I'm Confused

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Hey Dra!

 

try checking out this link.

 

It will be a nice little mental exercise even if you don't agree with it. ...just enter and follow the link at the bottom to "12 easy peices."

That was interesting. I have heard ideas of Jesus not existing, but this is the first time for me to see evidence of such ideas. Thank you.

 

By the way, Asimov, I like your blog. It's full of all kinds of interesting info/ideas.

 

-Dra Mucd Uha

[greasemonkey]

That was interesting. I have heard ideas of Jesus not existing, but this is the first time for me to see evidence of such ideas. Thank you.

-Dra Mucd Uha

 

I'm glad you liked it! I really like the site, but some of his stuff seems a little too motivated by the distaste for christianity for me to swallow without question. I question everything I read, and always pay close attention to motivations; believe me, both ends of the spectrum have biases. Burton Mack has some really good books that provide a better "middle ground," unfortunately, he doesn't have much by way of online resources (not to mention his books can be a little hard for the layman to get through). Historical study and occam's razor can provide the most logical insights (ie: how likely is it the same guy who told people to sell all they own would tell you to give a tenth of all you own to the church?). The simple ugly truth is that it is all pretty easy; the real decision is whether or not you are willing to let faith dictate, or logic and common sense. Lot's of things in life aren't too logical (especially at age 16); personally, I don't have a problem with faith. It's just not my way. "Following my heart" has led me to a lot of heartbreak at times; others can tell you an utter flipside of the same coin. Only difference really is that I don't claim to have all the answers. Every day is a new adventure, and I don't think that is such a bad thing!

 

The choice is yours my friend! I wish you luck either way!

[pandora]

Dra-- did you read the last few posts in your thread on TF? It seems to me they inadvertently pointed out a passage that disproves the accuracy of Christian prophecy.

"Isa 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

 

The text, including the hebrew, would suggest that Damascus would no longer be a city, and will be ruinous heap. Damascus is one of the oldest constantly inhabited cities in the world and it has never been completely destroyed and so it never ceased or been taken away."

 

Also, anyone know the reference to the verse when Jesus said that "this generation shall not pass away until I come again" or some such thing?

 

Dra, I admire your honest search for truth. But I think of it this way. The Bible is indeed unique in how it was put together... over thousands of years versus hundreds, like most other sacred texts (except for Buddhism, but they don't have a set "Bible" like book like Christianity... their literature is way too vast). But, on the other hand, it tells the story of a particular ethnic group... that really did exist... they had ideas about how things would unfold for them. So what? So what they find a city that the Bible mentions? So what Jerusalem exists again? A broken clock is right two times a day. Does that make the dogmatic and theologic claims of the Bible true?? No, it's dubious to think that way. Have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? I think many of the more spiritual predictions in the Bible and the prophecy of Israel are perfect examples of that. Not to mention how Jesus fits SOME of the OT prophecy, but not all... with convenient explanations of why....

 

Just stuff to think about... to me, this area is all secondary to why I don't believe. I don't believe because theologically, the Bible doesn't make sense. It takes way to much weasely reasoning to make it work, and then when you do, you have to do more reasoning to explain the next thing. I call it mental gymnastics. I think the world is much simpler when it comes to humanity and what is important than conservative Christianity makes it.

[Asimov]

No, I came here to see if there is any evidence against Christianity, but if there is, I know of none. Or, as of now, only some.

 

Yes, but you are not even presenting any arguments FOR Christianity except vague references to israel and something you heard regarding archaeology.

 

Surely by default you shouldn't believe in something that you have no evidence for or against, and if you have some evidence against, then that would be even more reason to reject it.

 

What kind of evidence are you looking for? I'd say God not existing is pretty big evidence against it. Or the fact that there are no contemporary historical resources which mention Jesus, or the lack of evidence to suggest that Genesis events even occured, or the lack of evidence to suggest that the exodus occured, or Moses, Adam, Abraham ever existed.

 

What about failed prophecy? Ezekiel has a number of failed prophecies, or the inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts....

 

Is this kinda what you are looking for?

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Is this kinda what you are looking for?

I'm looking for any evidence you can provide for me that is against Christianity.

[Taphophilia]

Dra,

 

Try this Link.

 

Asimov,

 

Dra's a kid, He's 16 years old. Don't be so hard on him.

 

Taph

[Ro-bear]

 

Agnostics. Pah! In my book there are only two kinds of agnostics. Those who are too afraid to admit they are atheists "just in case" and those who are fed up with Christianity but are too afraid to abandon it completely "just in case." I don't believe in the "cannot know so I'll sit on the sideline" philosophy. As for the believers who can't believe but still don't disbelieve I say, "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." And for the non-believers who can't admit they don't believe public ally I say, "grow some balls."

 

 

Damn, JGJ, don't hold back; tell us how you really feel!

 

 

I see you are also from Tennessee. You have my sympathy and understanding. I mean, go Vols! Fuck them yankees!

 

 

Or...whatever. I, too, am from Tennessee and subject to all the conflict that entails for a thinking man. You probably know what I mean.

