| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Scott Erb" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 01:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must be
a force outside space-time that is beyond our understanding
which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature is
impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is logical
fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be the
case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to or
causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe, and thus
not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond our
understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an error of
reasoning.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of space-time is --
except it is our limited universe, and it is an entity (the Newtonian view
of time as the progression of events and space as the stage on which reality
is played out has long been pushed aside, of course).
.
|
|
| User: "Lizz Holmans" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush waiting for Jesus to decide |
14 Dec 2006 06:57:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:15:15 -0500, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
"Jesus" is a registered trademark of the Republican party
Not at all. God may be a Republican, but Jesus was definitely a
Democrat.
Lizz 'and a liberal one at that' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush waiting for Jesus to decide |
14 Dec 2006 08:29:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:15:15 -0500, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
There was no plan before the war, there was no plan during, there is
no plan now
Sure there is ... "The Plan Formerly Known As 'Stay the Course'".
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned
for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it
fits its hole"
- Douglas Adams
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth |
29 Oct 2006 08:36:10 AM |
|
|
Mani Deli wrote:
Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth.
"It appears that God had a very tiny penis which was not large enough
to penetrate. However, it worked like a spray can which
ejected a strong blast of god sperm. After Mary carried the holy
embryo to term, god came down and preformed a C-section. This clearly
explains how the holy vagina remained pure and undisturbed."
Hugo von Hackenbush D.T.G.
Dr. Theological Gynecology
Aha!
You're saying, "How could Mary be a virgin (at all) if she
gave birth (at all), unless it was by C-section!"
But you're defining birth as a baby coming out of the vagina
(womb, or whatever). In which case she could not be a virgin
since the baby came out of her vagina.
But she could still be a virgin if it's defined as not
having had intercourse where the hymen is broken. As long as
the hymen stays intact, she's still technically a virgin.
So unless her hymen was bypassed during birth, such as via
C-section....
....hummmmm......
....okay,...I think I see your point. They didn't have
C-sections back then.
(Never mind)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth |
29 Oct 2006 09:15:43 AM |
|
|
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in news:nY21h.49595$SV1.14042
@newsfe09.phx:
Mani Deli wrote:
Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth.
"It appears that God had a very tiny penis which was not large enough
to penetrate. However, it worked like a spray can which
ejected a strong blast of god sperm. After Mary carried the holy
embryo to term, god came down and preformed a C-section. This clearly
explains how the holy vagina remained pure and undisturbed."
Hugo von Hackenbush D.T.G.
Dr. Theological Gynecology
Aha!
You're saying, "How could Mary be a virgin (at all) if she
gave birth (at all), unless it was by C-section!"
But you're defining birth as a baby coming out of the vagina
(womb, or whatever). In which case she could not be a virgin
since the baby came out of her vagina.
But she could still be a virgin if it's defined as not
having had intercourse where the hymen is broken. As long as
the hymen stays intact, she's still technically a virgin.
So unless her hymen was bypassed during birth, such as via
C-section....
...hummmmm......
...okay,...I think I see your point. They didn't have
C-sections back then.
Actually, they did. The "C" stands for "Ceasarian" after Ceasar who was
reportedly born this way. The mothers did not like the proceedure, as it
prevented them from bearing more children. They also didn't like it as
it left them dead.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever
writing anything to equal it.
-- Oscar Wilde
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth |
29 Oct 2006 10:47:32 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in news:nY21h.49595$SV1.14042
@newsfe09.phx:
Mani Deli wrote:
Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth.
"It appears that God had a very tiny penis which was not large enough
to penetrate. However, it worked like a spray can which
ejected a strong blast of god sperm. After Mary carried the holy
embryo to term, god came down and preformed a C-section. This clearly
explains how the holy vagina remained pure and undisturbed."
Hugo von Hackenbush D.T.G.
Dr. Theological Gynecology
Aha!
You're saying, "How could Mary be a virgin (at all) if she
gave birth (at all), unless it was by C-section!"
But you're defining birth as a baby coming out of the vagina
(womb, or whatever). In which case she could not be a virgin
since the baby came out of her vagina.
But she could still be a virgin if it's defined as not
having had intercourse where the hymen is broken. As long as
the hymen stays intact, she's still technically a virgin.
So unless her hymen was bypassed during birth, such as via
C-section....
...hummmmm......
...okay,...I think I see your point. They didn't have
C-sections back then.
Actually, they did. The "C" stands for "Ceasarian" after Ceasar who was
reportedly born this way. The mothers did not like the proceedure, as it
prevented them from bearing more children. They also didn't like it as
it left them dead.
So they could give birth and still be a virgin. But that
would mean their hymen never got broken during intercourse.
