religion

[GuidesForScapers]

It's funny how much the lack of knowledge about religion shows through in atheist manifestos.

 

Firstly - the catholic church is not homophobic. I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted. The official teaching of the catholic church is that being gay has no bearing on whether or not you go to heaven, and indeed we are taught to love all humans regardless of their sexual orientation, as we are all children of God.

Theist != Catholic.

 

 

Secondly - Opus dei doesn't condone self-mutilation. It's heartening to know that watching a fictional novel can tell you all you need to know about the organization. :rolleyes:

Agreed with most of that quote, thought it was worth posting. May not be 100% accurate, but i feel it addresses a lot of different things that can bother me.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Firstly - the catholic church is not homophobic. I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted. The official teaching of the catholic church is that being gay has no bearing on whether or not you go to heaven, and indeed we are taught to love all humans regardless of their sexual orientation, as we are all children of God.

I accept that de jure discrimination doesn't exist. However:

• Catholic charities on gay couples right to adoption: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304333/Catholic-charity-loses-appeal-gay-adoption.html
• Vatican on Catholic priests and homosexuality ('intrinisically disordered'): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/24/catholic-church-gay-priests-exposed
• BBC report on Catholic attitudes towards homosexuality: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11307683

De facto discrimination definitely does exist. Would it be acceptable for a private company to 'Um' and 'Arr' over whether to employ a homosexual simply because of his sexuality? No.

 

I'm not claiming religion does more bad than good, just playing Devil's Advocate. There seems to be some disconnect with what the church preaches, and what it actually approves of.

[obfuscator]

Firstly - the catholic church is not homophobic. I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted. The official teaching of the catholic church is that being gay has no bearing on whether or not you go to heaven, and indeed we are taught to love all humans regardless of their sexual orientation, as we are all children of God.

I accept that de jure discrimination doesn't exist. However:

• Catholic charities on gay couples right to adoption: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304333/Catholic-charity-loses-appeal-gay-adoption.html
• Vatican on Catholic priests and homosexuality ('intrinisically disordered'): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/24/catholic-church-gay-priests-exposed
• BBC report on Catholic attitudes towards homosexuality: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11307683

De facto discrimination definitely does exist. Would it be acceptable for a private company to 'Um' and 'Arr' over whether to employ a homosexual simply because of his sexuality? No.

 

I'm not claiming religion does more bad than good, just playing Devil's Advocate. There seems to be some disconnect with what the church preaches, and what it actually approves of.

 

 

First link: Catholic charities don't allow unmarried couples to adopt. Since a gay marriage cannot be condoned from a catholic perspective, denying their services to a gay couple is no different then denying the child to an unmarried couple.

second link: That's the teaching of the chuch, yes. Any straight priests who intent to visit straight strip clubs would also be asked to leave the priesthood.

Third link: Don't have time to listen at the moment, perhaps you'd care to paraphrase?

 

Here's the thing with your last sentence - it's practically never simply because of sexuality. If someone is gay, it is against the morals of the church to discriminate against them in any way because of that fact alone, as there's nothing wrong with being gay.

 

However - I'll use the drug example again. Would you refuse to allow a drug addict to stay in your house? Probably not. Would you refuse to allow them to stay in your house if they were going to be doing drugs in your house? You may well.

 

If there's any disconnect, it's because people are unfamiliar with what the church actually teaches, which is certainly commonplace.

 

EDIT: Actually, I watched a bit of the video.

 

The issue there is that these gay people attending church are actively committing moral sin by engaging in gay sexual activity. It has nothing to do with the state of them being attracted to the same sex, rather then acting on it.

 

The interview with the gay man about two minutes in, where he talks about "the church losing touch with the wants of its congregation". That quote, to me, demonstrates a functional disconnect in regards to the idea of the purpose of the church.

 

The church does not exist to please its followers. It does not exist to cave into populist agendas. The chuch has, and will continue to, taken unpopular stances on important issues, precisely because absolute god-given morality surpasses base human wants and desires.

[Maulmachine]

 

The church does not exist to please its followers. It does not exist to cave into populist agendas. The chuch has, and will continue to, taken unpopular stances on important issues, precisely because absolute god-given morality surpasses base human wants and desires.

 

And who says their morality is god given? The church?

[obfuscator]

 

The church does not exist to please its followers. It does not exist to cave into populist agendas. The chuch has, and will continue to, taken unpopular stances on important issues, precisely because absolute god-given morality surpasses base human wants and desires.

 

And who says their morality is god given? The church?

Yes. That's the job of the vatican - to study scripture and logic to infer God's will.

[Dheginsea]

 

And who says their morality is god given? The church?

 

That's a good point, I met a guy who once said that if it wasn't for god he would've killed many people because he was afraid of going to hell when he died. Another person I once met said that atheists can't have morals because "if they don't believe in the god that gives morals, how could they have them?". So my question is why do so many people assume that non religious people are not moral.

[Myweponsg00d]

Who are you to say that they are mentally unstable? They are doing what they believed in. According to you we should respect people who have beliefs.

The bigger point I'm defending, in case you've lost sight of it, is that your pasta parody isn't a religion.

 

Why not? Because the prophet of Pastafarianism intended for it to be a "parody"?

1.) How do you know that this is his actual intent, instead of false information that you found on Wikipedia?

2.) Why does his intent affect whether or not anyone else can deem the ideas worthy of being a religion to follow?

 

Does that mean that if I go back in time and suggest Christianity as a joke before anything comes about, that Christianity cannot be a religion?

 

 

 

I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted.

 

Who are you to criticize people for not refuting arguments? You are the grand master of saying ridiculous things that I refute and then never acknowledging my points.

 

 

I never said the fact that people died for something made it inherently right - but it does at least indicate there is powerful evidence to believe it's true.

 

Then every religion is true, along with Nazism, Marxism, and devil worship. Also I'm sure there are some psychos out there who died in the name of the voices they heard in their head. People have died in the name of Japan, is Japan the best country? Hell people have died for basically everything. People have died due to their scientific beliefs. I guess everything is true then?

 

And why would they believe a lie? They were right there - they would have been the first ones to call bs if something was wrong.

 

Why are there people who believe in Jesus and people who believe in Muhammad? Are both then true?

 

Of course humans don't have inate lie-detection - but generally we believe things that are true, or at least when we have reasonable evidence of such. You're still not answering my question - these people died for Jesus right when these events were occuring. If Jesus was a fraud, surely they would have been the first to know - and why then would they have laid their lives on the line for that?

 

Once gain, I don't see anyone being martyred for pastafarianism.

 

First of all, I'm not sure that theres really evidence that any of the disciples died for Jesus, or that Jesus even ever existed.

 

Secondly, why would people have died for Muhammad?

 

Thirdly, why would people have died for Hitler if his cause wasn't worth supporting? Better fire up the gas chambers.

 

 

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

[Ginger_Warrior]

The church does not exist to please its followers. It does not exist to cave into populist agendas. The chuch has, and will continue to, taken unpopular stances on important issues, precisely because absolute god-given morality surpasses base human wants and desires.

 

And who says their morality is god given? The church?

Yes. That's the job of the vatican - to study scripture and logic to infer God's will.

And what makes the Vatican so special that it gets to set its own set of rules in regards to what it finds moral and immoral?

 

To take your example about drug addicts, let's assume an employer takes on a homosexual as an employee. He then brings his gay partner into work and they kiss, as heterosexuals would, in the workplace. The employer has no right to say, "I think practicing homosexuality is a sin, so stop doing it in my workplace", because this would (rightly) be defined as homophobic and in breach if equality laws. The only way the employer can stop them is by saying, "We don't allow romantic realtionships of any sort in the workplace". In other words, heterosexuals are also not allowed either, not because of any issue regarding morality or sin, but because having partners in the workplace distracts them from doing what they are there for - work.

 

If a gay couple walks into an adoption agency, whether it's Christian or otherwise, why is it OK for the owners of that establishment to decide that because they happen to be gay, they are somehow more incapable of doing what they were at the adoption centre for than a heterosexual couple?

 

So long as a homosexual couple can do the difficult job of raising a child in a secure and loving environment as well as a heterosexual couple, why do Christians suddenly gain the moral highground simply for the fact they're Christian and happen to feel that practicing homosexuality is wrong? Such freedoms are not given to other people in society, and I would actually argue it's quite selfish on the owners' part for denying that child a good opportunity to move on into a new, stable home because of their own personal convictions.

