Atheists interpret bible verses

[Cyberman]

US civil war, Gandhi, Jesus the godboy. One of these things is not like the others. Do you know which one it is, boys and girls?

[sinnerdaniel94]

How do you know there was a civil war in America? Or that Gandhi actually said what he said?  If you weren't there, then you depend on the testimony on others, whether it be written or spoken.

Well, in the case of the US Civil War, we have tonnes of physical and literary evidence.  We have battle sights that match the descriptions written at the time.  We have photographs of both the principals in the war and of common soldiers.  We have extant letters and diaries written by the people involves, documents of unimpeachable provenance. We have the written and recorded testimony of people who fought the war, planned the battles, and debated the legislation related to the war.  We have the bullets, rifles, cannon, bayonets, and uniforms worn by the soldiers.  We have the fortifications used by both sides.  We have some of the ships used in both battles and naval blockades.  We have such an astounding accumulation of direct evidence that this war took place that it is pure intellectual perversity to deny it.

In the case of Gandhi, we have what he wrote and what people wrote about him while he was alive.  We have his school records, family history, and details of his legal practice in South Africa.  We have letters and newspaper accounts of him written while he was alive.  We have living witnesses (for now) to some of the events of his life, including his assassination. We have him on FILM for fuxxake.

None of the above applies to Jesus.  Nanny nanny boo boo, you lose.

Boru

You either believe the testimony of others or you don't. I believe the testimony of the American civil war, Gandhi's work, as well as the claims of the bible.

[Cyberman]

Even the talking animals and lights fixed to the skydome?

[JesusHChrist]

You either believe the testimony of others or you don't. I believe the testimony of the American civil war, Gandhi's work, as well as the claims of the bible.

False dichotomy.

All testimony is not created equal.

Either a poe/troll or woefully out of your depth, you swan fucker, you.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You either believe the testimony of others or you don't. I believe the testimony of the American civil war, Gandhi's work, as well as the claims of the bible.

The cases are not parallel. We have nothing of historical value regarding Jesus. Nothing he wrote, nothing mentioning him while he was alive, no inscriptions regarding him, no depictions of him. Nothing.

For the US war and for Gandhi, we have more - much more - than testimony. Acceptance of the occurrence of a civil war in the US in the 1860s and acceptance of what Gandhi said and did are reasonable, evidence-based positions. Belief in the Bible is simply that - belief.

Boru

[sinnerdaniel94]

You either believe the testimony of others or you don't. I believe the testimony of the American civil war, Gandhi's work, as well as the claims of the bible.

False dichotomy.

All testimony is not created equal.

Either a poe/troll or woefully out of your depth, you swan fucker, you.

which one's pass the test of legitimacy?

[JesusHChrist]

False dichotomy.

All testimony is not created equal.

Either a poe/troll or woefully out of your depth, you swan fucker, you.

which one's pass the test of legitimacy?

There is testimony Zeus came to earth as a swan, and fucked a human woman, Leda. Legitimate?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

which one's pass the test of legitimacy?

'ones'. Plural, not possessive.

For a testimony to be acceptable, there are a few generally agreed-upon criteria.

The testator should have no bias regarding the testimony. Taking a photograph of Abraham Lincoln is evidence that Lincoln existed, as the photographer is unlikely to have a particular axe to grind by taking a photograph. The Pauline epistles don't qualify as evidence, as Paul is inherently biased that his words be accepted as true.

The testimony is suspect if there is an alternative, more likely explanation. For example, if I tell you my toe hurts because I was attacked by a goblin who hit it with a club, we can reject this testimony in favour of 'Boru is a thumb-fingered idjit who dropped a hammer on his foot.'

The testimony should be able to be corroborated. We are told that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, and so forth. But these events are to be found ONLY in the Bible. It is reasonable to assume that someone else, somewhere would have written of the water-walking trick. It isn't something that happens every day. The war you brought up, as well and Gandhi, are confirmed by multiple, contemporary sources.

I hope this helps.

Boru

[Angrboda]

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"
Matthew 24:29

There is the question of the truth value of statements Ghandi made in comparison to those made by Jesus. If Ghandi was wrong about something, it doesn't mean a whole fig of a difference toward the question of whether he was who we thought he was. Now if stars can't really fall from heaven and there is no narrow gate, it makes a big difference to our claims of who Jesus was. We don't have to hold the testimony of historians about Ghandi to the same standard as statements reputed to be made by Jesus because the consequences of being wrong are vastly different. If a man named Ghandi did not exist, no big deal. If a messiah named Jesus did not exist, or do the things he is said to have done, then being wrong is of great importance.

[Chad32]

Translation: This whole sacrifice thing isn't going to work very well, and I know it isn't going to work very well, but we're going with this idea anyway.

This passage illustrates two gates: one that leads to life and another to hell
Jesus said He is the way, the truth, and the life. Belief on Jesus Christ for your salvation is the only gate and few chose to go through it.

And a better idea would be to try something that would at least get most people to pick his side. As it stands, his master plan isn't working any better than the last time he tried to fix the "problem". Assuming his plan is to get as many people to worship him as possible.