You can read the bible like that if you want.

I'm not impressed by that approach.

I think you're right about one thing. That approach is only going to make "sense" to a BELIEVER.

In other words, you need to actually go into the story at the get-go BELIEVING that it is true without doubt, and in that frame of mine you simply accept everything to be the word of God or that action of God. And you don't QUESTION that because you've already decided to believe it before you've even read it.

Therefore you JUSTIFY everything. Either by simply accepting that it is this God's Will, or by accepting that God must have an explanation for anything that doesn't make sense to you. You just pass off anything you can't explain by saying to yourself, "Well I'm sure God had his reason even though I don't know all the details".

You could believe any story looking at it through those glasses.

You need to question the validity of the stories before you can truly open your eyes to what's actually going on.

So yes, the same thing could be said about the stories of Santa Clause. They are only going to make sense to a BELIEVER, because if anyone questions the stories of Santa Clause even briefly they are going to quickly come to their sense and say, "How could I have been so naive to believe that some old man lives at the north pole making gifts for everyone to be delivered once at year in a sleigh pulled by reindeer.

Well, it's really no different from the biblical fables.

Once you are able to actually look at them with a rational eye you will quickly come away from them asking yourself, "How could I ever have been so naive to have believed all that stuff?"

So yes, in a very real sense you need to become a Non-believer, first, before you can even open your eyes.

You'll never question anything if you refuse to first question your belief in it. That must come FIRST.

Truly.

Besides, it's both unrealistic and ineffective to try to use religoin as a social standard.

Why?

Two very good reasons:

1. People can't be forced to believe in a Santa Claus God.

2. History has shown that even the believers of such a picture of God are just as likely to be criminal as anyone else.

So it doesn't even work in any case.

It's historically been proven to be a failed approach.

It simply doesn't work.

There can be no question about this. There even exist child molesting priests.

Religion simply doesn't work!

Period Amen.

Ho Ho Ho

Santa!! They told me you were not real!

Jeanniebean said it so well......
just imagine, you are in line at Starbucks, and a girl (or guy) says she has a strong personal relationship with Bob. You say "that is so nice, where does he live ??" she replies "in the heavens, up in the clouds somewhere", "how long have you known him"...."I have known him ever since the day I was born again and took him into my life"..."Ohhh, have you ever seen him ??"... "no, but I have faith he is there"...."Hmmm, why do you feel so strongly about this relationship"..."that is easy, if I believe in him, I won't get in trouble for being a sinner, and if I don't believe in him, I will burn forever in Hell"......"Wow, where is Hell??".... "not sure, but I think it is deep in the earth, where it is very hot"............etc, etc, etc

get my drift, we would think this girl is delusional, imagining things and imagining and talking to an invisible friend.... bingo !!!

Here's a fun thought ...

Let's say there's this great catastrophe ... a nuclear war or something and just about all information is wiped ... except a copy or two (maybe more HIDDEN in CAVES--where the earth collapsed into the foundation of a house) of Harry Potter!

Centuries later, someone finds this book and since all technical knowledge of today was lost in the nuclear fires, this is the only STORY record of our times. Not knowing fact from fiction of the era, the people of the future believe in magic and this "Harry Potter" from long ago. As time passes, more books are extracted from the CAVES and people figure it must be true and this J. K. Rowling must've been some sort of historian.

Others, seeing selfish gain in the stories, start embellishing or "find" their own Harry Potter stories ... like the Gospel of Ron Weasley or the Testament of Severus Snape.

Wouldn't that be fun?

Well they certainly won't be getting any presents. But I'll fly by your place this December.

I'm currently reading a book on magick. This book is authored by a Jewish man who had reasons for questioning his religion early on as a child. He actually didn't set out to question the validity of the religion. He simply had questions concerning the precise rituals that he was being taught and he was asking why the rituals are the way they are.

In short, he was actually seeking a deeper understanding of his religion. He wasn't setting out to renounce it.

However, his quest to better understand these rituals led him down a life-long path that ultimately led him to the conclusion that the religion itself was the misguided result of much more ancient practices of magicians.

If this man's research has any merit, then religion as we know it today may have actually been given birth by Harry Potter like superstitions of magick.

Although, this man doesn't view them as "superstitions". Instead he is convinced that they were the "Original Truths".