 

What makes religion so special that it deserves its own special clauses when dictating what is and isn't morally correct, that the rest of us clearly don't understand because similar rights aren't bestowed on us?

 

"I don't agree with Action X because of my religion" is no different to saying "I don't agree with Action X because I don't think it's right", in my opinion.

[Dheginsea]

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

 

My definition of god:

god is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent but i also believe that this sort of being cannot exist and therefore i do not believe in god.

[sees_all1]

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

While its impossible to know exactly who, or what God is (other than the trivial "love" answer), I believe I have found photographic evidence that God exists

[hide]

 

:twss:

[/hide]

[meol]

It might be impossible to know who or what (a) God is, or if he exists at all, but at least we can know with absolute certainty what his opinion is on any possible issue. :unsure:

----

Anyway.

 

Why do you (you=anyone religious) think there is a soul? Where is it, how does it communicate with the body, and what does it actually do? I personally enjoyed this essay as an attack on the concept of a soul.

 

Why do miracles always seem to have a possible naturalistic explanation? God seems to have something against amputees.

[dinoboy100]

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

 

My definition of god:

god is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent but i also believe that this sort of being cannot exist and therefore i do not believe in god.

 

And to most people, that is god. And the way I used to think. But then I took a philosophy class. That put me more in the agnostic category. I am all for science and whatnot, but at the moment, there are some things out there that can not be explained without the existence of a god. Mainly the first nanoseconds after the big bang. It can't be explained at the moment, putting god creating the universe on equal footing with all the other explanation for those first few instance of existence. Explicitly stating he doesn't exist is not being fair and open-minded, but so is saying he does exist and being close-minded.

 

God is not necessarily omniscient, all the evidence for that is in the bible. The bible proclaims a god, but god proclaims a bible, making it a petitio. In that sense, the bible is a fallacy, so I don't think it should be trusted in determining whether or not there is a god. So we really don't know what god is, just that he/she/it could be there, or she/it/he could not be there.

 

And if you want some fun reading, read some Anselm. I stuck a bit of his writing below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III (Proslogium).

God cannot be conceived not to exist. ‑‑God is that, than which

nothing greater can be conceived. ‑‑That which can be conceived

not to exist is not God.

AND it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to

exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be

conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be

conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater

can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than

which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an

irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than

which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even

be conceived not to exist;. and this being thou art, O Lord, our God.

So truly, therefore, dost thou exist, O Lord, my God, that thou canst

not be conceived not to exist; and rightly.

 

If that doesn't make sense, here is an explanation.

http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html

 

[Myweponsg00d]

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

 

My definition of god:

god is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent but i also believe that this sort of being cannot exist and therefore i do not believe in god.

 

And to most people, that is god. And the way I used to think. But then I took a philosophy class. That put me more in the agnostic category. I am all for science and whatnot, but at the moment, there are some things out there that can not be explained without the existence of a god. Mainly the first nanoseconds after the big bang. It can't be explained at the moment, putting god creating the universe on equal footing with all the other explanation for those first few instance of existence. Explicitly stating he doesn't exist is not being fair and open-minded, but so is saying he does exist and being close-minded.

 

What do you think agnosticism is? Because it isn't a "middle ground" between theism and atheism. If you say "I believe God does exist" then you are a theist. If you say anything else, then you are an atheist. Agnosticism is not a statement about your belief about the existence of God, it is a statement about whether you think the question of God can ever be answered. If you don't think we can ever find the answer, then you are an agnostic. But you can still either choose to believe in God or not believe in God. I have met agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

 

Secondly, so what if we can't answer some questions right now? I have two points to make to this logic. First of all, 200 years ago, we couldn't answer the question "Where did humans come from?" Now we have evolution. Why should we just continue to substitute God for our unknown information?

 

My second point is as follows: What came before God? You're basically saying that the universe MUST have an explanation, but why doesn't God need an explanation? If you think God can exist without an explanation, then why couldn't the universe exist without an explanation?

God is not necessarily omniscient, all the evidence for that is in the bible. The bible proclaims a god, but god proclaims a bible, making it a petitio. In that sense, the bible is a fallacy, so I don't think it should be trusted in determining whether or not there is a god. So we really don't know what god is, just that he/she/it could be there, or she/it/he could not be there.

 

Do you think we could possibly ever know if there is a god? Could we find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist?

