Quantcast

«

»

Mar 22 2013

A Response to Rationalthinker

Rationalthinker has come to dispute my stance on Fox News Atheism Post. And so I have a proper response both here and in the comments to his latest post.


The author continuously asserts that God does not exist no more than fairies, or Santa. The thing with fairies and santa is we KNOW from life experience that they do not exist, nobody doubts this. We KNOW from life experience, that God does indeed exist, you just choose to ignore the information in front of you.

You mean Jehovah? How droll…

I’m guessing as how nobody took issue with my HISTORICAL argument on how science only helps the christian world view that no more needs to be said about the universe we live in. Secondly NOT all religions are the same. Sam Harris himself even says you cannot lump christianity in with buddhism, islam, hinduism, etc, because they are NOT all equal.

No. The Bible’s historical veracity is repeated by Hinduism’s veracity and Buddhism’s veracity as the Last Avatar and the Founder of the faith was a historical figure too. Just because “Whitey didn’t care” about my culture you know nothing about it.

I know about yours though. This is because I educated myself. I would like to see this Sam Harris quote.

Hinduism is just as historically verified and the existence of Ishwara is just as strong as your Jehovah.

The bible has been demonstrated through historical FACT to be reliable. You can twist and turn and read all the vague blogs you want by all these pail faced pseudo intellectuals who absolutely refuse to conform to secular opinion on the bible. Yes secular scholars agree the people, places, and particulars are all true with regard to the bible.

You mean like Siddartha Gauthama and Bodhgaya? Or Ayodhya? Or Thirupathi? Or Allahabad?

And dear Christian. It’s physically impossible for me to be pale faced. Not unless I take up mime.

Secular historical sources such as Pliny the unger, Justin the martyr, josephus, tacitus, thallus, the jewish talmud, even by ponteous pilate himself, in the acts of pilot, refer to the birth, life, death and most important resurrection of Christ.

Yawn… no they don’t. And if you had an ounce of brain you wouldn’t be arguing with an ex-hindu who can happily pull out the same sources. Because if we just look online I have plenty of sources that collaborate the existence of Wizards. London exists does it not? And there are plenty of authors who aren’t J.K. Rowling who support the existence of wizards.

You mean we should assume that the all the biblical sources are accurate for no apparent reason that a bunch of white people believe in them but assume brown people’s beliefs aren’t equal? You do realise your argument smacks of the arseholery of Empire where “Indian literature” was considered pointless and where libraries were destroyed because they didn’t matter. You frankly know absolutely nothing about Hinduism apart from what your priests tell you and they know even less.

And mentioning the Acts of Pilate? A piece of work known to be a forgery? Very amusing…

Using only secular information, which scholars have done, it is totally congruent with the bible. The reason the bible seems so confusing and crazy, is because you have to know how to read it!

Non Timidus Messor…

I read the vulgate. Your Bible is based on the one I read when I was younger. Oh if you want to be proper impressed?

Bismillah, Al Rahman al Rahim,
Al Hamdullalah Al-Ameen
Al-Rahmani Al-Raheem
Maliki yawmi addeen
Iyyaka Naabudu Wa-iyyaka Nastaaheen

I can recite the Quran too. Well I used to. Now I have to read the damn thing. You picked the polyglot of FTB.

I have read the three biggest religion’s books in the languages they are meant to be read in. And they are all equally bullshit.

Latin/Arabic/Sanskrit. I don’t speak them well but I can speak them enough to know what I am reading is bullshit. Oh and BTW? Mohammed is just as historical a figure with a well documented history as Jesus but the same rule of “White Guys Only Count” applies here.

Like I said before you can’t just pick a verse and make a case around it. The bible was written by men who were inspired by God, therefore the information in the bible is reliable.

Except we totally can.

If the Bible was inspired by Jehovah who claims to be a moral god then he would have had a stance that condemned slavery, genocide and rape. Yet the book contains lines where Jehovah exhorts his followers to enslave, rape and commit genocide. At no point does the book say “No. These things are bad”. In fact the Bible spends more time banning you from eating owls than it does from banning the ownership of human beings or the elimination of a group of people based on their ethnicity. And this is as a whole.

66 books written and all them the same message. It should be difficult to read. You should read a passage then sit there and ponder what it means. You’ve read what it said now you must think long and hard what it is that the bible trying to communicate to you.

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. – Leviticus

Leviticus is the transcribed word of an allegedly (Judges 1:19 says otherwise) almighty god who is allegedly (clearly not) the source of all that is good and honest and decent and moral…

That seems like instructions on how to own people. As Slaves. Ponder what you like. Leviticus is a “Do and Do Not List”. This is not moral. This is immoral.

Now here is the thing. You either have to accept that Jehovah is not the source of all morality and that you are more moral by throwing away the stupid laws of your god.

Or you have to accept the fact that your god is a slaver.

And if you knew anything about the History of the Bible you would know that the message in the books is roughly the same because it was compiled by a group of people and edited. It’s the same reason why a Novel or a Newspaper fits nicely together. Editors…

Everything in the old testament points towards the new testament and the fulfillment through Christ. I say this as a back story to bring it back to the slavery argument. Like I said before in 1 Timothy the bible puts slave traders in an awful category and are looked down upon. I don’t know how you keep sticking to blatant untruth!

You mean the same Timothy (6:1) that exhorts slaves to stay slaves?

Yet it says absolutely nothing about NOT OWNING SLAVES. Here’s a hint? Know why Muslims and Jews don’t eat Pork? Because their book explicitly says “no Pork”. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say no Slaves but infact accepts slavery as normal and a good thing and even tells you who to enslave. The problem with Christians is that they forget that we have read their book too. And we read it with the same eye we read science. Especially since Leviticus is the word of your god after all…

The bible teaches that man has intrinsic value and is worth something, that you are special. That’s the over all message in the bible this is what you DO NOT seem to understand.

No. The Bible teaches you that you are inherently sinful because you don’t match up to the alleged perfect standard of a slave holding, rapist and ethnic cleanser…

Trust me your Bible doesn’t claim you have any intrinsic value. And you aren’t special because a magic man says so. You are special because you are human and are potentially capable of amazing things.

We did more amazing things because we stopped believing in “magic” and started actually explaining how the world worked. We did more amazing things when we stopped people doing things based on how much they believe in a god and instead on what would make the world better. Your faith is part of the method by which the west raped and pillaged the third world. Your initial history lesson is terrifyingly bad.

Hinduism is the oldest continuous religion on the planet. It predates Judaism. Some of it’s gods are stone age deities. Buddhism is very new compared to Hinduism and Buddhism is about as old as Judaism. However India was ruined because India was never a unified country in it’s history and over the 300 odd years the British were around India tore itself apart through the collapse of it’s dominant power resulting in power struggles and fractured states that allowed it’s take over.

Not because of Hinduism. Oh and learn a little about the world. Hindus had a heliocentric solar system with a leap year system. They were very strong astronomers and indeed very strong mathematicians. Want to know why?

Because you use their numbers. You call them Arabic Numerals. The Arabs call them Hindu Numerals. The decimalised system is a hindu invention. Modern science couldn’t take place without it.

Oh and western destruction of Hindu culture means that a lot of Indian technology is denigrated or unknown. A good example of this was Bose who was not given a Nobel prize for his achievements despite his theories being the reason we build the Large Hadron Collider.

Why? Einstein thought his work was good. I can even tell you the tale of Ramanajum who any mathematician here would squee over (A self taught math prodigy who died young but whose mathematics were considered sublime and elegant.)

Remember Gandhi never won a peace prize. A man considered the epitome of peace never won one. Because at the time people were rather racist. Brown people rarely won stuff. And keep that in mind when you wonder why there were no “Indian Scientists”.

This is where I can’t understand how you keep saying outright contradictions on the view of slavery in the bible. (And i’m sure that this is NOT the reason you don’t believe there is a creator is because of slavery….right?

I don’t believe in your particular god because you have provided no evidence of it’s existence what so ever.

Not one atom of proof has been submitted from any religion about the existence of their god. Your bible doesn’t count because I will submit Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone as a reason to fear Voldemort.

If we took the sum total of science and your Christianity and wiped both from humanity. Then humanity would redevelop science to the exact way we know the world to work today while whatever you come up with will not be the same as Christianity but will be an entirely different superstition.

And remember. We are both Atheists here. I just don’t believe in one more god. The way you think “Shiva” is fake is the way Muslims think your Jehovah is fake and is the way I think all three gods are not real.

Besides it’s not the bibles view of slavery as you all keep pointing out, it was the 1 century view on slavery, which happened to be when those sections of scripture were written so they are working within the guide lines of their time. WHICH STILL DOES NOT CONDONE SLAVERY!! You CANNOT take what we know as a society now and look back 5000 years and say the bible is awful because “look what they were doing!!!”

Your mathematics is a bit faulty there (probably all those Hindu numbers you keep using) but mosaic law dates back to at the earliest 1200 BC which makes it 3000 years old rather than 5000 years old. But back on topic…

Actually you can. Your entire claim is that Jehovah is “perfect” and that he is the source of all morality. This is a repeated claim by Christians and is integral to their doctrine. It accuses people like myself (who are atheists) of moral relativism (or you know “thinking about our actions”. )

You claim that 3000 years ago everyone thought slavery was okay so your particular god in his infinite wisdom supported it. And then suddenly they didn’t and everyone ignored the bits where Jehovah exhorts you to own slaves. Then what is the point of your morality and your Bible if you claim to be the gospel word of a perfect being but then make the claim that you couldn’t know better because no body else did?

Then what are you for? You have just proved that the Bible is woefully inadequate as a moral guide despite claiming to be the zenith of possible morality. All you have done is proven that humanity has exceeded the Bible’s grasp and understanding. All you have done is proven it’s irrelevance as a moral code and as a guide of any sort.

49 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Psychopomp Gecko

    Painful to read the PRATTs from this guy.

    I especially get tired of this whole “The bible is historically accurate!” crap. Leaving aside the utter lack of evidence for the existance of Jesus Christ outside the bible, there are a number of things that simply didn’t happen. Important sections, like the exodus from Egypt and pretty much all of Genesis. Granted, some of that is prehistory, but we know enough to know it didn’t happen that way.

