mistranslations to support their claims?" How would I know? Am I all Christians? No.. I believe the whole Bible is littered with mistranslations. I will be the first to admit that. But even then, its the BIG picture that is NEVER mistranslated. Only words.
The second coming is not made up, its told in the bible many times. And its purpose. But then again, this all comes from my book of fairy tales, so to you, its all made up anyway.
Parables were used to help people understand. It says that.
And I didnt say the bible DIDNT have them, do's and donts, maybe check your prescription, I said, seeing as you missed it the first time,
"whereas Christianity is a relationship with God (still containing do's and donts.........)"
I dont think youre reading the Bible wrong at all. But as you stated, youre reading it through the eyes of someone who thinks god is just a 'sky god'.. Sure you may have read it before with a different heart, but even then, how close did you get to god while you were reading. You could look at one of those 3D pictures for hours on end and not see anything. But once you have the little key of crossing your eyes a bit, you see a different picture.
First off, I cant believe how many times I must say this, I dont think of myself as special in any way shape or form. I believe that ALL man is a special creation, but we are NOTHING by ourselves. Any christian who claims to be more is wrong. And do you not think that the devil can plant thoughts in people? Thats the thing, thats why god gave us the holy spirit, so we can test those ideas or thoughts. People do wrong things in gods name, and that tarnishes god image. What a great idea for the devil to use. Find those people who dont know the holy spirit, who dont walk close with god, and plant ideas in their heads and SAY its from god.
And once again, im not saying im special in any way, shape, or form. Thats your problem that you are seeing it that way.

I dont make any assumptions. I know god is real. Thats something I dont need to really question. How and why he does things, ya maybe... But I dont question him. And you know what, what if I am wrong?.. What do I have to lose? Really?... I have a happy life. People look to me as a friend, I have all the support I need, I have parents that love me. I could NOT believe in god and have a GREAT life. So what do I lose? The only thing I lose is the respect of some people like you, and really, what does that matter? So say im wrong... No big loss. I die, im dead. Im in the ground... But what if im right!! What if you were to die and found yourself at the very foot of god.. What if you looked up and saw him looking down at you.. You have turned in what you perceive to be a good life on earth, for an eternity in paradise. So ask yourself this, if youre wrong, and im right, how much is at stake?
Eternity.
If im wrong and you are right, whats at stake?
Nothing.

If god says only certain people get to ride his fair, I have not come to that part yet. Everyone can, but your heart is your admission. If you dont have the right heart, you dont get on the rides. You can walk around and SEE the fair, but you cant be part of it. Unless of course you change your heart. Its THAT simple. Look at it like this, when you draw yourself close to god, he shows you things. You receive understanding in areas that you never saw before, he gives you knowledge, strength... Now, why would he give that to someone who doesnt have the heart to understand or use that knowledge? It would be wasted. Wouldnt that seem wise? Why give power to the foolish?

Superfly, please do back that bus up!
Im glad you caught that. No where in Genesis does it credit the serpent to be Satan. In fact, the evidence for that points into a total different direction that it wasnt Satan at all. But, seeing as I didnt want to go further into my 'myths', and seeing as you think its all BS anyway, I just went with satan. All that aside, why would you feel a need to correct me on a bible verse when you yourself dont believe the Bible in the first place?..
Bottom line, I dont think it was Satan at all. But thats a different discussion.
The tree was a test. God knew what was going to happen. It was to show MAN, who doesnt know anything (inspite what most people think) his nature. God used it all to show US how we are. Not him. He already knew. The simplicity is beautiful.

Grogan, so what if its altered? Not the point. I even said that. Im just providing accounts OUTSIDE the bible. I know a lot of it is still up for debate, obviously, I even said myself that some stuff could have been added.. Im just showing you a different account. Simple.
how embarrassing it is to show everyone here you missed the obvious point. Even with the points you have so nicely bolded, it STILL tells of a man, named Jesus, who died on a cross, and Pilate sentenced him, and after states, "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
So my whole point, which I thought was clear, is that there IS some historical evidence that there was a man, named Jesus, who died on a cross and many people followed him and even adopted the name after him.. Showing you, who asked, historical reference. Im not trying to prove he was god, just that he WAS a man.

