• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

Rusty Tyler said:
As if you would be impressed with an article I bring up to support my view?
Click to expand...
Probably not. Not unless it was supported by repeatable demonstrable evidence. I don't believe that humans lived to be 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 + times older than they do today without something more than it was written down somewhere that they did. It is not a reasonable claim.
 
Rusty Tyler said:
Let's try this.

Imagine this.
You are a man living in Kenya.
You have one leg that is longer than the other.
Shoes with compensating heels were the only solution for you.
Then a missionary prays for you and your short leg grows to it's correct length.

Would you tell anyone?
Why would anyone not believe you?
Click to expand...
Because religious frauds are commonplace..
 
Rusty Tyler said:
Which is older? The city, or the city name?
Wouldn't the city be influenced by things that happened before it was named?

I think your assumption is the real fiction here.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. A person might read Dan Brown's book and assume that certain historical facts can be gleaned from it. My example shows this is not true. The poetic language "tides of history have washed back and forth over it" seems to imply that Prague has existed for over 2,000 years, when in fact those 'tides' were washing over what was there before (which in no way represented a city or anything like it). This language is historically useless, much like most of what is written in the Bible.

The Flood, the Exodus, the fall of Jericho are famous examples of Biblical accounts that have no historical evidence for occurring when they did, if at all. Sure there was probably some flood or floods that inspired the Flood narrative, some group(s) probably did leave Egypt at some point, and Jericho was definitely sacked - long before the account in the Bible. But no facts can be gleaned from the biblical stories other than the existence of the stories themselves.

This makes the Bible's reliability as a historical source very low - not just due to lack of supporting evidence, but because its obvious agenda is to bolster the religious message rather than present a historical record. The authors routinely make stuff up and parrot stories with no concern as to whether they are actually true or not, often subtly changing or 'reinterpreting' them to better fit the narrative. In some cases they even seem to be competing to see who can tell the biggest whopper.

All of which - in conjunction with the huge influence the Bible has had on all of us both individually and as a society - makes it very interesting to study objectively. Just the fact that so many people have been sucked in by its assertions over the past two millennia is enough to cover volumes of research and analysis. Studying it may help us understand how similar things are happening today - and perhaps even help counter it.

It's also interesting to obtain a better understanding of the Bible's original intent and how it has changed over time, particularly regarding stuff which needs historical context to parse 'correctly'. Much of what appears to be plain language is actually quite different when you dig into the origin. Not that it make the original meaning more 'true' of course (fiction is still fiction), but it helps shake off the apparent truth we were indoctrinated with.

If you think that interest betrays an 'agenda' - darned right it does, and we shouldn't have to apologize for it. Generations have had the Bible thrown at them to justify things nobody should have to put up with, as well as being expected to swallow obvious lies without question. If we want a better future we need to put that stuff behind us. Paradoxically we won't won't become better 'Christians' until we see the Bible for the fiction it is.
 
JayUtah said:
It’s a translation error. They didn’t understand Hebrew numerals. But everyone had a warm-fuzzy about it anyway.
Click to expand...
What source are you using to support that it was a translation error? I was under the impression that God decided humans would never again live that long.
 
acbytesla said:
What source are you using to support that it was a translation error? I was under the impression that God decided humans would never again live that long.
Click to expand...
That was how people interpreted it before they discovered the error. I don’t recall the source. Even after the error was found, some people preferred the long-life story because it was more sensational.
 
acbytesla said:
Because religious frauds are commonplace..
Click to expand...
It would be dishonest to claim that all healing stories are false.
I witnessed a healing myself.

I have had many opportunities to pray for people in need. I rarely know the outcome.
But there was one instance where it was clear what happened.

An evening healing service at our church drew a number of people to the front of the church. The leader had everyone in line turn to the right and lay hands on the person in front of them.

I was at the end of the line so there was no one to pray for me.
However, the man in front of me had come in using a cane. (unusual for him) He had an injury that he wanted prayer for. He was in a lot of pain.