(Thus perhaps the very tiny penis hypothesis; or very long
ubiquitous one.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth |
29 Oct 2006 11:04:50 AM |
|
|
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:yT41h.50185$SV1.45567@newsfe09.phx:
Enkidu wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:nY21h.49595$SV1.14042 @newsfe09.phx:
Mani Deli wrote:
Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth.
"It appears that God had a very tiny penis which was not large
enough to penetrate. However, it worked like a spray can which
ejected a strong blast of god sperm. After Mary carried the holy
embryo to term, god came down and preformed a C-section. This
clearly explains how the holy vagina remained pure and
undisturbed."
Hugo von Hackenbush D.T.G.
Dr. Theological Gynecology
Aha!
You're saying, "How could Mary be a virgin (at all) if she
gave birth (at all), unless it was by C-section!"
But you're defining birth as a baby coming out of the vagina
(womb, or whatever). In which case she could not be a virgin
since the baby came out of her vagina.
But she could still be a virgin if it's defined as not
having had intercourse where the hymen is broken. As long as
the hymen stays intact, she's still technically a virgin.
So unless her hymen was bypassed during birth, such as via
C-section....
...hummmmm......
...okay,...I think I see your point. They didn't have
C-sections back then.
Actually, they did. The "C" stands for "Ceasarian" after Ceasar who
was reportedly born this way. The mothers did not like the
proceedure, as it prevented them from bearing more children. They
also didn't like it as it left them dead.
So they could give birth and still be a virgin. But that
would mean their hymen never got broken during intercourse.
(Thus perhaps the very tiny penis hypothesis; or very long
ubiquitous one.)
Yes, but the mother would have died during the procedure. I don't recall
this being the (reported) case in the Mary/Jesus incident.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is
those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively
assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth |
29 Oct 2006 01:01:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:47:32 -0700, AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net>
wrote:
So they could give birth and still be a virgin. But that
would mean their hymen never got broken during intercourse.
Which is common and easy. Just ask the many girls who get pregnant
and have never been penetrated. (Ask gynecologists how many hymens
they've cut so that we don't have any more "virgin" births.)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan Olson" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific proof of the Virgin Birth |
01 Nov 2006 02:53:02 AM |
|
|
Enkidu wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote:
Mani Deli wrote:
[...]
So unless her hymen was bypassed during birth, such as via
C-section....
...hummmmm......
...okay,...I think I see your point. They didn't have
C-sections back then.
Actually, they did. The "C" stands for "Ceasarian" after Ceasar
Well, sort of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarian_section#Etymology
who was reportedly born this way.
He wasn't; his mother lived.
--
--Bryan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
30 Nov 2006 10:55:47 PM |
|
|
The season to renew our faith and buy each other another bunch of
useless crap is upon us. So its time to again cast your vote
for what you think is the stupidest Bible story! (fixed computer
voting machines unnecessary at least in this case)
Here's my vote: NOAH!
Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence on creationist
theory but because of its strong attraction for the faithful to
renew faith in its utter impossibility. Unlike the absurdity of Adam
and Eve, belief in which has caused so much discomfort and evil,
Noah’s tale is an entertaining fable lacking any sensible message.
Noah has no real lessons for religious proselytizers to rant about. In
this tale a god just gets upset, nothing unusual and bumps off most
everything He considered offensive. Perhaps our authors had not
scaring children too much in mind, so that they could more easily
graduate to the truly horrible stuff in store for them later in the
book.
I’m quite sure our author who loves us so, never imagined how much
this tale would bend the minds of ignorant adults; especially
those who feel that doubters of this story are so abysmally immoral
that they should be sent to His ovens in hell.
The power of Noah has also caused some ridiculous modern quests.
Unlike Grail seekers who are now out of fashion, expeditions of
contemporary bimbos still occasionally look for pieces of old wood on
the side of a remote mountain. I suppose an eventual find of some holy
crap will grace another of those "Bible proof" programs on at least
one ***** Central TV network.
I might mention Tower of Babble which in my opinion is a close second
but did not get my vote because it's not entirely stupid due to its
metaphorically predictive value about the vast number of religious
theories which continue to proliferate. I often wonder why no one is
looking for the ruins of this construct. as stone is more likely to
have survived than moldy old wood. Bible-proofers go to it.
So please cast your vote for the stupidest Bible story and don’t
forget to site reasons. And remember, your vote is important because
it might seriously help our Lord decide what he should or shouldn't
put in his next book.
Where there flies in the elephant room on Noah's ark?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
01 Dec 2006 04:41:24 PM |
|
|
Noah and Job are both good choices but I want to renew my suggestion that
"short short stories" be allowed.
"Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the
land that the Lord your God is giving you."
