Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Giroth]

that is interesting no matter WHAT way you look at it....

[Lief Erikson]

By the way, in the NIV Bible, it is possible to get information about all the authors of each separate gospel. I can, therefore, get you information on the authors of the Old Testament books and Revelation, if you want it, jerseydevil. I'm going to get off for a while, but I'll check the Internet again tonight. Which specific books of the Bible did you have in mind? I can't just write out all of what is said on all of them .

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm going to get off for a while, but I'll check the Internet again tonight.

Isn't it night in Californee yet?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
By the way, in the NIV Bible, it is possible to get information about all the authors of each separate gospel. I can, therefore, get you information on the authors of the Old Testament books and Revelation, if you want it, jerseydevil. I'm going to get off for a while, but I'll check the Internet again tonight. Which specific books of the Bible did you have in mind? I can't just write out all of what is said on all of them .

They just found evidence that shows that who they thought wrote Revelations didn't. Also - as I have stated - the authors don't prove whether they wrote the truth or not. it also doesn't prove god. T

There are so many different versions of the bible it's funny. The History Channel also had on about the parting of the Red Sea - they've discovered that it most likely wasn't the Red Sea. There have also been scientific studies on how the plagues could have occurred naturally - but at the time they just didn't understand this so - they called them miracles.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Isn't it night in Californee yet?

yeah - it's 9:30 there.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
1) There are so many different versions of the bible it's funny. 2) The History Channel also had on about the parting of the Red Sea - they've discovered that it most likely wasn't the Red Sea. 3) There have also been scientific studies on how the plagues could have occurred naturally - but at the time they just didn't understand this so - they called them miracles.

1) Yes, sometimes it can seem rather ridiculous.
2) It wasn't any sea, obviously, as it is one of the fairy-stories.
3) Awfully coincidental. But what exactly do you mean by "occurred naturally"?

Also, you didn't answer my question.

"In what way is that not mentally deficit? If some people "need" to believe, as you say, in what way is this "need" not a deficit?"

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) Yes, sometimes it can seem rather ridiculous.
2) It wasn't any sea, obviously, as it is one of the fairy-stories.
3) Awfully coincidental. But what exactly do you mean by "occurred naturally"?

It occurred naturally - I can't remember all the links. But there was the fish dying - which poisoned the river, which caused the frogs to jump out of the rivers, there was something with the wheat - it got moldy - the oldest male child at that time was always given larger helpings which caused oldest male child to be poisoned by the mold. I'll try finding it - it's been on the cable channel several times - and the last time was just a couple of months ago. It took them years of study and scientists from all over the world in different fields to piece it together. It was very interesting - and much more believable and proveable than a miracle.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

"In what way is that not mentally deficit? If some people "need" to believe, as you say, in what way is this "need" not a deficit?"

Because it gives them hope and joy - and there is nothing wrong with that. It's a natural need for humans to have some understanding to feel safe. They also generally need to have something to make death feel less final.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

And in what way, may I ask, would such things (if indeed they are true, which I infer by you're saying "could have" that it is debatable) mean that the hand of God was not behind them?

It also (often) gives joy to homocidal maniacs to take the lives of other human beings. It gives joy to cruel children to pull the wings or legs off of insects. At the VERY LEAST, I cannot imagine how one who believes such a way could not agree that atheists, those who do not "need to believe", have ADVANCED beyond others, and are, in this respect at least, superior to them.

[Lief Erikson]

Very well, jerseydevil, since the only thing author you've brought up questions about is John, the author of Revelation, I'll read you what the NIV says about that.

Written in the NIV
Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9; 22:8). From as early as Justin Martyr in the second century A.D. it has been held that this John was the apostle, the son of Zebedee (see Mt 10:2). The book itself reveals that the author was a Jew, well versed in Scripture, a church leader who was well known to the seven churches of Asia Minor, and a deeply religious person fully convinced that the Christian faith would soon triumph over the demonic forces at work in the world.

In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not have been written by the apostle John. He suggested that the author was a certain John the Presbyter, whose name appears elsewhere in ancient writings. Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also - as I have stated - the authors don't prove whether they wrote the truth or not. it also doesn't prove god.