[Ouroboros]

Agnostics. Pah! In my book there are only two kinds of agnostics. Those who are too afraid to admit they are atheists "just in case" and those who are fed up with Christianity but are too afraid to abandon it completely "just in case." I don't believe in the "cannot know so I'll sit on the sideline" philosophy. As for the believers who can't believe but still don't disbelieve I say, "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." And for the non-believers who can't admit they don't believe public ally I say, "grow some balls."

Sorry, but I do not agree. I wrote a longer response, but realized that I don't want to get into a fight with you. It's a bit hurtful to hear something like "you're a chicken because you don't take a standpoint".

 

I'm an agnostic/atheist, and I do take the standpoint that I do not think or believe there is a god. But can I prove it? No. I can argue, and I can have my opinion, but there's no hard evidence or undeniable proof that any sorts of god or supreme can not exist. If you do have that proof, then you would be very famous, because no one would be able to deny your proof. No one could believe in a god anymore, since it would be "known" to everyone that this "god" doesn't exist.

 

Would you also say that pantheists and naturalists are wrong? Don't they believe nature and the universe is the essence of god or a non-personal god. Is the big bang and the universe removed from faith? Would this mean that you have to prove to them that the big bang didn't happen, the universe doesn't exist, or that they just can't be allowed to believe that the universe and existence is "god"? There's so many flavors of belief, and atheism is not the only replacement for a lack of faith in a Bible-kind-of-god.

 

Do understand, I am an atheist, but I am also an agnostic. To me there's no conflict between those two, because agnostic is about what can I know, while atheism is about what I believe or not believe. It's pretty much like super string theory. Can we know quantum mechanics are based on strings? We can guess, and we can believe or we can have opinions, but at the moment, unfortunately, the scientists do...not...know.

 

There's two kinds of agnostics by the way. One is that we can not know currently, but maybe in the future, and there's the kind that say we can not know now, and we will never be able to know. I'm of the first kind. I have not seen proofs against god that couldn't be denied by a believer, and I don't there are any today. But maybe in the future we will be able to proof either or. We just have to wait and see.

[Asimov]

Dra,

 

Try this Link.

 

Asimov,

 

Dra's a kid, He's 16 years old. Don't be so hard on him.

 

Taph

 

I know he's a kid, and I'm really not being hard on him. You've seen me be hard on people, this is Asimov-lite.

 

Seriously though, Dra, you are being really vague in what you're asking for. I just presented a number of things and you didn't really respond to any of them. If you think they are unworthy then I'd appreciate you explaining to me why it is and giving me some counter-evidence.

 

This is a discussion, and the best way to learn is to ask questions.

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Yes, but you are not even presenting any arguments FOR Christianity except vague references to israel and something you heard regarding archaeology.

Should I be?

 

Surely by default you shouldn't believe in something that you have no evidence for or against, and if you have some evidence against, then that would be even more reason to reject it.

Which is why I'm looking for evidence.

 

What kind of evidence are you looking for? I'd say God not existing is pretty big evidence against it. Or the fact that there are no contemporary historical resources which mention Jesus, or the lack of evidence to suggest that Genesis events even occured, or the lack of evidence to suggest that the exodus occured, or Moses, Adam, Abraham ever existed.

Specifically? I can't get that specific... other than, perhaps, anything against the Bible being valid. The existence of God would be good too. But I wouldn't ask you for all that. This is probably something I should be searching for on my own anyway.

 

What about failed prophecy? Ezekiel has a number of failed prophecies, or the inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts....

This works too.

 

Is this kinda what you are looking for?

As I said before, andything against Christianity. Even if it's just a link to another site, that would work. I'm still looking at the others.

 

-Dra Mucd Uha

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Sorry, but I do not agree. I wrote a longer response, but realized that I don't want to get into a fight with you. It's a bit hurtful to hear something like "you're a chicken because you don't take a standpoint".

 

Don't worry Han, I don't stoop to name calling...individuals.

 

But can I prove it? No. I can argue, and I can have my opinion, but there's no hard evidence or undeniable proof that any sorts of god or supreme can not exist.

 

Nope, no hard evidence of his existence or non-existence which is why people should just make their own opinion for or against instead of choosing not to make up their mind.

 

Would you also say that pantheists and naturalists are wrong? Don't they believe nature and the universe is the essence of god or a non-personal god. Is the big bang and the universe removed from faith? Would this mean that you have to prove to them that the big bang didn't happen, the universe doesn't exist, or that they just can't be allowed to believe that the universe and existence is "god"? There's so many flavors of belief, and atheism is not the only replacement for a lack of faith in a Bible-kind-of-god.

 

Ahh, the spiritualist. I am all for the spiritualist, they have taken a side, their own and don't rely upon some writing by people 1700 years and more gone. They use their own observations and feelings and I can respect that. What disgusts me are those who try to evangelize their beliefs with personal experience and faith to others. Atheists try to use logic, they have my respect, spiritualists don't stand on street corners and throw their beliefs in your face, I respect them to. How many Bhuddist or Hindu missionaries do you see? None, I can respect them. But Agnostics? They claim ignorance as their inspiration, that I cannot respect.

