Ignorance and the Bible

[Dutch Uncle]

From the first cave paintings in France and Spain, it's pretty obvious that homo sapiens had an innate predisposition for the spiritual and transcendent.

We can argue until the cows come home as to why that is. But the reason genuine atheists will probably never make up more than five to ten percent of the human population, is we generally do not believe reality is limited to what our senses can ascertain, and that life, the universe, and everything is not ultimately best explained by quarks and electrons.

True.

As for atheists, even not all of them are non-spiritual which is why they claim Buddhists among their numbers. They believe in an afterlife/spiritual world, just not some old geezer on a golden throne.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Dont'cha wanna talk to me anymore? Why not?

I don't debate minors. How's your mom doing? Do you have any pictures of her?

 

[gmark77]

We can argue until the cows come home as to why that is. But the reason genuine atheists will probably never make up more than five to ten percent of the human population, is we generally do not believe reality is limited to what our senses can ascertain, and that life, the universe, and everything is not ultimately best explained by quarks and electrons.

But just proposing the "transcendent" does NOT mean it is real. The Transcendent you talk about manifests as thousands of different versions of "ultimate truth" many of which are mutually exclusive.

Just because people wonder at the stars does not ipso facto mean that God manifested himself as himself to sacrifice himself to himself to atone his creation to himself in a small backwater colony of the Roman Empire. Nor does it mean that an illiterate man in a cave could write a holy book by himself. Nor does it mean that golden tablets were squirreled away in norther NY State in the 1800's.

If no single religion is correct then why is the "instinct" to those religions necessarily correct?

 

[domer76]

You have to use the tools of literary criticism to extract the reliable nuggets of historical information.

The birth narrative only occurs in two gospels and is not widely attested to. You could get rid of the two birth narratives and it would change nothing about the fundamental Christian beliefs about salvation, grace, and ethics. John, Mark, Peter, and Paul say nothing about the birth narrative. The key event and most important and transformational event in Christian belief is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The birth story IS a fundamental Christian belief. It includes the divine nature of Jesus and the notion of a virgin birth, worshipped by millions. You can’t cherry pick that out.

The death and resurrection is equally contradictory in Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. And equally as implausible as a virgin birth.

 

[gmark77]

I don't debate minors.

You just agree without debate? Cool!

 

[Cypress]

True.

As for atheists, even not all of them are non-spiritual which is why they claim Buddhists among their numbers. They believe in an afterlife/spiritual world, just not some old geezer on a golden throne.

That's true.

I don't think one can actually live out life based on a strict belief in physical materialism. Following physical materialism to it's logical conclusion leads to paradoxes and cognitive dissonance.

I believe you are correct that in some real sense, most atheists are actually somewhere on the spectrum of agnostic - pantheist - unitarian universalist

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The birth story IS a fundamental Christian belief. It includes the divine nature of Jesus and the notion of a virgin birth, worshipped by millions. You can’t cherry pick that out.

The death and resurrection is equally contradictory in Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. And equally as implausible as a virgin birth.

It was probably added later to support fulfilling the prophecy. It's always struck me as odd that the Bible doesn't cover his life between age 12 and 33. Hence, I believe the younger accounts to be cobbled together from a combination of myth and fact.

No one is disagreeing on the inconsistencies. Then again, a cop who interviews 12 different people about a car accident will get....wait for it....12 different versions.

 

[gmark77]

The birth story IS a fundamental Christian belief. It includes the divine nature of Jesus and the notion of a virgin birth, worshipped by millions. You can’t cherry pick that out.

Oh he is going to cherry pick like it's his business plan. It's how he parses the OT away without comment.

You are right: for many Christians (large numbers) the virgin birth is critical. It was "foretold" by the possibly incorrect prophecy in Isaiah ("virgin" vs "unmarried young girl" almah translation) and that most Christians believe the OT is setting the stage for the NT.

While virgin birth is not an article related to salvation per se, it would appear to be quite important to vast swaths of Christians.

The death and resurrection is equally contradictory in Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. And equally as implausible as a virgin birth.

This is a good one. Cy will lecture you long and hard on how many people "witnessed" it. After a few posts you'll wonder why you ever question something that was written on a piece of paper. If it was written it must be true. If it is not true then you will be accused of suggesting the witnesses all LIED in a CONSPIRACY.

It's a dreadful route to follow. I recommend against it.

 

[domer76]

Oh, so Gallup isn't fact but your opinions are. Fascinating!

I gave such a flying shit out a Gallup poll on who are atheists and who are not that I didn’t bother. There are Gallup polls all over the fucking place that I also don’t bother. You must read them all. Keep me informed. I’ll let you know which ones I give a shit about.

Now, 20% of Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That would be millions, wouldn’t it? Just as I stated.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't debate minors. How's your mom doing? Do you have any pictures of her?

You just agree without debate? Cool!

QED on why I don't debate minors.

 

[gmark77]

It was probably added later to support fulfilling the prophecy.

Prophecy from the OT I might add. Which is why Christians keep the OT with the NT and don't pare it away like some would prefer.

The OT sets the stage and foretells the arrival of Jesus.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I gave such a flying shit out a Gallup poll on who are atheists and who are not that I didn’t bother. There are Gallup polls all over the fucking place that I also don’t bother. You must read them all. Keep me informed. I’ll let you know which ones I give a shit about.

