• 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

Carrot Flower King said:
Errrr, walked? Rode on an ass/donkey/mule? Chariot? Swam a bit? Used a couple of boats or rafts? Hitched a ride on a passing turtle?

Weren't actually there, actually hiding out in a nice resort on the Levantine coast, then sent some dodgy, mis-leading post cards?

Who knows? I once claimed to be in Sheffield, when I was actually ringing from Carlisle station: folk tell such lies when it suits them.
Click to expand...
Or they didn't. The exodus out of Egypt is a fairy story to substantiate the lie that the jewish people were a totally different group to the Canaanite groups inhabiting Palestine.

The truth is that the Israelites were a Canaanite tribe whose religion slowly diverged from their neighbours' over centuries until the Babylonian exile rapidly increased the pace of change (by bring their religious leaders into a land with many new ways of thinking).
 
Rusty Tyler said:
The Bible doesn't present itself as fiction.
Click to expand...
Neither does 'This is Spinal Tap.' In fact, not presenting as fiction is a very common trope in fiction, as several posters' examples show. So why, of all these works that are presented as fact, should the Bible be singled out as fact?

Because somebody told you so.

Some other people will tell you otherwise. How do you tell which ones to believe?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Neither does 'This is Spinal Tap.' In fact, not presenting as fiction is a very common trope in fiction, as several posters' examples show. So why, of all these works that are presented as fact, should the Bible be singled out as fact?

Because somebody told you so.

Some other people will tell you otherwise. How do you tell which ones to believe?
Click to expand...
Confirmation bias.
 
jimbob said:
That would have been a lot less ridiculous and seem less obscene if one was an illiterate iron age pastoralist with the morality of that age.

The flood is less ridiculous if you don't question whether the world was flattish - the excess water just falls off the edge.

Of course slavery isn't questioned.
Of course, God replacing Job's wealth and getting him new wife and kids makes it better, because it was just replacing property. And of course God was perfectly within his (obviously s man) rights to do what he wanted with his property, which was Job and everything else.
Click to expand...
I was at V&A East on Thursday, and one of the exhibits at the "The Music is Black: A British Story" exhibition was a slave bible. A version for use when proselytising enslaved people, omitting such embarrassing things as references to freedom and escape from slavery. Christianity was taught in a way to replace subjugated peoples' culture, whether they were enslaved or colonised.

en.wikipedia.org

Select Parts of the Holy Bible for the use of the Negro Slaves in the British West-India Islands - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
jimbob said:
That would have been a lot less ridiculous and seem less obscene if one was an illiterate iron age pastoralist with the morality of that age.

The flood is less ridiculous if you don't question whether the world was flattish - the excess water just falls off the edge.
Click to expand...
Not really, if you take Genesis completely literally, which they would at the time. There the world is under a dome (kinda like one of those snow globes;)) separating the waters below from the water around. So not only is it nonsensical to ask if the water wouldn't fall over the edge, because of the dome, but the notion about water going out at all on its own is nonsense too. It's like asking how do you keep water from going out from a submarine.

Of course squaring that with the verses before that dome is created is a completely different mental gymnastics exercise, but there we go.
 
Last edited:
Helen said:
Better than being a shill for Big Science, and I ought to know, because that's what I am. But what has Big Science ever done for me???

Well, you know, except everything...
Click to expand...
I've been dead a few times, Big Science brought me back. When Big Science fails to bring me back I won't complain at all.

;)
 
HansMustermann said:
Not really, if you take Genesis completely literally, which they would at the time. There the world is under a dome (kinda like one of those snow globes;)) separating the waters below from the water around. So not only is it nonsensical to ask if the water wouldn't fall over the edge, because of the dome, but the notion about water going out at all on its own is nonsense too. It's like asking how do you keep water going out from a submarine.

Of course squaring that with the verses before that dome is created is a completely different mental gymnastics exercise, but there we go.
Click to expand...
I refer you to my comment about unsophisticated iron age pastoralists
 
Reformed Offlian said:
And what's more interesting is *where* they differ: they diverge exactly where the authors' likely knowledge gives out.

The lineages in Matthew and Luke agree from Abraham to David, because those lineages were recorded elsewhere. They agree on the name of Jesus' father, because, on the assumption that he was a real person, this is something his followers would likely know since patronymics were a thing. Where the lineages diverge -and diverge *completely*- is on the connection between David and Joseph.

It's almost as if the authors needed to somehow connect their Messiah to David to fit the prophecies, but didn't have anything before Jesus' father, and so they made something up.
Click to expand...
Are you accounting for the fact that one lineage was of Mary and the other of Joseph?
 
catsmate said:
Learn for yourself. Start here:
en.wikipedia.org

Forged (book) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. It only applies to the new testament.
Bart says... Peter and John were illiterate. (Acts 4:13)

Ehrman points out numerous inconsistencies he finds within the New Testament that appear to support many of his claims, such as the fact that in Acts 4, the statement is made that both Peter and John were illiterate, Forged yet in later years entire books of the Bible were then alleged to have been written by them.

Unschooled = without learning, unlettered, uneducated

The Bible says...

Acts 4:13 NIV
When they saw the courage of Peter and John
and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men,
they were astonished and they took note
that these men had been with Jesus.
 
Rusty Tyler said:
Thanks for the link. It only applies to the new testament.
Bart says... Peter and John were illiterate. (Acts 4:13)

Ehrman points out numerous inconsistencies he finds within the New Testament that appear to support many of his claims, such as the fact that in Acts 4, the statement is made that both Peter and John were illiterate, Forged yet in later years entire books of the Bible were then alleged to have been written by them.

Unschooled = without learning, unlettered, uneducated

The Bible says...

Acts 4:13 NIV
When they saw the courage of Peter and John
and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men,
they were astonished and they took note
that these men had been with Jesus.
Click to expand...
Wow - you are a very fast reader.
 
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