We Believe In It But Is It Historical?

I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize to IronDuke for referring to his posts as being full of "gross mistakes". Upon further research, I have found that I was mistaken about some things, and that there is insufficient evidence to prove that I am right or that someone else is wrong. Therefore, all I would have to offer would be competing theories.

I still interpret the available evidence differently from IronDuke and do not agree with some parts of his posts. But I went too far when I said he made "gross mistakes". For that, I apologize.

Here, for example, are two points the Duke made which I disagree with:

1. "Jesus grew up in Nazareth". Most work by biblical researchers that I have read indicates that Jesus was called a "Nazarene" because he was a member of a Jewish sect called Nazarenes, which was not associated with the town of Nazareth. However, I admit that being a member of the Nazarenes doesn't mean that Jesus couldn't have (coincidentally) grown up in Nazareth also.

2. "The Romans crucified Jesus at the request of the Jewish high priests." The Romans reserved the punishment of crucifixion for traitors (or at least political agitators) against the Roman Empire. If the only offense of Jesus had been against the priests, the Romans were unlikely to care about it. However, I admit that the Romans may have conspired with the Jewish priests in this matter; without any Roman records of Jesus' trial, we can't know exactly why they felt he was a candidate for crucifixion.

Again, my apologies to IronDuke. While I believe he is mistaken, it was inappropriate for me to call them "gross mistakes" without checking my sources first.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129289:date=Feb 19 2006, 06:13 PM:name=SinisterMinisterX)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Feb 19 2006, 06:13 PM) [snapback]129289[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
2. "The Romans crucified Jesus at the request of the Jewish high priests." The Romans reserved the punishment of crucifixion for traitors (or at least political agitators) against the Roman Empire. If the only offense of Jesus had been against the priests, the Romans were unlikely to care about it. However, I admit that the Romans may have conspired with the Jewish priests in this matter; without any Roman records of Jesus' trial, we can't know exactly why they felt he was a candidate for crucifixion.
[/quote]

To be quite honest, if the Jewish priests asked for Jesus' execution, couldn't it simply be that the Romans did it to show their goodwill/keep the Jews calm? Or, to put it in these words:

People of Jewusalem! Wome is your fwiend. To pwove our fwiendship, it is customawy at this time to welease a wongdoer fwom our pwisons. Whom would you have me welease?
 
I apologise too, SMX...I read your post when I was already in a foul mood (a long story in itself)
I think we can just agree to disagree. No hard feelings.


I have a question, Per. You use Herodotus as a source, but what makes him more reliable than the stuff in the Old Testament? I don't know much about the his works, but I think they should fall under the same scrutiny, and are, at best, "historical fiction." From what I remember, he gets alot of stuff wrong too.

As a historical source, the Bible by itself isn't useful at all, nor is Herodotus. As always, the best solution is to read as many different sources as you can get your hands on and try to draw the most logical conclusions from them.


I was wondering who would be the first to post the Monty Python thing ::
 
[!--quoteo(post=129294:date=Feb 19 2006, 07:22 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Feb 19 2006, 07:22 PM) [snapback]129294[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]

I have a question, Per. You use Herodotus as a source, but what makes him more reliable than the stuff in the Old Testament? I don't know much about the his works, but I think they should fall under the same scrutiny, and are, at best, "historical fiction." From what I remember, he gets alot of stuff wrong too.

[/quote]
I'm Greek and so we read Herodotus' works 3 years ago in school and you're right, he's not much of a historian. He added his own stuff too. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"^_^\" border=\"0\" alt=\"happy.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=129294:date=Feb 19 2006, 07:22 PM:name=IronDuke)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Feb 19 2006, 07:22 PM) [snapback]129294[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I have a question, Per. You use Herodotus as a source, but what makes him more reliable than the stuff in the Old Testament? I don't know much about the his works, but I think they should fall under the same scrutiny, and are, at best, "historical fiction." From what I remember, he gets alot of stuff wrong too.
[/quote]

Of course Herodotus gets a lot of stuff wrong. However, when he describes sheer historical events, he is usually right, even though it has to be taken with a pinch of salt every once in a while. In this case, what he writes can be considered true because it is backed up by other sources- Babylonian and Persian records, for example. Babylonian records of this era are well-known, and there is no Belshazar or Darius the Mede there. Surely, such an epochal event would be recorded somewhere. The Persians taking Babylon under Cyrus, however, is documented by Persian and Babylonian sources (The Cyrus Cylinder, archaeological evidence, and I believe some Babylonian documents too).