I think most atheists would just take it a step further and simply say, "Yes, Judaism was probably inspired by the work of ancient magicians." But then they would go on to say, "And the work of those ancient magicians was probably inspired by superstitions prior to that, etc."

Let's 'be real' here, and stop the piddly nonsense(directive based upon my personal opinion of questionable motive). You're asking for evidence, reason, or proof of the Bible's veracity, specifically regarding Christianity.(this is a fact that is already in evidence) Figuring out whether or not it makes sense to believe anything at all must make use of reason and critical thinking skills(brute fact).Critical thinking skills are necessary in order to use the facts in evidence to draw reasonable and logical conclusions. The same facts can be used to figure out whether or not it makes sense to believe that Jesus did or did not exist(common sense). However, I think that your mind is already made up(personal opinion). If it is not then please disregard the above opinion and read the following with careful consideration, as I'll soon get to the above question.

First things first... Evidence comes in more than one form. Reason is but one kind of evidence. "Hard" empirical evidence is another kind. Even with "hard" evidence, such as the 'smoking gun', the carpet fibers, hair, etc. we must still use reason to parse things out, to figure it out, to piece things together. So, it is rather obvious that the proper employment of critical reasoning is irrevocable. Now, lets look at some of the facts from which we can safely infer some things which will lead us to an answer to whether or not it makes sense to deny Christianity solely by virtue of denying the very existence of Abraham's lineage. This includes the existence of Jesus himself.

Using the principle of charity, we can say that if Jesus existed(charity), and he spoke/lived as portrayed(charity), then he probably lived in Jerusalem also.(common sense deduction)I mean, why would we deny this if we grant the possibility that he existed. We must charitably grant that possibility in order to offer the most unbiased examination of the forthcoming evidence. Anything less would be disingeuous. Seeing how the allegations that are being levied against the religion involve such blatant dishonesty, we certainly cannot follow suit and remain convincing.

Jerusalem, at that time, was a Roman occupied territory; part of the Eastern Roman Empire(historical fact). Therefore, Romans guards, soldiers, governors, etc., lived there(common sense logical inference supported by written history). If Romans were there, then some most likely knew of Jesus, and others at some time or another probably spoke to him. At the very least, some surely had to have heard him speaking to others, saw him walking around with his followers, etc.(common sense probability)People talk to one another about other people(brute fact). So some of the Romans who had crossed Jesus' path most likely discussed him at one time or another.(common sense probability) Jesus was not of the 'celebrity' status at that time, for he would have still been making a name for himself, so to speak(common sense). There were others like him who talked about religious beliefs(historical fact). Therefore, he - most likely - would not have stood out much(common sense deduction). Therefore, most of the Romans who knew about him, or had come into contact with him, would have no reason to believe that he was anything more than an average poor citizen of the territory who was acting as many did.(conclusion based upon facts and common sense reasoning)

There is an entire religion and all of it's different denominations stemming from, and about a man named Jesus.(empirical fact) There are books - both canonical and not - dating back to within 50 or so years of the time he is claimed to have lived that are all about, and/or based upon him and his life.(empirical fact) There are many books which are not included in the biblical canon, also known as the Gnostics or apocrypha, that tell many of the same stories as the gospels.(empirical fact) All of these books corroborate one another in many ways(empirical fact). They also differ in the content in substantial ways.(empirical fact) They were found in different places, far apart from one another.(historical fact) Many different people claimed to have known him personally(historical fact), and this is recorded within the gospels(empirical fact). There are many who claim that we cannot say for certain whether or not the gospels were authored by the actual followers whose names have been attributed to them(empirical fact). That does not necessarily mean that those books were not authored by the followers(logical truth). Many people obtained writings/books whose authors claimed a personal relationship with Jesus(historical and empirical fact). These have been handed down through the generations with little to no changes in the content of the oldest known examples(empirical fact).

Technology of today did not exist to get info from(empirical fact). Writings and word of mouth, were the only means avaliable.(common sense deduction) Most people of the time could were illiterate(historical fact). Jesus and/or his life story was, and still is, known about in these ways(empirical fact). Keep in mind that that was the only way to be known back then(historical fact). Nevermind the alleged accuracy of the writings as far as the veracity of the portrayed eventsare concerned(miracles and the like). We're looking for evidence and/or reason to believe(or not) that a man named Jesus actually existed.

Since we're questioning whether or not an historical figure actually lived 2000 years ago, we cannot possibly ask for something like overwhelming dna evidence of the entire family, unless we expect the same for all historical figures. That would be unfair bias(double standard) at work. If we deny the existence of Jesus while holding that only "hard" evidence would suffice, then confirmation bias is at work, and we set out an impossible criterion. If we do not ask for the same kind of stringent "hard" evidence in order to believe that other people existed, how could we possibly ask for such from another without being hypocritical? You, Jb, certainly do not hold your own beliefs to such a stringent epistemic criterion. If one seeks with good conscience, then one ought to show some integrity and fairness.

This leads us to a simple question. Given all of this...

What reason is there to doubt that a man named Jesus actually existed?

All doubt is grounded upon some other belief(principle of thought). Doubting X is doubting that X is true(self-evident truth). So perhaps it would be better put like this...

What belief(s) do you hold that offer(s) reasonable ground for doubting the existence of a man named Jesus who has a religion 'named' after him?



Just because some people's accounts may be, are, and/or have been wrong, it does not necessarily follow that all accounts are wrong.(excluded middle) You're conclusion here is fallacious(rules of logic). History itself is nothing but fact. If it happened, it is history, if it did not happen, then it cannot be history(common sense deduction). Recorded 'history' is either true or not, depending upon whether or not it matches up to actual history(correspondecne theory). You have offered no evidence, "hard" or otherwise, to support the claim that everyone who thinks that they have it right, doesn't(empirical fact). I've just offered a valid argument to the contrary(empirical fact). We cannot reasonable say, in good conscience, that all written history is wrong, just because some is/has been(logical deduction).



It is never a good sign when uncontentious facts are being questioned(personal opinion). Go look. Do some homework. Sermons attributed to Paul comprise most of it(empirical fact). Where's your evidence that he did not? Double standard.



Truth is completely determined by the way things are/were(correspondence theory). Truth is a property of a statement which matches up to the way things are/were(correspondence theory). A true statement corresponds to fact/reality(correspondence theory). We cannot know, with absolute certainty, whether or not recorded history matches up to the way things were at that time(comon sense deduction). That's just the way it is... with any historical truth claim. We can only look at the facts in evidence to draw a sensible conclusion(critical thinking).



I'm not sure exactly what "that" is referencing. Everything I've laid out here is common sense as far as I'm concerned, however, I do tend to overestimate people's ability to think critically(personal opinion accompanied by brute fact). I also tend to lose respect for those who hold others' thoughts to an unattainable criterion that they themselves, do not or cannot meet(brute fact).

Let's be real here(a suggestion to be fair and reasonable).



Saul of Tarsus. Yes, it is claimed that he changed his name to Paul and stopped murdering others(historical fact). If I'm not mistaken, his traveling and jailing is recorded in places outside of the Bible. However, I could be mistaken here(pure conjecture).



In order for this first claim to be verified(supported by evidence), or even honestly asserted, we would have to have the Christian doctrine before 300 A.D. and the doctrine after(necessity). Do we have that information available? If not, how can we possibly draw such an unsupported conclusion?

Regarding the second claim...

The Catholic Church gathered, selected, and maintained all the early records, writings, and manuscripts that were available(historical fact). Since there were so many different stories, some of them were obviously not in accordance with the rest of what was held to be true - at the time(common sense deduction). So, it only makes sense to say that in order to do the best job possible at maintaining veracity and authenticity, the various councils compared and contrasted all of the different books and selected the ones that were consistent and coherent with the OT, and the common convention(common sense/charity). This has been recorded and is maintained in the archives(empirical fact). None of this offers any support to the kind of dishonesty that is implied within the allegations you're putting forth(logical deduction).

The Roman Catholic Church did not even exist prior to Jesus/Christianity(historical fact). Therefore, it could not 'take' Christianity and turn it into what it is today(logical/physical impossibility). Besides that, to hold that Christianity today is a result of the beginnings of the RCC is to not even consider all of the events between 300 A.D. and today that have had an effect on Christianity(critical thinking). The Protestant Reformation has had more of an effect on today's Christianity than the formation of the RCC could ever possibly have(historical/empirical facts). Western(American) culture has had more effect on today's Christianity than the RCC(empirical fact).



Some people believe that the earth is flat too. Does that mean that we should use their belief to bolster our own prejudice?

