dundeevilla Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Bronze Age Farmers????!!!...well let's take a look at the writer of the first 5 books of the Bible... Moses Moses was bought up by Pharoah's family as a son...He became mighty in letters and words...having being educated by no doubt some of the finest teacher's to be found anywhere being as they were the then rulers of the so called civilized world Egypt. One only has to look at their pyramids and artifacts to know that Moses would have harldy grown up a Bronze age farmer! Egyptian Astronomer's mapped the skies!!.. That household would also have had access to one of the finest libraries ever known to man...namely to be found in the city of Alexandria. Great, good for Moses. What about all the others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yeah but with all due respect..I could argue the same... I could say Dundee Villa ..YOU haven't studied the Bible enough, therefore YOU don't understand it's not a book of fiction..Works both ways! I take it you don't want to talk about evolution anymore - you've ignored all the points I've made. The truth of the Bible is a whole other debate surely. God can and sometimes chooses to intervene on specific occasions. However what I was saying is that God gave mankind a free hand to rule himself in order for the question of whether he had the right to expect them to live by his guidelines. If you just track back a couple of pages I did answer this I think as I don't want to re-quote myself again. But does God know everything, is he omnisicient in your opinion? IF there is a God, then its not a matter if he is omnisicient or not. He would not be God if he wasnt. He does know everything, but that does not mean that he made any decisions for us. Just because he knows our future does not mean he made it that way. So you admit God knows our future - which means 'free will' does not exist. Thank you. Your particular religion's version of god is logically impossible. PS: If "he did not make it that way" then who did??? Is this your way of admitting your god is not omnipotent after all?? Blimey, he looks more and more unlikely by the minute. He KNOWS our future. He did not MAKE our future. He made free will and then we used that free will and made our own future. He sees the future we made. If you think this debate is such a joke, why spend so much of your time in it? But he knows our future from before we are born. Our fates are decided before we are even concieved. Some of us will be "damned" and some of us will be "saved". God knew which ones thousands of years ago before humans were created, why bother with this puppet show universe then if he already knows the script that would play out thousands of years in advance? Why not just put some souls in heaven and some in hell from the beginning and be done with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I think this thread has led me to feel if people want to believe, then that is fine. I have to say I am not religious in any way, but take a lot out of reading sections of the bible, particularly the parables (good samartan, sower etc). They are stories Jesus told as an almost a philosophical outlook on how one should look at each other and make us think about our moral standing. That is what I take from that. At the same time, they didn't happen, they were parables. I am sure they have occured throughout time in one form or another though, as all they were, were stories. Like Goldie locks and the three bears. For people to say the bible is full of rubbish, is a pretty rubbish point, because at worst (for the atheists), it's a book with some very good stories in it. Just because I am an atheist/agnostic (I think to be honest I am inbetween those two stances because my stances swey as I think about the question more and more). I base my opinion on myself, debates like this, and listening to both sides battle it out. What I really don't agree with is how hardcore atheists and very religious people think they are "the only ones who are correct", which is quite frankly bullshit. "believe in our god or go to hell", statements like that is exactly what will send you to hell!!! "love thy neighbour" is one of the most quoted phrases in the bible, it doesn't say "love thy neighbour unless he is a jew, then send him to auchwitz", just as the same it says "love thy neighbour, but if he doesn't believe in allah, slam a 757 into a skyscraper". You cannot pick and choose what parts of your religion you stand up for and others you do not. You either love thy neighbour, or not, there are no BUTS when it comes to that statement. One example is why catholics feel they can be a catholic, and be gay. I really cannot see how you can be both. Either become gay and denounce your religion, or don't be gay, you cannot change religious laws as time goes on. It's not like you can edit the 10 commandmants to fit into the modern world. On another stance, I am not religious, but love the buildings and churches that have been created as a result of people faith and desire to worship their god. I find some of them truly amazing and one of the many aspects of religious culture I really do like. I think from now on if I ever get asked "do you believe in the bible/god?" I will say "no, but it's one hell of a read". Whether it's true or not, you cannot deny that it would win the brooker prize hands down if someone wrote that today. I think for atheists to blast all religion then they cannot be expected to apreciate any products of it. Have you ever been to the Vatican? bloody awesome place In London Saint Pauls cathedral is such an awesome building, the skyline is almost built around it. Hymns as well. "I vow to thee my country" should be our national anthem IMO, I often enjoyed belting out hymns at school assembly, not because I believed in God, but because I liked to sing the odd decent hymn. I have to