On the topic of the differences between Christianity in general and Buddhism

First off, I most certainly never claimed that these two religions are anywhere near the same. That is a false notion right there.

What I said is that had been attributed to Jesus were far more in alignment with the teaching of Buddhism than they were with the teachings of the Torah.

Cowboy's lengthy list of the things that "Christianity" supposedly stood for fails to even recognize this FACT.

For example:



These were the teachings of Jesus that are indeed in agreement with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and not in agreement with the teachings of the Torah.

The Torah did not teach people to forgive the offense that other people trespass against you. On the contrary the Torah taught people that it's perfectly ok to seek revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

So here's an example where the teachings of Jesus are in far better alignment with the teachings of Buddhism and in contradiction with the teachings of the Torah.



That's Buddhism. YOU MUST BECOME ENLIGHTENED. And was not taught in the Torah. This comes from Jesus, not the Torah.



Buddhism again. Recognize that all are one. Everything you do unto your brother you do unto "me". (i.e. you do unto yourself)




This is Buddhism too. Especially Mahayana Buddhism which is the Buddhism that was popular at that time in history. In fact, the Mahayana Buddhist monks would often not even bother taking in a student unless that student vowed to become a Bodhisattva. And the very concept of a Bodhisattva was to sacrifice your life for the sake of the enlightenment of others.







I just have to laugh at this one, because the God of the Bible is infamous for keeping his dispute with Satan an ongoing thing.

But again this is something that Jesus taught that is more in line with Buddhism than with the teachings of the Torah.

Buddhism would also teach to end any negativity as quickly as possible that's a founding principle of their belief system.




Buddhism again: Whatever causes you to create bad karma get rid of it.


That's just common sense.

But ironically this would be Jesus telling people not to swear marriage vows because that's the same as swearing an OATH.

Kind of flies in the face of the whole religion actually.



This was already covered above so I'll just cut and paste my same reply here:

These were the teachings of Jesus that are indeed in agreement with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and not in agreement with the teachings of the Torah.

The Torah did not teach people to forgive the offense that other people trespass against you. On the contrary the Torah taught people that it's perfectly ok to seek revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

So here's an example where the teachings of Jesus are in far better alignment with the teachings of Buddhism and in contradiction with the teachings of the Torah.


~~~~~~~~

I'm not going to bother going through them all. But clearly the things that Jesus taught are far more in line with Mahayana Buddhism than with the Torah.

~~~~~~~~

It's actually FALSE to even suggest that I had ever said or implied that Buddhism and "Christianity" teach the same things.

On the contrary, I merely pointed out that many of the moral behaviors that Jesus taught were far more in line with the philosophy of Buddhism than they were with the teaching of the Torah.

~~~~~~
Jesus and Buddhism teach: DO NOT JUDGE.

The Torah has people necessarily judging each other and even stoning each other to death after judging them to be sinners.

~~~~~~
Jesus and Buddhism teach: DO NOT THROW STONES

The Torah has people stoning sinners and heathens to death

~~~~~~
Jesus and Buddhism teach: TURN THE OTHER CHEEK (i.e. FORGIVE)

The Torah teaches an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (i.e. seek revenge it's your god-given right!)

~~~~~~
Jesus and Buddhism teach: We and the "Father" are ONE.

Jesus and Buddhism teach: Ye are gods!

Jesus and Buddhism teach: Whatever you to do your brother you also do to "me" (i.e. you do it to everyone including yourself)

~~~~~~

What I'm saying is that the things that Jesus taught are far more in line with the wisdom and teachings of Buddhism, and opposite to the teachings of the Torah.

~~~~~~

In NO WAY did I ever attempt to claim that the beliefs of Buddhism are the same as the beliefs of "Christianity".

Christianity uses Jesus to prop up the idea that the Torah or Old Testament was the "Word of God".

That's where I'm saying that they are wrong!

Jesus did not support the crap that had been taught in the Old Torah. He renounced everything from judging people, stoning them to death, or attempting to get even via the notion that god condones revenge via an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Jesus renounced all that crap and said, "I and the father are ONE", that's pantheism/Buddhism, and "whatever you do unto your brother you do unto me", that's pantheism/Buddhism, and "Ye are gods!", again that's pantheism/Buddhism.