Any chid that dies clearly did not follow this one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
01 Dec 2006 05:20:22 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
Noah and Job are both good choices but I want to renew my suggestion that
"short short stories" be allowed.
"Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the
land that the Lord your God is giving you."
Any chid that dies clearly did not follow this one.
I think it is clear that you have confused a prerequisite with
a guarantee.
--
FF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
01 Dec 2006 11:34:03 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Mike Painter
(mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
Noah and Job are both good choices but I want to renew my suggestion
that
"short short stories" be allowed.
"Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in
the land that the Lord your God is giving you."
Any chid that dies clearly did not follow this one.
Nah, Jebus is just promising to make some people's days a few hours longer
after handing them some dirt.
Hey, if *they* can do it, so can I.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "W" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
01 Dec 2006 04:42:00 PM |
|
|
Mani Deli
I don't expect you to spend too much time but I would appreciate it
if you examined this paper a little.
Thus, only about 20,000 animals needed to have been on the Ark, not the
millions that Darwinists ignorantly (and mockingly) believe would have
been necessitated.
I confidently await questions from doubters, seekers, and sarcastic
atheists. It is great fun to answer them with sound science and
irrefutable logic (such as the mathematical "impossibility" that the 48
major Old Testament prophecies regarding specifics of Jesus'
incarnation would be fulfilled, as they were, as documented by
unassailable historical factors and circumstances).--James I. Nienhuis
Author of: OLD EARTH? WHY NOT!
http://www.kndesign.com/claySoldiersNew/content/oldearthwhynot2.html
Also check out this excerpt
http://www.genesisveracity.com/TbofCont.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nicola" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
01 Dec 2006 05:48:59 PM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2006 14:42:00 -0800, "W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mani Deli
I don't expect you to spend too much time but I would appreciate it
if you examined this paper a little.
Thus, only about 20,000 animals needed to have been on the Ark, not the
millions that Darwinists ignorantly (and mockingly) believe would have
been necessitated.
I confidently await questions from doubters, seekers, and sarcastic
atheists. It is great fun to answer them with sound science and
irrefutable logic (such as the mathematical "impossibility" that the 48
major Old Testament prophecies regarding specifics of Jesus'
incarnation would be fulfilled, as they were, as documented by
unassailable historical factors and circumstances)
Using your knowledge of mathematics and science, can you explain why
it is impossible that the details of Jesus's life were simply
rewritten to fit in with those prophecies? That, after all, is what
Biblical scholars and historians tell us happened.
Your 'unassailable historical factors' are about as impressive as me
predicting last week's lottery numbers. It might look like a
mathematical improbability on the face of it, but it's not so
impressive when I can just go and look them up in the paper.
Nicola
www.banfaithschools.org.uk
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
.
|
|
|
| User: "W" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
04 Dec 2006 05:05:37 PM |
|
|
Nicola wrote:
On 1 Dec 2006 14:42:00 -0800, "W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mani Deli
I don't expect you to spend too much time but I would appreciate it
if you examined this paper a little.
Thus, only about 20,000 animals needed to have been on the Ark, not the
millions that Darwinists ignorantly (and mockingly) believe would have
been necessitated.
I confidently await questions from doubters, seekers, and sarcastic
atheists. It is great fun to answer them with sound science and
irrefutable logic (such as the mathematical "impossibility" that the 48
major Old Testament prophecies regarding specifics of Jesus'
incarnation would be fulfilled, as they were, as documented by
unassailable historical factors and circumstances)
Using your knowledge of mathematics and science, can you explain why
it is impossible that the details of Jesus's life were simply
rewritten to fit in with those prophecies? That, after all, is what
Biblical scholars and historians tell us happened.
Your 'unassailable historical factors' are about as impressive as me
predicting last week's lottery numbers. It might look like a
mathematical improbability on the face of it, but it's not so
impressive when I can just go and look them up in the paper.
That's James I. Nienhuis' quote, he wrote the paper, sorry for
confusion. My quick answer is this. The prophets wrote of a figure,
that figure was personified by Jesus. To say Jesus was invented by an
author is absurd because their were twelve authors; and then some. Ten
were martyred. Peter was crucified upside down. To say they did that
for something they knew was a fraud is unreasonable. I am sure there is
abundant documentation of the violence they suffered in extra-biblical
sources. If Jesus wasn't the guy, we are still waiting for the real
guy. I'll keep my eyes open for a messianic prophecy that is
impossible to be fulfilled anymore.
