The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

[Hawk one]

Of course, an even better example than Spiderman and other cases of obvious fiction who incorporate real-world happenings is to look at other cases of confirmed superstition.

Take witch burnings, for example. I mean, we know that people have been burned for being witches (defined here as someone able to do occult magic, curses, and were in cohort with Satan and other demons, etc. etc. I'm talking about the medieval view of what a witch was, in other words) in the past. I have seen exagerrated figures and tales, but it did happen.

However, does this mean that since we have historical evidence for the burning itself, can we then conclude that real witches actually existed? Well, at worst some of them might have believed they were. But the amount of real witches 99.9999999999999999% likely amounted to zero, zilch, nada, null. Witch accusations were usually made because of ignorance to how the world actually operated, and with a bunch of prejudices (usually Christian ones) against certain kinds of behaviour coming from a woman.

 

[aggle-rithm]

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

Evidence 1... Ceasar Augustus was an actual figure at the time reported... this at least is not a myth based on the evidence, of which I only note the smallest bit.

Historical accuracy of the Bible as written is error free.

But Ceasar Augustus never issued such a decree. The census was limited to Syria and was decreed by Quirinius, the governor of Syria.

 

[hgc]

However, does this mean that since we have historical evidence for the burning itself, can we then conclude that real witches actually existed? Well, at worst some of them might have believed they were. But the amount of real witches 99.9999999999999999% likely amounted to zero, zilch, nada, null. Witch accusations were usually made because of ignorance to how the world actually operated, and with a bunch of prejudices (usually Christian ones) against certain kinds of behaviour coming from a woman.

You ought to read Sagan's Demon Haunted World. He paints witch-burning as an property confiscation and expense account scam.

 

[Hawk one]

You ought to read Sagan's Demon Haunted World. He paints witch-burning as an property confiscation and expense account scam.

Well, I haven't read about that angle (rather obviously), but I'm not really surprised. In any case, I think my main point still stands: Just because someone in the real world used the myth of the witch for their own reasons (scam, prejudices, whatever), it doesn't mean there is any evidence for a real witch existing. Right?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

re hgc & Hawk one:
I've seen both angles presented well (and have read Demon Haunted World). That, coupled with my readings during my short neo-pagan stint, leads me to believe that it was most likely a solid combination of both.

 

[Hawk one]

Yes, but an agent of Cthulu would say that in order to draw suspicions away from the fact that he's about to summon one of the Great Old Ones, wouldn't he?

Anyway, I'll see if I can read that book one of these days, as well as some other detailed reports at one time. Then I too can have a more informed view about this matter.

 

[Mr Clingford]

May I just check I have understood your argument.

You're saying that because women were killed (not many burnt AFAIK) for being witches then a bloke called Jesus who developed a cult following 2000 years ago didn't exist?

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure about that argument, but there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Jesus. The jury's still out.

 

[cyborg]

You're saying that because women were killed (not many burnt AFAIK) for being witches then a bloke called Jesus who developed a cult following 2000 years ago didn't exist?

No, it's an analogous situation of myth making taking historical context to increase authenticity. Since we know that this is unreliable the fact that Romans et al are mentioned in the Bible does not make the other events historic fact.

 

[Mr Clingford]

I'm not sure about that argument, but there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Jesus. The jury's still out.

Come off it - don't be afraid to admit that it is much more likely than not that there was a Jesus bloke; it's rather more of a woo conspiracy theory to argue that there wasn't.

No, it's an analogous situation of myth making taking historical context to increase authenticity. Since we know that this is unreliable the fact that Romans et al are mentioned in the Bible does not make the other events historic fact.

Yeah, that is fair enough - it was the presence of notions such as the one above that prompted me.

 

[Hawk one]

cyborg got it right. Apologies if my wording was unclear.

 

[Paulhoff]

The bottom line is, Jesus or no Jesus, he is still no son of any so-called god.

Paul

 

[hgc]

Come off it - don't be afraid to admit that it is much more likely than not that there was a Jesus bloke; it's rather more of a woo conspiracy theory to argue that there wasn't.

There's lots of old threads around here about that, though I'm sorry I don't have a link handy. You may be surprised how little evidence there is for the existence of such a bloke. I, for one, don't think "that it is much more likely than not," and it's not because I'm afraid to admit anything. Even if there were solid evidence of this Jesus person of lore, it would have zero impact on my religious belief/non-belief.

 

[Mr Clingford]

cyborg got it right. Apologies if my wording was unclear.

No no, that's all right. Some people seem to get very carried away in an apparent need to show that the Bible is of no historical worth (a completely different kettle of fish from the suggestion it contains no errors, or is indeed a science textbook) - I'm not suggesting you are BTW.

The bottom line is, Jesus or no Jesus, he is still no son of any so-called god.

Paul

Don't you mean "he is still no stinking son of any so-called stinking God"?

Got to make things clear, you know, or you might lose some atheist credentials.

 

[hgc]

re hgc & Hawk one:
I've seen both angles presented well (and have read Demon Haunted World). That, coupled with my readings during my short neo-pagan stint, leads me to believe that it was most likely a solid combination of both.

I didn't mean to imply an exclusion of the prejudice or superstitious hysteria angle. That in combination with greed-motivated church officialdom makes for a well-recognizable powerful force for ill. It's not merely recognizable in our religious institutions today, but also in other zones of the body politic -- the drug war.

 

[Mr Clingford]

There's lots of old threads around here about that, though I'm sorry I don't have a link handy. You may be surprised how little evidence there is for the existence of such a bloke. I, for one, don't think "that it is much more likely than not," and it's not because I'm afraid to admit anything. Even if there were solid evidence of this Jesus person of lore, it would have zero impact on my religious belief/non-belief.

Yes, there certainly are lots of old threads on the topic. Considering how little cold hard evidence there is for almost anyone in antiquity I am not at all surprised. Since an atheist historian like Robin Lane Fox has a good look at the historical documents such as the Gospels in his examination of Jesus (cf The Unauthorised Version) he can't be accused of bias and his credentials are impeccable.

 

[Paulhoff]

Don't you mean "he is still no stinking son of any so-called stinking God"?

Got to make things clear, you know, or you might lose some atheist credentials.

I wrote what I meant, no more, no less. On the other hand humans just love to read into things and or make up things that aren't there.

Paul



I'll assume you’re human, OK

 

[hgc]

Yes, there certainly are lots of old threads on the topic. Considering how little cold hard evidence there is for almost anyone in antiquity I am not at all surprised. Since an atheist historian like Robin Lane Fox has a good look at the historical documents such as the Gospels in his examination of Jesus (cf The Unauthorised Version) he can't be accused of bias and his credentials are impeccable.

Let's not pretend that everyone in antiquity is historically (un)verifiable to the same degree. For many historical figures there is extemporaneous documentation that comes down to us through history. That is not the case for Jesus.

 

[Mr Clingford]

I wrote what I meant, no more, no less. On the other hand humans just love to read into things and or make up things that aren't there.

Paul



I'll assume you’re human, OK

Now, there's where you may go wrong - make an assumption like that and soon you'll be assuming all kinds of woo nonsense. It's a matter of principle!

 

[Upchurch]

Has the Bible getting the numeric value of Pi wrong been brought up yet? That alone unambiguously shows the Bible is not 100% true. It comes down to a concrete number that doesn't match up with reality.