Ignorance and the Bible

[Into the Night]

That's a good example. When muslims get insulted sometimes they kill.

Hey...just like Democrats!

That's what religion buys you.

Hey...just like Democrats!

Just like when some Christians hear about an abortion provider they feel they have to kill the doctor.

Someone that kills for a living is not a doctor of medicine.

It's religion.

Hey...just like Democrat religions!

The Church of Hate.
The Church of Covid.
The Church of Global Warming.
The Church of Green.
The Church of the Ozone Hole.
The Church of Deviancy.
The Church of Karl Marx.
The Church of No God.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Agreed

No, not the part about the young price. The birth narrative about the Bhudda being born out of the side of his mother, and being able to walk and talk immediately. There's something about a white elephant too, though I can't remember the details.

I don't have a problem accepting the historicity about how he walked away from his family and his royal inheritance to search for meaning and truth. India was chock full of wandering ascetics, so there's nothing fantastical about that.

I guess I missed that story. Agreed on doubting it's veracity. There's no such thing as magic.

Good point about wandering ascetics. The same goes for rabbis and religious leaders wandering around Judea. How many were executed? John the Baptist was beheaded for his beliefs. What makes Jesus so memorable? "Rising from the Dead". As you and I have discussed it's humanly possible to have survived such a short crucifixion even if dying of sepsis or gangrene later. That would, indeed, make a helluva memorable story. He had a good message too.

FWIW, fear of being buried alive is called Taphophobia and wasn't uncommon in era's before modern medicine or embalming...which is a way to make sure they are dead. LOL

Laying someone in a tomb only to see them rise three days later from their coma is entirely plausible. Live burials were a legitimate fear by people since they'd trapped only to die of suffocation or dehydration.

Being Buried Alive Was So Common in the Victorian Era That Doctors Used these 10 Methods to Prevent It - History Collection

"Wisely they leave graves open for the dead ‘Cos some to early are brought to bed.” The medical technologies of today provide invaluable services. We have access to effective medicines, proper diagnoses, successful surgeries, and longer lifespans. Doctors are also capable of something many may...

historycollection.com

Taphophobia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1905, the English reformer William Tebb collected accounts of premature burial. He found 219 cases of near live burial, 149 actual live burials, 10 cases of live dissection and 2 cases of awakening while being embalmed.

 

[Cypress]

I guess I missed that story. Agreed on doubting it's veracity. There's no such thing as magic.

Good point about wandering ascetics. The same goes for rabbis and religious leaders wandering around Judea. How many were executed? John the Baptist was beheaded for his beliefs. What makes Jesus so memorable? "Rising from the Dead". As you and I have discussed it's humanly possible to have survived such a short crucifixion even if dying of sepsis or gangrene later. That would, indeed, make a helluva memorable story. He had a good message too.

FWIW, fear of being buried alive is called Taphophobia and wasn't uncommon in era's before modern medicine or embalming...which is a way to make sure they are dead. LOL

Laying someone in a tomb only to see them rise three days later from their coma is entirely plausible. Live burials were a legitimate fear by people since they'd trapped only to die of suffocation or dehydration.

Being Buried Alive Was So Common in the Victorian Era That Doctors Used these 10 Methods to Prevent It - History Collection

"Wisely they leave graves open for the dead ‘Cos some to early are brought to bed.” The medical technologies of today provide invaluable services. We have access to effective medicines, proper diagnoses, successful surgeries, and longer lifespans. Doctors are also capable of something many may...

historycollection.com

Taphophobia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1905, the English reformer William Tebb collected accounts of premature burial. He found 219 cases of near live burial, 149 actual live burials, 10 cases of live dissection and 2 cases of awakening while being embalmed.

Agreed.

I think the faith healing also set Jesus apart. His faith healing is so well attested to, it probably has some historical reliability to it, even if dead people weren't literally raised. The Talmud seems to say Jesus was a sorcerer, and the Greek philosopher Celsus said that Jesus was trained in Egyptian magic.


Before the stethoscope and the heart monitor, it could have been difficult to detect a pulse in someone if they were comatose, and their heartbeat and breath were shallow.

The ancient Jewish tradition was to visit the body of the deceased in the family tomb for several days, to make sure they were really dead. That may have been why the three women were visiting the tomb on the third day after the crucifixion.

 

[Based Chad]

Okay. You have no definition, then. It's just a 'matter of taste'.

Math error: Failure to specify tableau or boundary. Failure to specify randX.

feel free to love diluted retarded corrupt committee decisions....

 

[Based Chad]

Agreed

No, not the part about the young price. The birth narrative about the Bhudda being born out of the side of his mother, and being able to walk and talk immediately. There's something about a white elephant too, though I can't remember the details.

I don't have a problem accepting the historicity about how he walked away from his family and his royal inheritance to search for meaning and truth. India was chock full of wandering ascetics, so there's nothing fantastical about that.

you two are lost.

 

[domer76]

So Scientists created the universe?

Try to not be so ignorantly absurd.

 

[domer76]

I'm not the one calling religionists irrational, uneducated, superstitious idiots.

I've actually explicitly and repeatedly said religion can be rational. And gave coherent reasons for believing so.

My historical interpretations and literary criticisms of scripture are not as inflammatory and demeaning as are atheist claims about Christianity

You have to walk on eggshells around Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists because you aren't motivated by a principled dispassionate atheism. Your motivation is strictly based on anti-Christian zealotry.

There’s really nothing rational about a supposed all-everything deity that sends such confusing and contradictory messages and remains hidden for 2000+ years.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Agreed.

I think the faith healing also set Jesus apart. His faith healing is so well attested to, it probably has some historical reliability to it, even if dead people weren't literally raised. The Talmud seems to say Jesus was a sorcerer, and the Greek philosopher Celsus said that Jesus was trained in Egyptian magic.


Before the stethoscope and the heart monitor, it could have been difficult to detect a pulse in someone if they were comatose, and their heartbeat and breath were shallow.

The ancient Jewish tradition was to visit the body of the deceased in the family tomb for several days, to make sure they were really dead. That may have been why the three women were visiting the tomb on the third day after the crucifixion.

Jesus may have picked up some minor medical knowledge in his 20 years of travel before Palm Sunday. Visit 12 dead people and find 1 or 2 who are still alive then give them smelling salts or something and, in such a time, it could easily be seen as magical or miraculous.

Interesting point about the vigil. It makes sense.

 

[Cypress]

There’s really nothing rational about a supposed all-everything deity that sends such confusing and contradictory messages and remains hidden for 2000+ years.

That's one interpretation.

Hidden in plain sight? God's revelation in nature and conscience strikes me as a powerful argument, whether we assign it the name God, the Tao, or Brahman.

Bart Ehrman on Whether Christians Have to Believe in the Virgin Birth​

The reality is that the virgin birth is mentioned by only two authors of the New Testament, Matthew and Luke. And only in their opening narratives. But Matthew nowhere says that you “have to” believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or that Herod slaughtered the innocents or you can’t be a Christian. He doesn’t say that about the virgin birth either. And neither does Luke.

If the Virgin Birth was so important – vital! – to these authors, why don’t they make a bigger deal of it? Why, for example, don’t they ever (not once!) refer to it again later in their Gospels? And if it’s an “essential” part of the faith, why doesn’t Paul show the slightest knowledge of it? Or John? Or James? Or Peter? Or anyone else? If someone were to ask Paul “Do I have to believe in the Virgin Birth to be saved?”, what do you imagine he’s say? I myself imagine he’d say “believe in the … what??”

In no passage of the NT does it say that anyone “has” to believe in the Virgin Birth

To claim you “have” to believe in a literal virgin birth to be a Christian, I would argue, is empirically wrong. Most of my friends who are Christian do not believe in a literal virgin birth. You could say they aren’t “really” Christian, but they could respond that *you* aren’t “really” Christian. And at that point, we’re at a standoff. No one has been given the authority to make that kind of pronouncement….

https://ehrmanblog.org/do-christians-have-to-believe-in-the-virgin-birth/

 

[Cypress]

Jesus may have picked up some minor medical knowledge in his 20 years of travel before Palm Sunday. Visit 12 dead people and find 1 or 2 who are still alive then give them smelling salts or something and, in such a time, it could easily be seen as magical or miraculous.

Interesting point about the vigil. It makes sense.

Good point.

It's too well attested to to be dismissed. He didn't necessarily have to perform miracles, if he was able to give relief to people. He may have had a calm demeanor and way of talking to the mentally disturbed that pacified and soothed them.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Good point. He didn't necessarily have to perform miracles, if he was able to give relief to people. He may have had a calm demeanor and way of talking to the mentally disturbed that pacified and soothed them them.

Which is a great way to handle the mentally ill, atheists and other fanatics alike!

