[BartSimpson]

poquas poquas:

That’s not the issue.

Bart claims the bible is an historical document.

So does every secular historian in the world with half a brain, but that's 100% more gray matter than you're demonstrating here.

poquas poquas:

I’ve said (repeatedly) nonsense.

Yes, you have. And I agree with this particular statement of yours.

[andyt]

poquas poquas:

That’s not the issue.

Bart claims the bible is an historical document. I’ve said (repeatedly) nonsense. Now it’s coming down to a mention of a real place or a mention of Caesar makes it historical?

We’re back to Captain Marvel and the Da Vinci Code as a defence and nothing more than a way to weasel out of the discussion.

Yep, I get your point, and the one about Da Vinci Code is a good one. But, after a long discussion, here is what wiki says about the mythical vs historical Jesus:

$1:

Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians.[108][109] [110]The New Testament scholar[111][112] James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis'.[113][114][115]

It doesn't mean he was son o'God or was bodily resurrected of course. (Doesn't mean he wasn't either). If Jesus existed, so likely did his apostles - you asked for proof, well this is about as good as it's going to get. Prove that any ancient historical figure existed, who's body you can't find. Or even if you have a body, prove that it's the right one. So I think your criticism of the bible is too extreme. Just as the fundy's attempt to use it to prove their beliefs are facts is too extreme.

[poquas]

andyt andyt:

poquas poquas:

That’s not the issue.

Bart claims the bible is an historical document. I’ve said (repeatedly) nonsense. Now it’s coming down to a mention of a real place or a mention of Caesar makes it historical?

We’re back to Captain Marvel and the Da Vinci Code as a defence and nothing more than a way to weasel out of the discussion.

Yep, I get your point, and the one about Da Vinci Code is a good one. But, after a long discussion, here is what wiki says about the mythical vs historical Jesus:

$1:

Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians.[108][109] [110]The New Testament scholar[111][112] James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis'.[113][114][115]

It doesn't mean he was son o'God or was bodily resurrected of course. (Doesn't mean he wasn't either). If Jesus existed, so likely did his apostles - you asked for proof, well this is about as good as it's going to get. Prove that any ancient historical figure existed, who's body you can't find. Or even if you have a body, prove that it's the right one. So I think your criticism of the bible is too extreme. Just as the fundy's attempt to use it to prove their beliefs are facts is too extreme.

The existence of Jesus is sourced to one book. The bible. I doubt that it would ever be possible to prove his existence in whatever form one wants to believe. The STORY of Jesus (birth, life and death) comes from a much older Egyptian myth about Horus. It was adapted solely for the purpose of claiming the existence of a messiah by a small Jewish sect. The mainstream Jews don’t accept this as fact any more than most mainstream Christians believe in the third testament and the second appearance of Jesus offered by the Mormons.

I am an atheist and make no apologies for it. I don’t hate people of various faiths but I also don’t see them dealing with reality in their own lives, but they're entitled to do so. One’s faith in a God that gives one some level of comfort is fine, but the second that same person feels the need to “spread the word” makes them much less of a healthy person. Typically the “need to bring others into the fold” is a mechanism that allows them to convince themselves that their beliefs are valid because they can now see other people are like minded.

As I stated earlier, if you believe in God, fine. Keep it to yourself. The moment you have to express your faith, you’re soliciting and my (and others) personal space and feelings are being invaded.

The vengeful, kind, forgiving Supreme Being has no more validity than the tooth fairy in my opinion.

Back to the topic and the point I made on page 1, the Bible is a document of faith, not history. It’s filled with metaphors, morality tales, and the reasons that the followers must stay in line which is the entire purpose of the religion’s creators.

[Mustang1]

The Bible is a historical document - a primary source, however, its historicity is highly contentious.

[andyt]

poquas poquas:

Back to the topic and the point I made on page 1, the Bible is a document of faith, not history. It’s filled with metaphors, morality tales, and the reasons that the followers must stay in line which is the entire purpose of the religion’s creators.

Well no, and this is why you and Bart argue past each other. The old testament for sure is a document of history for the people writing it - in part, as as they understood it at the time. Just like the Da Vinci code will probably be mined by future historians for all sorts of historical facts, except that they'll likely have so many more sources, since we are a much more literate society.

The bible wasn't composed at one time, so the purpose of it's authors and editors varies thru time. The gospel of John for instance is much more against the Jews, because they were persecuting the Christians at the time it was written.

Relax - anybody that tries to use the bible to prove the error of your atheist ways is an idiot. People who do so are not certain of their faith, and so need to re-assure themselves by trying to convert others and claiming to have objective proof for their beliefs. The only way to convert you is your own inner experience.

[BartSimpson]

poquas poquas:

The STORY of Jesus (birth, life and death) comes from a much older Egyptian myth about Horus.

Prove it.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Here is an avowedly secular site that has some fair perspective on the Bible as history; http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

That's my point. You consider it fair. I consider it bullshit.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's my point. You consider it fair. I consider bullshit.

And I think you're rude and your post substantiates that opinion.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's my point. You consider it fair. I consider bullshit.

And I think you're rude and your post substantiates that opinion.

It's pretty clear that you think a lot of stupid shit.

[poquas]

andyt andyt:

poquas poquas:

Back to the topic and the point I made on page 1, the Bible is a document of faith, not history. It’s filled with metaphors, morality tales, and the reasons that the followers must stay in line which is the entire purpose of the religion’s creators.