[!--quoteo(post=129302:date=Feb 19 2006, 08:33 PM:name=SneakySneaky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SneakySneaky @ Feb 19 2006, 08:33 PM) [snapback]129302[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I'm Greek and so we read Herodotus' works 3 years ago in school and you're right, he's not much of a historian. He added his own stuff too. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"^_^\" border=\"0\" alt=\"happy.gif\" /]
[/quote]

Wrong. Herodotus was the first historian, so the art was not so well refined, however, he was an all-out historian. And he never added his own stuff. Everything he wrote down he researched. So, if he wrote about dachshound-sized ants digging for gold in India, he did not make it up. He heard the stories from personal inquiries, and considering the people he asked lived closer to the area, he felt he had no right to question them about the truth of this. On the other hand, if you read the Histories carefully, you will find that he was very critical when it comes to his sources. Fact is only that we cannot judge his methods by our modern-day standards. He knew and found out more about the world he lived in that virtually every other person who lived in his age. Hardly any other person in his age travelled as far as Susa and Egypt with the goal of scientific research.

Remember, any historian is only as good as his sources.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129303:date=Feb 19 2006, 08:44 PM:name=Perun)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Feb 19 2006, 08:44 PM) [snapback]129303[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]

Wrong. Herodotus was the first historian, so the art was not so well refined, however, he was an all-out historian. And he never added his own stuff. Everything he wrote down he researched. So, if he wrote about dachshound-sized ants digging for gold in India, he did not make it up. He heard the stories from personal inquiries, and considering the people he asked lived closer to the area, he felt he had no right to question them about the truth of this. On the other hand, if you read the Histories carefully, you will find that he was very critical when it comes to his sources. Fact is only that we cannot judge his methods by our modern-day standards. He knew and found out more about the world he lived in that virtually every other person who lived in his age. Hardly any other person in his age travelled as far as Susa and Egypt with the goal of scientific research.

Remember, any historian is only as good as his sources.
[/quote]
Actually the first real Greek historian was Thoukididis. He was the first to make history a scientific subject. Herodotus did of course record historical facts, but that's only after he listened to some people's stories and he did not compare these with other sources. He is called the Father of History , but everyone thinks that Thoukididis is the most reliable, rather than Herodotus. My point is that yes, he did probably add his own stuff. He's as reliable as the Bible is. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/sleep.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"-_-\" border=\"0\" alt=\"sleep.gif\" /]
 
I'm sorry, SneakySneaky, I should have warned you beforehand that we are touching a subject that I am (or can be) very passionate about. Nevertheless, I failed to warn you, so any harm caused is my responsibility, even though I refuse to take it.

The comparrison of Herodotus and Thukydides is a very problematic one. This is basically because Herodotus was a historian in the original sense of the word, while Thukydides was one in the modern sense. To explain this, the original Greek word istoria means more in the sense of "discovery", "exploration". That was precisely what Herodotus did: Travel around, explore the countries he traveled, question the inhabitants, and also describe the history of the countries- for the sake of explaining the origins of hostilities between Greeks and Barbarians (non-Greeks).

Thukydides was a historian in the sense of describing what happened- a historian in the modern sense of the word. The problem is that Herodotus also recorded history, but not exclusively. So describing him as a historian in the modern sense of the word is problematic.

Also, SneakySneaky, I would like to know what makes you think Herodotus added "his own stuff". If possible, please provide some examples.
 
Oh, I forgot to post something which is important to me: About Herodotus' reliability.

Experts agree that the things Herodotus describes are true. In some cases, memory may distort a little, especially when he is describing Babylon, which is clearly exaggarated in some cases, but this may still provide a somewhat truthful impression of the ancient city.

When Herodotus describes historical events and developments, most experts agree that most of what he writes is also true. At least the basics are true, some details are, well, too detailed to be true.

Much of what Herodotus wrote has been proven wrong. Much has been corrected, but there is also very much that has been proven right. Of course you can't take his writings at face value, but, to be blunt, you can't take anything any ancient historian wrote at face value. It's a bit of a special matter with Herodotus, because he wrote many tales he heard from other people.

But, to be fair, you can't expect Herodotus to verify everything he heard. He simply did not have the possibilities. When he heard stories about India from people who travelled there, he wrote them down. He didn't have the possibility to go to India to verify this.

And, it must be noted from the view of a dedicated student to ancient oriental history, Herodotus is the most valuable source about the 6th and 5th centuries BC.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129260:date=Feb 19 2006, 02:00 AM:name=SinisterMinisterX)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Feb 19 2006, 02:00 AM) [snapback]129260[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Bingo. Exactly. Thank you.
Most of us are tired of this topic. At least, I am.


