• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Life From Dirt?

PureX

Veteran Member
While many would say that the history of the Jewish people is traditionally based on accounts of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, rather than calling it truth, it seems that the early Christian movement was certainly based on what was perceived by many to believe Jesus was real, not a myth.
Jesus may have been an actual person. But the story is mythical. Some events depicted may have actually happened, but the story is mythical. Meaning that it's purpose is to represent a new spiritual ideology. Not present historical facts.

When people "believe in" the story, what they usually mean is that they believe in the spiritual ideology that the story presents to them. Sometimes that means they accept the story as fact, but of course they weren't there, and can't know that to be so. Any more than you were there and can't know that it isn't. Neither of which is the point of the story, or why it's been held to be so important for 2,000 years.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
So, according to your view, what is factual? Birth, miracles, resurrection or even much talked-about sermons?
I don't care what's factual and what's not because that isn't why the story exists, or what it's about. I wasn't there, so I can't know what actually happened. And it makes no difference in terms of the value and importance of the story, anyway.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I suppose God knows what He is going and why.



That's true.



You don't really need logic to say that you don't know something.
Sure, science "tries" to avoid subjectivity but does not always succeed.
Science says the same as most atheists claim, that it/they do not know about God.




An example might be that science has shown that God is not needed or that science has shown that naturalistic abiogenesis is true or that science has shown that naturalistic evolution is true.
Why a made up example? No
real ones?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
What evidence can be there for something that does not exist. Only an idiot will ask for it.

Haven't you heard that most atheists don't think that God does not exist. They don't know and ask for evidence that science can use and investigate to tell them if God does exist or not.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The problem seems to be that you do not understand the concept of subjective.

And you don't understand how individual subjectivity can vary for different persons or how to understand objectivity even as form of subjectivity different than other forms.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Christians have statues of wood
and stone in their shrines.
Of their gods.

They pray to those statues.

But I suppose you think that "primitive"
or "pagan" people were stuoid and could not tell the
difference between a symbol and the
( supposed) real God the way sophisticated
" christians" can.

Those Christians who are sooo sophisticated
that they believe in Noah's ark.

And think others must be so stupid.

God is so different to any representation or image that He does not want representations made. God does not want us to think that He is anything like the images. It dishonours God and is not good for us.
I suppose idol worshippers in ancient times had images that they thought represented their gods somehow.
I don't know what to say about Noah's Flood.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
The global flood story is a myth. Myth isn't just fiction, it's a combination of fact and fiction that is intended to convey a cultural ideal, not to convey the fact of a historical person or event.

"Evidence" is simply irrelevant to the function and purpose of myth. Why ever either one of you is bringing it up it's pointless.

It's brought up because @Audie knows I believe the flood was real but a big local flood, with evidence in the writings of the other cultures of the day and in the fact that the translation of the flood story can legitimately be made to show this.
There is a problem with some places where God says that all life was wiped out however and Audie and others like to attack the flood story because it is hard to reconcile with what is considered reality even if there are ways to answer this problem.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
God is so different to any representation or image that He does not want representations made. God does not want us to think that He is anything like the images. It dishonours God and is not good for us.
I suppose idol worshippers in ancient times had images that they thought represented their gods somehow.
I don't know what to say about Noah's Flood.
FIRST, "Jesus is god" and, " this is what
he looked like" is like a totally christian thing.

Second, you've not a clue what "ancients" thought,
nor do I.
Or maybe we do. People don't change.

Christians clearly thunk their images represent
god. Sometimes the big guy...see Sistine chapel..

Or, like with me and the kitchen god statue I have.
I don't figure there is any kitchen god that actually looks like that.

Noah's ark..

Wouldn't hurt to think it over.
There was no ark. No flood.

To be thought over are the implications
of believing there was.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
But mostly it is. Chemosh (in the Judges quote) is the God of his tribe, and 'our God' is the God of the Jewish tribe. The text isn't ambiguous in any way. And as for the bible God being the biggest and the best god (rather than the only god), that's called henotheism.