James I. Nienhuis Author of: OLD EARTH? WHY NOT!
http://www.kndesign.com/claySoldiersNew/content/oldearthwhynot2.html
Also check out these excerpt
http://www.genesisveracity.com/TbofCont.htm
Join me in shunning this person. Cast your vote here.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_frm/thread/7c76bb9a2e774ff6?hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nicola" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
06 Dec 2006 02:00:57 PM |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2006 15:05:37 -0800, "W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nicola wrote:
On 1 Dec 2006 14:42:00 -0800, "W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mani Deli
I don't expect you to spend too much time but I would appreciate it
if you examined this paper a little.
Thus, only about 20,000 animals needed to have been on the Ark, not the
millions that Darwinists ignorantly (and mockingly) believe would have
been necessitated.
I confidently await questions from doubters, seekers, and sarcastic
atheists. It is great fun to answer them with sound science and
irrefutable logic (such as the mathematical "impossibility" that the 48
major Old Testament prophecies regarding specifics of Jesus'
incarnation would be fulfilled, as they were, as documented by
unassailable historical factors and circumstances)
Using your knowledge of mathematics and science, can you explain why
it is impossible that the details of Jesus's life were simply
rewritten to fit in with those prophecies? That, after all, is what
Biblical scholars and historians tell us happened.
Your 'unassailable historical factors' are about as impressive as me
predicting last week's lottery numbers. It might look like a
mathematical improbability on the face of it, but it's not so
impressive when I can just go and look them up in the paper.
That's James I. Nienhuis' quote, he wrote the paper, sorry for
confusion. My quick answer is this. The prophets wrote of a figure,
that figure was personified by Jesus. To say Jesus was invented by an
author is absurd because their were twelve authors; and then some.
I did not say that. I said that the most likely explanation is that
the various descriptions of his life were massaged until they provided
a better fit with the Old Testament predictions. There is plenty of
evidence for this - not least the fact that the descriptions in the
bible are not consistent with each other, and not consistent with
other descriptions from the rejected gospels.
Ten
were martyred. Peter was crucified upside down. To say they did that
for something they knew was a fraud is unreasonable.
People are often martyred for a cause which they believe is right.
They may have believed that Jesus was a great man, and that his
revolutionary teachings were important enough to die for. It is not
evidence that Jesus was a messiah. Details which would have suggested
that he was a messiah were not added to the accounts of his life until
long after he had died.
The attempts to claim that he was born in Bethlehem were so desperate
that they throw the whole story into doubt. The gospels don't even
agree on that, and the timeline described is impossible.
I am sure there is
abundant documentation of the violence they suffered in extra-biblical
sources. If Jesus wasn't the guy, we are still waiting for the real
guy. I'll keep my eyes open for a messianic prophecy that is
impossible to be fulfilled anymore.
You are starting with the assumption that the prophecies were
meaningful, which there is no evidence for.
Nicola
www.banfaithschools.org.uk
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "W" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
06 Dec 2006 07:10:31 PM |
|
|
Your 'unassailable historical factors' are about as impressive as me
predicting last week's lottery numbers. It might look like a
mathematical improbability on the face of it, but it's not so
impressive when I can just go and look them up in the paper.
Please give me the satisfaction of admitting your tone was wrong.
I did not say that. I said that the most likely explanation is that
the various descriptions of his life were massaged until they provided
a better fit with the Old Testament predictions. There is plenty of
evidence for this - not least the fact that the descriptions in the
bible are not consistent with each other, and not consistent with
other descriptions from the rejected gospels.
Care to provide evidence, lighten my load? There is as much evidence
for the resurrection as any thing else in history. If that is true,
these trivial quibbles are a waste of time.
People are often martyred for a cause which they believe is right.
People don't die for something they know to be false, on top of that
ten of the twelve; and then some. The Bible says that they were running
scared until they saw Jesus alive. They had no motive to lie. They
virtually unanimously gave their lives for the cause, and they weren't
fooled. They would have to be the perpetrators, not the victims.
The attempts to claim that he was born in Bethlehem were so desperate
that they throw the whole story into doubt. The gospels don't even
agree on that, and the timeline described is impossible.
Be more specific please, keeping in mind small discrepancies only prove
they weren't writing from the same script.
You are starting with the assumption that the prophecies were
meaningful, which there is no evidence for.
I thought that you declared them meaningful by referring to them.
The same prophets made predictions which were fulfilled and are being
fulfilled.
These are not my areas of expertise, thank's for your patience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
06 Dec 2006 08:34:54 PM |
|
|
W writes:
Your 'unassailable historical factors' are about as impressive as me
predicting last week's lottery numbers. It might look like a
mathematical improbability on the face of it, but it's not so
impressive when I can just go and look them up in the paper.
W> Please give me the satisfaction of admitting your tone was wrong.
I did not say that. I said that the most likely explanation is that
the various descriptions of his life were massaged until they provided
a better fit with the Old Testament predictions. There is plenty of
evidence for this - not least the fact that the descriptions in the
bible are not consistent with each other, and not consistent with
other descriptions from the rejected gospels.
