The wrong religions

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Consider the prophetic record. No other religious writing predicts the future, as far as I know, with complete accuracy.

Do these prophesies specify exact events, at exact times, by exact agents, for exact durations? or are they vague enough such that one can retroactively fulfill those prophesies by engineering it's words in a certain way?[/b]

It would be the most heinous of crimes against humanity if the bible was a fabrication of man, considering the scope and magnitude of it's effects on this world. To the extent that it's adherents and all traces of it's record should be extinguished.

I can give you specific examples, but I am at a library, and not at home where my reference materials are. And not tonight as it will be to late by the time I get home. If you're interested message me at my game site or I'll do it here, but it will take to long.

Originally posted by josephw
It would be the most heinous of crimes against humanity if the bible was a fabrication of man, considering the scope and magnitude of it's effects on this world. To the extent that it's adherents and all traces of it's record should be extinguished.

I can give you specific examples, but I am at a library, and not at home where my reference materials are. ...[text shortened]... you're interested message me at my game site or I'll do it here, but it will take to long.

It would be the most heinous of crimes against humanity if the bible was a fabrication of man, considering the scope and magnitude of it's effects on this world. To the extent that it's adherents and all traces of it's record should be extinguished.

Well I think extinguishing adherents (all 2+ billion of you) is a bit harsh perhaps (counselling might be better) but certainly all traces of it's records would be a good start 😉 (Though unfortunately this is not a reality that I shall see in my lifetime)

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
God(s) created you so be thankful no matter what the consequences are for not thanking him/her/them

Why do you demand that said god NEEDS our approval or whatever? If it is a real god and has infinite powers, surely such a being would care less one way or the other what humans thought of it. It would see all the past all the way to the big bang, which presumably this god started itself, maybe farting into a big jar and creating the universe after a huge feast. But this god would have an overview of the entire universe at whatever it uses for eyes and would see from the big bang to the big crunch or however it ends and would not see much of anything special about our sun, our planets our lifeforms, already knowing about us and trillions of other civilizations in the universe in various stages of growth, we could be just as easily viewed as just another experiment to grow or fail on our own and if we blow ourselves up, well it already knew that was going to happen anyway so how could we possibly mean anything to such a being in the larger context of a near infinite universe we find ourselves in?
In other words, ITS OK TO NOT KEEP OBSESSING OVER THIS PROPORTED GOD, IT DOESN'T GIVE A RATS ARSE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IT HAS BIGGER FISH TO FRY, LIKE MANAGING A WHOLE UNIVERSE, SO AT BEST WE WOULD ONLY GET A TINY PORTION OF ITS FULL AWARENESS SO JUST LIVE YOUR LIFE AS IF IT WERE NOT HERE.

Originally posted by josephw
Consider this; If life comes from God, and that life chooses to reject the life giver, what happens to that life? Answer; It dies.

Please forgive the apparent smugness. It may sound that way because I'm trying to be direct, and uncomplicated.

I think God is very sad precisely because he is loving and cares for us more than we can comprehend, and that is why he sent his son to suffer on our behalf.

As answers in this forum go that was a pretty non-smug one - and quite an interesting point. For the sake of being able to discuss this without filling each sentence with conditionals let's assume that there is a god and that it's the Christian one.

What you seem to be saying is that in order to sustain one's life after physical death you need to be in contact with the life giver, so that really the belief requirement is not for God's benefit but for ours. There are a number of points to make about this. One problem I have with this is that really we aren't given many clues, God doesn't make it obvious that he exists and so it all becomes a bit of a trap, which doesn't really fit with the concept of an all loving God. Also I'd argue that there is a difference between disbelief and rejection, since you can reject God while still believing in his existence.

There's also a problem about what you mean by death. Most people's cause of death isn't atheism and as far as we know believing in God won't make you live any longer, except in ways that it's not logically neccessary for God to exist to make happen. Assuming that by death you mean death of the soul then I think there is a problem. Christian theology strikes me as being fairly confused about this issue, on the one hand there is the idea that you can gain "life everlasting" through belief and good behaviour implying that you don't if you don't, but on the other there is the notion of an immortal soul and that when we die it either goes to Heaven or Hell, with the presumption that non-belief lands you in Hell. Going to Hell is not the same as death of the soul, so total seperation from the life-giver doesn't leave you without life. While you can argue that life becomes empty on seperation that's not the same as an immortal soul suddenly becoming mortal.