Do I know when he was born? No lol... But you must, which is actually amazing because nobody really knows. I know he wasnt born on 0, thats for sure. But thats about all I know.

Remsburg wrote..... so?... People wrote that the sun revolved around the earth. People can write anything. That holds NO water whatsoever.

No, it doesnt make him more real now than then, but its pretty amazing to claim that ALL the people throughout history who have followed him and his teachings were following a myth. I think to a scientific mind, it wouldnt be hard to comprehend that. Where there is smoke, there is fire right.

I dont want them to be evidence, after all, im not the one who needs it. Im just providing you with accounts, outside the bible. I know they arent FIRST hand, and even stated that. I even stated WHY they wouldnt hold water. Evidence will NEVER lead me to my conclusion. Thats the whole point, and thats the thing that none of you can get nor understand. I dont rely on books with mathematical breakdowns to make me believe in something. I look in the sky, I see a sun. I dont NEED to know how it works or what actions are taking place for me to feel the heat, I just know its there. Thats good enough for me. Which leads back to the whole reason of Jesus and God. Im surprised youre not seeing the loop here.
Yes, maybe 70% of the population has accepted it all as myth, but, its also prophesied in the Bible that it would take place. Slowly over time you can see how those numbers have dropped. I have my explanation why, but thats something im not going to bother with.

Me being delusional is only your way of telling me you dont understand. If it doesnt make sense to YOU, I must be delusional.

I would never be embarrassed of my God. Never. I see him in a way you obviously dont. If you had the understanding I did, and the view, you would never speak such things. The only thing im embarrassed of is how youre going to feel when you stand before god. You can say all you want now, but your time is coming, as is all of ours. Though you may all think im wrong, and If I am, then I wont need to worry anyway, but if im right, at least I will be able to stand in front of God with less shame because I am someone who knew him and tried to get to know him. Id rather be made to feel ashamed from man, than god.

Google plays a VERY small role in what im writing. Same with everything on here. And I will be taking my time. This is what I love about coming on here, Im getting awesome knowledge and questions to address. So thank you to everyone who is pitching in. You dont realise that your doubts, questions and disbelief are actually working towards me in understanding god even more. No one has wavered or tested my faith, if anything, you all have made it stronger. So thank you, and god bless you all! Whether you like it or not. Hahah.

"Once again, I'm better than your god and so are you.  I am in many loving relationships, my marriage and as a parent for starters, and I cannot fathom a worse test of their faith, love, devotion and affection than to attempt to test them through deception and trickery."

You can think that, but please, dont tell me im greater than my god. There is no deception or trickery involved. Its a simple choice. Do you chose to love the things of your flesh, or the things of god? Its not vile. Not at all. It was ALL in Adams hands. God did not deceive or trick in any way. And I think its the BEST test of love. I just wished your eyes could see it. Imagine your wife had a bunch of ex boyfriends. Enough to fill a stadium. Along with those ex boyfriends are EVERY desire of her heart. The chocolate cake that she loves, that special tea, bunches of flowers, EVERYTHING.. Now imagine she tells you that she loves you. So you take her to this place and you tell her... You told me you loved me, so here you go. Everything you could ever want. All the guys you have known and loved before me.. I want you to pick. Now, this would REALLY test her love. After all, she could have ANYTHING she wanted. EVERYTHING in the world that would bring her joy and excitement. OR... You....
If you were standing there at the doors, and she looked at you and said:
"Though there is everything in there that I could ever love, every desire, every joy I could feel, I dont want them. I want you and only you"....
You would KNOW she loves you with all her heart. Have you deceived her? No. Have you tricked her? No... You have given her a chance to show her love. And to me, that is something beautiful.

