Food for freethought [Kill Em With Kindness]

Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Food for freethought [Kill Em With Kindness]

I originally posted this on your sister site, freethinkingteens.com out of ignorance.  I think it may be better suited for you guys.  I hope you enjoy.

 

As I'm sure many of you know, the Jewish people annually celebrate the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and have done so for about 3500 years now.  The Passover holiday is to commemorate the story told in Exodus Chapter 12, where God sent a destroying angel to kill all the firstborn children of Egypt.  God gave the people a way to get out of this horrible fate by telling them to sacrifice a lamb without blemish and rub its blood above their doorposts.  Do this, He said, and the destroyer will "Passover" your house. Now, Christians like myself will tell you that this Passover lamb was a "type" of Christ, meaning something in the Old Testament that eerily reminds us of the story of Jesus.  John the Baptist called Jesus the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."  The Book of Revelation calls Jesus "a Lamb that appeared to have been slain."  Just as the Passover lamb's blood protected all inside a house from the destroyer, so also does the blood of the Lamb of God protect all under it from the coming fiery judgment. But this is elementary.  I'm sure you've heard such things before, and, because you may not believe the stories of the Bible have a foundation in the real world, you have become quite tired of hearing about it.  What I want to talk about is the Passover feast itself, the one that has been celebrated for 3500 years by a people that rejects Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah foretold in their Scriptures. On the 14th day of the first month on the Jewish calendar, (which tends to be May on our calendars, theirs is based off of lunar cycles so it fluctuates) the Passover is celebrated.  Aside from eating the Passover lamb, who's bones are not to be broken, they also will sit down and eat specific, traditional foods that teach things from the story in Exodus 12.  For example, they'll eat a very hot horse-radish ground with beet juice to remind them of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt, then quickly eat sweet apples to take away the bitterness to symbolize the release from slavery.   While many aspects of the Passover celebration directly correlate to the story of Christ, (the bitterness, in the above, would symbolize the bitterness of the death of Christ on the cross, and the sweetness would be the sweetness of the resurrection) I won't go into all of those.  I'll instead skip ahead to the fourth step in the Jewish Passover feast (also called the seder) which is called the Yachatz.  During the Yachatz, three pieces of unleavened bread are put before the celebrants.  These pieces of unleavened bread are traditionally baked on pans with indentions and ripples on them, which gives the bread an appearance of having stripes and holes in it.  As the prophet Isaiah says in Chapter 52, "He was to be pierced for our transgressions...and by His stripes we are healed." So, they put these three pieces of striped and pierced unleavened bread in a linen basket they call the "Echad" and set it in the middle of the table.  This word "Echad" is used also in the Hebrew Old Testament.  It means "one" or "unity" in the Hebrew (Moses says in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is Echad&quotEye-wink  It's important to note that Jewish people are strict unitarians; they do not believe God is Triune. Now, the Yachatz proceeds as follows:  the father, or head of the household, takes the middle piece of bread out of the Echad.  He takes hold of the bread, which is called the Afikomen, and breaks it.  He then wraps it in linen and hides it away.  The children in the house then search for the Afikomen and when they find it they return it to their father.  The children don't just give it to him though, the father pays a ransom to get the Afikomen back, which is typically gifts or money or the like.  Everyone at the feast then eats a piece of the Afikomen. On the night Jesus Christ was betrayed, as He and His disciples ate what we call the Last Supper, they weren't just eating any old meal, they were celebrating the Passover.  When Jesus picked up the piece of bread and said, "Take, eat, this is My body broken for you," He was breaking the Afikomen.   The Jewish people have hardened their hearts to Jesus Christ.  They've celebrated this way for 3500 years and they still reject what I'm telling you.  It couldn't be more clear: the history of Christ is in their ancient tradition and Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world.  You likewise must not harden your hearts to Christ for the sake of trivial and disputable objections.  Consider what I've written, but don't take my word for it, look into it for yourself.  If you really want to think freely, seek the truth and the truth will make you free. 

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
I can has paragraphs, plz?

I can has paragraphs, plz?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
If you respond in this

If you respond in this thread, and repost all of that with paragraphs, I promise I'll read every word and respond to it.  I absolutely refuse to read that monstrosity as it is.

Grammar school wasn't just to kill time until recess, folks.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
It's not letting me edit,

It's not letting me edit, here:

As I'm sure many of you know, the Jewish people annually celebrate the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and have done so for about 3500 years now.  The Passover holiday is to commemorate the story told in Exodus Chapter 12, where God sent a destroying angel to kill all the firstborn children of Egypt.  God gave the people a way to get out of this horrible fate by telling them to sacrifice a lamb without blemish and rub its blood above their doorposts.  Do this, He said, and the destroyer will "Passover" your house. 

Now, Christians like myself will tell you that this Passover lamb was a "type" of Christ, meaning something in the Old Testament that eerily reminds us of the story of Jesus.  John the Baptist called Jesus the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."  The Book of Revelation calls Jesus "a Lamb that appeared to have been slain."  Just as the Passover lamb's blood protected all inside a house from the destroyer, so also does the blood of the Lamb of God protect all under it from the coming fiery judgment. 

But this is elementary.  I'm sure you've heard such things before, and, because you may not believe the stories of the Bible have a foundation in the real world, you have become quite tired of hearing about it.  What I want to talk about is the Passover feast itself, the one that has been celebrated for 3500 years by a people that rejects Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah foretold in their Scriptures. 

On the 14th day of the first month on the Jewish calendar, (which tends to be May on our calendars, theirs is based off of lunar cycles so it fluctuates) the Passover is celebrated.  Aside from eating the Passover lamb, who's bones are not to be broken, they also will sit down and eat specific, traditional foods that teach things from the story in Exodus 12.  For example, they'll eat a very hot horse-radish ground with beet juice to remind them of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt, then quickly eat sweet apples to take away the bitterness to symbolize the release from slavery.   

While many aspects of the Passover celebration directly correlate to the story of Christ, (the bitterness, in the above, would symbolize the bitterness of the death of Christ on the cross, and the sweetness would be the sweetness of the resurrection) I won't go into all of those.  I'll instead skip ahead to the fourth step in the Jewish Passover feast (also called the seder) which is called the Yachatz.  During the Yachatz, three pieces of unleavened bread are put before the celebrants.  These pieces of unleavened bread are traditionally baked on pans with indentions and ripples on them, which gives the bread an appearance of having stripes and holes in it.  As the prophet Isaiah says in Chapter 52, "He was to be pierced for our transgressions...and by His stripes we are healed." 

So, they put these three pieces of striped and pierced unleavened bread in a linen basket they call the "Echad" and set it in the middle of the table.  This word "Echad" is used also in the Hebrew Old Testament.  It means "one" or "unity" in the Hebrew (Moses says in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is Echad )  It's important to note that Jewish people are strict unitarians; they do not believe God is Triune. 

Now, the Yachatz proceeds as follows:  the father, or head of the household, takes the middle piece of bread out of the Echad.  He takes hold of the bread, which is called the Afikomen, and breaks it.  He then wraps it in linen and hides it away.  The children in the house then search for the Afikomen and when they find it they return it to their father.  The children don't just give it to him though, the father pays a ransom to get the Afikomen back, which is typically gifts or money or the like.  Everyone at the feast then eats a piece of the Afikomen. 

On the night Jesus Christ was betrayed, as He and His disciples ate what we call the Last Supper, they weren't just eating any old meal, they were celebrating the Passover.  When Jesus picked up the piece of bread and said, "Take, eat, this is My body broken for you," He was breaking the Afikomen.   

The Jewish people have hardened their hearts to Jesus Christ.  They've celebrated this way for 3500 years and they still reject what I'm telling you.  It couldn't be more clear: the history of Christ is in their ancient tradition and Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world.  You likewise must not harden your hearts to Christ for the sake of trivial and disputable objections.  Consider what I've written, but don't take my word for it, look into it for yourself.  If you really want to think freely, seek the truth and the truth will make you free. 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:The Jewish

Chriswithac wrote:
The Jewish people have hardened their hearts to Jesus Christ.  They've celebrated this way for 3500 years and they still reject what I'm telling you.  It couldn't be more clear: the history of Christ is in their ancient tradition and Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world.  You likewise must not harden your hearts to Christ for the sake of trivial and disputable objections.  Consider what I've written, but don't take my word for it, look into it for yourself.  If you really want to think freely, seek the truth and the truth will make you free. 
Oh.

Just another mindless appeal to emotion. As if telling us that one unfounded bit of fiction having some rather contrived resemblance to another book of unfounded fiction holds the slightest meaning for anyone who has not already eaten the applesauce and sipped the Koolaid.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
You can go to a Passover

You can go to a Passover yourself and see that their tradtion is not "fiction."  Ask the Rabbis, it's what they've been doing for thousands of years.  You can likewise read the works of many 1st century historians and see that the crucifixtion of Jesus is not "fiction".


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:You can go

Chriswithac wrote:
You can go to a Passover yourself and see that their tradtion is not "fiction."  Ask the Rabbis, it's what they've been doing for thousands of years.  You can likewise read the works of many 1st century historians and see that the crucifixtion of Jesus is not "fiction".
I've attended many Passover seders, as I had several Jewish freinds at University. I assure you that where the tradition is real (and I never said it wasn't) what it is based on is unfounded fiction.

