The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion

[BilliardsBall]

The confirmation proze goes to.........
Biblical scientific errors
Biblical scientific errors - RationalWiki


Historical inaccuracies in the Bible
The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

Oh, how about a worldwide flood that science proved didn't happen, is in every other myth before it and needs a family to have incest to repopulate?


500 CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE
Contradictions as listed in the SAB book




Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject. I

"William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people."

"The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible."

"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline."

"We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story."






Wait what? You just said you have to explain why people would promulgate myths under persecution?
Yet this has been done throughout history for false gods with no explanation except because people believe false things and will die for them. So this is another case of that. Joining a new movement that encourages martyrdom doesn't mean the stories are true? People died for all kinds of secret teachings and underground movements?

Except as we have seen the persecution is not as you say. You can't use religious myth as histories and back then Rome was allowing Christians to worship and set up churches in Rome. Why else would there be several churches in Rome already there when Constantine converted?

We are not talking about the OT but during at least the Persian invasion the Jews were allowed to continue practicing their religion.


Your analogy is terrible because counterfeit money is to fool people into thinking it's money, which already exists with no question. It 100% exists. Mankind does hunger for gods, we want someone to pray to and grant wishes and have an afterlife be real. We wish all this was true. Of this there is no doubt.
But as of yet there is still not the slightest evidence for any god, especially a theistic god. And maybe mankinds hunger does mean there is some god?
But this religion under discussion is all myth. Every aspect, book, style, historical confirmations (none), concepts are all taken from older myths and the delivery is written as if it's myth.
Even the "god" is just an Egyptian warrior deity who was slowly promoted to one true god and his goddess Ashera was dropped so they could have a single entity. The whole thing is complete religious myth.

I appreciate your citation of 500 Bible contradictions. As a matter of practice, since I was first a Christian I review each and all contradictions presented to me for accuracy. I've prior looked at lists of hundreds of contradictions and I believe I've encountered any you've seen, but if it helps, perhaps you'd share the smoking gun one or two that bother you the most.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes we parsed confirmation bias and statistical significance and moved right into delusional.

I already posted links to people who lost everything tithing. There are website explaining what to do when tithing doesn't work for Christians, there is a church who online offers a money-back option for tithing who have lost all resources. They actually did have to compensate a few people.
There is an article here documenting a case of a home owner losing her house rather than stop tithing.
https://www.getrichslowly.org/could-tithing-lead-some-americans-to-lose-their-homes/
It never came back either.

So confirmation bias, yes of course it is? It it doesn't always work and you have clear evidence that it doesn't yet you still write a post as if it always does, that is confirmation bis and it's also delusional.

Beyond that a secular person could practice giving away 10% of income and have the same results you do. There are probably sound and logical explanations and it also is painfully obvious you do not see evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
That is a fact. So of course you are viewing this with massive bias?
To enter evidence of supernatural agency when there is no way to confirm or actually trace where any monies are going or coming from is ludicrus.
And tithing does not work for many people. There are obviously situations where people have connections and places who when they pass along 10% of their income to they will see excellent returns. While others do not and do not see return.
It's all chance. There is no god involved.

You can tithe to any mythical deity, Thor, Zues and if it works out then claim he's real? Coincidences would not make Thor a real demi-god and they do not make the Christian version real either.

... "There are probably sound and logical explanations..."

Go ahead, God has come through for me and mine not a few times, but hundreds of times, but that is not statistically significant to your way of thinking. So please, provide "explanations".

Understand that you think I'm delusional, but my bank balances have dollars and cents in them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again martyrdom is the gospels are just fictional stories. You can't use fiction as instances of what really happened?
In the context of history martyrdom was a Jewish concept first and the 2nd important fact is that you still haven't seemed to read the information about early Judaism and it's diverse sects including the Jesus movement.

This article explains Jewish martyrdom and it's scnchronization into Christianity but the last paragraph is the most relevant and points out this assumes (like the church likes to teach) that Judaism and Christianity were separate religions. This was not true, no one would become a martyr for writing a gospel on the Pharisees and it's the same for the Jesus Movement sect. It WAS a Jewish movement?
The stories helped to sepa

"Religious martyrdom is considered one of the more significant contributions of Second Temple Judaism to western civilization. It is believed that the concept of voluntary death for God developed out of the conflict between King Antiochus Epiphanes IV and the Jewish people. 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees recount numerous martyrdoms suffered by Jews resisting the Hellenizing of their Seleucid overlords, being executed for such crimes as observing the Sabbath, circumcising their children or refusing to eat pork or meat sacrificed to foreign gods. With few exceptions, this assumption has lasted from the early Christian period to this day, accepted both by Jews and Christians.