[/quote]

I second that, there are enough "religion/jesus" threads already, a simple search should satisfy anybody's curiousity.

[!--quoteo(post=129285:date=Feb 19 2006, 02:35 PM:name=macunaima)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(macunaima @ Feb 19 2006, 02:35 PM) [snapback]129285[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
A story need not be true in order to have an impact on the world and society; it is sufficient that people believe it. Up until quite recently, it was widely belived, across the Western world, that mental illness was a sign of demonic possession. This had a great impact on many areas of society and yet it was a myth.
[/quote]

while I'll admit many of those cases could have been simply mental illnesses, not all... far from a myth. I suggest you read "Of Saints and Madmen" which deals precisely with such things. I also suggest you do a little more research on the history of exorcism (currently 21 of them are perfomed on average every year just by the Catholic Church... Other Christian denominations have their own versions)
 
[!--quoteo(post=129276:date=Feb 19 2006, 05:02 AM:name=Maverick)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Feb 19 2006, 05:02 AM) [snapback]129276[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Wow! That was a long post! ::

But it's very interesting, though. Are you a theologian or something?
[/quote]


No, I only got as far as earning an A.A. in Liberal Arts. But I am a born-again Christian. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":D\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=129373:date=Feb 20 2006, 08:14 PM:name=Onhell)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Feb 20 2006, 08:14 PM) [snapback]129373[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I second that, there are enough "religion/jesus" threads already, a simple search should satisfy anybody's curiousity.
[/quote]
Bearing in mind a search of "jesus" in Google brings up this site:
http://www.jesusdressup.com/ [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":p\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=129277:date=Feb 19 2006, 05:05 AM:name=SneakySneaky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SneakySneaky @ Feb 19 2006, 05:05 AM) [snapback]129277[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
First. Anyone who thinks that this has been discussed before ( which it hasn't, religion yet again turned out to be atheism vs christianity rather than Bible authenticity ) and feels "tired", well DON'T POST!! Second, maidenmiq I've also done some research about this subject and let me tell you one of the many historical controversies in the Bible. According to Luke Jesus was born at the time of the census of Quirinius. This took place in 6 A.D. Yet Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of KIng Herod, who died in 4 B.C. Luke even contradicts himself, stating that John and Jesus were miracusly conceived six months apart in the reign of Herod, but still portrays Mary with child at time of the census of 6 A.D, creating one of the rarely mentioned miracles of the New Testament- a 10- year Pregnancy! Quoted from "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.
[/quote]




Ok, I will lay this out point by point:

1. Most scholars place Jesus’ birth around 6 or 5 B.C.

2. King Herod died in 4 B.C.

3. Matthew says Jesus was born in the days of Herod the king. (Matt. 2:1)

4. Luke 1:5 also indicates that Jesus’ birth took place in the reign of Herod the king.

5. Therefore, Luke and Matthew agree that Jesus was born before Herod’s death in 4 B.C.

6. Luke 2:2 states: “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.”

7. If it was the first census, then Luke must have known of at least a second census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

8. Or, as Gleason L. Archer states in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties: “A ‘first’ surely implies a second one sometime later. Luke was therefore well aware of that second census, taken by Quirinius again in A.D.7, which Josephus alludes to…”(in Antiquities 17.13.5) Gleason Archer then goes on to say: “The Romans tended to conduct a census every fourteen years, and so this comes out right for a first census in 7 B.C. and a second in A.D. 7.”

9. Luke alludes to this second census in Acts 5:37 when he records the statement of Gamaliel.

10. “Luke is clearly claiming that Quirinius conducted an earlier census in Palestine distinct from the one to which he makes reference in his second book (Acts). Consideration of this can begin with the assumption that Luke was a competent historian, careful of his facts, and not prone to unverified statements. His work generally supports such a reputation. Reference, therefore, to an earlier census taken by Quirinius in Palestine must be taken seriously. To assume such a census, while complete proof is lacking, requires no distortion of known historical facts.”
-----Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (under the listing for Quirinius)




This is the basic answer.



The Gospel of Luke has been under attack for a long time now and this one goes way back. For many years people scoffed at the idea that the Romans had censuses and many other details of Luke’s narrative. Archaeology has proven the critics wrong in the 20th century by digging up one document after another that has verified Luke’s account as fact.

By the way, Archaeologists found an inscription at Rome in 1828, that indicated that Quirinius was governor twice. This was backed up by an inscription later discovered by William Ramsay. So Quirinius could have been in charge of two censuses fourteen years apart even if it is argued that he was not governor sometime in between.


