First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
The Norse Gods is the right religion, Christianity is Dead Wrong!
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 11/2/08 , edited 11/2/08






to be honest, the norse stories are more like historical documents than the new testament is. the norse eddas are historical the way the old testament is historical: diluted, and filled with magical tales. a fair part of the norse eddas are histories of the gods, their migration from the south into scandinavia, warring with and then intermarrying with the indiginous population, and their demi-god descendants becoming the royalty of every ancient germanic kingdom, including the swedes, the franks, the burgundians, saxons, and others. it spends a great deal of time discussing heritage, fathers, sons, wives, etc., whose continuing bloodlines are lost to history.

the new testament has a very narrow focus, a biography, focusing on one man and people's accounts of him. the eddas have a very broad focus, like a history book, focusing on the actions of dozens of gods, their descendants, and even their descendants.

i admit, if truth were defined by the depth of the story, then the new testament would win. but is that what defines truth? just because the new testament has four authors describing the same story, it makes it better? true? i think not. whether jesus could perform miracles, or odin could foretell the future, matters little. to me, they are only the stories of a prophetic teacher, and a wise king, and all else was exaggerated or made up to mystify them.
722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / canada
Offline
Posted 11/3/08
meh like many other athiests and agnostics i would be like ok you are god if i cant kill you and basically you can destroy anything, but then again if u read norse myths u would know about ragnarock... o btw the title of the thread is misleading; thought u had some evidence to saying taht the norse wer right and judeo-christian religions were rong.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/3/08

realdry wrote:

meh like many other athiests and agnostics i would be like ok you are god if i cant kill you and basically you can destroy anything, but then again if u read norse myths u would know about ragnarock... o btw the title of the thread is misleading; thought u had some evidence to saying taht the norse wer right and judeo-christian religions were rong.


No I did not make this thread really to attack peoples religions, only to see how open minded they are. Most shown them selfs to be pritty closed minded.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/3/08 , edited 11/3/08

MEMPHADON wrote:
to be honest, the norse stories are more like historical documents than the new testament is. the norse eddas are historical the way the old testament is historical: diluted, and filled with magical tales. a fair part of the norse eddas are histories of the gods, their migration from the south into scandinavia, warring with and then intermarrying with the indiginous population, and their demi-god descendants becoming the royalty of every ancient germanic kingdom, including the swedes, the franks, the burgundians, saxons, and others. it spends a great deal of time discussing heritage, fathers, sons, wives, etc., whose continuing bloodlines are lost to history.

the new testament has a very narrow focus, a biography, focusing on one man and people's accounts of him. the eddas have a very broad focus, like a history book, focusing on the actions of dozens of gods, their descendants, and even their descendants.

i admit, if truth were defined by the depth of the story, then the new testament would win. but is that what defines truth? just because the new testament has four authors describing the same story, it makes it better? true? i think not. whether jesus could perform miracles, or odin could foretell the future, matters little. to me, they are only the stories of a prophetic teacher, and a wise king, and all else was exaggerated or made up to mystify them.


I think you’re misunderstanding. Not every document we find that tells a ‘historical,’ story becomes a document from which we derive actual history. (Besides, this is just a cultural clash. The Norse collected history in sagas, where as people in the middle-east collected it from the stories of specific people.) Hesiod's Theogony is a good example. Although the account educates us in what the Greeks believe, we do not call upon it like other historical documents as a source of real events. We do not believe that Zeus cut off his fathers members with a cycle of flint, or that his fathers semen leaked into the ocean and erupted into an insanely beautiful super-whore. (Aphrodite, who is incidentally, my second favorite deity of Greek Mythology. The first being Athena.)

Hesiod’s Theogony isn’t a historical document. It’s a mythological document. It’s a historical item, but not an item from which we draw real history.

The New Testament is ‘narrow,’ in that is discusses one man and one man’s lifetime. However, you’ll find that -most- reliable sources for real history do just that thing. Some limit themselves even more, to a single event.

A baker events a bread-spreading table with a compartment on the bottom that allows his son to get inside the table and steal tiny pieces of bread.

A baby is mauled by a savage pig.

A man trips and impales himself on his own spear.

These historical ‘facts,’ are stories told by -one- source. They’re legal documents from medieval settlements.

