Horrible things in the bible

[Esquilax]

I decided to take this challenge very seriously and get down to the real reason that I'm a christian.

So, first of all, thanks for doing that, and for honestly approaching the question. I still don't agree with you, but I can appreciate that you took the time and consideration to answer.

I believe that if someone possesses the truth it will show in their life. I know christians, seiks, buddhists, agnostics and atheists, and, in general, the ones who most appear to be living lives of love and self-giving are the true christians. "No true scotsman" does apply here. It seems every church I've been in has some who are true christians and some who say they are, but really are not willing to commit to following Christ.

I dunno if you can make the kind of causative link you're making based only on appearances, though. Without knowing what's really going on under the hood it's hard to judge a person's life like that; we as human beings have grown quite good at outwardly appearing happy and nice, while keeping the imperfections out of public view.

Additionally, I don't really buy your initial premise either; the truth of a person's beliefs is in no way impacted by how happy or positive their lives seem. Perhaps the less happy people are in possession of the truth, and their lives are unhappy, or uncharitable because the truth isn't cheerful.

The history of the christian faith as laid out in the bible impresses me.

Even the known falsehoods? And if you aren't taking them into account in your assessment, isn't that just the sharpshooter fallacy?

The resurrection, which has been attested to by various writers, is a large part of my clinching arguments for christianity over other religions. I've always wondered why the Romans didn't make it a point to prove that he didn't rise. That would have greatly hindered the rise of christianity which they viewed as a threat to the empire.

Why would they do that? I'm serious: at the time that it happened, why would they have done that? Given that the stories of Jesus' life and resurrection didn't get written until decades after his death, it's entirely possible that the resurrection aspect of the story was a later addition, and that at the time they had no inkling that it would be important. They wouldn't have had a gauge of how culturally important Jesus' resurrection would become in the future, so from their perspective it would have just seemed like yet another itinerant priest they executed. Do you expect every government today to go around furnishing proof that their dead aren't rising, just in case it becomes important years later?

Incidentally, do you know when I really would have expected the Romans to try and quash the stories of Jesus rising? If he really did resurrect. For a cover-up to happen you need something to cover up, after all; if Jesus came back from the dead they would actually have had a reason to attempt to silence that, and their complete silence on the topic of Jesus wouldn't make sense at all. But in a world in which Jesus died and stayed dead, it makes perfect sense that the records contemporary to that event wouldn't mention it, because a person dying and staying dead is business as usual.

Also the great majority of historians agree that Jesus did exist. I haven't come across any evidence that would convince me that christianity is not true. It's real, and I see no reason to walk away from God. For what?

Let's not start shifting the burden of proof, here.

[Aractus]

Anyway I returned because I wanted to suggest reading about biblical archaeology and how many places and people they have found. Again, not stating its true. Just sharing

Which FYI I have done and you have not, otherwise you'd answer my questions. Archaeologists can and have traced the emergence of the Israelite people we know today, but it certainly did not happen in the way described in the Bible.

Here's an article in defence of the OT's history re archaeology.

That's it, that's all they have in their defence.

---

Lek - you still don't know the Bible or you'd address the issues I raised. For instance men can divorce women but women cannot divorce men (Deuteronomy 24:1) how is that just and fair?

[Minimalist]

I've always wondered why the Romans didn't make it a point to prove that he didn't rise.

Because they never heard the story. The earliest Roman writer to comment on xtians ( if, in fact, he did not say "Chrestians") was Pliny the Younger.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

You will note that there is nothing in there about crucifixion or resurrection or ascending to fucking heaven. And the observation that they sung a hymn to Christ "as to a god" is most interesting.

Pliny the Younger was Governor of Bithynia-Pontus on the Black Sea in what is now Turkey. He was appointed in 110 AD and died in 112 AD so this correspondence can be securely dated.

Again, it is completely possible that Pliny was writing about Chrestus not Christos and some well-meaning monk in the middle ages decided to correct his spelling. Except the Chrestiani were real and we have textual evidence of them prior to 37 AD.

[Tonus]

My honest opinion- you don't want to immerse yourselves and find out more about it.

Many of us were raised in the Christian faith and followed it for many years. It was the desire to find god and learn more about him that led us to atheism. You may wish to protect your beliefs by telling yourself that the doubters are simply ignorant or afraid, but my impression is that you're projecting when you do that. Your need to characterize atheists in that manner should tell you something about your own faith.

[Minimalist]

Your need to characterize atheists in that manner should tell you something about your own faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, it is completely possible that Pliny was writing about Chrestus not Christos and some well-meaning monk in the middle ages decided to correct his spelling. Except the Chrestiani were real and we have textual evidence of them prior to 37 AD.

