The Bible - Why Trust It

[Hockeycowboy]

Really? What history is that? I thought that it was based upon the mythical slavery in Egypt.

Keep up with the changing news, man!

Previously, it was thought that ancient Egypt had few slaves. Now they’re discovering more and more skeletons of young people, who died from hardship.

It’s just a matter of time...as much as (most of) the world wants to discredit the miracles-revealing-a-God Bible, and suppress the evidence supporting it, materialistic science can’t quash all of it.

I mean, what’s the alternative?

To accept the Scriptures as mostly literal with all of its miracles, science would then have to accept a God. And the world would have to accept His morals on sexual restraint. Oh, no!!
So they would fight tooth and nail against any such evidence, at any cost.

Here’s some (RE: the Exodus):

Which Was the PharaOh of the Exodus?

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_4

I bet you’ll toe the line, and counter w/ the “misleading” accepted interpretations of the day. Revelation 12:9

 

[Subduction Zone]

Keep up with the changing news, man!

Previously, it was thought that ancient Egypt had few slaves. Now they’re discovering more and more skeletons of young people, who died from hardship.

It’s just a matter of time...as much as (most of) the world wants to discredit the miracles-revealing-a-God Bible, and suppress the evidence supporting it, materialistic science can’t quash all of it.

I mean, what’s the alternative?

To accept the Scriptures as mostly literal with all of its miracles, science would then have to accept a God. And the world would have to accept His morals on sexual restraint. Oh, no!!
So they would fight tooth and nail against any such evidence, at any cost.

Here’s some (RE: the Exodus):

Which Was the PharaOh of the Exodus?

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_4

I bet you’ll toe the line, and counter w/ the “misleading” accepted interpretations of the day. Revelation 12:9

When you find a reliable source I will change my minde. Sources written by Liars for Jesus are not too impressive. History has their peer review too. See if you can find anything that made it through that process. And please, real peer reviewed articles only.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do? How do you know this?

Because that's why it's called a "religion".....

I could call this a lie, or I could call it a baseless - not even assumption or claim- (apparently thoughtless) response to useful question.

I call it "...by definition".
Because that's what it is. That's why it's called a "religion". Religions require faith precisely for this reason.

Either way, there is no room as far as I can tell, for any progressive response to false statements obviously not well thought out.

What's not well thought out about stating what religion is about?
That's what it is about. It's what differentiates religions from, for example, scientific knowledge.

Or maybe there is.
No. You started first of all, with a baseless... [as I said before], and therefore it explains nothing.

It doesn't require any explanation.
It's just a fact. Religions require faith, because there is no proper evidence.
If there was, there'ld be no need for any faith.

You don't require faith to accept germ theory of desease.
But you do require faith to believe in your religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would you for example, go back and forth with this guy.

Here's what this man also said:

The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can [for me] change anything about this.

And:

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

He says these things in a 1954 letter addressed to Eric Gutkind.

 

[nPeace]

I feel like I'm talking to my 16 year old...

Insults won't help your case.
Opinions won't become facts because you want to have your way, and usually it's not the 16 year old that stubbornly want to have their way. It's the 5 year old and down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because that's why it's called a "religion".....



I call it "...by definition".
Because that's what it is. That's why it's called a "religion". Religions require faith precisely for this reason.



What's not well thought out about stating what religion is about?
That's what it is about. It's what differentiates religions from, for example, scientific knowledge.



It doesn't require any explanation.
It's just a fact. Religions require faith, because there is no proper evidence.
If there was, there'ld be no need for any faith.

You don't require faith to accept germ theory of desease.
But you do require faith to believe in your religion.

If one keeps oneself ignorant then "faith" may be required to accept ideas such as the germ theory of disease. And I think the religious often think that because they are ignorant (even though it is their own doing) that others suffer from ignorance as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's what this man also said:

The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can [for me] change anything about this.

And:

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

He says these things in a 1954 letter addressed to Eric Gutkind.

He did not seem to be willing to discuss that quote. A false interpretation fits his narrative so he is not interested in learning what Einstein actually believed.

 

[nPeace]

@Thirza Fallen this should be easy for you to understand, I'm sure.

If you can manage, here is one a 16 year old can understand.

