Meh, maybe I'm just obstinent on this one..but it's difficult for me to imagine a scenario where a person slams a door behind them...says to me "there's a fucking werewolf in there, we've gotta run!" - really believes it........and then just -lets- me open the door because I dared to smile and say "I don't believe you". No effort made, whatsoever.

-and I'm not just being an optimist here, study after study show us that that really isn't the way that people behave with each other in the sorts of situations where we perceive ourselves or others to be in even -minor- danger. The chances of our resident liar for christ being one of the vanishingly few aberrations of humanity that would behave like this beggars belief almost as much as his stories about monkeymen.

(May 12, 2016 at 3:37 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 12, 2016 at 3:04 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: How typical of a preacher to threaten violence.  No, you said that there were no "texts".  (Literal quote: "surviving documents") There are a LOT of surviving documents that describe religions thousands of years earlier than xtianity.  Just because a hieroglyph isn't passed around today in book form as an Egyptian "bible" does not mean that it was not a "text", and it does not mean that the stories it contained were not "sacred" to the people who wrote them.

Okay, just remember I gave you a chance:

Quote:I completely understand the argument. However there is a problem with it. The "text" that have been proven older than the bible do not lend themselves to the bible stories as promised. The texts that do, have no surviving manuscripts older than the bible. Meaning even IF that particular religion is older the writings of it could have been taken from the bible, not the other way around.

---

from post 195

Do you understand???

I am Saying That those who are older than Christianity do not lend themselves to the biblical narrative. Meaning their stories and the Gospel are not similar.

Again I am not saying their are older text. I am saying those that are can't be used as examples of "religious borrowing" The examples people use are either inaccurate or are from religions who's religious text post date the bible even if the religion itself has been known to exist before Christianity.

Even with our 'vast knoweledge' of the Greek pantheon of gods our earliest complete work is from the 15th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliothec...lodorus%29

As far as the Egyptians are concerned even less is known. Yes we have papyrus, tomb paintings, and various scraps and pieces of stories from one place or another, but in truth that's all we have. scraps. bits and pieces we have cobbled together from what is left of that society. In truth we don't even know what we don't know. as their is not one example or even anything close to a narrative that ties everything together. we just have what we currently think. Fact of the matter is the new kingdom/the reign of the Ramses deleted anything that was not of their system of belief.

Kind like someone trying to piece together what an ISIS held city believed 4000 years after they destroyed defaced and looted everything. We are currently cobbling together everything from the three dynasties into one big giant all encompassing narrative when infact some believe that everything attributed to the Egyptians could be from another unknown society all together. while the Egyptians reused and painted over what was left behind.

---

Your knowledge of archaeology, historical manuscripts, and ancient Egypt is stunningly underwhelming.  You must be taking it from xtian apologetics websites or xtian radio preachers or . . . wikipedia, thinking that "earliest complete work" proves something.  If you're insisting upon some "complete" bible, then you need to throw your King James version in the trash.  
    I've read some of those apologetics websites, where they crap their pants and deconstruct language trying to disprove that the Osiris myth, for example, influenced xtianity.  It's hilarious and sad at the same time - the complete lack of scholarship or intellectual integrity displayed by these people who are desperate to prove that their fantasies are true.
   The "dying and rising god" theme was prevalent in many cultures in the Middle East long before a ragtag contentious group split off from Canaanite tribes.  It's terribly easy to prove - - and to do so by the remaining writings, some from thousands of years before Jeebus.  And the stories are extremely similar - - more importantly, the concept is similar.  People trying to disprove them nitpick at the details - - they seem to think they can prove the forest doesn't exist because all of the trees aren't the same type.
  "In the ancient world there was a very widespread belief in the sufferings and deaths of gods as being beneficial to man. Adonis, Attis, Dionysos, Herakles, Mithra, Osiris, and other deities, were all saviour-gods whose deaths were regarded as sacrifices made on behalf of mankind; and it is to be noticed that in almost every case there is clear evidence that the god sacrificed himself to himself."

Sir Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity

(May 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm)Drich Wrote:

(May 12, 2016 at 2:09 pm)Losty Wrote: I don't know...it's hard to say.