"Also, in the myth of the Garden of Eden, man and woman had no knowledge of good or evil, right or wrong, and therefore had no understanding of the choice they made. You understand that right? "

Exactly.

Well my friend, you need to read up more on quantum physics. I have done LOTS.
"It's about finding answers, and when you seek truth, you often find out what you knew to be "fact" wasn't the whole story. "
Which is exactly what science is doing as we speak.

Im not comparing to to a crackhead at all, and even if I were, how would that offend you? I have friends that a crackheads and I dont look down on them for it. You obviously once again missed the point. I could have used anything else but crackhead came to mind. Also, you failed to see I would have been calling myself a pothead, which, if you REALLY break it down makes us drug users.. Meaning we are no different. In no way have I made myself, or you, look better or worse. Its in the context that you take it. Youre LOOKING for me to say im better. Which wont happen. But keep trying man.
Jesus even said to test knowledge. And I do.

[pianodwarf]

Remsburg wrote..... so?... People wrote that the sun revolved around the earth. People can write anything. That holds NO water whatsoever.

Hey... I think maybe you're starting to get the point.

[Grogan]

Evidence will NEVER lead me to my conclusion. Thats the whole point, and thats the thing that none of you can get nor understand.

This. Distilling down your posts brings you to this tiny wonderful nugget.

You don't seek truth, by your own admission.   

Oh, and we understand it. Boy do we ever. 

[Hermes]

Sig worthy.

[Dkit]

What if you were to die and found yourself at the very foot of god..

Which god?  You are assuming there are just two choices:  your god and no god.  But, in reality, there are thousands of gods and many possible afterlifes.  There is no way for you to know you've chosen the right god, so I would suggest you start practicing all those other relgioins - just in case.  

Do I know when he was born? No lol... But you must, which is actually amazing because nobody really knows. I know he wasnt born on 0, thats for sure. But thats about all I know.

He was referring to when Josephus was born.  37 CE, which means he did not know Jesus and thus anything he wrote about Jesus is hearsay as are the others you listed.  As was stated there are many historians who should have written about Jesus at that time the events in question happened, but didn't.  Historical evidence for Jesus


edit:  added link

[Star Stuff]

I dont make any assumptions. I know god is real. Thats something I dont need to really question. How and why he does things, ya maybe... But I dont question him. And you know what, what if I am wrong?.. What do I have to lose? Really?... I have a happy life. People look to me as a friend, I have all the support I need, I have parents that love me. I could NOT believe in god and have a GREAT life. So what do I lose? The only thing I lose is the respect of some people like you, and really, what does that matter? So say im wrong... No big loss. I die, im dead. Im in the ground... But what if im right!! What if you were to die and found yourself at the very foot of god.. What if you looked up and saw him looking down at you.. You have turned in what you perceive to be a good life on earth, for an eternity in paradise. So ask yourself this, if youre wrong, and im right, how much is at stake?
Eternity.
If im wrong and you are right, whats at stake?
Nothing.

Your posts, because of their length, require so much time to address and point out their flaws. Time I don't have right now, but the above is the tired old "Pascal's Wager" arguement, which is really not an arguement at all, it's a threat, based in fear.  Google: "Pascal's Wager debunked" and see what you find.

Do you apply the same rational to your being wrong about all of the other gods?  Do you accept them and organize your life around them just to be safe?  If not, why not?

[bertatberts]

Too fattyG

On A&E/eden: "Note" there was a tree that gave the knowledge of good and bad. So it must be presumed that until one has eaten from such a tree then one wouldn't know how to tell good from bad. Right!

Why was A&E held responsible for doing something bad when they couldn't have known that disobeying God was a bad thing, until AFTER they had eaten from the tree that gave them that knowledge?

God telling them not to eat would not have had any meaning for them until they knew what good and bad meant.

