Despite BPC being incredibly stubborn, I decided I'd reply to his post anyway in case anyone who might entertain the idea of God is interested.
Either that, or...
-The Talmund was a fake
-The guy who wrote into it was a nut
-The guy who wrote into it was fooled...
The Talmud (Looked it, actually I'd been spelling it wrong XD) was not a single person's writing. It was a compilation of a bunch of different Jewish leaders' opinions. Anyway, why would any Christian copyist fake the bit about Jesus? If you were into forgery and was copying a text, would you insert a bit blasting evolution? Of course not. As for the people writing it being fooled/insane, you're basically saying that the entire Jewish leadership was fooled/insane. Given they were Jesus's harshest critics, I don't buy that.
Essentially, you're trying to use ancient texts to prove that something that the laws of science dictate impossible happened. OF COURSE WE'RE GOING TO BE SKEPTICAL! At this point, nothing will convince me of a "miracle" from any "god". Did you watch that video, "putting faith in its place"? The issue with any "miracle" is that almost no matter what you do, eventually technology will be far enough along to make it happen. Maybe if Jesus did raise the dead, then he was being manipulated by some hyperadvanced race with the ability to revive the dead within short spans of time? Hard to say. And this is, of course, assuming that he did do this.
There is nothing to say to this type of stubbornness. Although, I will note: If some hyperadvanced race DID manipulate Jesus to perform the miracles and raise the dead, what's to stop that same hyperadvanced race from forging all the fossils in favor of evolution? (And why haven't we had any sort of recorded and verifiable contact from them?) There's no evidence either way.
There's a good reason beyond the one above (old document going against science) why I hold very little trust in pro-christian texts from that era. That reason is the crusade, plus the inquisition. God only knows how much evidence could've been destroyed, how much could've been falsified, and how much of the truth could be surpressed. Say there was a text by a famous historian of that time defining the life of Jesus Christ as a perfectly normal minister's life; i.e. he never did any miracles and simply created a massive religion out of slight of hand, "magic" tricks, and sheer charisma. Would that text have survived religious purges in the dark ages? I highly doubt it.
Ever heard of the reformation? The people behind the crusades and the inquisition were the catholic church... whose own position stood OUTSIDE the Bible! Martin Luther's biblical position cracked it apart. I can't deny that some evidence might have been destroyed, but I doubt they managed to forge anything. By the time the crusades and inquisition came around, we were into the 1500's or so. Anything forged would be so far of a time gap that it wouldn't be credible. You guys are skeptical enough of evidence 50 years after Christ, how much more would everyone be of evidence 1500 years after Christ?
And if there was a text showing how Jesus Christ managed to fake everything, why haven't we today with much more advanced scientific knowledge managed to figure it out?
In bits and pieces; the rest of which are shoved off as "poetic". For some reason, which are which is decided after it's shown that certain events simply couldn't have happened (come on, how many people do you think believed that there really was a great flood before scientists proved that there wasn't? Some still do).
The. Whole. Thing. Is. True. Yes, there are some parts that are symbolic, but those are extremely obvious, and not that large of a part of the Bible. Show me something you think is false that's been shoved off as "symbolic".
Also, I believe in the flood. Please show some of this "evidence" against it. That's the third time it's been said that the flood never happened, and nobody's presented a scrap of evidence about it.
As said, Part of the bible being right != other part of the bible being right.
Depends on the argument used. With the correct arguments, it's quite logical to say A -> B.
I meant the first two points implied the third.
There is evidence; evidence that simply cannot be taken seriously for various reasons.
List them, because I'm calling your bluff. I've listed some evidence, tell me why it's faulty.
Well jeez, there's your problem. You're trying to prove something that, by sheer definition of its class is not only unprovable, but that you can't even define reasonably! Proving that god exists inherently denies him of the title "god".
Why would showing that God exists keep him from being God? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Yeah, the whole free will issue, no matter how often it is explained, still seems bogus to me. You have an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god who would create humans who will sin, even though he knows they will sin, and would then condemn them to hell for all eternity. SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.
All right, there's a short answer and a long answer here.
Short answer:
There was no other way to create humans, and God decided the reward was worth the cost.
Long answer:
Suppose God made a race of humans with free will, but kept them from sinning. This means that the "free will" isn't really free. If there's no choice between good and evil, you're locked in to doing good. If there's no choice but to love God, can you really call that love? It would be like having a machine. Every time God stopped us from sinning, he'd be violating our free will. Even all-powerfulness has it's limits. God can't make a circle square, or a round triangle. So, God decided to give us free will, despite the cost. We've chosen to abuse it, and we must pay the penalty. God, being fully just, must punish us for what we've done.