The things that Jesus taught are far more in line with the teachings of Pantheism/Buddhism, and totally opposed to the teaching of the Torah.

~~~~~~~

That is my observation, not some insane notion that Christianity and Buddhism teach the same things.

Christianity corrupts the teachings of Jesus by claiming that he is the son of the God of Abraham.

It makes far more sense to me that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist who actually tried to "Save" the Jews from their wicked religoin that had been taught in the Torah. He was continually renouncing the things that their religion had them doing (i.e. judging people to be sinners, stoning them to death, killing heathens, and seeking revenge)

Jesus himself basically renounced the teachings of the Torah as best he possibly could without outright renouncing the doctrine itself. He couldn't very well do that, so he had to be clever, and clever he most certainly WAS!

But unfortunately, in the end, he wasn't quite clever enough.

Although he was acquitted by Pilate officially. It was quite unfortunately that Pilate ended up turning Jesus over to enemies that he himself had ultimately created.

~~~~~~~

There is a lesson in the story of Jesus for sure.

If you're out to try to change the world you had better be prepared to die for your actions (your karma) even though they may be well-intended like Jesus' ultimate goals. He still ended up sowing negativity when he condemned the Pharisees as hypocrites. That was a huge MISTAKE on his behalf. He should have practiced what he preached and not made accusations toward other people.

His mission ultimately failed because it just ended up getting him physically crucified, and then a religion was created in his name that continued on to be used as an excuse by people to do horrible things in the name of Jesus "The Christ Almighty".

Crusades, "witch" burnings (most of those poor women were probably Christian midwives anyway), the destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria, and a continued opposition to scientific knowledge TO THIS VERY DAY!

Even today, people are using Jesus' name as an excuse to renounce things like evolution, and preach ignorance and superstition over actual knowledge, etc.

It's truly a shame.

I hear what you say Cowboy, but you're stance is ultimately faulty.

You claim that Jesus brought a "New Covenant", yet you still preach Old Testament crap like the idea that God hates homosexually and commanded that we don't partake in that activity.

So you speak with FORKED TONGUE.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim that God is dependable and "unchanging" yet you have Jesus CHANGING all his laws, except for the bigotries that you'd personally like to use the Old Testament to support.

That makes no sense at all.

So, yes I LISTEN to your claims, I just totally disagree with your flawed reasoning.

Christianity is hypocritical when it comes to using Jesus as an excuse to support their hateful bigotries.

You just do not make sense at all.

Plus, you've already discredited your own claims by your stance that all information is nothing more than hearsay. If that's your claim then every claim that is made about Jesus or anything else has no more merit than anything according to YOU!

So why should anyone even care about your opinions since by your very own stance all possible information is equally discredited as nothing more than hearsay rumors?

You've basically reduced your very own opinions to be totally meaningless and without merit.

I don't hold that at all.

I hold that scientific knowledge has far more credibility than hearsay rumors. I totally disagree with you that scientific knowledge even amounts to 'hearsay rumors' because you can verify most scientific knowledge yourself first hand.

I also disagree with your stance that recent events that have a lot of independent historial evidence should be reduced to having no more merit then ancient Greek or Hebrew fables that have absolutely no independent historical evidence whatsoever for their outrageous superstitious claims of supernatural events.

You're the one who refuses to LISTEN.

You're claims simply have no merit at all, by your very own standards!

Jesus flat out rejected and trampled all over previous directives and teachings in the Old Testament, and you can't have a supposedly "unchanging" God changing his mind like that about what he expects from human behavior. So it's a failed fable.

It doesn't even stand as a consistent fable, much less have any merit to be considered as anything genuine or real.


You can't have Jesus spitting in the face of the God of Abraham Cowboy and still try to claim that he's the son of that God. That's makes absolutely no sense at all!

An excuse that he brought some sort of "New Covenant" doesn't stand up to reason. An unchanging God would have no reason to change his laws and directives.

In fact, in the Old Testament is claims that God's word is FOREVER.

You're theory that Jesus changed the laws flies in the very face of this premise.

Thus the religion shoots itself in its own foot.