 

Do understand, I am an atheist, but I am also an agnostic. To me there's no conflict between those two, because agnostic is about what can I know, while atheism is about what I believe or not believe. It's pretty much like super string theory. Can we know quantum mechanics are based on strings? We can guess, and we can believe or we can have opinions, but at the moment, unfortunately, the scientists do...not...know.

 

I believe that someday we will know, and given the exponential rate of our learning we will probably know soon. But to say that you don't believe in gods (atheist) and that you can't and will never know (agnosticism) that they can even exist just strikes me as contradicting ones self. I'm not exactly sure why right now because I just drank a bottle of wine, my first in 15 years, but when I wake up tomorrow I might know better.

 

But I'm all for people having their opinions, I love that freedom. I can respect you for having half of an opinion.

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Lol. I was looking at one of the websites given on this thread, the Annotated Bible, and this off of a site that tried to answer the contradiction to Judas' death...

 

The questioner assumes that there is a contradiction because Matthew and Luke record different facts about Judas' death. He hanged himself (as Matthew reveals), but it seems that either the limb upon which he hung, or the rope with which he hung himself broke, causing Judas to fall forward, resulting in a deep laceration in his stomach, so deep that his intestines gushed out.

 

Whether this indeed is exactly what happened, I am unsure. However, it is a possible and probable explanation.

 

There is no contradiction.

I'm sorry... but really... "I'm not sure if this happened or not... it's possible... but it doesn't matter because it's not a contradiction..."

 

[Asimov]

Should I be?

 

Well, then why are saying you have no reason to reject it when you have no arguments to present in favour of it.

 

You mentioned a prophecy....but made no specific detailed argument regarding it, even though it was refuted before you could.

 

You mentioned archaeology....but made no specific detailed argument regarding it, thus I have nothing to work with.

 

Specifically? I can't get that specific... other than, perhaps, anything against the Bible being valid. The existence of God would be good too. But I wouldn't ask you for all that. This is probably something I should be searching for on my own anyway.

 

Ok, in regards to the existence of God.

 

Have you heard of theological non-cognitivism? It's the argument that the concept of God is meaningless because it lacks a definition. If it lacks meaning, then any statement supposedly in favour of God is invalid.

 

Have you heard of the law of non-contradiction? The stated attributes of the God concept are so contradictory that they defy all logic....which thus render them meaningless. Deductively, we can show that God does not exist, given that the concept of God is meaningless and the attributes presented are contradictory.

 

This works too.

 

Ok, so have you heard of the Tyre prophecy? It was a failed prophecy which stated specifically that Nebuchadnezzar II would destroy Tyre and it would be wiped away from the Earth never to be inhabited again. This failed entirely!

 

As I said before, andything against Christianity. Even if it's just a link to another site, that would work. I'm still looking at the others.

 

Why, though? If you have no evidence FOR Christianity there should be no reason to request evidence against it since you obviously have no actual understanding or belief in Christianity (and if you do, it's a poor one).

 

I'm sorry... but really... "I'm not sure if this happened or not... it's possible... but it doesn't matter because it's not a contradiction..."

 

Not to mention that bodies don't fall headlong when they fall from hanging and actually omitting the fact that he fell from a tree after hanging himself is a pretty big leap of logic.

[SkepticOfBible]

Interestingly, if not for Christian persecution of Jews for the past 2000 years, Zionists would probably not even exist. If not for end-times hysteria which the Zionists helped to stir up in the late 1800s (which continues today), Christians would not have supported the formation of a Jewish state. So in this sense, I suppose there is a causal link between Jesus and the reformation of Israel, but he still doesn't sit on a throne there.

Wow. Yeah I've noticed there are quite a few places where Christians try to cover up mistakes in a similiar way, using behind the scenes scenarios. They seem to make many unsupported assumptions. To me the prophecy of Israel becoming a nation again has always stood out. But, just like everything else in my life these days, I wasn't told much about it, just what the Christians want me to hear (Christian homes do that to you). I haven't heard the "other side" of Christianity.

 

What Spamdam is proposing is not speculation but a the historical fact.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist

 

While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe. It was the Jewish answer to the Eastern European, mainly Russian Pogroms.

 

In 1883, Nathan Birnbaum, nineteen years old, founded Kadimah, the first Jewish Students Association in Vienna. In 1884 the first issue of Selbstemanzipation or Self Emancipation appeared, completely made by Nathan Birnbaum himself. Kadimah was the first Jewish nationalist orientated organisation; in 1890 he coined the term Zionist and Zionism.

........

The revelation of the fate of six million European Jews killed during the Holocaust had several consequences. Firstly, it left hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees (or displaced persons) in camps in Europe, unable or unwilling to return to homes in countries which they felt had betrayed them to the Nazis. Not all of these refugees wanted to go to Palestine, and in fact many of them eventually went to other countries, but large numbers of them did, and they resorted to increasingly desperate measures to get there, over 250,000 were smuggled out of Europe by an organization called Berihah.