If you would like to go more deeply into the subject of this supposed Bible contradiction I would recommend the following books ( I simply can not type out all the information in the time I have. Not to mention the fact that I want to be careful about copyright.):

The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (pages 63 and 64)

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer (under Luke - page 365)

Halley’s Bible Handbook by Dr. Henry Halley (page 490 of the 76th printing)

Biblical Archaeology by John H. Sailhamer (page 110)

Luke the Historian in the Light of Research by A.T. Robertson (all of Chapter 9)

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible - 5 volumes (under Quirinius)

I would also recommend The Fundamentals edited by R.A. Torrey which is currently available as 2 volumes. The Fundamentals gives a good run down of Higher Criticism which is the origin of many of these controversial “discrepancies” in the Bible.

I would also highly recommend R.A. Torrey’s Difficulties in the Bible. My older edition of this book does not touch on the Quirinius/Census issue, but it is an excellent basic introduction to the subject of alleged errors and contradictions in the Bible.

You might also enjoy (or not) the chapter entitled “How to Analyze Alleged Contradictions in the Bible” in Ralph O. Muncaster’s Examine the Evidence (Chapter 31, page 481).

I recommend www.ChristianBook.com as the place to start looking for these books.



A few more quotes about Luke from the scholars:

“Luke’s reliability as an historian is unquestionable.”
-----Josh McDowell

“The Acts of the Apostles is now generally agreed in scholarly circles to be the work of Luke, to belong to the first century and to involve the labors of a careful historian who was substantially accurate in his use of sources.”
-----Merrill F. Unger

“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy….this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”
-----Sir William Ramsay (Oxford educated archaeologist)

“Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness”
-----Sir William Ramsay (Oxford educated archaeologist)

One last thing of note: King Herod and Quirinius were historical figures, not mythological characters. The same can be said of others throughout the Bible record. This lends credibility to the Bible as a book of historical fact, and not just a fabrication of priests trying to secure their power as is commonly alleged. This also elevates it above other so called “holy books” that conflict with history and have weak documentary foundations. At any rate, it is all there to be investigated. And the Bible has held up miraculously well under the critic’s “investigations” so far.



I will try to post more soon. Thanks to everyone for your open-mindedness. I find the level of intelligent and civilized discussion here on the Maiden Fans boards to be light years ahead of other boards. Discussions on the Bible and Jesus usually break down into childish cursing, flaming, and ranting on most other boards that are not specifically aimed at such discussion. Thanks to everyone for the warm welcome! Up the Irons!


Written while listening to Iron Maiden Somewhere on Tour!! ::





























[!--quoteo(post=129278:date=Feb 19 2006, 05:08 AM:name=SilentLucidity)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SilentLucidity @ Feb 19 2006, 05:08 AM) [snapback]129278[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Excellent post, maidenmig, it was a very enjoyable read. And thanks for all those references too. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"smile.gif\" /]
[/quote]


Your welcome! I hope you will track them down and read, read, read!
 
[!--quoteo(post=129373:date=Feb 20 2006, 03:14 PM:name=Onhell)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Feb 20 2006, 03:14 PM) [snapback]129373[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
while I'll admit many of those cases could have been simply mental illnesses, not all... far from a myth. I suggest you read "Of Saints and Madmen" which deals precisely with such things. I also suggest you do a little more research on the history of exorcism (currently 21 of them are perfomed on average every year just by the Catholic Church... Other Christian denominations have their own versions)
[/quote]

Uh...are you fucking serious? I guess you are..I keep forgetting that some people still live in the 15th century! ::


Why would I do more research on exorcism and the Catholic Church? So I can learn that a bunch of 15th-century hold-overs still believe that the universe is populated with demonic spirits who occassionally take time out of their busy schedules to possess the bodies of ignorant mortals? I don't need to do any research to find that out; I already knew as much. And it doesn't affect my point at all.

I suggest you do a little more rational thinking and get your head out of the dark ages and into the 21st century.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129284:date=Feb 19 2006, 07:45 AM:name=Perun)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Feb 19 2006, 07:45 AM) [snapback]129284[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Fine, SneakySneaky. You want to have someone investigate how historical the Bible is?

Granted, I haven't read the complete book. There are certainly passages that are historical, but given the fact that many books have been written long after the time depicted, many, many parts are ahistorical.

Just one example: The book of Daniel.

It contains the story of Belshazar, the writing on the wall and how the Babylonian Empire fell to the "Medes and Persians". In the book, Belshazar is described as the last Chaldaean king, and his empire was taken over by a certain Darius (aka "Darius the Mede").

From all sources we have -and those are not as few as you may think- the historical turn of events can be reconstructed as such: The Chaldaean (Neo-Babylonian) Empire fell into decline after the death of Nebukadnezzar II. It remained allied to the Medes since the destruction of the Assyrian Empire. The Mede Kingdom was later taken over by the Persians under Cyrus the Great, who in 539 BC, took over the Babylonian Empire and crowned himself king of Babylon. The king of Babylon at that time was Nabonidus, who was generously retired and went to the Arabian desert where he wanted to do archaeological excavations. A Persian named Gobryas was named governour of the empire, and Cyrus shortly afterwards passed the title "King Of Babylon" to his son Cambyses.

Now, you could try to identify Darius the Mede with one of the named personalities: Cyrus or Gobryas. However, Cyrus is mentioned later on in the Bible and plays a very prominent role (The 'Lamb of God'). Darius is described as an ultimate ruler, so it is unlikely that he is simply a governour. It is also unlikely that Darius the Mede is in fact Darius the Great, a Persian king who ruled from 522-486 BC, mainly because he ruled after Cyrus and he also gets prominent mention in later books of the Bible (he is the one who allows the Jews to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem). Some historians believe Darius the Mede to be in fact a Mede king who took over Babylon before the Persians did, but there is absolutely no other evidence of such an event; moreover, it is certain that Cyrus took the Babylonian empire from the Babylonians. As for Belshazar, there is no other evidence of a Babylonian king of that name. It must be noted that the chronologies of Persian, Mede and Babylonian rulers of that age are known completely.

So, I personally believe these events described in the Book of Daniel are fictional and only inspired by historical events.

Some of my sources are:
Herodotus, Histories, I, 188 ff
Maurice Meuleau, Mesopotamien in der Perserzeit in: Fischer Weltgeschichte Band 5, Griechen und Perser

And of course the Bible, Book of Daniel.

By the way, great post, maidenmig. I totally agree with you on many points, but as my post above stated, not everything in the Bible is a historical record. However, everything in the Bible can be a source of mindset or contemporary view of history.
[/quote]


Well, I have to confess I am not prepared to discuss the book of Daniel. However, Josh McDowell wrote a book that I believe is long out of print. It was called Daniel in the Critic's Den. This book is dedicated to defending the book of Daniel as authentic, historic, written by Daniel, and containing God-inspired prophecy.

What it basically comes down to is that Daniel's critics assume that the supernatural does not exist, hence Daniel was of later origin after the events prophesied had already taken place. Therefore, it obviously wasn't written by Daniel either!

These ideas originated with Higher Criticism approaches to the Bible that assume that the Bible is all hogwash anyway, since the supernatural, and God, and miracles, and such don't exist! Daniel is actually one of the strongest examples of true prophecy in the Bible. That is why it is one of the most attacked and shunned of all Old Testament books.

Josh McDowell's book was published by Campus Crusade for Christ originally. Very little of this book made it into his encyclopedic Evidence that Demands a Verdict that I referenced in other posts. I don't know why. However, the average person will not bring up the book of Daniel anyway, so it is something that is usually argued among academics.

I believe there are some pretty strong arguments based on the original language used in the Hebrew that confirm the authorship of Daniel as being of Daniel's time and not later. I am stepping way out of my knowledge base here though. I really should spend time studying this in depth.

In debating Daniel it is difficult to avoid debating prophecy, and therefore quickly becomes an emotional debate with most people. The result being that more heat than light is typically generated. But....it is a very important topic.

:: By the way, Dave Murray is the Grand King of Guitar to whom all others must bow!! ::
 
[!--quoteo(post=129384:date=Feb 20 2006, 10:19 PM:name=macunaima)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(macunaima @ Feb 20 2006, 10:19 PM) [snapback]129384[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Uh...are you fucking serious? I guess you are..I keep forgetting that some people still live in the 15th century! ::
Why would I do more research on exorcism and the Catholic Church? So I can learn that a bunch of 15th-century hold-overs still believe that the universe is populated with demonic spirits who occassionally take time out of their busy schedules to possess the bodies of ignorant mortals? I don't need to do any research to find that out; I already knew as much. And it doesn't affect my point at all.

I suggest you do a little more rational thinking and get your head out of the dark ages and into the 21st century.
[/quote]
And I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and be a little more repectful and tolerant of others...
 