Also why threaten them with death when they were the first humans who at that time would never have seen death so wouldn't know what it was, or that it was a bad thing? Nonsensical don't you think.

Now to the existence of a jesus person.

This is long post so had to split in to two parts, once you read this show me what evidence you have for a biblical jesus, thank you.
You are after all the one claiming he existed.

Part one.

There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

There may have been a man called jesus, just the same as there may have been a man called fred.
it by no means make him divine!

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.
Much of the "evidence" cited is false, or suspect, or very late.

Josephus is considered some of the best evidence - even though is is generally considered to be tampered with, if not an outright forgery (of course, the word used is "interpolated" - scholars avoid the word "forgery" even though that's exactly what it is.)




JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
Such is the weakness of this evidence, This suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth, go figure.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but it is merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

The Talmud was written over the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
In the tractiate Sanhedrin, page 43a it mentions a Yeshua(Jehoshua), who was hung for forty days before his execution. it also states he was born a hundred years pre-christ and that he had five disciples Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah who were executed along side him.
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and are very different to the Gospel stories
So the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm

This Yeshua is not the same jesus now is he


christianity is simply a mishmash of much older religions, and below is a list of other writers (apart from the ones in the above links) around at the time of this alleged christ, that wrote nothing whatsoever about him.
Some even walked the same paths, but heard and wrote nothing.

Philo Judaeus lived in Alexandria, he spent time in Jerusalem and had family there during the times of Jesus. He wrote many books about the Jews and their religion and history. He developed the themes of the Logos and the Holy Spirit.
No mention of Jesus or the Gospel events.
Valerius Maximus wrote historical anecdotes c.30CE
No mention of Jesus or the Gospel events.
Marcus Manilius wrote on astrology/astronomy in Rome early 1st century.
No mention of Jesus or the Gospel events.

Writers from shortly after Jesus time:
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.
Petronius Arbiter wrote the Satyricon in Rome.
C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome.
Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote several satires in Rome.
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.
Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.
Geminus wrote on astronomy in Greece.
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.
Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of the Kings of the Jews shortly after the time of Jesus, and from the same region - his works are now lost, but Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 8th Century: ''Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go ... "
Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.
Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times (his works show Stoic and Cynic ideas), and wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome - his many speeches are lost.
Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome.
NONE of these early writers even MENTIONED Jesus or the Gospel events.
Only AFTER the Gospels became known in mid 2nd century (LONG long after the alleged events) did anyone mention Jesus.
There are about 50 writers from the 1st century - NONE of them mention Jesus.
But,they DO mention many HUNDREDS, maybe even THOUSANDS of characters in their books - including minor nobodies like servants and family, un-important names mentioned once in passing.
But NOTHING about Jesus - who must have been LESS important, LESS known, LESS notable than the most minor nobody.

Heres a few others you may want to look up.
Aulus Perseus (60 AD)
Columella (1 st. cent. AD)
Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
Justus of Tiberious (c. 80 AD)
Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
Lucius Flours (1st-2nd -cent. AD)
Petronius (d. 66 AD)
Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
Phlegon (1st cent. AD)
Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
Plutarch (c.46-c. 119 AD)
Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
Silius Italicus (.25-101 AD)
Statius Caelicius (1st cent. AD)
Theon of Smyrna (c. 70-c.135 AD)
Valerius Flaccus (1st cent AD)
Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD).

There is no historicity for a jesus person.