    As for the slavery thing, my favorite way to think about it when they say “That’s just how things were back then” is to point out that God, the omnipotent one that’s supposedly more moral, didn’t have to put up with the way things were back then. He could have just said, “I don’t care, no slavery, over and done with.” Or he could have, if he was real.

    I particularly like “Well, that slavery mess in the bible was written by people because was the way things were back then…but they still wrote the bible to not condone slavery!” that this guy pulls out, because it clearly shows he’s just lying for his religion.

  2. 2
    maddog1129

    What does PRATT mean, again?

  3. 3
    hotshoe, now with more boltcutters

    Bravo, Avicenna,
    Can hardly believe you had the patience to address all those galloping untruths posted by “Rationalthinker”.

    Hee hee. Yet another datum in support of the FtB theory that iinternet posters with anything like “rational” or “thinker” in their nyms, never are what they name themselves to be.

  4. 4
    Some Old Programmer

    @2, Urban Dictionary is your friend.

    I didn’t know either, but definition 4 has ‘A neologism based on the abbreviation p.r.a.t.t. for “previously refuted a thousand times”‘.

  5. 5
    michaelbusch

    @maddog1129:

    “Point Refuted A Thousand Times”. In other words, “Rationalthinker” has merely recited a list of some of the worst and most boring fallacious theistic arguments.
    _
    A tangential point, because it interesting to me:

    How many people have heard of Bose or Ramanujan, or of Chandrasekhar or Raman (who both did get Nobels) ? I know all of their work, albeit significantly less of Ramanujan’s, but I am a planetary astronomer. In astronomy, Chandrasekhar’s work is just as well-known as Einstein’s. In geology, Raman’s work is better known than Einstein’s – because geologists like to know what rocks are made of, and don’t care as much about general relativity. In physics, Bose and Einstein are often mentioned simultaneously (Bose-Einstein condensates are cool things).

    I could list off a large number of other Indian scientists, and a few from Pakistan and from Bangladesh. But I realize that I know more scientists than the public does. So how well-known are Bose, Ramanujan, Chandrasekhar, and Raman?

  6. 6
    Dana Hunter

    @michaelbusch – Can you post full names so they can be looked up more easily? I can’t get Google to tell me who Raman is.

  7. 7
    glodson

    @Dana Hunter

    Raman= C.V. Raman.

    Chandrasekhar = Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.

    Bose= Satyendra Nath Bose

    Ramanujan = Srinivasa Ramanujan

    I am most familiar with Bose and Chandrasekhar myself, but not so much that I can explain it any better than a random article you’ll find with Google. Hope this helps, happy reading.

    And in general: whenever I see a nym with Rational in it, I come to expect the term is being used ironically.

  8. 8
    michaelbusch

    @Dana:

    Raman = Chandrasekhara Venkata Rāman
    _
    glodson caught the rest of them. The shared named between Chandrasekhar and Raman is not a coincidence: Raman was Chandrasekhar’s uncle.
    _
    Raman’s Nobel was for his work on how light scatters though materials, in particular a process now called Raman scattering. If a monochromatic light beam is shined through a region of space with a high enough density of molecules, some of the photons will interact with the outer shell electrons of the atoms, which are the ones involved in molecular bonds. This changes the energy of the photons by quantized amounts that depend on the energy states occupied by the electrons. This got the 1930 Physics Nobel for two reasons: it provided another confirmation of the wave-particle nature of light, and it led to a technique called Raman spectroscopy. Shine a laser at a rock, or through a gas mixture or an interesting liquid. The spectrum of the scattered light gives a very sensitive and specific measurement of the chemical composition of the sample, and also useful information such as the orientation of crystals in solid samples. This can non-destructively give the chemical composition of at least the outer layers of a sample with roughly 1 micron resolution, which leads to many medical, biological, chemical, and geological applications.
    _
    Wikipedia has good articles on that, and also on Ramanujan’s number theory, Bose’s particle physics, and Chandrasekhar’s stellar structure, radiative transfer, and black hole work.

  9. 9
    sqlrob

    The bible has been demonstrated through historical FACT to be reliable.

    therefore the information in the bible is reliable

    Really, “Rational”"Thinker”? Please reconcile those statements with the content here (warning: large PDF)

  10. 10
    mikmik

    If the Bible was submitted to a publisher today, it would be rejected. It contradicts itself, it is painfully inconsistent, and the storylines don’t match. It is ridiculous in concept, and even a four year old can see that this, “66 books written and all them the same message.,” is irrevocably incorrect.
    The only consistent message throughout the 66 books is that God is petulant, at best, and even calling It cruelly insane is putting it mildly.

    This is just about the worst defense of the Bible I have ever seen.
    hotshoe, now with more boltcutters, this is Q.F.T. “Hee hee. Yet another datum in support of the FtB theory that iinternet posters with anything like “rational” or “thinker” in their nyms, never are what they name themselves to be.”

  11. 11
    Marcus Ranum

    Sam Harris himself even says you cannot lump christianity in with buddhism, islam, hinduism, etc, because they are NOT all equal.

    I doubt Harris’ objectivity on the topic – he plays favorites. At the bottom of all those religions (and unlike Harris, I do lump them together) are supernaturalist lies about the nature of the universe; lies that remain unproven and cannot possibly be based in any kind of truth that was knowable at the time the lies were promulgated. Thus, we can easily lump them together under a convenient and perfectly accurate label: “bullshit.”

  12. 12
    Marcus Ranum

    The bible has been demonstrated through historical FACT to be reliable.

    The bible has also been demonstrated to contain back-dated prophecies. That’s a nice way of saying “lies.” Unfortunately, since those little lies were used to justify the apparent fulfillment of prophecy, then the apparently fulfilled prophecies rest on lies, and the whole thing unravels.

  13. 13
    rationalthinker

    Seeing as how my response was deleted i’ll post it again.

    1) “You mean Jehovah? How droll…”

    Yes I mean Jehovah. And again this is PROVEN when Christ came to earth died and more importantly rose from the dead. It’s not a hard to think if there’s is an all powerful all knowing creator of the universe who is timeless, spaceless, ageless, changeless, that he could lay down his life and pick it up again, which was demonstrated in the bible and other historical documents.

    2) “No. The Bible’s historical veracity is repeated by Hinduism’s veracity and Buddhism’s veracity as the Last Avatar and the Founder of the faith was a historical figure too. Just because “Whitey didn’t care” about my culture you know nothing about it.”

    That’s just it! I have no doubt other founders of religion lived, that’s not my issue, it’s that they DIED and stayed dead! Christ rose from the grave thereby demonstrating he IS God. (and John lennox was in a debate with sam harris when harris conceded not all religions are equal.) “Religion is a term like sports. There are sports like badminton, and there are sports like Thai Boxing, and they have almost nothing in common apart from breathing.” -Sam Harris
    Again this just proves my point of Christ, he laid down his life and picked it up again, that legitimizes his claims to be God, unlike any other religion.

    3) “You mean like Siddartha Gauthama and Bodhgaya? Or Ayodhya? Or Thirupathi? Or Allahabad?

    And dear Christian. It’s physically impossible for me to be pale faced. Not unless I take up mime.”

    This point I agree with you! Yes those are literal places, as are the places and tribes in the bible. I brought this up because myth is constantly perpetuated that the people never existed or certain place that’s mentioned in the bible didn’t exist or what have you. And I chuckled at your mime quip :)

    4) “Yawn… no they don’t. And if you had an ounce of brain you wouldn’t be arguing with an ex-hindu who can happily pull out the same sources. Because if we just look online I have plenty of sources that collaborate the existence of Wizards. London exists does it not? And there are plenty of authors who aren’t J.K. Rowling who support the existence of wizards.

    You mean we should assume that the all the biblical sources are accurate for no apparent reason that a bunch of white people believe in them but assume brown people’s beliefs aren’t equal? You do realise your argument smacks of the arseholery of Empire where “Indian literature” was considered pointless and where libraries were destroyed because they didn’t matter. You frankly know absolutely nothing about Hinduism apart from what your priests tell you and they know even less.

    And mentioning the Acts of Pilate? A piece of work known to be a forgery? Very amusing…”

    Firstly I could care less if you are an ex hindu, this isn’t about race. It never has been. The bible is clear on this. The only race mentioned was by Paul in the new testament and that was in context of running the race of life. So don’t try and throw the race card in to prop up your arguments, let them speak for themselves. It’s not about beliefs being equal either, it’s about which ONE can demonstrate ultimate authority. Hence what we see today, there are many beliefs, and they all contradict each other. One of them has to be true. I’m not claiming to be an expert on hinduism either, it was a demonstrated point, which very much served it’s purpose. If the Acts of pilate are a fake then we’ll substitute another roman historian. Seutonius, he was a chief secretary of a roman emperor. How about thallus or Pliny the younger? Justin the martyr who was a roman administrator? josephus? How about the jewish talmud? there are a handful of other sources were huge critics of Christ BUT they serve a purpose. Even though they bad mouthed early christians they still point out facts about Christs life that are in perfect harmony with the bible.

    5)Non Timidus Messor…

    I read the vulgate. Your Bible is based on the one I read when I was younger. Oh if you want to be proper impressed?

    Bismillah, Al Rahman al Rahim,
    Al Hamdullalah Al-Ameen
    Al-Rahmani Al-Raheem
    Maliki yawmi addeen
    Iyyaka Naabudu Wa-iyyaka Nastaaheen

    I can recite the Quran too. Well I used to. Now I have to read the damn thing. You picked the polyglot of FTB.

    I have read the three biggest religion’s books in the languages they are meant to be read in. And they are all equally bullshit.

    Latin/Arabic/Sanskrit. I don’t speak them well but I can speak them enough to know what I am reading is bullshit. Oh and BTW? Mohammed is just as historical a figure with a well documented history as Jesus but the same rule of “White Guys Only Count” applies here.

    Well done on the languages. But this doesn’t change the fact that the big 3 are NOT equal!! AGAIN the bible has been demonstrated to be true, therefore Christs claims to be God are verified. Just because you have read the bible in latin doesn’t mean you understand what has been stated to you! which you continuously keep pointing out by your arguments that you’ve read the bible but you didn’t READ the bible!! It’s as if you were driving to a party but never get there. Your friend would ask you where are we going? You would look over and say I’ve read the map. Then your friend says where do we go? You would then say I don’t know? Your friend in turn, and rightly so would respond, BUT YOU READ THE MAP! Mohammed was a historical figure, but he died and stayed dead. There is more known about Christ than any other person in history! Julius Caesar included.