You claim that Jesus brought a "New Covenant", yet you still preach Old Testament crap like the idea that God hates homosexually and commanded that we don't partake in that activity.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim that God is dependable and "unchanging" yet you have Jesus CHANGING all his laws, except for the bigotries that you'd personally like to use the Old Testament to support.

Jesus flat out rejected and trampled all over previous directives and teachings in the Old Testament, and you can't have a supposedly "unchanging" God changing his mind like that about what he expects from human behavior. So it's a failed fable.

You can't have Jesus spitting in the face of the God of Abraham Cowboy and still try to claim that he's the son of that God. That's makes absolutely no sense at all!

In fact, in the Old Testament is claims that God's word is FOREVER.

Cowboy wrote:

Jesus changed nothing

Jesus taught Judaism not Christianity. There is nothing in Jesus teachings which is at odds with the Old Testament in any way. Including forgiveness and unconditional love, the golden rule, etc.
etc.

Basically all monotheistic religions are talking about the same God
and it is pretty much ridiculous to say that one of the religions
is better than another based on "how" one worships this single deity.

Moreover, this single Abrahamic God for example is completely consistent
with pantheism and Buddhism ~ so be good, prosper and enjoy this life.

Slowhand wrote:

Doctrine inflexibility like literal biblical interpretation and belief
in moral superiority are simply indefensible perversions of the true
religions.

If there were any truth to that we'd still be judging people and stoning them to death, killing heathens in God's name, and seeking revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just as the Torah had taught people to do.

Your claims that Jesus "changed nothing" is basically a lie. It doesn't even mesh with the actual stories.

He did away with the sick demented directives of the false God of the Torah and instead tried to replace those hideous things with the wisdom of Buddhism.

He tried to change everything truly.

Unfortunately he was physically crucified on a pole for his blaspheme of the Torah and the Jewish God, and then metaphorically nailed to the Torah as the "Son" of the false God of the Torah that he personally very clearly rejected.

Trying to make out like Jesus was the son of the hideous God of the Torah simply makes no sense, and even the Jews could see that. The God of Abraham was THEIR creation in the first place, and they rejected the idea of replacing him with Jesus.

So all that Christianity amounts to is one religious clan trying to steal the religion from another religious clan by replacing their original God with a demigod.

That's all it amounts to.

This makes perfect sense seeing that religions have ALWAYS been competitive throughout all of mankind's history. The Abrahamic religions just took that competition to the max and they continue to use their jealous God religions to fight with each other to this very day.

Jesus has just become the epitome of a "jealous God" at the hands of the Christians. They just arrogantly hold out the notion that Jesus is the "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords", just like the Greeks used to hold out that Zeus was the "God of Gods".

It's no different. All of these religion from the Mediterranean region are just extremely competitive religions all trying to claim that "Their version of God" trumps all other versions of God.

It's just religious arrogance and religious bigotry taken to the max.

That's all it amounts to Cowboy. And look at you, your a product of this very thing, trying to hold out that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

That's your SOLE AGENDA.

You're evidently obsessed with it beyond rationality. All you give a damn about is supporting the idea that bigotry in the name of Jesus is "divine" whilst all other religious bigotries stink.



It's disgusting. It get's old. And it serves NO GOOD for anyone.

All it amounts to is a childish argument that sounds like, "My daddy God can beat up your daddy God"

What's the point to these jealous God religions Cowboy?

They clearly have NO MORAL VALUE AT ALL. All they do is created Holy Wars in the name of their jealous Gods.

Jesus changed nothing. The new covenant, new laws are not an alteration of the first covenant, the first laws. The first covenant was finished with the completing of the prophecies, thus Jesus gave us a new covenant, new laws, new prophecies.

If there were any truth to that we'd still be judging people and stoning them to death, killing heathens in God's name, and seeking revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just as the Torah had taught people to do.

Jesus taught Judaism not Christianity. There is nothing in Jesus teachings which is at odds with the Old Testament in any way. Including forgiveness and unconditional love, the golden rule, etc.
etc.

Basically all monotheistic religions are talking about the same God
and it is pretty much ridiculous to say that one of the religions
is better than another based on "how" one worships this single deity.

Moreover, this single Abrahamic God for example is completely consistent
with pantheism and Buddhism ~ so be good, prosper and enjoy this life.