No educated and disciplined historian that I know(whether religious or not) believes that the NT was written at that time. Parts of it, specifically, Revelations are dated that new, but all relatively unbiased historians/biblical scholars(you know, the ones that you say you want) date the gospels as early as 50 years after Jesus' death. Paul died around 70 A.D. If he wrote most of the NT(charity), then it could not have been written 200 to 300 years after Jesus' death(physical/logical impossibility).

By the way, Paul was executed by the Romans(historical fact).



There is no such a thing as being "exactly Christianity"(common sense). Even today, there are hundreds, if not thousands of different versions. Jesus Christ and 'his' story was and still is the centerpiece of them all(historical/empirical fact). Your objection here is hollow(personal opinion regarding the lack of ground).



No. Christianity is not the RCC(empirical fact). Do some research(suggestion).



If it is the quantity of different documentation from different people that satisfies being adequate evidence to you...

You'll lose your battle.



Jesus is taught in history classes as well. He is quite clearly the cornerstone of Christianity.



So, you only hold this stringent sort of evidencial criterion to the Abrahamic religions of the world? Do you not see how hypocritical that seems?

It is not hypocritical at all as the nature of my 'investigation' is King David and Abraham which happens to effect all of the Abrahamic religions of the world.

My interest in the rest of history is on the back burner until this single and crucial question is resolved. Otherwise I will end up going off in a million different directions and tangents which is not my intention.

If proof of their existence is not forth coming, I will assume that they are fictional characters and just move on. In doing so, I will also dismiss(to my satisfaction) everything that has manifested as a result of the fictional accounts involving these characters, which would be the Abrahamic religions.

If I had totally 'already made up my mind' I would not be asking for evidence or for someone to convince me otherwise. But you are correct that I have no choice but to draw a conclusion with what facts and evidence is available.

My conclusions are seldom cast in stone if new evidence is forthcoming.

You seem to think that I should proceed by accepting the premise that these characters actually existed rather than asking for evidence to support and convince me (or historians)that they did.

These characters have been huge in shaping the world and the religions of the world, so I see nothing "hypocritical" about starting with them first. They should be the first to come under tremendous scrutiny.



Before I get off on a wild tangent about the motives and agendas of the Catholic Church I would ask, What reason is there to believe that a man named Jesus actually existed?"

There are at least 16 other "saviors of mankind" with similar stories on mythical record and the one about Jesus is the one I should believe?

If everyone in the whole world believed an untruth, and only a single person knew the truth should that person give in and join the others in their false belief?

If there are so many believers, and so much evidence for the existence of King David and Abraham and Jesus etc. then where is it? The tiny mention of writings by two questionable historians is simply not enough considering the gravity of the impact this information has had on this world. Its gravity is so phenomenal and its butterfly effect throughout the ages so massive that it should be the priority of anyone seeking the truth.

Creative said;




We can only look at the facts in evidence to draw a sensible conclusion. (critical thinking.)

I agree.

If there is no more evidence than what I have seen and heard so far..(throughout my life) then it is safe to say that I can only draw a sensible conclusion.

That conclusion, as it stands, will nullify all Abrahamic religions and all stories based on King David, Abraham etc. It also nullifies the entire NT as a work of fiction.



What battle is that? I am involved in no battle at all. I am not out to convince anyone of anything. I am asking for them to convince me. I am asking for their evidence.




No he is not taught in schools as a fact.( Unless you are in a religious school.) If he is mentioned at all in a public school, it is not taught as a fact that he actually existed and was the son of God etc.

What is now the Roman Catholic Church, may not have been called by that name or organized in that manner, but the government and religious establishment of Rome certainly did exist before they organized the RCC.

And to say that Christianity is not the RCC might come as a surprise to them, as they claim to be Christian believing in Jesus. (even though in reality I believe that they were just faking it.)

So is Zeus, and Greek Mythology. And Buddha, Confucius, etc. Just because Jesus is taught as a cornerstone of Christianity doesn't imply that he is given any credibility as having actually existed.

They teach about the "witch burnings" too. Does that imply that they agree those the women who were burned were actual "witches"

I'm pretty sure that they teach about Egyptian gods, and the gods of the Aztecs, and Incas, and American Indians, etc. too.

None of that implies that any of those god concepts have historical credibility. But the fact that these beliefs have influenced cultures is history.



Well, the obvious answer would be that this is the case for all religions. What reasonable ground does anyone have for doubting the existence of Zeus, or anyone else?