A flaw in your argument is basically that life giver is not the same as life sustainer, and the one does not automatically presuppose the other.

Originally posted by josephw
It would be the most heinous of crimes against humanity if the bible was a fabrication of man, considering the scope and magnitude of it's effects on this world. To the extent that it's adherents and all traces of it's record should be extinguished.

So if the Bible is not the fabrication of man, does this mean that the Qu'ran is? If so, do you feel the same way about the Qu'ran and its adherents or is it a lesser crime?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What evidence regarding Jesus? What records do we have other than the bible? You can't use the bible to verify the bible - that's not logically valid.

I never said it was narcissistic to explore our origins, it's just narcissistic to think that humans are oh so special as to require an intelligent designer or whatever, based upon a complete lack of evidence for that designer.

What evidence regarding Jesus? What records do we have other than the bible? You can't use the bible to verify the bible - that's not logically valid.

This is one of those faulty arguments repeated so often that people just assume it is valid. It seems valid until you stop to think about what you're saying.

For one thing, the NT consists of 27 semi-independent documents that have been traditionally compiled together. Lumping them together as "the bible" when speaking of their historical value is just intellectual tawdriness. To a certain extent, they cross-verify each other. Refusing to address the NT books individually is not just bad historiography; it's biased historiography.

For another thing, even if there are incidents in the life of Jesus that are not cross-verified within the NT corpus and elsewhere, that simply does not mean it does not have evidentiary value. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, even an unverified account increases the probability that the events described in the account actually occurred.

The laboratory model of the physical sciences is not an appropriate paradigm for historical research as any philosopher of history can explain to you. What is more appropriate for the historian might be the "jury" model of "weighing up" the evidence for and against the hypothesis that events occurred as described or indicated in the sources. In such a case, the NT corpus certainly is evidence for the historicity of Jesus and his actions.

So, even if sources outside the NT cannot be discovered for verification of Jesus's actions, blatant and prejudicial discounting of the NT corpus altogether (as you've done) is not honest historical research in any sense. It's a double standard that is applied to the NT corpus which you wouldn't apply to (say) heiroglyphs on Egyptian pyramids, or accounts of Alexander's or Socrates's lives.

All that said, there is extra-biblical evidence (both of the positive and negative kinds) for Jesus.

I never said it was narcissistic to explore our origins, it's just narcissistic to think that humans are oh so special as to require an intelligent designer or whatever, based upon a complete lack of evidence for that designer.

This is just a strawman argument. We were talking about necessary beings and first causes -- neither of which depends on a unique place of humans in the universe.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]What evidence regarding Jesus? What records do we have other than the bible? You can't use the bible to verify the bible - that's not logically valid.

This is one of those faulty arguments repeated so often that people just assume it is valid. It seems valid until you stop to think about what you're saying.

For one thing, the NT consist ...[text shortened]... causes -- neither of which depends on a unique place of humans in the universe.[/b]

So, other than the bible, which will have underwent, ummm, "rationalisation" over the centuries (hey, do YOU think the Christian church would allow any account that Jesus was just a man to survive? If you do, well, you are just plain stupid.), you've nothing?


As for the second part, well, I did specify that existence (or Humans or otherwise (anthropic principle)) is not enough to justify the need for a god.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, other than the bible, which will have underwent, ummm, "rationalisation" over the centuries (hey, do YOU think the Christian church would allow any account that Jesus was just a man to survive? If you do, well, you are just plain stupid.), you've nothing?


As for the second part, well, I did specify that existence (or Humans or otherwise (anthropic principle)) is not enough to justify the need for a god.

I'm disappointed at your response (see "double standards" in my previous post). What do you mean by "rationalisation" of the NT corpus (the fact that you keep referring to it as "bible" in a historiographical discussion is an indication that you're not interested in a serious historical evaluation of these texts at all)? What evidence do you have that it has occurred? Your comment in parantheses is simply an argument from a lack of evidence -- it's an approach for conspiracy buffs, not serious historical investigators.