Well no, and this is why you and Bart argue past each other. The old testament for sure is a document of history for the people writing it - in part, as as they understood it at the time. Just like the Da Vinci code will probably be mined by future historians for all sorts of historical facts, except that they'll likely have so many more sources, since we are a much more literate society.

We can only view a document from our own time and perspectives. Even the Old testament can’t be called history as it is the foundation for religious belief. Noah, Jonah, Adam and Eve, etc. are all consolidations of past myths and beliefs for the purpose of providing the basis of a religion. There is little in the Old Testament that can’t be linked to stories from much older cultures and therefore it’s level of historical fact must be brought into question.

As for the Da VInci code, there are people who believe in that piece of fiction as strongly as any religion that exists. Even when Dan Brown tried to explain that his story was indeed fiction, the “faithful” claimed he had to say that......

andyt andyt:

The bible wasn't composed at one time, so the purpose of it's authors and editors varies thru time. The gospel of John for instance is much more against the Jews, because they were persecuting the Christians at the time it was written.

No argument there. What I will never understand is that even knowing that the bible is made up of “select” gospels and that Jesus was only declared “divine” by a vote of priests and politicians, people still take the result as the word of God. There are gospels of Mary, Judas, that never “made the grade” for the final release, and many of those have very different stories. God and the Bible are creations of man.

andyt andyt:

Relax - anybody that tries to use the bible to prove the error of your atheist ways is an idiot. People who do so are not certain of their faith, and so need to re-assure themselves by trying to convert others and claiming to have objective proof for their beliefs. The only way to convert you is your own inner experience.

Again, I agree. As I mentioned earlier, I have treated severely damaged individuals in my practise that came down to being brow beaten or brainwashed in the name of various religions. My experience was surprisingly common with other in my specialty. So much so that twice in 30 years I actually dealt with a professional deprogrammer to make progress. Those are of course the extremes, but faith “pushed” or “hidden behind” isn’t usually very healthy.

I live in a rural area, so the visits by the Mormons and JW are quite rare, but occurred enough to have made me put a nice brass plate on my front door that says No soliciting and No Religious Conversions. Even with that, I still have my doorbell rung by those same people thing it didn’t include them.

[poquas]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

poquas poquas:

The STORY of Jesus (birth, life and death) comes from a much older Egyptian myth about Horus.

Prove it.

The virgin birth, the resurrection.......

I know. It's coincidence, right?

There are a thousand documents just through Google. Feel free to step beyond your faith and actually learn something. Maybe your God is actually Egyptian!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Of course, there's no reason to not believe that evolution was a machination of God to develop the myriad of life He seeded on Earth unless one is a hard core fundie or hard core evolutionist.
I said in a previous thread similar to this topic, "How do we know that all these things we're learning from science, aren't giving us glimpses into how God did things?"

Yep, that first point seems to be the official Catholic doctrine these days. Can't argue with it, because it's impossible to prove or disprove. At least with current knowledge. But if all God did was seed life, then evolution is real, since everything we see sprang from that original seed. So totally different species do arise by evolution. We did have ape ancestors - the horror.

Didn't say I believed it, just there is room to believe it. And I also said in a previous post that I believe Creation was STILL taking place up until the appearance of man. Once we showed up, God was finished with Creation here. Oh and ummm I AM NOT Catholic, never have been, never will be. As a matter of fact, I don't like ANY religious label being applied to me because I don't follow any specific dogma. I believe in God, Creation, Jesus Christ and trying to be a good person. Sometimes I fail at the latter.
But here's the thing. What I believe harms absolutely NOBODY, and it sure doesn't require the need for those that believe otherwise to insult or otherwise belittle my intelligence level. To me, it's on the same level as the idiots that threaten 'yer gonna burn in hell' for not believing what they do. I'm certainly not accusing you of that. You've actually been quite civil with me during this discussion and I appreciate it.
I really wish it was easier to discuss this topic in a forum because of the other implications that arise, like the philosophical questions.
But I couldn't get into that today anyway. Having a bad back day and the Oxycontins have kicked in

[Lemmy]

poquas poquas:

As for the Da VInci code, there are people who believe in that piece of fiction as strongly as any religion that exists. Even when Dan Brown tried to explain that his story was indeed fiction, the “faithful” claimed he had to say that.

The Da Vinci code contains references to actual things. It describes Paris and London in the contemporary period. Facts are contained in the Da Vinci Code. Likewise, there are facts in the bible (the existence of the geographical places, for example, or references to peoples' occupations during the period of authorship, etc.). As Mustang1 stated, of course the bible is a historical document and a lot about history can be learned from it. But the tales therein contained are pure fiction. 1000 years from now, someone could read the Da Vinci code and get a pretty accurate account of how Paris looked in 2002. That's of historical value. But the Bible offers no more than that about its period.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But the tales therein contained are pure fiction.

Wrong.

Why take my word for it?

Here's a list of the faculty for the history department at UVic.

Pick one and ask them what they think.

http://web.uvic.ca/history/faculty.html

[poquas]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Lemmy Lemmy:

But the tales therein contained are pure fiction.

Wrong.

Why take my word for it?

Here's a list of the faculty for the history department at UVic.

Pick one and ask them what they think.

http://web.uvic.ca/history/faculty.html

Pick one????

Which one do you claim is backing your position?

C'mon Bart. Your defensiveness is bordering on paranoia.