RolePlayGateway™

... I hate to do this, but RAGE Mid. I feel that the problem is people not realizing that Religion is not Fact, but Faith. Science is closer to Fact, as it can be proven, and repeated to prove its point. If we want to go the "What is Fact" route, we are logical forced to go to Decartisan logic, which states "I think, therefore I am". Nothing else is true otherwise. For all I know, I am playing a super video game, and I got so In character I think this is all "real". This all approaches solipsism (which in my humble opinion, is bullshit of the highest caliber).

There is fact, which is science, and there is faith, which is religion. No one can prove to me that there isn't the 7 heavens of Allah, or that when we die, we spin the wheel of reincarnation (cookie for reference), without an absurd burden of proof. I can prove evolution , with fossils, tooth, and new hyper advanced genetic technologies. I don't like people brushing off the idea of fact with the mindless middle mentality of "Oh but we know some things were wrong, so everything is in doubt" Neo Solipsim which rears its ugly head every now and again.

Ryand-Smith wrote:There is fact, which is science, and there is faith, which is religion. No one can prove to me that there isn't the 7 heavens of Allah, or that when we die, we spin the wheel of reincarnation (cookie for reference), without an absurd burden of proof. I can prove evolution , with fossils, tooth, and new hyper advanced genetic technologies. I don't like people brushing off the idea of fact with the mindless middle mentality of "Oh but we know some things were wrong, so everything is in doubt" Neo Solipsim which rears its ugly head every now and again.

If you want to comment on this thread PLEASE read what I'm saying, rather than adding your two cents first!

Ryand, can I ask you, have read ANY of Josephus? If you had you would find that there is a passage which pertains to Jesus, granted it has been heavily redacted by later Christian copyists, but SCHOLARS (who study this stuff for a living btw) who have studied this passage are fairly certain that the mention of Jesus here is genuine to Josephus writings. Not only that but Josephus speaks at length about other people who propagated themselves as prophets or Messiahs, including "the Egyptian" and Theudas. If you want to learn about the theory of the Historical Jesus then you should read "The Historical Jesus" by E.P Sanders.There are practically no respected works on proving that Jesus didn't exist in some shape or form.

If you can prove evolution, with fossils and ARCHAEOLOGY, then I can at the very least say there is no ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence to say that there was a mass movement of people out of Egypt as Exodus says there was. My subject of study here shares a lot with Science. A scientist changes his theory to match his results; he doesn't change his results to match his theory. For the moment the fact is that it's highly doubtful that there was a mass movement of people out of Egypt. If in a few years they find this evidence then opinion will change in line with the evidence; fact will be restablished. Science can do no better than that.

If people want to use Archaeology to "dazzle" people into believing something or not believing it, PLEASE get your facts straight first IS ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY! be sure that what you are saying is what the experts are saying, not just what you THINK they should be saying!

How many times have I been at a party, or a night out and when people hear I'm a Theology student they want to dazzle me with stuff like the DiVinci Code, or tell me they saw some documentary on the Turin shroud and that definitely proves that Jesus existed. No it doesn't!!!

If you want to play Chess, at least know how to play it first. If you want to talk to a pilot about powered flight, at least be educated on it before telling him he's wrong, or sharing with him some amazing fact you saw on some cheap documentary about air crashes, cause God-damnit he's gonna make you look stupid in front of a whole lot of people when he tells you that you're talking outta your ass.

I'm sorry to reuse my examples from earlier posts, but I don't know how to define the reason for this post any clearer. So please don't accuse me AGAIN of trying to PROVE faith, or write something about the difference between science and religion, I'm not an idiot.

I have hardly even read half of Genesis with little sprinkles of other verses here and there, and I already have enough information to prove that the Bible is not a credible book. I'm not a college-educated theologian, but I can already say for a fact that the Bible is not a book to be taken literally, much of it should not be 'taken' at all.

Point is: you don't need to know everything about something to make a definite conclusion of it.

No you don't and I'm proof of that. I'm studying the bible and it's context, and I don't know everything. MY point is that if you KNOW something is fact then that's fine...however if you EXPECT, GUESS or SUPPOSE something, don't dress it up as fact. All that comes of that is that someone who does KNOW will come along and tell you frustratedly that you're wrong...and then a silly argument like this happens lol.

Let me put it this way. You have admitted that you haven't read very much of the bible, and I take your point seriously. From your reading you don't find it a credible "history" or "book of truth" (let's not go into the meaning of "truth" here lol), that's a fair assumption to make after a cursory reading. However if you were to say to me that from your reading you KNOW that none of it is credible would be a good example of what I'm ranting about here. You have already said that you have little education on this particular subject. You couldn't possibly say that you KNOW none of it is credible. I agree with you, there is a lot of it which can't be and shouldn't be taken as credible truth, but there are books in the bible which according to the scholars portray events which very likely could have happened, the books of Kings, Isaiah, Hezekiah, and the other prophets. We regard as fact their likelihood because we have evidence to suggest it and none to disregard it. In the same way science does. If the results fit the theory, then we regard it as fact: Fact until we find evidence to disprove it. Then facts change.