For the second part, simply mentioning the term "anthropic principle" (which is all you've done) does not constitute a counter-argument. The First Cause Argument (for instance) is based on a particular account of causality. The Anthropic Principle has no bearing on it's validity; if you disagree, I would invite you to show (in logical terms) how the AP "refutes" it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm disappointed at your response (see "double standards" in my previous post). What do you mean by "rationalisation" of the NT corpus (the fact that you keep referring to it as "bible" in a historiographical discussion is an indication that you're not interested in a serious historical evaluation of these texts at all)? What evidence do you ha ...[text shortened]... vidence -- it's an approach for conspiracy buffs, not serious historical investigators.

I am disappointed that although he has twice asked you for more information about your extra biblical sources for information about Jesus, you have still not produced any.

As for your references to "serious historical evaluation of these texts", I think we both know that unless you take them as inspired by God, any honest historian would have no choice but to conclude that a significant portion of the gospels could not be historicaly accurate.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm disappointed at your response (see "double standards" in my previous post). What do you mean by "rationalisation" of the NT corpus (the fact that you keep referring to it as "bible" in a historiographical discussion is an indication that you're not interested in a serious historical evaluation of these texts at all)? What evidence do you ha ...[text shortened]... disagree, I would invite you to show (in logical terms) how the AP "refutes" it.

So, despite the fact that the bible (or the collection of NT accounts, if you will) has things like grammar (invented a mere 15 centuries after Christ) you try to deny that the bible has been doctored?

We know, for example, that the word "virgin" is a mistranslation, yet there is no discrepancy on THAT particular issue in the modern bible. The same mistake faithfully copied time after time.

As for the need for "first causes", well, that was Aristotle, my man.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am disappointed that although he has twice asked you for more information about your extra biblical sources for information about Jesus, you have still not produced any.

As for your references to "serious historical evaluation of these texts", I think we both know that unless you take them as inspired by God, any honest historian would have no choice but to conclude that a significant portion of the gospels could not be historicaly accurate.

Until he (or you) demonstrates why the NT corpus must be rejected as having no historiographical value whatsoever I don't see why I should comply with his request.

As for your references to "serious historical evaluation of these texts", I think we both know that unless you take them as inspired by God, any honest historian would have no choice but to conclude that a significant portion of the gospels could not be historicaly accurate.

That's a propaganda statement, not an argument. For one thing, what does Divine Inspiration have to do with historical accuracy of an account? And what does it have to do with the method of evaluating a historical source?

Many historians saddled with materialist metaphysical presuppositions will conclude that significant portions of the Gospel "could not" be historically accurate; honest historians who are open to different metaphysical views will find they cannot dismiss at least some of these portions so casually.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Until he (or you) demonstrates why the NT corpus must be rejected as having no historiographical value whatsoever I don't see why I should comply with his request.

This sounds a lot like sticking your fingers in your ears whilst screaming "na na na na na".

How many NT gospels didn't make it into the present day bible? How many bibles are there? How many translations? Come on, be truthful, I already know the answer.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, despite the fact that the bible (or the collection of NT accounts, if you will) has things like grammar (invented a mere 15 centuries after Christ) you try to deny that the bible has been doctored?

We know, for example, that the word "virgin" is a mistranslation, yet there is no discrepancy on THAT particular issue in the modern bible. The same ...[text shortened]... ed time after time.

As for the need for "first causes", well, that was Aristotle, my man.

So, despite the fact that the bible (or the collection of NT accounts, if you will) has things like grammar (invented a mere 15 centuries after Christ) you try to deny that the bible has been doctored?

What?! Are you kidding me? 😲

Every language has a grammar. With vocabulary and semantics, grammar is one of the defining structures of language. What gave you the idea that grammar was invented in the 15th century?


We know, for example, that the word "virgin" is a mistranslation, yet there is no discrepancy on THAT particular issue in the modern bible. The same mistake faithfully copied time after time.

"Virgin" is not a mistranslation. The Hebrew term used in the Hebrew OT has a wider meaning than the Greek term in the Septuaguint.


As for the need for "first causes", well, that was Aristotle, my man.

So what? Since when has the logical validity of an argument depended on who first made it and when?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This sounds a lot like sticking your fingers in your ears whilst screaming "na na na na na".

How many NT gospels didn't make it into the present day bible? How many bibles are there? How many translations? Come on, be truthful, I already know the answer.

On the contrary, it is your continual refusal (without justification) to engage with the NT corpus as you would any other document from the period that is more like "na na na na na".

How many NT gospels didn't make it into the present day bible? How many bibles are there? How many translations? Come on, be truthful, I already know the answer.

Since you already know the answer, why don't you tell me?