W> Care to provide evidence, lighten my load? There is as much evidence
W> for the resurrection as any thing else in history. If that is true,
Really. There is as much "historical" evidence for the resurrection as for
the existence of Newton?
W> these trivial quibbles are a waste of time.
These are not quibbles.
People are often martyred for a cause which they believe is right.
W> People don't die for something they know to be false, on top of that
W> ten of the twelve; and then some. The Bible says that they were running
W> scared until they saw Jesus alive. They had no motive to lie. They
W> virtually unanimously gave their lives for the cause, and they weren't
W> fooled. They would have to be the perpetrators, not the victims.
Most of the Bible was written long after any witnesses of the era of Jesus'
life were long dead.
The attempts to claim that he was born in Bethlehem were so desperate
that they throw the whole story into doubt. The gospels don't even
agree on that, and the timeline described is impossible.
W> Be more specific please, keeping in mind small discrepancies only prove
W> they weren't writing from the same script.
You are starting with the assumption that the prophecies were
meaningful, which there is no evidence for.
W> I thought that you declared them meaningful by referring to them.
W> The same prophets made predictions which were fulfilled and are being
W> fulfilled.
Really?
W> These are not my areas of expertise, thank's for your patience.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.dan-quayle...)
=======================================================================
Obviously, if you join the National Guard, you have less of a chance
of going to Vietnam. I mean it goes without saying.
-- Vice-President Dan Quayle discussing his draft record
on NBC's "Meet the Press," 9/20/92.
(reported in the Houston Chronicle 9/21/92)
.
|
|
|
| User: "W" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
07 Dec 2006 09:46:52 PM |
|
|
<a...@no-spam-panix.com>
Really. There is as much "historical" evidence for the resurrection as for
the existence of Newton?
So I've heard. I'll go to work on it if you're cooperative.
Most of the Bible was written long after any witnesses of the era of Jesus'
life were long dead.
New Testament written 50-100 A.D. "The New Evidence That Demands A
Verdict" by Josh McDowell
New Testament written 40-90 A.D. "Who Is This Jesus, Is He Risen"
Coral Ridge special
The same prophets made predictions which were fulfilled and are being
fulfilled.
Really?
Taken captive to Babylon, returned (70?) years later. Israel reborn in
(49?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
08 Dec 2006 03:52:34 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2006 19:46:52 -0800, "W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> wrote:
<a...@no-spam-panix.com>
Really. There is as much "historical" evidence for the resurrection as for
the existence of Newton?
So I've heard. I'll go to work on it if you're cooperative.
You have to be stupid to imagine there is.
Most of the Bible was written long after any witnesses of the era of Jesus'
life were long dead.
New Testament written 50-100 A.D. "The New Evidence That Demands A
Verdict" by Josh McDowell
What kind of brainwashed moron cites MacDowell? He is an embarrassment
to thinking Christians.
New Testament written 40-90 A.D. "Who Is This Jesus, Is He Risen"
Coral Ridge special
Ditto.
The same prophets made predictions which were fulfilled and are being
fulfilled.
Really?
Taken captive to Babylon, returned (70?) years later. Israel reborn in
(49?)
IF you morons predicted something BEFORE it happened you might have
something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
08 Dec 2006 09:23:01 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 04:52:34 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 7 Dec 2006 19:46:52 -0800, "W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> wrote:
<a...@no-spam-panix.com>
Really. There is as much "historical" evidence for the resurrection as for
the existence of Newton?
So I've heard. I'll go to work on it if you're cooperative.
Never underestimate the gullibility of the faithful.
You have to be stupid to imagine there is.
Not stupid, ignorant!
Some people who have their minds blocked usually as kids, never get
over their upbringing. Can you imagine how idiotic it is to literally
believe the story of Noah or the resurrection etc.
Imagine trying to tell this nonsense to the other two thirds of the
world and expecting them to believe it because its written in an old
book which some believe was authored by a god.
Faith is the wrong answer to ignorance.
Everyone has a right to his beliefs. No one has a right to
unchallenged beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
15 Jan 2007 05:43:57 AM |
|
|
In article <1165453831.095811.295910@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> writes:
People don't die for something they know to be false, on top of that
ten of the twelve; and then some. The Bible says that they were
running scared until they saw Jesus alive. They had no motive to
lie. They virtually unanimously gave their lives for the cause, and
they weren't fooled. They would have to be the perpetrators, not the
victims.