    6) “Except we totally can.

    If the Bible was inspired by Jehovah who claims to be a moral god then he would have had a stance that condemned slavery, genocide and rape. Yet the book contains lines where Jehovah exhorts his followers to enslave, rape and commit genocide. At no point does the book say “No. These things are bad”. In fact the Bible spends more time banning you from eating owls than it does from banning the ownership of human beings or the elimination of a group of people based on their ethnicity. And this is as a whole.”

    See, this proves my point again. If you’ve read the bible in latin then you would know God’s stance on slavery. SLAVERY in the time of the old testament context was an economic reality at the time, as I pointed out earlier, which you conveniently keep looking away from. What do you make of verses like Exodus 21:20!!! “when a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.” They even protect woman, which at the time were worthless in that society. There’s another clue on how the bible shows that people have value. How about Exodus 21:27 “If he knocks out the tooth of a slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.” What does that say to you??!!!! It doesn’t get any clearer!! Now for RAPE. Deuteronomy 22:25 “But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man FORCE her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.” What does that say to you???!!! Go for it! NO that’s pretty harsh language for rapists under penalty of death!! GENOCIDE. The Canaanites is what assume your referring to? The Canaanites were a wicked people in the eyes of God. The Canaanites were a terror to the people around them. They exhibited rampant idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, what God commanded of them wasn’t genocide it was capital punishment for their wickedness. He saw the hearts of the Canaanites and saw that there wasn’t any who would turn from their ways or heed the warning. Anyone with the practices of Sodom and Gomorrah were under penalty of death. Even Israel didn’t learn the lesson and they fell into sin as well time after time after time after time. This is the lesson taught through out scripture, that man IS inherently sinful and God has a system of judgement for ALL who disobey, as well as forgiveness and salvation for anyone who will freely except it. But you already knew that cause you’ve read it in latin…. ;)

    7) “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. – Leviticus

    Leviticus is the transcribed word of an allegedly (Judges 1:19 says otherwise) almighty god who is allegedly (clearly not) the source of all that is good and honest and decent and moral…

    That seems like instructions on how to own people. As Slaves. Ponder what you like. Leviticus is a “Do and Do Not List”. This is not moral. This is immoral.

    Now here is the thing. You either have to accept that Jehovah is not the source of all morality and that you are more moral by throwing away the stupid laws of your god.

    Or you have to accept the fact that your god is a slaver.

    And if you knew anything about the History of the Bible you would know that the message in the books is roughly the same because it was compiled by a group of people and edited. It’s the same reason why a Novel or a Newspaper fits nicely together. Editors…”

    SERIOUSLY MAN!! I’m beginning to think you haven’t even read the bible!! Your quote of Leviticus is grossly mis quoted!! AGAIN you don’t understand the culture at that time. People could sell themselves into slavery to pay a debt. If you want to understand what that whole section of leviticus is saying try reading it from verse 1 not jumping in at verse 44. This was an economical reality at the time, if you took a slave so he could repay his debt to you, you were to treat him with respect until his payment was fulfilled then release him. You were helping a “poor brother”. Not buying somebody to whip or beat, as I know the myth perpetuates. It’s like calling yourself a car cause your sitting in one. I call total Red Haring. Your case for slavery has been utterly decimated.
    God wanted to commune with his people that’s why he set out Leviticus. I know it get’s heavy at times cause reading it we wonder what the heck any of those weird things have to do with any thing today? The Israelites were to be with God, but they had to follow rules. As Leviticus plainly points out, the rituals they had to perform outwardly in the old testament are mirrored by what Christ’s sacrifice did in the New Testament so we are to be mindful of our life within us. Through Christ the old law was fulfilled. We don’t need to adhere to such strict governance for we’re forgiven through Christ. That’s the real point of Leviticus not to cherry pick a bunch of random verses to prove a twisted point.

    8) “You mean the same Timothy (6:1) that exhorts slaves to stay slaves?

    Yet it says absolutely nothing about NOT OWNING SLAVES. Here’s a hint? Know why Muslims and Jews don’t eat Pork? Because their book explicitly says “no Pork”. The Bible doesn’t explicitly say no Slaves but infact accepts slavery as normal and a good thing and even tells you who to enslave. The problem with Christians is that they forget that we have read their book too. And we read it with the same eye we read science. Especially since Leviticus is the word of your god after all…”

    No i mean Timothy (6:1)
    “All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.” As in if somebody found themselves in slavery to pay a debt, AS WAS THE CUSTOM AT THE TIME, you should be a respectful and good servant. And the problem with Atheists is I have read your books as well, with the very same eye I read science with. As for food, Yes they don’t eat pork, but Judaism also denies the New Testament and Christ’s fulfilment so they’re stuck under Levitical law. If they flipped over to the New Testament they would read how all the prophecies of the old testament, ALL OF THEM, were fulfilled in Christ. In the New Testament Peter get’s a vision that shows pork is ok along with shell fish and a variety of other foods.
    Then again in Mark 7. “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”

    9) “No. The Bible teaches you that you are inherently sinful because you don’t match up to the alleged perfect standard of a slave holding, rapist and ethnic cleanser…

    Trust me your Bible doesn’t claim you have any intrinsic value. And you aren’t special because a magic man says so. You are special because you are human and are potentially capable of amazing things.

    We did more amazing things because we stopped believing in “magic” and started actually explaining how the world worked. We did more amazing things when we stopped people doing things based on how much they believe in a god and instead on what would make the world better. Your faith is part of the method by which the west raped and pillaged the third world. Your initial history lesson is terrifyingly bad.

    Hinduism is the oldest continuous religion on the planet. It predates Judaism. Some of it’s gods are stone age deities. Buddhism is very new compared to Hinduism and Buddhism is about as old as Judaism. However India was ruined because India was never a unified country in it’s history and over the 300 odd years the British were around India tore itself apart through the collapse of it’s dominant power resulting in power struggles and fractured states that allowed it’s take over.

    Not because of Hinduism. Oh and learn a little about the world. Hindus had a heliocentric solar system with a leap year system. They were very strong astronomers and indeed very strong mathematicians. Want to know why?

    Because you use their numbers. You call them Arabic Numerals. The Arabs call them Hindu Numerals. The decimalised system is a hindu invention. Modern science couldn’t take place without it.

    Oh and western destruction of Hindu culture means that a lot of Indian technology is denigrated or unknown. A good example of this was Bose who was not given a Nobel prize for his achievements despite his theories being the reason we build the Large Hadron Collider.

    Why? Einstein thought his work was good. I can even tell you the tale of Ramanajum who any mathematician here would squee over (A self taught math prodigy who died young but whose mathematics were considered sublime and elegant.)

    Remember Gandhi never won a peace prize. A man considered the epitome of peace never won one. Because at the time people were rather racist. Brown people rarely won stuff. And keep that in mind when you wonder why there were no “Indian Scientists”.

    The first part of your sentence was good then you trailed off. I completely agree that the bible continuously demonstrates that man is inherently sinful, THAT’S THE POINT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT!! Christ fulfilled the law so we can have our rest and forgiveness in him. This is something that your just refusing to recognize for what ever reason. It’s right there in scripture. AGAIN all over the bible it teaches that people have value. A ton my previous comments regarding slavery show just that. Slaves were to be treated fare, woman were to be respected and treated as equal. Which was unheard of at that time. As for your rant on Indian technology……where did that come from?? Christians have NEVER said we don’t know how the world works and that it’s magic. ” I don’t know what makes water boil, so it must be magic.” Don’t be ridiculous. My history is just fine considering I got it from an Ex hindu as well. Vishal Mangalwadi is his name. The people who held biblical values allowed them to break out of the intellectual mould of the time and make something. They knew that God had given creative power so they did just that, create. Water and wind powered mills to grind grain, the wheel barrow, a myriad of other things which allowed them not to toil over the land but to rule over it. That is what propelled them to great things. And Lay off the race card already.

    10) “I don’t believe in your particular god because you have provided no evidence of it’s existence what so ever.

    Not one atom of proof has been submitted from any religion about the existence of their god. Your bible doesn’t count because I will submit Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone as a reason to fear Voldemort.

    If we took the sum total of science and your Christianity and wiped both from humanity. Then humanity would redevelop science to the exact way we know the world to work today while whatever you come up with will not be the same as Christianity but will be an entirely different superstition.

    And remember. We are both Atheists here. I just don’t believe in one more god. The way you think “Shiva” is fake is the way Muslims think your Jehovah is fake and is the way I think all three gods are not real.”

    Firstly your contradicting the original authors objection to Atheism being a religion. You just plainly stated that between you me and a muslim, all we have is belief whether it be in something or nothing it’s still belief. Couldn’t agree with you more on that.

    As for you writing off the bible, that’s why I gave secular accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. I was trying NOT to use the bible, to show you CANNOT escape it’s truth or it’s claim. You can’t blindly reject a reality that is in front of you and substitute your own. Even in not using the bible, the sources I sighted all collaborate with the bible, demonstrating again that at the very least there must be something to it. God’s greatest gift to us is freedom of choice. I choose to believe in God because there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be God, died then got up again!! This is again a point you keep missing. Allah did not die and get up again with evidence, the characters from harry potter didn’t leap off the pages and run around London, this is what separates Christianity from everybody else. Our divine claim to know the one true God, which logically then renders all others impostors due to their inability to back their claim of deity, and land in the history books with a legitimate reality pointing towards their divine claim.
    I’m not even going to touch your “IF” the world was this way then. That’s how you end up in the back of the patty wagon my friend. It’s the equivalent to a little kid crossing his arms “hmm” in an exasperated tone, stomping one foot.

    11) “Your mathematics is a bit faulty there (probably all those Hindu numbers you keep using) but mosaic law dates back to at the earliest 1200 BC which makes it 3000 years old rather than 5000 years old. But back on topic…

    Actually you can. Your entire claim is that Jehovah is “perfect” and that he is the source of all morality. This is a repeated claim by Christians and is integral to their doctrine. It accuses people like myself (who are atheists) of moral relativism (or you know “thinking about our actions”. )

    You claim that 3000 years ago everyone thought slavery was okay so your particular god in his infinite wisdom supported it. And then suddenly they didn’t and everyone ignored the bits where Jehovah exhorts you to own slaves. Then what is the point of your morality and your Bible if you claim to be the gospel word of a perfect being but then make the claim that you couldn’t know better because no body else did?