admit some of them are utter shite. Much like moderm music is today. You cannot deny religion has has a positive impact on our lives, but ultimately the focus is on the bad things it has caused. And some of them have been bloody awful. Each religion has positives and negatives and I don't think even religious people can stand up and say their religion is perfect. If it was then why did Jesus have to endure such agony? why have religious people been persecuted and been the persecuter? I am fortunate enough to be a bit more open about my personal opinion, just because I am atheist now doesn't mean I will change my stance on how I feel. I used to say I was agnostic until about 7 years ago when I had that massive debate with an irish priest in London. His stance was so anti anyone else other than his religion, I actively became atheist, because he pushed me away with his hardcore stance on how I was going to hell for not believing in "his" lord. Now I feel a bit more agnostic in my stance, which perhaps is the best way to be. You are independent of both side of the argument, a bit like someone watching a tennis match level with the net. You watch the ball go back and forth, some great shots made, but ultimately the time will come when you will know who you want to win. Then your decision is made. I am not sure I will get to the conclusion whether I will believe there is a God, or believe there is not a God, but can still debate on what I think religious content means, and why I choose to think of it like that. Out of all the opinions I have on this subject I do feel very strongly that you shouldn't be able to preach in public. I think regardless of what the content of the preaching is about, you are forcing your relgion and opinions on people whether they want to hear it or not (unless you are preaching in a town where everyone is deaf). In the same way I don't like people handing me leaflets about some club on broad street I should "check out" becuase it's "wicked", don't tell me to "believe" in "your god" so I can "be saved". If the lord does exist, you don't need to market his will to people, because you have to truly believe they have "their own free will" and do not need you or anyone else to "influence" their free will, which God suposidly gave them. If anything, you are more likely to "undo" gods work than obtain new followers. People will find out themselves if they want to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Great, good for Moses. What about all the others? Here's a selection..... Joshua the next writer.... was King of Judah and also served as Moses's right hand man until his death..he was a mighty king who faced up to the surrounding nations including the Canaanites and the inhabitants of Jericho...Apparently blessed with an abundance of wisdom he successfully apportioned the land within the tribes of Judah and put into place the organisational process for the lands to be governed fairly and justly in accordance with the Mosaic Law, which he did his best to uphold. Hardly the actions of a Bronze Age Farmer! Samuel - Was bought up as a Nazrite by High Priest Eli...he became highly educated and a respected priest of the house of Jehovah. He catalogued the whole of Kings including the pagan nations around them, which can be testified to from archaelogical records such as the Canaaanites and their worship of Baal. He did not hold back in his honest appraisal of God's people or their failings. He anointed Saul as the first King of Israel and then watched and recorded his subsequent downfall He stood up to King David over his dealings with Bathsheba...and again recorded the house of Israel's misdemeanors as well as their triumphs. The Bible writers in complete contrast to the nations surrounding them historically reported failures and defeats as they happened. If character's failed as Kings..or were disobedient this was written. Wheras other's like....Egyptian Pharoah's had people and Cities wiped from records as they saw fit. Hardly any defeats were recorded in ancient writings normally, only lavish victories. The Bible stands out for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 More Bible Writers....Who are not Bronze Age Farmers... Luke - Was a qualified Doctor Mathew - Was a Tax Collector for the Romans...presumably literate and good with figures... Daniel - Was educated personally as a Court Attendant to the Kings of Babylon...similarly to Moses..he was highly educated and trusted man of the Court. He was in attendance at that same court when Cyrus the Persian King overthrew Babylon. Paul (Saul) - Was a Roman Citizen and of the Jewish hierachy and very well educated as a lawyer.... until his conversion to a Christian. You only have to read his books in the Christain Greek Scriptures to see his logical arguments presented to both Greek, Roman or Hebrewto see his background was the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondaken Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yeah but with all due respect..I could argue the same... I could say Dundee Villa ..YOU haven't studied the Bible enough, therefore YOU don't understand it's not a book of fiction..Works both ways! I take it you don't want to talk about evolution anymore - you've ignored all the points I've made. The truth of the Bible is a whole other debate surely. God can and sometimes chooses to intervene on specific occasions. However what I was saying is that God gave mankind a free hand to rule himself in order for the question of whether he had the right to expect them to live by his guidelines. If you just track back a couple of pages I did answer this I think as I don't want to re-quote myself again. But does God know everything, is he omnisicient in your opinion? IF there is a God, then its not a matter if he is omnisicient or not. He would not be God if he wasnt. He does know everything, but that does not mean that he