The problem with including people who believe nothing in particular is that the 'nothing in particular' they believe in often includes a vague sort of God or cosmic force. I call these people 'somethingists'. Their theological statement usually goes along the lines of 'I don't know what it is, but I believe in something greater than myself'. I think the 'nothing in particulars' may include a lot of somethingists. Apparently, somethingism is the majority religion of Iceland, according to polls.

As to the question of original sin and/or the sins of the father passing to the son. The answer is yes and no based upon the circumstance. The apparent condradiction has to do with the distinction between a "sinfull nature" and the "specific sins of a person" (in this case that person being a father). In the case of Deuteronomy 24:16 ("Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.") if a father were to commit murder his son should not be put to death for his fathers sin of murder, the son should only be put to death for his own sin. This differs from children inheriting a "sinful nature" from their father. For example Romans 5:12 ( Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned). Sinfull nature passes from father to children, punishment for specific sins do not. For further reading, http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genes...ers-or-not

(December 10, 2013 at 3:32 pm)I am God Wrote:

(December 10, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Its the dictionary. You can opine that the word should mean something different but unfortunately that's what it means. Take it up with the good people at miriam webster, i;m sure they'll take your view very seriously. Many words have meanings which are more than the sum of their parts. Agnostic for example means something quite different to the opposite of gnostic.

Are you suggesting that because it's in the dictionary that the definition is infallible? It was written by people. People can and do make errors. There are text books from 50 years ago that have information that is outdated and incorrect. As we become more educated it is important to update our sources of information. The dictionary is one that could use a little attention in places. There are certainly people who disbelieve in God. They have an active position that a God cannot or does not exist. But that's really more of an Anti-Theist... isn't it? However that is different than someone that simply rejects the notion of God based on a lack of evidence. The state of simply having no belief, which isn't, in and of itself, an act.

I personally feel the definition is antiquated. And reality sort of substantiates that. Much like the bible, saying "It's there so it must be true." doesn't really hold a lot of water.

I'm suggesting that because it's in the dictionary... That's what the definition is. It's not so much that's it's infallible, the dictionary is the tool we use to detect fallacy. It is, simply, what words mean.

I had this argument on a theist forum over the word "abortion". The dictionary says it means "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy," they wanted it to mean the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy as a form of birth control.

Dictionaries are updated. I sympathise that you think that the word should mean something different, but it doesn't.

If I decide that "jizz" Should mean a sort of yellowy green colour it does not make it so.

Quote:Evidence of what specifically?

That reasonably solid historical evidence from outside the bible that you mentioned.

Yes but evidence of WHAT? It's rather a big book. If you mean the evidence for the existence of Jesus that both the Roman tacticus and the Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus in their writings. That the religion got started about then is well evidenced, the edict of Milan, Constantine etc.

Is that what you were asking?

(December 7, 2013 at 5:54 am)Rayaan Wrote: Speaking of Biblical literacy, I think that Christians are especially hazy on the numerous 'Jesus is God' bits, which is the core and one of the most essential concepts for Christians to understand.

I think that issue is a good example of the difficulty in reaching a consensus on a book that is so open to interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and god (Jehovah) are two distinctly separate beings and that the Holy Spirit is not a person at all, but "god's active force." Which is one of those things that defies a clear definition, IMO. Still, they can provide a fair number of Biblical texts and build an explanation that seems quite convincing. The only problem they run into is any passage which speaks of Jesus and god 'being one' or a similar sentiment, which they simply wave off with "that's not really what he meant" or "that is a misunderstanding or mistranslation or misinterpretation" of scripture.

I often found that people who believed differently could provide a similarly convincing explanation (with corroborating texts) to support the idea that Jesus was god, and they could also dismiss a lot of seeming contrary evidence via the misunderstood, mistranslated, or misinterpreted claim. There simply is no way to determine with absolute certainty that one view or the other is the correct one, though the people who hold to one belief or the other insist that they are absolutely certain.

Tacitus...never mentioned anyone named "jesus." Assuming that the whole passage is not a much later forgery...which seems more likely... we know that the word in the only available manuscript was "Chrestianos" (Followers of Chrestus) rather than Christianos ( Followers of Christus) and that it was changed by some well-meaning monk.


The Josephus tale is a flat out 4th century forgery, doubtless by that noted liar, Eusebius. I hate to be the one to break this to you.

Tacitus' contemporaries, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius, heard of Christians....or Chrestians....it gets murky but neither of them ever heard of any "jesus."

In fact, as late as the 160's AD, Lucian of Samosata was poking fun at christians without mentioning any jesus. Curious, eh?

By the 180's Celsus had heard of him.

Jesus' biblical divinity is quite disputed, and those who put the bible together knew that, which is why for the final compilation they left out the books which portrayed Jesus as a mere human without divinity.

Well, this is the tricky thing with ancient writings of the focus of a religion. They could always be forgeries. Some scholars believe them to be bogus, others do not.

I'm not ancient scholar and neither are you. We can both reference to the beliefs of educated people on the subject, but that's all. We could go back and forth with "X says it's fake" and "y says not" but is the really any point?

Origen, writing 75 years prior to Eusebius, directly contradicts the Testimoniam Flavianum. Further, he ascribes the Jews' defeat in the Great Revolt to their execution of James the Just. Josephus, in The Jewish War, cites the blasphemy of the zealots murdering priests inside the temple precincts as the reason for the destruction.

How much more effective would Origen's arguments have been if he had access to the TF which asserted that the leading jewish citizens had killed "jesus?" Sadly, that bit of fiction was not yet written.


The arguments about Tacitus can go on and on. The simple fact is that no one in the ancient world, xtian or Greco-Roman, makes reference to this passage nor does anyone cite Nero's persecution of the xtians for the Great Fire until Chronica, by Sulpicius Severus in the early 5th century...and he does not cite Tacitus as a source nor does he have any of this Christus killed by the procurator Pilate stuff. That seems to be a later interpolation.

I don't profess to be an ancient "scholar" but I have read much of this stuff.