If I were an apologist I'd seize on that. Then we wouldn't have to explain why Pliny was so ignorant of christians - given his family and station, and why the official order was one of measured and tolerant jurisprudence, rather than bloodthristy eradication - given the rest of the "history" that I, as an apologist, would be looking to sell.

[The Valkyrie]

"Horrible things in the bible "

The part between the covers.

[Minimalist]

Again, it is completely possible that Pliny was writing about Chrestus not Christos and some well-meaning monk in the middle ages decided to correct his spelling. Except the Chrestiani were real and we have textual evidence of them prior to 37 AD.

If I were an apologist I'd seize on that. Then we wouldn't have to explain why Pliny was so ignorant of christians - given his family and station, and why the official order was one of measured and tolerant jurisprudence, rather than bloodthristy eradication - given the rest of the "history" that I, as an apologist, would be looking to sell.

And few xtians will bother with Pliny in depth although not because of that comment. A paragraph earlier he had noted:

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged.

That is anathema to jesus freaks because they have this whole martyr mythology that they developed later and the idea that some of them would save their own skins by "cursing Christ" does not fit in with that image. So they are usually content to say that Pliny and Suetonius knew of xtians and ignore the problematic aspects of both references. They prefer Tacitus, which is a much later forgery and makes them feel all warm and fuzzy about their bullshit.

[Aractus]

Okay so I was silently observing this thread for about a week now.

This is your thread and you abandoned it. You did not want to participate in intelligent discussion with those of us willing to do so.

The sacrifice of Jesus goes far beyond what you guys call scapegoating.

How is this addressing the topic of your thread - "horrible things in the bible"?

My honest opinion- you don't want to immerse yourselves and find out more about it.

My honest opinion is that I've read the Bible a lot more than you have and I'm more familiar with what it contains than you are. So the idea that you come here and tell us we need to "find out more about it" is just plain ridiculous, and lazy on your part since you didn't even quote any of the Bible that you like or think is relevant to the topic of this thread; your thread which you started.

You don't really want a priest ( yeah now some will make paedophilia jokes) or devout christian to explain it to you.

How do you know? You didn't even try to explain anything, and then you're claiming "we don't want you to explain anything"?? How does that work?

I'm not pointing fingers or insulting anyone. It's just an observation

Your observations are pitiful. Here's my observation: You posted a thread and then were not interested in participating in the on-topic discussion in it. In a nutshell: hit and run posting.

Anyway I returned because I wanted to suggest reading about biblical archaeology and how many places and people they have found.

Again, you want to discuss this - by all means. Just because places are real doesn't make the events accurate. The supposed Exodus was written - by the estimate of Evangelical scholars around 1,000 BC - and by the estimate of most other scholars c. 700-600 BC. The supposed Exodus occurred - by the estimate of Evangelical scholars to the 13th century BC or by some to the 15th century BC - and critical scholars don't think it happened at all.

So in the best case scenario you have it written down around 300 years after the event.

Then you have the problem that Egypt actually occupied and controlled the entire Canaan area from the mid 15th century to the mid 12th century and this is confirmed both by hundreds of Cuneiform tablets of communication between Egypt and their Canaanite cities, and by the fact there are three heavily fortified Egyptian strongholds that were used all the way until the mid 12th century - thus it's impossible that the ancient Israelites occupied and controlled the territory at the same time.

Archaeology clearly disproves the biblical narrative. The cities are all real, but they were not conquered by the ancient Israelites - most of them were unoccupied in the 13th century when they were supposed to play an important role (see Joshua chapters 1-12).

[Minimalist]

Ai, in the friggin bible.

8 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.”

Josh. 8

Ai, in archaeology:

Between 1933 and 1935, Judith Marquet-Krause carried out a large-scale excavation at el-Tell and found extensive remains of a huge Early Bronze Age city, dated over a millennium before the collapse of Late Bronze Age Canaan. She brought to light a massively fortified Early Bronze Age city-state, with monumental temples and palaces, all destroyed sometime around 2200 BCE. After scant reoccupation in the early second millennium BCE, Ai appears to have been entirely deserted from c.1500 BCE until some time in the early twelfth century BCE. Thus it would have been nothing more than ruins in the late thirteenth century BCE. Not a single pottery shard or any other indication of settlement there in the Late Bronze Age was ever recovered. Marquee-Krause concluded that the conquest account in Joshua 7-8 was more legend than history.”[1] Renewed excavation at the site in the 1960s produced the same conclusion. Like Jericho, there was no settlement at the time of its supposed conquest by the children of Israel. Between 1965 and 1972, Joseph Callaway, an American archaeologist who had studied with Kathleen Kenyon, reopened the investigation. He confirmed Marquet-Krause’s results. To his credit, he acknowledged the excavation of Ai as “a major blow to the conquest theory.”

http://lifeintheband.wordpress.com/2013/...ronze-age/