Rabbis call for the removal of Catholic church at Auschwitz.

Honestly, I think you'd be better off cracking open a book on theology.

Theology, the study of the unproven absurd thinking's of pre Christian pagan ideology, hijacked to incorporate total control over the ignorant masses, thus rendering the tribal chiefs powers to manipulate their subordinates to their will, make them rich (Vatican bank?) fight their religious wars, and die in the belief that will live again, total bollocks of monumental proportions.
 
Last edited:
So you are inferring that the New Testament is 100% true?
If it is not 100% true - how do you know what parts are true and what parts aren't?
That's an excellent question, and it's exactly what militant atheists should be asking.

Jerusalem, Israel, Galilee and Caesaria were real places. Pilate and Caiaphas were the two governing men during the latter years of Tiberius' reign. The names you see in the Gospels generally all very common names in Israel around 30AD. All this information most likely came from people who lived around ~30AD Jerusalem, and it was documented by several people in different places some decades later, for whatever reason.
Also, the vast majority of the Gospels is mundane, when you remove stories of miracles and the Resurrection. The Gospels would have been treated the same way as a journal by Marcus Aurelius.

Given all this, we could say with confidence that a) The outline of the Gospels was based on something that actually happened around Jerusalem under Tiberius' reign, and b) It doesn't seem like the Gospel authors were writing fiction, but instead were documenting second-hand accounts that were roughly consistent.

The question now is which details in the New Testament aren't true?
 
Dismissing the New Testament as mere fiction, or devising some interpretation that's inconsistent with its claims, would be taking skepticism to a ridiculous level, since a consistency of reasoning would require you to dismiss pretty much all other historical accounts from other times and places.
No it means you have to understand why the book was written.
Good example is Caesar's, 'Conquest of Gaul'.
Not a history book but a political weapon to justify using Roman republic money to make Caesar rich.
 

Chef

LE
Probably admired him for being able to get it in the box and closing it without being ripped to shreds.
Do you have a cat(s)?

The big problem is keeping the buggers out of boxes. Usually the one you're using for something.

Secondary, decoy, boxes rarely work.

Cat basket for the vet is another matter entirely.
 
That's an excellent question, and it's exactly what militant atheists should be asking.

Jerusalem, Israel, Galilee and Caesaria were real places. Pilate and Caiaphas were the two governing men during the latter years of Tiberius' reign. The names you see in the Gospels generally all very common names in Israel around 30AD. All this information most likely came from people who lived around ~30AD Jerusalem, and it was documented by several people in different places some decades later, for whatever reason.
Also, the vast majority of the Gospels is mundane, when you remove stories of miracles and the Resurrection. The Gospels would have been treated the same way as a journal by Marcus Aurelius.

Given all this, we could say with confidence that a) The outline of the Gospels was based on something that actually happened around Jerusalem under Tiberius' reign, and b) It doesn't seem like the Gospel authors were writing fiction, but instead were documenting second-hand accounts that were roughly consistent.

The question now is which details in the New Testament aren't true?
Thank you. You could not have made it any clearer to us that it is all complete and utter general hearsay, that wouldn't stand up in any court of law.

So, having clarified that it is all general hearsay, how do you know which details to believe?
 
Last edited:

Niamac

GCM
No, it's not rocket science, but it entails soending hours drafting an essay on the basics to justify my worldview for every single thread, in answer to the same ******* question. 'Prove this. Prove that. That's not proof, etc.' Honestly, I think you'd be better off cracking open a book on theology.
I'd be spending hours merely repeating exactly what I've posted in that God Botherers thread and the other one with Higgsy in it.
Yep, that reminds me of someone remarking that belief was "proof by re-iterated assertion".
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
12 pages of anti-religious intolerance polluting a thread about religious intolerance has just broken my ironometer. However it has served to remind me that being agnostic is so much easier and more pleasant than being either a believer or a non- believer.

Nothing like a bit of God v Man to get all the crazies barking at the moon.
 
That's an excellent question, and it's exactly what militant atheists should be asking.

Jerusalem, Israel, Galilee and Caesaria were real places. Pilate and Caiaphas were the two governing men during the latter years of Tiberius' reign. The names you see in the Gospels generally all very common names in Israel around 30AD. All this information most likely came from people who lived around ~30AD Jerusalem, and it was documented by several people in different places some decades later, for whatever reason.
Also, the vast majority of the Gospels is mundane, when you remove stories of miracles and the Resurrection. The Gospels would have been treated the same way as a journal by Marcus Aurelius.

Given all this, we could say with confidence that a) The outline of the Gospels was based on something that actually happened around Jerusalem under Tiberius' reign, and b) It doesn't seem like the Gospel authors were writing fiction, but instead were documenting second-hand accounts that were roughly consistent.

The question now is which details in the New Testament aren't true?
There are many more gospels than those in the New Testament. Some of which are very strange.
 
Thank you. You could not have made it any clearer to us that it is all complete and utter general hearsay, that wouldn't stand up in any court of law.