made any decisions for us. Just because he knows our future does not mean he made it that way. So you admit God knows our future - which means 'free will' does not exist. Thank you. Your particular religion's version of god is logically impossible. PS: If "he did not make it that way" then who did??? Is this your way of admitting your god is not omnipotent after all?? Blimey, he looks more and more unlikely by the minute. He KNOWS our future. He did not MAKE our future. He made free will and then we used that free will and made our own future. He sees the future we made. If you think this debate is such a joke, why spend so much of your time in it? But he knows our future from before we are born. Our fates are decided before we are even concieved. Some of us will be "damned" and some of us will be "saved". God knew which ones thousands of years ago before humans were created, why bother with this puppet show universe then if he already knows the script that would play out thousands of years in advance? Why not just put some souls in heaven and some in hell from the beginning and be done with it? It's a paradox that baffles me. I wont pretend to know the mind of God. BUT, personally? I think that we had to experience life on earth. If he did indeed chose to just slam us in heaven, then we would in effect, never have chosen to follow him. We would just end up there and have no memory of the choice to follow him, because it never happened. It's just something we need to live through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dundeevilla Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Great, good for Moses. What about all the others? Here's a selection..... Joshua the next writer.... was King of Judah and also served as Moses's right hand man until his death..he was a mighty king who faced up to the surrounding nations including the Canaanites and the inhabitants of Jericho...Apparently blessed with an abundance of wisdom he successfully apportioned the land within the tribes of Judah and put into place the organisational process for the lands to be governed fairly and justly in accordance with the Mosaic Law, which he did his best to uphold. Hardly the actions of a Bronze Age Farmer! Samuel - Was bought up as a Nazrite by High Priest Eli...he became highly educated and a respected priest of the house of Jehovah. He catalogued the whole of Kings including the pagan nations around them, which can be testified to from archaelogical records such as the Canaaanites and their worship of Baal. He did not hold back in his honest appraisal of God's people or their failings. He anointed Saul as the first King of Israel and then watched and recorded his subsequent downfall He stood up to King David over his dealings with Bathsheba...and again recorded the house of Israel's misdemeanors as well as their triumphs. The Bible writers in complete contrast to the nations surrounding them historically reported failures and defeats as they happened. If character's failed as Kings..or were disobedient this was written. Wheras other's like....Egyptian Pharoah's had people and Cities wiped from records as they saw fit. Hardly any defeats were recorded in ancient writings normally, only lavish victories. The Bible stands out for this. I'll take your word for it, all fascinating stuff. These guys must have know what they were talkin' about for sure. I think I'll base my entire existence and worldview around what they;ve got to say... :winkold: Christianity's beliefs hinge on Jesus Christ, yes. The people who recorded his story (or the various different versions of it (you'd have thought the word of god would be a bit more consistent, who were they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yeah but with all due respect..I could argue the same... I could say Dundee Villa ..YOU haven't studied the Bible enough, therefore YOU don't understand it's not a book of fiction..Works both ways! I take it you don't want to talk about evolution anymore - you've ignored all the points I've made. The truth of the Bible is a whole other debate surely. God can and sometimes chooses to intervene on specific occasions. However what I was saying is that God gave mankind a free hand to rule himself in order for the question of whether he had the right to expect them to live by his guidelines. If you just track back a couple of pages I did answer this I think as I don't want to re-quote myself again. But does God know everything, is he omnisicient in your opinion? IF there is a God, then its not a matter if he is omnisicient or not. He would not be God if he wasnt. He does know everything, but that does not mean that he made any decisions for us. Just because he knows our future does not mean he made it that way. So you admit God knows our future - which means 'free will' does not exist. Thank you. Your particular religion's version of god is logically impossible. PS: If "he did not make it that way" then who did??? Is this your way of admitting your god is not omnipotent after all?? Blimey, he looks more and more unlikely by the minute. He KNOWS our future. He did not MAKE our future. He made free will and then we used that free will and made our own future. He sees the future we made. If you think this debate is such a joke, why spend so much of your time in it? But he knows our future from before we are born. Our fates are decided before we are even concieved. Some of us will be "damned" and some of us will be "saved". God knew which ones thousands of years ago before humans were created, why bother with this puppet show universe then if he already knows the script that would play out thousands of years in advance? Why not just put some souls in heaven and some in hell from the beginning and be done with it? It's a paradox that baffles me. I wont pretend to know the mind of God. BUT, personally? I think that we had to experience life on earth. If he