Now, 20% of Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That would be millions, wouldn’t it? Just as I stated.

Hence my point. Your claim to follow the science when you clearly only follow the science you agree with is very interesting, Domer.

You're free to claim to a scientific person and then engage in hyperbole, science-denying and emotional appeal. Lots of people do it...especially atheists. LOL

 

[gmark77]

QED on why I don't debate minors.

Yeah, I can see they probably make you feel bad for not having had a logic class.

 

[gmark77]

I gave such a flying shit out a Gallup poll on who are atheists

But since they are undertaking a pure "argumentum ad populum" it is critical for their argument.

 

[gmark77]

I don't think one can actually live out life based on a strict belief in physical materialism.

And if YOU can't imagine it then surely no one can do it.

Following physical materialism to it's logical conclusion leads to paradoxes and cognitive dissonance.

As does believing in God, but here we are.

I believe you are correct that in some real sense, most atheists are actually somewhere on the spectrum of agnostic - pantheist - unitarian universalist

So you spend all your time on here telling atheists what they believe even when they disagree with you. Do you do the same for Baptists? How about Catholics? How about Jews? You go around telling your Jewish friends what their beliefs are?

If not why not?

 

[domer76]

Oh he is going to cherry pick like it's his business plan. It's how he parses the OT away without comment.

You are right: for many Christians (large numbers) the virgin birth is critical. It was "foretold" by the possibly incorrect prophecy in Isaiah ("virgin" vs "unmarried young girl" almah translation) and that most Christians believe the OT is setting the stage for the NT.

While virgin birth is not an article related to salvation per se, it would appear to be quite important to vast swaths of Christians.



This is a good one. Cy will lecture you long and hard on how many people "witnessed" it. After a few posts you'll wonder why you ever question something that was written on a piece of paper. If it was written it must be true. If it is not true then you will be accused of suggesting the witnesses all LIED in a CONSPIRACY.

It's a dreadful route to follow. I recommend against it.

The witnesses, whoever they may have been, may well have believed they saw something. I don’t question their sincerity, either. It doesn’t make it true, however. Note, the followers were the only witnesses. Nobody else. Lots of similar stories throughout history. Every so-called miracle is one of them.

 

[domer76]

It was probably added later to support fulfilling the prophecy. It's always struck me as odd that the Bible doesn't cover his life between age 12 and 33. Hence, I believe the younger accounts to be cobbled together from a combination of myth and fact.

No one is disagreeing on the inconsistencies. Then again, a cop who interviews 12 different people about a car accident will get....wait for it....12 different versions.

Yep, Bethlehem was almost certainly not his birthplace. But they needed Bethlehem to fulfill OT prophecy. The lineage story included.

And yes, eye witness testimony is usually the least reliable.

 

[Cypress]

The birth story IS a fundamental Christian belief. It includes the divine nature of Jesus and the notion of a virgin birth, worshipped by millions. You can’t cherry pick that out.

The death and resurrection is equally contradictory in Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. And equally as implausible as a virgin birth.

No, fundamental Christian theology is based on grace and salvation, and the redemptive power of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

Luke and Mathew - the only gospels which briefly mention a birth narrative - say nothing directly about Christian practice and theology.

The gold standard for Christian practice, theology, and salvation are the epistles of Paul. Paul said nothing of consequence about Jesus' birth, and apparently considered it so inconsequential it doesn't factor in at all Paul's instructions and guidance on Christian practice, theology, and salvation.

Paul knew the apostles Peter and John, and he knew Jesus' brother James, so if the birth was so important they would have told him.

There is decent circumstantial evidence that Mark's gospel is based on Peter's teachings. Peter was Jesus' closest apostle, and the birth narrative is never mentioned in Mark. If the birth was so bloody important, you'd think Peter would have told Mark.


Now, the birth story of the Buddha is even more fantastical than the birth story in the Gospel of Mathew. But it doesn't figure prominently in the practice, beliefs, and metaphysics of Buddhism.

Atheists have never used the Buddha birth story to diminish Buddhism.

 

[Cypress]

It was probably added later to support fulfilling the prophecy.

Birth narrative is only briefly mentioned in two of the later gospels, Luke and Matthew. The Jewish tradition in the Torah was that Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier. So the Virgin birth story may have been a way to sweep the indignity and shame of a pregnancy outside wedlock under the rug.

The earliest Christian authors don't consider Jesus' birth of any consequence whatsoever. And since Mark and Paul knew the apostles Peter, James, and John, you'd think they would have been told about it if it was so bloody important.

 

[gmark77]

Birth narrative is only briefly mentioned in two of the later gospels, Luke and Matthew. The Jewish tradition in the Torah was that Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier. So the Virgin birth story may have been a way to sweep the indignity and shame of a pregnancy outside wedlock under the rug.

The earliest Christian authors don't consider Jesus' birth of any consequence whatsoever. And since Mark and Paul knew the apostles Peter, James, and John, you'd think they would have been told about it if it was so bloody important.

So that’s a big ol “fuck you” to the Catholics.

Are you brave enough to say it to your Catholic friends?