I suppose some sort of scientific evidence.

Also if all the people of the earth had believed all throughout history that, though it doesn't actually prove anything probably would have convinced me.

Well if you want to look at the world through the History of belief or 'religion.' then know a religion typically dies one or two generations after the support structure abandons it. For instance once egypt fell after the new kingdom with in 100 years all the visible tombs monuments dedicated to their system of belief were looted and defaced. Meaning once their gods/government who protected their gods died so too did belief in them. This phenomena happens repeatedly throughout history.

Now what's left are philosophy based beliefs that can only die if the philosophy dies, and religions that are still being supported by something or someone.

Despite what most of you think. People are not all stupid. Not to the tune of the billions who believe. there is a support structure to all systems of belief, that HAS to conform to the teachings of the religion. for philosphy based religions this support can be any philosophical principle that is widely accepted and this system will continue on fueling itself. However for deity based religions this 'religious fuel' is harder to manifest. Meaning it is far harder to keep people interested if your God is based on full filling certain things. Unless... That God distances himself from the people at mandates strict rules and swift punishment, then empowers believers to carry out said punishments. then so long as people wish to control others, this type of religion is fueled.

However, if a religion promises direct interaction with it's central deity without an intermediary then without support from said deity, this religion would fail quickly. especially when it tells us we will be made to endure hardship and trials.. There has to be something greater than just sheer hope for a religion like this to last a single generation much less thousands of years.

The point is/was made when I brought up doubting Thomas. Meaning God will do whatever needs to be done for us to establish and maintain our Belief. Yes He commends who can do everything on faith, but at the same time He was there for Thomas who couldn't just poop the faith he needed.

I am a doubting thomas, like I think most of you are. That is why i am here. I do not get faith or people who have an endless supply of it. I am more like the jews wandering in the desert who witnessed all kinds of miricles and yet find myself doubting something every other day. thankfully God is faithful so long as I remain faithful to what he has given me.

(May 12, 2016 at 4:28 pm)Losty Wrote:

(May 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm)Drich Wrote: Well if you want to look at the world through the History of belief or 'religion.' then know a religion typically dies one or two generations after the support structure abandons it. For instance once egypt fell after the new kingdom with in 100 years all the visible tombs monuments dedicated to their system of belief were looted and defaced. Meaning once their gods/government who protected their gods died so too did belief in them. This phenomena happens repeatedly throughout history.

Now what's left are philosophy based beliefs that can only die if the philosophy dies, and religions that are still being supported by something or someone.

Despite what most of you think. People are not all stupid. Not to the tune of the billions who believe. there is a support structure to all systems of belief, that HAS to conform to the teachings of the religion. for philosphy based religions this support can be any philosophical principle that is widely accepted and this system will continue on fueling itself. However for deity based religions this 'religious fuel' is harder to manifest. Meaning it is far harder to keep people interested if your God is based on full filling certain things. Unless... That God distances himself from the people at mandates strict rules and swift punishment, then empowers believers to carry out said punishments. then so long as people wish to control others, this type of religion is fueled.

However, if a religion promises direct interaction with it's central deity without an intermediary then without support from said deity, this religion would fail quickly. especially when it tells us we will be made to endure hardship and trials.. There has to be something greater than just sheer hope for a religion like this to last a single generation much less thousands of years.

The point is/was made when I brought up doubting Thomas. Meaning God will do whatever needs to be done for us to establish and maintain our Belief. Yes He commends who can do everything on faith, but at the same time He was there for Thomas who couldn't just poop the faith he needed.

I am a doubting thomas, like I think most of you are. That is why i am here. I do not get faith or people who have an endless supply of it. I am more like the jews wandering in the desert who witnessed all kinds of miricles and yet find myself doubting something every other day. thankfully God is faithful so long as I remain faithful to what he has given me.