And you can have a look at Rook's writings on this site to discover that there is a very strong argument that there was no historical Jesus. More unfounded fiction.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
It's ok.  You did exactly

It's ok.  You did exactly what I wanted you to do.  (Read again... I asked you to repost it in this thread, not edit the original.  Clever of me, no?)

Quote:

As I'm sure many of you know, the Jewish people annually celebrate the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and have done so for about 3500 years now.  The Passover holiday is to commemorate the story told in Exodus Chapter 12, where God sent a destroying angel to kill all the firstborn children of Egypt.  God gave the people a way to get out of this horrible fate by telling them to sacrifice a lamb without blemish and rub its blood above their doorposts.  Do this, He said, and the destroyer will "Passover" your house. 

Now, Christians like myself will tell you that this Passover lamb was a "type" of Christ, meaning something in the Old Testament that eerily reminds us of the story of Jesus.  John the Baptist called Jesus the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."  The Book of Revelation calls Jesus "a Lamb that appeared to have been slain."  Just as the Passover lamb's blood protected all inside a house from the destroyer, so also does the blood of the Lamb of God protect all under it from the coming fiery judgment.

from: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/kojiki.html

Quote:
The Beginning of the World

 

Before the heavens and the earth came into existence, all was a chaos, unimaginably limitless and without definite shape or form. Eon followed eon: then, lo! out of this boundless, shapeless mass something light and transparent rose up and formed the heaven. This was the Plain of High Heaven, in which materialized a deity called Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto (the Deity-of-the-August-Center-of-Heaven). Next the heavens gave birth to a deity named Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the High-August-Producing-Wondrous-Deity), followed by a third called Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the Divine-Producing-Wondrous-Deity). These three divine beings are called the Three Creating Deities.

In the meantime what was heavy and opaque in the void gradually precipitated and became the earth, but it had taken an immeasurably long time before it condensed sufficiently to form solid ground. In its earliest stages, for millions and millions of years, the earth may be said to have resembled oil floating, medusa-like, upon the face of the waters. Suddenly like the sprouting up of a reed, a pair of immortals were born from its bosom. These were the Deity Umashi-Ashi-Kahibi-Hikoji-no-Mikoto (the Pleasant-Reed-Shoot-Prince-Elder-Deity) and the Deity Ame-no-Tokotachi-no-Mikoto (The Heavenly-Eternally-Standing-Deity). . . .

Many gods were thus born in succession, and so they increased in number, but as long as the world remained in a chaotic state, there was nothing for them to do. Whereupon, all the Heavenly deities summoned the two divine beings, Izanagi and Izanami, and bade them descend to the nebulous place, and by helping each other, to consolidate it into terra firma. "We bestow on you," they said, "this precious treasure, with which to rule the land, the creation of which we command you to perform." So saying they handed them a spear called Ama-no-Nuboko, embellished with costly gems. The divine couple received respectfully and ceremoniously the sacred weapon and then withdrew from the presence of the Deities, ready to perform their august commission.

Proceeding forthwith to the Floating Bridge of Heaven, which lay between the heaven and the earth, they stood awhile to gaze on that which lay below. What they beheld was a world not yet condensed, but looking like a sea of filmy fog floating to and fro in the air, exhaling the while an inexpressibly fragrant odor. They were, at first, perplexed just how and where to start, but at length Izanagi suggested to his companion that they should try the effect of stirring up the brine with their spear. So saying he pushed down the jeweled shaft and found that it touched something. Then drawing it up, he examined it and observed that the great drops which fell from it almost immediately coagulated into an island, which is, to this day, the Island of Onokoro.

Delighted at the result, the two deities descended forthwith from the Floating Bridge to reach the miraculously created island. In this island they thenceforth dwelt and made it the basis of their subsequent task of creating a country. Then wishing to become espoused, they erected in the center oPound the island a pillar, the Heavenly August Pillar, and built around it a great palace called the Hall of Eight Fathoms. Thereupon the male Deity turning to the left and the female Deity to the right, each went round the pillar in opposite directions. When they again met each other on the further side of the pillar, Izanami, the female Deity, speaking first, exclaimed: "How delightful it is to meet so handsome a youth!" To which Izanagi, the male Deity, replied: "How delightful I am to have fallen in with such a lovely maiden!"

After having spoken thus, the male Deity said that it was not in order that woman should anticipate man in a greeting. Nevertheless, they fell into connubial relationship, having been instructed by two wagtails which flew to the spot. Presently the Goddess bore her divine consort a son, but the baby was weak and boneless as a leech. Disgusted with it, they abandoned it on the waters, putting it in a boat made of reeds. Their second offspring was as disappointing as the first. The two Deities, now sorely disappointed at their failure and full of misgivings, ascended to Heaven to inquire of the Heavenly Deities the causes of their misfortunes. The latter performed the ceremony of divining and said to them: "It is the woman's fault. In turning round the Pillar, it was not right and proper that the female Deity should in speaking have taken precedence of the male. That is the reason."

The two Deities saw the truth of this divine suggestion, and made up their minds to rectify the error. So, returning to the earth again, they went once more around the Heavenly Pillar. This time Izanagi spoke first saying: "How delightful to meet so beautiful a maiden!" "How happy I am," responded Izanami, "that I should meet such a handsom youth!" This process was more appropriate and in accordance with the law of nature. After this, all the children born to them left nothing to be desired. First, the island of Awaji was born, next, Shikoku, then, the island of Oki, followed by Kyushu; after that, the island Tsushima came into being, and lastly, Honshu, the main island of Japan. The name of Oyashi- ma-kuni (the Country of the Eight Great Islands) was given to these eight islands. After this, the two Deities became the parents of numerous smaller islands destined to surround the larger ones.

Maybe you haven't heard of this story.  It's the Japanese Creation Myth.  Would you be interested in telling me why this one is false and the one you believe is real?  I mean, really... What was it... a million slaves in Egypt walk through a big rift in the sea?  The firstborn of EVERY SINGLE EGYPTIAN killed in one night, and it's nowhere in the record books?  Rivers turning to blood?  Sounds pretty far fetched to me.  Hell, if I can believe in that, why couldn't I believe in Izanagi and Izanami?  Sounds about as plausible to me, and damn, the Japanese have been around for a long time.  Fourteen thousand years!  Don't you think they'd know more about the beginning of the world than a bunch of interlopers who've just been on the block a couple thousand years?

Quote:
But this is elementary.  I'm sure you've heard such things before, and, because you may not believe the stories of the Bible have a foundation in the real world, you have become quite tired of hearing about it.  What I want to talk about is the Passover feast itself, the one that has been celebrated for 3500 years by a people that rejects Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah foretold in their Scriptures.

Thirty five hundred years?  That would put it at around 1500 BCE.  Are you sure about that?

Quote:
On the 14th day of the first month on the Jewish calendar, (which tends to be May on our calendars, theirs is based off of lunar cycles so it fluctuates) the Passover is celebrated.  Aside from eating the Passover lamb, who's bones are not to be broken, they also will sit down and eat specific, traditional foods that teach things from the story in Exodus 12.  For example, they'll eat a very hot horse-radish ground with beet juice to remind them of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt, then quickly eat sweet apples to take away the bitterness to symbolize the release from slavery. 

Serious question:  Will they be under a curse or something if they break one of the bones?  Will they die a horrible death from the plague?  Will their testicles shrink?

Beets are awesome.  I like beet greens, sauteed, and layered with marscapone cheeze and beet slices on fancy crackers.  Yum.

Quote:
While many aspects of the Passover celebration directly correlate to the story of Christ, (the bitterness, in the above, would symbolize the bitterness of the death of Christ on the cross, and the sweetness would be the sweetness of the resurrection) I won't go into all of those.  I'll instead skip ahead to the fourth step in the Jewish Passover feast (also called the seder) which is called the Yachatz.  During the Yachatz, three pieces of unleavened bread are put before the celebrants.  These pieces of unleavened bread are traditionally baked on pans with indentions and ripples on them, which gives the bread an appearance of having stripes and holes in it.  As the prophet Isaiah says in Chapter 52, "He was to be pierced for our transgressions...and by His stripes we are healed."

So... eating crackers with stripes is good because Jesus got hit with a whip, but eating chocolate Jesus is bad because it's a graven image.

Out of curiosity, do you wear any cross jewelry?

Quote:

If someone were to make a giant chocolate statue of your naked body, you'd probably be flattered, and maybe a little weirded out. Jesus, on the other hand, was just plain furious. According to Catholics, who enjoy chocolate bunnies at Easter, He has no tolerance for chocolate, naked statues at any time of year. A New York art exhibit cleverly titled "My Sweet Jesus" featured a 200lb milk chocolate Jesus on the cross, sans loincloth and showing off all his sacred bits in their chocolatey glory.

Much like with the film the Last Temptation of Christ, the idea of a nudie savior just doesn't go over well with some folks. The head of the Catholic League called it "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever," which is not an understatement at all, as long as you ignore everything else bad that has happened anywhere in the world over the last two thousand years.

Being loving and pious folks intent on expressing how their sensibilities were offended in a calm and mature fashion, the local Christian populace deluged the art gallery with angry phone calls and death threats. The result was the gallery canceling the exhibit and the creative director resigning his position in protest.

But on the upside for offended Christians, they were able to go about the rest of their lives content with the knowledge that nudity doesn't exist, at least not in a public, milk chocolate way. We believe the artist, despondent over the events, retired to his apartment and ate the entire statue over the course of a long, lonely weekend.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16619_7-things-from-pop-culture-that-apparently-piss-jesus-off.html

Quote:
So, they put these three pieces of striped and pierced unleavened bread in a linen basket they call the "Echad" and set it in the middle of the table.  This word "Echad" is used also in the Hebrew Old Testament.  It means "one" or "unity" in the Hebrew (Moses says in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is Echad )  It's important to note that Jewish people are strict unitarians; they do not believe God is Triune.

It is kind of a silly idea.  I mean, being your own dad and a ghost at the same time?  Who thought up that nonsense?

Quote:
Now, the Yachatz proceeds as follows:  the father, or head of the household, takes the middle piece of bread out of the Echad.  He takes hold of the bread, which is called the Afikomen, and breaks it.  He then wraps it in linen and hides it away.  The children in the house then search for the Afikomen and when they find it they return it to their father.  The children don't just give it to him though, the father pays a ransom to get the Afikomen back, which is typically gifts or money or the like.  Everyone at the feast then eats a piece of the Afikomen.

Sounds like a lovely ceremony.

Quote:
On the night Jesus Christ was betrayed, as He and His disciples ate what we call the Last Supper, they weren't just eating any old meal, they were celebrating the Passover.  When Jesus picked up the piece of bread and said, "Take, eat, this is My body broken for you," He was breaking the Afikomen.  

Wow... it's like... wow... It's almost like the people who wrote the story of Jesus had heard of the Passover Feast!

Quote:
The Jewish people have hardened their hearts to Jesus Christ.  They've celebrated this way for 3500 years and they still reject what I'm telling you.  It couldn't be more clear: the history of Christ is in their ancient tradition and Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world.  You likewise must not harden your hearts to Christ for the sake of trivial and disputable objections.  Consider what I've written, but don't take my word for it, look into it for yourself.  If you really want to think freely, seek the truth and the truth will make you free.

I hear they've also infiltrated Hollywood and the New York Stock Market.  Filthy Christ Killers!  Somebody should gas the lot of them.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for reading all of

Thanks for reading all of that.  Couple things:

The story of Jesus wasn't just made up.  Even if you ignore the gospel accounts, you can read the works of many first century historians and get attestation to the life, death, and alleged empty tomb of Jesus.  Josephus, Tacitus, Pliney the Younger, and others attest to Jesus as a man that actually lived in history.  You're putting on blinders if you think Jesus didn't exist at all.

And yes, I did say 3500 years.  1400ish BC is the generally accepted date of the writing of Exodus.  It really isn't amazing that the Bible wouldn't be written until so "late" in human history, we didn't start writing anything down at all until 3000 BC.  Creation stories would have passed by word of mouth until this time.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:Thanks for

Chriswithac wrote:

Thanks for reading all of that.  Couple things:

The story of Jesus wasn't just made up.  Even if you ignore the gospel accounts, you can read the works of many first century historians and get attestation to the life, death, and alleged empty tomb of Jesus.  Josephus, Tacitus, Pliney the Younger, and others attest to Jesus as a man that actually lived in history.  You're putting on blinders if you think Jesus didn't exist at all.

And yes, I did say 3500 years.  1400ish BC is the generally accepted date of the writing of Exodus.  It really isn't amazing that the Bible wouldn't be written until so "late" in human history, we didn't start writing anything down at all until 3000 BC.  Creation stories would have passed by word of mouth until this time.

Josephus: Please read here and then respond

Tacitus: Please read here and then respond

Pliny the younger: Should be mentioned in the 2 above threads... (Pliny btw)

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The story of Jesus

Quote:
The story of Jesus wasn't just made up.

Oh really?  Sounds made up to me.  I mean... walking on water?  Coming back to life after being dead three days?  Getting mad at fig trees for being out of season?  Really?

Quote:
Even if you ignore the gospel accounts, you can read the works of many first century historians and get attestation to the life, death, and alleged empty tomb of Jesus.  Josephus, Tacitus, Pliney the Younger, and others attest to Jesus as a man that actually lived in history.

Josephus and the Testimonium: Is it Evidence of Jesus?

What is the Jesus Mythicist's Position?

An Example of Jewish Fiction Writing in Antiquity

A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus)

Tacitus, Lucian and Josephus

The 'Gospels' are 'Midrash'

The Gospels are Anonymous Works - and None are Eyewitness Accounts

The self refuting nature of "Hermeneutics"

Quote:
And yes, I did say 3500 years.  1400ish BC is the generally accepted date of the writing of Exodus.

Funny.  I was under the impression that the earliest known combination of the three commonly accepted sources of Exodus was around 400BCE.  Shows what I get for trusting those pesky historians instead of preachers.  I could be wrong about this, and it's not a huge point, but I'm just not sure I've seen any archaeology suggesting that the feast is that old.  I think maybe people have just always assumed it was without actually checking.  Maybe Rook can answer this question more definitively.  I'll leave him a note to look at this thread.

Quote:
It really isn't amazing that the Bible wouldn't be written until so "late" in human history, we didn't start writing anything down at all until 3000 BC.

Curious.  I just reread my post, and I didn't say anything about the date the Bible was written or compiled.  (You know it wasn't compiled until well into the first millenium CE, right?  There was no such thing as the Bible before that.)  After thoroughly examining my sentences for clarity and meaning, I've come to the conclusion that you are either avoiding my question or were having a momentary problem with reading comprehension.   If it's the former, I wish you wouldn't do that.   If it's the latter, no biggie.  We all have bad days.  I'm going to ask it again, and try to be more clear.

Can you explain to me why a VERY OLD creation story, older than writing itself, believed by the Japanese long before there was such a thing as Israel, is less credible than a story cooked up by a tribe of nomads that didn't even exist until maybe three or four thousand years ago?

While we're on the subject, did you know that the Mayans had a creation story?  So did the Aztecs.  The Chinese have a really interesting one.  Pangu awoke after 18,000 years of slumber, and the act of his rising from sleep separated the heavens and the earth permanently.  At Pangu's death, creation sprang forth.  His last breath became the wind.  His voice was thunder.  One of his eyes became the moon, and so on, and so forth.  Interestingly, the fleas and lice on his body jumped off and eventually became humans.  Pretty neat, huh?

So, please explain this to me.  I'm trying to be fair about this.  On the one hand, I'm supposed to believe that humans were shaped out of mud, and then Yahweh breathed into them, and they magically came to life.  On the other, I'm supposed to believe that when Pangu died, fleas jumped off of him and magically became people.  Honestly, they both sound pretty far fetched, but apparently there's some compelling reason that you believe one and not the other.

Quote:
Creation stories would have passed by word of mouth until this time.

Right.  So.... Hebrews, even if you are generous (and ignore a lot of archaeology) are only three or four thousand years old.  Their story looks suspiciously like an amalgam of creation myths from older cultures that the Hebrews were geographically near.  Why should I believe that one in particular?  There are plenty of magical stories of creation, and they all sound pretty ridiculous. 

 

P.S.  Actually, tortoise shell carvings in China date back about 8000 years.  People in Egypt didn't start writing until about 3200 BC.

 

P.P.S.  Oh, one more thing.  Why should I believe any really old story of creation when scientists are demonstrably more knowledgable than bronze age mystics about so many things?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
You guys are downright

You guys are downright militant.  All your articles prove is that there is a way to look at human history under the assumption that Jesus didn't exist and that the disciples were all a bunch of liars.  Showing me your worldview doesn't help.  You can read the words of the early historians yourself and make an unbiased assessment.

No need to be rude, catwithagun, I had trouble trying to figure out what you seriously wanted me to respond to.  You catch more flies with honey, btw.

Why do you think I appeal to the Genesis account of creation over the other accounts?  Because Jesus believed it, because it's written in the word of God, what other reason do I need other than "God said so?"

You guys are going way off topic, I'm sorry you're not interested in what I had to say.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:You guys

Chriswithac wrote:

You guys are downright militant.

What? Disagreeing with you is militant? Actually calling us militant is the act of a militant!

Quote:
  All your articles prove is that there is a way to look at human history under the assumption that Jesus didn't exist

You are incorrect. There is no evidence that jesus was an historical individual.

Quote:
 and that the disciples were all a bunch of liars.

There is no evidence that the disciples were historical individuals either.

Quote:
  Showing me your worldview doesn't help.
 

Obviously

Quote:
  You can read the words of the early historians yourself and make an unbiased assessment.

We have many times. It is you who have not read the links posted above. Do so now.

Quote:
No need to be rude, catwithagun, I had trouble trying to figure out what you seriously wanted me to respond to.  You catch more flies with honey, btw.

Rude? Where the hell do you see rude behavior?

Quote:
Why do you think I appeal to the Genesis account of creation over the other accounts?

Because you want people to blindly believe as you do.

Quote:
  Because Jesus believed it,

Who? 

What jesus?

Quote:
 because it's written in the word of God, what other reason do I need other than "God said so?"

What god?

Quote:
You guys are going way off topic, I'm sorry you're not interested in what I had to say.

Have you read the links above?

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You guys are downright

Quote:
You guys are downright militant.

Are you just pissed, or are you trying to say that militant = wrong?

Quote:
All your articles prove is that there is a way to look at human history under the assumption that Jesus didn't exist and that the disciples were all a bunch of liars.

No, actually all the articles prove is that it's more likely that Jesus didn't exist than that he did.

Quote:
Showing me your worldview doesn't help.

That's the thing about theism that's so dangerous.  Dogma is pretty bad like that.  Now, me on the other hand, you show me some credible evidence that Jesus was more likely to have existed than not, and if it's more convincing than the current evidence, I'll change my belief.  Granted, you'd still have a pretty strong uphill battle to convince me that there is a god and that it was some guy in a po-dunk town who got himself killed, but that's another issue.  The point is, you won't change your mind regardless of the facts, and mine is contingent on the facts as I am aware of them.

Quote:
You can read the words of the early historians yourself and make an unbiased assessment.

I have.  The evidence points clearly away from anything remotely approaching the Gospel accounts being in any way factual.

Quote:
No need to be rude, catwithagun, I had trouble trying to figure out what you seriously wanted me to respond to.  You catch more flies with honey, btw.

Monday is my honey day.  Today, it's vinegar. 

Seriously, most people actually do rate honey with me, believe it or not.  Ask anybody.  I'm one of the nicest people here.  You earned my ridicule by presenting a particularly ridiculous argument and avoiding my questions entirely.  I still don't know why you expect me to believe one creation myth over another.  That's really important.  If the Chinese or the Japanese have it right, then there's no reason for me to expect the Christians to be right when they've adopted the Hebrew creation myth as a foundation for their religion.

We've given you really clear evidence that Jesus probably didn't exist.  I've challenged you to justify belief in one story with magic while rejecting another.  You haven't.

Would you like to get mad at us some more, or is it time for you to slink back to church to pray away all the bad feelings the big, mean old atheists gave you?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Civil discussion can be had

Civil discussion can be had without insulting one another, in fact, I think that was one of the rules in this forum.  I admit I only skimmed the articles you linked; it's not anything I haven't heard before.  The writer comes at the facts of history with a preconcieved bias against what is written and with the assumption that it's all a big conspiracy.  That's bad scholarship.  There are plenty of unbiased (many unChristian) historians that would say Jesus existed and was crucified without a doubt in their minds.

Here's something for you to chew on:  can natural processes come about by natural processes?  If you say no, you're appealing to the supernatural.  If you say yes, you're asserting that natural processes existed before natural processes.


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
I grew up in a

I grew up in a fundamentalist christian church with heavy emphasis on the OT.  We cleaned our houses every spring to get all the leavening/sin out and celebrated Passover under the name The Days of Unleavened Bread.  So, I do very much understand the point you are trying to make.  However, I disagree. 

The NT was written to try to conform to Jewish mythology regarding the Messiah.  That's why the Jesus legend seems to conform to their idea of Messiah.  They did not accept him as Messiah because the Jews had been dealing with Messiah claimants for a long time.  I have looked at the evidence.  Personally, I lean towards Jesus being a myth.

I would suggest you search the archived posts and essays for terms like "jesus myth" and such.  Also, the movie The God Who Wasn't There is quite an interesting place to start if you want to seek the truth.  As you note, the truth will set you free.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:Civil

Chriswithac wrote:
Civil discussion can be had without insulting one another, in fact, I think that was one of the rules in this forum.  I admit I only skimmed the articles you linked; it's not anything I haven't heard before.  The writer comes at the facts of history with a preconcieved bias against what is written and with the assumption that it's all a big conspiracy.  That's bad scholarship.  There are plenty of unbiased (many unChristian) historians that would say Jesus existed and was crucified without a doubt in their minds.
It is instantly appearant that you skipped the vast majority of the articles presented to you. Rook's arguments and evidence are quite strong, and stand on thier own without need for "bias". Had you taken the time to actually read the artices, then perhaps you could counter them with something stronger than what amounts to insulting the writer.

 

Chriswithac wrote:
Here's something for you to chew on:  can natural processes come about by natural processes?  If you say no, you're appealing to the supernatural.  If you say yes, you're asserting that natural processes existed before natural processes.
I'm going to have to make an assumption to make sense of this, and that assumption is you're talking about the begenning of the universe.

If you are, then please understand that a question like "what was there before the universe?" has the same meaning as "What's north of the north pole?"

Here's something for you to chew on: If there is something outside nature, meaning it has no location and no mass and no energy, then what is it? How would we detect it? How could it have an effect on the natural universe?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Civil discussion can

Quote:
Civil discussion can be had without insulting one another, in fact, I think that was one of the rules in this forum.
Go back and look again.  Nowhere have I called you any names or insulted you personally -- apart from the one instance where you obviously didn't answer the question I asked, and I suggested the possibility that you had a momentary lapse of cognitive ability.  That's hardly insulting, considering that I immediately dismissed it as inconsequential because everybody does it sometimes.  Would you like to argue about how we're arguing, or do you have any interest in answering the questions I've asked you?
Quote:
I admit I only skimmed the articles you linked; it's not anything I haven't heard before.
You admit your ignorance, yet you want to continue arguing your position.  You're not making a good case for yourself.
Quote:
The writer comes at the facts of history with a preconcieved bias against what is written and with the assumption that it's all a big conspiracy.
You're right.  It's obvious you haven't read the articles I linked because this is completely inaccurate.  I'm not going to tell you what they say because YOU SHOULD READ THEM YOURSELF.
Quote:
That's bad scholarship.
It certainly would be.  I wonder how that might apply to the thousands of scholars who have assumed, for centuries, that Jesus existed, without actually applying the same standards to him that they do for other proposed historical characters.  What do you think?
Quote:
There are plenty of unbiased (many unChristian) historians that would say Jesus existed and was crucified without a doubt in their minds.
There are plenty of historians who have not addressed the questions raised by the scholarship of Jesus mythicists.  Until they do, their position is tenuous at best.  The evidence, or rather the evidence and the accompanying lack of evidence, are out there for anybody to see.  We don't believe something because a scholar says it.  We believe it because it's good scholarship.  Then again, YOU HAVEN'T READ ANY OF IT, so why are we even having this conversation?  Now, would you like to go back and answer the very simple question I've asked you twice now?  How do I know which story of magic to believe?  This doesn't have anything to do with Jesus.  It has to do with why I'd believe the Hebrew creation myth instead of the Chinese one.  Please tell me what scholarly criteria I should use to determine whether or not people were made of mud, or grew from fleas.
Quote:
Here's something for you to chew on:  can natural processes come about by natural processes?
So, you'd like to talk about cosmology now? Ok.  READ BEFORE SPEAKING AGAIN, please:Doesn't Everyone Need To Start Out With an Assumption?"God" is an incoherent termA Materialist Account for Abstractions - or - How Theists Misplace the Universe.

In short, there is no way for any process to come about except through natural processes because "supernatural" is incoherent.  Read about it here:'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial') are broken concepts

Quote:
If you say no, you're appealing to the supernatural.  If you say yes, you're asserting that natural processes existed before natural processes.
ROFL.  Yeah, dude.  The natural processes that existed before the natural processes that came after were existing before.  Duh.  Maybe what you mean to say is that I'm asserting infinite regress in some way.  This problem is addressed in several ways by some of the current theories of the beginning of the universe.  Perhaps space-time existed in another way before the big bang.   There's no way to know.  Perhaps the multiverse theory is right.  Perhaps the big bang was triggered by the collapse of a previous universe.  Again.  No way to know.  The point is simply made, though.  As long as there has been space-time in the current configuration, yes, everything that happened had a space-time cause/effect relationship.  

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:Civil

Chriswithac wrote:
Civil discussion can be had without insulting one another, in fact, I think that was one of the rules in this forum.

Dude. There was no insult. Stop being so sensitive. Unless you're just trying to find something to be upset about so that you won't have to address the actual points made regarding your baseless assertions.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Dude. There was

KSMB wrote:
Dude. There was no insult. Stop being so sensitive. Unless you're just trying to find something to be upset about so that you won't have to address the actual points made regarding your baseless assertions.
I'm asking this as an honest question:

Does it seem to anyone else that there is a cultural tendency among bible-believing theists to seek a reason to feel oppressed/martyr-like?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Does it seem to anyone

Quote:
Does it seem to anyone else that there is a cultural tendency among bible-believing theists to seek a reason to feel oppressed/martyr-like?

This shouldn't surprise anyone, since their whole religion is based on an act of martyrdom.  To be Christ-like is to be persecuted.  I used to hear this all the time in church.  Good Christians are supposed to revel in persecution.  The natural human tendency, then, would be to creatively invent persecution when there was even a smidgen of its appearance.

