Why is the Bible so short on precise details? (Buddhism, Islam, religions)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Why do atheists have the right? It's called freedom of thought and freedom of speech. We understand that you don't believe in those two rights, but they are our rights.
Do you realize that First Amendment rights apply to all?
Extraordinary according to what standards? Why do atheists have the right to classify claims as "extraordinary"?
Everyday going outside and not seeing 3 day dead zombies walking on water kind of standard. You know there are word books that tell you what words like "extraordinary" actually mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It's simply a parachute tactic. The atheist can always just say hey that evidence wasn't extraordinary enough.
No, it is recognizing your extraordinary claims are based on nothing but the Bible, and fallacies that if true, would actually be an argument against your god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Or they will make bold claims like the Bible is fiction using lack of evidence as evidence which is another fallacy.
Lack of evidence IS evidence, it is just not conclusive. That is why we use more accurate methods. So much for your straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I don't reject claims of miracles from other religions at all. I view it in terms of weight of evidence.
Which? You do or you do not reject claims of miracles from other religions? We reject all claims based on the weight of evidence, just as you reject all other claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The net sum of evidences vastly favors Christianity therefore it would take a greater amount of evidence to force me to question if I serve the true God.
So you either believe Jesus was born twice, or you have not really looked at the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Furthermore, I think people believe in other religions for two main reasons. They are either born and raised in a culture that is heavily engrained into the religion like most Middle East countries.
Just like you. Except you just so happened to be born in a land with the one "true" religion, whereas your god can not be bothered to educate all those other people following those "false" religions? And you don't find this at all strange?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Or they have having real supernatural experiences with their beliefs. However, based on what I know of the spirit world, I believe those experiences are being fueled by the great deceiver who has you blinded as well. OTOH, even in those cultural theocracies, we see people coming to Christ. I rarely hear of a born again Christian becoming a Muslim or Buddhist.
Yet you are somehow immune from this great deceiver? How would you know? By supernatural experiences?
My minor problem was you said the inventions were invented separately, but when 'Matthew' rewrote 'Mark', he already had a resurrection account. And both 'Mark' and 'Matthew' have the women as key players, something I find unlikely if they were independent inventions.
But maybe I simply misunderstood what you were trying to say.
I saw a video of something similar, but when I Google it, I just find an overdose of Christian web sites desperately arguing for the resurrection. Do you know the name of the author of the book?
Matthew (so I argue) didn't rewrite Mark because mark himself rewore the synoptic original text quite a lot. But if by 'mark' you mean the synoptic original that all three used, then Ok.
And I don't agree that "Mark" had a resurrection account. I reckon that the original synoptic gospel had no nativity, and no resurrection. That was Not added in mark's version, but Matthew and Luke (writing later) added both Nativity and resurrections, and they both contradict each other all the way.
Up to then the women at the open tomb is agreed by all four gospels. So that isn't the issue. The women running off to the disciples is agreed by all four (though the original ending of them being afraid and saying nothing - which Mark uses) is altered to fit the views of the writers. From then on they contradict totally.
I know - I myself for a Loooong time assumed that the nativities and Resurrections were talling the same story. We take the Basic point that they are trying to prove in either ase
Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem
Jesus resurrected in the body - and they all saw it.
And we weave the discrepancies together into a coherent story. But they are not. They are different and mutually contradictory stories. And they are false, and they are individually invented, and Mark doesn't have either of them
I do not blame you, much of the material can be tedious, and you need to go through it before you find some small gem hidden away that makes you think what have I just read. And the earliest church fathers tend to focus on the Old Testament rather than the New Testament.
As to people knowing the apostles, this requires a larger than normal number living to a long age, so is most likely just another Christian invention.
That's what I suspect and if I have the time, a simple time line might show up how improbable the claim is.
It's not that it's tedious, but I can't do everything - Paul seemed VERY tedious to me at first, but once I got into it, It started to interest me. Especially when you could assign dates - AD 36/7 for the escape from Damascus, AD 45 (reign of Claudius) for the Judean Famine that Paul was rattling the collection tin about, AD c 51 the 'council of Jerusalem. and off to Rome AD 60 or so. And Then Josephus has some interest power -struggles in the High Priest-hood which seems to have involved James, and it rather made me think that the Sadducees might indeed have had a beef about Jesus. Then we get the Jewish war in the Time of Nero - and note that the ere was another revolt at that time - the Boudiccan revolt in Britain, and for pretty much the same reasons - Nero left the rule of empire to his favourites, and while Roman governors were always pretty rapacious, these dudes were criminally so.