Ever heard of the Heaven's Gate cult?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
15 Jan 2007 10:00:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:43:57 +0000, Bobby Bryant wrote:
In article <1165453831.095811.295910@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> writes:
People don't die for something they know to be false, on top of that
ten of the twelve; and then some. The Bible says that they were
running scared until they saw Jesus alive. They had no motive to
lie. They virtually unanimously gave their lives for the cause, and
they weren't fooled. They would have to be the perpetrators, not the
victims.
Ever heard of the Heaven's Gate cult?
For that matter, that line of reasoning makes David Koresh the messiah...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"When it comes to God's existence, I'm not an atheist
and I'm not an agnostic. I'm an acrostic.
The whole thing puzzles me." - George Carlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nicola" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
07 Dec 2006 05:29:55 AM |
|
|
On 6 Dec 2006 17:10:31 -0800, "W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your 'unassailable historical factors' are about as impressive as me
predicting last week's lottery numbers. It might look like a
mathematical improbability on the face of it, but it's not so
impressive when I can just go and look them up in the paper.
Please give me the satisfaction of admitting your tone was wrong.
Where was my 'tone' wrong?
I did not say that. I said that the most likely explanation is that
the various descriptions of his life were massaged until they provided
a better fit with the Old Testament predictions. There is plenty of
evidence for this - not least the fact that the descriptions in the
bible are not consistent with each other, and not consistent with
other descriptions from the rejected gospels.
Care to provide evidence, lighten my load? There is as much evidence
for the resurrection as any thing else in history. If that is true,
these trivial quibbles are a waste of time.
The only evidence for the resurrection is a few accounts which
contradict each other and which have been revised and altered. The
mere fact that they are contradictory makes them all unreliable
sources. There is no physical evidence for the resurrection. You say
that you have evidence that is as compelling as for any other
historical event. I can provide archaeological evidence for other
events, real solid evidence: can you provide this? If not, then you
are wrong.
People are often martyred for a cause which they believe is right.
People don't die for something they know to be false, on top of that
ten of the twelve; and then some. The Bible says that they were running
scared until they saw Jesus alive. They had no motive to lie.
The people who rejected some of the gospels and rewrote the remaining
ones had everything to gain from pretending that Jesus fulfilled the
old prophecies. They set themselves up as heads of the new church and
that gave them a great deal of power and influence. If all of the
conflicting gospels had been allowed to survive, the Bible would not
have been as influential as it would have been obvious that he was
not a Messiah, and that he was not resurrected. You can pretend that
those gospels did not exist and that the ones you are familiar with
were not rewritten, but the evidence is against you.
They
virtually unanimously gave their lives for the cause, and they weren't
fooled. They would have to be the perpetrators, not the victims.
Where is your proof that the accounts were not altered after the
events?
The attempts to claim that he was born in Bethlehem were so desperate
that they throw the whole story into doubt. The gospels don't even
agree on that, and the timeline described is impossible.
Be more specific please, keeping in mind small discrepancies only prove
they weren't writing from the same script.
Some Biblical accounts twist facts by saying that they travelled to
Bethlehem for a census. There was no census during the reign on
Quineas - not until a decade after Jesus's supposed birth, and that
was in Judea. That is not a small discrepancy - it is a deliberate
attempt to twist the story to fit the prophecy. Luke says that
Quirinius was governor when Jesus was born; Matthew said it was while
Herod was king. Surely they would remember who was in charge -
Quirinius was never governor while Herod was king.
When a Roman census did take place, records show it was mainly for tax
reasons and people were recorded at their home - the place where they
lived and worked. The idea that someone would travel back to the place
of their birth makes no sense and contradicts known history. If
everyone in the empire had to travel back to their home every time
there was a census there would be absolute chaos. Another fabrication
to try and place the birth in Bethlehem.
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ wildly. They want to prove
that Jesus was related to David, but both the names and the number of
generations differ so wildly that neither carry any weight. 41 to 27
generations is not a small discrepancy.
When a person was called after a place, it was usually the place of
their birth - hence Jesus of Nazareth. If Mark and John had believed
that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they would not have repeatedly
referred to him as Jesus of Nazareth. Neither of them mention
Bethlehem as the place of his birth. That is not a small discrepancy.
Isaiah 7:14 does not predict a virgin birth. It predicts birth by a
young woman. The claim that it predicted the virgin birth is used to
suggest that Jesus's birth had been prophecied when in fact it had
not.
You are starting with the assumption that the prophecies were
meaningful, which there is no evidence for.
I thought that you declared them meaningful by referring to them.
I can talk about something without believing it. I've said from the
start that the Bible is just a book, and a very unreliable historical
source. The prophecies are meaningless and the life of Jesus was
rewritten to make it look like he was fulfilling some of them.
The same prophets made predictions which were fulfilled and are being
fulfilled.
Such as? You make very grand claims but haven't come up with anything
convincing yet. What was the last prophecy that was fulfilled?