    Then what are you for? You have just proved that the Bible is woefully inadequate as a moral guide despite claiming to be the zenith of possible morality. All you have done is proven that humanity has exceeded the Bible’s grasp and understanding. All you have done is proven it’s irrelevance as a moral code and as a guide of any sort.”

    Yes we do claim that Christ is perfect in every way, and is the true source of morality. The other alternative, your view, is that people like Stalin and Mao and every other cereal killer out there are not bad people but they’re actually the only sane ones because their just exercising their natural, random, unguided, DNA!!! That is truly scary. Jehovah does NOT exhort us to own slaves for the hundredth time, and you know it. (Exodus 21:20 and Exodus 21:27, 1 Timothy) Christianity doesn’t claim to be full of perfect beings, as you put it. Again, God gave us choice and we chose to disobey, therefore we had consequences to deal with and to this day deal with our sinful nature. BUT and there’s a big BUT, because of what Christ did that is HOW God brought us back to communion with himself. Through Christ we are sinless in God’s eyes. As CS Lewis put it “we are but snow covered dung.” That doesn’t give a license to run around killing and raping and saying “I’m a christian so it’s ok” that’s not true salvation. Once you have come to truly know Christ, it’s out of a place of humility, understanding and thankfulness that we follow his word, to love him, to be kind to others, NOT to rape NOT to murder NOT to commit adultery, etc.

    I would like to apologize if I offended anyone with my retorts. It’s not my intention. I know most atheists have a thick skin, so I jest with you knowing you might get a chuckle, but I hope it doesn’t harden your heart toward God because of what some stupid sinful man wrote on the internet. (me) I love this exchange and look forward to continuing. Thanks for reading!

  14. 14
    dummy

    Christ rose from the grave thereby demonstrating he IS God

    Really, this is the only claim that matters to me because the rest just discuss the supposed societal benefits that Christianity provides, though I guess God apparently changing his mind on a number of issues is important too (what kind of God is that?); they don’t actually discuss whether Christianity’s core claims are true. There are many good naturalistic explanations available that make sense of the alleged events surrounding the empty tomb and as such, there’s no need to go for the more unlikely explanation. Perhaps you can employ pseudo-bayesian trickery to show that, really, the resurrection is the best hypothesis we’ve got ala Craig.

    I guess some Christians will forever use the fact that the canonical gospels were written “only” 50+ years after Jesus’s supposed death as evidence that every claim in there is good history and supports Christianity in ways that other religions featuring resurrected beings can’t be supported.

  15. 15
    Don Quijote

    “There is more known about Christ than any other person in history! Julius Caesar included.”

    Best laugh I’ve had all day.

  16. 16
    Heretical Ryan

    #13

    ” people like Stalin and Mao and every other cereal killer ”

    Stalin and Mao were cereal killers? You mean like Cheerios? Frosted Flakes? What did cereal ever do them?

    Oh wait… did you mean “serial” killer?

    In any case, you are one of the funniest Christian trolls to come to FTB in recent memory.

  17. 17
    Carol Lynn

    If RationalThinker thinks Justin Martyr is reliable, I suggest he go read the series on Martyr over at Evangelical Realism while I keep giggling over the image of a “pail faced cereal killer.” (OK- the two misused words in that phrase were in different parts of RationalThinkers posts but, still, I cannot help the conjoined picture that sprang to mind.) Their reliance on fuzzy thinking seems to also reduce their ability to see easy errors anywhere.

    Perhaps RationalThinker would also benefit from our own FtB’s NonStamp Collector’s most recent video on the problem of Biblical slavery.

  18. 18
    Heretical Ryan

    Carol,

    I already suggested that to Rational Thinker over here:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/03/19/faux-news-atheism-cannot-be-religion/

    He thought it was absurd and “proved” that Non Stamp Collector doesn’t understand the Bible at all.

    Of course, anyone who thinks the Bible is anything less than absolute perfection doesn’t understand it, right?

  19. 19
    Carol Lynn

    @Heretical Ryan – 18

    Yup. See previous remark about fuzzy thinking.

  20. 20
    michaelbusch

    @myself:

    An informal and non-representative poll of various people I know shows that the physicists and astronomers all know about Bose and Chandrasekhar, the mathematicians all know about Ramanujan, and the geologists and laboratory chemists all know about Raman. But people are generally fuzzy about the people outside of their own fields.

    Which I guess answers my question.

  21. 21
    sqlrob

    That’s just it! I have no doubt other founders of religion lived, that’s not my issue, it’s that they DIED and stayed dead! Christ rose from the grave thereby demonstrating he IS God.

    And so did Osiris. Your point?

    Oh, and since the Bible is so historically accurate, you can point me to all the the archaeological evidence of Moses and his people in the desert, right?

  22. 22
    rationalthinker

    for carol lynn, so you can boast to your friends……..

    “How nice of you to comment again, but you are really distorting the 1st century and early 2nd century Roman sources such as Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius to assert they ‘support’ the New Testament gospels, letters, or apocrypha. They don’t. They don’t give a single fact about who Christ was, how he died, anything of relevance or importance. The most any of them say is that there was either a Jewish figure called ‘Chrestus’ or a Jewish group called ‘Chrestiani’ that is associated with uprisings under the reigns of Claudius or Nero, and which has been taken by historians (by assertion mind you, without the slightest whiff of proof whatsoever) as being equivalent with Christus / Christiani. Big deal. That doesn’t confirm anything about the truth of such an account, since it’s still hearsay – and it is especially unconvincing since if Christ was a historical figure (and there’s minimal proof for that apart from hearsay) then the era of his crucifixion would have been while Pontius Pilate was governor in Syria under the reign of Tiberius. Does any first century Roman ever mention Christ in relation to Tiberius’ reign? No. Does any first century Roman ever mention Pontius Pilate in relation to Tiberius’ reign? Yes, Philo of Alexandria – and he has nothing to say about Christ at all. Wow, so much for all of this convincing sources being in ‘perfect harmony with the bible’. You’re drawing a long bow there.”

    No this is, yet again, your own interpretation that some other ill informed member of the populace has espoused to you. We’ll start with Tacitus. The following FACTS have been written by Tacitus himself. These facts come from the book “The Complete Works of Tacitus” (New York Random House) Pages 9, 13 and 14.
    I put that EXACT information so you can’t sit there as always and come up some other ridiculous story to try and skirt the issue, and for others to read in hopes you can look it up for yourself.
    1) Christians were named for their founder, Christus (latin)
    2) who was put to death by the roman procurator Pontius Pilate
    3)During the reign of TIBERIUS (AD 14-37)
    4) His death ended “superstition” for a very short time
    5) But broke out again especially in Judea where it’s origins came from
    6) The message is carried to Rome
    7)When the great fire destroyed a large part of the city during the reign of Nero (AD 54-68)
    8) Tacitus reports this group was hated for their abominations
    9) Christians were arrested
    10) convicted for hatred against man kind
    11) tortured and “nailed to crosses”
    12) because of this the people had compassion for the christians
    13) Tacitus therefore concluded that such punsihments were not for the public good but were simply “to glut one man’s cruelty”

    This is just Tacitus, every other source I gave has the same backing and I can give books and page numbers where the references are found. These are none biblical sources, that speak of a man who was called “christus” who was spreading his own gospel and claimed to be God. He was put to death on a cross and there WERE subsiquent sightings of this man after his death. By many.
    “while Pontius Pilate was governor in Syria under the reign of Tiberius. Does any first century Roman ever mention Christ in relation to Tiberius’ reign? No.”
    In fact YES. I can’t see how you don’t see this??!!
    Just for fun I’ll throw in Pliny the Younger

    These FACTS come from Pliny’s letters called “letters” (as luck would have it)
    volume 2, X:96
    1) Christ was worshiped as deity by early believers
    2) Pliny refers late in his letter to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as “excessive superstition” and of both Tacitus and Suetonius
    3) Jesus’ ethical teachings are reflected in the oath taken by Christians never to be guilty of a number of sins mentioned in the letter.
    4) Pliny references their communion with Christ. Accusations followed of christians drinking blood.
    5) he refers to the act of sunday worship
    6) Pliny states that true believers could NOT be MADE to worship other gods.

    So, this is why I am perplexed. One argument after other get’s thrown out there as the final nail in the coffin, followed by a “told you so you stupid christian” comment, yet EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT put forward is assertion propagated by myth!!! You need to look at this stuff honestly and put your bias aside. At some point the evidence has to hit you. These are none biblical sources that confirm what is said in the Bible. This is known as “corroboration” by secular scholars for the legitimacy of the Biblical account. Just look at it honestly and the FACTS speak for themselves. thanks.

  23. 23
    rationalthinker

    Heretical Ryan

    ” people like Stalin and Mao and every other cereal killer ”

    Stalin and Mao were cereal killers? You mean like Cheerios? Frosted Flakes? What did cereal ever do them?

    Oh wait… did you mean “serial” killer?

    In any case, you are one of the funniest Christian trolls to come to FTB in recent memory.”

    Quite right on the spelling! haha. it was late. Spelling aside that’s all you gleamed from my point? my spelling? or are you ignoring what was said on purpose? or maybe just maybe you understand…..

  24. 24
    rationalthinker

    Don Quijote

    “(“There is more known about Christ than any other person in history! Julius Caesar included.”

    Best laugh I’ve had all day.”

    I’m glad you had a chuckle but, now go look it up. Don’t take anyones word for it. Look everything up yourself, it’s the only way to know for sure. And i’m not talking about one random blog, check sources, use several different people. What you will find is what I said is completely true. There are over 5000 manuscripts available for the bible and I believe under 5 for Julius Caesar. This isn’t me being an idiot, or fallacious, it’s FACT. The bible was written closer to it’s time than any other bit of recorded history. FACT yet again. I know you’ll read this and huff and puff about it, but even though you may not like it, LOOK IT UP. i don’t know if it’s stubbornness or laziness that people in this forum don’t look outside their usual weak sources for information. Your arguments here are a siv, and you call me a PRATT. So far every post i’ve replied to has be historically and factually wrong. L O O K I T U P !!!!!