But yeah, I have a hard time understanding why Christians get their panties in a bunch when they come to an atheist board, don't answer any questions asked of them, and then get less than a hearty welcome.  Just for shits and giggles, it would be fun to get a bunch of atheists together to go into sunday school classes, break into the lecture, and promote atheism.   I wonder how warmly they'd be received.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:This

Hambydammit wrote:
This shouldn't surprise anyone, since their whole religion is based on an act of martyrdom.  To be Christ-like is to be persecuted.  I used to hear this all the time in church.  Good Christians are supposed to revel in persecution.  The natural human tendency, then, would be to creatively invent persecution when there was even a smidgen of its appearance.
I'm not so much surprised as annoyed. I mean, c'mon. In the US bible-believers are by far the majority, and the minorities have to jump on every over-step they take to prevent themselves being crushed by weight of numbers alone. These calls of "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!" are utter twaddle. How about they consider moving for a while to somewhere on Earth where Christians really are persecuted. You know, just to get it out of their system, as it were.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

 Yikes, looks like I have come in to this discussion late.  I'll handle a few basics in this post and handle the specifics in those to follow.  Each of these basic points could be made into whole books, and in fact have been (sources provided below).  This is not going to be a comprehensive response (see the resources listed for additional, thorough and comprehensive studies of both the textual and archaeological evidence).

Israelites: Their Origins and Understanding Migrations in the Ancient Near East

I want to start this discussion by first dealing with one misconception.  No Biblical scholar today would call the Hebrew Bible a history book (or technically, a collection of histories).  There is no way, regardless of how "conservative" a scholar might be (and I use this terminology with extreme distaste and caution), there is no way to fit the archaeological record that we have from the ancient Near East (which is really quite extensive) with the Biblical accounts.  Let me repeat:  There is no way to fit (i.e. match) the accounts written in the Bible with the archaeological evidence.  Now that this is made clear, the most "conservative" (once again, this terminology is used cautiously) studies done in relation to the entity so-called "ancient Israel" reflect what these scholars accept as 'memories' of traditions that may hold historical inklings, but have been shaded by redaction, tradition evolution through a society, through word of mouth, or intentionally elaborated by those with specific interests.  Eissfeldt, as early as 1923, perpetuated this perspective among scholars who were growing uneasy about the fact that the archaeological data being gathered contradicted the Biblical accounts of "ancient Israel".

The problems for scholars early on in the Twentieth century (and also today) were a many.  There were no records of the Exodus or of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites after a release from captivity, specifically none from the Egyptian kingdoms whom would have mentioned the devastation that these slaves and the plagues left.  Subsequent attempts by scholars to try to date the exodus period have failed, mainly because the various details in the story do not add up to any one particular period.  Other problems for the Biblical accounts are direr.  During the generations that the Israelites were supposed to be roaming the desert, the whole region was under occupation by the New Kingdom's of Egypt, with outposts in the desert regions between Egypt and Palestine, and armies of great Pharaohs roamed through these regions in constant conquests and campaigns deeper into Canaan.  The region where the Israelites spent much of their time (Qadesh-Barnea) has yielded absolutely no archaeological finds in support of any activity between the Middle Bonze Age and the 10th Century BCE (even later, as some argue).  Additionally, from Akkadian texts, we know that Jerusalem already did exist during one of these periods, under the rule of Egyptians and Akkadians (who were like the strong arm of the Egyptians when the Egyptians were not there) prior to when the Israelites supposedly settled there as recorded from Biblical texts).  Various correspondence from the city to the Pharaoh’s by the Akkadian rulers of Jerusalem have been translated.  Most scholars today are positive that the tradition of an Exodus arrives later rather than earlier, and there are more than a few who would date the exodus tradition as late as the Hellenistic age.  (Although most are happy to date it to the Persian Period, but not earlier)

Additionally, many of the settlements which were claimed to be destroyed by Joshua did not contain the sort of defenses talked about in the Bible, in fact they were much weaker, and have been discovered to have been destroyed naturally (by earthquakes, which were frequent in the region) or by migration or conquest by the Egyptians earlier (in some cases locating these cities is difficult and often it is so that many settlements lay claim to a name).  From the archaeological evidence discovered in the hill country (amulets, pottery, architecture, settlement styles, religious artifacts and inscriptions along with names and language) determine that the Israelites were in fact transJordians.  In other words, they migrated from the east into the region of the Hill Country.  Although, some scholars now posit they were indigenous to Canaan and only during the period between the 10th-9th centuries BCE did the people migrate into the Hill Country to escape taxes.  Others postulate different reasons for the move into the hill country, but it is now almost a consensus in scholarship that whether they immigrated from the south-east or not, they were indigenous to the region of Palestine.

To settle the discrepancies between the Hebrew Bible and the archaeological record, Eissfeldt devised a way to keep the integrity of the text while granting the evidence.  But even his proposal was an elaborate way of saying that the Biblical text was a fiction.  Even by concluding that the Hebrew Bible contained some “memory tradition”, essentially the suggestion is that everything but the tradition isn’t, in fact, true.  Later scholars, like Alt, Noth and Albright tried to reassess Eissfeldt and come up with new solutions to establish the Hebrew Bible as authentic, but they did so often taking for granted the archaeological data in place of Biblical narrative.  In other words, they used the text instead of the hard data recovered from the sites in question.  John Miller and John Hayes reexamined these hypotheses in their collaborative work in 1977, eventually dismissing it (along with most of scholarship by this point).  Finkelstein, Thompson, Van Seters and Niels Peter Lemche followed suit.  (Actually, Thompson’s critique came prior to Miller and Hayes’, by several years)  After these additional studies, along with fresh new discoveries and advances in historical methods to reflect more scientific approaches, it was discovered that many scholars following in the wake of Albright and Eissfeldt had purposefully mishandled the evidence, whether by letting bias rule their interpretations or translations (like Speiser had done with the Nuzi tablets) or completely ignored the archaeological data to create whole proposals based on little more than speculation.

Moreso, it was determined that the only time Israel really started showing up in extrabiblical texts was during the mid-late 10th century, but even these inscriptions tended to be dubious and written more as poetry and conquest narratives than histories, leaving lots of unanswered questions concerning their origins and what the inscribers motivations were.  The archaeological evidence suggests that the state of Israel, in and of itself, didn’t really exist until the Persian Period, and only for a short time before the exilic period.

Finally, new studies of the Biblical narrative, along with style, typology, and literary composition, determined that the narratives themselves did not go back as far as was originally proposed in earlier studies in the twentieth century.  It is now accepted that at the earliest, the traditions can only go back as far as the tenth century, with (perhaps) some traditions interpreted from other cultures that go back a little further.  This is scholarship at its current consensus. Many have proposed an even later composition, such as Lemche’s dating of the scriptures to the Hellenistic period in their entirety.  And he isn’t alone.

For a more detailed investigation of some of the claims that are made on the theist side, one can check out my review of Gary Rendsburg: http://www.rationalresponders.com/ancient_israel

ADDITIONAL STUDIES

Miller & Hayes, 1977

Lester Grabbe, 2001; 2007

Thomas L. Thompson, 1974; 1992

John Van Seters, 1966; 1975

Niels Peter Lemche, 1977; 1985; 1991; 1998; 2008 (in press)

Philip R. Davies, 1992

Gosta Ahlstrom, 1993

Emanuel Pfoh, 2009-2010 (in press)

Israel Finkelstein, 1994; 1995; 2001; 2006

Giovanni Garbini, 1986; 1988; 1997; 2004

More extensive bibliographies can be found in these works above.  See my article also for additional material.  I hope this helps answer some pesky illusions the OP may have had regarding "ancient Israel".

{deleted Microsoft Word code - aiia}

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Okay, I've got a little time

Okay, I've got a little time on my hands so I'll do what I can to respond to the position of the forum consensus. 

From that Tacitus article:

"Jeffery Jay Lowder states:

"There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term "Christians," which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero's vices...""

This really is a pretty laughable claim.  No good reason?  Wasn't he the formost Roman historian of the first century?  Do you think the Annals is just a collection of random claims Tacitus picked up off the street?  It's in fact just the opposite, if we're going to regard Tacitus as any sort of historian at all, there IS good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independant research concerning the historicity of Jesus.

What does the Annals say?  "Chrestus suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate during the reign of Tiberius."  That's exactly what the Bible says.  Luke 3:1, "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar-when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea..."  

Like it or not, Tacitus is making a historic claim about Jesus Christ as a historical person.  Now, if you choose to ignore this historic claim, or nonsensically speculate that Tacitus was suffering from temporary insanity, I suppose you're free to to do that.  But if you're looking at things objectively, the Annals is not in the "win column" for you guys, and I assume it must be very embarrasing if you insist on thinking Jesus didn't exist. 

Tacitus is offering enemy attestation, by the way.  Tacitus had no vested interest in citing the existence of Christ, he's just doing it because it's history.

As for Josephus, I've never read his works, so I can't fairly contribute much in the way of discussion, though I do think an argument based on the assumption of interpolations is pretty weak.  What if you're wrong?  It's impossible to disprove such blind skepticism.

I couldn't find an article waving away the writings of the early Rabbis, so you might want to have Rook write a contrived piece on that.  The writings of the Talmud record little about Christianity and certianly nothing favorable about it.  According writings of the early Rabbis, Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor that practiced magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said He had come to add to the words of the Law.  He's called the Ha-Taluy (Hanged One) who had been hanged on Passover eve for heresy and misleading the people.  It records the names of five of His disciples, stating that they healed the sick in His name.