 

Secondly, it evoked a world-wide feeling of sympathy with the Jewish people, mingled with guilt that more had not been done to deter Hitler's aggressions before the war, or to help Jews escape from Europe during its course. This was particularly the case in the United States, whose federal government had halted Jewish immigration during the war. Among those who became strong supporters of the Zionist ideal was President Harry S. Truman, who overrode considerable opposition in his State Department and used the great power of his position to mobilise support at the United Nations for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, although he expressed very negative views of Jews in his diaries, and had, in a letter written years before he entered the White House, referred to New York City as "kike town" .[2][3][4] Since Britain was desperate to withdraw from Palestine, Truman's efforts were the crucial factor in the creation of Israel.

 

Thirdly, it swung world Jewish opinion almost unanimously behind the project of a Jewish state in Palestine, and within Palestine it led to a greater resolution to use force to achieve that objective. American Reform Judaism was among the elements of Jewish thought which changed their opinions about Zionism after the Holocaust. The proposition that Jews could live in peace and security in non-Jewish societies was certainly a difficult one to defend in 1945, although it is one of the ironies of Zionist history that in the decades since World War II anti-Semitism has greatly declined as a serious political force in most western countries, (though it increased greatly in Middle Eastern countries) and Jewish communities continue to live and prosper outside Israel.

 

The formation of Isreal n 1948 has nothing do with prophecy, but rather human empathy. However if Xtians still want to claim, this is prophecy fulfillment, think about the cost - 6 Million Jews.

 

What kind of price to be paid for "fulfillment" of a prophecy?Does this God not care about the "chosen people". Worse still, these Jews who died in the Holocaust are right in Hell. And who sent them to hell. Their Xtian persecutors.

 

Xtian have very little evidence for most of the stories in the bible.

 

A Christian Sermon To Skeptics--Part 1

 

Speaking of validated and witnessed miracles, here's a stupendous miracle that was in many ways even bigger than Jesus allegedly rising from the dead.

 

Matt 27:50-53

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

Here's a stupendous miracle that was in many ways even bigger than Jesus allegedly rising from the dead.

 

Matt 27:50-53

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

 

This incredible event, an earthquake, with dead people coming out of their graves(before Jesus rose) and then strolling into town after Jesus was resurrected, and appearing to many others, is a huge event.

An event such as this would certainly be important enough to mention in the historical writings of non-Christians.

Yet, there is nothing about it.

There is nothing but complete silence about this wonderful and monumental event.

Even worse, there isn't one word about it anywhere else in the entire New Testament.

Paul, who was alive at the time and who was in Jerusalem often, never makes one mention of this event is all his writings.

Zip, zero, and zilch is what Paul and the other New Testament writers had to say about it.

The author of Luke, who claims he was writing an accurate account of all the important aspects of Jesus and his death(Luke 1:1-4), says not a single word about this huge event.

Are we to believe that this event wasn't important enough for the accurate historian Luke to mention?

This miracle is found only in the Gospel of Matthew.

 

The author(or authors) of the Gospel of Matthew loved to manufacture prophecy fulfillment by claiming that Jesus was a valid sign from God because he fulfilled prophecy from the Old Testament.

They had no problem ripping verses like Isa 7:14 out of context and claiming it was fulfilled by Jesus, when it was a prophecy that was really fulfilled hundreds of years before Jesus was even born(Matt 1:22-23).

They had no problem ripping Hosea 11:1 out of context and claiming that a past tense statement about Israel was really a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus(Matt 2:15).

 

The event in Matthew 27:50-53 has all the trappings of a manufactured, invented story.

It was most likely an attempt to show another prophecy as being fulfilled.

That prophecy being:

Isa 26:19

Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

 

In the mind of the author of Matthew, if it could be claimed that dead people arose when Jesus died, this would help validate Jesus as being a legitimate agent from God. By writing that the dead did actually rise, the author of Matthew creates an aura of credibility to his repeated claims about Jesus being from God and not a false prophet as many of the Jews suspected he was.

 

If this event ever happened, where are those risen "saints" today? Did they have to die all over again?

This important question is ignored by Christians because they have no answer to it. They don't know and can only assume that all these people who rose from the dead must have died again.

Apparently Christians don't want to advertise the problems with salvation through Jesus that this exposes.

If being raised from the dead only means to be raised into another temporary life, then it certainly isn't eternal life that Christians claim God will provide through his "grace".

You can rest assured that if these people were ever really risen from the dead that the Jews would have had made quite an issue of it since it would have opened up a legalistic can of worms.

If a man who died is alive again, what are the legal implications regarding his past wife, children, and his property, etc?

 

If one New Testament author was prone to embellishing a story to suit his agenda and needs, why are other gospel writers or Paul to be taken more seriously? How much of their story is embellished as well?

Anyone who wants to think that the Gospel of Matthew, or the other gospels, is the word of God does so in spite of the evidence and not because of it.

A truly perfect, just, and infallible God wouldn't author such a maze of inconsistency and then condemn people to hell for not believing it was all His word.

 

Also check out

 

Book of Daniel

 

Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy(How it is proved wrong)

 

Bad History in the Book of Daniel

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Not to mention that bodies don't fall headlong when they fall from hanging and actually omitting the fact that he fell from a tree after hanging himself is a pretty big leap of logic.