We accept these without questioning them because there’s nothing within them that we find particularly controversial. The reason we question the bible, however, is because we’re bred into the preconceived theological belief that miracles don’t exist and do not happen. Which isn’t necessarily wrong-it just shows that our historians aren’t being entirely secular, clinical, and impersonal in their accounts.

You see, if you believe in miracles than the story of the NT becomes incredibly easy to believe.

On your ending note, I have some questions:

Do you believe that Jesus Christ existed as a real man, that he walked the earth?

Do you believe he did great things but that these things were exaggerated by his followers. (Perhaps to romanticize his death,)

Do you believe that he really taught publicly? That he had a following of students?

Do you think he was brilliant?
Do you believe that he was a good person, at least so far as his merit could allow him?

Well, assuming you accept these things then you’re a ‘modern’ humanistic Christologists, and I have some more things I’d love to discuss with you via PM.



2037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Vault 15, New Cal...
Offline
Posted 11/3/08 , edited 4/20/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Judging how people have been posting!
I don't think you get the idea behind the thread. I was asking what would it take for you to believe in the Norse.

What would it take?
What did it take to believe in your religion?



Try changing the topic title. Guess that should work.

Quoting time.


SeraphAlford wrote:
Do you believe that Jesus Christ existed as a real man, that he walked the earth?

Yes. Jewish and highly reliable Roman historians took account of it, most notably Flavius Josephus in a brief passage.


Do you believe he did great things but that these things were exaggerated by his followers. (Perhaps to romanticize his death,)

Yes, I do believe he did great things which are unfortunately left unexaggerated by his followers. New Testament accounts are written by eyewitnesses decades after his death. In fact, none of them would be willing enough to die for something they know as a Roman era fanfic they wrote themselves. With the writing style from Matthew to Revelations, I doubt romanticism even barely existed by then. However, I'd appreciate examples of such written during 33-95 AD.


Do you believe that he really taught publicly? That he had a following of students?

Yes. Ever noticed Christianity?


Do you think he was brilliant?

Yes. He won't attract so many literally die-hard followers if he isn't.


Do you believe that he was a good person, at least so far as his merit could allow him?

Yes, I certainly do believe he is a good person, extremely holy if you suppose. My apologies for being biased but as far as I knew it, he is faultless. You may ignore this paragraph if it suits you best.

That's the little thing I know.


18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/3/08 , edited 11/3/08

steiner_hardy wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Judging how people have been posting!
I don't think you get the idea behind the thread. I was asking what would it take for you to believe in the Norse.

What would it take?
What did it take to believe in your religion?



Try changing the topic title. Guess that should work.

Quoting time.


SeraphAlford wrote:
Do you believe that Jesus Christ existed as a real man, that he walked the earth?

Yes. Jewish historians took account of it, most notably Flavius Josephus in a brief passage.”


Where does the mistaken idea come from that Jesus died in 30 AD. ... If John the Baptist died in 35 AD, then Jesus must have died in 36 AD. ... But Flavius Josephus AD 37 to AD 100.
Flavius never did speak about Jesus or his life as a prisoner of war. That is where your mistaken Flavius Josephus Brief Passage was found to be a fake, placed there by someone more than 1000 years after his death.

5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 11/3/08

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

No I did not make this thread really to attack peoples religions, only to see how open minded they are. Most shown them selfs to be pritty closed minded.


So believing in Norse gods (which someone else explained that it doesn't make sense because the stories contradict each other, and according to the stories all the Norse gods are nailed to a mythical tree somewhere) would show that someone is open minded?
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 11/3/08



i understand what you are trying to say, and for the most part i think you are correct. hesiod's theogony is a narrative of the origins of the cosmos; the poetic edda is very similar. but, comparable to the Old Testament, i believe the prose edda tells an extremely diluted history of the indo european immigrants, just how the Old Testament tells an extremely diluted history of the jews. i believe that the eddas, especially the prose edda, are a history of pre-history indo europeans, whose characters have been mystified through exaggerations of their deeds, or entirely made up. i do believe that their descendants set up the original royal houses of sweden, norway, denmark, saxony, westphalia, and the franks, seeing as how they were all germanic, possibly descended from the original indo-european tribe, and for all i know, their bloodlines may exist today. but as for giants, fenris, jormundangr, trolls, elves, dwarves, hammers that shoot lightning, belts that give increase your strength, shapeshifting, and whatever else.....there is no evidence they (except the dwarves ) existed.