Moreover, this single Abrahamic God for example is completely consistent
with pantheism and Buddhism ~ so be good, prosper and enjoy this life

Well, that's easy to say.

But the fact of the matter is that if Jesus truly was "god" incarnated then there's a major fly in the ointment.

The fly being that the Torah or Old Testament had God directing people to stone sinners to death. Then Jesus comes alone and very slyly tries to get around that by suggesting that only those who are without sin cast the first stone.

I'll grant that this was extremely CLEVER of Jesus to use that approach. As a MORTAL MAN who wanted to get people to stop using their religion as an excuse to kill sinners it was extremely CLEVER.

However, if Jesus was truly "God" incarnate then it was utterly STUPID.

How so?

Because it was God himself that supposedly DIRECTED people to do this in the first place. Now if God doesn't want people to be stoning sinners to death then he should just come right out and say so. If he wants only officially authorized authoritarians to stone people to death he should have come right out and said so.

But to have God himself using these underhanded sly approaches to CHANGE his very own directives is itself an oxymoron.

~~~~~

I personally can't see "God" being involved with a crucifixion in any way shape or form anyway. Especially based on an idea that this is going to somehow PAY for the sins of men. That's utter baloney right there.

Moreover, that very notion is indeed "Christianity" and not "Judaism".

The whole idea of a God who accepts or requires Blood Sacrifices to pay for sins is an idea better left for Zeus-like mythologies.

The whole Abrahamic picture of a jealous God who is appeased by violent acts is an extremely questionable "god" already, IMHO.

And I also disagree that Jesus taught "Judaism".

He didn't support the teachings of the Torah. He rejected those teachings in favor of more peaceful teachings. But I imagine he did try to work in the pantheistic view into "Judaism".

~~~~~

You say:

"Moreover, this single Abrahamic God for example is completely consistent with pantheism and Buddhism ~ so be good, prosper and enjoy this life."

Yes, it COULD BE, if these people would realize that the this so-called "single God" is EVERYONE's God, and VICE VERSA.

But it's the VICE VERSA that they refuse to recognize!

They necessarily refuse to recognize this because they claim to have the ONLY VALID "Word of God" in their doctrines.

So when they claim that their God is the "Only God" what they take that to mean is that their "Doctrine" is the "Only true word of God".

And therein lies the error of their ways. Whether it be Jews, or Muslims, or Christians. Their "doctrines" have become their "idols". And in this way they have become idol worshipers demanding that only their doctrines represent the instructions and directives of the "One True God".

Their doctrines themselves have become their "Idols".

The fly being that the Torah or Old Testament had God directing people to stone sinners to death. Then Jesus comes alone and very slyly tries to get around that by suggesting that only those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Well, that's easy to say.

But the fact of the matter is that if Jesus truly was "god" incarnated then there's a major fly in the ointment.

The fly being that the Torah or Old Testament had God directing people to stone sinners to death. Then Jesus comes alone and very slyly tries to get around that by suggesting that only those who are without sin cast the first stone.

I'll grant that this was extremely CLEVER of Jesus to use that approach. As a MORTAL MAN who wanted to get people to stop using their religion as an excuse to kill sinners it was extremely CLEVER.

However, if Jesus was truly "God" incarnate then it was utterly STUPID.

How so?

Because it was God himself that supposedly DIRECTED people to do this in the first place. Now if God doesn't want people to be stoning sinners to death then he should just come right out and say so. If he wants only officially authorized authoritarians to stone people to death he should have come right out and said so.

But to have God himself using these underhanded sly approaches to CHANGE his very own directives is itself an oxymoron.

~~~~~

I personally can't see "God" being involved with a crucifixion in any way shape or form anyway. Especially based on an idea that this is going to somehow PAY for the sins of men. That's utter baloney right there.

Moreover, that very notion is indeed "Christianity" and not "Judaism".

The whole idea of a God who accepts or requires Blood Sacrifices to pay for sins is an idea better left for Zeus-like mythologies.

The whole Abrahamic picture of a jealous God who is appeased by violent acts is an extremely questionable "god" already, IMHO.

And I also disagree that Jesus taught "Judaism".

He didn't support the teachings of the Torah. He rejected those teachings in favor of more peaceful teachings. But I imagine he did try to work in the pantheistic view into "Judaism".

