First of all, I hope I don't offend anyone, seeing it is insanely easy to "offend" people these days.
Second, I'm an atheist myself, but I have respect for religious people, except for the fundamental nutcases who'd probably like to set me on fire because I believe in evolution.

And come to think of it I'm not too fond of the concept of organized religion either. Anyway, not the point.

It's all about this image; (note: it aren't really public opinions when you think about it; most self respecting Christians these days realize that the Bible is nothing more than a book filled with parables etc.)



Fact is: the "why?" question really got me wondering.

There is a possibility that a lot of stuff in the Bible is true, just like there's a possibility that all or a lot of Greek myths are true.

Still everybody accepts that the Greek myths are nothing more than myths, because let's face it, what are the odds of them being true? So why do so many people still think that the Bible is entirely non-fictional?

I think it's the actions of the allegedly religous people in the interim period between the creation of the religion and the current day that makes people extremely sceptical. The Crusades didn't do a lot to promote Christians as good people. The Catholic church we all know have hardly been beacons of joy and promoted good faith to all men (and boys!). And the jews have not really covered themselves in glory either and neither have the muslims! There are arguments to say that if you choose to follow and promote any of those religions in the current day that you are in some way excusing events of the past that have led to many of the problems in the modern world.


There is a lot of evidence to support much of the bible, "the valley of the shadow of death" sounds like a made up biblical place but is actually a part of Jerusalem where there is a totally shaded valley in which nothing can grow due to the lack of sunlight. You can go and visit it today if you like, but that doesn't mean that any of the teachings in the bible were necessarily true!

In Hindusim their God's are clearly mythical, Shiva, Brahma, Ganesha etc. are not humans and their actual existence to followers of the religion is entirely inconsequential. Try telling a Hindu that a half man half elephant with 12 arms couldn't possibly have existed and they'll just laugh at you and tell you that it makes no difference to them. The basic principles of Hinduism and the ways in which they bring those teachings across are far more appealing to me than the guilt ridden fables of the Old and New Testament or the Qur'an though!

I just remember having seen some documentaries a while ago that said otherwise. I'm not too fussed in either direction, its his legacy thats the interesting bit.


Fair point, but the same could be argued for virtually anything human kind has put any stock in. Religion is certainly not any worse or better than money/greed when it comes to causing wars and general oppression of the masses.

You don't have much choice other than to believe in money though, you CHOOSE to follow a religion and usually whilst simultaneously believing in money. Money is only a uniform currency for any type of trade anyway, if we still swapped everything life would be extremely complicated. And there are those that don't believe in money I suppose, or those that just don't have any and therefore believe in that!

Scientific progress has brought us fossil fuels and the engine and the ability to fly, how many current and future wars will be fought over oil do you think???

What I mean is, that there are a great many wars that have been fought for nationalistic, self serving reasons. In most cases the religious reasons stated are generally just covers for battles over resources and land. Not just for survival purposes but also for greed. As for money being an inescapable fact where as religion is a choice, you can hardly argue that the general populace of yesteryear that were fighting the wars for the sake of 'religion'.. the grunts on the ground.. could opt out of a war because they decided to change faith.

This is a really good web-site that I check out periodically, they also have a channel on YouTube called "The Athiest Experience" which are videos of their cable access call in show. It's truly worth looking at:

atheist-community.org

atheist-experience.com

I'm fairly sure he existed as a human being, like Bob Swallows of Scunthorpe does, but he wasn't this laser beam shooting cowboy from out of space. Just like Bob Swallows didn't meet Bowie and take him for tea.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among 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." These historical writings predated the Old Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D

dmc.members.sonic.net

EMMYM, really, really interesting you mentioned Flavius Josephus! I was reading about him recently when I was doing some internt searching on the same subject as the post I'd made above about historians etc not recording Jesus' events / activities at the time. I'll try and find some information but the two references to Jesus were (if my memory serves me right) actually written into his text at a later date by a member of the Catholic curch. As they had the volumes in question, or something to that effect. I'll try and find some info and post it back here. Hopefully from a reliable source. I was going to write in my reply about people like Flavius Josephus who are used by apologists as evidence but it would have been very long winded so I just went with the main thrust of my post.

I'll post back in a bit with what I read if I can find it again matey.

Here's a quick one:

"Canon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: "The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious" (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46). The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the "Encyclopedia Britannica": "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." "There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious -- one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain." (Ibid) The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: "Flavius Josephus, the well known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A. D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his "Jewish Antiquities" that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand." (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27) This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen."

However . . . . From the apologist side also:

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America's ablest Christian apologists, says: "Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious" (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

Also, sorry to bang on but I have an issue with this sentence "These historical writings predated the Old Testament" that would mean it was written BEFORE the existence of Jesus Christ and would therefore be prophecy and not an account from a living person at the time. Also Jesus / gospels is for the New Testament. There were passages of prophecy in the Old Testament prophesying the arrival of a messiah but since the bible has been copied so many times and so many versions of it exist it these prophecies could have easily been retro-fitted to appear prophetic and thus true.

No.

Our first step into science was cave men making fire.

Religion persucted science as being the worship of evil for thousands of years.

Bang on as much as you like, I have no real emotional investment in my ideas stated above. I definitely haven't done the research that you have, just formed them from information I gathered along the way. And from the modern God, Google.

I do find it all very interesting but honestly, I wasn't there, I didn't see it, I have no idea what happened really and whoever says they saw me do it is lying. And not having any religious motivation, I haven't got a strong opinion either way. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but ultimately it's probably something I won't give much thought to outside of this forum. Gossip is fun, no one really knows what happened, but isn't it fun to speculate?

Do continue, I'm sorry I don't have anything to offer as a rebuttal.

Yeah, but what if He was one of us? Just a stranger on a bus, trying to make his way home?

Eric you are wrong I am afraid, I would suggest that you are confusing your science and religion. Religion that persecuted science was much later, in the dark ages, before then, way back when religion was just a nucleus, when science did not exist, when religion didn't even exist, the stories explaining phenomena that I wrote about above were mans first forays into science, they were trying to explain and interpret the world around them, these explanations then became religion as we know it.

Just for the record:

“Science is study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws”

That’s a dictionary definition, but I think it expresses well how my point fits into the realm of science.

I am in the same boat, I find it very, very interesting and would love to know the "truth" but I know I never will!

Good point. Greeks, Mayans et cetera would have used religion as a science.

But you are wrong in thinking that religion was the first point of science for man kind.

It was the creation of fire. Simple fact.

Or doing cartwheels and playing SkeeBall looking like Alanis Morrisette or however you spell her name.

Science is the attempt at understanding the world we live in. Do you think there was no effort made to do this before the invention of fire? I would think that there were things such as Thunder Gods that lit fire to forests and Sea Demons that washed away half the world on a whim well before people learned to make fires.

Basic language would have been developing for thousands of years before we got to that stage I bet people were telling stories before they were lighting fires.

People were pointing at the skies and wondering what mystical creature created all the fuss up there and wondered who held those littel bright things in place looooong before they understood the creation of fire.