 

Good point, Asimov. I looked up the Greek for "headlong." It is "prhnhs," which means headfirst. There's no way someone can say that Judas hung himself and then his body fell headfirst. It's more likely that the account in Acts 1 (in the mouth of Peter) presumes Judas jumped off a precipice.

 

A fundy might argue that the inerrancy of Acts applies to Luke's accurate quotation of what Peter said and not to the accuracy of Peter's report itself. But if apostolic speakers making authoritative statements were themselves in error, and the error is embedded in the quotation of their words, the bible is still transmitting error. We might as well go back to Jesus' long discourse on the end times and say the only inerrant thing about it is accurate quotation of his words, but his words themselves contain error. Either way you slice it, the bible errs in some of its pronouncements.

 

dra, this is one of many contradictions in the Bible. This sort of thing provides evidence that the Bible is not inerrant.

 

A good discussion of the betrayal by and death of Judas and the contradictions is on

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/judas.html

 

(sorry if someone else already posted this link)

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Why, though? If you have no evidence FOR Christianity there should be no reason to request evidence against it since you obviously have no actual understanding or belief in Christianity (and if you do, it's a poor one).

For the sake of honesty, I won't say that I know my Bible cover to cover. Right now my whole outlook on Christianity has been wrecked, so I'm not really sure what to believe. In the past when I have questioned the validity of the Bible and Christianity, I have simply been told "There's archeological evidence." No one explained this to me how, but that there was. So I just accepted it and went on. I am currently looking into what they say is archeological evidence supporting the Bible.

 

The prophecy of Israel... okay...

 

The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, your brothers—your brothers who are your blood relatives and the whole house of Israel—are those of whom the people of Jerusalem have said, 'They are far away from the LORD; this land was given to us as our possession.' "Therefore say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Although I sent them far away among the nations and scattered them among the countries, yet for a little while I have been a sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone.' "Therefore say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will gather you from the nations and bring you back from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you back the land of Israel again.'

Here a prophecy is made about Israel becoming a nation again. And, as we all know, in 1948, this happened. To me this is a rather convincing prophecy, in that Israel becoming a nation again after who-knows-how-long couldn't have been an easy thing for them, especially in the Middle East.

 

Ok, in regards to the existence of God.

 

Have you heard of theological non-cognitivism? It's the argument that the concept of God is meaningless because it lacks a definition. If it lacks meaning, then any statement supposedly in favour of God is invalid.

 

Have you heard of the law of non-contradiction? The stated attributes of the God concept are so contradictory that they defy all logic....which thus render them meaningless. Deductively, we can show that God does not exist, given that the concept of God is meaningless and the attributes presented are contradictory.

I have heard neither of these (I suppose this is another testament of my ignorance). In answer to theological non-cognitivsm, doesn't the Bible give definitions of various aspects of God? In answer to the law of non-contradiction, how are the stated attributes contradictory?

 

Ok, so have you heard of the Tyre prophecy? It was a failed prophecy which stated specifically that Nebuchadnezzar II would destroy Tyre and it would be wiped away from the Earth never to be inhabited again. This failed entirely!

Wow. Yeah, here's a link to a page describing it fairly well Failed Tyre Prophecy

 

Not to mention that bodies don't fall headlong when they fall from hanging and actually omitting the fact that he fell from a tree after hanging himself is a pretty big leap of logic.

Exactly.

 

What Spamdam is proposing is not speculation but a the historical fact.

Absolutely, I was referring not to what he said, but to the fact that Christians cover up those facts mentioned and replace them with something different in an attempt to cover up truth. They try to make events that happened behind the scenes to try and make everything appear ok, instead of looking at what really happened, or at what's really there.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist

 

While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe. It was the Jewish answer to the Eastern European, mainly Russian Pogroms.

 

In 1883, Nathan Birnbaum, nineteen years old, founded Kadimah, the first Jewish Students Association in Vienna. In 1884 the first issue of Selbstemanzipation or Self Emancipation appeared, completely made by Nathan Birnbaum himself. Kadimah was the first Jewish nationalist orientated organisation; in 1890 he coined the term Zionist and Zionism.

........

The revelation of the fate of six million European Jews killed during the Holocaust had several consequences. Firstly, it left hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees (or displaced persons) in camps in Europe, unable or unwilling to return to homes in countries which they felt had betrayed them to the Nazis. Not all of these refugees wanted to go to Palestine, and in fact many of them eventually went to other countries, but large numbers of them did, and they resorted to increasingly desperate measures to get there, over 250,000 were smuggled out of Europe by an organization called Berihah.

 

Secondly, it evoked a world-wide feeling of sympathy with the Jewish people, mingled with guilt that more had not been done to deter Hitler's aggressions before the war, or to help Jews escape from Europe during its course. This was particularly the case in the United States, whose federal government had halted Jewish immigration during the war. Among those who became strong supporters of the Zionist ideal was President Harry S. Truman, who overrode considerable opposition in his State Department and used the great power of his position to mobilise support at the United Nations for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, although he expressed very negative views of Jews in his diaries, and had, in a letter written years before he entered the White House, referred to New York City as "kike town" .[2][3][4] Since Britain was desperate to withdraw from Palestine, Truman's efforts were the crucial factor in the creation of Israel.