[Distracted]

Personally, I have a different view of God. I'm not really religious, but I think of God more as something that's not really made of matter, that can't, at this point at least, be defined by science. It probably sounds [developmentally delayed]ed, but that's kind of the vision I've gained recently, while thinking of the beginning of the Universe. Just some force, at lack of a better word, the unmoved mover, that set in motion the expansion of the Universe and thus life. Perhaps it's not even a God in the normal sense of the word after all, I don't know, it's just, something that goes above the mental capabilities of mankind to fully comprehend at this point.

 

But then again, there could be no such thing, but there'd still need to be an answer to what happened at first. I don't think science at this time is capable of finding that answer.

 

But that's the thing with religious debates, there's no definitive answer, at least not yet.

 

In response to Mywepons, no, I don't think we can.

I doubt a scientist will one day come out with a discovery saying "God is real and I have this scientific data to confirm it." And even IF something like that would ever happen, society would never accept it as real, just dismissing the scientist as a nut.

[Myweponsg00d]

Personally, I have a different view of God. I'm not really religious, but I think of God more as something that's not really made of matter, that can't, at this point at least, be defined by science. It probably sounds [developmentally delayed]ed, but that's kind of the vision I've gained recently, while thinking of the beginning of the Universe. Just some force, at lack of a better word, the unmoved mover, that set in motion the expansion of the Universe and thus life. Perhaps it's not even a God in the normal sense of the word after all, I don't know, it's just, something that goes above the mental capabilities of mankind to fully comprehend at this point.

 

But then again, there could be no such thing, but there'd still need to be an answer to what happened at first. I don't think science at this time is capable of finding that answer.

 

But that's the thing with religious debates, there's no definitive answer, at least not yet.

 

What you're saying is that the beginning of the universe needs an explanation.

 

What is the explanation for your explanation? How does the unmoved mover exist?

 

In response to Mywepons, no, I don't think we can.

I doubt a scientist will one day come out with a discovery saying "God is real and I have this scientific data to confirm it." And even IF something like that would ever happen, society would never accept it as real, just dismissing the scientist as a nut.

 

If a giant man came to Earth and started floating around and taking us to solar systems that are many lightyears away, curing diseases, and doing all kinds of other Godly stuff, you don't think that would be scientific proof of God?

[Distracted]

Personally, I have a different view of God. I'm not really religious, but I think of God more as something that's not really made of matter, that can't, at this point at least, be defined by science. It probably sounds [developmentally delayed]ed, but that's kind of the vision I've gained recently, while thinking of the beginning of the Universe. Just some force, at lack of a better word, the unmoved mover, that set in motion the expansion of the Universe and thus life. Perhaps it's not even a God in the normal sense of the word after all, I don't know, it's just, something that goes above the mental capabilities of mankind to fully comprehend at this point.

 

But then again, there could be no such thing, but there'd still need to be an answer to what happened at first. I don't think science at this time is capable of finding that answer.

 

But that's the thing with religious debates, there's no definitive answer, at least not yet.

 

What you're saying is that the beginning of the universe needs an explanation.

 

What is the explanation for your explanation? How does the unmoved mover exist?

Every action has a reaction, and every action itself is a reaction to another action. In other words, something can't just start moving by itself, it needs to be triggered by something else. This action-reaction pattern can't be traced back forever, there has to be something in the beginning that just somehow moved by itself, the unmoved mover, that would set in motion the rest of the reactions that would form the Universe.

 

Of course, finding this unmoved mover is near impossible, and I have no idea how it would exist, but what's the alternative?

In response to Mywepons, no, I don't think we can.

I doubt a scientist will one day come out with a discovery saying "God is real and I have this scientific data to confirm it." And even IF something like that would ever happen, society would never accept it as real, just dismissing the scientist as a nut.

 

If a giant man came to Earth and started floating around and taking us to solar systems that are many lightyears away, curing diseases, and doing all kinds of other Godly stuff, you don't think that would be scientific proof of God?

 

Well yes, but that's not something that's controlled by humans. You asked if "we could find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist", which suggests that humans themselves would find the evidence. If God comes over here and shows himself, it's God that showed us the evidence and not human beings.

 

So yeah, to go back to your example, I think most people would be convinced and a minority would stubbornly decline to accept.

