Crosswords0 min ago
Religious Evidence
68 Answers
Some members of AB's religious fraternity are very free with statements claiming that atheists insult or deride them and twist the words of the bible to support their(atheist) views.However when challenged to give examples they fall suspiciously quiet. If they cannot supply supportive evidence for things which they claim were written in the last few days, how can they expect anyone to believe their written version of events which allegedly happened 2000 years or more ago?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jomifl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't know if Josemaria Escriva, founder of the controversial Opus Dei organisation, can lay claim to the latest 'official' miracle, but he is alleged to have cured a couple of people of supposedly incurable illnesses and was subsequently fast-tracked to sainthood a few years back. (I was in Rome to witness proceedings. What a palaver!).
I have no issue with genuinely religious folk, their beliefs are theirs and one must respect that, even if in debate. I am sure we all have religiously driven friends.
What I personally have an issue with is folk trying to ram christianity, muslim thinking, judaism (and other religions) down one's throat and that is what has been going on on R and S. It is simply not educated debate exploriung reasoning, facts and logic that build to make up an opinion, it is just a one-way diatribe and full of monologue preaching involving cutting and pasting from prepared texts for them. They blithely accept all put in front of them and seem to have no real cognisance to what underpins the "teaching" - amply demonstrated by the bereftness of evidence and even analogy when challeneged,
To make matters worse, it is all conducted with no proper thought from the exponents and, again, when they are challenged by aetheists, agnostics and even more rational believers, they finally are reduced to making puerile or inane comments, such as Pa___ul has rightly exposed. Some of them border on being against the Site Rules...
This "behaviour" has even extended to rantings on non R&S sites and those "contributions" rightly have been removed in a few instances. One of these days, if they continue to persist with this abject mission work outside R&S, the AB God (Ed) will descend and suspend them - I look forward to that prospect.
Quite frankly, I find it rather pathetic of them but the reason I dig in is not necessarily because of the above but that these so- called "prophets/disciples/witnesses" or whatever they call themselves, risk endangering others at large, not necessarily on AB and they should be challenged.
There is no difference in what they preach to, say, the political warblings of the extremists on both the left and right, some of which we we see on the site. At least, those folk are generally more equipped to have a debate, however offensive their views may be.
What I personally have an issue with is folk trying to ram christianity, muslim thinking, judaism (and other religions) down one's throat and that is what has been going on on R and S. It is simply not educated debate exploriung reasoning, facts and logic that build to make up an opinion, it is just a one-way diatribe and full of monologue preaching involving cutting and pasting from prepared texts for them. They blithely accept all put in front of them and seem to have no real cognisance to what underpins the "teaching" - amply demonstrated by the bereftness of evidence and even analogy when challeneged,
To make matters worse, it is all conducted with no proper thought from the exponents and, again, when they are challenged by aetheists, agnostics and even more rational believers, they finally are reduced to making puerile or inane comments, such as Pa___ul has rightly exposed. Some of them border on being against the Site Rules...
This "behaviour" has even extended to rantings on non R&S sites and those "contributions" rightly have been removed in a few instances. One of these days, if they continue to persist with this abject mission work outside R&S, the AB God (Ed) will descend and suspend them - I look forward to that prospect.
Quite frankly, I find it rather pathetic of them but the reason I dig in is not necessarily because of the above but that these so- called "prophets/disciples/witnesses" or whatever they call themselves, risk endangering others at large, not necessarily on AB and they should be challenged.
There is no difference in what they preach to, say, the political warblings of the extremists on both the left and right, some of which we we see on the site. At least, those folk are generally more equipped to have a debate, however offensive their views may be.
DT <<What I personally have an issue with is folk trying to ram christianity, muslim thinking, judaism (and other religions) down one's throat and that is what has been going on on R and S.>>
I don’t agree with this. I don’t see anyone trying to “ram” anything down anyone’s throat.
As has been said many times by various ones, if you don’t want to know don’t read. If you go into the thread and post comments obviously you have an interest. I certainly don’t go on threads and comment if it holds no interest to me.