  25. 25
    mikmik

    Sorry for butting in here but: Tiberius was not a contemporary of Jesus, and makes no claim to personal knowledge. He writes about what others say, believe, and do. Just because people worship something doesn’t make it true.

  26. 26
    mikmik

    I’m glad you had a chuckle but, now go look it up. Don’t take anyones word for it. Look everything up yourself, it’s the only way to know for sure. And i’m not talking about one random blog, check sources, use several different people.

    Sorry, citations needed. You have to provide that on which you base your opinion.
    Now, I’ve had a chuckle at your expense. Since when to people have to take your word for anything?

  27. 27
    mikmik

    The bible was written closer to it’s time than any other bit of recorded history. FACT yet again

    LMAO. That is absurd on the face of it.
    wikipedia:

    In reality, Roman expansion was mostly accomplished under the Republic, though parts of northern Europe were conquered in the 1st century AD, when Roman control in Europe, Africa and Asia was strengthened. During the reign of Augustus, a “global map of the known world” was displayed for the first time in public at Rome, coinciding with the composition of the most comprehensive work on political geography that survives from antiquity, the Geography of the Pontic Greek writer Strabo.[25] When Augustus died, the commemorative account of his achievements (Res Gestae) prominently featured the geographical cataloging of peoples and places within the Empire.[26] Geography, the census, and the meticulous keeping of written records were central concerns of Roman Imperial administration.[27]

    And:

    It is not known precisely when Strabo’s Geography was written, though comments within the work itself place the finished version within the reign of Emperor Tiberius. Some place its first drafts around 7 AD, others around 18 AD. The latest passage to which a date can be assigned is his reference to the death in AD 23 of Juba II, king of Maurousia (Mauretania), who is said to have died “just recently”.[5] He probably worked on the Geography for many years and revised it steadily, not always consistently. On the presumption that “recently” means within a year, Strabo stopped writing that year or the next (24 AD), when he died.

    Did Strabo mention Jesus? NO

  28. 28
    sqlrob

    I’m glad you had a chuckle but, now go look it up. Don’t take anyones word for it.

    I’m curious, have you ever looked it up?
    http://trish-m.hubpages.com/hub/Jesus-Christ-or-Julius-Caesar-Who-is-More-Likely-to-Have-Been-a-Real-Person

  29. 29
    rationalthinker

    sqlrob

    “That’s just it! I have no doubt other founders of religion lived, that’s not my issue, it’s that they DIED and stayed dead! Christ rose from the grave thereby demonstrating he IS God.

    And so did Osiris. Your point?

    Oh, and since the Bible is so historically accurate, you can point me to all the the archaeological evidence of Moses and his people in the desert, right?”

    I’m guessing you didn’t read my “book” of a reply. I covered this. Osiris was a “mythical” god to begin with. He was never a man who lived then died then got up again. Jesus is talked about in secular history, as known FACT. He called himself God, then died then got up again. This is demonstrated through multiple sources. To find a reason to ignore all of them is pure ignorance.
    As for evidence of the Israelites and the desert.

    THE MERNEPATH STELE :- A seven-foot slab engraved with hieroglyphics, also called the Israel Stele, boasts of the Egyptian pharaoh’s conquest of Libyans and peoples in Palestine, including the Israelites: “Israel — his seed is not.” This is the earliest reference to Israel in nonbiblical sources and demonstrates that, as of 1230 BC, the Hebrews were already living in the Promised Land.

    How’s that to start ;)

  30. 30
    sqlrob

    Jesus is talked about in secular history

    BZZZT. No, he’s not. Osiris is just as real, he’s talked about in secular history in the same manner.

    This is the earliest reference to Israel in nonbiblical sources

    Let me rephrase that slightly more accurately. The 40 years spent in the desert, when they left as slaves from Egypt.

    Things to take in account in your answer:
    (a) There is no records of the Hebrew people being slaves in Egyp
    (b) There are plenty of fortresses between Egypt and Israel that would’ve easily seen such a group
    (c) That large a group leaves plenty of records, especially for 40 years.

    While you’re at it, where’s the evidence for the Flood? And you are aware that if you say the Flood exists, you also assert that evolution exists, at a far faster rate than is posited by anyone sane in biology.

  31. 31
    mikmik

    These facts come from the book “The Complete Works of Tacitus” (New York Random House) Pages 9, 13 and 14.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/index.htm

    9. Then followed much talk about Augustus himself, and many expressed an idle wonder that the same day marked the beginning of his assumption of empire and the close of his life, and, again, that he had ended his days at Nola in the same house and room as his father Octavius. People extolled too the number of his consulships, in which he had equalled Valerius Corvus and Caius Marius combined, the continuance for thirty-seven years of the tribunitian power, the title of Imperator twenty-one times earned, and his other honours which had either frequently repeated or were wholly new. Sensible men, however, spoke variously of his life with praise and censure. Some said “that dutiful feeling towards a father, and the necessities of the State in which laws had then no place, drove him into civil war, which can neither be planned nor conducted on any right principles. He had often yielded to Antonius, while he was taking vengeance on his father’s murderers, often also to Lepidus. When the latter sank into feeble dotage and the former had been ruined by his profligacy, the only remedy for his distracted country was the rule of a single man. Yet the State had been organized under the name neither of a kingdom nor a dictatorship, but under that of a prince. The ocean and remote rivers were the boundaries of the empire; the legions, provinces, fleets, all things were linked together; there was law for the citizens; there was respect shown to the allies. The capital had been embellished on a grand scale; only in a few instances had he resorted to force, simply to secure general tranquillity.”

    Page 9

    80. Poppaeus Sabinus was continued in his government of the province of Moesia with the addition of Achaia and Macedonia. It was part of Tiberius’ character to prolong indefinitely military commands and to keep many men to the end of their life with the same armies and in the same administrations. Various motives have been assigned for this. Some say that, out of aversion to any fresh anxiety, he retained what he had once approved as a permanent arrangement; others, that he grudged to see many enjoying promotion. Some, again, think that though he had an acute intellect, his judgment was irresolute, for he did not seek out eminent merit, and yet he detested vice. From the best men he apprehended danger to himself, from the worst, disgrace to the State. He went so far at last in this irresolution, that he appointed to provinces men whom he did not mean to allow to leave Rome.

    80. Prorogatur Poppaeo Sabino provincia Moesia, additis Achaia ac Macedonia. id quoque morum Tiberii fuit, continuare imperia ac plerosque ad finem vitae in isdem exercitibus aut iurisdictionibus habere. causae variae traduntur: alii taedio novae curae semel placita pro aeternis servavisse, quidam invidia, ne plures fruerentur; sunt qui existiment, ut callidum eius ingenium, ita anxium iudicium; neque enim eminentis virtutes sectabatur, et rursum vitia oderat: ex optimis periculum sibi, a pessimis dedecus publicum metuebat. qua haesitatione postremo eo provectus est ut mandaverit quibusdam provincias, quos egredi urbe non erat passurus.

    81. I can hardly venture on any positive statement about the consular elections, now held for the first time under this emperor, or, indeed, subsequently, so conflicting are the accounts we find not only in historians but in Tiberius’ own speeches. Sometimes he kept back the names of the candidates, describing their origin, their life and military career, so that it might be understood who they were. Occasionally even these hints were withheld, and, after urging them not to disturb the elections by canvassing, he would promise his own help towards the result. Generally he declared that only those had offered themselves to him as candidates whose names he had given to the consuls, and that others might offer themselves if they had confidence in their influence or merit. A plausible profession this in words, but really unmeaning and delusive, and the greater the disguise of freedom which marked it, the more cruel the enslavement into which it was soon to plunge us.

    PAGE 12:

    27. About the same time Libo Drusus, of the family of Scribonii, was accused of revolutionary schemes. I will explain, somewhat minutely, the beginning, progress, and end of this affair, since then first were originated those practices which for so many years have eaten into the heart of the State. Firmius Catus, a senator, an intimate friend of Libo’s, prompted the young man, who was thoughtless and an easy prey to delusions, to resort to astrologers’ promises, magical rites, and interpreters of dreams, dwelling ostentatiously on his great-grandfather Pompeius, his aunt Scribonia, who had formerly been wife of Augustus, his imperial cousins, his house crowded with ancestral busts, and urging him to extravagance and debt, himself the companion of his profligacy and desperate embarrassments, thereby to entangle him in all the more proofs of guilt.
    28. As soon as he found enough witnesses, with some slaves who knew the facts, he begged an audience of the emperor, after first indicating the crime and the criminal through Flaccus Vescularius, a Roman knight, who was more intimate with Tiberius than himself. Caesar, without disregarding the information, declined an interview, for the communication, he said, might be conveyed to him through the same messenger, Flaccus. Meanwhile he conferred the praetorship on Libo and often invited him to his table, showing no unfriendliness in his looks or anger in his words (so thoroughly had he concealed his resentment); and he wished to know all his saying and doings, though it was in his power to stop them, till one Junius, who had been tampered with by Libo for the purpose of evoking by incantations spirits of the dead, gave information to Fulcinius Trio. Trio’s ability was conspicuous among informers, as well as his eagerness for an evil notoriety. He at once pounced on the accused, went to the consuls, and demanded an inquiry before the Senate. The Senators were summoned, with a special notice that they must consult on a momentous and terrible matter.
    29. Libo meanwhile, in mourning apparel and accompanied by ladies of the highest rank, went to house after house, entreating his relatives, and imploring some eloquent voice to ward off his perils; which all refused, on different pretexts, but from the same apprehension. On the day the Senate met, jaded with fear and mental anguish, or, as some have related, feigning illness, he was carried in a litter to the doors of the Senate House, and leaning on his brother he raised his hands and voice in supplication to Tiberius, who received him with unmoved countenance. The emperor then read out the charges and the accusers’ names, with such calmness as not to seem to soften or aggravate the accusations.

