Divine Hiddenness

[anathelia]

No I'm getting the point. You're saying everyone was born into their situations for a reason.

Ergo, the starving kids around the world were born to starve?

That isn't twisting your words, btw, it's simply taking your logic and applying it to others. Or are you saying that this rule is just for you?



Ok now I'm lost. So the "reason" is these millions of reproductive steps?

That's not a reason, that's a process.

By the way, there are millions of sperm all racing to get to one egg in human reproduction. There is most certainly an element of luck and chance.

Fine. If you prefer to blame chance and luck on everything, then by all means, be my guest. I prefer to believe I'm in control of the events of my life. I'm done discussing this with you. and that's not because you proved me wrong and I'm taking my toys and going home. It's because we view the world through two very different sets of eyes, and there's no point in continuing to discuss this when we're not getting anywhere.

 

[retro]

I read what you said, and understood perfectly. So YOU were born where you were for a reason, yet the starving kids weren't? That is what you're saying now.

It seems to me that you're quite blatantly twisting and misrepresenting what she's saying in order to further your own agenda.

Yes there are some mentions of Jesus, though not any of the miracles he performed. Tacitus wasn't alive at the time, so he was basing a lot of his work on second hand material of questionable origins.

You'd have thought that the miracles surrounding Jesus would have been recorded, no? Kind of weird they were overlooked, don't you think? Not to mention the whole son of God thing...

The account in Tacitus points to Jesus being something of a violent revolutionary if anything.

Actually, Josephus mentioned Jesus' miracles, thought not any one specifically. You have to look at the political and religious setting at the time though for explanations as to why the might not have been recorded. As far as the Christians were concerned, these miracles were documented in the gospels. In addition, they had their own oral accounts that were passed down. The Jewish leaders at the time were in opposition to Jesus, which would explain why they didn't want those accounts to be recorded.

As far as Tacticus referring to Jesus as a revolutionary, look at his history. He was a Greek living in Rome and going off of Roman histories. The Romans would have considered Jesus to be a revolutionary, because that's how the Jewish leaders represented him to Pilate, and Pilate allowed the crucification to take place as a result. Also consider the fact that Tacticus was a military writer, which gives further background to his depiction of Jesus as a revolutionary.

Your argument that Jesus must not have performed miracles or wasn't the Son of God because they weren't recorded "properly" is a false dichotomy. You're looking at it from the view that it should have been something important that would have been recorded if it was true. Thus, since it wasn't recorded, it must not be true. You're forgetting that other options exist. As I've stated not so specifically, you have to pay attention to the political and religious climate of the time. The Jews wouldn't want the specifics of Jesus' miracles and teachings to become common knowledge, because it could paint them in a negative light and potentially cost them their power. As far as the Romans were concerned, recording these things and making specific note of them could potentially lead to a Jewish uprising in one of their controlled territories. They were concerned with keeping the rule of law and maintaining control over their lands. It would make logical sense that these things weren't recorded by those two entities for the reasons that I have outlined. Power and control.

 

[sexysadie]

How can anyone possibly believe the bible stories? If you want to believe in God... fine. But if you truly believe Noah built an ark big enough to house every species of every animal on the planet and feed them for 40 days, etc, then you may want to have a brain scan. Just saying.

My question is...... how can anyone not?

 

[Springsteen]

Talk about your closed minded.

I am not close minded. I am simply saying, and PLEASE read this this carefully, take a breath, then read it again so you fully understand, that....

THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING WHAT IS SAID TO HAVE HAPPENED IN THE BIBLE ACTUALLY HAPPENED BECAUSE IT HAPPENED FAR TOO LONG AGO.

 

[sexysadie]

I did in Sunday School. I'd rejected the notions by the time I was about 6 or 7.

Then I started learning about science, which has disproved all of the claims in the Bible.



Ok so you're saying you're 100% closed minded?

I've done the science thing too.

 

[Peter Parka]

I suppose I could say the same thing about you.....love.