IMO, for what it’s worth. Any sincere believer would not appreciate many of the comments made regarding God and the Bible. Atheists are just as bad trying to “ram” their beliefs (non beliefs).
If someone maligned someone you love and believe in – what would be your position? Would you let them get on with it and say nothing – or would you stand up on their behalf and defend them? If you love them (say it was your wife, husband, partner or whatever) would you like to see their name dragged in the mud, doing nothing but just saying “Oh well, let them think what they want” not caring if others followed their stand? Surely not. I know I would stand up for my family if anyone said anything against them especially if I knew it was not true.
In the same way, I stand up for my belief in God and I don’t appreciate people maligning his name or his actions and I am sure Elderman feels the same from reading his comments, regardless of whether they are copied and pasted.
Perhaps you think this is copy & paste? But I don’t care if you do. I know what I believe in and what I stand for and I will stick to that through thick & thin. I have searched the scriptures and looked at the different religions and I have found the course I am taking the best for me. If you want to scoff and ridicule me – go ahead. They did the same to Jesus Christ and his followers. But one thing is for sure – Christ is now ruling as King in the Heavens. The day will come when all those who say, “There is no God” will have to stand before him and be judged. All I can say to you is – I am glad I am not in your shoes! Psalm 14 v 1.
I don’t agree with this. I don’t see anyone trying to “ram” anything down anyone’s throat.
As has been said many times by various ones, if you don’t want to know don’t read. If you go into the thread and post comments obviously you have an interest. I certainly don’t go on threads and comment if it holds no interest to me.
IMO, for what it’s worth. Any sincere believer would not appreciate many of the comments made regarding God and the Bible. Atheists are just as bad trying to “ram” their beliefs (non beliefs).
If someone maligned someone you love and believe in – what would be your position? Would you let them get on with it and say nothing – or would you stand up on their behalf and defend them? If you love them (say it was your wife, husband, partner or whatever) would you like to see their name dragged in the mud, doing nothing but just saying “Oh well, let them think what they want” not caring if others followed their stand? Surely not. I know I would stand up for my family if anyone said anything against them especially if I knew it was not true.
In the same way, I stand up for my belief in God and I don’t appreciate people maligning his name or his actions and I am sure Elderman feels the same from reading his comments, regardless of whether they are copied and pasted.
Perhaps you think this is copy & paste? But I don’t care if you do. I know what I believe in and what I stand for and I will stick to that through thick & thin. I have searched the scriptures and looked at the different religions and I have found the course I am taking the best for me. If you want to scoff and ridicule me – go ahead. They did the same to Jesus Christ and his followers. But one thing is for sure – Christ is now ruling as King in the Heavens. The day will come when all those who say, “There is no God” will have to stand before him and be judged. All I can say to you is – I am glad I am not in your shoes! Psalm 14 v 1.
Truth, at least you make an attempt to defend your faith rather than cutting and pasting your view. I have no problem with cutting and pasting if it is supporting a view - as long as it has the proper reference and acknowledgement.....Unfortunately , some here (we both know who) rely on this approach as their sole means to communicate and it comes across as enforced preaching. And folk are not going to put up with this.
As to "ramming," yes, there are some issues that get both "sides" on their horses but I think what you have to look at is whether one is reacting or proposing in the thread - there is a big difference and many of the threads, also from the said folk are designed to provoke the other side. Looking bacvk through the threads on this site, it appears that the evangelists threads far out number the aetheist ones....certainly those that have become "contentious."
I also think that one of the frustrating areas is that certain gentlemen will not provide answers to direct questions and in fact they are highly evasive - this extends then into the offering of evidence, the core to any theory before drawing out conclusions and actions. This has served to clutter up the threads too and build resentment on either side.
As to your argument towards me which borders on crying to insult me, there is a fundamental flaw which we shall no doubt agree to disagree. I do not believe that there is any God out there in the form that you do......if there was to be one, it would be far more ephemeral and structural as in the philosophy that Albert Einstein expoused - for this read Paul Schilde's bion on Einstein and his philosophies. In that science is well positioned and rationale, though of course not all is set in stone and neither should it be, wit the possibility that light is not the fastest thing in the cosmos.