as for your questions:
i don't know if jesus existed as a real man, as the evidence confuses the hell out of me. people claim jesus didn't exist because there is a lack of evidence, while the only evidence people have in support of his existence is the bible, along with a few historians, some of whose accounts were found to be fake

i don't think he performed miracles, i think he was just a teacher who was deemed holy by his followers, and who believed he could perform miracles. i think a good modern comparison would be miraji, a prominent teacher who has quite a large following.

i don't think he was brilliant, i think he was overly idealistic

sure, i think he was a good guy
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/3/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

No I did not make this thread really to attack peoples religions, only to see how open minded they are. Most shown them selfs to be pritty closed minded.


So believing in Norse gods (which someone else explained that it doesn't make sense because the stories contradict each other, and according to the stories all the Norse gods are nailed to a mythical tree somewhere) would show that someone is open minded?



No less than The Bible.
Talking bushes, talking snakes, unicorns!. 6 headed demons spewing fire, or was it 9 headed.

18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/3/08 , edited 11/3/08

MEMPHADON wrote:




i understand what you are trying to say, and for the most part i think you are correct. hesiod's theogony is a narrative of the origins of the cosmos; the poetic edda is very similar. but, comparable to the Old Testament, i believe the prose edda tells an extremely diluted history of the indo european immigrants, just how the Old Testament tells an extremely diluted history of the jews. i believe that the eddas, especially the prose edda, are a history of pre-history indo europeans, whose characters have been mystified through exaggerations of their deeds, or entirely made up. i do believe that their descendants set up the original royal houses of sweden, norway, denmark, saxony, westphalia, and the franks, seeing as how they were all germanic, possibly descended from the original indo-european tribe, and for all i know, their bloodlines may exist today. but as for giants, fenris, jormundangr, trolls, elves, dwarves, hammers that shoot lightning, belts that give increase your strength, shapeshifting, and whatever else.....there is no evidence they (except the dwarves ) existed.



Talking bushes, talking snakes, unicorns!. 6 headed demons spewing fire, or was it 9 headed, fairies, Angles, Giants, Walking stick turns into a snake, plus a lot more found in the bible.


On another note did you know at one time there was many types of humanoids living on earth other than are Ancestors.



Homo- habilis is now extinct, but he inhabited parts of sub-Saharan Africa about 2 million to 1.5 million years ago. Homo-habilis is generally accepted as the earliest member of the genus Homo. He is following Australopithecus and preceding Homo-erectus. He was given the name Homo habilis, meaning 'handy man', because he made tools. We think that he was the first creature to make tools for specific purposes. Like if he needed a sharp edge to cut meat, he would strike two pieces of flint against each other, and the pieces that broke away would usually have a sharp edge, instant Knife.




Next we have Homo-erectus, he seems to have been restricted to the African tropics for the first several hundred thousand years of his existence, but eventually, By about 500,000 years ago, he began to gradually migrate into Asia and parts of Europe. Homo erectus or 'upright man', was the first creature to stand fully upright. He was probably also the first to use fire. We think that Homo erectus built campfires and may have made simple ovens with hot stones.

Homo-erectus appears to have ranged widely over the Earth. Erectus fossils were first found at Trinil on the island of Java; other finds were near Peking in China, at Ternifine in Algeria, and at Olduvai Gorge and Koobi Fora in eastern Africa. In northwestern Africa at Salé, Sidi 'Abd ar-Rahman, and Rabat, all in Morocco. Specimens from Europe were discovered at Bilzingsleben and Mauer (both in Germany), and Petralona (Greece).

There are other fossils, that seem to represent subspecies of Homo-sapiens (the next in line) dating from the late Middle or early Late Pleistocene, and these are found in Africa at Kabwe (Broken Hill), Elandsfontein - the Cave of Hearths, Lake Ndutu, Omo, and Bodo, and in Europe at Swanscombe, Steinheim, Biache, Ehringsdorf, La Chaise, and Vértesszollos. It is among these that the line of distinction between Homo-erectus and Homo-sapiens becomes dim, for it seems that these are the creatures that represent the gradual progression from Homo-erectus to Homo-sapien.

