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.
Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of it would recognize that it is 66 different books. But I see that you know that, but you just prefer to misrepresent it.
Well done - you have found Something you can debate about with some hope of being able to blag it for a while - is the Bible a book or a collection of books. Neither of which will validate a single claim in It or Them.
I bet you're congratulating yourself on having drawn a red kipper across the trail. Let me disabuse you; Phet is just toying with you.
Evidence Christianity was a powerful force in 525 AD.
I'm not a real big church history guy, but any historian could tell you that the Roman Empire had recognized it as a big enough religion. It wasn't long after that when Muhammed started his war on Christians.
Quote:
According to the Bible. Which the OP is discounting.
1. Who says that atheists don't believe in anything supernatural. That's an overly broad statement to begin with.
2. For many of us -- I think most of us -- if you ACTUALLY come up with the evidence, we'll have to change our POV.
3. "Religions believe a lot of things that speak to spiritual matters---they aren't science or history." Ah! Then why to so many religionists keep trying to make their spiritual matters science or history?
4. I'll tell you what would qualify as proof...at least to me. If we saw the same sort of miracles that seemed so abundant in Jesus' time. That would get us nearer to whether or not miracles actually happen. But I don't see such miracles. Someone mentioned in a post yesterday how if a plane goes down and almost everyone dies and one survives that the christian will say that was a miracle. Nope. There are strange occurrences and coincidences that happen every day. That's not the same as a miracle.
5. When you religionists stop trying to convince non-believers of miraculous things, then we won't have to have these discussions.
(This also responds to Harry Diogenes and Transponder's points.)
I don't actually try to convince anyone of miraculous things. I don't believe that is possible. I believe a religion should be evaluated on the merits of its teachings alone. Then a person should practice the teachings to see if they are true. By "true" I mean are they spiritually true. Do they lead to a more peaceful life? Do they reduce suffering? etc. Then, through practicing a person may (I'd like to say probably, but who knows) have some transcendent experiences. That will predispose them to believe in something beyond the rational, or to understand that their view of reality is incomplete. Then a person might believe in 'miraculous things.' Maybe not. That belief isn't important. I would never try to convince anyone of something miraculous as those are minor points. The content of the teachings and how that transforms a person is the main point.
Generally, it has not been my experience that atheists believe in supernatural things. But I know atheists who are part of non-theistic religions who do. My husband practices Tibetan Buddhism and he believes the supernatural claim that the Dalai Lama is an emanation of the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara and has an explanation of how that is possible according to his belief system. So I was merely speaking generally and left out some people who didn't fit that description. I think those people might be the minority. If an atheist believes in something supernatural, how do they explain it?
You ask why do so many religionists try to make their spiritual matters history. I don't know. I think they should stop, and argue their religion on its own grounds---the spiritual validity as evidenced by the transformed lives of its adherents. That was part of my point. To bring up my Buddhist husband again, I've asked him if there was proof that the historical Buddha existed. He said that he didn't really know, but the teachings are verified by their quality. And if there turned out to NOT be the historical Buddha that they came from, he would conclude that whoever it was that wrote the teachings was a Buddha, or Buddhas. I feel the same way about Christianity. That's why I don't believe it useful to argue based on history or science. Whoever the teachings came from was Christ because the teachings themselves have produced the spiritual fruit in my life that they said they would.
I'm not a real big church history guy, but any historian could tell you that the Roman Empire had recognized it as a big enough religion. It wasn't long after that when Muhammed started his war on Christians.
You for sure ain't big on history. never mind. Christianity was just one more religion in the Roman empire. Eventually, it was legalised to be permitted along with the others. But it had one thing the others didn't - intolerance. It would not alow the others to exist. Three hundred years later, Muhhammad showed that his revelation was true by beating the Christians time and again. You can't argue with success.
Quote:
And the billion some odd Christians today.
Like yourself. And what authority are you after all?
Quote:
With a common theme.
and contradictory and downright false stories that would not only get their testimonies on the 'common theme' (Da Boss tell us ta say he never dun it) struck down as unsafe but the evangelists plus Paul probably and a few Old Testimony dudes too would be looking at perjury charges.
I'm not a real big church history guy, but any historian could tell you that the Roman Empire had recognized it as a big enough religion.
Yes, around 200 years before the BC / AD dating system was invented, and almost 500 years before it became popular.
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.
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.
Well done - you have found Something you can debate about with some hope of being able to blag it for a while - is the Bible a book or a collection of books. Neither of which will validate a single claim in It or Them.