To say that the Bible as a full collection of books is not a credible history of Israel; is fair and as you say does not need a full investigation and 50 years of work to establish. My problem is someone who hasn't studied the bible in any depth who comes along and says "I can prove the bible is completely credible!", or "I can prove that the bible is completely discreditable!" I'm sorry but that a pile of BS. The world's experts on the subject can't do that...so how can you?

And in your case, your opinion however educated and rational it might be, (I actually agree with you on it) can't be proven by you, because you don't have the evidence to PROVE it; you have a common sense and an expectation. No offence intended at all.

My overall point was sometimes it's better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it. Not that anyone's a fool, it's just a turn of phrase meaning that sometimes if you don't know much about something, not commenting at all is sometimes better than saying something inaccurate and proving that you don't know much about it.

I'm Native, but that doesn't change anything, I'm just saying that I'm really connected to nature and the earth. I believe in God, but I have a belief that all animals have spirits too, and everything matters in this world. Even the leafs and the rocks
But everyone has a different religion, and I wonder if any of it is true. Any of it.

I can prove, if that's the word you're going to use, that the Bible is not completely credible and not everything in it should be taken literally, and not everything should be considered at all.

Things not to be taken literally:
The creation of the world
The great flood
The Resurrection

Things not to be taken at all:
The Bible says pi is three.
The Bible says the world is flat.
The Bible says the world doesn't move.
The Bible says the sun revolves around the earth.

Due to the above, one can conclude that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally, and some of it should not be 'taken' at all.

Pi is three:
1 Kings 7:23: "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the
other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and
a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

Earth is flat:
Job 38:13: "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it"
Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (You can't see every part of a sphere all at once)
Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" (Note it says circle rather than sphere)

Earth doesn't move:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

The Bible says the sun revolves around the Earth in a verse, though I don't remember which one. I don't need one to say that it does, though: a firm, immovable Earth cannot revolve around something. Therefore, the sun must revolve around it.

Ouch Rem =ｐ lawl

The bible did use certain things from history but... man created it and it's been altered over the years. So what is fact and what is not?

Pi is three:
1 Kings 7:23: "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the
other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and
a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

Umm Pi is 3.14... so if they are saying Pi is 3 they are pretty close. I am not exactly sure why you are debating this as something irrelevant, since 3 is a pretty good approximation of Pi.

Things not to be taken literally:
The creation of the world
The great flood
The Resurrection

Actually there is scientific evidence of a glacial meltdown 11,000-15,000 years ago that would be considered a world wide deluge. We were in an glacial period that end 10-15,000 years ago and when that ice melted the water had to go somewhere. So saying that the great flood is not to be taken literally flies in the face of scientific evidence and logic.

*shrug*

No, the Great Flood the way it was described wouldn't happen. It's possible if God exists that He could have saved Noah and company from the massive amounts of water in the air that would have drowned them when they breathed, He could have protected them from the atmospheric pressure that would have crushed their lungs, and He could even have put all the fossils on different layers, but the latter does not seem plausible. Why would He do something so pointless that would lead people against him?

God should have told the writers 'it was but a small amount more than' instead of plainly 'it was.'

A circuit doesn't describe a sphere. How exactly would it? Also, you didn't take into consideration the part where the ends of the earth were grabbed and shaken and someone saw every place on Earth. You can't grab the ends of a sphere, and you can't see every part of it at once.

I don't think that the text is describing movement, I think it is describing state. The world is in its current state, God's rule, and it shall never be moved, meaning that God always will rule.

But the Bible does say the sun rises and sets and hurries back to where it rises, implying that the sun moves around the Earth.

I agree with you in that religion is a private matter and each person (in an free society, to pre-qualify my response) is entitled to their own opinion et cetera.

In my personal opinion based on my personal first hand experiences (and I was born a Shiette Muslim but am a believer of no faith and have trouble believing in God in the first place, although I would be the first to say that there is equal evidence both ways; and faith has (in my view) very little to do with religion et cetera), people tend to want to exert their view onto others; and that is more of a human function than religious practice.

Now, in my personal opinion, religion has its own dimension (mental), and so that what we can fabric of reality (what we live and breathe). And the two planes of reality (from time to time) do collide, and there are commonalities and intersections, but for the most part, both hold 100% true in their own mental dimensions. Religion is part of 'I think therefore I am' while the physical world is just here. We, as machines who think therefore we are, exist in both planes. I can dig deep into details for you, but I am sure you can see I am crazy myself here.

Faith is personal and internal. Religion in cultural and external; it creates commonalities to bring people together; and of course, some use it for their own benefit and their own agenda, some evil, and some good.

You know what? This is great! This is the very value of the point I was trying to make.

You went and found "proofs" to substantiate your opinion. You didn't parade around some opinion as fact.

I don't want anyone to confuse what I'm trying to say, I'm talking about religion in historical and archaeological terms; not in terms of faith.