I actually thought that was quite a good post tbh   Cue tomatoes thrown at me from all directions 

ITOAIIJFTPOGYTRIPIATTTPTIIARPAOACBAYRAOI

(I Typed One Acronym I Invented Just For The Purpose Of Getting You To Read It Plus I also Then Typed This Part That It Is Also Referencing Plus An Opening And Closing Bracket And You Read All Of It)

I won't throw tomatoes, but I will remind you that either his ASK nonsense is bullshit or that post is bullshit, and even -he- can't believe both simultaneously.  We're told..in that post, that god will do -whatever- needs to be done to establish or maintain belief...but just a few breaths ago (and for a year or two now) he's been telling us there's only -one- way that god is going to respond..that he's not willing to do whatever...he's only willing to respond to ASKing.

His theology is a hot mess...and his posts exists as a record of that.

(May 12, 2016 at 9:37 am)Drich Wrote:

(May 9, 2016 at 12:20 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

---

There's no indication that any supernatural God actually exists outside of the assertions of others, as far as I can tell. I've never seen him. Never heard him. At no point in my life have I knowingly witnessed any supernatural or miraculous occurrences of any kind, whatsoever. Those who claim to have experienced these seemingly impossible things are unable to provide proof of such. 

Until one of those things changes, all I'm left with is an ever-growing pile of words, words, and more words.
To date, I'm simply UNABLE to believe such a monumentally fantastic claim based on words; despite having a desire to believe in something more.

---

What if what needs to change is your understanding of God?

What if He is not limited to the realm of the "Supernatural?" God is the creator of the NATURAL world, WHY would He create something He could only "move/act" supernaturally in?

I don't imagine that an omnipotent God would, Drich.  

Why would or should the actions of a God who moves in the natural world, be indistinguishable from the ordinary/mundane?

(May 12, 2016 at 4:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, maybe I'm just obstinent on this one..but it's difficult for me to imagine a scenario where a person slams a door behind them...says to me "there's a fucking werewolf in there, we've gotta run!" - really believes it........and then just -lets- me open the door because I dared to smile and say "I don't believe you".  No effort made, whatsoever.

-and I'm not just being an optimist here, study after study show us that that really isn't the way that people behave with each other in the sorts of situations where we perceive ourselves or others to be in even -minor- danger.  The chances of our resident liar for christ being one of the vanishingly few aberrations of humanity that would behave like this beggars belief almost as much as his stories about monkeymen.

I've thought that same thing. My mother is a devout Christian and she knows exactly where I stand when it comes to ideas of that sort, but I remember she came to visit a few years back and the subject came up. I asked her what she thought heaven would be like, and she painted me a euphoric picture of bliss. I said that was weird that she was able to picture being in heaven and enjoying herself there...she asked why? I said "because I won't be there, and you'd know why...and IF you WERE in heaven and I wasn't-then you'd know where I was instead...and for an eternity, you'd feel entirely blissful knowing that I was simultaneously being tortured in some alternative other realm?...I don't think I'd be able consider that state of mind to be paradise...an eternity of knowing my son was in agony somewhere praying for death...(awkward silence) -Lets have a drink!

How can anyone hold such conflicting views without the slightest hint of dissonance?...Unless, they really don't believe one of them...

..We try to find other things to discuss.

Quote:Unless, they really don't believe one of them...

Ding ding ding, what we know of human nature suggests that people, for example, who perceive others to be in danger......... act as though people are in danger.

The amount of effort expended by -many- apologists betrays their claims to deep and faithful convictions.

(May 12, 2016 at 4:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I won't throw tomatoes, but I will remind you that either his ASK nonsense is bullshit or that post is bullshit, and even -he- can't believe both simultaneously.  We're told..in that post, that god will do -whatever- needs to be done to establish or maintain belief...but just a few breaths ago (and for a year or two now) he's been telling  us there's only -one- way that god is going to respond..that he's not willing to do whatever...he's only willing to respond to ASKing.

His theology is a hot mess...and his posts exists as a record of that.

Right, got yer. Well as I said I don't think ASK is anything more than the effects of bias and I see what you're saying about the contradiction... God is clearly not there for anyone who doesn't ASK. And imo, a perception of God is there, almost guaranteed for anyone who does ASK, but it's just a perception.