No you couldn't because I haven't come into this thread with a belief.

Read any bible. Take a bible class....learn something about the bible... It's all there....it's publicly available to all.

I have read the Bible and was brought up in a religion which bases its beliefs and teachings firmly in the Bible. As I grew up and learned to think for myself, I saw that it dosent add up and the Bible is full of crap.

How can anyone possibly believe the bible stories? If you want to believe in God... fine. But if you truly believe Noah built an ark big enough to house every species of every animal on the planet and feed them for 40 days, etc, then you may want to have a brain scan. Just saying.

^^^ Just one point of many of crap in the bible

 

[sexysadie]

I am not close minded. I am simply saying, and PLEASE read this this carefully, take a breath, then read it again so you fully understand, that....

THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING WHAT IS SAID TO HAVE HAPPENED IN THE BIBLE ACTUALLY HAPPENED BECAUSE IT HAPPENED FAR TOO LONG AGO.

It's called 'history'.....not rocket science...lol

 

[retro]

I can here because there is absolutely no way on earth anyone can ever prove the bible is 100% fact. If it happened it happened far too long ago for ANYONE to prove it. Case closed.

But by your same argument, there's no way for you to prove that it isn't 100% fact.

 

[sexysadie]

No you couldn't because I haven't come into this thread with a belief.



I have read the Bible and was brought up in a religion which bases its beliefs and teachings firmly in the Bible. As I grew up and learned to think for myself, I saw that it dosent add up and the Bible is full of crap.



^^^ Just one point of many of crap in the bible

You believe that the Bible is full of crap....is that not a belief?

 

[Peter Parka]

You believe that the Bible is full of crap....is that not a belief?

I have pointed out logically why it is. You haven't provided any evidence why it is correct. Try again

 

[retro]

I did in Sunday School. I'd rejected the notions by the time I was about 6 or 7.

Then I started learning about science, which has disproved all of the claims in the Bible.

I'm in the opposite boat... I've considered science, and I don't find that science can disprove God. I've done my own research, and have looked at the various different possibilities. But I have come to the conclusion that for myself, the existence of God is the only thing that makes sense.

 

[Springsteen]

But by your same argument, there's no way for you to prove that it isn't 100% fact.

I said it is crap because the stuff in there seems an awful lot of far fetched stuff and also the fact ass I pointed out it has been written and re-written and re-interpreted over and over again. Plus, I'm not the religious one here, I'm not the one who believes something that allegedly happened thousands of years ago.

 

[satinbutterfly]

My question is...... how can anyone not?

Because it is physically impossible? Completely not even in the question of possibility? Because some people have a wonderful gift called common sense? I could go all day.

 

[retro]

I said it is crap because the stuff in there seems an awful lot of far fetched stuff and also the fact ass I pointed out it has been written and re-written and re-interpreted over and over again. Plus, I'm not the religious one here, I'm not the one who believes something that allegedly happened thousands of years ago.

You're missing the point. You're adamant that the Bible cannot be 100% true because it happened too long ago to prove. But that argument goes both ways. Despite how far-fetched you believe it to be, you cannot state that it isn't 100% true because of the fact that it was so long ago. The argument that you have chosen can be used both ways.

 

[sexysadie]

I have pointed out logically why it is. You haven't provided any evidence why it is correct. Try again

It seems that mine and your definition of logic is somewhat different.....

 

[edgray]

Not at all, I'm saying that I'm 100% sure.

yes you are saying you're 100% sure. But what about all of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your belief? If you're ignoring it, you're being closed minded.

Fine. If you prefer to blame chance and luck on everything, then by all means, be my guest. I prefer to believe I'm in control of the events of my life. I'm done discussing this with you. and that's not because you proved me wrong and I'm taking my toys and going home. It's because we view the world through two very different sets of eyes, and there's no point in continuing to discuss this when we're not getting anywhere.

I don't blame luck and chance for everything, far from it. You're putting words in my mouth and you haven't addressed what I said.

