<<Your insistence of evidence ignores the bible. >>

evidence of what?

<< The evidence therein contained is not evidence of the supernatural, >>

yes, so if it ISN'T of the supernatural, what IS it evidence of?

<<although many writers used the supernatural to express theological truths,>>

how, did they "use the supernatural"? why?

<<nor is it evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, although that is the way language has to run. >>

why does the language HAVE to run that way?

sellick, i for one may now know what you don't believe. but, i haven't a goddam clue what you do believe, nor how the bible is "evidence" for your beliefs.

maybe you're just carelessly picking up someone else's language. but it seems to me that as soon as you talk of evidence, you're playing a losing game.

You claim that Christianity shares patterns found in other religions. Many times I’ve heard posters say this type of thing, often those who are arguing against theistic faith, but I don’t understand their point.” - Dan S de Merengue

Dan,

The point is , evidence supports religion being a societal construct, rather than the revelation of a deity. Take the trinity, for example...

In the Christian thread of religiosity, the term “trinity” was not adopted until the second century (Tertullian), not received as potential doctrine until 325CE (Nicaea) and did not become Creed until 381 CE ( Council of Constantinople). Jesus isn’t even in the loop.For Christianity, the concept of a trinity developed by theologians much later than Jesus' generation.

Neither, the Old Testament nor the New Testament designates a trinity...

James 28:19, does refer to, “baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”: But this claim is, far from being Trinitarian; especially, given Yahweh is so emphatic about there being only one god – A position accepted by the mother faith, Judaism: e.g., “Listen, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one (Deuteronomy 6.4-9)”. [i.e., The one God of (henotheistic) Israel, not the god of the Hittites and Assyrians.]

The "peak body" of the OT is the Council of El. Yahweh is said to interact with other gods, whom "independently" still exist (Exodus 20 1-3), "Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips” (Exodus 23:13), “And I will surely hide my face in that day because of all the evil that they have done, because they have turned to other gods” [Deuteronomy 31:20] and, "Yaweh has taken his place in the divine council in the midst of the gods…" (Palms 82.1)

The NT does not have an unambiguous Godhead. Jesus does not claim to be divine, consistent with the more plausible explanation - he was a Davidic priest-king claimant. (continued)

When the idea of a Christian godhead emerged (second century to fourth centuries CE) in harmony with theistic traditions -as known to Anthropology- the concept of a trinity appears to haven been borrowed. In no way was/is a trinity unique to Christianity, as, both the Egyptians and the Babylonians employed godheads long, long beforehand.

Occam’s razor… What is more likely?

That: God, creator of the universe, necessarily copied the practices of more deeply ancient societies and didn’t come-up with an original idea, and, subsequently, didn’t reveal the aforementioned godhead in the OT or NT… Yet, between two hundred years and four hundred years later, without any valid scriptural support, the early Christian Church suddenly rightfully (sic.) cottons-on to the godhead’s existence, where god is copying from the godhead architecture of “false” religions.

Or,

That: Godheads are a common pattern (contrivances) known to ancient religions. Theologians, in fashioning a new religion and extending Judaism to the Roman people, borrowed the godhead architecture from other (false) religions.

p.s. The Three-in-One notion, involving ousia, is of Hellenistic parentage. Again, ousia is apparently borrowed generations, after Jesus and his followers’ gospels.

Sells , Relda and David,

“Christianity is supernatural only in that it cannot be derived from our observations of our lives and the world. It cannot be reasoned into existence because it relies on an historical event.” - Sells.
The development of Christianity is a historical event, formulated in the fourth century. The event was not supernatural: It was politics, and involved a transformation, which contorted first century events into fourth century imperatives.

Jesus needs to be seen in context of his Davidic relationships with the Herodians. Constantine had the agendum of keeping Roman together. These events stand alone, without the need to appeal to the supernatural. Besides, the supernatural is shared by religions, essentially by defining religions, plural, not just only Christianity. Herein, the supernatural “was reasoned into existence” (more accurately subsistence) by artful humans.

Sells,

Had Jesus not been born, the idea of the supernatural would still have been devised, by Man, within history, many times as today,minus one.

Cheers,

O.

Dear Michael,

I’d be worried if you couldn’t comprehend every move Gary Kasparov was explaining to you. I think you’re confusing comprehension with memory.

If you believe that you can comprehend a god at least a little bit, then that’s fine by me. After all, the excuse that god is beyond our comprehension is really only applied when an explanation is required to avoid the more logical conclusion that god doesn’t exist. The apparent non-existence of any god is too easily explained away by believers.