 

[Margot]

No, I mean religion. Especially the kind that is made up by the individual believer, which is almost all of them.

So you're an atheist!

 

[Margot]

sounds like you need firearms training, not a moral code.

moral codes stop you from getting into that situation.

"Live by the Sword" Etc

 

[Margot]

Pivot fallacy. A world is not a universe.

Deflection

Pivot fallacy. A world is not a universe.

D

Why would an atheist be obsessed with the Bible or Jesus? What are they 'betting'? $1? $2? What hedge?

I see atheists all day everyday claiming to be Bible experts

 

[Margot]

Little of what you say makes sense. You seem to have some mental illness.

Thanks for admitting you don't comprehend theology

 

[Margot]

There’s really nothing rational about a supposed all-everything deity that sends such confusing and contradictory messages and remains hidden for 2000+ years.

Maybe you're the one confused!

 

[Margot]

Good point.

It's too well attested to to be dismissed. He didn't necessarily have to perform miracles, if he was able to give relief to people. He may have had a calm demeanor and way of talking to the mentally disturbed that pacified and soothed them.

Maybe

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So you're an atheist!

S/he's a minor. A prepubescent one too.

 

[domer76]

That's one interpretation.

Hidden in plain sight? God's revelation in nature and conscience strikes me as a powerful argument, whether we assign it the name God, the Tao, or Brahman.

Bart Ehrman on Whether Christians Have to Believe in the Virgin Birth​

The reality is that the virgin birth is mentioned by only two authors of the New Testament, Matthew and Luke. And only in their opening narratives. But Matthew nowhere says that you “have to” believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or that Herod slaughtered the innocents or you can’t be a Christian. He doesn’t say that about the virgin birth either. And neither does Luke.

If the Virgin Birth was so important – vital! – to these authors, why don’t they make a bigger deal of it? Why, for example, don’t they ever (not once!) refer to it again later in their Gospels? And if it’s an “essential” part of the faith, why doesn’t Paul show the slightest knowledge of it? Or John? Or James? Or Peter? Or anyone else? If someone were to ask Paul “Do I have to believe in the Virgin Birth to be saved?”, what do you imagine he’s say? I myself imagine he’d say “believe in the … what??”

In no passage of the NT does it say that anyone “has” to believe in the Virgin Birth

To claim you “have” to believe in a literal virgin birth to be a Christian, I would argue, is empirically wrong. Most of my friends who are Christian do not believe in a literal virgin birth. You could say they aren’t “really” Christian, but they could respond that *you* aren’t “really” Christian. And at that point, we’re at a standoff. No one has been given the authority to make that kind of pronouncement….

https://ehrmanblog.org/do-christians-have-to-believe-in-the-virgin-birth/

There’s nothing about nature that indicates a personal deity. Nothing.

I never said anyone “has to” believe in the virgin birth. Nobody “has to” anything on any religion. It’s a choice, not a requirement. As I said, you can talk to any of the millions of Catholics worldwide about their Virgin Mother.

The birth story was just another concoction to fulfill prophecy. Just as the deification of Jesus was a concoction to fix the problem of their messiah getting killed. That wasn’t supposed to happen to a messiah, so now what the fuck to do? Oh, let’s make him a god.

Then, it took another couple of centuries for them to concoct another fix regarding the god thing. He can’t be a subordinate god to the Big Guy, so let’s invent the Trinity to fix that problem.

There always needs to be a fix, doesn’t there?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There’s nothing about nature that indicates a personal deity. Nothing.

I never said anyone “has to” believe in the virgin birth. Nobody “has to” anything on any religion. It’s a choice, not a requirement. As I said, you can talk to any of the millions of Catholics worldwide about their Virgin Mother.

The birth story was just another concoction to fulfill prophecy. Just as the deification of Jesus was a concoction to fix the problem of their messiah getting killed. That wasn’t supposed to happen to a messiah, so now what the fuck to do? Oh, let’s make him a god.

Then, it took another couple of centuries for them to concoct another fix regarding the god thing. He can’t be a subordinate god to the Big Guy, so let’s invent the Trinity to fix that problem.

There always needs to be a fix, doesn’t there?

Correct. That's why fanatics, be they atheist or theist, are idiots. It's a matter of faith, not fact.

OTOH, since no deities or morals exist, killing assholes means one's soul will never be harmed regardless of their beliefs or disbeliefs, eh? LOL