From the start Yahweh was telling and showing Israel that the other gods were nothing but idols and that Yahweh was the only true God. It seems many or even most in Israel were seduced by the idea of other gods however when they intermarried with the Canaanites.

Grateful if you'll provide the quote. But it won't make all the other quotes go away,

Deuteronomy 4:35,39 — Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
Deuteronomy32:39 — See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
So your answer is that these quotes were penned a thousand years later and not by Moses.
But your other quoes at the most show that there were other gods around in those days, Chemosh for example, and other gods.
It's strange to think that the writers would write that Yahweh is the only God and then say stuff that showed that there were many more true gods. You have a strange way of interpreting the Bible.

They each devised as many gods of such nature, sex, powers, locales, &c as seemed to them to be required. Yahweh is definitely not the only god around back in those days. And note how the model for Yahweh is Mesopotamian, borrowed by Semitic tribes from the non-Semitic Sumerians ─ Abraham is said to be from Ur, for example, a Sumerian town but with Semitic (Akkadian) neighbors, and the Canaanite tribes and their gods were largely Semitic too.

Contrast the Egyptian model, where gods are realized as animals or the sun, and an elaborate and ritualized concept of an afterlife. Or animism, the idea that not only all living things but caves, mountains, rivers, woods, fields, had a supernatural element. Yahweh isn't found in early humanity; [he]'s the product of a particular time place and ethnicity. The gods of Sumer, whose tradition via the Semitic tribes shapes much of the idea of [him], are known to have existed at least 2,000 years before [he] did. So are the wholly different gods of Egypt.

Yes people were making up gods galore with various names. Yahweh came on the scene late and to Abraham and his descendants, as the Bible tells us. But the true God was probably somewhere in the pantheons of other nations, just mainly unrecognisable, even if the Bible does identify Him in other nations and religions at times in the Pentateuch.
Melchizedek story, Enoch story (Genesis 5), story of Balaam (Numbers 22)
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
That is not correct. Science and atheists can very honestly and without any hesitation say that they have not come across or have ever been given any verifiable evidence of existence of God, souls, heaven, hell, end of days, judgment, resurrection, reincarnation, rebirth, deliverance, moksha or eternal life.

Are you saying that therefore that science has shown that there are no gods and that atheist should say that there are no gods?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Would you say that for the birth of Jesus or his resurrection, nothing factual? No feeding of 5000 with five loaves, no walking on water, no changing water into wine, no healing of the lame, blind or leprous, no raising Lazarus from death, all fiction?

The gospel story is good evidence for me even if I cannot prove it.
Are you saying that because it cannot be proven that means that it is not true?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
He wrote a book called “Dawkins’ God”, in which he has a pop at Dawkins for attacking a simplistic idea of Christianity. I saw a copy in Blackwell’s the morning after a dinner for the retirement of my old tutor and bought it on impulse. It’s not bad.

I googled him last night and found some of his lectures and listened to most of one about Dawkins. I find I can get the gist of what someone is on about by listening to a few talks. It takes me too long to read books unless I am really interested in something.
But yes he has quite a few books out.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I no longer see the possibilities that the human body and mind evolved from, scientists say, an "Unknown Common Ancestor" of apes, although the theory can be insinuating that has happened. I have come to trust the Bible's portrayal of the distinct forms of creation, such as fish or birds having been created by God, including humans. Obviously language took on different forms in human development.

I tend to see the possibility of evolution from one type to another in Genesis 1 with the use of different words for create and make. (bara and asah). Bara for create, even if some say bara and asah mean pretty much the same thing.
It would be interesting to see if there are gaps in the fossil record at the places bara is used in Gen 1. Asah might mean just bring about, possibly through evolution.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I will also say that learning about DNA which I just read about in a biology textbook is not purporting evolution from initial cells at the beginning without distinct formation and intelligence of what the Bible calls kinds such as fish and birds. To investigate what these things are such as bacteria is science. It doesn't say that cells evolved into elephants, for instance. Hope you get my point.

I get your point.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
And you don't understand how individual subjectivity can vary for different persons or how to understand objectivity even as form of subjectivity different than other forms.

We all have our problems.
I do see that someone's subjective experience can be objective for that person.
 
Top