You make a good point, too - if the Fathers had anything relevant to say about the NT or Jesus, we can probably get that without having to plough through Paphias or Clement.
Everyday going outside and not seeing 3 day dead zombies walking on water kind of standard. You know there are word books that tell you what words like "extraordinary" actually mean.
Nice stepping around my point. The point remains. You are still defining what is extraordinary. It is an ambiguous term. The claim that snow exists might be extraordinary to a lost Amazonian tribe. That doesn't mean snow is any less real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No, it is recognizing your extraordinary claims are based on nothing but the Bible, and fallacies that if true, would actually be an argument against your god.
Our beliefs are based on a wide variety of evidences and personal experiences. Of course, if one is unwilling to get off their behinds and actively seek God then they will not have those personal experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Lack of evidence IS evidence, it is just not conclusive. That is why we use more accurate methods. So much for your straw man.
Umm no, lack of evidence proves nothing. It's only lack of evidence. A doctor could run scans on a patient and find a lack of evidence of a disease. And then the patient gets the disease. The doctor proved nothing. Happens all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Which? You do or you do not reject claims of miracles from other religions? We reject all claims based on the weight of evidence, just as you reject all other claims.
I don't deny that other religions can have supernatural experiences. Like Native Americans going on a spirit quest or people in New Age being able to astral project themselves. On that basis alone, it proves that there is a spiritual realm. The vast majority of the world's population DO NOT believe like you. What's more like, that most of the world suffers from imaginary delusions or people are having real supernatural encounters. I would say the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Just like you. Except you just so happened to be born in a land with the one "true" religion, whereas your god can not be bothered to educate all those other people following those "false" religions? And you don't find this at all strange?
God knows the hearts of all men. And He knows if someone has this misfortune of being led astray into a false religion but has an open heart to receiving Him, He will find a way for the gospel to reach them. In the Holy Spirit documentary, there is one scene where all these events and places time just right so these Christian men are able to cross paths with people who need to hear the gospel. It's pretty amazing. God can even reach people like the members of Korn who were so far into sin, but He knew their hearts would be open to receiving the truth. Half of the band of Korn are now Christians. But the same thing didn't happen to the other guys because their hearts are closed.
The other religions all reek of man made creation like how they are action based.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yet you are somehow immune from this great deceiver? How would you know? By supernatural experiences?
I wouldn't say I'm immune. Satan's goal is to either destroy or make our lives miserable. So even Christians are constantly under attack as negative thoughts get pumped into our minds. This is why we have pity parties or put ourselves down in hard times. That's really the deceiver doing that.
But the post I responded to asked by what right atheists had to express an opinion.
Nobody here has tried to shut you up...and that can be confirmed by the fact that you continue to post. Quit whining.
Actually, I'm not sure he was asking about Constitutional rights. He was pointing out that the atheist claim is more of a smokescreen tactic to keep from asking tough questions. And I'll agree with him.
I hate to admit it, but we see a miracle around us every day. And to theists' joy, it supports their argument.
It must have taken some form of divine intervention to hoodwink billions of people into believing in various gods and this belief has certainly affected human affairs since civilization began.
I bet the purveyors of these various religions wake up daily thinking "it's a miracle these people believe in this nonsense!"
It seems quite obvious that if people like Paul, Mohammed and Moses ever existed they were nothing more than the L. Ron Hubbards of their era.
Actually, I'm not sure he was asking about Constitutional rights. He was pointing out that the atheist claim is more of a smokescreen tactic to keep from asking tough questions. And I'll agree with him.
The question posted was: "Why do atheists have the right to classify claims as "extraordinary"?"
Your mockery only shows me more that atheism is a Satan fueled deception. You gain NOTHING by mocking Christians and your posts never bring anything of value to the discussion.
Jeff, your posts show you are under the influence of Satan, since you don't believe in Allah. LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.