~~~~~

You say:

"Moreover, this single Abrahamic God for example is completely consistent with pantheism and Buddhism ~ so be good, prosper and enjoy this life."

Yes, it COULD BE, if these people would realize that the this so-called "single God" is EVERYONE's God, and VICE VERSA.

But it's the VICE VERSA that they refuse to recognize!

They necessarily refuse to recognize this because they claim to have the ONLY VALID "Word of God" in their doctrines.

So when they claim that their God is the "Only God" what they take that to mean is that their "Doctrine" is the "Only true word of God".

And therein lies the error of their ways. Whether it be Jews, or Muslims, or Christians. Their "doctrines" have become their "idols". And in this way they have become idol worshipers demanding that only their doctrines represent the instructions and directives of the "One True God".

Their doctrines themselves have become their "Idols".

Because it was God himself that supposedly DIRECTED people to do this in the first place. Now if God doesn't want people to be stoning sinners to death then he should just come right out and say so. If he wants only officially authorized authoritarians to stone people to death he should have come right out and said so.

Slowhand wrote:

I believe we concur.



Now we just have to get the rest of the world to be more like this
view of Jesus....or God or Buddha or Mohammed what have you.



What God would disagree with that?!?

No reasonable God would disagree with that. I'm confident of that.

To Cowboy,

You can create your own version of Jesus, or accept the creation of religious radical zealots. In fact, you can do whatever you want. Nobody cares, because they realize that you are already working on the assumption that all information is equally faith-based.

Therefore, by that very assertion, you have handed everyone your approval that their ideas have precisely the same merit as yours in your mind.

Therefore, I now realize that you actually recognize and acknowledge that my view of Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva carries precisely the same merit and weight as your fundamentalist verbatim approach to using Jesus to support religious bigotry.

I thank you for your acknowledgment and recognition that all religious views are on precisely the same footing. And I'm sure the Pastafarians are equally appreciative of your full support for their noodlely supreme being having equal merit to your imagined faith-based picture of fascist "Christ".

Therefore, I now realize that you actually recognize and acknowledge that my view of Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva carries precisely the same merit and weight as your fundamentalist verbatim approach to using Jesus to support religious bigotry.

You missed the point of what you're referring to all together my friend. A fact is only a fact to YOU if you accept it as such. People say the world is round, no matter what anyone does or says this will NEVER be fact to you less you accept it as such. Jesus being the only begotten child of God, our Savior will NEVER be a fact to YOU less you accept it as such. And this goes with ALL "facts".

Take the fact that Abraham was a president. This is only fact to you, because you have accepted it as fact. You could deny it up and down, you could come up with a million excuses as you do with Christianity that it is not fact, that Abraham was never president.

The fact that man has walked on the moon. This is again only fact to you, because you have accepted it as fact. You could again, could deny this fact up and down, coming up with all kinds of reason's and excuses as it not being a fact as you do with Christianity.

*side note, not claiming you don't think he was a president or that we never walked on the moon, just again merely an examples of what a fact is*

I didn't miss the point at all Cowboy. I understand you perfectly.

You believe that in order to make something a "Fact" all you need to do is believe it and then you can claim that it's a "Fact".

I'm simply saying that if you offer me the very same conditions and situations then clearly, by your standards of what constitutes a "Fact", then anything I choose to believe in will indeed be a "Fact" for me.

Thus you confirm that my believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva is every bit as "Factual" as your belief that Jesus was a fascist dictator. Because as you've just said, you believe that "Facts" are nothing more than totally subjective opinions that require no evidence to support them.

I personally don't agree with your views of what you consider to be "facts". If we go by your definition here then it's a FACT that there is no God for atheists who are convinced there is no God because they have accepted that to be a FACT in their mind.

According to you reincarnation, pantheism and the Buddhist spiritual view in general is indeed a FACT for Buddhists, because they have accepted it as such.

According to you it's a FACT that a Moon Goddess and Sun God exist for the Wiccans because they have accepted it as such.

