Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

The Bible is the most important text in understanding the history of Judaism during that period and it has been archeological verified many times in regards to the places mentioned and the people such as the Herods and Pontius Pilate, etc. On the whole the Bible is factually verifiable in its historical context, especially regarding that is not the reason it was written.

again and again I tell you that the historical context of the bible is factually verifiable, but that does not make, imply, or otherwise assert that any of the parts that are not factually verifiable are true. You might as well say Winnie the Pooh is real because Christopher Robin is a real person.

Quote:

Some of the glosses or inserted texts are indeed reflections or sermons based on verified fact. Think of Talmud and its observations, discussions, and debates based on the Sacred Text.

This very simple fact raises doubt about the whole thing, since none of the things are labeled 'inserted later' or 'inspired by actual events'

Quote:

Let's get back on the same page and both use faith as it should be used, namely that it is based on evidence, facts, and reason. That blind faith or faith without anything supporting it is not faith at all.

you need all three, especially facts. evidence and reason alone can lead to false conclusions. contrived example, which I have brought up before - if you look at 99 houses that are white on all 4 sides, and then look at the front of the 100th house that is white, that does not prove that the other side is white.

Quote:

I will acknowledge that faith in the Inspiration of the Bible is on a different level than the obvious and much more easily verified faith in the existence of God.

if it is so obvious and easy to verify, why do so many people disbelieve or believe in other things?

Quote:

This gets us back to the discussion about what to do when we have realized there is a God. What difference does that make and is it possible to go any further to let's say; believe that this God is the Holy Trinity of Christianity and that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity?

now you are back to affirming an assumption without proof.

Quote:

I believe it is not blind faith to believe this and that you are wrong in going too far to say that Christianity is based on no facts at all or to take a few examples of possible insertions in the Sacred Text to then jump to Jesus never said anything of what the Scriptures record. That is the stuff of Evenbob's favorite Jesus Seminar.

Where did I say that Christianity was based on no facts at all? Where did I say that Jesus did nothing that was said about him?

I am saying that there are many "facts" which are unproven and unprovable, and many other important "facts" which have been disproven, all of which are part of the foundation of the Christian belief system.

We now see clear evidence, though, that some of these important facts, the ones used to derive lessons and morals, may not have been based on something that Jesus actually said or did.

We see clear evidence that we should delete parts of the bible because they are unsubstantiated, clearly added later, and not part of the original testaments.

Quote:

Let's also remember that faith in Jesus Christ is about a relationship with a living God who loves you. You don't come to your friends and those you most love through some type of inescapable fixed arrangement. You discover and develop a relationship based on trust and experiences that begin to verify and erase any doubts.

discovering a relationship and faith and trust and experiences do not necessarily correlate to the facts and the truth.

Quote: FrGamble

Let's also remember that faith in Jesus Christ is about a relationship with a living God who loves you. .

One fiction, a risen Jesus, having a relationship
with another fiction, a god. How is this any different
than a hundred other ancient myths. The mythical
characters were always involving man in their
relationships, how is what you believe any different.

Quote: Dalex64

again and again I tell you that the historical context of the bible is factually verifiable, but that does not make, imply, or otherwise assert that any of the parts that are not factually verifiable are true. You might as well say Winnie the Pooh is real because Christopher Robin is a real person.

Not quite sure I follow your logic here. If the Bible is shown to be historically verifiable factually I can see how this does not make the non factually verifiable parts true. However, I don't know why or how you go further in your comparison to Winnie the Pooh. It certainly doesn't mean that the non factually verifiable parts are not true. It seems to me that a book that claims to be historical and has been verified to be such in verifiable ways may lead one to trust it in the assertions that cannot be factually verifiable.

Quote:

This very simple fact raises doubt about the whole thing, since none of the things are labeled 'inserted later' or 'inspired by actual events'

Maybe it would help your argument if you could show how you feel the general meaning of an established text has been changed or radically altered by texts that are not attested to in the earliest manuscripts.

Quote:

you need all three, especially facts. evidence and reason alone can lead to false conclusions. contrived example, which I have brought up before - if you look at 99 houses that are white on all 4 sides, and then look at the front of the 100th house that is white, that does not prove that the other side is white.

Here is another contrived example, if someone tells you the truth 99 times that the inside of 99 houses is white and then on the 100th house he says that the inside is white, can you reasonably trust that person is telling you the truth?

Quote:

if it is so obvious and easy to verify, why do so many people disbelieve or believe in other things?

I maintain that an atheist has to want to not believe in the existence of some God or higher power. There just is no reason to not believe in the logical necessity and scientific evidence that points to the existence of a creator spirit of some kind. People disbelieve in God because it is important to their worldview, their philosophy, and their wants.

Quote:

I am saying that there are many "facts" which are unproven and unprovable, and many other important "facts" which have been disproven, all of which are part of the foundation of the Christian belief system.

What "facts" have been disproven?

