I'm really grateful for this discussion. More than anything, it's taught me about myself, my tolerance levels and my inadequacies in expressing myself clearly. This has pushed me to read deeper into my favourite subject, uncovering more facts and surprise twists. It's been really enjoyable.
Our debate has helped with my thought processes and given me time to reflect on the important things in life such as honesty, truth, beauty, and the love of exposing bullshit. Thanks @abolitionist.
If you want to catch up with the debate so far, the previous episode is here.
Ok, so all the semantic-pedantic circular avoid-the-real-subject word-games – I've answered repeatedly in different ways to help you understand, but for old times' sake, just one last time...
Any 'truth' that has been viewed through the lens of a totalitarian ideology (such as religious dogma) is in danger of being warped. There's an agenda. They're selling you something.
If God has not spoken clearly, we can't actually know anything.
Do you think your god has spoken clearly? Take Christianity, for example. How many versions of Christianity have there been over the years? How many are there now? Surely, if the god had spoken clearly, there'd be only ONE.
The problem with Mark...
Most scholars, since the 19th century, agree this was the first gospel to be written, around 70 C.E., as a 3-act drama. They also believe it to be the work of an unknown writer. Early Christian sects thought that using names of Jesus' disciples would lend more credibility to this anonymous gospel writing. No EVIDENCE whatsoever of divine intervention.
As early as 1901, scholars argued that Mark was an artificial construct whose purpose was to present a theological message rather than history.
Lots of scholars think this:
Bart D. Ehrman, Chair of Dept. Religious Studies, University of North Carolina. See: Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (2005). Awesome book!
Dr Mitchell G Reddish, professor and chair of Dept. of Religious Studies, Stetson University. See: An Introduction To The Gospels.
E. P. Sanders, Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, England; Arts & Sciences professor, Duke University, North Carolina. See: The Historical Figure of Jesus (1995)
Dr Richard Carrier, PhD Ancient History. See: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might have Reason for Doubt.
...and many many more. Google it.
So, there's plenty of evidence for you to work with. Now it's your turn to provide EVIDENCE Mark is who you say he is.
I'm sorry you can't trust your senses, Abo. That must be an awfully confusing way to live a life. I wish you a speedy recovery.
It's also clear you can't answer the questions which is why you need to avoid them with word games and philosophy. Poor you.
If atheism is true, I don't see any reason to assume that "place" is a relevant concept, because I don't see any reason to assume that senses or brains are reliable, so...
Are you saying you need ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that your entire world would fall apart if the bible turns out to be nonsense? No wonder you cling so desperately to it all. Poor you.
It's not important to ABSOLUTELY know everything. It's ok to have uncertainty. It's exciting to discover new facts about our reality as we go along. It's fun. Isn't it great to live in a vibrant, dynamic universe rather than a rigid god-game-matrix where everything's pre-decided?
What are the underlying arguments that prove Muzzy Mo's visions were delusional?
Internal critique?
You mean you have feelings and thoughts which lead you to the conclusion it must be real and true? Do you think feelings and thoughts are a reliable way to truth? Have you ever met someone suffering from schizophrenia or high on shrooms?
the same ways I know atheism is false
Please share the numerous and serious fatal inconsistencies to help me understand how atheism is false.
What about the fatal inconsistencies in the bible? If we look at just a few examples in the gospels we see wild discrepancies in the stories.
Let's have a fun quiz: Who's lying?
ANSWER will be revealed at the bottom of the quiz
RE: birth of Jesus
- Matthew: baby Jesus was born in a house
- Luke: baby Jesus placed in a manger (animal feed trough – not usually kept inside a house) because there was no room in the inn.
RE: shortly after the birth of Jesus?
- Luke: the fam travel to Nazareth.
- Matthew: they flee to Egypt.
RE: the resurrection
- Matthew: Disciples go to Galilee, see Jesus, get their directions.
- Luke: Disciples meet Jesus in Jerusalem where he tells them not to leave the city (they don't). They spend 40 days with him then off he flies to heaven.
ANSWER: They're all lying! :D
Fun fact
Luke reckons Jesus was born in the year of a universal census. Proper historical records show that the first universal census occurred in 74 C.E. under the emperor Vespasian, years after Jesus' death. Hmm.
Historical sources
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are not real historical sources, silly! They're stories written to push a religious agenda. There is no reliable corroborating evidence to support them. Hell, the gospels even contradict each other. Matthew copied lots from Mark and Luke pilfered from them both.
Place is important. If we're reading the unerring word of god, why would he say Jesus was from Nazareth when ALL contemporary historical records lean towards the fact that Nazareth didn't exist until at least 100 years after Jesus' death? Later archaeologists couldn't find evidence it existed as a city or town until at least 2nd century C.E.
The answer is because the propagandist, Matthew, needed to pair the Jesus story to previous prophesies. Now, Mark said nothing of Nazareth or even anything of the birth of Jesus. Mark refers to Jesus as the 'Nazarene' (long-haired religious type). It was Matthew who mistranslated this and set down the blooper of 'Jesus of Nazareth' for all to see and enjoy :D
It's a shame you can't reconcile your world view with reality. Poor you.
Can you answer some of my questions now please? You still haven't addressed the ones from the previous blog and I'm really looking forward to your comments. Thanks. :)
Other eclectic articles
Firstly, you presuppose that academics are unbiased. Atheism can be just as much a totalitarian ideology. Think of the USSR, or Pol Pot, or Mao.
You mention 1901 authorities on Christianity, who were imbedded with the scientific notion that one could be unbiased, hence historical criticism. Really historical criticism has been great for Bible research, but again, those early scholars are really out of date given our post modern understanding now of philosophy. No one is unbiased. Everyone has an agenda. You have an agenda. I have an agenda. We all do.
So my question to you is this...why specifically are you questioning the Bible? Why not the Lotus Sutra? Why not the Koran? Why not the Vedas? Why specifically do you feel a need to discuss the Bible? Is Christianity the only belief system out there? What is your agenda?
Secondly, Mark isn't the original source, a book that scholars refer to as the "Q" document is. This document was essentially used as the foundation of all the other gospels. With this in mind, the apparent transparencies within the gospels indicate multiple authors. No single author would purposefully make supposed errors. It'd be plain dumb...and if you think that perhaps a dumb writer wrote the gospels, really anyone who would take the time to write such a large amount in the first or second century CE...well, simply put you can't call them uneducated at least, given how little people wrote.
Thirdly, in Matthew there is no indication to the specific place Jesus was born, "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem..." The writer of Matthew didn't care about this detail. He wasn't a historian. The book of Matthew is centered around the Sermon on the Mount, on the message of Christ. Many, from the likes of Ghandi to Marin Luther King Jr., attest to the Sermon on the Mount as being one of the greatest religious statements known to humanity.
Nazareth is actually described as a "shithole". That whole little bit in the Bible about nothing good coming out of Nazareth. It actually gives validity to the Biblical text. Also, for years, people said Nazareth didn't exist, but now its been found, like they said King David never existed, until the Tel Dan inscription discovery some years back.
All of this is really pointless however. There's a great saying, "If you win someone over by argument, someone else will win them back." Faith is faith. You have just as much faith in atheism, as someone else does in the teachings of Shinran, or the life of Jesus, or the prophecies of Muhammed. Believing in nothing is still believing in something.
I'll get back to you later. just on way out :D
Good to have another believer on board.
laters
I love my ANJ, keep up the good fight my girl!
Hey don't let the details get in the way of a good story!
This was interesting to read, early christianity and all this is quite interesting.
Lol. Thanks fenix :D
This post has received a 11.12 % upvote from @boomerang.