According to you a "Fact" is just another name for a "belief".

~~~~~

But that's now how most reasonable people work. Most reasonable people require evidence of some sort before they will consider something to be a "fact".

I personally prefer to have evidence before I call something a "fact" as well.

One thing I will agree with you is that I can't say with certainty that the world is indeed a spherical planet. And I wouldn't demand that this be accepted as a "Fact". However, I would argue that there is overwhelming evidence to believe that there is an extreme probability that it is a spherical planet. I'd put my money on if I were betting.

Same thing is true about whether or not Albert Einstein actually lived. I wouldn't swear that it's a "fact". I don't know, I never met the man in person. However, once again, I wouldn't hesitate to put my money on it that the man actually did exist and dot he things he was said to do. Why? Because from my perspective there is tons of evidence that this was indeed an actual event.

However, if we go back to the days of ancient superstitious mythologies I wouldn't want to start betting on things that far back. Especially concerning the kind of dogmatic extremism that you push.

I wouldn't even bet on the precise accuracy of any verbatim quotes that were attributed to Albert Einstein. On the contrary I'm willing to bet that many of the quotes that are attributed to Albert Einstein have indeed been modified slightly and may not be worded precisely the way Dr. Einstein worded them originally.

But here you are quoting from an extremely ancient book that has been translated and transcribed so many times by so many cultures, and it didn't even contain ORIGINAL content to begin with in terms of quote attributed to Jesus. Even the authors of the Bible are speaking FOR Jesus and clearly there's no rational reason that they would get things correct verbatim.

Yet, you PUSH for 'verbatim extremism' and try to claim that it's "factual".

Well, I have a quote for you Cowboy. It's from Dr, Richard Feynman. You decide whether or not you think it is an accurate quote, but far more important than that pay attention to what he's saying, because IN TRUTH, it doesn't matter who said it, the words speak for themselves Cowboy:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Dr. Richard Feynman

You believe that in order to make something a "Fact" all you need to do is believe it and then you can claim that it's a "Fact".

But that's now how most reasonable people work. Most reasonable people require evidence of some sort before they will consider something to be a "fact".

I personally prefer to have evidence before I call something a "fact" as well.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Dr. Richard Feynman

There is no such thing as "fact" without faith. You have faith that something is a fact. For instance, not many people have taken the time themselves to see if water will freeze at a specific degree. They take that fact on faith that it is true. Most people don't have direct evidence of molecules, they take that "fact" on faith. ect ect. the list could go on and on. That is why I stated fact differentiates between people.

Person A, 40F is absolutely freezing cold, that's fact for them.
Person B, 40F is absolutely great, that's fact for them

Person A, 70 mph is pretty fast, that's fact for them
Person B, 70 mph kinda drags on, that's fact for them

Ect ect.



There's plenty of evidence for Christianity being a fact. There's manuscript after manuscript. Just you choose not to give validity to those manuscripts and call them hearsay rumors. That is your choice, your decision.



All I got to respond on this comment, is you might want to read it twice my friend.

There is no such thing as "fact" without faith. You have faith that something is a fact. For instance, not many people have taken the time themselves to see if water will freeze at a specific degree. They take that fact on faith that it is true. Most people don't have direct evidence of molecules, they take that "fact" on faith. ect ect. the list could go on and on. That is why I stated fact differentiates between people.

Person A, 40F is absolutely freezing cold, that's fact for them.
Person B, 40F is absolutely great, that's fact for them

Person A, 70 mph is pretty fast, that's fact for them
Person B, 70 mph kinda drags on, that's fact for them

Ect ect.

Slowhand wrote:


There's plenty of evidence for Christianity being a fact. There's manuscript after manuscript. Just you choose not to give validity to those manuscripts and call them hearsay rumors. That is your choice, your decision.

More specifically about faith and facts.

Do you know for a fact you have liver? And if so, how do you know for a fact that YOU have a colon?

Do you know for a fact everything is made up of little cells? And if so, how do you know for a fact that EVERYTHING thing is made up of little cells?

Do you know quite a bit of the world is covered in water? And if so, how do you know for a fact that QUITE A BIT of the world is covered in water?


ect ect, again the list could go on for ages.

All of those things can be DEFINITIVELY proven. Can you prove God actually was behind the Bible? No you can't. Therein lies the difference.