I personally don't doubt that some person taught against the teachings of the Torah, insulted the Pharisees, and was crucified for his views.

That much I'll believe.

But in the same way that I don't believe that the women who were burned at the stake as "witches" were actually "witches" (especially in terms of the Christian belief that those were women who sold their soul to Satan), neither do I believe that the man who was nailed to a pole for renouncing the immoral teachings of the Torah was the son of some God.

~~~~

Jeannie seems to offering the Christians some hope by even remotely suggesting that if these characters could be shown to have actually existed that would give Christianity a bit more credence.

I won't even go that far.

Show me absolute complete undeniable evidence that some guy historically renounced the immorality of the Torah, called the Pharisees hypocrites, and was nailed to a pole, and I'll just shrug my shoulders and say, "So?"

That doesn't even begin to imply that the outrageous claims made in the New Testament rumors have any credible merit.

They could still just as easily be highly exaggerated superstitious rumors.

If you ask me, "What reasonable ground do you have for doubting them?"

That's easy. I personally don't believe that any supposedly all-wise, all-intelligent God would be associated with such sick, demented and ignorant behavior.

That's more than enough reason for me to reject those outrageous claims.

Then add to that also, that there does not exist one iota of independent historical evidence to back up the supernatural claims that were being made.

They made at least three outrageous claims that, if true, should have caused a lot of "background" independent historical "noise", IMHO.

They claim that Jesus went around the country side with large following of thousands of people healing all manner of sickness and even raising people from the dead.

No independent historical "noise" associate with any of that.

They claim that God spoke to a large mass of people from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son and that they should hear Jesus out.

No independent historical "noise" associate with any of that.

They claim that when Jesus was resurrected a multitude of saints also rose from their graves, and when into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there.

No independent historical "noise" associate with any of that.

So I conclude that it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss all of those claims to be nothing more than the exaggerated fibs of overly-superstitious religious zealots.

Or maybe the whole thing was totally fabricated from scratch.

That could be true.

But as I see it, there is no "reasonable" evidence to support any of the outrageous supernatural claims. Just the opposite. It's far more "reasonable" to conclude that they are just unwarranted rumors.

You're setting an unattainable criterion for evidence, one of which your own beliefs do not - cannot - meet.



It is not safe to say that you can only draw a sensible conclusion, for you could also draw an unsensible one.



You think that your opinion, based upon the limited amount of evidence that you have which must be an impossible criterion, about what did or did not happen in the past, nullifies what did or did not happen in the past?

A biblical story is true, IFF it accurately corresponds to historical states of affairs. Do you have access to those?



It is hypocritical for a speaker to ask someone else for evidence to support their belief(s) that they, the speaker, do not have for holding their own belief(s). That is the epitome of hypocrisy.

It seems to me, and I'll wager that I'm not alone here, that the "nature" of your 'investigation' is to confirm that which you already hold true. This is supported by the fact that you're not considering the evidence that is being presented to you. This is clearly supported by this...



This statement would not come from someone who paid attention to what I last wrote.

Come on Michael get real.

Jeannie isn't claiming to hold the infallible verbatim "Word of God" and demanding that everyone who refuses to accept is it "denying God". So her personal beliefs do not need to meet the same criteria that she is demanding from people who DO CLAIM to hold the "Word of God".

Outrageous claims should require outrageous criteria.

Besides, all she's asking is for someone to give compelling evidence that the characters mentioned in the Bible actually existed.

If they can't even do that, then why should they expect anyone to believe the rumors about the people who they can't even show had even existed in the first place?

Jesus was born of a virgin?

Who followed Mary around to assert the truth to that claim?

The very fact that these stories make claims that NO ONE could ever possibly know to be true, is enough to dismiss them, IMHO.

Seek and ye shall find.

The Jewish historian Josephus, writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ).

Tacitus was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and later became governor of Asia. Around AD 116 in his work entitled Annals, he wrote of Emperor Nero and a fire which had swept Rome in AD 64:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome

Why don't you butt out and let someone do that then. Your only here to disrupt anyway.

As interpreted by mr. hate on religion.

point taken and repeated again and again

But strange this isn't tittle the non religious section is it? It happens to be the religious section. Oh, but your not religious. Wonder why you would bother to be here then. Oh, let me check the tittle once again. Yep, sure enough it says for people of all "religions".

Very good point. And atheism isn't a religion, it is the lack there of.