It's just obvious to me that there are things we can control, and there are things we can't. Beyond obvious in fact. It's simply the way it is.

It seems to me that you're quite blatantly twisting and misrepresenting what she's saying in order to further your own agenda.

:24: Oh Retro, everything anyone says that disagrees with something you think is an "agenda". My God, you're not Glenn Beck in disguise are you? Come on, that line of thinking is getting tired and stale and you're better than that.

So tell me, where did I twist any words?

Actually, Josephus mentioned Jesus' miracles, thought not any one specifically. You have to look at the political and religious setting at the time though for explanations as to why the might not have been recorded. As far as the Christians were concerned, these miracles were documented in the gospels. In addition, they had their own oral accounts that were passed down. The Jewish leaders at the time were in opposition to Jesus, which would explain why they didn't want those accounts to be recorded.

Hmm. I see the political and religious setting at the time, but I just don't think that level of wow could have been overlooked by anyone. Do you not think someone, outside of highly religious, would have recorded them?

As far as Tacticus referring to Jesus as a revolutionary, look at his history. He was a Greek living in Rome and going off of Roman histories. The Romans would have considered Jesus to be a revolutionary, because that's how the Jewish leaders represented him to Pilate, and Pilate allowed the crucification to take place as a result. Also consider the fact that Tacticus was a military writer, which gives further background to his depiction of Jesus as a revolutionary.

Of course. If he did exist he most likely was a revolutionary, given the climate at the time.

Your argument that Jesus must not have performed miracles or wasn't the Son of God because they weren't recorded "properly" is a false dichotomy.

No I don't believe it is. Because, like the reasons below, there are things that you're not taking into consideration too. The main one being the natural laws of the universe. The fact that since these times, so many of the claims made in the religious scripts are simply wrong.

So on our side we have:

• The natural world
• The lack of recorded evidence
• The knowledge of the many falsehoods in religious scripts

On the flip side there is:

• Some political reasons these things weren't recorded.

You're looking at it from the view that it should have been something important that would have been recorded if it was true. Thus, since it wasn't recorded, it must not be true. You're forgetting that other options exist. As I've stated not so specifically, you have to pay attention to the political and religious climate of the time. The Jews wouldn't want the specifics of Jesus' miracles and teachings to become common knowledge, because it could paint them in a negative light and potentially cost them their power. As far as the Romans were concerned, recording these things and making specific note of them could potentially lead to a Jewish uprising in one of their controlled territories. They were concerned with keeping the rule of law and maintaining control over their lands. It would make logical sense that these things weren't recorded by those two entities for the reasons that I have outlined. Power and control.

No you see it's not just the fact it wasn't recorded. It's the masses and masses of scientific enquiry that has left no room for miracles I'm afraid. The non-recording of these miracles just adds a little more fuel to the fire.

 

[Peter Parka]

It seems that mine and your definition of logic is somewhat different.....

Thats the understatement of the year! Your definition of logic is "It must be right with zero proof if I want it to be true." :24:

 

[retro]

How can anyone possibly believe the bible stories? If you want to believe in God... fine. But if you truly believe Noah built an ark big enough to house every species of every animal on the planet and feed them for 40 days, etc, then you may want to have a brain scan. Just saying.

The argument there is that Pangea still existed at that point in history; so the gathering of the animals wouldn't have been nearly as difficult a premise as it would be today. As far as Noah building an ark big enough... it's still within the realm of possibility. Look at the pyramids... we have no clue how the Egyptians had the technology necessary to build them, and yet they're there.

 

[sexysadie]

Because it is physically impossible? Completely not even in the question of possibility? Because some people have a wonderful gift called common sense? I could go all day.

I know..lol

 

[Springsteen]

Despite how far-fetched you believe it to be, you cannot state that it isn't 100% true because of the fact that it was so long ago

Well I can because, and I'll repeat this again and again, there is no way anyone can prove the bible is a 100% factual piece of literature. That's why I can say it. And until someone can prove the bible is 100% factual (and not opinionated) then the point stands.