did indeed chose to just slam us in heaven, then we would in effect, never have chosen to follow him. We would just end up there and have no memory of the choice to follow him, because it never happened. It's just something we need to live through. Well god also made the universe and everything in it. He made it knowing which of the humans he was making would go to heaven and which of them would go to hell. How can you still argue the humans had a choice in the matter? At what point did they have a choice if their fates were decided as they were being made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I take it from your answer you'll to continue to live your life in ignorance and are happy to carry on blindly taking your worldview from the Bible, a 2000-year-old book written by Bronze Age farmers that's supposedly the world of God but is so full of contradictions that you could write another book on them. Fair enough. All the best with that Bronze Age Farmers????!!!...well let's take a look at the writer of the first 5 books of the Bible... Moses Moses was bought up by Pharoah's family as a son...He became mighty in letters and words...having being educated by no doubt some of the finest teacher's to be found anywhere being as they were the then rulers of the so called civilized world Egypt. One only has to look at their pyramids and artifacts to know that Moses would have harldy grown up a Bronze age farmer! Egyptian Astronomer's mapped the skies!!.. That household would also have had access to one of the finest libraries ever known to man...namely to be found in the city of Alexandria. there is no evidence outside of the bible that Moses even existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I take it from your answer you'll to continue to live your life in ignorance and are happy to carry on blindly taking your worldview from the Bible, a 2000-year-old book written by Bronze Age farmers that's supposedly the world of God but is so full of contradictions that you could write another book on them. Fair enough. All the best with that Bronze Age Farmers????!!!...well let's take a look at the writer of the first 5 books of the Bible... Moses Moses was bought up by Pharoah's family as a son...He became mighty in letters and words...having being educated by no doubt some of the finest teacher's to be found anywhere being as they were the then rulers of the so called civilized world Egypt. One only has to look at their pyramids and artifacts to know that Moses would have harldy grown up a Bronze age farmer! Egyptian Astronomer's mapped the skies!!.. That household would also have had access to one of the finest libraries ever known to man...namely to be found in the city of Alexandria. there is no evidence outside of the bible that Moses even existed. Well he is in the quran too isn't he? If that counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I take it from your answer you'll to continue to live your life in ignorance and are happy to carry on blindly taking your worldview from the Bible, a 2000-year-old book written by Bronze Age farmers that's supposedly the world of God but is so full of contradictions that you could write another book on them. Fair enough. All the best with that Bronze Age Farmers????!!!...well let's take a look at the writer of the first 5 books of the Bible... Moses Moses was bought up by Pharoah's family as a son...He became mighty in letters and words...having being educated by no doubt some of the finest teacher's to be found anywhere being as they were the then rulers of the so called civilized world Egypt. One only has to look at their pyramids and artifacts to know that Moses would have harldy grown up a Bronze age farmer! Egyptian Astronomer's mapped the skies!!.. That household would also have had access to one of the finest libraries ever known to man...namely to be found in the city of Alexandria. there is no evidence outside of the bible that Moses even existed. Well he is in the quran too isn't he? If that counts. Yeah but its an Abrahamic religion. They got their "Info" from the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Challenges to his historicity * The suggestion that Moses was not a real historical figure and that the Exodus did not occur at all has been made by some archaeologists. Some archaeologists have claimed that surveys of ancient settlements in Sinai do not appear to show a great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously as between 1500–1200 BCE), as would be expected from the arrival of Joshua and the Israelites in Canaan. This suggests that the biblical Exodus may not be a literal depiction. Archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog and William G. Dever, regard the Exodus as non-historical, at best containing a small germ of truth. According to Prof. Ze'ev Herzog, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University "This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel.... The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus.[46] * In his book, The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein points to the appearance of settlements in the central hill country around 1200, recognized by most archaeologists as the earliest of the known settlements of the Israelites.[123] Using evidence from earlier periods, he shows a cyclical pattern to these highland settlements, corresponding to the state of the surrounding cultures. Finkelstein suggests that the local Canaanites would adapt their way of living from an agricultural lifestyle to a nomadic one and vice versa. When Egyptian rule collapsed after the invasion of the Sea Peoples, the central hill country could no longer sustain a large nomadic population, so they went from nomadism to sedentism.[124] Dever agrees with the Canaanite origin of the Israelites but allows for the possibility of a Semitic tribe coming from Egyptian servitude among the early hilltop settlers and that Moses or a Moses-like figure may have existed in Transjordan ca 1250-1200.