 

[nPeace]

No, I do know. How did you come up with such a faulty conclusion?


No, I posted that there is good evidence that it may be a myth. There is a difference. But then you have as yet to show that you understand the nature of evidence.

No you did not. Why not support your claim then.
Please show us where you said, 'there is good evidence that it [the crucifixion] may be a myth'
If you show me that, I will squash the posts where you directly said they are.

It is not proper to strawman. There are aspects of the Jesus story that are myth, just as most of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer is mostly myth. Your all or nothing attitude is perhaps your biggest weakness.

That does not address my question.
So when you say, the crucifixion never happened, and the miracles of Jesus recorded in the Bible, are myth, on what facts are you basing your arguments?
Can I take your response as a 'I am basing them on the fact that I simply doubt they are true'?

Some of them. And remember, what you are reading in the Gospels was almost certainly altered. As to Einstein's quote you do not understand it. Do you think that you could approach it without your false beliefs that you have attached to it?

Since you know I don't understand Einstein's quote, why don't you tell me what it is I fail to understand.

No, again, that is what the Bible says the he said. You need to take everything in the Gospels with a huge grain of salt. We really do not know exactly what Jesus said at all. Not even the Gospels agree on this. There are differences between them at times. Relatively minor ones, but differences none the same that should not exist if the Bible were the "word of God".

Let's all treat Sargon, and Nebuchadnezzar, and all the claims made in Egyptian annals with the same skepticism. We don't know that any of them wrote one syllable, or if they existed at all.

No, there are parts that we can never know if they were true or false. But there are also some parts that we can verify and parts that can be shown to be wrong. Again, drop the all or nothing attitude. Some of the Bible can be wrong and some can be right. There is no need for the extremes that you espouse.

I accept that you do not know, but I don't think you are in any position to speak for everyone.

 

[nPeace]

Because that's why it's called a "religion".....

You are wrong, of course.

I call it "...by definition".
Because that's what it is. That's why it's called a "religion". Religions require faith precisely for this reason.



What's not well thought out about stating what religion is about?
That's what it is about. It's what differentiates religions from, for example, scientific knowledge.



It doesn't require any explanation.
It's just a fact. Religions require faith, because there is no proper evidence.
If there was, there'ld be no need for any faith.

You don't require faith to accept germ theory of desease.
But you do require faith to believe in your religion.

It is clearly evident to me that you don't understand, or know anything about faith, nor Christian faith.
So as you did in your previous post... you are merely speaking words, as usual, apparently because you believe you are expert on all knowledge.

 

[nPeace]

Here's what this man also said:

The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can [for me] change anything about this.

And:

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

He says these things in a 1954 letter addressed to Eric Gutkind.

1. He was clear that he was not Atheist.
2. He had issues with the Bible, and no doubt religion, but had no issue with morality, but appreciated the man Jesus Christ, as a living influential being.

If you agree with him, that's fine. If you disagree with him, that's fine also.
I'm just saying, I see no sense is a back and forth argument on whose opinion is correct, when one has nothing to prove it.

In case you missed my point...
So basically, you argue simply based on personal opinion, rather than any confirmed supportive facts.
Anyone can do that... but what sense does it make, going back and forth, with my opinion, your opinion ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you did not. Why not support your claim then.
Please show us where you said, 'there is good evidence that it [the crucifixion] may be a myth'
If you show me that, I will squash the posts where you directly said they are.

No need to. You made the claim that you couldn't support. When you use such a poor debating tactic a denial is more than refutation. You made the original claim, you need to support it.

That does not address my question.
So when you say, the crucifixion never happened, and the miracles of Jesus recorded in the Bible, are myth, on what facts are you basing your arguments?
Can I take your response as a 'I am basing them on the fact that I simply doubt they are true'?

Using a strawman is a form of lying. Get rid of your strawman and we can discuss this.

Since you know I don't understand Einstein's quote, why don't you tell me what it is I fail to understand.

Fine, do it properly. Bring it up again in a separate post. You are Gish Galloping right now. Another improper debating technique that is refuted with a simple denial.

Let's all treat Sargon, and Nebuchadnezzar, and all the claims made in Egyptian annals with the same skepticism. We don't know that any of them wrote one syllable, or if they existed at all.