Note: It should be understood, that no Humanoid existed on the Earth "Exclusively". When a child is born, the parents do not automatically die. As Humanoids produced new species, either through crossbreeding or evolution, the original species remained, until they became extinct through further crossbreeding, their inability to compete for food and/or mates, and perhaps even physical conflict.
Note: Pleistocene: means the “Great Ice Age.” which began about 1,600,000 years ago and ended roughly 10,000 years ago.




Now lets look at Neanderthal, he was an early form of Homo-sapien that inhabited much of Europe and the Mediterranean lands during the late Pleistocene Epoch, (about 100,000 to 30,000 years ago). Neanderthal remains have also been found in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia.

The name Neanderthal, derives from the discovery in 1856 of the remains of this Humanoid in a cave above the Neander Valley in Germany, not far from Düsseldorf. The origins of Neanderthals cannot be established with any certainty. The forerunners of Neanderthal humanoids may date to some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Some skull fragments found in France are of that age, but they have characteristics more like modern Homo sapiens than like the earlier Homo-erectus who, chronologically, should be Neanderthal's forerunner. And so it may be, that this is where we see the first evidence of modern man, {modern man first shows up at about 400,000 years ago}, cross-breeding with Humanoids. These creatures are undoubtedly the beginnings of Cro-Magnon.

The last Glacial Ice stage in Europe was about 10,000 to 70,000 years ago, and it is from those times that the most numerous skeletal remains of Neanderthals have been found. These have given us some idea of Neanderthals body-type and habits. Neanderthals were short, stout, and powerful in build. Cranial capacity equaled or surpassed that of modern humans, though their braincases were long, low, and wide and flattened behind. Their faces had heavy brow ridges, large teeth, and small cheekbones. The chest was broad, and the limbs were heavy, with large feet and hands. The Neanderthals appear to have walked in a more irregular, side-to-side fashion than do modern humans.

Neanderthals were the first human group to survive in northern latitudes during the cold (glacial) phases of the Pleistocene. They had domesticated fire, as indicated by concentrations of charcoal and reddened earth in their sites. Yet, their hearths were simple and shallow and must have cooled off quickly, giving little warmth throughout the night. Not surprisingly, they exhibit anatomic adaptations to cold, especially in Europe, such as large body cores and relatively short limbs, which maximize heat production and minimize heat loss. The evidence of Neanderthal’s body adaptations to cold weather also makes it safe to assume that there was also a change in skin color from dark, with lots of melanin, to a lighter tone with less melanin. [Note: It was previously believed that Neanderthal's loss of melanin was extreme, to the point of Caucasoid. Current science indicates that was not the case.]

(aka.. They could have passed as well built Dwarves. And they love the cold whats that tell you!)



'Evin a Hobbit like race living around china.'


10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/3/08 , edited 11/3/08


On the Norse stuff:


Why shouldn’t we accept the bible as a source? (For now let’s limit yourself to analyzing the NT because it’s more relevant.)






Okay, taking from your post your views of Jesus are essentially those of Modern Humanistic Christology. You think that he was a good guy. You believe he was a good teacher. You don’t believe he was divine with miraculous powers. However, I’m afraid this is a logical impossibility. Jesus Christ could not have been -just- a good guy.

Aut Deus Aut Homo Malus. Either God or a bad man. Jesus Christ was either mentally bad, insane and suffering the divinity complex, or morally bad by his own merits, mine, societies, and probably yours.

Look, let’s assume that Jesus Christ existed as the sources say he did. He was a man going around teaching who claimed divinity and was executed. He gathered large and loyal followings.

Now, as I said there are three possibilities here-working on the afore mentioned acceptance of historical fact.

1) Jesus Christ believed he was divine even though he wasn’t. In this case he was insane.
2) Jesus Christ knew he wasn’t divine but told people he was. He was a liar and a con.
3) He was telling the truth.

I’ve presented this a few times, but I’d like to pause and accredit most of the content of my post to Peter Kreeft. Moving on:

Was Jesus Christ insane?



