On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:03 AM, e_space <[email protected]> wrote:
> claiming that caesar crossed a river is not hard to wrap ones mind > around ... it was a physical event ... i trust there was enough people > around to witness this that the historical account of it is > accurate ... on the other hand, jesus stating that he is the son of > god is not a physical event ... it is a claim ... people who never met > jesus, who hold onto this claim, are simply buying the proclamations > of others, who they also have not met ... they werent there, they did > not witness anything, they are repeating what they have been told ... > does this seem wise to you? > Indeed! If the claim is true it's profoundly wise to believe it...and possibly profoundly foolish not to! > to me, the bible is not necessarily a historical book, although part > of it may be, such as so-and-so begat so-and-so, etc, etc, ... whether > god created adam, and then eve from adams rib, is highly debatable ... > did adam write that? who else was there to witness it? was mary a > virgin? did jesus get resurrected? these things are all highly > doubtful, even by some theologians ... i dont have any problem > whatsoever with people saying that they belief in the bible ... but > when they make factual sounding proclamations of such, i typically > respond ... > > historical facts have one thing in common .. they were witnessed, > usually by many people who can vouch for the veracity of the > claim ... > Ok, for now I'm appealing to only your recognition of the reliability of historical accounts themselves. The historical accuracy of the Bible as it relates to places, people, and verifiable events has been so thoroughly vetted that it is now accepted by historians as an authoritative reference of history (don't take my word for it - verify this yourself). > lets presume that the abrahamic god does exist ... why would he only > manifest himself through one person throughout the history of the > world? if jesus is the sole representative of god, then should we not > throw aside what moses and everyone else has to say about it? what > about other religions? are they all fake because you believe in the > abrahamic version of god? > > people claim that god knows this, does that, told them this, told them > that ... it goes on all the time ... are these people all off their > rockers? i personally think they are just reiterating a feeling that > may have come over them, but not that god was actually talking to them > personally ... you know my feeling about it ... that "god" is within > us all ... i.e. spirit ... the xtian version of god is that he is > separate from us ... me no likee ... > The point of this thread itself is that no matter what you "likee"; objective reality exists beyond our acceptance of it. e, I'll be happy to engage you on some of the [rhetorical?] questions you've posed, but I perceive it pointless until you're able to acknowledge that the details of objective truth exist regardless of which of them you're willing to accept.