In regards to the Old Testament, you're assuming that its references can't be true until they're all verified by outside sources.  This really isn't being fair to the document at all, considering that it spans a history of several thousand years.  We aren't going to find all the information we need to perfectly cross-reference all the claims in the Scripture, time and entropy has made that impossible.

However, that doesn't mean there aren't any outside sources of attestation for the Old Testament.  We know the civilizations and the kings the Torah mentions existed because we can look at their own histories.  Archaeological finds are telling us that the Torah is giving us accurate history, and of course there's never been any find that has directly controverted a biblical reference.  The Torah itself asserts itself as a history document, giving detailed geneologies of the families and kings of Israel and nearby nations.  Why is so much time, ink and paper wasted on writing out these long geneologies, by the way, if it's all allegorical and not historic in nature?

My opinion is that if a document is regarded by the three most prominent thiestic religions as the word of God, and it's not disproven by archaeology, we should really be willing to give it the benefit of the doubt when it makes isolated claims. 

The studies you're citing are about as liberal as they get.  There are plenty of scholars that believe the Old Testament is historical; that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, David wrote most of the Psalms, etc.  These sorts of studies are directly biased against it's historicity, when really, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that the Bible is not historical. 

 


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Hamby,Here's a definition

Hamby,

Here's a definition for God:  He's defined by revelation of Himself, all other definitions are inadequate.  We can only know of God what God reveals, since no one but God has seen God in His full glory.  Jesus Christ is defined as the God-Man, so He provides a practical definition of what God is like as an application for our lives.  He existed fully as God, yet fully as a man during the incarnation.  This is only illogical if you think you can impose limitations on what God can and cannot do.  He has revealed that He certianly isn't limited in this fashion.

In the case of abstractions, the article provides a "just is" answer to a much more complex problem for you guys.  It isn't just about where the laws of logic are in your brain, it's why are the laws of logic logical?  Why is the universe coherent or intelligible?  Why should the universe be meaningful at all, and why should your cognitive function be useful in understanding it? 

Logic and meaningfulness presuppose that there is a God that makes things meaningful.  Why should intelligibility exist in a universe that came about at random?

And I appreciate your concession of the point on my cosmological argument.  I agree that it's not without flaws, but it does demonstrate pretty nicely that our current scientific understanding of the origin of the universe comports with the biblical account.

 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac

Chriswithac wrote:

Quote:
There are plenty of scholars that believe the Old Testament is historical; that Moses wrote the Pentateuch

"So Moses the servant of the lord, died there in the land of Moab, according the the word of the lord and he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab"

Deuteronomy  34: 5-6

Before Rook hands you your ass (I mean more than he already has, of course).. please explain how Moses wrote about his own death.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I had a post written up and

I had a post written up and lost it all because this site does not have a means to save a post while typing, and if the back button is hit accidentally, every thing is lost.  Needless to say I'm livid.  So I'm not going to bother with a reply right now because if I did, it would be ugly.  Aside from the fact that Chriswithac is a complete nutter who knows nothing about ancient history, I would be repeating myself and have the anger there from just losing a reply to said nutter.  So let me make this perfectly clear.

Chris, this is your first warning, and after this warning you will not like the way you'll be treated.  You are trolling right now.  You're trolling because a.) you are not reading what is being asked of you, b.) you're not backing up any of your claims which are all bullshit anyway (prove me wrong, back them up), and c.) you're ignoring posts being made against your positions.

If you do not change this behavior, I will give you a troll badge and commit all your posts and threads to trollville.  Capice?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Here's a definition

Quote:
Here's a definition for God:  He's defined by revelation of Himself, all other definitions are inadequate.  We can only know of God what God reveals, since no one but God has seen God in His full glory.  Jesus Christ is defined as the God-Man, so He provides a practical definition of what God is like as an application for our lives.  He existed fully as God, yet fully as a man during the incarnation.  This is only illogical if you think you can impose limitations on what God can and cannot do.  He has revealed that He certianly isn't limited in this fashion.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
 Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
 And the mome raths outgrabe.
 
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
 The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
 The frumious Bandersnatch!"
 
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
 Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
 And stood awhile in thought
 
And as in uffish thought he stood,
 The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
 And burbled as it came!
 
One, two! One, two! and through and through
 The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
 He went galumphing back.
 
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
 Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
 He chortled in his joy.
 
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
 Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
 And the mome raths outgrabe.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:You catch

Chriswithac wrote:

You catch more flies with honey, btw.

Yeah, but then you have flies in your honey. Yech.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac

Chriswithac wrote:

Hamby,

Here's a definition for God:  He's defined by revelation of Himself, all other definitions are inadequate.  We can only know of God what God reveals, since no one but God has seen God in His full glory.  Jesus Christ is defined as the God-Man, so He provides a practical definition of what God is like as an application for our lives.  He existed fully as God, yet fully as a man during the incarnation.  This is only illogical if you think you can impose limitations on what God can and cannot do.  He has revealed that He certianly isn't limited in this fashion.

In the case of abstractions, the article provides a "just is" answer to a much more complex problem for you guys.  It isn't just about where the laws of logic are in your brain, it's why are the laws of logic logical?  Why is the universe coherent or intelligible?  Why should the universe be meaningful at all, and why should your cognitive function be useful in understanding it? 

Logic and meaningfulness presuppose that there is a God that makes things meaningful.  Why should intelligibility exist in a universe that came about at random?

And I appreciate your concession of the point on my cosmological argument.  I agree that it's not without flaws, but it does demonstrate pretty nicely that our current scientific understanding of the origin of the universe comports with the biblical account.

Hey! I've had this discussion before!

The coherence of the universe is not predicated by a God. It is predicated upon the consistency of the laws of the universe. This is important, as it is one of the defining features of the universe that allows us to gain knowledge of the universe through the application of the scientific method.

Logic itself precludes God's existence. Logic can only work if there is consistency and coherence througout the universe. That is, the laws that govern the behavior of energy and matter apply equally well both here on earth, and in the farthest galaxy. The definition of God you yourself gave supercedes these laws; and so the existence of God would cause logic to break down.

There is an objective, universal logic. It is independent of God, unless you define God as logic, which is a tautology, and kinda silly besides.

As far as "meaningfulness," what is that, exactly? It sounds like a human desire, independent of the rest of the objective universe. As such, pushing "meaning" into the universe is nothing more than projection, and has nothing at all to do with objective reality.

As far as the random origins of the universe, who said it's random? As we don't know how the universe came to be, who are we to say it was random? However, the opposite of "random" is not "purposeful." It's simply non-random. Chaos itself is non-random; although individual predictions are impossible, there are emergent patterns. So the thought that the universe is "random" is unhelpful and uninteresting, and not even applicable.

If you require the thought of God to give your life meaning, you are welcome to your thought of God. Assuming that God is real ignores the fundamental nature of the universe -- a universe with consistent, coherent laws that govern the behavior of matter and energy. And, if there was a God, assuming that this God is a specific God (that is, the God of Abraham, with his crucified rugrat) is arrogant.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It isn't just about

Quote:
It isn't just about where the laws of logic are in your brain, it's why are the laws of logic logical?

Let me guess.  You've never even read Descartes, have you?

Maybe you've heard of that line, "I think, therefore I am"?  Pretty famous.  In big boy school, we learn that this is derived from an axiom.  An axiom is true because it can be no other way.  To question one's own existence, one must exist.  This is irrefutable.  Logic, my padawan learner, is derived deductively from axioms.  Deduction must be true because axioms must be true.

Tell you what man... get yourself some of that good weed and try to think of a way you could exist without existing.  If you figure it out, let me know.  Otherwise, logic is logical because there is no other alternative.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Please

Hambydammit wrote:

Please tell me what scholarly criteria I should use to determine whether or not people were made of mud, or grew from fleas.

I vote for fleas. People are damned irritating.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I wish I could remember

I wish I could remember which myth it is, but there's a really old one that says some god or another jerked off into his hand, swallowed it, and spit out humanity.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Atum

Atum


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Egyptian... right... thanks,

Egyptian... right... thanks, Aiia

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:I had a

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
I had a post written up and lost it all because this site does not have a means to save a post while typing, and if the back button is hit accidentally,
In the rare event I make a particularly long post, I usually do so in a word processor and then copy and paste it.


 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I was thinking about why I

I was thinking about why I got so angry about my posts being lost, because they weren't long posts.  I'm sure some of it has to do with lost time (because I lost the post twice).  But more of it has to do with my attitude.  I really have to force myself to be collected when I answer posts to people like Chriswithac.  I have to force myself to not attack his stupidity with every point.  It takes a lot out of me and I find that after I finish a post, I feel dirty, like I just took a mud bath or something.  When I lost those two posts in response to the same questions I've answered on this message board ad nauseum, I had lost all ability to be cool headed about my replies.  I could answer him a third time in a word document, paste it over when I'm done, but the replies would have been ferocious attacks and demeaning, which I knew would not be the right thing to do.  I had no energy left to censor myself, so I just left it at that.  Plus, I'm just sick and tired of his blatant arrogance, especially in light of the fact that he doesn't read anything that is given to him to read.  He ignores it and still pretends to know something. 

That anger has fled away today, however, so I'll be able to post something up.  But, I'm not going to respond to Christwithac directly, but indirectly.  I'm going to work on a blog post exposing the problems with ancient historians because so many Christians are downright ignorant about them, thinking ignorantly that ancient historians were thorough and precise in their details, which is farthest from the truth.  I'll post a link to it in this thread when finished.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
 God is not "logic", God is

 

God is not "logic", God is logical.  Thinking coherently and rationally is a part of His character.  He has graciously bestowed upon His creation the ability to think similarly, though obviously on a much lower level.  God says in Isaiah 55:9, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” 

 

 

So you’re misdefining who God is.  He’s not in the “farthest galaxy”; He’s in an eternal and spiritual realm outside our understanding of what reality is.  It’s very arrogant to assume that a being in such a lofty position would be subject to the laws of logic as we understand them.

 

 

 

You have no means of accounting for an “objective, universal logic.”  There’s no reason to believe that a universe blindly springing into existence by chance should develop objective or universal concepts.  I do have a means of explaining the existence of logic, God gave it to us. 

 

 

 

Do you know what the Bible says about unbelievers?  Not your eternal destiny, more specifically your state of mind.  It says in Romans the 1st chapter that the unregenerate man is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.  The apostle Paul goes on to explain that what may be known about God is manifest in them, because God Himself has shown it to them.  God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen by the created man, including His divine nature and eternal power. 

 

 

 

The Scripture asserts that God has so clearly and unmistakably revealed Himself to the man that the man will be completely without excuse for failing to believe in Him.  Although God has revealed Himself to you, you have refused to worship Him as you ought to.  You weren’t even thankful that He decided to bless you with life in your lungs. 

 

 

 

God therefore, because you love foolishness and wickedness, has given you over to a debased mind and has darkened your hearts to allow you to practice the intellectual evil you so desire.  

 

 

 

Now, the Scripture cannot be broken.  God has revealed Himself to you and you have no excuse for your failure to worship Him.  I wish I had the time to stay and answer all of your articles and posts, but I just don’t.  I also don’t feel like debate is very welcome here; rather than answer me, Mr. Hawkins has chosen to slander me as intellectually dishonest instead.  I cited the Talmud, I cited the Annals, and I’m going off the archaeological evidence for ancient civilizations cited in my NIV Study Bible and my Halley’s Bible Handbook, and though I’m certainly not an authority on ancient history, I trust these before I trust your off-hand word, Rook.  I suspect you’re the one being dishonest.  These people seem to respect you quite a bit, so I apologize if I’ve caused you to lose face with them. 

 

 

 

I should also note that you shouldn’t count yourselves damned already; Paul goes on to explain later in the book of Romans that all men can be saved of their intellectual sin as well as all their other sins if they’ll repent and have faith in Jesus Christ

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:<werds>I'm

Chriswithac wrote:
<werds>
I'm curious: Do you really think a list of bald assertions and emotional appeals is going to have any effect on folks who can recognise them for what they are?


As for Rook, He's lost no face here. All you've managed to do is to attack Rook himself, rather than his work. This is typically a sign of someone who has nothing to bring to the debate.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1264
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Chriswithac wrote:He&rsquo;s

Chriswithac wrote:
He’s in an eternal and spiritual realm outside our understanding of what reality is.  It’s very arrogant to assume that a being in such a lofty position would be subject to the laws of logic as we understand them....God has revealed Himself to you and you have no excuse for your failure to worship Him.
 So god is outside our understanding of what reality is...but he has revealed himself to us. Apparently you assume your argument isn't subject to the laws of logic.  Arrogance or Ignorance?  You decide.

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote: God is

Chriswithac wrote:

 

God is not "logic", God is logical.  Thinking coherently and rationally is a part of His character.  He has graciously bestowed upon His creation the ability to think similarly, though obviously on a much lower level.  God says in Isaiah 55:9, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” 

 

 

So you’re misdefining who God is.  He’s not in the “farthest galaxy”; He’s in an eternal and spiritual realm outside our understanding of what reality is.  It’s very arrogant to assume that a being in such a lofty position would be subject to the laws of logic as we understand them.

 

 

 

You have no means of accounting for an “objective, universal logic.”  There’s no reason to believe that a universe blindly springing into existence by chance should develop objective or universal concepts.  I do have a means of explaining the existence of logic, God gave it to us. 

 

 

 

Do you know what the Bible says about unbelievers?  Not your eternal destiny, more specifically your state of mind.  It says in Romans the 1st chapter that the unregenerate man is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.  The apostle Paul goes on to explain that what may be known about God is manifest in them, because God Himself has shown it to them.  God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen by the created man, including His divine nature and eternal power. 

 

 

 

The Scripture asserts that God has so clearly and unmistakably revealed Himself to the man that the man will be completely without excuse for failing to believe in Him.  Although God has revealed Himself to you, you have refused to worship Him as you ought to.  You weren’t even thankful that He decided to bless you with life in your lungs. 

 

 

 

God therefore, because you love foolishness and wickedness, has given you over to a debased mind and has darkened your hearts to allow you to practice the intellectual evil you so desire.  

 

 

 

Now, the Scripture cannot be broken.  God has revealed Himself to you and you have no excuse for your failure to worship Him.  I wish I had the time to stay and answer all of your articles and posts, but I just don’t.  I also don’t feel like debate is very welcome here; rather than answer me, Mr. Hawkins has chosen to slander me as intellectually dishonest instead.  I cited the Talmud, I cited the Annals, and I’m going off the archaeological evidence for ancient civilizations cited in my NIV Study Bible and my Halley’s Bible Handbook, and though I’m certainly not an authority on ancient history, I trust these before I trust your off-hand word, Rook.  I suspect you’re the one being dishonest.  These people seem to respect you quite a bit, so I apologize if I’ve caused you to lose face with them. 

 

 

 

I should also note that you shouldn’t count yourselves damned already; Paul goes on to explain later in the book of Romans that all men can be saved of their intellectual sin as well as all their other sins if they’ll repent and have faith in Jesus Christ

 

I'd like to propose the theory that mental illness may have a direct relation to the overuse of big font.

or perhaps mental illness is pretending big font can masquerade as the voice of jesus calling his sheep away from the path of "intellectual evil".  

Either way, Chriswithac, you make me glad I didn't expend much energy on a reply.

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote: God is

Chriswithac wrote:
 

God is not "logic", God is logical.  Thinking coherently and rationally is a part of His character.  He has graciously bestowed upon His creation the ability to think similarly, though obviously on a much lower level.  God says in Isaiah 55:9, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.”

You've yet to establish the bible's authority, yet you still use it to prove what god is? 

 

Quote:
So you’re misdefining who God is.  He’s not in the “farthest galaxy”; He’s in an eternal and spiritual realm outside our understanding of what reality is.  It’s very arrogant to assume that a being in such a lofty position would be subject to the laws of logic as we understand them.
How do you know?  Where's your evidence?

 

 

 

Quote:
You have no means of accounting for an “objective, universal logic.”  There’s no reason to believe that a universe blindly springing into existence by chance should develop objective or universal concepts.  I do have a means of explaining the existence of logic, God gave it to us.
If god gave us logic, why do you, god's follower not use it?

 

 

Quote:
Do you know what the Bible says about unbelievers?  Not your eternal destiny, more specifically your state of mind.  It says in Romans the 1st chapter that the unregenerate man is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.  The apostle Paul goes on to explain that what may be known about God is manifest in them, because God Himself has shown it to them.  God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen by the created man, including His divine nature and eternal power.
Is that for all non-believers?  Does that include non believers of Odin, and FSM?

 

 

 

Quote:
The Scripture asserts that God has so clearly and unmistakably revealed Himself to the man that the man will be completely without excuse for failing to believe in Him.  Although God has revealed Himself to you, you have refused to worship Him as you ought to.  You weren’t even thankful that He decided to bless you with life in your lungs.
Which scripture?  I've seen one that reveals he has the strenght of a unicorn.  You have however revealed yourself as a raving looney.

 

 

Quote:
God therefore, because you love foolishness and wickedness, has given you over to a debased mind and has darkened your hearts to allow you to practice the intellectual evil you so desire.
So god's okay with me being an atheist?  That's good to know.

 

 

Quote:
Now, the Scripture cannot be broken.
The last bible I read had some water damage rendering a few pages of Numbers unreadable.  I sure hope that wasn't something important. 
Quote:
God has revealed Himself to you and you have no excuse for your failure to worship Him.  I wish I had the time to stay and answer all of your articles and posts, but I just don’t.  I also don’t feel like debate is very welcome here; rather than answer me, Mr. Hawkins has chosen to slander me as intellectually dishonest instead.  I cited the Talmud, I cited the Annals, and I’m going off the archaeological evidence for ancient civilizations cited in my NIV Study Bible and my Halley’s Bible Handbook, and though I’m certainly not an authority on ancient history, I trust these before I trust your off-hand word, Rook.  I suspect you’re the one being dishonest.  These people seem to respect you quite a bit, so I apologize if I’ve caused you to lose face with them.
Actually, no god has reveal him\her\it self to me and I'm not quite bat shit crazy enough to worship make believe. 

