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

[lisvaneblue]

The facts are that:

1. The first five books of the Bible and which represent the Torah were supposedly written by Moses.
2. There is no evidence that Moses existed
3. There is no evidence that if he existed that he spoke to 'God'
4. There is no evidence of such dialogue being recorded.

The whole concept of Abrahamist religions are based on the supposed works of one mythical person and there is nothing resembling an audit trail of any description. However, catch people when they are young, indoctrinate them and they swallow it whole. And most believers have little idea how so-called Holy Books have been compiled, sifted, edited and changed through the centuries. And that's precisely why religions are subject to endless and deep schisms even under the Abrahamist umbrella.

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.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

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.

I had asked a question about Moses several times in this thread and it went unanswered. As Moses is one of the most important pillars of the story in Abrahamist religions it is perfectly logical to seriously analyse things assigned to him and which adherents believe in. It seems to be the case of a possibly mythical person supposedly carrying God's word to the masses so I think the subject deserves more respect than referring to another possibly mythical person mentioned in the same tome.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I had asked a question about Moses several times in this thread and it went unanswered. As Moses is one of the most important pillars of the story in Abrahamist religions it is perfectly logical to seriously analyse things assigned to him and which adherents believe in. It seems to be the case of a possibly mythical person supposedly carrying God's word to the masses so I think the subject deserves more respect than referring to another possibly mythical person mentioned in the same tome.

Looks like no-one is going to provide any evidence of God's words passed onto Moses, including the book of Genesis and the talking snake.
Surely, the veracity of what are meant to be God's words represents the basis of all that followed in various Abrahamist holy books.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Looks like no-one is going to provide any evidence of God's words passed onto Moses, including the book of Genesis and the talking snake.
Surely, the veracity of what are meant to be God's words represents the basis of all that followed in various Abrahamist holy books.

Still no takers on the Moses front.....

[splott parker]

Still no takers on the Moses front.....

Crikey.......

[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.

[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

[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.