These are not my areas of expertise, thank's for your patience.
It surprises me that anyone would buy into the whole Jesus thing
without researching it. If I wanted to devote my life to a book or a
person, I would need to be convinced that they were reliable.
I don't understand the desperation to prove that Jesus was something
that he was clearly not. Why is it not enough to say that he was a
very sensible and influential man who we can learn a lot from; and
whose example we can follow. The tacked-on stuff is unnecessary IMO.
Nicola
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "W" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
07 Dec 2006 09:43:37 PM |
|
|
Nicola
Where was my 'tone' wrong?
Comparing me to a predictor of the past to abase me. I'd prefer to
drop it now.
massaged until they provided a better fit
He was a real figure? Crucified? We are disputing mostly about the
resurrection correct?
If he lived-where'd he go?
If crucified-why empty tomb?
If the Gospels were wrong about these the opposition could have
thwarted the following by producing the body. Also no accounts written
later would be accepted by the already existing Church had they been
wrong about these fundamentals. The Church had to know what the books
would say before they were written.
Mark 15:43-46
Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor,...craved the body of
Jesus.
And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead:...And when he knew it of
the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. And he bought fine linen,
and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a
sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the
door of the sepulchre.
Joseph was high enough in stature that there would be no wrong tomb.
Not to mention the guard posted there. Then they went to the wrong tomb
as if nobody witnessed where he put it. Joseph would have to have
pulled off a pretty big one. He had no motive to do so, plus they could
potentially beat it out of him. Not to mention the sightings.
John 19:39-40
And there came also Nicodemus,...Then took they the body of Jesus, and
wound it in linen clothes
Looks like he wasn't alone.
Matthew 28:11-15
....behold, some of the watch [Guards] came into the city, and shewed
unto the chief priests all the things that were done....they gave large
money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night,
and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's
ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and
did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the
Jews until this day.
The guards were the first to preach the resurrection. Commonly reported
even today seems like something that would've caused Matt. to be
tossed. Had the body been stolen they would know.
descriptions in the bible are not consistent with each other
I'll ask you to please be very specific. I hate swatting flies I
can't see.
physical evidence
There is the Shroud, it has not been debunked. I think that almost
counts. But I agree, I over spoke a tad. Over 24,000 copies of early
New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today. They all
must agree. The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning
the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to
undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the
reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a
historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along
with the very greatest of historians. "
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And
I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the
resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts
of ancient history . . .
--E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics, Auckland University
He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them
by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus
appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of
whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many
security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial,
entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very
difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise
from the dead.
Evidence for the Resurrection, by Josh McDowell
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
Where is your proof that the accounts were not altered after the
events?
The rest of the New Testament agrees with them. Supposedly the Gospels
didn't exist yet, which might not be true. My sources say from
40-100 A.D.
who was in charge-Quirinius was never governor while Herod was king.
No so fast. Critics used this text for many years to make their case
for a Bible that is unreliable. But no more.
But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time
Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the first census taken while
Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later
census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke
would have also certainly known about.
There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a
position of command
A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight to the idea that
Quirinius was in a position of authority in Syria on two separate
occasions.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/census-luke2.html
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ wildly.
From Adam to Abraham Matthew has mentioned no names, and Luke only has
given the record. Most interpreters have supposed that Matthew gives
the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. They were both
descended from David, but in different lines. No difficulty was ever
found, or alleged, in regard to them, by any of the early enemies of
Christianity.
http://www.biblesearch.com/answers/conflicts/conpass2.htm
When a person was called after a place, it was usually the place of
their birth - hence Jesus of Nazareth. If Mark and John had believed
that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, they would not have repeatedly
referred to him as Jesus of Nazareth. Neither of them mention
Bethlehem as the place of his birth. That is not a small discrepancy.
Differing accounts aren't necessarily contradictory. Matthew and
Luke, for example, differ in their accounts of Jesus' birth. Luke
records Joseph and Mary starting in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem
(Jesus' birthplace), and returning to Nazareth (Luke 1:26-2:40).
Matthew starts with Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, relates the family's
journey to Egypt to escape King Herod's rage, and recounts their
travel to Nazareth after Herod's death (Matt. 1:18-2:23). The Gospels
never claim to be exhaustive records. Biographers must be selective.
The accounts seem complementary, not contradictory.
http://www.moodymagazine.com/articles.php?action=view_article&id=469
Isaiah 7:14 does not predict a virgin birth. It predicts birth by a
young woman. The claim that it predicted the virgin birth is used to
suggest that Jesus's birth had been prophecied when in fact it had
not.
What makes you say that? All children are born of young women, and why
does Immanuel appear in the same verse? The early Church would no first
hand and wouldn't allow book with such rumors.