 

btw, quoting apologist with your same lack of logic doesn't really make you any more credible.

 

 

Quote:
I should also note that you shouldn’t count yourselves damned already; Paul goes on to explain later in the book of Romans that all men can be saved of their intellectual sin as well as all their other sins if they’ll repent and have faith in Jesus Christ
Awesome I kind of like the bigger font size.

 

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:God is not

Chriswithac wrote:

God is not "logic", God is logical.  Thinking coherently and rationally is a part of His character.  He has graciously bestowed upon His creation the ability to think similarly, though obviously on a much lower level.  God says in Isaiah 55:9, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.”

Chris,

I never once called God "logic." You made the claim that logic is impossible without God. My reply was simple: not only is logic possible without God, it is impossible with God. My argument was straightforward: the universe has proven itself to be consistent and coherent. If God were real, He would necessarily be outside the consistent and coherent universe. Otherwise, he would simply be the universe, and subject to the consistency and coherency we observe.

Now, rather than rebutting what I said, you seem to be abandoning the philosophic discussion you started, and using the Bible as if it formed the basis of a proof. Trying to use the Bible to prove the existence and nature of God is a tautology, and logically void. It's like me trying to prove that ghosts exist by showing you the movie Ghostbusters.

I would very much like to pursue the philosophical discussion you started, concerning the necessity of God for logic to work. (This is very similar to an argument presented by Marty Fields some time back, which I enjoyed very much, but haven't had time to finish responding to in full. Marty at least deserved attention, as his arguments, though flawed from my point of view, were at least well-thought-out and articulate.)

However, it seems you're going to flee, instead.

Quote:

Now, the Scripture cannot be broken.  God has revealed Himself to you and you have no excuse for your failure to worship Him.  I wish I had the time to stay and answer all of your articles and posts, but I just don’t.  I also don’t feel like debate is very welcome here; rather than answer me, Mr. Hawkins has chosen to slander me as intellectually dishonest instead.  I cited the Talmud, I cited the Annals, and I’m going off the archaeological evidence for ancient civilizations cited in my NIV Study Bible and my Halley’s Bible Handbook, and though I’m certainly not an authority on ancient history, I trust these before I trust your off-hand word, Rook.  I suspect you’re the one being dishonest.  These people seem to respect you quite a bit, so I apologize if I’ve caused you to lose face with them.

Actually, I wish you would answer just one. Really. Just one. So far, you have said only one thing: "The Bible says it's true, and other people say the Bible is true, so I believe it."

As far as debate being welcome: debate is generally very civil here. Sure, some of us can be rude sometimes, but in general, if you have shown the ability and the willingness to engage in debate, rather than preach (which is all you've done), debate is very welcome.

Quote:

I should also note that you shouldn’t count yourselves damned already; Paul goes on to explain later in the book of Romans that all men can be saved of their intellectual sin as well as all their other sins if they’ll repent and have faith in Jesus Christ.

I don't count myself damned, thanks. I lead a pretty good life, and I have a great job, a fantastic wife, two pretty good dogs, and a decent (though modest) house. I enjoy myself most of the time; and I attempt to help others enjoy their lives. If there is a God, and He wishes to damn me simply because I didn't worship Him, He doesn't deserve to be worshipped anyway.

I'm very much resisting the temptation to say snide and snotty things. Your anti-intellectual rants; your arrogance and hypocrisy in claiming that nobody can understand God, but you know he is the Christian God; your insistence on using the Bible to prove the Bible; all this indicates you have no intention of holding an actual debate. You instead appear to desire to proclaim your knowledge and our ignorance, all while remaining wilfully ignorant about the cosmology, history, and philosophy you fleetingly attempt to invoke. Your posts are not debate: they are sermons. You are attempting to convince us to believe an archaic text that exalts the existence of a petulant God, while you denigrate the only true currency here: rationalism and observable facts.

If you truly wish a debate, then please engage in one.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote: I should

Chriswithac wrote:

 

I should also note that you shouldn’t count yourselves damned already; Paul goes on to explain later in the book of Romans that all men can be saved of their intellectual sin as well as all their other sins if they’ll repent and have faith in Jesus Christ

Are you judging  now? I thought you people were not allowed to do that?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
chriswithac wrote:I should

chriswithac wrote:

I should also note that you shouldn’t count yourselves damned already; Paul goes on to explain later in the book of Romans that all men can be saved of their intellectual sin as well as all their other sins if they’ll repent and have faith in Jesus Christ.

Just another instance where Paul's view sit opposite Jesus'

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac wrote:Food for

Chriswithac wrote:

Food for freethought

It gave me indigestion


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
... indigestion    My turn

... indigestion    My turn to Preach !

"If there is a God, and He wishes to damn me simply because I didn't worship Him, He doesn't deserve to be worshipped anyway." ~ nigelTheBold [ and still the name of my band ]

Nietzsche said, "The liar uses the valid designations, the words, to make the unreal seem real."

Typical Theist- "Paul goes on to explain later in the book of Romans that all men can be saved of their intellectual sin as well as all their other sins if they’ll repent and have faith in Jesus Christ."  Atheist rrs jcgadfly - "Just another instance where Paul's view sit opposite Jesus."

"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology ~ rrs, BobSpence1

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

  LOTS of Buddhas here at the "saving" RRS, spreading the "good word" of Atheism.

 


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
Nigel

I apologize for being rude and unclear, that's really not the way Christ teaches us to behave.  I bring the Bible into arguments because I have to, I'm a Christian and that's what faithful Christians do. 

I'm not an intellectual.  I have no formal training in logic, epistimology, or philosophy and I'm just a college freshman.  However, the Bible records in Acts 9:22 that the apostle Paul was able to "prove" that Jesus is the Christ.  I don't want to be so arrogant as to put myself on the level of the appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, but this tells me that it is possible to "prove" the truth of Christianity; not to simply give "compelling evidences" that leave room for doubt. 

Christianity has to be true if we should be expected to believe it; Christ expects our whole lives to be given to Him, after all.  Some men devote their entire lives to the preaching of the Gospel.  Some men die horribly for it.  If it isn't true and there's even a chance that it could be false, we should just forget about the whole thing and live how we want.

So why do I appeal to the Bible?  Within the Christian worldview, God provides the basis for a coherent and consistent universe.  From my worldview, God made it that way and that's why I'm able to make sense of things like logic, the uniformity of nature, an objective morality, and everything else.  I'm able to give a consistent, rational account for these things, Jehovah graciously gave them to us when He made the universe.  That's why I say God is the basis for logic.

Now, given your atheistic world and life view, how are you able to account for logic?  Because the universe has proven itself to be this way, you say?  How are you able to account for this subjective concept of "proofs", given your athiestic presuppositions?  If things are "provable" that implies that the universe is a consistent and uniform place.  Why should the universe be uniform if it's "guided" by unguided chaos?  What's to say anything that is today will be tommorow?  Induction?  I understand some of your philosophers have had a problem with that also.

Belief in Jehovah and in His Holy Scriptures gives me a solid basis for understanding the universe around me.  Athiesm fails because it provides no such basis for you to use logic at all, even though you're quite good at using it.  Athiesm therefore cannot be true because it invalidates the very thing you know very well to be valid.  Christianity does not invalidate it for me, it establishes it. 

So, if I don't appeal to the Bible and believe in God, logic breaks down because I no longer have a basis for it.  Comments are welcome, and I hope that makes sense.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac

Chriswithac wrote:

Christianity has to be true if we should be expected to believe it;

Which version?

Quote:
So why do I appeal to the Bible?  Within the Christian worldview,

Which one?

Quote:
God provides the basis for a coherent and consistent universe.

Really?  Please cite examples.

Quote:
Belief in Jehovah and in His Holy Scriptures gives me a solid basis for understanding the universe around me.

Then you haven't read the scriptures with an objective mind.  Scripture does nothing but contradict itself and contains truckloads of falsehoods. 

Quote:
Athiesm therefore cannot be true because it invalidates the very thing you know very well to be valid.  Christianity does not invalidate it for me, it establishes it.

This is nonsense.

Quote:
Comments are welcome, and I hope that makes sense.

It mostly did not.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Chriswithac,How did Acts

Chriswithac,

How did Acts 9:22 prove anything?

A friend of Paul's writes a story tha makes his buddy look good doesn't really prove much at all (particular about God. It does more to prove Paul's ability for self promotion.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Chriswithac
TheistTroll
Chriswithac's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-09-20
User is offlineOffline
I'll paraphrase.  The God

I'll paraphrase.  The God of the Bible gives me, as a Christian, a rational foundation for logic; God gave it to us.  You, as an atheist, have no foundation for logic that is compatable with your own worldview.  You have to pull it out of the sky, call it something that magically "just is", and in a sense, deify it.  The Bible calls this "worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator." 

I'm not going to play games with you.  Show me that your worldview can give a rational account for the existence of logic, then you can use logic to try and prove your worldview.  Until you can do that, none of your arguments even have feet to stand on.  It's like you're arguing against the existence of air while breathing air to spit your arguments out.

I pray that my God will give you understanding.