Quote:

We now see clear evidence, though, that some of these important facts, the ones used to derive lessons and morals, may not have been based on something that Jesus actually said or did.

What lessons or morals do you imagine were not based on something that Jesus actually said or did? Do any of the small amount of texts that are not attested to in the earliest manuscripts change the meaning of the words, actions, or teachings of Jesus? What about the existence of Sacred Tradition, things taught and learned from Christ and the Apostles, that are not contained in Scripture? Cannot this also be used to derive lessons and morals?

Quote:

We see clear evidence that we should delete parts of the bible because they are unsubstantiated, clearly added later, and not part of the original testaments.

I think you need to hold your horses a little bit here. There is evidence that small parts of the Bible are not attested to in some of the earliest manuscripts. I don't think this logically equates to your claim that they should be deleted based solely on this evidence. It should definitely be noted, but cutting these out is not the best move for lots of reasons.



discovering a relationship and faith and trust and experiences do not necessarily correlate to the facts and the truth.

Quote: FrGamble

I maintain that an atheist has to want to not believe in the existence of some God or higher power.

No, an atheist wants real evidence of a god, not
the faux evidence you present. An atheist wants
a real experience of god, like the one you and
other Xtions are always bragging about. If god
wants us, here we are, waiting patiently.

So many people have set off on spiritual journeys
and ended up being atheists. Why is that, do you
think. They set out to find god and found nothing
and eventually gave up. So we say to you, congrats
on your experience with your god. Maybe it's a
secret god, and he just wants certain people that
he hand picks, and he purposely hides himself
from the rest of us. Ever think of that? He's doing
a crackerjack job of it, we can't find him anywhere.

Take the Sherlock Holmes novels.

They have real historical settings, with real historical people.

We do not then say everything else in the stories are true.

That is what you are trying to do with the bible. You can not draw that conclusion from the works of Sherlock Holmes, and you can't do it with the bible, either. Maybe it would be different if everything that we were able to verify from the bible was confirmed. If it was 100% accurate on everything that we had the ability to verify, maybe I'd be inclined to believe the rest.

We know there are made up stories in the bible. You are trying to tell us that you know which ones are made up, and which ones are real. Some stories that were once believed to be real have now been shown to be not true. Some of those stories we were told were real. Some people even still believe some of them.

I'm not going to start going through some of the things that the bible claims that are now known to be wrong.

Ok, maybe just one more: Http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml

The bible is a source of bad science. Much of it was believed to be true, because the bible says so. People were tried for heresy for disagreeing with the holy words.

The solution? Label large swaths of the bible has parable and hyperbole. Which is which? Well, only the stuff that the church doesn't believe in any more is parable and hyperbole.

If all that science is bad, why not some of the other things, too?

It has gotten to the point of being pointless again. I find the evidence to be non-compelling. The evidence is not irrefutable, and it does not support one conclusion and exclude all others. I see no reason to select the christian stories as truth over any of the other religions, with their stories and their evidence. I see problems with all of them that I have looked at, in the way that they disagree with our observations and understanding of the universe.

I see no reason to believe.

Another made up story?

Http://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-happened-to-resurrected-saints.html?m=1

I've heard you say before that no one knows why all these people who were supposedly raised from the dead were never mentioned again, or why a miracle of this scope and scale is only recorded in one bible verse and no where else in anyone else's historical documents.

I think there is only one simple, clear, and obvious explanation: It didn't happen. It simply didn't happen.

Quote: Dalex64

I think there is only one simple, clear, and obvious explanation: It didn't happen. It simply didn't happen.

Lol, the dead Jewish saints flying out of their
tombs and graves, fully resurrected when
Jesus rose from his tomb. More than one
NT scholar has wished that verse had been
left out. It's the height of ridiculousness, but it
does put rest of the NT in good perspective.
If that tidbit was added later, how much of
the rest of it was made up nonsense.

In a courtroom, if one thing is found to be
made up fantasy, the rest of what's recorded
needs absolute confirmation before it's
believed. That's as it should be. Once a lie
is discovered, all the rest might be a lie
also.

Quote: Dalex64

.... Much of it was believed to be true,

Sometimes it reminds me of horoscopes. But people don't usually get murdered for not believing a horoscope.

Quote: petroglyph

Sometimes it reminds me of horoscopes. But people don't usually get murdered for not believing a horoscope.

Only because the horoscope people never
had the awesome power of the Church
behind them. Awesome and terrifying.
And all because of a myth. Ironic, isn't it.

Reverend Moon would visit Kodiak once in a while to assign and approve marriages. He didn't have a clown car, but those people drink the kool-aid and are amazingly obedient. wtf, hard to believe.

My sister used to process big crooks. She got to process Sheila who was Bagwan Shree Rashneesh's secretary . Remember that cult up in Oregon? The Bagman would designate spouses also, but he tried all the women first. He also had 14 Rolls Royce's and would drive past his impoverished followers, with a big Pope like wave.

I agree being independent and responsible is often hard,,,, but damn.