[!--quoteo(post=129392:date=Feb 20 2006, 05:56 PM:name=Onhell)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Feb 20 2006, 05:56 PM) [snapback]129392[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
And I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and be a little more repectful and tolerant of others...
[/quote]


Respect and toleration have their limits. If you believe that unrestricted free market polices are the best way to end poverty in the world, I'll respectfully disagree. If you believe that the universe must have had an intelligent creator, I'll respectfully disagree. If you think Blaze is a better singer than Bruce, I'll respectfully disagree (though it'll take some effort.)

But if you believe that demonic spirits roam the universe and occasionally possess the bodies of ignorant mortals for shits and giggles, then I will not respect you and I will not take you seriously. If you believe the world was created in 6 days and that the theory of evolution is a secular conspiracy, then I will also not respect or tolerate you. If I'm in a good mood and I have some free time, I will ridicule you to the best of my rhetorical abilities. Otherwise, I will either not acknowledge your existence at all or, if you should become dangerous, I will oppose you with legal or physical force.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129285:date=Feb 19 2006, 08:35 AM:name=macunaima)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(macunaima @ Feb 19 2006, 08:35 AM) [snapback]129285[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
A story need not be true in order to have an impact on the world and society; it is sufficient that people believe it. Up until quite recently, it was widely belived, across the Western world, that mental illness was a sign of demonic possession. This had a great impact on many areas of society and yet it was a myth. The Nazi's believed that jewish blood was in some sense "impure" and "corrupted" and that it had to be exterminated like an infestation. This belief also had a great impact on the world and its peoples and yet it too was a myth. Perhaps the story of Jesus has had a greater impact that either of these examples, but I don't see why that makes it any more likely to be true.

But more importantly, I think there is a great deal of confusion in debates about the so-called "historicity of the Bible." The guiding question is usually stated thus: is the Bible historically accurate or reliable? But what reason is there to think that there will be a simple answer to this? The old testament claims makes reference to the Hittites which we now know to really have existed. What do we conclude? We certainly can't conclude anything about the divinity of Jesus or redemption through grace. Perhaps all we can safely conclude is that the Bible is historically accurate in its claim that the Hittites existed (roughly) when and where they did. But is the Bible historically accurate full-stop? I think that's the wrong question to ask.

I think it is extremely important to separate questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible from questions about -- what we might call -- the foundations of Christianity: i.e. the truth of its central tenets. All too often, people will rest their own personal religious beliefs (both christian and anti-christian) on something vaguely called: the historically reliability of the Bible. But whether the Bible is right about the existence of the Hittites or the Jewish enslavement in Egypt is quite irrelevant to the divinity of Jesus and redemption through grace. You can believe the former and reject the latter.

Perhaps no one here is making such a mistake. But then why is there so much interest in the historical reliability of the Bible? Why aren't there threads on the historical accuracy of Homer or of _Mein Kampf_?
[/quote]




I will quote John Ankerberg and John Weldon:

"To know the Bible is reliable is to know that all of what it teaches is reliable. And what it teaches is that the one true God sent His only Son to die for our sins so that we could inherit eternal life as a free gift. Such a declaration is unparalleled. If skeptics are given only one reason to examine the claims of the Bible, this should be the paramount one. Because, if true, then it offers more than they could possibly imagine. Conversely, if the Bible is true and one rejects itrs message of salvation, then no other personal decision will be more consequential. Therefore, no one can logically fail to ignore the issue of the reliability of the Bible."
-----from The Facts On Why You Can Believe The Bible


In other words, if the Bible is really inspired by God (God-breathed), than it should hold up under scrutiny and be reliable and accurate. And all of it, Old and New Testament, is important and interrelated. And....worthy of your investigation without prejudice.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129394:date=Feb 20 2006, 06:08 PM:name=maidenmig)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(maidenmig @ Feb 20 2006, 06:08 PM) [snapback]129394[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I will quote John Ankerberg and John Weldon:

"To know the Bible is reliable is to know that all of what it teaches is reliable. And what it teaches is that the one true God sent His only Son to die for our sins so that we could inherit eternal life as a free gift. Such a declaration is unparalleled. If skeptics are given only one reason to examine the claims of the Bible, this should be the paramount one. Because, if true, then it offers more than they could possibly imagine. Conversely, if the Bible is true and one rejects itrs message of salvation, then no other personal decision will be more consequential. Therefore, no one can logically fail to ignore the issue of the reliability of the Bible."
-----from The Facts On Why You Can Believe The Bible
[/quote]

I agree that one cannot ignore the issue of the reliability of the bible on central theological matters: was Jesus the son of God? is he the only path to salvation from sin? etc.? My point is that the historical reliablity of the Bible seems to me a side-issue. Of course, if the Bible were chalk-full of demonstrable historical errors, then chances are it is not the unfiltered, uninterpreted word of God. But even if the were largely correct on historical matters, that would not suggest that it is correct on theological/metaphysical questions.