According to Daniel Boyarin, there are "two major theses with regard to the origins of Christian martyrology, which [can be referred to] as the Frend thesis and the Bowersock thesis". Boyarin characterizes W.H.C. Frend's view of martyrdom as having originated in "Judaism" and Christian martyrdom as a continuation of that practice. Frend argues that the Christian concept of martyrdom can only be understood as springing from Jewish roots. Frend characterizes Judaism as "a religion of martyrdom” and that it was this “Jewish psychology of martyrdom” that inspired Christian martyrdom. Frend writes, "In the first two centuries C.E. there was a living pagan tradition of self-sacrifice for a cause, a preparedness if necessary to defy an unjust ruler, that existed alongside the developing Christian concept of martyrdom inherited from Judaism."[5]

In contrast to Frend's hypothesis, Boyarin describes G.W. Bowersock's view of Christian martyrology as being completely unrelated to the Jewish practice, being instead "a practice that grew up in an entirely Roman cultural environment and then was borrowed by Jews". Bowersock argues that the Christian tradition of martyrdom came from the urban culture of the Roman Empire, especially in Asia Minor:

Martyrdom was ... solidly anchored in the civic life of the Graeco-Roman world of the Roman empire. It ran its course in the great urban spaces of the agora and the amphitheater, the principal settings for public discourse and for public spectacle. It depended upon the urban rituals of the imperial cult and the interrogation protocols of local and provincial magistrates. The prisons and brothels of the cities gave further opportunities for the display of the martyr’s faith.[6]

Boyarin points out that, despite their apparent opposition to each other, both of these arguments are based on the assumption that Judaism and Christianity were already two separate and distinct religions. He challenges that assumption and argues that "making of martyrdom was at least in part, part and parcel of the process of the making of Judaism and Christianity as distinct entities"



Beyond that you should read the theology section, martyrdom was written in as a tenant of faith:

"Tertullian, one of the 2nd century Church Fathers wrote that "the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church", implying that the martyrs' willing sacrifice of their lives leads to the conversion of others.

"Martyrdom for the faith ...became a central feature in the Christian experience."[11] “Notions of persecution by the "world," ...run deep in the Christian tradition. For evangelicals who read the New Testament as an inerrant history of the primitive church, the understanding that to be a Christian is to be persecuted is obvious, if not inescapable”[


Jesus Christ was the first martyr in Christian tradition.

The lives of the martyrs became a source of inspiration for some Christians, and their relics were honored.



This was part of the movement. People were moved to risk their lives because it was part of the narrative.
Does that mean it's real? Of course not? People take on all sorts of political, religious, gang affiliated, national narratives that tell then it's noble to die for your cause. In the religious arena they hear word of mouth and that's good enough.
2000 years ago people just assumed some cult had the correct supernatural forces behind it, probably all of them did to different degrees they thought.
So hooking up with some movement was the thing to do. People willingly died worshipping, praying, and associating with THOUSANDS of religions. People do that all throughout history. And ALL of them are not actually real. In your case you think one is, but the point is it does not demonstrate proof of anything except more of the same human behavior.

I'm again asking, "Since we know Rome persecuted Jews and Christians historically, and in sizable numbers, why do you think the Bible persecutions are fiction? Do you have evidence in this regard?"

 

[joelr]

I appreciate your desire to keep the Bible what it is--but how can the Bible teach if it is teaching myths? How do you reconcile those two things?

This question makes no sense? All cultures use myths to teach all the important truths, so if they can why can't this myth also teach?
You would need to read Joseph Campbells interview/book The Power of Myth to fully appreciate how important myths are.
The transcript of most of the interview is :

Ep. 1: Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth -- 'The Hero’s Adventure' | BillMoyers.com


Wiki
"Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives or stories that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods or supernatural humans.[1][2][3] Stories of everyday human beings, although often of leaders of some type, are usually contained in legends, as opposed to myths.

Myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests or priestesses, and are closely linked to religion or spirituality.[1] In fact, many societies group their myths, legends and history together, considering myths and legends to be true accounts of their remote past.[1][2][4][5] In particular, creation myths take place in a primordial age when the world had not achieved its later form.[1][6][7] Other myths explain how a society's customs, institutions and taboos were established and sanctified.[1][7] There is a complex relationship between recital of myths and enactment of rituals. "



Take note, scholarship considers ALL religion to be myth as stated here:

"Since the term myth is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly political: many adherents of religions view their religion's stories as true and therefore object to the stories being characterised as myths. Nevertheless, scholars now routinely speak of Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology, Hindu mythology, and so forth. Traditionally, Western scholarship, with its Judaeo-Christian heritage, has viewed narratives in the Abrahamic religions as being the province of theology rather than mythology; meanwhile, identifying religious stories of colonised cultures, such as stories in Hinduism, as myths enabled Western scholars to imply that they were of lower truth-value than the stories of Christianity. Labelling all religious narratives as myths can be thought of as treating different traditions with parity.["


Myth - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Often we assume that science and religion are at odds with each other, one states that it is based on reason and logic while the other is said to be based on faith and hope. But we often do not see how similar they are in their false promises and claims. We are told both can be used to make the world a better place. We are told by those that hold them true that they are tools which can create a paradise...of course both parties always promised this "paradise" is somewhere in "the future" meanwhile those living in the present suffer under the auspices of both philosophies.