[125] * Biblical minimalists, such as Philip Davies, Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson, regard the Exodus as ahistorical. Hector Avalos, in "The End of Biblical Studies," states that the Exodus, as depicted in the Bible, is an idea that most biblical historians no longer support.[126] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Jesus was in the Quran as well and is a recognised prophet if I am not mistaken. P.S. I spent all that time writing my post and none of you **** read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jondaken Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 P.S. I spent all that time writing my post O'rly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 P.S. I spent all that time writing my post O'rly? OI! It was a long time for a post, but if you haven't worked out I type as I think by now, then..... I prefer it that way, bollocks to checking grammar and spelling, if I get it wrong i prefer it to be pointed out so I can learn from it, or disregard your point about it altogether Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maguffin Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Interesting debate. Personally I find it hard to believe in a transcendental signifier such as the notion of any religions 'God(s)'. Whatever happens it is because of God, personally I find it as an excuse for those unanswerable questions. As has been said in previous posts, it is just as wrong to believe in science, its the same notion just the polar opposite. Personally I see organised religion as one the worst blights that humans have come up with, and it has alot to answer for. I am a spiritual person though I don't necessarily believe in a God. I would never deny someone their religion and see that for alot of people it has done alot of good, a crutch as it were, and in the same respect I don't appreciate being preached at. Religion iconography is something I find incredibly interesting and has given us some of the most breathtaking sights: churches, cathedrals, temples and palaces. The problem with religion nowadays is that people tend to pick and choose the bits that suit them and their lives, something which I am at odds with, in for a penny in for a pound in my opinion. As in all walks of life you are going to get the few who spoil it for the many, religion is not exempt from this and whilst we all too often hear the negatives of religion, it is rare that we hear the positive affects it has on people. In closing, as I feel I am rambling now, can't people from whatever religous background just be content in the knowledge that their God(s) is the true God and just get on with life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 there is no evidence outside of the bible that Moses even existed. With all due respect THAT wasn't the question...the fact that Bible Writers who you may say never existed admittedly... were stated to be Bronze Age Farmers... Is that a fair criticism to make though??..... Take the case of the last King of Babylon before it fell to the Persians - Belshazar. according to the book of Daniel. (Daniel 5:1-30) Critics jumped on this and stated that the Bible was wrong and that this man never existed. However during the 19th Century, several small cylinders which were inscribed in cuneiform were discovered in ruins in Southern Iraq. These included a prayer for the health of the eldest son of Nabonidus. King of Babylon. The name of the son? Belshazzar. The Bible had again been proved correct and historical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Even if there is a germ of truth in the Moses legend, it may actually explain a few things. If hew was a student of Egyptian beliefs, then he would be familiar with their customs and laws. For example, did you know that the 10 commandments are a blatant plagiarism from the Egyptian book of the dead? There is nothing new in the mythology of Christianity. The middle east thousands of years ago was a polytheistic hotbed . The people in power simply tried to create one superior god to keep everyone in line. One thing that bugs me about people who take the bible literally is their hypocrisy. For example, their are old testament tales of Moses throwing his staff before Pharoah and it turns into a snake. Supposedly as a sign of Moses' gods power. The pharoah then has his "priests and magicians" replicate the act. For some reason bible readers dont find it strange that the Egyptians could copy gods magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dundeevilla Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 It's a paradox that baffles me. I wont pretend to know the mind of God. Sorry to pull you up again mate, but you've just spent the last 26 pages 'pretending to know the mind of god' by attempting to tell us what he is all about, trying to justify the concept of 'free will' etc. At least you've given up and are admitting you don't know. That's a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 there is no evidence outside of the bible that Moses even existed. With all due respect THAT wasn't the question...the fact that Bible Writers who you may say never existed admittedly... were stated to be Bronze Age Farmers... Is that a fair criticism to make though??..... As a christian, the only bible authors worth talking about are Matthew, Mark , Luke and John. The four canonical texts are the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of John and Gospel of Luke, probably written between 65 and 100 AD.[1][2] They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century (ie 100 - 150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180 How can you take something, written 65-100 years AFTER Jesus died, as "gospel"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts