Latest British Social Survey finds 52% of the Country are non Religious

[Gofer Blue]

Golfer Blue's comments related to the book of John, in the New Testament. Your reply relates to Moses and I do not see the connection other than an implication that the Torah may be false so the rest of the bible is the same.

Thomas had the same problem as you 2000 years ago.

There is no point in any further discussion with those who believe (note: I use the word believe with a touch of irony here) that the Bible is a complete book of fiction because they cannot/will not accept it as a reference source. My faith is based on Jesus not on Moses and there is evidence other than that in the Bible that he existed. The standard response to that is ok, there may have been an historical Jesus but he was just a bloke, he didn't say most, if not all, the things he is supposed to have said, did not perform any miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead. Oh, and that I must have been brain washed as a child.

In reality by my late teens I had rejected Christianity because I believed science had all the answers (I studied the three sciences at A level and then a science degree). I became a Christian about 20 years later when I guess I finally realised that science does not have all the answers after all!

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

There is no point in any further discussion with those who believe (note: I use the word believe with a touch of irony here) that the Bible is a complete book of fiction because they cannot/will not accept it as a reference source. My faith is based on Jesus not on Moses and there is evidence other than that in the Bible that he existed. The standard response to that is ok, there may have been an historical Jesus but he was just a bloke, he didn't say most, if not all, the things he is supposed to have said, did not perform any miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead. Oh, and that I must have been brain washed as a child.

In reality by my late teens I had rejected Christianity because I believed science had all the answers (I studied the three sciences at A level and then a science degree). I became a Christian about 20 years later when I guess I finally realised that science does not have all the answers after all!

Perhaps science doesn't have all the answers but it might, given time, and if it doesn't find them that might be down to our limitations as a species.

Do you think Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe the miracles are true? To be honest, this is the stuff that confounds me. I can understand the notion of God because it's an answer to the big questions but the Jesus story seems (to me) to be marketing for said notion.

In an earlier post you asked why would John (of gospel fame) fictionalise anything - people like fiction and fancy narratives, don't they? Put a bit of water walking and defeating death in and you've got yourself a best seller.

[truthpaste]

Perhaps science doesn't have all the answers but it might, given time, and if it doesn't find them that might be down to our limitations as a species.

Do you think Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe the miracles are true? To be honest, this is the stuff that confounds me. I can understand the notion of God because it's an answer to the big questions but the Jesus story seems (to me) to be marketing for said notion.

In an earlier post you asked why would John (of gospel fame) fictionalise anything - people like fiction and fancy narratives, don't they? Put a bit of water walking and defeating death in and you've got yourself a best seller.

Have you seriously looked into the evidence OUTSIDE the Bible re the bodily Resurrection of Christ?

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Have you seriously looked into the evidence OUTSIDE the Bible re the bodily Resurrection of Christ?

Only my (admittedly layman's) understanding of biology. Perhaps he was unconscious/presumed dead after his crucifixion, and spluttered into life a couple of days later before succumbing to his injuries/ascending to heaven, but then he wouldn't be dead and therefore not rising from the dead, and that's not as enticing a tale.

I had a google though and have bookmarked a couple of articles to look at later but even in a cursory search one sees there are a number of theories and doubts about the resurrection story alone. I suspect it would just come down to wanting to believe, wanting a faith, and that's fine if that's what people are looking for for themselves, but all that does is return to my question of why seek a faith in the first place.

[Gofer Blue]

Only my (admittedly layman's) understanding of biology. Perhaps he was unconscious/presumed dead after his crucifixion, and spluttered into life a couple of days later before succumbing to his injuries/ascending to heaven, but then he wouldn't be dead and therefore not rising from the dead, and that's not as enticing a tale.

I had a google though and have bookmarked a couple of articles to look at later but even in a cursory search one sees there are a number of theories and doubts about the resurrection story alone. I suspect it would just come down to wanting to believe, wanting a faith, and that's fine if that's what people are looking for for themselves, but all that does is return to my question of why seek a faith in the first place.

Have a read of "Who moved the stone" by Frank Morrison. IIRC he covers the "swoon" theory pretty well, as well as other similar theories like Jesus had an identical twin brother who was happily crucified in his place.

[Rjk]

Have a read of "Who moved the stone" by Frank Morrison. IIRC he covers the "swoon" theory pretty well, as well as other similar theories like Jesus had an identical twin brother who was happily crucified in his place.

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

[jon1959]

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

Sounds about right.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

The Jews, Christians and Muslims perceive his role as rather different though, don't they? Son of God or not son of God? One component of The Holy Trinity and with God and Jesus effectively being the same entity or not? Tis nothing more than very interesting folklore. Many Abrahamist stories were lifted from previous religions and, in turn, the Christians, Jews, Mormons et al added their own layers at later stages. Some believers consider the Garden of Eden story as being absolutely true and others consider it to be allegorical. Almost every believer adheres to the religion they are exposed to as a child regardless of when and where they were born.
There's no evidence that could convince a person to believe in these stories and it's all about indoctrination and gullibility.
And it's hugely ironic that the Almighty chose to make his presence on Earth two thousand years ago and gave recent centuries a miss when world wars were taking place and millions of his believers were being sent to the gas chambers. He was obviously content with his representatives turning water into wine (Jesus), creating a hillock from whence a speech could be made (St David) and walking in the air, (Ja'far ibn Abi Talib), appearance of clothing when required (Zacharius) etc.
It's no coincidence that these relgions were formed at a time when the average person was illiterate and had no or little understanding of science as we know it today. Many natural features and events can be explained today and intelligent people know that we don't know it all. To think that invented stories from thousands of years ago (and which were often versions of previous ones) is quite amusing. Religion is fascinating mythology, that's all.

[Gofer Blue]

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

I've noticed that this theory often comes up. Please explain who were these people who "stood to benefit" in the early days of the Christian church? The early Christians were persecuted and martyred for their faith - not exactly a benefit I'd have thought! And yet Christianity flourished despite all attempts to strangle it at birth.

[truthpaste]

Only my (admittedly layman's) understanding of biology. Perhaps he was unconscious/presumed dead after his crucifixion, and spluttered into life a couple of days later before succumbing to his injuries/ascending to heaven, but then he wouldn't be dead and therefore not rising from the dead, and that's not as enticing a tale.

I had a google though and have bookmarked a couple of articles to look at later but even in a cursory search one sees there are a number of theories and doubts about the resurrection story alone. I suspect it would just come down to wanting to believe, wanting a faith, and that's fine if that's what people are looking for for themselves, but all that does is return to my question of why seek a faith in the first place.

But people like Strobel who took 24 months to look at it properly DIDN'T want his own wife to be right, that was the last thing he wanted!

People (like many here) who are hoping it isn't true only stay that way because they rest on assumptions that lean the way they want them to. Yet the same people would NEVER assume they'd packed their passport on their first holiday after 3 years in the UK, so why make assumptions on this?

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

But people like Strobel who took 24 months to look at it properly DIDN'T want his own wife to be right, that was the last thing he wanted!

People (like many here) who are hoping it isn't true only stay that way because they rest on assumptions that lean the way they want them to. Yet the same people would NEVER assume they'd packed their passport on their first holiday after 3 years in the UK, so why make assumptions on this?

Atheists don't (or shouldn't) hope theism isn't true, it just doesn't make any sense to us. You seem to assume because it doesn't, this is because of bias and stubbornness and we're sticking to our beliefs, but there's no leap of faith - there doesn't have to be.

I'm not sure I'll watch the movie, thanks, but I'll bookmark it and try and have a gander when I can. Strobel appears to be a convert, though, and just wants to tell people how he converted.

[ToTaL ITK]

But people like Strobel who took 24 months to look at it properly DIDN'T want his own wife to be right, that was the last thing he wanted!

People (like many here) who are hoping it isn't true only stay that way because they rest on assumptions that lean the way they want them to. Yet the same people would NEVER assume they'd packed their passport on their first holiday after 3 years in the UK, so why make assumptions on this?

just reading the comments put me right off. i'll stay ignorant and faithless

[truthpaste]

just reading the comments put me right off. i'll stay ignorant and faithless

You are in a large majority, yet most people laughed at Noah. Nothing changes.

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" - John 3v19

[Taunton Blue Genie]

There is no point in any further discussion with those who believe (note: I use the word believe with a touch of irony here) that the Bible is a complete book of fiction because they cannot/will not accept it as a reference source. My faith is based on Jesus not on Moses and there is evidence other than that in the Bible that he existed. The standard response to that is ok, there may have been an historical Jesus but he was just a bloke, he didn't say most, if not all, the things he is supposed to have said, did not perform any miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead. Oh, and that I must have been brain washed as a child.

In reality by my late teens I had rejected Christianity because I believed science had all the answers (I studied the three sciences at A level and then a science degree). I became a Christian about 20 years later when I guess I finally after all!

Regarding your last sentence: science means knowledge. No-one in their right mind thinks that we yet have perfect knowledge of all things. Our knowledge is built on trial and error along with evidence. On the other hand, ancient religions that have little or no evidence may explain the creation of the universe whereas people at the time didn't understand electricity, microbes or a million other things that we have subsequently learned about.