 

Thirdly, it swung world Jewish opinion almost unanimously behind the project of a Jewish state in Palestine, and within Palestine it led to a greater resolution to use force to achieve that objective. American Reform Judaism was among the elements of Jewish thought which changed their opinions about Zionism after the Holocaust. The proposition that Jews could live in peace and security in non-Jewish societies was certainly a difficult one to defend in 1945, although it is one of the ironies of Zionist history that in the decades since World War II anti-Semitism has greatly declined as a serious political force in most western countries, (though it increased greatly in Middle Eastern countries) and Jewish communities continue to live and prosper outside Israel.

 

 

The formation of Isreal n 1948 has nothing do with prophecy, but rather human empathy. However if Xtians still want to claim, this is prophecy fulfillment, think about the cost - 6 Million Jews.

 

What kind of price to be paid for "fulfillment" of a prophecy?Does this God not care about the "chosen people". Worse still, these Jews who died in the Holocaust are right in Hell. And who sent them to hell. Their Xtian persecutors.

 

Xtian have very little evidence for most of the stories in the bible.

This is something that does bother me: That Christians talk about all these prophecies and events that are going to take place, and the only evidence they have is a single verse from the OT, if even that (this happens a lot with the prophecies about Jesus). Sometimes it's just a vague mesh of different verses put together. As far as Israel in prophecy, it appears to be a result of the Holocaust, people feeling sorry for Jews, and a Zionist movement. I just find it somewhat coincidental that a there is a prophecy made about Israel becoming a nation again (as shown above) and it actually happens. The problem I do have with it is that God claims to bring Israel into a nation himself, while Israel becomgn a nation is the result of, again, the Holocaust, people feeling sorry for Jews, and a Zionist movement. Hm...

 

Speaking of validated and witnessed miracles, here's a stupendous miracle that was in many ways even bigger than Jesus allegedly rising from the dead.

 

Matt 27:50-53

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

Here's a stupendous miracle that was in many ways even bigger than Jesus allegedly rising from the dead.

 

Matt 27:50-53

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

 

This incredible event, an earthquake, with dead people coming out of their graves(before Jesus rose) and then strolling into town after Jesus was resurrected, and appearing to many others, is a huge event.

An event such as this would certainly be important enough to mention in the historical writings of non-Christians.

Yet, there is nothing about it.

There is nothing but complete silence about this wonderful and monumental event.

Even worse, there isn't one word about it anywhere else in the entire New Testament.

Paul, who was alive at the time and who was in Jerusalem often, never makes one mention of this event is all his writings.

Zip, zero, and zilch is what Paul and the other New Testament writers had to say about it.

The author of Luke, who claims he was writing an accurate account of all the important aspects of Jesus and his death(Luke 1:1-4), says not a single word about this huge event.

Are we to believe that this event wasn't important enough for the accurate historian Luke to mention?

This miracle is found only in the Gospel of Matthew.

 

The author(or authors) of the Gospel of Matthew loved to manufacture prophecy fulfillment by claiming that Jesus was a valid sign from God because he fulfilled prophecy from the Old Testament.

They had no problem ripping verses like Isa 7:14 out of context and claiming it was fulfilled by Jesus, when it was a prophecy that was really fulfilled hundreds of years before Jesus was even born(Matt 1:22-23).

They had no problem ripping Hosea 11:1 out of context and claiming that a past tense statement about Israel was really a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus(Matt 2:15).

 

The event in Matthew 27:50-53 has all the trappings of a manufactured, invented story.

It was most likely an attempt to show another prophecy as being fulfilled.

That prophecy being:

Isa 26:19

Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.

 

In the mind of the author of Matthew, if it could be claimed that dead people arose when Jesus died, this would help validate Jesus as being a legitimate agent from God. By writing that the dead did actually rise, the author of Matthew creates an aura of credibility to his repeated claims about Jesus being from God and not a false prophet as many of the Jews suspected he was.

 

If this event ever happened, where are those risen "saints" today? Did they have to die all over again?

This important question is ignored by Christians because they have no answer to it. They don't know and can only assume that all these people who rose from the dead must have died again.

Apparently Christians don't want to advertise the problems with salvation through Jesus that this exposes.

If being raised from the dead only means to be raised into another temporary life, then it certainly isn't eternal life that Christians claim God will provide through his "grace".

You can rest assured that if these people were ever really risen from the dead that the Jews would have had made quite an issue of it since it would have opened up a legalistic can of worms.

If a man who died is alive again, what are the legal implications regarding his past wife, children, and his property, etc?

 

If one New Testament author was prone to embellishing a story to suit his agenda and needs, why are other gospel writers or Paul to be taken more seriously? How much of their story is embellished as well?

Anyone who wants to think that the Gospel of Matthew, or the other gospels, is the word of God does so in spite of the evidence and not because of it.

A truly perfect, just, and infallible God wouldn't author such a maze of inconsistency and then condemn people to hell for not believing it was all His word.