It seems to me that Mr. Ankerberg and Mr. Weldon are guilty of exactly the confusion I'm trying to warn you against.

<Insulting language deleted by moderator, as per the post just below.>
 
[!--quoteo(post=129393:date=Feb 20 2006, 04:04 PM:name=macunaima)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(macunaima @ Feb 20 2006, 04:04 PM) [snapback]129393[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
But if you believe that demonic spirits roam the universe and occasionally possess the bodies of ignorant mortals for shits and giggles, then I will not respect you and I will not take you seriously. If you believe the world was created in 6 days and that the theory of evolution is a secular conspiracy, then I will also not respect or tolerate you. If I'm in a good mood and I have some free time, I will ridicule you to the best of my rhetorical abilities. Otherwise, I will either not acknowledge your existence at all or, if you should become dangerous, I will oppose you with legal or physical force.
[/quote]
Whenever these religious threads start up, a great deal of disrespect tends to get thrown around - particularly by those of us who oppose the religious position. I am saddened to see it happening again. I made a post similar to this one in the last thread, and I now think such posts are highly inappropriate.

So as a moderator, I'm laying down the law:
Posters in this thread WILL respect and tolerate the points of view expressed by others, or else I'll close this thread down.
If people are capable of carrying on discussion in a rational manner, this thread will remain open.

I am particularly alarmed by the following statement from macunaima:
"...I will oppose you with legal or physical force."
Physical threats against others will not be tolerated on this board. If anybody posts anything like that again, they lose their posting priveleges.

As for myself, I've decided not to participate in these discussions anymore for two reasons.
1. The gulf between the two "sides" is insurmountable. Atheists are never going to convince believers that the atheist position is correct, and vice versa. Having a true discussion requires open-mindedness. With respect to this topic, I think most people on this board are grossly lacking in this respect. Therefore, I find it personally distasteful to aid in perpetuating such a discussion.
2. My own personal behavior in these threads has been atrocious at times. I have determined that I have a natural tendency to respond in an extreme manner when this subject comes up. So, before I stick my foot in my mouth again, I'm closing said mouth. For myself, I think it's more important to maintain friendly relations with people here than spout off about my views on religion.

I strongly suggest that all participants in this board consider their words more carefully in the future. If this thread degenerates further into even more of a flame war, it will be shut down.
 
[!--quoteo(post=129403:date=Feb 20 2006, 10:12 PM:name=SinisterMinisterX)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Feb 20 2006, 10:12 PM) [snapback]129403[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I am particularly alarmed by the following statement from macunaima:
"...I will oppose you with legal or physical force."
Physical threats against others will not be tolerated on this board. If anybody posts anything like that again, they lose their posting priveleges.
[/quote]

I certainly did not mean to be making a threat of any sort, and certainly not one of physical violence. If that is how my comments were understood, I apologize to the members of this board and especially to Onhell.

I agree with SMX that in some circumstances, rational conversation is impossible; I think that if my interlocutor believes in demonic possession and biblical creationism, then rational conversation between us in impossible. But, of course, as long as they are his private beliefs, there is no reason for action of any kind, legal or physical. I simply meant to be alluding to theocratic movements that aim to strip me of my right to have my children properly educated in their science classes, or to slowly tear down the foundations of a secular state where people are allowed to believe what they will and where public discourse about government and law are not predicated on any particular religious doctrine. I think such people are dangerous, and if indeed rational discussion is impossible, then action of some sort is required. Hopefully legal action will suffice; but when push comes to shove, those who are not willing to fight for their freedoms don't deserve to live in a free, secular state.

Now, I have no reason to believe that Onhell -- however misguided he may be on other matters -- has any theocratic aims and so I grant that my diatribe may have been somewhat misdirected. For that, I apologize. Even if he does have such aims, on his own, I'm pretty sure he's harmless and any threat against him would be misdirected. Outrage and action should be directed against the powerfull.

Now, on the question of respect. As I've already granted, I think SMX is right that too often, rational discussion is impossible between two people. But the blame for such a situation is not always equally attributable to both parties. One party may be sincere and open-minded, but if the other side is ignorant or unwilling to subject his own views to scrutiny, then rational discourse will be impossible and it will be one person's fault, not both.