Isaiah 7:14
....Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel.
Matthew 1:23
....call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
What was the last prophecy that was fulfilled?
God himself would restore the Jews to the land of Israel from all the
nations
Jer 16:14-16 However, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when
men will no longer say, 'As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the
Israelites up out of Egypt,' but they will say, 'As surely as the
LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of the land of the north
and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' For I will
restore them to the land I gave their forefathers.
In all, 13 books of the Bible speak of the nation of Israel being
restored in their land from the nations in which they were scattered.
This prophecy became history in 1948 when the United Nations granted a
homeland to the Jewish people and the nation of Israel was reborn! See
also Jer 3:14, 31:8-9, Isa 60:8-9, Deut 30:3, Amos 9:15.
http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/prophecy.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nicola" |
|
| Title: Re: it's again the season to vote for the stupidest Bible story |
10 Dec 2006 06:44:15 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2006 19:43:37 -0800, "W" <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nicola
Where was my 'tone' wrong?
Comparing me to a predictor of the past to abase me. I'd prefer to
drop it now.
massaged until they provided a better fit
He was a real figure? Crucified? We are disputing mostly about the
resurrection correct?
Who is 'he'? I think the accounts in the Bible were loosely based on
the life of someone who really existed, but the details are so
unreliable that it is hard to know how much of the accounts can be
believed. We certainly know that much of it is fabricated because the
different accounts are contradictory. That leaves the Bible as an
unreliable source.
It's another King Arthur situation. Someone who was probably not
called Arthur was a king and may have done some of the things reported
in the mythology - but most of it was manufactured later on. The few
facts do not lend any weight to the added mythology.
If he lived-where'd he go?
He could have gone anywhere. He was a criminal in the eyes of Rome so
if he did live, chances are he left the Roman empire. There is no
solid evidence that he survived the crucifixion. It is equally
possible that he died and his body was taken by people. No solid
evidence exists to prove either conclusively, although there is some
evidence of an important Jew appearing in India around the time of the
crucifixion, and there is a tomb which many claim is the final resting
place of Jesus. In terms of evidence, what exists in India is rather
more compelling than the 'he floated into the sky and was never seen
again' of the Bible.
If crucified-why empty tomb?
What proof do you have that the accounts of an empty tomb are
reliable? That he was put there at all? That he was not taken by his
followers? That the whole thing was not fabricated to allow him to
escape, thus saving his life? Or that it was simply added later to
crowbar him into the Messiah slot by the people who needed that
prophecy to be fulfilled in order to preserve their religion?
If the Gospels were wrong about these the opposition could have
thwarted the following by producing the body.
Only if they could have found it. If his followers took it, or he
escaped alive as many believe, then locating a body would have been
difficult. You are making massive assumptions here.
Also no accounts written
later would be accepted by the already existing Church had they been
wrong about these fundamentals. The Church had to know what the books
would say before they were written.
The church selected the gospels it thought would be the most
convincing. Many were rejected. It is common knowledge amongst
Biblical scholars that the Bible was rewritten long after the events
took place. Then we are left with contradictory accounts which, even
after the editing (or perhaps because of it) are unreliable.
The church always does what it has to in order to survive. The
position of Mary Magdalene in the church is testament to that. Some
gospels have her as the most favoured disciple, but the church altered
her position centuries later in order to subjugate women and ensure
they had no power. The early churches were as capable of deceit as the
current ones.
The church you claim would not have accepted erroneous accounts is the
same church that massacred people in order to ensure its survival. It
is not an organisation with a history of honesty and decency. If it
was necessary to alter texts, add the idea of a resurrection and
dispose of any eye-witness accounts that conflicted with what it
wanted people to believe (like Mary's gospel) then it would do so.
Mark 15:43-46
Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor,...craved the body of
Jesus.
And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead:...And when he knew it of
the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. And he bought fine linen,
and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a
sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the
door of the sepulchre.
Joseph was high enough in stature that there would be no wrong tomb.
Not to mention the guard posted there. Then they went to the wrong tomb
as if nobody witnessed where he put it. Joseph would have to have
pulled off a pretty big one. He had no motive to do so, plus they could
potentially beat it out of him. Not to mention the sightings.
John 19:39-40
And there came also Nicodemus,...Then took they the body of Jesus, and
wound it in linen clothes
Looks like he wasn't alone.
Matthew 28:11-15
...behold, some of the watch [Guards] came into the city, and shewed
unto the chief priests all the things that were done....they gave large
money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night,
and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's
ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and
did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the
Jews until this day.
The guards were the first to preach the resurrection. Commonly reported
even today seems like something that would've caused Mat | | | | | | | | | |