 

Also check out

 

Book of Daniel

 

Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy(How it is proved wrong)

 

Bad History in the Book of Daniel

I never noticed that. Of course now I'm finding out about a lot of things I didn't realize before. Good point though, something that big should have been recorded elsewhere also, not just in a single Gospel. Thank you for pointing this out.

 

Thank you for the links as well. I'm looking for more resources.

 

-Dra Mucd Uha

[SkepticOfBible]

 

This is something that does bother me: That Christians talk about all these prophecies and events that are going to take place, and the only evidence they have is a single verse from the OT, if even that (this happens a lot with the prophecies about Jesus). Sometimes it's just a vague mesh of different verses put together. As far as Israel in prophecy, it appears to be a result of the Holocaust, people feeling sorry for Jews, and a Zionist movement. I just find it somewhat coincidental that a there is a prophecy made about Israel becoming a nation again (as shown above) and it actually happens.

Well for one of the problem with this prophecy is that, it is too late. By the OT own test of false prophets, these prophets are should be considered false

 

http://www.bibleorigins.net/OTPropheciesFl...hodologies.html

The biblical text acknowledges that false prophets did exist. The people asked "How are we to know whether or not a prophet has truly spoken the words of God ?" The biblical text gives a simple answer, if the prophecy doesn't come about, that prophet has spoken presumptuously, and is not to be feared, and will die for this presumptuousness.

 

Deut 18:20-22, RSV,

"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not

commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same

prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word

which the Lord has not spoken ?'- when a prophet speaks in the name of the

Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which

the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need

not be afraid of him."

 

Now, if God DID NOT INTEND to fulfil this prophecy within the lifetime of the listening audience, how are they to know that this is really God speaking through a true or a false prophet ?

 

There are sects in Judaism who rejects the prophets because of Deut 18.

 

The problem I do have with it is that God claims to bring Israel into a nation himself, while Israel becomgn a nation is the result of, again, the Holocaust, people feeling sorry for Jews, and a Zionist movement. Hm...

 

Well it doesn't prove that Christianity is true, but this "fulfillment" of the prophecy gives validity to Judaism.

 

The worst thing is that there are Xtians out there, who actually rejoice over the misery of other people. Most of the Xtians link the rapture to Isreal

 

One of the biggest eg would be the evangelist Jason Gastrich

 

If you notice in his debate, he seems to obsessed with the rapture. In the Dan Barker debate he said something on the line of "The nations are lining up against Isreal, the armies are gonna invade Isreal,..........there is gonna be a nuclear fallout, and it's all there in the bible"

 

He and other christians like him are just obsessed with the events of Isreal. The Rapture Alert level must be very high right now in the evangelical circle considering the situation about Iran's nuclear status.

 

I am pretty sure Gastrich and the like must be waiting for Jesus to come up and take him up with him any moment now.

 

God forbid, even if Iran manages to detonate a nuclear weapon on Isreal, all the evangical christians like Gastrich will probably jump in joy and say "Oh lord, thank for showing us your sign that you true, as you showed us a event that is described in the bible".

 

And I am pretty sure many christian during 9/11 must have praised God too, for they must have felt that the end times are here.

 

It is very sick mentality.

 

Interesting Talk Amongst European Christian Regarding American Counterpart

 

Another questions which I always raise with Xtians is the formation of the bible

 

Considering the history as to how the bible came into formation, can you show me one divine intervention that would prove your protestant bible is the the "correct" and "absolute" word of god?

 

Just in case you don't know your history, here are some links

 

Different Biblical Canons of the World

Books of The Different Bible

Who Decided What Went In The Bible

Textual Intergrity of The Bible

Biblical Canon of The World

 

Till thise date no fundie has ever been able to prove why do 1600 protestant xtians seem have the correct list of books, and why others are false.

 

Also from the same link about "A Christian Sermon To Skeptics"

 

The modern Bible was voted into existence and confirmed as holy by various councils of clerical men.

 

There is no record of God actually appearing at any of these councils, giving instructions on which writings were "divine" and which ones weren't.

 

All this was done by the whims of men, who felt they were being guided by God.

 

Many writings were also rejected and banned based on the whims of men. God doesn't even enter into the equation, in any tangible way, regarding what writings ended up being declared divine.

 

However, since fundamentalist Christianity wants to claim that all the writings which comprise the Bible must be the word of God, it follows that the men who voted these various writings as holy, must also have been directly inspired by God.

 

All of this sanctimonious talk about no collusion is called into question because the very councils that determined which writings were holy, must have colluded to some degree when they voted. If this Christian doesn't think there were some behind the scenes politics associated with the vote, they are living in a fantasy. The validity of the Holy Bible as being directly from God is one layer of Christian speculation piled on top of another.

 

None of it can be questioned, yet it must all be believed.

[Pariah]

Dra_Mucd_Uha:

 

The alleged archeological evidence alone does not prove any of Christianity's supernatural claims any more than the existence of pyramids proves the truth of the Egyptian religion or the historical event of the Trojan War proves the truth of Homer's Iliad. All myths and beliefs have historical aspects and therefore historical evidence.