To fully clarify sin and it's punishments, let me ask you a few questions.
Have you ever told a lie? Half-truth, Exaggeration? What do you call someone who lies? A liar.
Have you ever stolen something, regardless of how small? What do you call someone who steals? A thief.
Jesus said that if you've ever hated someone, you're guilty of murdering them in your heart. (You know when someone makes you really mad, you visualize beating them up or similar in your mind's eye?) Ever done that? That would make you a murderer.
So, given the above, how would you stack up on Judgement day? The sad fact is that God is fully justified in sending the entire world to Hell.
However, God loves us, so he sent his Son to live a perfect life and take our penalty on that cross. (To make this a little easier to understand: Think of the penalty like being hopelessly in debt: To get out of it, you need someone else who isn't in debt to pay it for you. That's what Jesus did.)
Here we have a ridiculous double standard. Whenever there's something written in the bible that sounds even remotely accurate, historically/scientifically, bible apologists JUMP on it as proof that the bible is accurate. Anything shown to be wrong in the bible, and "it was just poetic" or "it was mistranslated" or "you're interpreting it wrong".
You realize the stuff shown to be "wrong" in the Bible? They're minor side details that can be easily explained. There's the timing of the census, the conflicting genealogies, Judas's multiple deaths... everything I've seen attacked has been a side point. Even regardless of these things being explained, it would be like me attacking evolution saying "There's no transitional form between the basic bird and the red-tailed blackfinch" (Pick your own favorite uncommon animal and whatever it evolved from, it doesn't really matter.)
Oh, but I will. I'm going to make the claim that <insert element X that isn't conclusively shown> GOD, as described by the bible, is Symbolic for the judgment we humans place on ourselves. After all, an "all-knowing, all-loving" creator who would **** one of his creations to hell for all eternity seems fairly absurd to me. Similarly, the Devil is also symbolic. Now why is this wrong? How are you able to say what is to be taken literally in the bible, and we're not?
I covered all of this above. It's symbolic if it's obvious that the author meant it to be symbolic.
I'll say that a group of a few hundred, probably less, crazies convinced thousands of other people to the point where they'd go out and die for a lie in some stinking desert while those who made the call were sitting at home cozy away from any land mines, IEDs, or suicide bombers screaming "ALLAH AKBAR!".
I'll say that a group of whose size I'm not 100% sure about was able to convince a fairly large amount of a population to, if the moderates are correct, completely misinterpret their religion and turn a "religion of peace" into one that would fly two planes into massive skyscrapers, killing thousands of "infidels".
It's not that absurd, when you think about it. And back in those days? These are supposedly the enlightened times. Back then, it was every man for himself.
Do you know how the Islam religion started up? It's founder claimed to have divine inspiration, converted his family and close friends (not too hard), and then started ambushing people and telling them "Be a Muslim or die!". Pretty easy to spread a religion that way. And do you realize that the suicide-bomber Muslims have been raised from childhood, being taught that America is evil and such, whereas dying violently to spread Islam is the greatest good? When that sort of stuff is what they've been raised on, what do you expect?
The disciples used none of these techniques. They never threatened anyone with "Believe or die!"(if you want to claim otherwise, prove it with evidence), and they didn't have the luxury of brainwashing kids from the age of 3.
Again, you're trying to prove something that is completely unprovable and that goes against both any scientific testing and all common sense using texts that are easily manipulated from an era shortly before those who zealously believed in the gospel went in and trashed the place. Twice, IIRC. Furthermore, if you would draw the conclusion that either any nonspecific god, or worse, any specific god exists from this, then you are making a huge logical error.
An era "shortly before"? Try 1000 years before.
Ninja edit:
@Dark horse
BPC flat out said "Regardless of whatever you present, you're wrong". Have I said anything near that? Also, I'm basically asking BPC "What if I'm right and you're wrong?". I'm not implying I'm right with that in any way.
@evolution thing.
Point taken. I'm sorry.
I mean a well-informed outside with scientific background who has never been taught about the christian gospel. There are going to be a lot of questions, and of course he's going to question your reasons for your belief. Evolution, by comparison, sounds wacky the first time you hear it, but it can be easily backed up by looking at bacteria, or the fossil record, or...