Again, I'm going to shift to the New Testament accounts, as they're more recent and easy to come up with evidence to support.
The eyewitnesses
We see strong evidence that the New Testament gospel writers were men of great integrity, not likely to lie in their accounts. They were reporting the words and actions of a man who called them to an extremely exacting level of integrity, and they were willing to live out their beliefs even to the point where they were tortured and killed.

These individuals had nothing to gain from lying except criticism, ostracism and martyrdom.

We have evidence that they were telling the truth, simply because they leave in embarrassing details that would have better been left out. Like the fact that women were the ones to find the tomb of Jesus empty. Women's testimony was counted less virtually worthless in those days. Then there is the fact that Jesus says "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" There are different things in the scriptures that would have been easier left out, but which would only be included by someone trying to get the facts down as reliably as possible.

Then there's the fact that historical and archaeological details of their accounts all check out- that doesn't prove what they said, but it shows that they were committed to accuracy.

Then there's the fact that the skeptics, enemies of the Christian movement, that didn't contradict the gospel accounts. On the contrary, their evidence is in support of Jesus' miracles and influence.

Also those accounts were written during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses and people that were claimed to have experienced these happenings. Thus anyone seriously interested could check them out, which meant that it wouldn't be easy to lie, about many of the things.

Some of Jesus' sayings are written down in rabbi documents aside from the Gospels.



Now I have presented you with some evidence for why you can give credit to the authors. Reading the posts I already gave on miracles should also show you that these things aren't mere legend, lies or fabrications, because they happen today and can happen to you (in physical effects, not just brain highs).

[Ruinel]

Wow! God is mold? interesting that people worship mold.

Gwai, why do you think that Atheists are more advanced than people who believe in a deity?

If you ask me, people have different needs. Some people need to believe that there is a reward for being good after they die. It gives them comfort. The idea that a better place awaits them makes the pain and suffering of this life more bearable.

Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond your own death and therefore you must use your time wisely while you are alive, make this place better and eliminate the suffering here.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Precisely.

[Lief Erikson]

Jerseydevil, did you read my last post on the previous page? I really can see no good reason for your atheism, and it stands in the face of large amounts of evidence. Evidence that can be confirmed once and for all for you personally by Jesus himself, as he says in the Bible, if you're willing to search for him.

Well, I really have to sign off now. It's been fun discussing this subject with you all . You're all quite right, it's getting late out here and I have to go to bed. I'm going to be at a camp with my youth group through next week.

Goodnight!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Jerseydevil, did you read my last post on the previous page? I really can see no good reason for your atheism, and it stands in the face of large amounts of evidence. Evidence that can be confirmed once and for all for you personally by Jesus himself, as he says in the Bible, if you're willing to search for him.

I can't speak for JD, but I can speak for myself.

I can't see any reason for your Christianity, with large amounts of evidence pointing to there being no supernatural being that controls our fates and universe.

I would not be searching for a man who has been dead for around two thousand years. That would make no sense whatsoever.

[jerseydevil]

This seems to be the show. It went through everything here - the show I saw was just on the plagues. But this show even mentions the mistranslation of the Red Sea - which should actually be the Sea of Reeds. So I think it's the aame one.

Biblical plagues and parting of Red Sea 'caused by volcano'

Fresh evidence that the Biblical plagues and the parting of the Red Sea were natural events rather than myths or miracles is to be presented in a new BBC documentary.

Moses, which will be broadcast next month, will suggest that much of the Bible story can be explained by a single natural disaster, a huge volcanic eruption on the Greek island of Santorini in the 16th century BC.

Using computer-generated imagery pioneered in Walking With Dinosaurs, the programme tells the story of how Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt after a series of plagues had devastated the country. But it also uses new scientific research to argue that many of the events surrounding the exodus could have been triggered by the eruption, which would have been a thousand times more powerful than a nuclear bomb.

Dr Daniel Stanley, an oceanographer who has found volcanic shards in Egypt that he believes are linked to the explosion, tells the programme: "I think it would have been a frightening experience. It would have been heard. The blast ash would have been felt."

Computer simulations by Mike Rampino, a climate modeller from New York University, show that the resulting ash cloud could have plunged the area into darkness, as well as generating lightning and hail, two of the 10 plagues.

The cloud could have also reduced the rainfall, causing a drought. If the Nile had then been poisoned by the effects of the eruption, pollution could have turned it red, as happened in a recent environmental disaster in America.