[spamandham]

To me the prophecy of Israel becoming a nation again has always stood out. But, just like everything else in my life these days, I wasn't told much about it, just what the Christians want me to hear (Christian homes do that to you). I haven't heard the "other side" of Christianity.

 

At this point I'm going to have to spank you just as Asimov has done. Don't worry, it won't hurt (me) a bit.

 

We have given you enough information to start researching these things for yourself. I get the impression we could feed you a load of bullshit just as deep as the one you've already been fed and you would accept it. If you really are just 16, a little slack may be warranted, but not for long.

 

Here's your homework, and damn to Dante's hell anyone here who provides you the answer. Please name the Bible verse or verses you are referring to that talk about the reconstitution of Israel, and explain in your own words what you think they mean. You get bonus points if you pose this question to the same people who have told you Israel is a fulfilled prophecy.

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

At this point I'm going to have to spank you just as Asimov has done. Don't worry, it won't hurt (me) a bit.

 

We have given you enough information to start researching these things for yourself. I get the impression we could feed you a load of bullshit just as deep as the one you've already been fed and you would accept it. If you really are just 16, a little slack may be warranted, but not for long.

 

Here's your homework, and damn to Dante's hell anyone here who provides you the answer. Please name the Bible verse or verses you are referring to that talk about the reconstitution of Israel, and explain in your own words what you think they mean. You get bonus points if you pose this question to the same people who have told you Israel is a fulfilled prophecy.

Agreed. I should be doing my own research. And I am.

 

I did give the verses pertaining to the prophecy of Israel in my previous post, as well as my opinion.

 

I'm not looking for you feed me anything. I'm simply looking for direction, which, as you said, you have provided. And I am researching. I am currently reading the page given by Kryten, among other things.

 

Check out Why Won't God Heal Amputees and then let us know where your head is. It is the most logical examination of God and Christianity I've seen. Not the most comprehensive or exhaustive study, but you can do research later. Read this site first.

 

-Dra Mucd Uha

[Asimov]

For the sake of honesty, I won't say that I know my Bible cover to cover. Right now my whole outlook on Christianity has been wrecked, so I'm not really sure what to believe. In the past when I have questioned the validity of the Bible and Christianity, I have simply been told "There's archeological evidence." No one explained this to me how, but that there was. So I just accepted it and went on. I am currently looking into what they say is archeological evidence supporting the Bible.

 

Ok, so then your claims were ones of ignorance and not willfull stupidity....you're excused.

 

What would you say if I told you that it doesn't even matter if the bible coincides with archaeological finds 100%, or that it doesn't matter if there are NO contradictions at all?

 

The prophecy of Israel... okay...

Here a prophecy is made about Israel becoming a nation again. And, as we all know, in 1948, this happened. To me this is a rather convincing prophecy, in that Israel becoming a nation again after who-knows-how-long couldn't have been an easy thing for them, especially in the Middle East.

 

Convincing? Does it say when? How? Specific names of who will be involved? Events surrounding it that will cause this to happen? No.

 

I have heard neither of these (I suppose this is another testament of my ignorance). In answer to theological non-cognitivsm, doesn't the Bible give definitions of various aspects of God? In answer to the law of non-contradiction, how are the stated attributes contradictory?

 

The bible provides various attributes of God, but never gives any primary attributes. The stated attributes are only those of secondary and relational characteristics.

 

In order for anything to have a meaningful definition, it needs to have primary characteristics which the secondary and relational characteristics depend upon.

 

It would be like me saying "a human is something that talks".

 

And the stated attributes are contradictory because they either invalidate other characteristics or lack any meaning whatsoever.

[Ouroboros]

From your reply, I can only conclude that you also are an agnostic of some sorts, believe it or not. Because the agnostic doesn't say "you can't believe" or "you can't have an opinion", but the agnostics say "you can't know for sure". And that's all there is.

 

That's why I couldn't agree with your earlier statement that agnostics are just chicken out of making a decision. Most of the time agnostics have made up their minds of what they "believe" or not, but they also know they can't really know for sure.

 

Btw, an Agnostic/Atheist (like me) could also be called a "weak" atheist (compared to the "strong" atheist who is certain, without a doubt, that there is no god, whatsoever). And there's nothing wrong to be either, nor is it wrong to be an agnostic/deist, or even agnostic/christian (virtually impossible to comprehend how it can be combined like that though. )

 

*edit*

 

I think the problem is that people have changed the definition of what an agnostic is. Today it's meant "someone that doesn't take a standpoint", which is not the original meaning of it. To quote Wikipedia:

...Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions ...

 

You could say Agnosticism is just philosophical skepticism applied to the question of the existence of a god.

 

Meaning, you can still take a standpoint, but you can't prove you're the one that have the only absolute truth (whichever way you may have your (non)faith).

[pandora]

BTW, Asimov AKA Assy.... .... Dra is now an athiest. Check out his extimony.

[Asimov]

BTW, Asimov AKA Assy.... .... Dra is now an athiest. Check out his extimony.

 

Welcome to the club, Dra...as I said before, if you have any questions, ask away.

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Welcome to the club, Dra...as I said before, if you have any questions, ask away.

Thanks. For now, I'm content with my research. But I'm sure I will have questions in the future.