    Quick reminder what Rational thinker said: The following FACTS have been written by Tacitus himself. These facts come from the book “The Complete Works of Tacitus” (New York Random House) Pages 9, 13 and 14.
    The following FACTS have been written by Tacitus himself. These facts come from the book “The Complete Works of Tacitus” (New York Random House) Pages 9, 13 and 14.

    page 13

    30. Besides Trio and Catus, Fonteius Agrippa and Caius Vibius were among his accusers, and claimed with eager rivalry the privilege of conducting the case for the prosecution, till Vibius, as they would not yield one to the other, and Libo had entered without counsel, offered to state the charges against him singly, and produced an extravagantly absurd accusation, according to which Libo had consulted persons whether he would have such wealth as to be able to cover the Appian road as far as Brundisium with money. There were other questions of the same sort, quite senseless and idle; if leniently regarded, pitiable. But there was one paper in Libo’s handwriting, so the prosecutor alleged, with the names of Caesars and of Senators, to which marks were affixed of dreadful or mysterious significance. When the accused denied this, it was decided that his slaves who recognised the writing should be examined by torture. As an ancient statute of the Senate forbade such inquiry in a case affecting a master’s life, Tiberius, with his cleverness in devising new law, ordered Libo’s slaves to be sold singly to the State-agent, so that, forsooth, without an infringement of the Senate’s decree, Libo might be tried on their evidence. As a consequence, the defendant asked an adjournment till next day, and having gone home he charged his kinsman, Publius Quirinus, with his last prayer to the emperor.
    31. The answer was that he should address himself to the Senate. Meanwhile his house was surrounded with soldiers; they crowded noisily even about the entrance, so that they could be heard and seen; when Libo, whose anguish drove him from the very banquet he had prepared as his last gratification, called for a minister of death, grasped the hands of his slaves, and thrust a sword into them. In their confusion, as they shrank back, they overturned the lamp on the table at his side, and in the darkness, now to him the gloom of death, he aimed two blows at a vital part. At the groans of the falling man his freedmen hurried up, and the soldiers, seeing the bloody deed, stood aloof. Yet the prosecution was continued in the Senate with the same persistency, and Tiberius declared on oath that he would have interceded for his life, guilty though he was, but for his hasty suicide.
    32. His property was divided among his accusers, and praetorships out of the usual order were conferred on those who were of senators’ rank. Cotta Messalinus then proposed that Libo’s bust should not be carried in the funeral procession of any of his descendants; and Cneius Lentulus, that no Scribonius should assume the surname of Drusus. Days of public thanksgiving were appointed on the suggestion of Pomponius Flaccus. Offerings were given to Jupiter, Mars, and Concord, and the 13th day of September, on which Libo had killed himself, was to be observed as a festival, on the motion of Gallus Asinius, Papius Mutilus, and Lucius Apronius. I have mentioned the proposals and sycophancy of these men, in order to bring to light this old-standing evil in the State. Decrees of the Senate were also passed to expel from Italy astrologers and magicians. One of their number, Lucius Pituanius, was hurled from the Rock. Another, Publius Marcius, was executed, according to ancient custom, by the consuls outside the Esquiline Gate, after the trumpets had been bidden to sound.
    33. On the next day of the Senate’s meeting much was said against the luxury of the country by Quintus Haterius, an ex-consul, and by Octavius Fronto, an ex-praetor. It was decided that vessels of solid gold should not be made for the serving of food, and that men should not disgrace themselves with silken clothing from the East. Fronto went further, and insisted on restrictions being put on plate, furniture, and household establishments. It was indeed still usual with the Senators, when it was their turn to vote, to suggest anything they thought for the State’s advantage. Gallus Asinius argued on the other side. “With the growth of the empire private wealth too,” he said, “had increased, and there was nothing new in this, but it accorded with the fashions of the earliest antiquity. Riches were one thing with the Fabricii, quite another with the Scipios. The State was the standard of everything; when it was poor, the homes of the citizens were humble; when it reached such magnificence, private grandeur increased. In household establishments, and plate, and in whatever was provided for use, there was neither excess nor parsimony except in relation to the fortune of the possessor. A distinction had been made in the assessments of Senators and knights, not because they differed naturally, but that the superiority of the one class in places in the theatre, in rank and in honour, might be also maintained in everything else which insured mental repose and bodily recreation, unless indeed men in the highest position were to undergo more anxieties and more dangers, and to be at the same time deprived of all solace under those anxieties and dangers.” Gallus gained a ready assent, under these specious phrases, by a confession of failings with which his audience symphathised. And Tiberius too had added that this was not a time for censorship, and that if there were any declension in manners, a promoter of reform would not be wanting.
    34. During this debate Lucius Piso, after exclaiming against the corruption of the courts, the bribery of judges, the cruel threats of accusations from hired orators, declared that he would depart and quit the capital, and that he meant to live in some obscure and distant rural retreat. At the same moment he rose to leave the Senate House. Tiberius was much excited, and though he pacified Piso with gentle words, he also strongly urged his relatives to stop his departure by their influence or their entreaties. Soon afterwards this same Piso gave an equal proof of a fearless sense of wrong by suing Urgulania, whom Augusta’s friendship had raised above the law. Neither did Urgulania obey the summons, for in defiance of Piso she went in her litter to the emperor’s house; nor did Piso give way, though Augusta complained that she was insulted and her majesty slighted. Tiberius, to win popularity by so humouring his mother as to say that he would go to the praetor’s court and support Urgulania, went forth from the palace, having ordered soldiers to follow him at a distance. He was seen, as the people thronged about him, to wear a calm face, while he prolonged his time on the way with various conversations, till at last when Piso’s relatives tried in vain to restrain him, Augusta directed the money which was claimed to be handed to him. This ended the affair, and Piso, in consequence, was not dishonoured, and the emperor rose in reputation. Urgulania’s influence, however, was so formidable to the State, that in a certain cause which was tried by the Senate she would not condescend to appear as a witness. The praetor was sent to question her at her own house, although the Vestal virgins, according to ancient custom, were heard in the courts, before judges, whenever they gave evidence.
    35. I should say nothing of the adjournment of public business in this year, if it were not worth while to notice the conflicting opinions of Cneius Piso and Asinius Gallus on the subject. Piso, although the emperor had said that he would be absent, held that all the more ought the business to be transacted, that the State might have honour of its Senate and knights being able to perform their duties in the sovereign’s absence. Gallus, as Piso had forestalled him in the display of freedom, maintained that nothing was sufficiently impressive or suitable to the majesty of the Roman people, unless done before Caesar and under his very eyes, and that therefore the gathering from all Italy and the influx from the provinces ought to be reserved for his presence. Tiberius listened to this in silence, and the matter was debated on both sides in a sharp controversy. The business, however, was adjourned.
    etc…

    Not one word, or hint, of what you said is “FACT”

    Caught with your pants down, RT.

  32. 32
    rationalthinker

    mikmik

    “Sorry for butting in here but: Tiberius was not a contemporary of Jesus, and makes no claim to personal knowledge. He writes about what others say, believe, and do. Just because people worship something doesn’t make it true.”

    But when people were recorded in secular history to be worshiping a man who claimed to be God, and the same information is congruent with the bible?!! that’s how experts of antiquity judge if a claim is true or not. You have secular sources verifying Christian sources. At what point do you just refuse fact!??!! The reliability of scripture is paramount. People always attempt to use all the same boring assertions as on this page, to refute the bible, which are empty and baseless. Only their personal bias is truth, everything else as in history, don’t seem to matter.

  33. 33
    mikmik

    Ooops, mis-paste. Here is what RT says is on pages 9, 13, and 14. Reference my above from the pages he cites:

    No this is, yet again, your own interpretation that some other ill informed member of the populace has espoused to you. We’ll start with Tacitus. The following FACTS have been written by Tacitus himself. These facts come from the book “The Complete Works of Tacitus” (New York Random House) Pages 9, 13 and 14.
    I put that EXACT information so you can’t sit there as always and come up some other ridiculous story to try and skirt the issue, and for others to read in hopes you can look it up for yourself.
    1) Christians were named for their founder, Christus (latin)
    2) who was put to death by the roman procurator Pontius Pilate
    3)During the reign of TIBERIUS (AD 14-37)
    4) His death ended “superstition” for a very short time
    5) But broke out again especially in Judea where it’s origins came from
    6) The message is carried to Rome
    7)When the great fire destroyed a large part of the city during the reign of Nero (AD 54-68)
    8) Tacitus reports this group was hated for their abominations
    9) Christians were arrested
    10) convicted for hatred against man kind
    11) tortured and “nailed to crosses”
    12) because of this the people had compassion for the christians
    13) Tacitus therefore concluded that such punsihments were not for the public good but were simply “to glut one man’s cruelty”

    Are you fucking kidding me?

  34. 34
    whysoskeptical

    There is more known about Christ than any other person in history! Julius Caesar included

    I missed this but I’m glad other people didn’t. This claim is frequently made about all sorts of “big” historical figures, like Alexander the Great or Tiberius (read this for a beautiful takedown of comparisons to the latter) by apologists who never sit to think whether we should know more about a random preacher in a backwards area than Roman emperors and generals who had their own court historians. What sense would that make? God waved his hands and made people pay particularly attention to Jesus’s career?

    Btw, rationalthinker, you can’t be serious about supporting the historicity of the exodus and the patriarchs? Those have been thoroughly demolished in mainstream scholarship, where they want Jesus’s historicity intact and all so you can’t quite accuse them of some personal bias about historical events.

  35. 35
    sqlrob

    Caught with your pants down, RT.

    That’s impossible, you’ll never catch him with his pants down. They’re right there on his head.

  36. 36
    rationalthinker

    sqlrob and milk milk

    I mixed up my notes. And WELL DONE for looking it up. My hat goes off to you for putting a little elbow grease in. The passage is from Tacitus’ book called ANNALS. The reference I gave was from Moses Hadas regarding Tacitus as a historian. So i was wrong about where the reference was located. But luckily for ya’ll i have the passage. Again it’s in a book called the ANNALS. The Annals cover the period from Augustus death in AD 14 to nero in AD 68. Tacitus recorded a reference to Christ and 2 regarding early christianity. the most important is found in the Annals which was written around AD 115.

    ” Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called christians by the populace. Christus from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood alotft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”

    So there you have it a passage from a secular first century Roman. I am certain I didn’t mix it up this time :)
    There are more passages than just this, all the names I gave I have passages from secular history to show they talked about Christ and christianity. I really don’t know what it would take, cause I know you’ll come up with yet another flimsy excuse as to why it doesn’t matter suddenly that there were references to Christ and Christianity. Answer me this honestly, mostly for my curiosity. What does it prove to you if Christ IS mentioned in secular history? Does that remotely make you wonder about legitimacy? Or is it just thrown in another fact heap and over looked?