Now to the gospels

G.Mark

It is consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be written was G.Mark - but it clearly was NOT by an eye-witness, for several reasons :
* G.Mark shows ignorance of Palestine geography,
* G.Mark shows dependence on oral tradition,
* G.Mark was most likely written for a Roman audience,
* Ireneus says G.Mark was written in Rome.
* G.Mark was largely crafted from the whole cloth of the OT.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

For more detail, I suggest Michael Turton's great work on G.Mark:
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

It is sometimes argued that Mark was the secretary of Peter, but this seems unlikely for several other reasons -
* there is no evidence in the NT stories to support Mark being Peter's secretary,
* G.Mark shows the structure of literature crafted from the Jewish scriptures, not recorded conversations,
* G.Mark includes many scenes in Peter was NOT present, which can only mean they are fiction.
* Peter is a cowardly dullard in G.Mark which ends with Peter un-redeemed after having betrayed Jesus (G.Mark ended 16:8 with the empty tomb - G.Mark 16:9-20 is merely the most popular of one of a number of later endings which were attached to the abrupt end 16:8.). A secretary recording the words of a hallowed elder would hardly portray him like that.

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Mark (and is the source of the Peter connection) - but Papias refers to G.Mark being the recollections of Peter but "adapted as needed" ... "but not in order". This just does not match at all well with G.Mark, which is in chronological order, and shows no sign of being the adapted words of Peter.

G.Matthew

It is the firm consensus of scholars that G.Matthew was NOT written by a disciple, because :
* it depends largely on G.Mark, copied word for word, while making changes based on theology, not history
* it conflicts with statements by Papias and Ireneus,
* it shows signs of being a 2nd or 3rd generation work
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Matthew - but Papias refers to G.Mark being written in Hebrew - this just does not match at all well with G.Matthew, which was written in Greek.

1,2 Peter

Scholars agree that the letters attributed to Peter were forged by 2 different people, neither of whom had ever met Jesus - 1 Peter probably writen in Rome c.90, 2 Peter in early-mid 2nd century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

G.John

Scholars agree that the Gospel of John could NOT be by an eye-witness - because :
* the issue regarding expulsion from the synagogues - such a glaring anachronism could not be by an eye-witness,
* at one stage this Gospel was believed to be written by Cerinthus (and thus rejected),
* it tells such a different, and fantastic, story.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

False NT attributions

The same is true of all the NT documents (apart from Paul1) - NONE are by an eye-witness, all are later FORGED by unknown authors who never met Jesus -
* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby's or in Brown NT Commentary e.g.


No NT author met Jesus

So, of the NT authors we find -
* Paul only met Jesus in a VISION,
* several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.

In other words - the general consensus of modern NT scholars is that NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. You can check this is any modern commentary - try Brown's or the New Jerome or see Peter Kirby's.

"This article is only about the historicity of Jesus - whether he existed as a real person. That is the only point that historians regard as effectively proven; that he existed, not that the claims made about him are true."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus.
nowhere in any Roman records does it state that a jesus person, was executed by Pilate, this is only written in the NT. And the Romans kept meticulous records.

Continues next post.

[bertatberts]

Continued from previous post

Part two

Claiming that the bible is a historical document

In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now, BELIEVES it to be true.

All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal. Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is nonsense - no historian assumes an ancient book to be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.

Consider some other ancient works

The Golden Ass of Apuleius - this "historical document" tells the story of how Apuleius turned into an Ass and met the gods face to face. It dates to the very same period as the Gospels, is set in historical places and includes historical figures and events. It has speeches and stories and miracles and divine events, including an EMPTY TOMB scene!. In short it is very similar to the Gospels.
http://eserver.org/books/apuleius/

The Iliad - this "historical document" is famous and very well attested indeed. This work was seminal in Greek culture and includes real places and realistic people, it has Gods and miracles and speeches and heroes - to the Greeks, Homer was like the Bible.
http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html

Both of these writings are similar to the Gospels and are similarly true - i.e. not particularly true at all. In other words being a "historical document" means nothing about a books truthfulness.

So getting back to the point, yes there could have been a jesus, but not the one written in the bible, thats all, so whether the Muslims have a jesus who was a prophet, or the Jews a Yeshua, who was executed along with his five disciples, a hundred years earlier, does not mean your jesus actually existed.