Was he a liar?




Other Dodges:




"Between Heaven and Hell," by Peter Kreeft presents a better written, more informative, and further cited version of this.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 11/3/08



i had a whole long essay written out, weighing your points, providing a few counter arguments, but after reading it, i saw it made absolutley no sense and i can't be arsed into editing it right now so i'll just get to the point.

maybe jesus was divine, its possible. i believe in magic, and shamans are statistically proven to be more successful healers than western doctors, so i suppose its possible. but as for the son of god and him being the only way to heaven? HA! just because he's divine doesn't make him a god.

so i still must say:
Odin>>Jesus



13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 11/3/08

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I have a question for anyone that like to answer it. If Thor god of Thunder, and Odin his father, and Rey all came down and claimed that they are the true Gods! And the Christian God is not real.
What would it take for you to believe them?
Say they wipe out all the militarize powers on earth, would you then convert to Norse Paganism?


Types of Evidence
- Eyewitness testimony
- Is the eyewitness reliable? Biased?
- Supporting testimony
- Can you find a neutral party to confirm some part of the testimony ?
- Material evidence
- Any evidence that confirms what really happened?
- Self observation

This is really what is needed for any Atheist to be converted. In my opinion! See atheist are willing to believe if you can show real proof that it is true.
(this is just a friendly question.)



Judging how people have been posting!
I don't think you get the idea behind the thread. I was asking what would it take for you to believe in the Norse.

What would it take?
What did it take to believe in your religion?





if i asked Thor to heal my mother's cancer and raise up some of my loved ones from the dead, i'd have second thoughts. Show me something first
2037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Vault 15, New Cal...
Offline
Posted 11/4/08

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
Where does the mistaken idea come from that Jesus died in 30 AD. ... If John the Baptist died in 35 AD, then Jesus must have died in 36 AD. ... But Flavius Josephus AD 37 to AD 100.
Flavius never did speak about Jesus or his life as a prisoner of war. That is where your mistaken Flavius Josephus Brief Passage was found to be a fake, placed there by someone more than 1000 years after his death.


I did not say he died at 30 AD. My estimate is around 33 actually. So I researched that passage, and found that the later translation made it a big fluke. I concede with that.

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/4/08 , edited 11/4/08

MEMPHADON wrote:
i had a whole long essay written out, weighing your points, providing a few counter arguments, but after reading it, i saw it made absolutley no sense and i can't be arsed into editing it right now so i'll just get to the point.

maybe jesus was divine, its possible. i believe in magic, and shamans are statistically proven to be more successful healers than western doctors, so i suppose its possible. but as for the son of god and him being the only way to heaven? HA! just because he's divine doesn't make him a god.

so i still must say:
Odin>>Jesus


Actually, by very definition being divine makes him a god-in this case, the god.

Still, if you understand Christianity it’s not too hard to find a counter argument. This being said, the counter argument is only effective from a religious standpoint. That is to say, logic be darned, religion isn’t about science and common sense.

By its core, Christianity is undeniably a mystic religion. Take, for example, the concept of our Holy Trinity. God is three and yet God is one. This seems to contradict basic mathematical laws of identity. Why does it seem that way? Because that’s exactly what it’s doing. Christianity is about personal experience, not organized religion or deism.

Aldous Huxley asserted that Jesus was divine in the since that we’re all divine. (Huxley is a follower of the Santana Dharma.) Jesus Christ wasn’t the son of God and the way to God. He was a guru.

That’s a counter argument-and it’s actually kind of difficult to attack this one from a logical standpoint. It’s also a direction I don’t like to go. I don’t like bickering between religion. I prefer to stand where religion faces the word, rather than battle behind the scenes. Anyway, this approach is discredited in “Between Heaven and Hell,” and I could explain it-if you desire.

So, there’s one final dodge. It’s a classic of mystics. “That’s not true simply because it’s not true.” Mystic believe based on personal sensation, so logic is null to sway their opinions. (Unless you’re a hybrid mystic like me. Half Deist/Half Mystic/All Christian. I can explain that too, if’n you like.)

But yeah, from a secular and logical point of view my afore mentioned argument personified in Aut Deus aut Homo Malus is inescapable.

