XPost: alt.atheism
On Sat, 23 May 2015 12:04:57 -0400, Jim Burns wrote:
.
>On 5/22/2015 12:04 PM, mur wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 May 2015 00:38:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>> wrote:
>>> In article <4oqqka1r335te65ih353qu2h6ssiorod5a@4ax.com>,
>>> mur wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:18:05 -0400,
>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>> "mur" wrote in message
>>>>> news:5is2kapvhqdpvus3kv339k62dg990u6pdi@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>> All miracles
>>>>>> recorded in the Bible are evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> that some people know that other people are gullible and
>>>>> the former will eagerly take advantage of that fact.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think the original authors of the Bible had to
>>>> gain from what they wrote down?
>>>
>>> Power and money.
>>
>> Hilarious!!! What sort of power?
>>
>
>If you'd ever actually read the Bible, you would have found that
>King Josiah ordered a renovation of the Temple in early 7th
>century BCE, and that they "found" another scroll of the law
>(what was to be the core of Deuteronomy) which pretty much
>supported Josiah in the reforms he was instituting, down the line.
>Pretty interesting "coincidence".
>
>Another interesting "coincidence" is that that "found" scroll
>was "strikingly similar to early 7th century Assyrian
>vassal-treaties, in which are set out the rights and obligations
>of a vassal state (in this case Judah) to their sovereign
>(in this case, Yahweh)".[1]
None of that matters unless you explain who wrote Deuteronomy and how he or
they got rich and powerful from it. Of course you'd also have to explain how
they got people to believe it. But I was asking about the authors of the New
Testament though I mistakenly failed to specify. Maybe you can explain how they
got rich and powerful and got people back then to believe lies about Jesus who
supposedly never even existed at all?
. . .
>And another thing: the miracles in the Bible weren't miracles when
>they were put in the Bible. For us today, a miracle is a suspension
>of the laws of the universe, only considered possible because
>God _is_ the Ruler of the universe. But, c'mon, this was SEVERAL
>THOUSAND YEARS before the idea of "laws of the universe". A miracle
>_back then_ could have _only_ meant something that showed off
>the power of their own god vis-a-vis the neighbors' gods. Like
>stopping the sun in the sky, sure, but equally a really big storm
>or a victory in battle, things we would not be inclined to call
>miracles today.
>
>When Moses confronted the Pharaoh, Pharaoh's priests called on their
>gods, _who turned their staffs into snakes_ . Today, we would be
>amazed that the writer conceded the existence of other gods. But to
>the pre-scientific writer, the point was that Yahweh turned
>Moses's staff into a bigger, badder snake which ate the other
>snakes. _That_ was the miracle, not the staffs-into-snakes.
>I mean, _anyone's_ gods could do that. Sheesh!
>
>The writers of the Bible put miracles in the Bible as brags on
>the awesomeness of _their_ God. They could not have known that,
>thousands of years later, their brags would be found out to be
>only bullshit brags.
Present your verifiable evidence that they were all bullshit and how it was
"found out".
. . .
>I would not want to be morally judged by our great grandchildren
>on the basis of _what they will know then_ , so I'm not going
>to morally judge the writers on the basis of what _we know now_ .
>
>You, though, and other modern-day Biblical literalists are
>simply assholes. You _could_ know better, so you _should_
>know better. If you remain sunk in your ignorance, it
>is because you work very hard to maintain that ignorance.
In contrast to that lie I challenge those of you who have faith that
there's
no God associated with Earth, and that all events written of in the Bible are
false, etc, to provide your verifiable evidence. I also challenge those who
deny
that there's any evidence of God to try to explain WHAT sort of evidence they
think there should be, WHERE they think it should be, WHY they think God should
provide it, and WHEN they think he should or should have provided it if he
actually does exist. That's because I'm open minded about it and a weak
agnostic. So far NO ONE has been able to give a respectable reply to any of
those challenges, meaning that none of you so far have been able to provide
anything to even take into consideration. So my "ignorance" about things like
that is no greater than that of the people I challenge who have proven to have
no idea at all what they think they're trying to talk about and can't pretend
they do even when challenged directly to try to support themselves.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