And NT Authorship

The New Testament alone consists of twenty-seven books written by at least eight different authors. Furthermore, of those eight, only three (Matthew, Peter, and John) were a part of the original twelve disciples. Of the remaining five, two were originally skeptical concerning Jesus' identity. One was a great persecutor of Christians and even consented to the execution of the first New Testament martyr. One was a gentile, and one was a young boy when Jesus lived and taught. Additionally, these New Testament authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. One was a tax collector, another a physician. Another was a highly educated Pharisee. At least two were fishermen while two others grew up as the children of a carpenter and most likely learned that trade."

The NT must be judged on its merits like any ancient writing - and it HAS been so judged and evaluated, it is one of the most studied works in Western culture

With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some one person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)
The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works, the current titles were not attached to the four Gospels until late 2nd century by Iraneus based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).

Papias does make some unclear comments possibly in about 130CE which refer to writings by Mark, and writings by Matthew - however his comments do NOT match our modern Gospels, and he does NOT use the word "Gospel", and he makes it clear he holds such writings in LOW regard.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

Justin in about 150CE is the first to make lengthy quotes of Gospels almost like the modern ones - but he calls them "memoirs of the apostles" as well as "Gospels" but gives NO authors' names.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

Aristides, possibly just before Justin, described a singular, un-named Gospel that had "been preached for a short time". This is an important clue - a church father who mentions "the Gospel, as it is called" - showing that is what it is called "the Gospel", no name, just one. Furthermore he explicitly says it had only been preached for a "short time", perhaps a few years - evidence for when the Gospel became known in Christian circles.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tides-kay.html

Tatian possibly wrote an important work called the "diaTessaron" (literally "from four", implying a harmony of four, meaning a harmony of four Gospels) about 172 (after he split from the early Christian. This numbering of the Gospels as four seems to occur slightly before they are actually named, and may have come about because Tatian inherited the "memoirs of the Apostles" from Justin, and there were four of them, but they had not yet been named.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html

It was not until about 185CE that the Gospels received their current names with Irenaeus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

So there you have it.

[Star Stuff]

FattyG:  You seem quite fond of your hero figure named Jesus (as I once was until I woke up), but I ask you to consider that given there was not one word recorded anywhere during the alleged time of the alleged Jesus character, how is it that you can know what this alleged character might have said? All things placed on his lips were written something like 30 - 120 years later, and even Paul never met a Jesus character, so what christianity really should be called is "Paulianity", as it is on his ramblings that much of christianity is based.





Do you mean the Jesus who healed the sick and even raised the dead? Where the former paralysed walked again, the blind could miraculously see again, and the deaf could listen and the mute speak after the Master's gentle touch? But he did not only heal the body, he also healed the soul. They called him Saviour and Redeemer, and he healed both rich and poor, men and women, young and old, slaves and free men, friends and enemies. In one occasion a paralysed man was brough to him in his bed, and took his bed and left walking after the Saviour had touched him. What was this Saviour's name?

… Asklepios.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who was born by a mortal virgin mother and had a divine Father, and was known as the "Saviour of the world"? Before he was born his parents wandered to a bigger town, and prophets had foretold his birth and that he would be a king. This instigated a search for the infant Saviour by a leading figure who wanted to kill him. After growing up the Son of God was shown all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. He also walked on water and when he met his end his mother and his favorite disciple stood by him. He then tells his mother: "Do not cry, I'm going to heaven". When he dies he utter: "It is finished" and the earth trembles and darkness cover the land. Then he ascended to heaven, and his greatest achievement was to conquer death.

His name was of course...Hercules.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all of course know the Redeemer who was no figure of pagan Greek polytheism. He was the true saviour who wanted to help and save the sinful humans, by sacrificing himself. But he was willing to do this, out of love, pity and compassion for the humans.