 

Also, on a side note, by that logic everyone should be a christian now, since 2000 years ago there was a man walking the earth that came back from the dead and told of the word of God. Who's to say that if that would happen again, people living 2000 years from now wouldn't look at the writings and such from this encounter the same way we view the bible today?

[Myweponsg00d]

Every action has a reaction, and every action itself is a reaction to another action. In other words, something can't just start moving by itself, it needs to be triggered by something else. This action-reaction pattern can't be traced back forever, there has to be something in the beginning that just somehow moved by itself, the unmoved mover, that would set in motion the rest of the reactions that would form the Universe.

 

Of course, finding this unmoved mover is near impossible, and I have no idea how it would exist, but what's the alternative?

 

The alternative is that the Big Bang itself is the "unmoved mover". If everything needs to have a creator, then the creator has to have a creator. If the creator doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one?

 

Well yes, but that's not something that's controlled by humans. You asked if "we could find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist", which suggests that humans themselves would find the evidence. If God comes over here and shows himself, it's God that showed us the evidence and not human beings.

 

So yeah, to go back to your example, I think most people would be convinced and a minority would stubbornly decline to accept.

 

Also, on a side note, by that logic everyone should be a christian now, since 2000 years ago there was a man walking the earth that came back from the dead and told of the word of God. Who's to say that if that would happen again, people living 2000 years from now wouldn't look at the writings and such from this encounter the same way we view the bible today?

 

Theres little historical proof that the stories of the new testament actually occurred. The only evidence we have is the Bible itself.

 

If divine events happened today, and they were unmistakenably caused by divine power, we would presumably be able to document these events well so that future generations could make no mistake about what happened

[Distracted]

Every action has a reaction, and every action itself is a reaction to another action. In other words, something can't just start moving by itself, it needs to be triggered by something else. This action-reaction pattern can't be traced back forever, there has to be something in the beginning that just somehow moved by itself, the unmoved mover, that would set in motion the rest of the reactions that would form the Universe.

 

Of course, finding this unmoved mover is near impossible, and I have no idea how it would exist, but what's the alternative?

 

The alternative is that the Big Bang itself is the "unmoved mover". If everything needs to have a creator, then the creator has to have a creator. If the creator doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one?

 

I don't know. I honestly don't know. I'm not gonna make up something. I can't claim to know what happened at the beginning of the universe, but you can't claim that either. No one, at the moment, can.

Well yes, but that's not something that's controlled by humans. You asked if "we could find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist", which suggests that humans themselves would find the evidence. If God comes over here and shows himself, it's God that showed us the evidence and not human beings.

 

So yeah, to go back to your example, I think most people would be convinced and a minority would stubbornly decline to accept.

 

Also, on a side note, by that logic everyone should be a christian now, since 2000 years ago there was a man walking the earth that came back from the dead and told of the word of God. Who's to say that if that would happen again, people living 2000 years from now wouldn't look at the writings and such from this encounter the same way we view the bible today?

 

Theres little historical proof that the stories of the new testament actually occurred. The only evidence we have is the Bible itself.

 

If divine events happened today, and they were unmistakenably caused by divine power, we would presumably be able to document these events well so that future generations could make no mistake about what happened

 

2000 years ago, writing all these books down is what they considered documenting the events well. Who's to say 2000 years from now, all these well documented facts won't be viewed in the same way? That's if they even all survive it.

 

Also, saying the Bible is the only evidence we have is a bit wrong, there were hundreds of books that never made it into the final canon of the Bible.

[Myweponsg00d]

I don't know. I honestly don't know. I'm not gonna make up something. I can't claim to know what happened at the beginning of the universe, but you can't claim that either. No one, at the moment, can.

 

Correct. Nobody knows. And nobody should pretend that they have the best explanation when we really just don't know. Someone would be a fool if he insisted that an intelligent being created the universe, and someone would be a fool if he insisted that X or Y or Z came before the universe. Because we just don't know.

 

Sure, we can suggest possibilities. I love doing this. I love thinking about things like the multiverse theory. Is it something that is true? I don't know yet. Nobody knows yet. I don't have any beliefs about what came before the universe because we simply don't know at this time.

 

 

 

2000 years ago, writing all these books down is what they considered documenting the events well. Who's to say 2000 years from now, all these well documented facts won't be viewed in the same way? That's if they even all survive it.