Promises, promises, promises. Both claim to have understanding of our nature, of the nature of the universe and both claim the ability to predict the future. Each claiming to be the truth even though science epitomizes verisimilitude and religion epitomize "faith". Seems to me that both are acts of faith it is just a matter if you want to have faith in verisimilitude or have faith in faith.

Both these philosophies promise us "salvation", people who put their faith in the science community believe that someday science will solve all our problems and someday because of science we will be transported into the stars, while those who believe in religion believe through religious discipline we will be saved and/or enlighten and transported into the Heavens.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me.

I have literally never been told these things that science is claimed to promise. Science is just a set of principles that describe the observations of the physical world. The application of these principles has produced benefits and detriments, but none of that is an assertion of science.

 

[joelr]

I'd ask again, what amount of personal anecdotal evidence should I accept as statistically significant? Technically, all polls are merely collecting anecdotes, right?

I can't tell you what to believe or when to accept this or that as magic. The proposition was that all Christians are helped from tithing. Clear evidence has been seen that it does not. A Church actually had to give people money when they ran out. And other stories of much worse outcomes. I don't understand why you keep on this subject?
There are people who beat unbelievable odds gambling who pray to a lucky rabbits foot. Then become convinced it has luck powers.

It doesn't matter how it works for you because you are one person. The claim is all Christians.
Jews did not invent sin and the need to wash away the sin-fluid that somehow permeates your body, the golden rule, non-judgment, supernatural entities, sacrifice and they did not invent tithing. It's probably a decent way to see returns but like all things in some cases it does not work. Probability, no supernatural hand in this.

The Babylonians had a 1/10 tax.
The esretu – "ešretū" the Ugarit and Babylonian one-tenth tax

 

[joelr]

I'm confused, we both will admit Rome martyred countless Christians between sometime in the 1st century and 325 CE or so, but you want me to accept those as historical facts then say the Bible descriptions of martyrdom of Christians are fiction? Why would I stretch that way?

Historically the fire in Rome was one of the only documented persecutions of Christians:

"Before 250 AD, persecution was not empire wide; it was localized, sporadic,"

"Persecution of the early church had occurred sporadically and in localised areas since its beginning. The first persecution of Christians organised by the Roman government took place under the emperor Nero in 64 AD after the Great Fire of Rome."

"In the 300 years from the crucifixion of Christ to the conversion of Emperor Constantine, polytheistic Roman emperors initiated no more than four general persecutions of Christians."

So we know that is true. The issue was gospel writing and being persecuted with does not seem to be an issue.

Bible descriptions are from the gospels. We have clear evidence that Luke for example was using Kings, Greek stories and his source was Mark. He was clearly attempting to construct a literary masterpiece. He had the basic outline and filled in details as needed. It's why every tomb account is different, it's why the gospels cannot be harmonized. They were writing stories. OT prophecies come true and a Jewish savior god all of their own. Written in a highly mythic style as well using ring structure, Markan sandwiches, and all types of literary devices. The main character scores as high as King Arthur on the mythotype scale.
It's also written similar to other pagan religions. The authors are not eyewitnesses, unknown and the material is not viable to be used as credible history.
There may be historical places but the events in the story are fiction. It's a story about a savior god who's name in the language actually means "savior"? You can stretch any way you like but that's why all scholarship does not consider religious scripture as actual histories


The histories of Rome are not just written as histories but written by many historians and events are verified by many different independent sources who are not related. How to verify historical information is something learned mainly from Masters to PhD and is a complicated subject. It's not taken lightly and must be confirmed by the entire PhD field before accepted.
But they are also never claiming any supernatural happenings.

 

[joelr]

I appreciate your citation of 500 Bible contradictions. As a matter of practice, since I was first a Christian I review each and all contradictions presented to me for accuracy. I've prior looked at lists of hundreds of contradictions and I believe I've encountered any you've seen, but if it helps, perhaps you'd share the smoking gun one or two that bother you the most.

None of them bother me, they are simply contradictions. Many of them cannot be harmonized and that's just how it is.
It's what one would expect from stories created by men. I'm sure they looked for contradictions during the year long council of Nicea when they made the canon official but you can't catch them all.

I posted them because you mentioned issues with other holy books. So I posted some issues with that holy book, and there are many.

 

[joelr]

... "There are probably sound and logical explanations..."

Go ahead, God has come through for me and mine not a few times, but hundreds of times, but that is not statistically significant to your way of thinking. So please, provide "explanations".

Understand that you think I'm delusional, but my bank balances have dollars and cents in them.

Still with this? Very strange. Really really strange?
Did you just ask for an explanation of something I have zero information about?? That's about the silliest thing I've ever heard?
I would have to know where every single cent went. Then I would have to go to all those places and see how they react to charity, understand their finances in detail, their motivations and practice habits with sending money. It's literally impossible?

And statistics cover the entire spectrum. If a stage 4 cancer kills 100% of it's victims that might actually mean 99.9999% annually.
So 1 in a million can survive. If 10 million people have it in 1 year it's possible to have 10 people running around with different religions or stuffed animal feet and swearing that you can never explain this miracle and they are convinced for life.
Good for them. Not a miracle. Almost 10 million people DID from that disease and now these 10 people think they are special and were more important than almost 10 million other people. Yup, that's how stupid people can be.


It's already been shown it does not work for all Christians. If you are having good luck with it good on you.
With the level of bias and denial I've seen however I'm pretty confident that you are ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
You tithe 10% and see a greater return? Then your tithing to the right places. You don't even say that actually, you just say you tithe and you have money? So? You still have 90% of a paycheck to make more money with?
It doesn't say in scripture "BilliardsBall shall tithe 10%" it says "all Christians". It's a wrap, it doesn't work for everyone.
It's also the wrong covenant? Tithing isn't part of the moral covenant that extended from the OT? Oh, and it doesn't work for all Christians like you said so this is a waste of time debate.
Your asking all these questions suddenly but I'm drawing the line at "answer my personal anecdotal heresay with no evidence, information or relevant facts that's probably just more confirmation bias ....."
Uh, no thank you.

Being reduced to personal anecdotal stories as your main focus means you've really nothing of significance left to argue.

 

[joelr]

I'm again asking, "Since we know Rome persecuted Jews and Christians historically, and in sizable numbers, why do you think the Bible persecutions are fiction? Do you have evidence in this regard?"

For starters the gospels are fiction.

But history doesn't seem to fully agree either. This article is not fully sourced but I have heard PhD Richard Carrier speaking on this and he was saying similar things. The article is referencing the writings of Emperors and other popular Roman figures. That would take some time to locate.

"The myth of constant persecution largely stems from two works written in the early fourth century A.D., On the Deaths of the Persecutors by Lactantius, a Christian professor of Latin, and the Church History of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in modern-day Israel.

These authors were living in the reign of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and tasked themselves with charting the history of Christian suffering up to this glorious moment. In both their works, the torture and execution of Christians in preceding centuries is associated with the emperors under whom they occurred. But the reality is that the punishment of Christians in the first three centuries A.D. was largely haphazard and not directed by imperial policy.

The emperor Nero is referred to as the first persecutor of the Christians by Lactantius. After the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64, when rumours swirled that the emperor himself was responsible, Nero blamed the Christians instead. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs.

Tacitus described Christianity as a “pernicious superstition” and the Christians themselves as degraded and sordid. However, no ancient writer suggests that these Christians were persecuted for their faith alone. They were charged with committing the crime of arson.

The unpopularity of the Christians with other Romans is made clear by letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (modern-day north Turkey) and the emperor Trajan in the early second century A.D. Pliny reported that the provincials had been denouncing others to him and even anonymously posting the names of suspected Christians. Trajan replied as follows:

They must not be searched for, but if they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished…

‘CHRISTIANS TO THE LIONS!’ rang without end through all quarters of the city.

So writes Henryk Sienkiewicz in his novel Quo Vadis (1895). By the end of the 19th century, the image of cowering Christians huddled in the arena awaiting their deaths as lions prowled towards them was the defining symbol of Roman religious persecution and the subject of many famous paintings.

The 1951 Hollywood version of Quo Vadis, starring Peter Ustinov and Deborah Kerr, enshrined this grisly scenario in popular culture. Today, the prevailing modern conception of the relationship between the Roman state and the Christians is that a number of emperors, including Nero and Marcus Aurelius, were responsible for introducing policies of persecution.

We would like to tackle two important questions about the treatment of Christians in the Roman Empire. Was persecution a consistent imperial policy, and what types of punishments were inflicted on Christians?

Blaming the Emperors
The myth of constant persecution largely stems from two works written in the early fourth century A.D., On the Deaths of the Persecutors by Lactantius, a Christian professor of Latin, and the Church History of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in modern-day Israel.

These authors were living in the reign of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and tasked themselves with charting the history of Christian suffering up to this glorious moment. In both their works, the torture and execution of Christians in preceding centuries is associated with the emperors under whom they occurred. But the reality is that the punishment of Christians in the first three centuries A.D. was largely haphazard and not directed by imperial policy.

The emperor Nero is referred to as the first persecutor of the Christians by Lactantius. After the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64, when rumours swirled that the emperor himself was responsible, Nero blamed the Christians instead. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs.

Tacitus described Christianity as a “pernicious superstition” and the Christians themselves as degraded and sordid. However, no ancient writer suggests that these Christians were persecuted for their faith alone. They were charged with committing the crime of arson.

The unpopularity of the Christians with other Romans is made clear by letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (modern-day north Turkey) and the emperor Trajan in the early second century A.D. Pliny reported that the provincials had been denouncing others to him and even anonymously posting the names of suspected Christians. Trajan replied as follows:

They must not be searched for, but if they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished…

In the event that a Christian agreed to sacrifice to the Roman gods, the emperor decreed that all would be forgiven.