But we already do that. No one tends to take them too seriously that I can think of. Why even bring them up?

I accept that you do not know, but I don't think you are in any position to speak for everyone.

Now you are being openly dishonest. I know that some of the Bible tales never happened. All you have are beliefs. You sadly do not know or even wish to learn how to know. There are some Bible tales that I do not know if they happened or not. And there are some that I know happened (though probably not as told in the Bible). Trying to change what someone said is not a proper debating technique either.

And I am in a far superior position to you. So far you have run away from learning what is and is not evidence in a scientific discussion. If you don't understand e evidence there is no way that you can properly debate science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. He was clear that he was not Atheist.

That is not true. By the definition used today he was an atheist. But then you probably strawman atheism as well.

2. He had issues with the Bible, and no doubt religion, but had no issue with morality, but appreciated the man Jesus Christ, as a living influential being.

Yes, Jesus probably was a real human being. You have that right.

If you agree with him, that's fine. If you disagree with him, that's fine also.
I'm just saying, I see no sense is a back and forth argument on whose opinion is correct, when one has nothing to prove it.

In case you missed my point...
So basically, you argue simply based on personal opinion, rather than any confirmed supportive facts.
Anyone can do that... but what sense does it make, going back and forth, with my opinion, your opinion ?

No, logic and reason is not opinion. I suppose when one has neither it may look that way to that person.

 

[Sand Dancer]

@Thirza Fallen this should be easy for you to understand, I'm sure.

If you can manage, here is one a 16 year old can understand.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Insults won't help your case.
Opinions won't become facts because you want to have your way, and usually it's not the 16 year old that stubbornly want to have their way. It's the 5 year old and down.

Belief won't either...

 

[nPeace]

Belief won't either...

You're right. That won't help your case either. All of us have that though, so I don't see your point.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When you find a reliable source I will change my minde. Sources written by Liars for Jesus are not too impressive. History has their peer review too. See if you can find anything that made it through that process. And please, real peer reviewed articles only.

“Reliable sources” were provided in the link.
Facts are facts, no matter who presents the evidence. (We went over this once before.)
It’s the interpretation of them that posits which side of the fence one is on.

Ever watch “12 Angry Men”? Or Perry Mason? Evidence is always getting misconstrued. I know...I deal w/ it most everyday.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

.

He did not seem to be willing to discuss that quote. A false interpretation fits his narrative so he is not interested in learning what Einstein actually believed.

“What Einstein actually believed”....

From the link ‘Bible’, above:
But he did not become an atheist. As Eugene Mallove wrote for The Washington Post in 1985, Einstein believed in what he called a “cosmic religion” – which was less a religion than “a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”.

Excerpt from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-auction-god-religion-rejection-a8568886.html

Here’s another...
Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Bold type is mine, to highlight.)

Intelligent Design, anyone?

 

[Subduction Zone]

“Reliable sources” were provided in the link.
Facts are facts, no matter who presents the evidence. (We went over this once before.)
It’s the interpretation of them that posits which side of the fence one is on.

Ever watch “12 Angry Men”? Or Perry Mason? Evidence is always getting misconstrued. I know...I deal w/ it most everyday.

No, they weren't. When it comes to sources you can be extremely gullible. You accept any source that seems to support your beliefs. And you do not seem to know what facts are. Lastly fictional courtroom drama tells you very little about real courts or real evidence.

Tell me, why are you so afraid to learn what evidence is in the first place?

 

[Subduction Zone]

.
“What Einstein actually believed”....

From the link ‘Bible’, above:
But he did not become an atheist. As Eugene Mallove wrote for The Washington Post in 1985, Einstein believed in what he called a “cosmic religion” – which was less a religion than “a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”.

Excerpt from Einstein’s letter rejecting God to be auctioned

Here’s another...
Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Bold type is mine, to highlight.)

Intelligent Design, anyone?

Not even close to Intelligent Design. Einstein would have laughed at you. By the way, why no links? Quotes without links are worthless.

As to Einstein's belief in God this is the final word, since it was the last thing he said about the existence of such a being:


“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”


Was Albert Einstein An Atheist Or Not? Read His Final Words On God