When the Bible contradicts itself, or something in it can’t be rationally explained, then god is too far beyond our comprehension.

If we receive something we prayed for, it was because we prayed for it. If we don’t, then it wasn’t god’s will.

If something unexplainable or tragic happens, then god works in mysterious ways.

If god doesn’t make his existence obvious, then he’s excused because he’s god and shouldn’t have to.

It’s excuse, after excuse, after excuse.

I stopped believing because I grew tired of making the excuses and came to the more rational conclusion that god simply doesn’t exist. But some have too many vested emotions to allow themselves to come to this conclusion.

In regards to the Bible though, I don’t think you’ve presented a very good case against what I’ve said about it. “Ordinary” would be a generous description considering it’s suppose to be the word of a god.

The Bible’s prolific sales mean nothing when we’re talking about a belief system that feeds off insecurities and emotions. Not to mention the many who are indoctrinated before they’re old enough to make their own informed decision.

Again, there is no reason to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of a god, but there are many reasons to believe that it isn’t. If the Bible is the word of god, then he/she/it is an irrational, unjust, morally inferior being, who commands in a ‘Do as I Say, Not as I Do’ manner and can never seem to get anything right.

A being who, as a god, is a complete failure.

Sells,

Your comment

"Consistency in interpretation is another impossibilty. All scientific theories have multiple interpretations why should not all theologies? However, as all scientific theories are anchored in the reproducibility of observations and postulate causes and effects, so theology has its dogma or foundation"

Shows your fundemental misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. A theory is in essence an interpretation of the available evidence to determine cause, effect etc.

When the evidence is scanty, there will be several theories which can all fit the existing evidence. However, as more evidence is collected, the existing theories that cannot incorporate the new evidence are shown to be false and are rejected. This sometimes means scrapping all existing theories and starting again.

As the body of evidence grows there will tend to remain only one viable theory or a couple of theories that diverge only slightly.

Dogma on the other hand is entirely fabricated, and as such when used as a foundation upon which theologies are derived, often come up with ludicrous results, such as the prohibition on the use of condoms by the Catholic church in the areas where HIV is rampant.

Fundementalists that take the bible as the word of god and as such indisputable fact cannot even see the inconsistencies between the gospels and even more with historical fact. Belief in the "truth" of the gospels requires the suspension of reason.

Because religion is founded on dogma, it cannot change with the world, and as such has passed from providing a unified superstition that aided in bringing people together, to a toxic blight on humanity that has lately brought us:
911,
The taliban,
Sectarian violence in Iraq, Northern Ireland etc.

Theology and science cannot be compared, as one relies on unquestioning belief and unchanging dogma, and the other on questioning scepticism and constant change.

The choice people face is the cotton wool comfort of belief or the harsh light of reason. With education more and more are emerging from the dark ages blinking into the light.

The need for law is almost a psychological illness in Atheists, because without law they have nothing. The law they worship as a god, is then inflicted mercilessly upon an unsuspecting, divided and long suffering population by their paid thugs, Magistrates and Judges. This is pure anathema to the way of Christianity.

The ten commandments were sent down from Mt Sinai, to meet a demand from the Jews for law. The day that law was delivered three thousand men were killed for not accepting it. ( Exodus 32) However as atheists it must be their law, whatever that is, not the law of the New Testament which in reality returns the law to its status before Exodus 32. This is what the Muslims did, when the Q’uran was written. Write a new Rule Book in the style of Moses. It is no wonder the Jews and Muslims dislike each other. They are competitors for the supremacy of law.

In its totality, the New Testament is anti law. It set up a system where silly laws, promulgated by Atheist control freaks, who would be gods themselves, can be scrapped cheaply and quickly. The Roman Catholic Religion, when it teaches blind obedience to law, is letting down the side. That may be why it is so damaging to some, and drives many to atheism ( insanity).

Protestant Christianity, teaches the Bible, as written. The Bible is a runaway best seller. But it is a complex book, containing many ideas, but the central one is we do not need law. We need justice. Justice and law are incompatible. If you have law you will not have justice. If you have justice you will not have law. So Atheism and Christianity are diabolically opposed.

The absolute central basis of Christianity is a jury trial; where any law or ruling that does not deliver justice, can be set aside. When a Justice and a Jury combine, the power and the glory of the Trinitarian God, is set in motion. When a Judge sits without a jury, he is an atheist; Without either God, or glory