Trajan’s letter effectively expressed the Roman state policy regarding Christians – a sort of ancient “don’t ask, don’t tell” – which lasted until A.D. 250. However, this did not put an end to denunciations by provincials who felt uneasy or threatened by Christians in their communities.

We can see this in the case of Polycarp of Smyrna and the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, who were harassed by members of the local population and subsequently brought to trial. This is how emperors such as Marcus Aurelius earned the label of persecutors.

However, the initiative to punish Christians did not come from the emperors at all, but from below. In the case of Polycarp, who was burned alive, the people of Smyrna are even said to have joined in enthusiastically to find wood for the fire. This was mob violence at its finest."

Mythbusting Ancient Rome – throwing Christians to the lions

 

[BilliardsBall]

This question makes no sense? All cultures use myths to teach all the important truths, so if they can why can't this myth also teach?
You would need to read Joseph Campbells interview/book The Power of Myth to fully appreciate how important myths are.
The transcript of most of the interview is :

Ep. 1: Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth -- 'The Hero’s Adventure' | BillMoyers.com


Wiki
"Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives or stories that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods or supernatural humans.[1][2][3] Stories of everyday human beings, although often of leaders of some type, are usually contained in legends, as opposed to myths.

Myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests or priestesses, and are closely linked to religion or spirituality.[1] In fact, many societies group their myths, legends and history together, considering myths and legends to be true accounts of their remote past.[1][2][4][5] In particular, creation myths take place in a primordial age when the world had not achieved its later form.[1][6][7] Other myths explain how a society's customs, institutions and taboos were established and sanctified.[1][7] There is a complex relationship between recital of myths and enactment of rituals. "



Take note, scholarship considers ALL religion to be myth as stated here:

"Since the term myth is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly political: many adherents of religions view their religion's stories as true and therefore object to the stories being characterised as myths. Nevertheless, scholars now routinely speak of Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology, Hindu mythology, and so forth. Traditionally, Western scholarship, with its Judaeo-Christian heritage, has viewed narratives in the Abrahamic religions as being the province of theology rather than mythology; meanwhile, identifying religious stories of colonised cultures, such as stories in Hinduism, as myths enabled Western scholars to imply that they were of lower truth-value than the stories of Christianity. Labelling all religious narratives as myths can be thought of as treating different traditions with parity.["


Myth - Wikipedia

What I meant was I call myths that teach while claiming to be themselves inerrant are lies. The Bible has no lies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I can't tell you what to believe or when to accept this or that as magic. The proposition was that all Christians are helped from tithing. Clear evidence has been seen that it does not. A Church actually had to give people money when they ran out. And other stories of much worse outcomes. I don't understand why you keep on this subject?
There are people who beat unbelievable odds gambling who pray to a lucky rabbits foot. Then become convinced it has luck powers.

It doesn't matter how it works for you because you are one person. The claim is all Christians.
Jews did not invent sin and the need to wash away the sin-fluid that somehow permeates your body, the golden rule, non-judgment, supernatural entities, sacrifice and they did not invent tithing. It's probably a decent way to see returns but like all things in some cases it does not work. Probability, no supernatural hand in this.

The Babylonians had a 1/10 tax.
The esretu – "ešretū" the Ugarit and Babylonian one-tenth tax

Yes, I'm familiar with gaming and gambling fallacies and superstitions--now explain why when I give money away I get back money every time for DECADES. My "lucky run" simply is unending.

Further, God disciplines me when I sin in other ways and rewards me when I act righteously in other non-monetary realms. I know my Father watches over me, stewards and helps me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Historically the fire in Rome was one of the only documented persecutions of Christians:

"Before 250 AD, persecution was not empire wide; it was localized, sporadic,"

"Persecution of the early church had occurred sporadically and in localised areas since its beginning. The first persecution of Christians organised by the Roman government took place under the emperor Nero in 64 AD after the Great Fire of Rome."

"In the 300 years from the crucifixion of Christ to the conversion of Emperor Constantine, polytheistic Roman emperors initiated no more than four general persecutions of Christians."

So we know that is true. The issue was gospel writing and being persecuted with does not seem to be an issue.

Bible descriptions are from the gospels. We have clear evidence that Luke for example was using Kings, Greek stories and his source was Mark. He was clearly attempting to construct a literary masterpiece. He had the basic outline and filled in details as needed. It's why every tomb account is different, it's why the gospels cannot be harmonized. They were writing stories. OT prophecies come true and a Jewish savior god all of their own. Written in a highly mythic style as well using ring structure, Markan sandwiches, and all types of literary devices. The main character scores as high as King Arthur on the mythotype scale.
It's also written similar to other pagan religions. The authors are not eyewitnesses, unknown and the material is not viable to be used as credible history.
There may be historical places but the events in the story are fiction. It's a story about a savior god who's name in the language actually means "savior"? You can stretch any way you like but that's why all scholarship does not consider religious scripture as actual histories


The histories of Rome are not just written as histories but written by many historians and events are verified by many different independent sources who are not related. How to verify historical information is something learned mainly from Masters to PhD and is a complicated subject. It's not taken lightly and must be confirmed by the entire PhD field before accepted.
But they are also never claiming any supernatural happenings.