So, having clarified that it is all general hearsay, how do you know which details to believe?
By that standard, pretty much everything you believe about the world, and nature, is hearsay. Almost everything you see and hear in the news is hearsay. Everything you've read in the history books is hearsay. Sorry to disappoint, but if you want cast-iron proof for everything society deems to be fact, you won't get it. You'll get assumptions and reason instead.

I don't understand why some people think the New Testament is a special exception. Are they being arbitrarily selective about what they consider fact?
 
There are many more gospels than those in the New Testament. Some of which are very strange.
Those were authored much later, and couldn't be attributed to anyone known to the Apostles. Think of them as the equivalent of Star Wars 'fan fiction', which fans can easily differentiate from the official and canonical works.

Thank you. You could not have made it any clearer to us that it is all complete and utter general hearsay, that wouldn't stand up in any court of law.

So, having clarified that it is all general hearsay, how do you know which details to believe?
You really haven't taken on board what I've said, have you? This isn't about trying to 'prove' something in a court - that's just a silly analogy because all the witnesses are dead. It's about discerning whether said work is a work of fiction, or is intended to be an account of something that happened. The evidence and simple reasoning suggests the latter, and that's why I consider it as reliable as an historical set of accounts.

Edit: Come to think of it, the New Testament's authors would have stood up pretty well in a court, given the archaeological finds that subsequently came to light, and the circumstantial evidence that something monumental occurred around 30AD.
 
Last edited:
Theology, the study of the unproven absurd thinking's of pre Christian pagan ideology, hijacked to incorporate total control over the ignorant masses, thus rendering the tribal chiefs powers to manipulate their subordinates to their will, make them rich (Vatican bank?) fight their religious wars, and die in the belief that will live again, total bollock of monumental proportions.
That's a very nice conspiracy theory you have there.
 

triggerigger

War Hero
Bible is just historical fiction. Some of it is true. Much of it not. Like reading about Sharpe's efforts in the Peninsula wars .
 
By that standard, pretty much everything you believe about the world, and nature, is hearsay. Almost everything you see and hear in the news is hearsay. Everything you've read in the history books is hearsay. Sorry to disappoint, but if you want cast-iron proof for everything society deems to be fact, you won't get it. You'll get assumptions and reason instead.

I don't understand why some people think the New Testament is a special exception. Are they being arbitrarily selective about what they consider fact?
Excellent excellent! at last we're getting somewhere. Of course you are 100% right about that (what I've marked in bold).
It took me quite a few decades of life to realise myself what you've stated here (in bold). I doff my cap to your wisdom.
That is precisely why it is so important for us to proceed with caution.
Of course, the reason we are having this conversation is because you have been making certain statements regarding "god" and "salvation", the "mother of god" being a virgin etc etc, Obviously these subjects may have far reaching implications - not to be treated lightly at all.
So having categorically stated that "you can't know" and "pretty much everything you believe about the world, and nature, is hearsay. Almost everything you see and hear in the news is hearsay. Everything you've read in the history books is hearsay", what makes you give special treatment to the most spurious-seeming source of all (per your claim in your post #223) and repeatedly make these wild assertions to us?
 
Last edited:
Mary Mother of God should wash that cheeky tosser's mouth out with soap!!! He'd flagellate himself and recite fifty Hail Marys if he knew what was good for hiim.

Edited to remove that blasphemous filth from my reply.
 

goodoldboy

MIA
Book Reviewer
In Hitler's case, the intellectuals and moral philosophers and many scientists were either run out of Germany or were executed - even Lise Meitner, the inventor of nuclear fission, and Hitler wouldn't stop until Berlin was flattened by artillery.
I think you'll find the Lise Meitner was part of a team and wasn't solely the 'inventor' etc.

Also, Hitler was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Berliners when the Russians were ready to enter the city - and yet his propaganda machine had him leading his troops fighting off the Soviets. In reality of course, he was deep underground until he took the coward's way out. Should have surrendered six weeks earlier in my humble opinion.

Anyway, and while I'm here, this has turned out to be a decent and informative thread. I know what I believe but this is like the site was a few years ago where every day is a school-day.

Cheers...
 
Last edited:

endure

GCM
Just to play Devil's advocate, why do you think psychopaths are even competent leaders? They destroy good people who contribute more to the wellbeing of the group, and they ultimately end up destroying the group or organisation. They **** anything in their path if they're not stopped.
In Hitler's case, the intellectuals and moral philosophers and many scientists were either run out of Germany or were executed - even Lise Meitner, the inventor of nuclear fission, and Hitler wouldn't stop until Berlin was flattened by artillery.
Meitner didn't 'invent' fission. Together with Hahn and Frisch she discovered it. She fled to Sweden in 1938.
 
Do you have a cat(s)?

The big problem is keeping the buggers out of boxes. Usually the one you're using for something.
As a lifelong servant, I know that the only box a cat doesn't want to sit in is the one a human is trying to put them in.

I have scars from trying, and not just physical ones.
 

Latest Threads

Top