You see, to me, religion has served to explain the unexplainable in science and many other domains but as we unravel the mysteries the need for religion to do this, disappears. It also has provided a moral base, but even some of that has revised itself as education has advanced in terms of depth of knowledge and those having more than a very basic education....the ability to travel has also exacerbated this too.
By the way I don't think that Psalms 14-1 refers to being in one's shoes.....I even remember that from my Divinity lessons and O level days.....
Happy New Year.
As to "ramming," yes, there are some issues that get both "sides" on their horses but I think what you have to look at is whether one is reacting or proposing in the thread - there is a big difference and many of the threads, also from the said folk are designed to provoke the other side. Looking bacvk through the threads on this site, it appears that the evangelists threads far out number the aetheist ones....certainly those that have become "contentious."
I also think that one of the frustrating areas is that certain gentlemen will not provide answers to direct questions and in fact they are highly evasive - this extends then into the offering of evidence, the core to any theory before drawing out conclusions and actions. This has served to clutter up the threads too and build resentment on either side.
As to your argument towards me which borders on crying to insult me, there is a fundamental flaw which we shall no doubt agree to disagree. I do not believe that there is any God out there in the form that you do......if there was to be one, it would be far more ephemeral and structural as in the philosophy that Albert Einstein expoused - for this read Paul Schilde's bion on Einstein and his philosophies. In that science is well positioned and rationale, though of course not all is set in stone and neither should it be, wit the possibility that light is not the fastest thing in the cosmos.
You see, to me, religion has served to explain the unexplainable in science and many other domains but as we unravel the mysteries the need for religion to do this, disappears. It also has provided a moral base, but even some of that has revised itself as education has advanced in terms of depth of knowledge and those having more than a very basic education....the ability to travel has also exacerbated this too.
By the way I don't think that Psalms 14-1 refers to being in one's shoes.....I even remember that from my Divinity lessons and O level days.....
Happy New Year.
DT.. The reference to Ps 14 v 1 was nothing to do with shoes! The Psalmist (David) was actually refering to those who say there is no God.
I was not aware I was trying to insult you.
If Elderman copies and pastes, perhaps he has a reason. Maybe he cannot express himself the same as you or I can. We have no idea of his background etc. so I think your attitude to him is a little unreasonable. All I can see is someone who has sincere beliefs trying to convey them to others, not for conversion, as no one can convert another - it has to be an individuals choice but in order for them to be well aware of the fact that God has set his day when he will judge the righteous and the unrighteous.
I was not aware I was trying to insult you.
If Elderman copies and pastes, perhaps he has a reason. Maybe he cannot express himself the same as you or I can. We have no idea of his background etc. so I think your attitude to him is a little unreasonable. All I can see is someone who has sincere beliefs trying to convey them to others, not for conversion, as no one can convert another - it has to be an individuals choice but in order for them to be well aware of the fact that God has set his day when he will judge the righteous and the unrighteous.
-- answer removed --
Truthabounds, I realise that you are very sincere in your belief, and although I can't speak for everyone, may I just say that the reason I am a non-believer is because I have studied what little evidence there is available objectively and I suspect more thoroughly than some of the religious - and without the dubious benefit of selective reading or selective teaching. Having done that, I find the claims religion makes to be seriously flawed. We know without doubt that the bible is contradictory, and that it has been edited many, many times, so what are we to believe? If one verse is questionable, how are we to know which of the rest hasn't been tampered with?
Let me give you a few examples. You tell me your God is omniscient and omnipresent. I read the bible and discover he wasn't. You tell me your God is loving and compassionate. I read the bible and discover he wasn't. The bible tells me that when Jesus died, the saints rose from their graves and wandered Jerusalem. What saints? There were no saints at that time because there was no Christianity. And even if we take an alternative translation - holy people - surely someone in authority - or a reliable historian at least - would have noticed something so bizarre as graves opening and their inhabitants roaming the city, and made a proper record of it. Likewise, when we're talking about Jesus, according to Christians, we're talking about God himself. God was on this earth in the form of a man! What an incredibly momentous event! Wouldn't you think someone would have taken the trouble to record his every move and every word and to keep the original document safe for posterity? And if both Mary and Joseph were aware that Jesus was the 'Son of God', as we're told they were, why does the bible tell us his family feared for his sanity? I could go on, but I won't because none of it makes any sense whatsoever to the unbiased reader. Quite simply, the bible does not support your claims.