His name:...Prometheus.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, who was the real Son of God, born by a mortal virgin mother, and often presented as the venerated newborn infant, or depicted riding a donkey? He healed the sick and did numerous wonders, among those making fine wine from plain water. He was killed but resurrected from the dead and became immortal. The followers of this god often ate a holy meal in a kind of sacramental union with the deity to achieve immortality after their death. One of this god's finest achievements was his death, his sacrifice, which delivers the whole human kind.

The God was the very popular Dionysos.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is the "Light of the World", the One, the God who defeated death? Born of a virgin mother, considered the first true king by the people, who rose from the grave and ascended to heaven. He defeated death, and must be considered the single true God.

Of course the Egyptian Osiris!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the real God often called the "Light of the world", "The good shepherd", "The lamb" and is "…the way, the truth, and the life". Identified with a cross. Who could that be?

Horus, (the son of Osiris).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original "Light of the world" was the mediator between God and man and was born on the 25th of December. Local shepherds witnessed his birth and gave him gifts. He had 12 disciples, and when his work was done on earth he gathered together to a last supper, and then ascended to heaven. At doomsday he will return to pass judgment on both the living and the dead. The righteous will go to heaven and the sinful will be killed in a giant fire. Sunday is his holy day, and this religion gave us the seven days of the week. His followers called each other "brothers" and their leaders "fathers". They practiced baptism and established a sacred meal ritual, where flesh and blood was symbolically consumed by initiates. Above earth was heaven, and below the dark, hell, with demons and the sinners.

The 'Light of the World' is of course the sungod Mithra.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wise men were led to his birth by a star, and his conception was miraculous. After his birth the ruler in the area wanted him dead and started a hunt for the child. But his parents were warned by a heavenly messenger who told them to escape over the river with the holy child. Here, he was met by shepherds. The boy grew up and did many great deeds, and was the mediator between God and man.


His name: Krishna.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who then, was the god whose mother was told by an angel that she would give birth to a holy child destined to be a saviour? Even as a child he instructed the priests in the temple in religous matters, while his parents were looking for him. He started his religious career when he was (circa) 30 years of age, and surrounded himself with 12 disciples. One of the disciples is his favorite another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around talking in parables and metaphors. This God called himself "Son of Man" and was referred to as "Prophet", "Master" and "Lord". He did many great wonders and healed the sick, blind could see again and deaf hear.
He also walked on water. When one of his disciples tried to do the same, he started to sink - his faith was not strong enough.

We are here obviously talking about Buddha.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This saviour cannot be mistaken for any other. He performed countless miracles on earth, miracles well attested to by bystanders. He healed the sick and the crippled, restored sight to the blind, cast out demons, and even raised the dead! His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. While still a child, he exhibited extraordinary knowledge of religious scripture. He reformed the corrupt and worldly religions of his day. He was crucified, rose from the tomb and appeared to his disciples to prove to them his power over death, after which he ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as "the Son of God!" His message is of love and compassion.

We give you: Apollonius of Tyana

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there is of course the god-man, the prophet, the founder of a great monotheistic religion that still exist today. He preached that there was only one true god, and his teachings focused on the eternal fight between good and evil. The teachings include the idea of the saviour will wake the dead and pass judgment on all. The righteous ones goes to paradise and the sinful straight to a burning hell. The very word of Paradise stems from this religion. This semigod started his career in his early thirties, and had a following of disciples. As a band of monks they wandered around, preaching their religion. He was eventually killed and sent to heaven.

And he was the Persian Zarathustra.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The problem for Jesus is that all these deities are much older than him. You don't have to be very bright to see where the authors of the gospels got their "devine inspiration" when they created the Jewish version of the popular God-Man/ World-Saviour of antiquity.


*Thanks to:

http://www.bandoli.no/

[Dkit]

No, it doesnt make him more real now than then, but its pretty amazing to claim that ALL the people throughout history who have followed him and his teachings were following a myth.

It happens and according to many Christians, it happened to every other religion that ISN'T theirs.  I say it's more likely that they are all myths.  Made up stories to fit the cultural needs of their time.  




edit:  added bold