Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Yes, when you put it that way.

This is an odd behavior known as pious fraud. The people who wrote the Gospels were not historians. They were propagandists.

No. That is about being judgmental. Expressing that judgment is what comes across as rude. "Judge not lest you be judged." We can understand truth differently. We can understand facts or reality differently. This does not make us liers. Only mistaken.

When so much of the Old Testament is a clear fabrication, why worry about the New Testament? It is like building a house on sand; then discovering that the roof is weak. It is too late to wonder if the Gospels are solid. (No. Of course not.). Imo

When so much of the Old Testament is a clear fabrication, why worry about the New Testament? It is like building a house on sand; then discovering that the roof is weak. It is too late to wonder if the Gospels are solid. (No. Of course not.). Imo

Which power should not be "given out indiscriminately?" Truth? What does that mean?

Yes. The books are different. They are also similar. They are also equally lacking in proof. No. We don't all put our "faith" into something. That is not the Agnostic way. Are Allah and Yahveh different? How are they different? This is of itself a faith statement. To me, they look like the same nonexistent entity. In the Gospels, the death of Jesus came with interesting phenomena. The tombs opened and the dead walked among the living. Just another day in Jerusalem? Where is the archeological evidence? None of the outside observers thought it was worth mentioning in their historical accounts. The other tombs should be empty. The Temple itself was not destroyed by magic. We have the government of Rome to thank for that.

My sense of things, Is that when people have the illusion of annonimity -- in cyber space -- they are more rude. It is one reason that I use my true name.

In the great market place of ideas; let the buyer beware. Ideas do not need protection or respect. People need protection from persecution.

It is not wrong. This is part of why blasphemy laws are a mistake. Neither beliefs nor disbeliefs have rights. People have rights.

I think about all the people who have perfect faith in the Koran -- and all the people who have perfect faith in the Bible. Are both groups right? Are both groups mistaken? Is the faith of one group right and the faith of the other group mistaken? Which is which if faith can make the wrong choice? Is the same God, that supposedly inspired both holy books, a deranged fiend? Maybe perfect faith in an old book is not enough. The more so when there are holy books to choose from. Maybe people should look for proof; and think for themselves.

This is true. We still have no common reference points. A lot of it seems to be an inability to let go of the God word. The God of Pantheism has nothing to do with the God of Monotheism. Or the various philosophic efforts. God is love. Or the first cause. or mystery. A lot of this is dishonest. Consider the American national motto. "One nation under God." Then plug in most of these meanings. What do we have? "One nation under the Unity behind existence." "One nation under love." "One nation under the first cause." "One nation under mystery." The default definition behind all of it -- if we are being honest -- is the God of Monotheism. Even your statement -- "It just means that God has not granted the proper words to one, or complete understanding to the other." -- makes it clear that you are a Monotheist. That is understandable, but hardly universal.

If the Bible actually were from God; it would have been a lot easier to believe. I'm not even talking about proof. Just less implausible.

Since you bring it up, there is considerable debate over the true authorship of the Shakespeare plays. For instance, Sir Francis Bacon. It doesn't actually matter who wrote the plays. They are great plays regardless of who wrote them and the true authorship is less important than the content. Can you say the same for the Bible?

Of course I wasn't there. It would be difficult to attend a nonexistent event.

1. That would indeed be difficult, since the Exodus never happened -- and Mosses himself is a fictional character. 2. Without undermining the authors? That would indeed be difficult. Since you asked. IMO

Real history books are subject to correction as more and better information comes to light. If the history in the Bible were subject to this process of revision and correction -- by this time, it would be reduced to a pamphlet. Would you go along with having the Bible corrected? Subject to objective verification? Which part of this is a definition? At most, it reflects an an ancient author's poetic style.

The failure is not yours. We have no common reference points for God. I keep observing that we have no common working definition of God. People think that I'm being silly. Because we do not have a working definition of God -- we are talking about the existence of something that can't be defined. It is odd how bent out of shape people get on this point. Raging about the existence or nonexistence of something that can't be defined.

In fairness, I think that this only shows that God is not all good. It is not proof -- by itself -- of God's nonexistence.

On 8/3/2016 at 6:25 PM, cuchulain said: I don't see how rape can be approved by any society, yet I think it is in some, though I can't name the places off hand. Try the Bible. When a man rapes a woman, his punishment is that he has to marry her. (wink, wink) A woman taken as prisoner of war is property. The Bible has no problem with property being raped. Let's hear it for that old time Biblical morality. It's the same with the Koran.

Then we are speaking of literal world history. It is difficult enough that you expect Scripture to be accepted as true, based only on faith. Expecting people to take world history, as expressed by that Scripture, also on faith alone -- is truly unreasonable. IMO

Not yet.

I want to be clear on this one point. Are you speaking of a literal Adam and Eve, eating the forbidden fruit as literal history?

In the Gospel of John, the Logos -- the Word -- existed from the beginning. "In the beginning was the word......." Why then, was the cure for sin in existence before sin came into existence? Clearly, the story line was in place from the start. All of it. The author of this story is responsible for all details. Like the author of any other story. IMO