You are usually right on with facts. But "localized sporadic" includes countless Christians and Jews arrested, thrown to lions and gladiators, etc. ROME WAS CLEANSED OF JEWS in the 1st century. Diocleatian went on a murderous rampage for a time as recorded (prophesied!) in Revelation, etc. I mean, it wasn't that big a deal to set Christians on fire to light Nero's frequent feasts and then light "just a few more" on fire to blame them for burning Rome, of course.

Does your "localized sporadic" (or rather the scholars') explain how LITTLE it was that Pontius Pilate alone killed tens of thousands of Jews on crosses?

Have the last word on this one, it's just very belittling to go on this way. I will end with this--it's not smart for either of us to blindly quote scholars as if the experts see all, know all. "Localized sporadic" is the kind of statement that they're fighting over now--when they label the ICE camps!

 

[BilliardsBall]

None of them bother me, they are simply contradictions. Many of them cannot be harmonized and that's just how it is.
It's what one would expect from stories created by men. I'm sure they looked for contradictions during the year long council of Nicea when they made the canon official but you can't catch them all.

I posted them because you mentioned issues with other holy books. So I posted some issues with that holy book, and there are many.

How is it you insist I defer to all scientists on every point--even those who disagree with their colleagues on the issues (!) but will not defer to me as a Bible expert? I told you I've researched and studied and meditated on EVERY one of those 500 contradictions and more. You? You just took a few samples and said, "Yup, can't explain that one away?"

Which one of us has a year of ancient Greek from college? A Religion Bachelor's? I'm still chairing and co-chairing academic panels and you still are passing yourself of as my superior in Bible lore? I'm not saying that with a trace of patronization or arrogance. I love the Bible and have read the whole thing multiple times in multiple versions!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Still with this? Very strange. Really really strange?
Did you just ask for an explanation of something I have zero information about?? That's about the silliest thing I've ever heard?
I would have to know where every single cent went. Then I would have to go to all those places and see how they react to charity, understand their finances in detail, their motivations and practice habits with sending money. It's literally impossible?

And statistics cover the entire spectrum. If a stage 4 cancer kills 100% of it's victims that might actually mean 99.9999% annually.
So 1 in a million can survive. If 10 million people have it in 1 year it's possible to have 10 people running around with different religions or stuffed animal feet and swearing that you can never explain this miracle and they are convinced for life.
Good for them. Not a miracle. Almost 10 million people DID from that disease and now these 10 people think they are special and were more important than almost 10 million other people. Yup, that's how stupid people can be.


It's already been shown it does not work for all Christians. If you are having good luck with it good on you.
With the level of bias and denial I've seen however I'm pretty confident that you are ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
You tithe 10% and see a greater return? Then your tithing to the right places. You don't even say that actually, you just say you tithe and you have money? So? You still have 90% of a paycheck to make more money with?
It doesn't say in scripture "BilliardsBall shall tithe 10%" it says "all Christians". It's a wrap, it doesn't work for everyone.
It's also the wrong covenant? Tithing isn't part of the moral covenant that extended from the OT? Oh, and it doesn't work for all Christians like you said so this is a waste of time debate.
Your asking all these questions suddenly but I'm drawing the line at "answer my personal anecdotal heresay with no evidence, information or relevant facts that's probably just more confirmation bias ....."
Uh, no thank you.

Being reduced to personal anecdotal stories as your main focus means you've really nothing of significance left to argue.

Actually, what we're arguing is the following:

1) You have experienced no abnormal money instances
2) I'm claiming hundreds of anecdotal experiences
3) You trust you and distrust me--I've done nothing to earn your trust--and you keep wrongly accusing me of confirmation bias, being ill-informed and ascientific.

I trust me and I know I'm telling the truth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

For starters the gospels are fiction.

But history doesn't seem to fully agree either. This article is not fully sourced but I have heard PhD Richard Carrier speaking on this and he was saying similar things. The article is referencing the writings of Emperors and other popular Roman figures. That would take some time to locate.

"The myth of constant persecution largely stems from two works written in the early fourth century A.D., On the Deaths of the Persecutors by Lactantius, a Christian professor of Latin, and the Church History of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in modern-day Israel.

These authors were living in the reign of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and tasked themselves with charting the history of Christian suffering up to this glorious moment. In both their works, the torture and execution of Christians in preceding centuries is associated with the emperors under whom they occurred. But the reality is that the punishment of Christians in the first three centuries A.D. was largely haphazard and not directed by imperial policy.

The emperor Nero is referred to as the first persecutor of the Christians by Lactantius. After the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64, when rumours swirled that the emperor himself was responsible, Nero blamed the Christians instead. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs.

Tacitus described Christianity as a “pernicious superstition” and the Christians themselves as degraded and sordid. However, no ancient writer suggests that these Christians were persecuted for their faith alone. They were charged with committing the crime of arson.

The unpopularity of the Christians with other Romans is made clear by letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (modern-day north Turkey) and the emperor Trajan in the early second century A.D. Pliny reported that the provincials had been denouncing others to him and even anonymously posting the names of suspected Christians. Trajan replied as follows:

They must not be searched for, but if they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished…

‘CHRISTIANS TO THE LIONS!’ rang without end through all quarters of the city.

So writes Henryk Sienkiewicz in his novel Quo Vadis (1895). By the end of the 19th century, the image of cowering Christians huddled in the arena awaiting their deaths as lions prowled towards them was the defining symbol of Roman religious persecution and the subject of many famous paintings.

The 1951 Hollywood version of Quo Vadis, starring Peter Ustinov and Deborah Kerr, enshrined this grisly scenario in popular culture. Today, the prevailing modern conception of the relationship between the Roman state and the Christians is that a number of emperors, including Nero and Marcus Aurelius, were responsible for introducing policies of persecution.

We would like to tackle two important questions about the treatment of Christians in the Roman Empire. Was persecution a consistent imperial policy, and what types of punishments were inflicted on Christians?

Blaming the Emperors
The myth of constant persecution largely stems from two works written in the early fourth century A.D., On the Deaths of the Persecutors by Lactantius, a Christian professor of Latin, and the Church History of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in modern-day Israel.

These authors were living in the reign of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and tasked themselves with charting the history of Christian suffering up to this glorious moment. In both their works, the torture and execution of Christians in preceding centuries is associated with the emperors under whom they occurred. But the reality is that the punishment of Christians in the first three centuries A.D. was largely haphazard and not directed by imperial policy.

The emperor Nero is referred to as the first persecutor of the Christians by Lactantius. After the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64, when rumours swirled that the emperor himself was responsible, Nero blamed the Christians instead. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs.

Tacitus described Christianity as a “pernicious superstition” and the Christians themselves as degraded and sordid. However, no ancient writer suggests that these Christians were persecuted for their faith alone. They were charged with committing the crime of arson.

The unpopularity of the Christians with other Romans is made clear by letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (modern-day north Turkey) and the emperor Trajan in the early second century A.D. Pliny reported that the provincials had been denouncing others to him and even anonymously posting the names of suspected Christians. Trajan replied as follows:

They must not be searched for, but if they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished…

In the event that a Christian agreed to sacrifice to the Roman gods, the emperor decreed that all would be forgiven.

Trajan’s letter effectively expressed the Roman state policy regarding Christians – a sort of ancient “don’t ask, don’t tell” – which lasted until A.D. 250. However, this did not put an end to denunciations by provincials who felt uneasy or threatened by Christians in their communities.

We can see this in the case of Polycarp of Smyrna and the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, who were harassed by members of the local population and subsequently brought to trial. This is how emperors such as Marcus Aurelius earned the label of persecutors.

However, the initiative to punish Christians did not come from the emperors at all, but from below. In the case of Polycarp, who was burned alive, the people of Smyrna are even said to have joined in enthusiastically to find wood for the fire. This was mob violence at its finest."

Mythbusting Ancient Rome – throwing Christians to the lions

The gospels weren't written in 325 AD, and they describe persecutions. What am I misunderstanding from your post here?

 

[joelr]

What I meant was I call myths that teach while claiming to be themselves inerrant are lies. The Bible has no lies.

Christianity is one of the many savior deity mystery religions that sprung up in the Mediterranean. It's literally of course a lie but the parables have teachings that are true. It's no different than any other mythology.
In Mark 4:11-12 he confirms this was a Hellenistic mystery cult. These religions told parables to outsiders and then when baptized one would gain the true knowledge. But savior deities are central to mystery cults.
The elements of baptism and eucharist are actually closer to the versions from the mystery religions than Jewish custom.

But the bible even has lies in terms of things predicted by god that never happened, the Israelites were supposed to be kings of the world and all races would bow to them and their god and so on.

 

[joelr]

Yes, I'm familiar with gaming and gambling fallacies and superstitions--now explain why when I give money away I get back money every time for DECADES. My "lucky run" simply is unending.

I've made it clear that I cannot know all the facts in this situation and continuing it is a desperate bid to at least have something unfalsifiable.
It's already been shown that some Christians have gone broke tithing so now you have to believe you are more important than them which is delusional.

Further, God disciplines me when I sin in other ways and rewards me when I act righteously in other non-monetary realms. I know my Father watches over me, stewards and helps me.

And even more unprovable cognitive bias comes out. At least now this sheds more light on your first question - it's confirmation bias.
When you do something "wrong" you look for things you can label as punishment and when you do things "righteous" you find things that you can believe are rewards. Real life throws stuff at as every single hour one could use as confirmation of reward and punishment.
In most sects of Hindu each person has a personal deity (sort of like an Angel in Judaism) who watches over, guides, gives wisdom, they also have compelling stories about how the god came to them in dreams and gave correct advice and so on.
It's only evidence that people believe weird things.