It has become a platitude on this board that both atheists and theists are too closed-minded for profitable discussion. But I resent that. I have repeatedly asked thesits for arguments and reasons for believing in God. On the rare occasions when my request was actually granted, I did my best to examine the argument presented carefully, sincerely, and with an open-mind. I've only become impatient and at times belligerent as a result of repeated religious assertions backed up by nothing more than a profession of faith. Perhaps I crossed the line a few times and for that I apologize. But I don't apologize for my (well-founded) belief that most theists on this board are ignorant and closed-minded. To rest your beliefs on faith is to rest your beliefs on nothing at all and to hold them all the more dearly for that very reason. That is very definition of closed-mindedness.




What is wrong with this exchange:

A: I don't believe in God, but I might be wrong, so I'd very much like to know why you do believe in God so that I can see whether I've overlooked a good reason or argument that might show me to be mistaken.

B: There are no good arguments for the existence of God! You can neither prove nor disprove his existence.

A: Even if we can't "prove" the existence of God -- the way a mathematician can prove his theorems -- that doesn't mean that we can't have good reasons for believing in God nevertheless. I can't "prove" that Richard Nixon knew about the Watergate break-in, but I think I have pretty damn good reasons to believe he did. I also can't prove that there wasn't a pink teapot sitting on the dark side of the moon on the day of my birth, but again, I think I have pretty good reasons to think there isn't. So if you don't have a conclusive proof for God's existence, that's fine. I'll be satisfied by a strong rational and/or empirical argument.

B: Belief in God isn't a rational matter! You have to accept it on faith.

A: What does that mean? Are you saying that there is no reason or evidence for believing in God, but that I should believe in him anyway?

B: You'll never understand if you keep insisting on using your merely *human* concepts like reason and evidence. God is beyond all that and he loves you. If you don't believe in him you will go to hell and that will be a real shame.

A: Well, if God really does love me, and if he really will send me to hell for not believing in him, then that would be pretty good reason for believing in God. Not only would it be the prudential thing to do, but only a being that actually existed could have that power; hence, if he has that power, then he exists. But that is what I don't yet see any reason to believe. You say that I need to stop relying on my "human" concepts of reason and evidence. What concepts do you propose I use?

B: You're just being difficult and closed-minded.

A: Am I? You believe in God right?

B: Yes.

A: And you are a human being aren't you?

B: I am.

A: So presumably you believe in God for a humanly intelligible reason. I want to know what it is because if it s a good reason, then that means I am mistaken to doubt God's existence. Perhaps I am stupid, but I am most certainly not closed-minded. Perhaps your reason for believing in God is only intelligible to super-smart humans; is that why you won't share it with me?

B: Look, my reason for believing in God is my business. I can believe whatever I want, just as you can believe whatever you want. Like I said before, you can't prove God one way or the other. Besides, I don't really care what you believe.

A: That is unfortunate, because I do care what you believe and why. That's why I'm asking you for your reason; because I want to understand you and I want to see whether you can show me my mistakes. I'm sorry to hear you have such little respect for me as a person that you don't care what I believe or why. I've already adressed your point about the possibility of "proving" the existence of God. Of course, in one sense, what you believe is your business: there is no law that can tell you to believe something else. If I decide that your reason for believing in God is a bad one, I'm not going to make you change your mind at gunpoint. That would be legally and morally wrong of me and in that sense, it is your business, not mine. But there is another sense in which it isn't just your business: if your reason is a good one, then that means I've likely made a mistake in becoming and atheist and then it is my business. Of course, you also have the right to keep your reason a secret, but let us be clear what you've done. Keeping your reason a secret is not the same as defending it; more importantly, keeping your reason a secret from someone who sincerely asked you for help in evaluating his own beliefs about God is selfish.


B: Ok, look, I'll go look at my library and write down the names of several books you can look at about why you should believe in God. If you're sincere about wanting to subject your views to scrutiny, you should go read them.

A: Thank you, that's very kind. I've actually read a number of books about this so maybe I know some of the books you're going to recommend. Is Aquinas going to be on that list?

B: Uh, no.

A: Anselm?

B: Uh, no.

A: Spinoza? Berkeley? Paley?

B: No.

A: Swinburne? Plantinga?

B: No, never heard of them.

A: That's interesting; those are some of the most important philosophers in the Western tradition that argue for the existence of God?

B: Oh, the books I'm going to recommend aren't by philosophers! They are published by the Campus Crusade for Christ.

A: ::
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top