The same pollution could have driven millions of frogs on to the land, the second plague. On land the frogs would die, removing the only obstacle to an explosion of flies and lice - the third and fourth plagues.

The flies could have transmitted fatal diseases to cattle (the fifth plague) and boils and blisters to humans (the sixth plague).

The hour-long documentary argues that even the story of the parting of the Red Sea, which allowed Moses to lead the Hebrews to safety while the pursuing Egyptian army was drowned, may have its origins in the eruption.

It repeats the theory that "Red Sea" is a mistranslation of the Sea of Reeds, a much shallower swamp.

Computer simulations show that the Santorini eruption could have triggered a 600ft-high tidal wave, travelling at about 400 miles an hour, which would have been 6ft high and a hundred miles long when it reached the Egyptian delta.

Such an event would have been remembered for generations, and may have provided the inspiration for the story.

Jean-Claude Bragard, the director, said: "Sifting through the latest historical research and utilising new archaeological tools, we have been able to find a surprising amount of circumstantial evidence for the Biblical tales."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I can't see any reason for your Christianity, with large amounts of evidence pointing to there being no supernatural being that controls our fates and universe.

You do realise that evolution is not an entirely atheistic concept, don't you? How can there be evidence against something which wholly transcends science?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Very well, jerseydevil, since the only thing author you've brought up questions about is John, the author of Revelation, I'll read you what the NIV says about that.

I'm not going to quote your whole thing because it waste bandwidth.

Anyway - first - new evidence shows that Revelations was not written by the Jonh they thought it was.

Also - who says the people who wrote the bible were upstanding people? Have you met them? I can say anything and in a thousand years no one can say whether I was telling the truth or not. I'm sorry - but people have a reason for saying the people were to be believed.

You can blindly follow it and I'm sorry - but it IS blindly following a book, but I want some evidence. Science and archeology is showing more that the thoughts on the bible are explained through known natural causes. Things that were not known before. Even if these people really DID see these things they may not have understood the natural causes behind them.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
What I remember hearing is that the Hittite's existence was scoffed at generally and was pointed to as a proof of the Bible's being incorrect.

I do not claim to know whether or not people scoffed at the existence of Hittites or not, but the Amarna tablets were found at the end of the 19th Century. We have known about the Hittites for a very long time. [A segment of the Amarna tablet documents in Akkadian the king of Hatti, Suppiluliuma, beseeching Akhenaten for aid] What we have not known is their geographic location. I would agree with you if you were saying that archaeology is supporting the biblical account of some historic occurances, but it sounds like you are claiming that the Hatti are a new discovery, brought into being by biblical academics. This is not so. They have been cropping up in the archaeological record for some time now. Perhaps I am reading your intentions wrong, and if so, I apologise.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Jerseydevil, did you read my last post on the previous page? I really can see no good reason for your atheism, and it stands in the face of large amounts of evidence. Evidence that can be confirmed once and for all for you personally by Jesus himself, as he says in the Bible, if you're willing to search for him.

What evidence? A book that has a list of fantastical miracles? And how is Jesus going to personally confirm that he exists? I'm sorry - I really do think it's fairy tale. I'm very glad you have your beliefs - that's great. But just saying that you had some fantastical experience does not mean it really happened.

My atheism does not stand in the face of evidence. I personally think your beliefs stand in the face of reason.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil (describing a tv show)
.....It repeats the theory that "Red Sea" is a mistranslation of the Sea of Reeds, a much shallower swamp....

But what really cracks me up about this one is: how did the Egyptian army drown in shallow water?

If it was shallow, the Hebrews going thru the water was no miracle, but the Egyptians drowning in it WAS a miracle!

If it was deep, then the passing thru (on DRY land) would be a miracle, but the drowning wouldn't.

Or is he saying that the Hebrews slogged thru the shallow water, then the tidal wave wiped out the Egyptians, amazingly missing the Hebrews that just finished exiting the water?

Well, I'll be back on this thread in earnest tomorrow, since Sunday is our day of rest - see you guys! Have a nice vacation, Lief!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
You do realise that evolution is not an entirely atheistic concept, don't you? How can there be evidence against something which wholly transcends science?

where do you see 'evolution' in that sentence? I didn't even mention it.