 

[joelr]

You are usually right on with facts. But "localized sporadic" includes countless Christians and Jews arrested, thrown to lions and gladiators, etc. ROME WAS CLEANSED OF JEWS in the 1st century. Diocleatian went on a murderous rampage for a time as recorded (prophesied!) in Revelation, etc. I mean, it wasn't that big a deal to set Christians on fire to light Nero's frequent feasts and then light "just a few more" on fire to blame them for burning Rome, of course.

Does your "localized sporadic" (or rather the scholars') explain how LITTLE it was that Pontius Pilate alone killed tens of thousands of Jews on crosses?

Have the last word on this one, it's just very belittling to go on this way. I will end with this--it's not smart for either of us to blindly quote scholars as if the experts see all, know all. "Localized sporadic" is the kind of statement that they're fighting over now--when they label the ICE camps!

This is ridiculous. Better than personal miracle stories, but still all over the map.
You seemed to have forgotten the discussion was regarding persecution and WRITING THE GOSPELS!?! The persecution in the 3rd century is NOT RELEVANT??

What I've been saying all along is the facts.

"In the first two centuries Christianity was a relatively small sect which was not a significant concern of the Emperor. The Church was not in a struggle for its existence during its first centuries,[11] before its adoption by the Roman Empire as its national religion. Persecutions of Christians were sporadic and locally inspired."

Besides the fact that persecution has nothing to do with the truth of any religion your point was why write gospels if it would get someone killed. But it would not get someone killed because they were written from 70-110AD. Pointing out an event from over 100 years later has no relation to the discussion?
I've already explained it completely. This was a sect of Judaism which was very diverse and the Romans did not care if some writer wanted to write a new gospel about any of the groups.

Bringing up ICE camps is a pure strawman and using the term "blindly quote scholars" is encouraging ignorance. Which generally is what religious folks seem to lean towards because you know the facts do not support the supernatural.

When trying to determine what to eat or what meds to take do you consult scholars or ask laymen? scholarship represents our best guess and trying to dissuade anyone from using expert opinion is something that only religion can inspire.


Now as to Pontius Pilate, you are using myth and later writings as a source which is hilarious since you criticized the use of actual scholars?


"Although Pilate is the best attested governor of Judaea, few sources on his rule have survived. He appears to have belonged to the well-attested Pontii family, but nothing is known for certain about his life before he became governor of Judaea, nor of the circumstances that led to his appointment to the governorship. A single inscription from Pilate's governorship has survived,"


"
In Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Pilate became the focus of a large group of New Testament apocrypha expanding on his role in the Gospels. In many of these, particularly the earlier texts from the Eastern Roman Empire, Pilate was portrayed as a positive figure. In some, he became a Christian martyr. In later, particularly Western Christian texts, he was instead portrayed as a negative figure and villain, with his supposed suicide featuring prominently. Pilate was also the focus of numerous medieval legends, which invented a complete biography for him and portrayed him as villainous and cowardly. Many of these legends connected Pilate's place of birth or death to particular locations around Western Europe.

Pilate has frequently been a subject of artistic representation. Medieval art frequently portrayed scenes of Pilate and Jesus, often in the scene where he washes his hands of guilt for Jesus's death. In the art of the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Pilate is often depicted as a Jew. The nineteenth century saw a renewed interest in depicting Pilate, with numerous images made. He plays an important role in medieval passion plays, where he is often a more prominent character than Jesus. His characterization in these plays varies greatly, from weak-willed and coerced into crucifying Jesus to being an evil person who demands Jesus's crucifixion."



This is a historical incident where Jews were killed

"In another incident recorded in both the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus relates that Pilate offended the Jews by using up the temple treasury (corban) to pay for a new aqueduct to Jerusalem. When a mob formed while Pilate was visiting Jerusalem, Pilate ordered his troops to beat them with clubs; many perished from the blows or from being trampled by horses, and the mob was dispersed."

 

[joelr]

How is it you insist I defer to all scientists on every point--even those who disagree with their colleagues on the issues (!) but will not defer to me as a Bible expert? I told you I've researched and studied and meditated on EVERY one of those 500 contradictions and more. You? You just took a few samples and said, "Yup, can't explain that one away?"

Which one of us has a year of ancient Greek from college? A Religion Bachelor's? I'm still chairing and co-chairing academic panels and you still are passing yourself of as my superior in Bible lore? I'm not saying that with a trace of patronization or arrogance. I love the Bible and have read the whole thing multiple times in multiple versions!

And yet I'm still schooling you on historicity. Believers generally stay away from history because the field is in consensus that it's a myth. Every topic raises so far you have shown knowledge that does not agree with the historicity field. Shouting accolades doesn't change this fact.
In fact, which one of us is trying to use personal experience as evidence?
You're listing all your college courses and academic credentials and then giving evidence of an invisible friend who shepards you.

You cannot answer all contradictions because no one can. Except with ridiculous apologetics. If you were an expert you would know that.
There are numeric contradictions, Calvinism vs Arminianism, is Jesus god, even if the gospels were copied word for word without contradictions how would this make it true?