If someone wants to say that they BELIEVE according to their faith that the earth was created in 6 days, they are very much entitled to that belief. Scientists have a working "proof" of how they believe everything began. But we know we can't at the moment prove that they are right and a creationist is wrong. If you believe in an almighty God he very easily could create our world exactly as it is in six days.

Or you could read Genesis as a late scholarly attempt at an explanation as to why and how things are as they are. For example, Genesis is thought to be written later than many of the other books of the bible, and is placed at the beginning because it's a logical place for a beginning lol. It explains who God is (i.e creator,) it explains humanity's place in nature (i.e rulers/custodians/stewards) and it explains why we no longer live in an idyllic world, why God does not speak directly to us, and why women have pain in childbirth and men work hard to work the land (i.e humanity's wrong doing and Satan's temptation...I refrain from using "Original sin" because that is a later Christian interpretation and not the original Jewish meaning)

However it is a very different matter altogether to PROVE anything. However what you cannot say is that there is PROOF that the biblical account is utterly false, or that science's explanation is utterly. You can PROVE neither.

You can't say that there is undeniable PROOF that the Israelites moved out of Egypt en masse, or that they were even slaves there. There isn't any. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. No evidence has been found to prove it either way. So FACT AT THE MOMENT is that it is unlikely that such an event happened on the scale the bible tells.

To add to the discussion about the flood... Scholars believe that the Genesis story is actually influenced and adapted by Israelite writers during or after the Exile to Babylon. There is an ancient Babylonian legend called "Enuma Elish" which is a creation story of sorts telling of a great flood. It could be that his was a very organic and natural osmosis of ideas from one culture to the next. It could be that the oral Flood story was passed down many many generations before writing down of myths legends and stories was possible/fashionable, and that it actually happened and was so traumatic an event that it stayed in the Levant's cultural memory for a long time.

If you're interested in that you should read a book called "Cutltural Memory" by Jan Assman.

This might sound a little bit cheeky, but as I keep having to repeat myself everytime I post...DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHY I WROTE THIS RANT IN THE FIRST PLACE? You guys can talk about whatever you want, I'm glad I started a discussion where people are looking to fact and scholarly opinion to back themselves up, but I'd like to at least think people understood why I was so pissed off in the first place?????

I understand, it's just too inconsequential to care about, much less address.

Not sure if this thread is dead or not (assuming so by the last post date) but just in response to Ryand-Smith's comment, there are extra-Biblical sources that mention Yeshua (Jesus) in their writings;

Cornelius Tacitus (born C.E 52-54), Roman historian and Governor of Asia 112 C.E., in writing of the reign of Nero says: “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.” (ETDV, 82)

Lucian of Samosata (dates unknown), a second century satirist referred to Jesus as “The man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.” (Ibid, 82).

Flavius Josephus (born C.E. 37), a Jewish historian, regarded as the most reliable historian of the time has a paragraph devoted to Jesus in Antiquities. Xviii.33:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Yeshua. And his conduct was good, and was known to be virtuous. And many people from amoung the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Ibid. 82). We also find in Antiquities XX9:1 that Josephus refers to James, brother of Jesus/Yesua.

Suetonius (C.E 120), was a Roman historian, a court official under Emperor Hadrian, refers to “the constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” (Ibid, 83).
Plinius Secundus/Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor C.E. 112 wrote to Emperor Trajan about the Christians and their devotion to “Christ as god” (Ibid, 83)

Tertullian, jurist-theologian of Carthage C.E. 197 before the Roman authorities in Africa speaks of how Christians got their name from following the Christ, Yeshua.

Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian and one of the first Gentile (none-Jewish) writers who mention Christ, writing in C.E. 52. Although only fragments remain from his original works, many historians after site him, and the observances made about this “Man Yeshua, the Messiah”, also describing the such events as the earthquake and the eclipse at the time of Jesus death.

Philegon, another first-century historian of who’s works we have only fragments of but lives on through the works of other earlier historians, sites the darkness that fell at the crucifixion.
Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian wrote a letter to his son from prison around C.E. 73. The letter was to encourage his son, wherein he sites the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras and Christ.
“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? . . . What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? . . . What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? . . . . But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teachings of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good, he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teachings which He had given.” (Ibid, 85)

Justin Martyr, in C.E. 150 refers Emperor Antoninus Pilus to Pilate’s report about Jesus’ crucifixion, which was in the imperial archives.

Imperial records found in the library at Constantinoble confirm the census to be taken in Bethlehem, as well the report from Pilate about the trial and crucifixion of Yesua. Roman records also show Herod’s letter to the Roman Emperor, explaining his conduct on the Massacre at Bethlehem, which has been made public in The Archiko Volume.

Speaking as one who studies history, there is no creditably historian who doubts the existence of Jesus, just as there are none who question the existence of Buddha (Sidhartha), Plato or Confusious. The question is whether Jesus really was who he claimed to be; the Son of God.