    SEUTONIUS

    Was a Roman historian who makes reference to Jesus as well.

    “Because the jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the intigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city”

    that passage is from Suetonius, CLAUDIUS page 25

    as well as,

    “after the great fire at rome, punishments ere also inflicted on the christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.”

    That is taken from Suetonius, NERO page 16

    Then you have a greek satirist named Lucian.
    This passage is from Lucian THE DEATH OF PEREGRINE pages 11-13.

    “The Christians, you know, worship a MAN to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. You see these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

    SO just using those 3 sources you can glean much from their writings.
    - A man named Jesus was being worshiped by people.
    - Speaks of Jesus introducing new teachings
    - He was crucified due to his teachings
    - All believers are brothers

    That’s a few points, but the big point here is UNESCAPABLE. He WAS mentioned by secular first century historians. I have more references than these, emperors, jews, gentile sources, and all this lends credibility to the same facts written in the bible. Which then logically concludes that the bible can be deemed trust worthy. now that I found my notes, I’ll happily go through them one by one so you can see that Christ was mentioned and secular history backs the account of a man who was worshiped and claimed to be God and was crucified, and was reported not to be dead. Enjoy.

  37. 37
    debbaasseerr

    Reading rationalthinker’s various responses, I’m reminded of Robert Green Ingersoll’s “Some Mistakes of Moses” essay.

    That was written over 150 years ago, and it addresses arguments that christian apologists have not put down to this very day.

    Can we believe in this, the Nineteenth Century, that these infamous passages were inspired by God? That God approved not only of human slavery, but instructed his chosen people to buy the women, children and babies of the heathen round about them? If it was right for the Hebrews to buy, it was also right for the heathen to sell. This God, by commanding the Hebrews to buy, approved of the selling of sons and daughters. The Canaanite who, tempted by gold, lured by avarice, sold from the arms of his wife the dimpled baby, simply made it possible for the Hebrews to obey the orders of their God. If God is the author of the bible, the reading of these passages ought to cover his cheeks with shame. I ask the christian world to-day, was it right for the heathen to sell their children? Was it right for God not only to uphold, but to command the infamous traffic in human flesh? Could the most revengeful fiend, the most malicious vagrant in the gloom of hell, sink to a lower moral depth than this?”

  38. 38
    mikmik

    I really don’t know what it would take, cause I know you’ll come up with yet another flimsy excuse as to why it doesn’t matter suddenly that there were references to Christ and Christianity.

    I already came up with it in my previous comment “Just because.. here, from #25: “Sorry for butting in here but: Tiberius was not a contemporary of Jesus, and makes no claim to personal knowledge. He writes about what others say, believe, and do. Just because people worship something doesn’t make it true.”
    In fact, that is a major criticism, that Tacitus does not name sources.
    Okay, so let’s go with Wikipedia again: Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.[40][41] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now “firmly established” that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus’ death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine.[40] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[41]
    So now, even if I give you that Christianity, and the crucifixion of Christus really happened, and that is conceding far more than scholars agree upon, based upon that, you said this:

    But when people were recorded in secular history to be worshiping a man who claimed to be God, and the same information is congruent with the bible?!! that’s how experts of antiquity judge if a claim is true or not. You have secular sources verifying Christian sources. At what point do you just refuse fact!??!! The reliability of scripture is paramount. People always attempt to use all the same boring assertions as on this page, to refute the bible, which are empty and baseless. Only their personal bias is truth, everything else as in history, don’t seem to matter.

    This fails on at least two points. (1)The reliability of the biblical accounts of history is indisputably poor. The census and the supposed time of Jesus’ birth are both wrong. Herod never made anything about some newborn king, and he most absolutely, certainly, did not order any children to be killed – let alone all males under two years of age! There was no Nazereth!
    (wikitrickia) “The first non-Christian reference to Nazareth is an inscription on a marble fragment from a synagogue found in Caesarea Maritima in 1962.[26] This fragment gives the town’s name in Hebrew as “נצרת” (n-ṣ-r-t). The inscription dates to c. 300 AD and chronicles the assignment of priests that took place at some time after the Bar Kokhba revolt, 132-35 AD.[27] (See “Middle Roman to Byzantine Periods” below.) An 8th century AD Hebrew inscription, which was the earliest known Hebrew reference to Nazareth prior to the discovery of the inscription above, uses the same form.[6]

    (2)Also, accounts of concurring events only attest to reliability, not fucking fact. All these accounts are written decades, if not more than a century after the supposed crucifixion, and they are, at best, second and third hand accounts possibly and even likely spread by fanatics given to exaggeration in the first place.

    EVEN, EVEN, EVEN IF….. Even if there was a putz crucified, that does not make him son of god, FFS!
    Enough with your red herring. You use evasive and shaky records as premises:
    A There are mentions of Jesus outside of the Bible;
    B The mentions SEEM TO correspond to a crucifixion,
    Therefore – in your words: “At what point do you just refuse fact!??!!
    In grade three arithmetic we learned that unproven assumptions used to form a deductive argument equals INVALID CONCLUSION

    I leave you now to go shat and I will be undoubtedly flush the equivalent of your facts when I am done.

    a,a href=”http://beyondallreligion.net/2011/04/22/sixteen-crucifixions-centuries-before-jesus/”>The belief in the crucifixion of Gods was prevalent in various oriental or heathen countries long prior to the reported crucifixion of Christ.
    Here are 16:

    I. — CRUCIFIXION OF CHRISHNA OF INDIA, 1200 B.C

    Crucifixion ?: Some say he was hung upside down from a tree. Other sources say he died from an arrow shot into his foot. Does it matter? They are different versions of a myth, anyway.
    II. — CRUCIFIXION OF THE HINDOO SAKIA, 600 B.C.
    III. — THAMMUZ OF SYRIA CRUCIFIED, 1160 B.C.
    IV. — CRUCIFIXION OF WITTOBA OF THE TELINGONESIC, 552 B.C.
    V. — IAO OF NEPAUL CRUCIFIED, 622 B.C.
    VI. — HESUS OF THE CELTIC DRUIDS CRUCIFIED, 834 B.C.
    VII. — QUEXALCOTE OF MEXICO CRUCIFIED, 587 B.C.
    VIII. — QUIRINUS OF ROME CRUCIFIED, 506 B.C.
    IX. — (AESCHYLUS) PROMETHEUS CRUCIFIED, 547 B.C.
    X. — CRUCIFIXION OF THULIS OF EGYPT, 1700 B.C.
    XI. — CRUCIFIXION OF INDRA OF TIBET, 725 B.C.
    XII. — ALCESTOS OF EURIPIDES CRUCIFIED, 600 B.C.
    XIII. — ATYS OF PHRYGIA CRUCIFIED, 1170 B.C.
    XIV. — CRITE OF CHALDEA CRUCIFIED, 1200 B.C.
    XV. — BALI OF ORISSA CRUCIFIED, 725 B.C.
    XVI. — MITHRA OF PERSIA CRUCIFIED, 600 B.C.

    Statement at the end of the above stated web site.
    “NOTE. — The author desires it to be understood with respect to the cases of crucifixion here briefly narrated, that they are not vouched for as actual occurrences, of which there is much ground to doubt. It has neither been his aim or desire to prove them to be real historical events, nor to establish any certain number of cases. Indeed, he deems it unimportant to know, if it could be determined, whether they are fact or fiction, or whether one God was crucified, or many. The moral lesson designed to be taught by this chapter is, simply, that the belief in the crucifixion of Gods was prevalent in various oriental or heathen countries long prior to the reported crucifixion of Christ. If this point is established — which he feels certain no reader will dispute then he is not concerned to know whether he has made out sixteen cases of crucifixion or not. Six will prove it as well as sixteen. “

    A PEACEFUL WORLD AWAITS YOU BEYOND ALL RELIGION

    Most all religions are based upon a bedrock of lies.

    Christianity was invented by Emperor Constantine , for political purposes, based upon the myth of Mithra, a Persian savior god born on December 25 , son of a virgin. Mithra performed miracles and was later crucified. Pope Leo X (died 1521) called Christ a “Fable”. Later Pope Paul III expressed similar sentiments.

  39. 39
    rationalthinker

    deebbaasseerr

    ” I ask the christian world to-day, was it right for the heathen to sell their children? Was it right for God not only to uphold, but to command the infamous traffic in human flesh? Could the most revengeful fiend, the most malicious vagrant in the gloom of hell, sink to a lower moral depth than this?””

    Read my previous posts it answers all these questions. These have been put to rest a long time ago. Every you stated in that quote has been dealt with already. Again when people read the old testament their not reading it correctly. You have to know the context in which the scripture was written, when it was written, who and what it was written for. If you don’t understand those back ground details of course you can just pick out verses and shout outrageous claims at God.

  40. 40
    debbaasseerr

    Yes, I highly encourage people to look at the previous comments in the old thread also. I was the first person to respond to you.

    My favorite bit:

    “I see no mental gymnastics in my response, just historical FACT. You may not like it, but it’s not assertion that’s for sure.”

    Priceless.

    I have read all your responses. You didn’t answer the issue of slavery in the bible at all, only tried to explain it away in a completely predictable way. “Slavery was different! Context! Contradicting bible verses!”. So again, was it right for god to command slavery? Imagine, for one jarring dissonant second, if you could only say yes or no in response.

    Its an easy “No” for me – but I’m not saddled with ideas like:

    ” Science and religion are not at odds” or “We KNOW from life experience, that God does indeed exist” or “The bible was written by men who were inspired by God, therefore the information in the bible is reliable.” or ” Everything in the old testament points towards the new testament and the fulfillment through Christ.” or “It’s not a hard thing to think if there’s an all powerful all knowing creator of the universe who is timeless, spaceless, ageless, changeless, that he could lay down his life and pick it up again, which was demonstrated in the bible and other historical documents.” or “There is more known about Christ than any other person in history! Julius Caesar included.” or “there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be God, died then got up again!!” or “Christ is perfect in every way, and is the true source of morality.” or “The bible was written closer to it’s time than any other bit of recorded history” or “God is outside time, as lane craig points out, he’s timeless, changeless, spaceless, etc.”