 

Not quite. Humans were quite sophisticated in their keeping of historical records. There have been discoveries of historical Asian texts that wrote about stories they heard of the Egyptian empire. Yet somehow, nobody outside of Jesus's circle of followers in one isolated place in the world happened to write about him.

 

Also, saying the Bible is the only evidence we have is a bit wrong, there were hundreds of books that never made it into the final canon of the Bible.

 

Okay fine...holy documents that were written for the Bible are the only evidence. If there were really so many epic divine events occuring in this Jesus character's life, don't you think that at least one Chinese historian would have written it down? I have never seen one non-biblical historical description of this famous guy who supposedly got nailed to a cross and rose from the dead.

 

Hell...why do you think it isn't in history books? Even if they left out all of the stuff about God and spirituality, don't you think that historians would say something about this guy existing? We have established detailed historical records of events occuring in the Qin dynasty (a couple hundred years before Jesus) yet theres not a single historical record of Jesus? Only holy books?

[Dheginsea]

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

 

My definition of god:

god is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent but i also believe that this sort of being cannot exist and therefore i do not believe in god.

 

God is not necessarily omniscient, all the evidence for that is in the bible. The bible proclaims a god, but god proclaims a bible, making it a petitio. In that sense, the bible is a fallacy, so I don't think it should be trusted in determining whether or not there is a god. So we really don't know what god is, just that he/she/it could be there, or she/it/he could not be there.

 

i was talking about my personal definition of god omniscient is part of that definition i was in no way referring to the bible.

[GuidesForScapers]

 

This is what I think as well

I love how a clear, logical response offended him and made him rage.

[Dheginsea]

 

This is what I think as well

I love how a clear, logical response offended him and made him rage.

 

 

That seems to happen a lot on that show :???:

[Distracted]

Hell...why do you think it isn't in history books? Even if they left out all of the stuff about God and spirituality, don't you think that historians would say something about this guy existing? We have established detailed historical records of events occuring in the Qin dynasty (a couple hundred years before Jesus) yet theres not a single historical record of Jesus? Only holy books?

 

Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

 

Tacitus lived in the second half of the first century AD, around the same time as Nero and was (and still is) a respected historian. That text was talking about the great fire of Rome of 64 AD and Nero's reaction to it. The Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, would come about 300 years later, and even the gospels were barely written at that time, so you can't claim his source as the Bible.

 

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

 

This is a quote from Josephus, a Jewish historian. To be honest, this is the only direct mention to Jesus in his writings, excluding a part where he mentions Jesus' brother James. The part where he talks about James is almost unanimously thought of as authentic, but debate exists about this passage. Many historians believe that part to be embellished by later Christians, but they believe the core of the passage to be true. One historian attempted to reconstruct the text without the Christian embellishments:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him...And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

 

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome.

 

This quote is of a more passing nature, but it clearly states "at the instigation of Chrestus", Chrestus being a considered a misspelling, which also appeared in Tacitus' work. The quote doesn't really go on about Jesus, but it does prove that Christianity didn't just come out of nowhere, they were following a man they believed to be the Messiah. This text deals about Claudius, who was an emperor halfway the first century AD, which would be about 20-30 years after Christ himself died. At this point, Christians weren't really completely separate from the Jews, explaining the use of the word Jews instead of Christians.

 

Also Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ in his works, in his letters to the emperor Trajan, detailing how to deal with this 'nuisance' and stating that instead of worshiping the emperor, they were instead worshiping Christ from Judea.

 

Even the Talmud, a Jewish work, talks about Jesus at some points, talking about his crucifixion and such.

 

Of course debate exists about the authenticity of all these works, which is normal for works written almost 2000 years ago.

 

Also, take in account that we only have a handful of writings left about the eruption of the Vesuvius, that buried Pompeii and took many lives. As far as I know, the most important work about it was written by Pliny the Younger. I read that text and it includes many things he just couldn't know, detailing his uncle's (Pliny the Older) actions, even though he didn't go along with him and his uncle had died. It was also written 20 years after the actual eruption.

 

It is known that Tacitus wrote about the eruption, since that letter Pliny wrote was directed at Tacitus, who had asked Pliny the Younger to tell him about the eruption, as Pliny was an eye-witness. But the text Tacitus wrote has been lost to us.

 

So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).

[Dheginsea]

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.

[Distracted]

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.

 

Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name.