And then we come to the real crunch when we read from you //The day will come when all those who say, “There is no God” will have to stand before him and be judged. All I can say to you is – I am glad I am not in your shoes!//
What is that? Nothing but a spiteful threat designed to strike terror into the hearts of the gullible in order to crush them into quaking subservience. Where is the love and the much-lauded compassion that you people claim this God offers? You speak of families defending their members, but I can't say I know of any parent who would damn his child to eternal punishment for any reason! I see no love in that - and certainly no compassion.
A creator God, if one exists, has to be something much bigger - and better - than the jealous, vindictive, God of Abraham. You people need to look further because you are giving credit to the wrong bloke. To my mind, it really is as simple as that.
Re Elderman, //All I can see is someone who has sincere beliefs trying to convey them to others,//
Is that really all you can see? I suggest you look again. The man is a duplicitous charlatan who refuses to answer the simplest question and has no intention of entering into any sort of discussion.
Let me give you a few examples. You tell me your God is omniscient and omnipresent. I read the bible and discover he wasn't. You tell me your God is loving and compassionate. I read the bible and discover he wasn't. The bible tells me that when Jesus died, the saints rose from their graves and wandered Jerusalem. What saints? There were no saints at that time because there was no Christianity. And even if we take an alternative translation - holy people - surely someone in authority - or a reliable historian at least - would have noticed something so bizarre as graves opening and their inhabitants roaming the city, and made a proper record of it. Likewise, when we're talking about Jesus, according to Christians, we're talking about God himself. God was on this earth in the form of a man! What an incredibly momentous event! Wouldn't you think someone would have taken the trouble to record his every move and every word and to keep the original document safe for posterity? And if both Mary and Joseph were aware that Jesus was the 'Son of God', as we're told they were, why does the bible tell us his family feared for his sanity? I could go on, but I won't because none of it makes any sense whatsoever to the unbiased reader. Quite simply, the bible does not support your claims.
And then we come to the real crunch when we read from you //The day will come when all those who say, “There is no God” will have to stand before him and be judged. All I can say to you is – I am glad I am not in your shoes!//
What is that? Nothing but a spiteful threat designed to strike terror into the hearts of the gullible in order to crush them into quaking subservience. Where is the love and the much-lauded compassion that you people claim this God offers? You speak of families defending their members, but I can't say I know of any parent who would damn his child to eternal punishment for any reason! I see no love in that - and certainly no compassion.
A creator God, if one exists, has to be something much bigger - and better - than the jealous, vindictive, God of Abraham. You people need to look further because you are giving credit to the wrong bloke. To my mind, it really is as simple as that.
Re Elderman, //All I can see is someone who has sincere beliefs trying to convey them to others,//
Is that really all you can see? I suggest you look again. The man is a duplicitous charlatan who refuses to answer the simplest question and has no intention of entering into any sort of discussion.
@ Truthabounds/Elderman.
If someones own rhetoric is not sufficient to the task, and they feel the need to cut and paste, then it should not be difficult to attribute and/ or link to their source. People will often wish to review the source themselves..Since this is a debate and comment forum, it is also pretty bad form to refuse to engage with rebuttals, counterarguments, or requests for evidence / clarification.
It matters little how sincere someones belief is - ideas are not immune to challenge, nor should they be considered sacrosanct, and ideas or beliefs that routinely mean that believers have to lie, or twist the facts, or selectively quote figures in order to get the science or the facts to fit their faith based, evidence free world view deserve to have those ideas challenged robustly. Posts that misrepresent reality or science deserve no respect.If you do not like your ideas to be challenged, if you do not wish your faith to be subject to scrutiny or ridicule, don't start these posts.
Just because you might have faith and a sincere belief in your religion does not mean that you have to initiate posts with homilies and sanctimony - and if you feel you do, because you feel an uncontrollable urge to bring light to the endarkened, if you wish to aid in the conversion of unbelievers, again it follows that those of us who reject such faith as myth and legend will rebut it, trenchantly -most especially if those posts contain misrepresentations of reality!
Respect for individuals I have, but not for their faith, however sincerely it is held.
If someones own rhetoric is not sufficient to the task, and they feel the need to cut and paste, then it should not be difficult to attribute and/ or link to their source. People will often wish to review the source themselves..Since this is a debate and comment forum, it is also pretty bad form to refuse to engage with rebuttals, counterarguments, or requests for evidence / clarification.
It matters little how sincere someones belief is - ideas are not immune to challenge, nor should they be considered sacrosanct, and ideas or beliefs that routinely mean that believers have to lie, or twist the facts, or selectively quote figures in order to get the science or the facts to fit their faith based, evidence free world view deserve to have those ideas challenged robustly. Posts that misrepresent reality or science deserve no respect.If you do not like your ideas to be challenged, if you do not wish your faith to be subject to scrutiny or ridicule, don't start these posts.
Just because you might have faith and a sincere belief in your religion does not mean that you have to initiate posts with homilies and sanctimony - and if you feel you do, because you feel an uncontrollable urge to bring light to the endarkened, if you wish to aid in the conversion of unbelievers, again it follows that those of us who reject such faith as myth and legend will rebut it, trenchantly -most especially if those posts contain misrepresentations of reality!
Respect for individuals I have, but not for their faith, however sincerely it is held.
Naomi: How do modern translations of the Bible compare with ancient manuscripts? Professor Julio Trebolle Barrera, a member of the team of experts charged with studying and publishing the ancient manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, says: “The transmission of the text of the Hebrew Bible is of extraordinary exactitude, without parallel in Greek and Latin classical literature.” Respected Bible scholar F. F. Bruce says: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He continues: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”
The Bible has survived both natural and human obstacles. The record of how it was preserved despite tremendous challenges is truly unique among ancient writings.
The Bible writers evidently recorded their words with ink on papyrus (made from the Egyptian plant of the same name) and parchment (made from the skins of animals). (Job 8:11) Such writing materials, however, have natural enemies. Explains scholar Oscar Paret: “Both of these writing mediums are in the same strong measure endangered by humidity, by mould, and by various maggots. We know from daily experience how easily paper, and even strong leather, deteriorates in the open air or in a damp room.” So it is not surprising that none of the originals are known to exist; they probably disintegrated long ago. But if the originals succumbed to natural foes, how did the Bible survive?
Soon after the originals were written, handwritten copies began to be produced. In fact, copying the Law and other portions of the Holy Scriptures became a profession in ancient Israel. The priest Ezra, for example, is described as “a skilled copyist in the law of Moses.” (Ezra 7:6, 11; compare Psalm 45:1.) But the copies produced were also perishable; eventually they had to be replaced by still other handwritten copies. This process of copying the copies went on for centuries. Since humans are not perfect, did copyists’ mistakes substantially change the Bible text? The overwhelming evidence says no!
Not only were the copyists very skilled but they also had a deep respect for the words they copied. The Hebrew word for “copyist” has reference to counting and recording. To illustrate the extreme care and accuracy of the copyists, consider the Masoretes, copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures who lived between the sixth and the tenth centuries C.E. According to scholar Thomas Hartwell Horne, they reckoned “how many times each letter of the [Hebrew] alphabet occurs in all the Hebrew Scriptures.” Think what that means! To avoid omitting even a single letter, these devoted copyists counted not just the words they copied but the letters as well. Why, according to one scholar’s count, they reportedly kept track of 815,140 individual letters in the Hebrew Scriptures! Such diligent effort ensured a high degree of accuracy.
There is, in fact, compelling evidence that the Hebrew and Greek texts on which modern translations are based represent with remarkable fidelity the words of the original writers. The evidence consists of thousands of handwritten copies of Bible manuscripts—an estimated 6,000 of all or portions of the Hebrew Scriptures and some 5,000 of the Christian Scriptures in Greek—that have survived to our day. A careful, comparative analysis of the many existing manuscripts has enabled textual scholars to detect any copyists’ errors and determine the original reading. Commenting on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William H. Green could thus state: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.”
continued.....
The Bible has survived both natural and human obstacles. The record of how it was preserved despite tremendous challenges is truly unique among ancient writings.
The Bible writers evidently recorded their words with ink on papyrus (made from the Egyptian plant of the same name) and parchment (made from the skins of animals). (Job 8:11) Such writing materials, however, have natural enemies. Explains scholar Oscar Paret: “Both of these writing mediums are in the same strong measure endangered by humidity, by mould, and by various maggots. We know from daily experience how easily paper, and even strong leather, deteriorates in the open air or in a damp room.” So it is not surprising that none of the originals are known to exist; they probably disintegrated long ago. But if the originals succumbed to natural foes, how did the Bible survive?
Soon after the originals were written, handwritten copies began to be produced. In fact, copying the Law and other portions of the Holy Scriptures became a profession in ancient Israel. The priest Ezra, for example, is described as “a skilled copyist in the law of Moses.” (Ezra 7:6, 11; compare Psalm 45:1.) But the copies produced were also perishable; eventually they had to be replaced by still other handwritten copies. This process of copying the copies went on for centuries. Since humans are not perfect, did copyists’ mistakes substantially change the Bible text? The overwhelming evidence says no!
Not only were the copyists very skilled but they also had a deep respect for the words they copied. The Hebrew word for “copyist” has reference to counting and recording. To illustrate the extreme care and accuracy of the copyists, consider the Masoretes, copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures who lived between the sixth and the tenth centuries C.E. According to scholar Thomas Hartwell Horne, they reckoned “how many times each letter of the [Hebrew] alphabet occurs in all the Hebrew Scriptures.” Think what that means! To avoid omitting even a single letter, these devoted copyists counted not just the words they copied but the letters as well. Why, according to one scholar’s count, they reportedly kept track of 815,140 individual letters in the Hebrew Scriptures! Such diligent effort ensured a high degree of accuracy.
There is, in fact, compelling evidence that the Hebrew and Greek texts on which modern translations are based represent with remarkable fidelity the words of the original writers. The evidence consists of thousands of handwritten copies of Bible manuscripts—an estimated 6,000 of all or portions of the Hebrew Scriptures and some 5,000 of the Christian Scriptures in Greek—that have survived to our day. A careful, comparative analysis of the many existing manuscripts has enabled textual scholars to detect any copyists’ errors and determine the original reading. Commenting on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William H. Green could thus state: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.”
continued.....
Its worth remembering that ALL religions are made-up and invented. Its easy to point at the new, obviously stupid ones, like Scientology but the old religions are just as daft. Its all about the irrational belief in illogical circumstances, just like the tooth fairy and Father Xmas. Nature abhors a vacumm. Religions creep into the brain only when there is plenty of room to expand.
Even if I wasn't a questioner finding it hard to come to terms with religious writings, I would certainly become that way having read Naomi's excellent post (14:59 Saturday). She really says it all and gives pertinent views and writes common sense from her findings alone. Surely we all have to question things, throw ideas into the ring, bandy them about and then make sense from what we hear and see to be able to make decisions or believe in something don't we?. IMO Naomi has the right perspective on religious debate and some people would do well to take note and digest her common sense views.
Daisy, thank you. :o)
Truthabounds, thanks for the offer, but if I accept your explanations, I may as well accept those of other believers which doubtless contradict yours. I have studied biblical history, and I can read.
There have been hundreds of changes to the text, and actually it would serve your purpose better to acknowledge that because then, at least, you would have an excuse for the glaring errors and obvious contradictions. As it is, you have none.
Truthabounds, thanks for the offer, but if I accept your explanations, I may as well accept those of other believers which doubtless contradict yours. I have studied biblical history, and I can read.
There have been hundreds of changes to the text, and actually it would serve your purpose better to acknowledge that because then, at least, you would have an excuse for the glaring errors and obvious contradictions. As it is, you have none.
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Who's Been Running The United States?
News4 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works5 mins ago