Oh, one more note for all you logic hungry maniacs out there:

I love telling people this. Math is logically flawless, correct? Well, basic geometry tells us that we present the same face a second time every time we turn 360 degrees. Yet, mathematical measurements have also proven to us that an electron spins around 720 degrees before doing this. Crudely, if you were to draw a on an electron and then let it rotate…it’d spin around twice before the was looking at you again.

Physics...

P.S

There’s a hilarious seen in the manga, “Vineland Saga,” where a drunken priest and a group of barbarian Vikings get into an argument about whose God is greater.

http://www.onemanga.com/Vinland_Saga/

Anyway, based on the powers bestowed on Odin in Norse Myth and the powers bestowed on Jesus in Christian theology…

Jesus > Odin hands down. Odin was nailed to a tree, died, and never came back. Christ was nailed to a tree and came back with vengeance!


1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 11/4/08 , edited 11/4/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

The bible, specifically the New Testament, is written in a very unique style. It’s a collection of eye-witness accounts being retold. At many points the authors themselves seem completely lost, ambivalent, and unaware of what’s going on. You can see that they’re limited in their ability to communicate the events that happened.

Peter Kreeft had the best example. There’s a story in the bible where a group of people drag a whore out into the streets to stone her. Jesus shows up and people crowd around to see what he has to say. Jesus says, “He who is without sin cast the first stone,” and begins to write in the sand. We’ve all heard this story.

What’s interesting about it is that the authors -don’t- know what he wrote. Supposedly there were large crowds. It wouldn’t have been likely that the author would’ve been able to see what was written in the sand-you know? Should it have been written by Homer or Muhammad or one of the Norse authors they would’ve explained what was written. Although the bible talks about this event many times nobody tries to claim they know what happened.

Essentially the New Testament is a historical document. It doesn’t necessarily show that Jesus was divine but it is solid evidence that people honestly believed he was divine. The N.T is a collection of eye-witness accounts.


Your arguments in favor of the historical integrity of the New Testament can also be used to question it.

1.) If the authors seem lost, ambivalent, and unaware, it may reflect a higher level of realism than is present in other mythologies and a hesitancy to make unfounded claims... or it may suggest that they are not reliable sources for anything they saw. It also seems to me that the people most devoted to Jesus would be the people most prone to exaggeration and mystification (especially given that the records were, I believe, written long after his death, providing ample time for them to develop their own interpretations of events and fall into religious superstition), though you might argue that they were most devoted to Jesus precisely because the events they witnessed could only be explained in this way.

2.) You say the fact that the authors do not know what Jesus wrote in the sand, likely due to large crowds, adds to the realism. I say: 1.) enough people in such a crowd would know what was written to communicate it to others, and 2.) if the fact that Jesus wrote something in the sand that could not be remembered was important enough to record at all, surely the recorder would have taken an interest in it and examined it upon the crowd's dispersal or later asked Jesus what he wrote.

3.) My knowledge of Biblical history is, I admit, quite limited, but isn't it quite the assumption that the New Testament is a collection of eye-witness accounts? Why could it not simply be the written account of popular accounts and rumors? If the crowds were large enough (as they are often said to be when Jesus performs his "miracles"), surely the stories would circulate and someone would wish to record them. And you know what happens when rumors start. The same criticism could be leveled at many historical texts, but we must keep in mind that these in particular suggest mystical powers that have not been re-created and witnessed. I suppose you could argue that they may have been, that the scientific community generally dismisses any such claims by default, but then that would undermine the "special nature" of Jesus. After all, if Joe the Plumber also fed thousands of people with a loaf of bread and a fish, who's to say that he's not our savior or that both he and Jesus are demons? Unfortunately, it's a catch-22.

4.) Lastly, I read again and again that there are few to no secular accounts of these events. But--not to sound snide--maybe everyone became devoutly Christian after witnessing them, hmm?

As a response to the original post: at this point, I have no idea what it would take for me to accept a god or religion. It's quite a big deal to accept absolutes, duties, certainty, etc, so God might have to expose me to incredible suffering to show me its power so I could accept it. On the other hand, any subsequent adherence to religion would be based on a fear of suffering rather than an actual desire to be true to God, and this is considered "illegitimate faith," if you will, by many.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.