    What a load. The truth of the bible is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

  41. 41
    rationalthinker

    debbaasseerr

    “I have read all your responses. You didn’t answer the issue of slavery in the bible at all, only tried to explain it away in a completely predictable way. “Slavery was different! Context! Contradicting bible verses!”. So again, was it right for god to command slavery? Imagine, for one jarring dissonant second, if you could only say yes or no in response.

    Its an easy “No” for me – but I’m not saddled with ideas like:”

    Open your ears man! I answered the question so many times, I don’t know how else for you to get it?! God DID NOT COMMAND SLAVERY! No where does he say “you must take slaves and abuse them!” Your missing it. I can’t see how, but your missing it. So AGAIN, slavery was an economical reality of the time, God commanded people who were slaves and people who were slave owners (because that was the reality of the time) to treat them with respect, and for the slaves to treat their masters likewise. Before you respond yet again with “you didn’t answer the question” I ANSWERED THE QUESTION IN MY PREVIOUS RESPONSES YOU JUST DON’T GET IT!

  42. 42
    rationalthinker

    mikmik

    “EVEN, EVEN, EVEN IF….. Even if there was a putz crucified, that does not make him son of god, FFS!
    Enough with your red herring. You use evasive and shaky records as premises:
    A There are mentions of Jesus outside of the Bible;
    B The mentions SEEM TO correspond to a crucifixion”

    Ok then so if you concede that Christ existed in history and was crucified we’ll go from there. Thanks for the wikipedia info by the way. :) The reason why I call FACT on this stuff is because it’s been demonstrated by secular sources, as you’ve pointed out. This is how i draw that conclusion.
    Tacitus is only one. Josephus has a ton of writings and i’ve got a list of other sources that speak of the rise of christianity and how their leader was crucified. Whether or not they name Christ at this point in reference to the christians “leader”, is almost a none issue. Seeing as how we KNOW he existed, we KNOW he lead them, hence their name “CHRISTians”, therefore secular sources speaking of christians in regard to their belief, their miracle claims, and their leaders life and crucifixion must be taken seriously and not brushed aside. Seriously enough to be accepted now by MANY, as reliable historical information.

    At this point, the Bible is put into play. For at the very least, the information given regarding Christ in the new Testament. Seeing as how secular sources seem to affirm the Bible in reliability, we can move on with the Bible as yet another source in this, now very interesting conversation.

    1)”There are over 5000 New TEstament manuscripts and portions of manuscripts. By comparison, the majority of classical works have less than 20.”
    2)”The dates of the new testament manuscripts are close to the original writings. One Gospel fragment (Ryland’s) dates from about 25 years after the gospel of John and most of the new testament (chester beatty and bodmer papyri) from 50-150 years after the originals. Most classical works date from 700-1400 years after the originals.”
    3)”NONE of the canonical New Testament is lost or missing. By comparison, 107 of Livy’s 142 books of history have been lost and about one half of Tacitus 30 books of ANNALS and HISTORIES is missing”

    Yet there is still a reference to Christ in the remaining fragments.

    As for your list of other people being crucified. Red herring. i have no issue with other people being crucified, never did. It was a torture technique used. The Romans probably learned it from the egyptians. It’s that we have reliable information, (as you have pointed out) regarding the legitimate historicity of Christ’s life, crucifixion and more over, his subsequent resurrection. Jesus got up, and was seen alive that makes his claim unique over every other person who has ever claimed to be God or has been crucified.

    Your source
    “Christianity was invented by Emperor Constantine , for political purposes, based upon the myth of Mithra, a Persian savior god born on December 25 , son of a virgin. Mithra performed miracles and was later crucified. Pope Leo X (died 1521) called Christ a “Fable”. Later Pope Paul III expressed similar sentiments.”

    Wikipedia
    “Constantine the Great (Latin: Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus;[3] 27 February c. 272[2] – 22 May 337), also known as Constantine I or Saint Constantine,[4] was Roman Emperor from 306 to 337. Well known for being the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity,”

    How can he convert to something he invented? Conversion, in this context, implies pre-existing.

    “EVEN, EVEN, EVEN IF….. Even if there was a putz crucified, that does not make him son of god, FFS!”

    Josephus ANTIQUITIES 18:3 (who, as you have pointed out, tends to be regarded as a reliable source)

    “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats…. He was (the) Christ.. he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

    Since Josephus was a Jew, it is unlikely that he would have written about Jesus like this. Josephus’ back ground tells us that he did not believe jesus to be the Messiah. Yet there you have it, a secular source speaking about his life, being worshiped as God, death, and resurrection. This lends credence to the biblical as being reliable.

    So an overview. We KNOW Jesus was a real person, we KNOW he was worshiped as God, we KNOW he was crucified, and on to the next logical step…….his resurrection. Thoughts?

  43. 43
    rationalthinker

    whysoskeptical

    This was listed in my conversation with MikMik. Thought you might enjoy it.

    1)”There are over 5000 New Testament manuscripts and portions of manuscripts. By comparison, the majority of classical works have less than 20.”
    2)”The dates of the new testament manuscripts are close to the original writings. One Gospel fragment (Ryland’s) dates from about 25 years after the gospel of John and most of the new testament (chester beatty and bodmer papyri) from 50-150 years after the originals. Most classical works date from 700-1400 years after the originals.”
    3)”NONE of the canonical New Testament is lost or missing. By comparison, 107 of Livy’s 142 books of history have been lost and about one half of Tacitus 30 books of ANNALS and HISTORIES is missing”

    Yet there is still a reference to Christ in the remaining fragments.

  44. 44
    Raging Bee

    RT: NONE of the “FACTS” you cite prove that Christ was anything other than a person who got a sizable following. There’s no proof of miracles, no proof of a ressurrection, and no proof that Christ was any more “divine” than any of the other prophets, holy persons or spiritual leaders known in history.

    Also, as others have already pointed out, there’s plenty of proof that certain Bible stories, such as the exodus from Egypt, were logistically impossible. So much for history being in perfect accord with the Bible.

    As for whether your God commanded slavery, didn’t he command his people to conquer and enslave certain hostile neighboring peoples?

    Seriously, dude, you really don’t have a heckuva lot of credibility.

  45. 45
    rationalthinker

    Raging Bee

    I’m guessing that your “whether or not your god commanded slavery” line means that a case has been made well enough to make you have a second look into the slavery debate. As for the enslaving and conquering, red herring. Onto the resurrection. As this debate has progressed, it’s taken the path that is to expected. From “your god did this!” or “your god does that, so he’s a monster” to now sitting at the crux of the issue. Most if not all of the arguments on this page have been disputed, successfully I believe, because the points have been dropped and the conversation has turned to the most important, and final issue. Resurrection. I will gladly discuss this final issue with much anticipation. I have alot to say on the matter. Any takers? thanks guys.

  46. 46
    debbaasseerr

    apologetics. bleck.

    So you saw:

    As for whether your God commanded slavery, didn’t he command his people to conquer and enslave certain hostile neighboring peoples?

    and you think it meant:

    a case has been made well enough to make (me) have a second look into the slavery debate.

    You want an all-powerful, all-good god, who allows slavery. Its a bind! It makes sense that the people who wrote that shit in Leviticus imagined a god who was ok with slavery – just like they were. Humanity has moved on, the book has not.

    Resurrection?. So you want to do the “Its in the bible therefore, it must have actually happened, therefore Jesus was God” routine? Even if you stick the landing, I still think your god is imaginary, and the bible is almost entirely fictional, written largely in the first and second century.

  47. 47
    rationalthinker

    debasser

    “As for whether your God commanded slavery, didn’t he command his people to conquer and enslave certain hostile neighboring peoples?”

    This has been covered very thoroughly, I don’t understand how you’ve missed the whole conversation? One last time, SHOW me where in the bible you think this is being communicated, and I’ll show you yet again, that your knowledge of slavery at the time is lacking and that you don’t understand what the bible is communicating.

    “Resurrection?. So you want to do the “Its in the bible therefore, it must have actually happened, therefore Jesus was God” routine? Even if you stick the landing, I still think your god is imaginary, and the bible is almost entirely fictional, written largely in the first and second century.”

    The facts about the bible were meant to show that it is a VERY reliable historical book. There are references to Christs resurrection outside the bible, I have yet to argue from the bible.
    You don’t believe the bible so it wouldn’t make sense to argue FROM it, (at first) that’s why I’ve used secular references; but I don’t know if you’ve caught this yet. Anything to do with Christ I’ve argued from secular known history. You can’t just close your eyes and say “there, nobody can see me now.” Your there whether you believe people can see you or not. Get the point. In the end you are demonstrating one of God’s greatest gifts to us, free will. You can choose to not believe in God, but you can’t blindly refuse the bible as being none historical, that goes against known history. Your pretending things that happened, didn’t !!??!! Hence why I use secular references.

    “You want an all-powerful, all-good god, who allows slavery. Its a bind! It makes sense that the people who wrote that shit in Leviticus imagined a god who was ok with slavery – just like they were. Humanity has moved on, the book has not.”

    Again show me where you think this is being communicated and I’ll easily give you a back ground lesson on slavery. The bible is ultimate moral authority given by God. Man will move on, but the guidance of the book will not. THATS THE POINT. Feelings come and go, information changes every year. Social issue’s change, laws are written and cast out. The bible is what stays true. You think it’s out dated because it doesn’t “change with the times” If it did, then what kind of book would it be??!!! It would be another dusty legislation book on the shelves of the senate, leaving all decisions and human direction up to ourselves. We would tear ourselves apart if this was Just another book. Everything you enjoy today in western civilization was a gift to you from the founders of the western world putting their biblical standards and ideology into practice.

    Back to the resurrection. It’s late and I’ll grab my notes and respond again tomorrow. Have a good night guys.

  48. 48
    debbaasseerr

    Gish galloping ghost!
    Bullshit in every post.
    Take any stance or view -
    it all proves Jesus true.

    But oh yes LOGIC HISTORY AND TRUTH
    look closely – it goes POOF!
    You’re basically talking to yourself,
    with apologetics off the shelf.

    Evade, play dumb, mis-direct
    then claim the bible perfect!
    Now you want to yammer on and on about resurrection?
    That sounds as appealing as… a flu infection.

  49. 49
    mikmik

    That’s pretty damn good! Summed up nicely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>