We were learning an interview style of praying for the sick/injured. So, I asked him questions to get a benchmark to start from.

I prayed for him and then asked him if he felt anything. He said he felt a tremendous heat on his back where I had been laying hands. I felt it too, but didn't tell him about it. I wanted to hear from him.

So, we pressed in again and kept at it. Then he reported that the pain was gone. He left the prayer line and walked around the sanctuary waving the cane in the air.

Reminded me of this. (the Apostle Peter, a mere human) And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. - Acts 3:8 NIV

The next Sunday morning the healed man testified that he had been healed by God, and he pointed to me as the one who had prayed for him.
 
Rusty Tyler said:
The next Sunday morning the healed man testified that he had been healed by God, and he pointed to me as the one who had prayed for him.
Click to expand...
So you're well motivated to consider yourself a spiritual hero. Did you follow up with him two weeks later to see if the healing had stuck? This has been widely studied. People get into a kind of euphoria during situations where there is a lot of religious fervor. They get an endorphins and activate the placebo effect.
 
Rusty Tyler said:
Let's try this.

Imagine this.
You are a man living in Kenya.
You have one leg that is longer than the other.
Shoes with compensating heels were the only solution for you.
Then a missionary prays for you and your short leg grows to it's correct length.

Would you tell anyone?
Why would anyone not believe you?

Click to expand...
One of the oldest healing tricks.
 
Rusty Tyler said:
I'm torn.
Part of me is sympathetic to the evolutionary view and another part rejects it.

If Adam was not the first man, then what original sin did Jesus pay the penalty for?

And why are we paying for the sin of Eve? - LOL

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Click to expand...
The original sin is quite obvious, questioning the gods.
 
Rusty Tyler said:
I'm torn.
Part of me is sympathetic to the evolutionary view and another part rejects it.
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to why that is. Have you any idea what may have caused this conflict?

I do. I think you have been indoctrinated with the lies in the Bible. The problem with learning wrong stuff is that you have to unlearn it before learning the right stuff.

Rusty Tyler said:
If Adam was not the first man, then what original sin did Jesus pay the penalty for?

And why are we paying for the sin of Eve? - LOL

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Click to expand...
Adam was the first man (or more accurately the first human) by definition. He represents the origin of all of mankind.

The ancients were ignorant of genetics and evolution, but they did have some understanding of how populations grow. Projecting backwards it's 'obvious' that there must originally have been just one man and one woman. In practice this is rarely true of course, populations drift until they become genetically different enough to be called different species - a definition which itself is a little fuzzy. But they weren't to know that. So they drew what seemed to be a reasonable conclusion based on known facts and logic.

The original sin thing is also based on observation. It doesn't take much to see that all humans are 'sinners' from birth, and have to be taught morals. In a real sense we all inherit this characteristic. But the people of that time didn't know about genetics so they had to posit some other reason for it. This was important because some individuals were bound to assert that they were above sinning and therefore didn't have to follow the laws that were necessary for a functioning society.

The OT is more a book of laws than anything else. Genesis was just an origin myth tacked on to provide context, much like the 'about us' page on a company's website. People 'believed' it in the same way they believed other myths and legends - they were stories told for their moral value rather than historical accuracy.

But what about the NT? Here we have a new religion arising which required a different set of laws to suit a wider audience. Jesus may have been criticizing what he saw as corruption of Jewish law/religion - thus the 'not one jot or tittle' - but it soon morphed into something else - a religion that eschewed many of the Jewish traditions that gentiles found hard to accept. One of those things was human mortality.

Judaism offered nothing but death, no matter how good or bad you were in life. Christianity offered so much more, provided you were good (defined as do what the church tells you). The fact that it was a bald-faced lie is the genius of Christianity that made it so popular. I mean, who would lie about something so preposterous and yet so appealing? Therefore it must be true. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom