Yahweh's wife, Asherah, edited out of original Old Testament? also platypodes

[Morm]

Here is your evidence. Paw through that, it's a good thing for christians to know this!

Whether it was a foreign god assimilated or not, it was still worshiped by the group that serves as the roots of christianity. If the bible is such a great historic document, without flaw, why is it that this stuff isn't explicitly said in the old testament?

Also it's not 100's of thousands, it's closer to 1000 or so gospels IIRC...and they hand picked 66.

 

[mattj]

Here is your evidence. Paw through that, it's a good thing for christians to know this!

The Skeptics Annotated Bible is old news bro. Spent weeks following the links in it for this and that like when I was 17. For every inconsistency they site, there's a response. Many of which make them look like fools.

Whether it was a foreign god assimilated or not, it was still worshiped by the group that serves as the roots of christianity. If the bible is such a great historic document, without flaw, why is it that this stuff isn't explicitly said in the old testament?

The word Ashtoreth appears 12 times in the text of the Bible. The word Asherah (the physical object that represented Ashtoreth, that they physically worshiped) appears 40 times. As something of a reference, the words baptize, baptism, baptizing, and baptist only appear a total of 50 times in the text of the Bible.

How much more explicit does it have to be?

Also it's not 100's of thousands, it's closer to 1000 or so gospels IIRC...and they hand picked 66.

you recall incorrectly

 

[Cartoons!]

If there is, possibilities should be considered and looked into rather seriously- I'd say a few artifacts (and I'm assume more tangible stuff in her book) deserves a more inquisitive eye, especially when there is zero reference for anything in the bible and all the gospels were basically word of mouth bullshit.

I thought you hated archeology. But as long as we're looking at what's there, we have this. Do these findings prove the bible true? no. But they certainly do validate a lot of its historical claims, which you're trying very hard to ignore.

Sweet so that means I am going to heaven then! I can say what I want, do what I want and the rules don't really matter. TOP SCORE pascal's wager won (lol).

I don't understand why you're being sarcastic. Do you think he's making this up or do you really not understand what Christianity is about?

here's a "what if" for you: Sin is a construct of society to keep people in line and is radically volatile from society to society. Then your death of one man is just another dickforge that the Roman's saw fit to nail to some wood. Lesson learned: Don't piss off the Romans.

"What if" sin is a definable evil we're all marked by, and the only way a holy God could execute his justice without destroying us would be to pour out his infinite indignation onto an infinite Being able to absorb the punishment in our stead. Then this Being, who came as one of us in order to be a proper substitute, only asks that we recognize this gift and that we follow Him.

The jews were, infact, never enslaved by the Egyptians. The Egyptians point blank state what tribes they were enslaving and the jews (in ANY form) were never one of them. Ergo the story of moses is incorrect. Speaking of Egyptians, how about that Horus? Pretty similar story to Jesus, except how many hundred years before him? That's called plagiarism.

I'll give you lack of relics suggesting the Hebrews being enslaved in Egypt, but surely you of all people can appreciate 'gaps' in ancient evidence not necessarily pointing to lack of reality.

But let's take a look at Horus:
Jesus born possibly sometime in the spring. Horus born in what we would call the last week of August.
Jesus born of a virgin. Horus born of Isis who used a magic spell to bring his murdered father Osiris back to life so they could have sex and conceive him.
Jesus referred to as 'the Truth', 'the Light', 'Lamb of God', etc. Horus...was not.
Jesus had 12 close disciples, and hundreds of other people who followed him around. Horus had 4 semi-divine disciples, and 16 other people who followed him around.
Jesus dies on a cross, resurrects 3 days later. Horus merges with sun god Ra.

If you want to start bringing up supposed similarities between Jesus and Attis, Dionysus, Krishna, or anyone else, I invite you.

There was even historically a monotheistic Judaic cult (yes, it was considered a cult much like christianity once was) that knocked the main sects of polytheistic Judaism off rather violently and then did a little purge. I'd suggest you check out the book.

Again, yes, this is known. This is all known. If she does in fact back this up with archeology, that's just archeology confirming what the bible already says. The overthrowing was done largely by Jehu, and after the Jews returned from their exile in Babylon, they remained mostly monotheistic to this day. And yes Christianity was (and is still in many places) considered a cult; a 'debased, extravagant superstition'. Are you trying to shame us with this information?

Of course I'm not going to read the book, the hypothesis and results mean absolutely nothing to me! Christians and other faiths, on the other hand, might have something to gain from it so I passed it along.

The problem is that she doesn't really seem to be well enough versed in the material if she is presenting 'Hebrews worshipped Asherah as Yahweh's wife' as new information. Besides, our faith is not rooted in archeology (though it is nice when it validates the bible), but in the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf, and our continuing walk with God in the present day.

I'd like to talk with you more about why I think the bible can be demonstrated to be a reliable source, as well as how and why the books in the new testament were chosen, but most of all I'd urge you to take the step yourself to see if you can't know God personally, and not rely on the research of others as your only evidence.

 

[Morm]

it makes it even worse that they picked only 66 from 100's of thousands. Talk about a piss poor sampling! As for the explicit thing, I was meaning historic things such as when the jewish monotheists overthrew the polytheists and changed the bible more specifically than a few lines.


Cartoons- Most of those artifacts just confirm that the story in the bible is indeed a story. It doesn't speak the historical accuracy, just that someone decided to write the story down on stone.

Christianity seems to differ from person to person. As was once said on this site (by cookie I believe)- form an aggregate opinion and come back to present it to me.

I'll give you lack of relics suggesting the Hebrews being enslaved in Egypt, but surely you of all people can appreciate 'gaps' in ancient evidence not necessarily pointing to lack of reality.

It is extremely significant when the bible says something as specific as "the jews were in egypt" and there is zero backing. For general things you can get away with a bit more.

You completely left out the part where Horus resurrected a guy whose name translates to Lazarus. It's not like the ripped him off word for word but there are some striking parallel's. For something that is absolute truth, it sure infringes more than enough for me to raise an eyebrow. Then again, absolute truth seems to change when it's convenient, I sincerely doubt you celebrate Jesus's birthday in the spring with offerings versus being a greedmonger around the winter solstice.

I am not shaming anyone with information, I am pointing out that this could be something very significant but it seems people want to do everything but consider it for a second. I asked if people thought it was more blasphemous to consider other options or to be dogmatic, I guess I have your answer.

She never said this idea was new info, she is saying that she has more evidence that the jews did worship Asherah as Jahweh's woman. Do you find it at all hypocritical to ignore archaeology if it contradicts the bible but then say "it's nice when it validates the bible"? It must be nice to live your life like a sampler pack, able to see everything but ultimately choose only what you like.

Until the bible sorts out its many contradictions with itself or real life it is completely non-credible.

I'd encourage you not to rely on the research of others at all. Never drive over a bridge, get a vaccine or eat again (as all that beef diet/growing conditions is learned by research in one form or another). Again, the theme of living life like a sampler pack shows up- taking what you like and discarding the rest. Some of us are more disciplined than to be an intellectual dabbler. Sorry dude, no God for me.

 

[cookie]

nobody has answered my question yet

 

[v]

what kind of benevolent god would make such an awkw

ard-looking species?

 

[mattj]

Also it's not 100's of thousands, it's closer to 1000 or so gospels IIRC...and they hand picked 66.

it makes it even worse that they picked only 66 from 100's of thousands. Talk about a piss poor sampling!

You really don't have any concept of what's you're talking about. There are only 4 gospels in the Bible. There are only a maximum of 20 other Gospels (Peter, Mary Magdeline, and Judas being the most well known 3), all written from somewhere around 300 Ad onward, in other countries, by who knows who. The "hundreds of thousands" was referring to the extraordinary amount of source texts we have for the 66 books of the Bible. Many of which are accepted to be from very close to the time of the penning of the original text itself. 99% of which agree completely, the only major disagreements being changes in syntax or spelling. Please. Look into this before mouthing off about it. It just makes you look silly. 1000s of Gospels. Lazarus being mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Come on.

As for the explicit thing, I was meaning historic things such as when the jewish monotheists overthrew the polytheists and changed the bible more specifically than a few lines.

Historic eh? Any evidence for this? Whether or not you accept the Bible's claims of the Supernatural, there's plenty of evidence to support the thousands of events mentioned in the Bible. Do you know of any evidence that the Bible edited out Ashera? Or anything else? Or do you need evidence? You're a man of deep faith aren't you?[/quote]

Christianity seems to differ from person to person. As was once said on this site (by cookie I believe)- form an aggregate opinion and come back to present it to me.

Same thing can be said of science, or anything else for that matter. Great argument.

It is extremely significant when the bible says something as specific as "the jews were in egypt" and there is zero backing.

So anything that hasn't been found by archeologists yet is auto-disproven.

She never said this idea was new info, she is saying that she has more evidence that the jews did worship Asherah as Jahweh's woman. Do you find it at all hypocritical to ignore archaeology if it contradicts the bible but then say "it's nice when it validates the bible"? It must be nice to live your life like a sampler pack, able to see everything but ultimately choose only what you like.

That the Jews worshiped Ashera is mentioned 52+ times in the Bible. That some people may have thought that Ashera based on 2-3 potshards isn't a big deal either. People in that region mixed religions all the time. Her declaration that the original text of the Bible said as much, but was edited out by "oppressive, male, monotheistic priests" has zero evidence to back it up. You wanna talk about a fairy tale?

Until the bible sorts out its many contradictions with itself or real life it is completely non-credible.

You can reject the supernatural claims of the Bible if you want to, but you'd be silly to claim that it's not an ancient text with some historical value. Just as much as any ancient text, or potshard that some hot chick unearths. Take the supernatural elements out of the picture completely, and it's still hundreds of thousands of independent source texts amounting to 66 individual books, versus some airhead with a handful of partial inscriptions.

I'd encourage you not to rely on the research of others at all. Never drive over a bridge, get a vaccine or eat again (as all that beef diet/growing conditions is learned by research in one form or another). Again, the theme of living life like a sampler pack shows up- taking what you like and discarding the rest. Some of us are more disciplined than to be an intellectual dabbler. Sorry dude, no God for me.

It probably feels good to think of yourself that way, but in fact, you're the one picking and choosing. Accepting some airhead's handful of potshards, while rejecting countless tomes of archeological study over thousands of years.

 

[cookie]

Same thing can be said of science, or anything else for that matter. Great argument.

science does not differ from person to person. everyone does science the same, and if they don't then it's not science. why isn't it science if someone does it differently? because it won't work. science that doesn't work is akin to superstition, religion, or stupidity

 

[J-man]

Sweet so that means I am going to heaven then! I can say what I want, do what I want and the rules don't really matter. TOP SCORE pascal's wager won (lol).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 6&version=NIV
Yeah no... You have great blind faith in your knowledge of the Bible though.

here's a "what if" for you: Sin is a construct of society to keep people in line and is radically volatile from society to society. Then your death of one man is just another dickforge that the Roman's saw fit to nail to some wood. Lesson learned: Don't piss off the Romans.

Red Herring? even if not, sin is rebellion against God and the transgression of the Law (AKA the ten commandments)

Yeah I'm 100% sure you'd be muslim and say no other religion makes sense if you were raised in Baghdad by musliums....just like every other christian.

Your responses are becoming very exhausted aren't they? Logic isn't relative you know. It is visual every day that it is impossible for man to keep a law perfect. He transgresses it everyday.

The jews were, infact, never enslaved by the Egyptians. The Egyptians point blank state what tribes they were enslaving and the jews (in ANY form) were never one of them. Ergo the story of moses is incorrect. Speaking of Egyptians, how about that Horus? Pretty similar story to Jesus, except how many hundred years before him? That's called plagiarism.

proof? Under (i know i'm going to botch this spelling) King Neferhotep (Insert some specific number here, i forget) there was a mass exodus of Semitic slaves. His son never ruled after him. His body was never found.

Coincidence? You deside.

Technically it's called pleading to a higher power. Though I simply brought it up to demonstrate that this person researches this stuff for a living quite intensely and therefore is quite likely to know things you do not. Ergo, your typical backwater preacher is a little outgunned on the historical relevance of things, as well as the backing information for the bible. Just pointing out that the book might be worth a read for you, no big deal man!

I don't need a title to demonstrate that I too research this stuff intensly, though probaby not in the same form or manner as she does.

This is called a Red Herring argument. You are diverting attention away from something important to devalue the argument.

Yup, i'm diverting attention away from an argument concerning a piece of pottery found in ancient israel saying that God has a wife (or sanai, *is too lazy to look it up*) by saying finding a piece of pottery in ancient israel that says "God has a wife" doesn't necessarily mean he had a wife, while pointing out that the line of reasoning clearly left out other reasonable conclusions to this finding. Herp derp i am so dumb...

and it was edited out of the bible Also it's a non sequitur at the end.

what

Who wrote the bible? It was man.

Thank you captain very obvious. But might i add without your our offense (2 Timothy 3:16).

You have no actual evidence that the stories (not historical text as very little is reliable) within the bible are even the word of god.

Explain how 30+ Writers can write 66 books focused on ONE message?

Hell, the gospels are all damn letters from one man to another.

not exactly... sort of, but not exactly. I guess by that same logic, the entirety of the new testament is thrown right out the window? You do understand that people make objects, such as crucifixes to wear around their neck, as a method of worship? It leaves tangible evidence to what the people were worshiping at the time and is much more reliable than stories passed down for two thousand years or more.

There was even historically a monotheistic Judaic cult (yes, it was considered a cult much like christianity once was) that knocked the main sects of polytheistic Judaism off rather violently and then did a little purge. I'd suggest you check out the book.

Hmmm.... The Bible also tells of Monotheistic Judaism killing off what they considered to be persons doing destable acts that should not be allowed amongst their people. Their law actually commanded it...

Again, i'll read the book when you've read it. Stop telling me to read a book you're arguing about WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT YOURSELF. Do you realize how silly you sound?

What a delightful misunderstanding of Russel's Teapot you have.

You're making a claim that the book is expected to have all the answers to the point you are making, and are expcting us to believe you when we can't argue against it because we also haven't read it. Sounds like a teapot flying 'round the sun to me.

I personally don't know the details,

You know, it might just help us out if you did know.

I just wanted to bring it up to discuss the possibility of narrowing down the word of God to be more specifically correct.

The church speant a painstakingly amount of time trying to get all the "God Breathed" pieces of writing. They didn't want to get it wrong. I'd think they'd make sure they'd get everything write or risk a massive twisted doctrine that did not agree with what Jesus taught. I don't really need to prove anything, the point is that you can read the book or be dogmatic, it doesn't really matter to me. For the record, Russel's Teapot refers to an unfalsifiable claim- my claim is 100% falsifiable and you can accomplish this by simply reading the book and contradicting the evidence in an authoritative and reasonable way. God on the other hand is unfalsifiable- it's a claim with no evidence (direct or indirect). You really need to learn how to debate, I'm not saying that as some attack, it'll help you in the future.



This is the pot calling the kettle black right here. Someone with blind faith in the bible (one book) taking ignorant swings at a book without even reading it. All I did was humbly say: "this is what the article says, the book likely knows more. It is an interesting idea to me that if people can narrow down the word of god to be more specific they might not. Lets discuss!"

On top of that, saying "I'll read it when you read it" is not only juvenile but it's the biggest cop out ever. Not everything is an attack on your faith. I am certain there is no god and as such, the notion of some godly wife only interests me because I am curious how the faithful will handle it. Of course I'm not going to read the book, the hypothesis and results mean absolutely nothing to me! Christians and other faiths, on the other hand, might have something to gain from it so I passed it along. Again, not everything is an attack on your faith, J-man, and when you act like that you come off as someone who is choosing to remain completely uneducated in the stark realities of your faith as well as insecure about what he believes.[/QUOTE]
I'm out of time right now and can not respond any further than this at the moment...

 

[cookie]

proof? Under (i know i'm going to botch this spelling) King Neferhotep (Insert some specific number here, i forget) there was a mass exodus of Semitic slaves. His son never ruled after him. His body was never found.

Coincidence? You deside.

correlation=/=causality. take a lesson in statistics.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

I guess Gods wife would explain all the nagging in the bible that tells you what you can and can not do

 

[mattj]

science does not differ from person to person. everyone does science the same, and if they don't then it's not science. why isn't it science if someone does it differently? because it won't work. science that doesn't work is akin to superstition, religion, or stupidity

Really? No disagreements in the science community anywhere? No competing theories.

 

[v]

jman do you believe in cthulu?
probs not
have you read the necronomicon?
probs not
HOW CAN YOU KNOW CTHULU ISN'T REAL IF YOU HAVEN'T READ HIS BOOK??

 

[v]

 

[cookie]

Really? No disagreements in the science community anywhere? No competing theories.

of course there are competing theories, but a different theory does not imply a difference in the scientific method: they are subject to the same scrutiny. the science does not change. you can't really compare the different ways these theories were arrived at to differences in people's idea of christianity unless of course you believe that there's an ultimate version of christianity that people are striving towards. such a thing doesn't appear to exist given that you have a gazillion different interpretations of the bible that don't seem to have much connection beyond having the same source material.

correct me if i'm getting this wrong, but my impression of religion in general is some guy reads the holy book, sees it one way then runs with it and then he might get some followers. there's no structure to the interpretation process: the book is riddled with contradictions and concepts that fundamentally clash with the values of a lot of its believers, so the interpretation process is flawed.

there's no tangible endpoint to this process. you've got your perfect interpretation of religion? cool, but how/why is it perfect. "because it works for me" - fair enough, but then that's going to be different to someone else's interpretation because they're a different person. science is the same because if it isn't it won't get results.

 

[Tobes]

IF CTHULHU DOESN'T EXIST THEN EXPLAIN THE ELDRITCHABOMINATIONS (BAN ME PLEASE)S

DEVOTEES OF CTHULHU: 1
CHRISTIANS: 0

 

[Morm]

I'm the one that looks silly by being unmalleable

I'll yield to your knowledge of a work of fiction but I do contest that I still know more about star wars, so we'll call it a draw

As for you J-man, how can one person be that stupid and still maintain autonomic function? Of bloody course logic is relative otherwise 'common' sense would be even less common!

 

[TPM]

Anyone who accepts god's existence as real logically must accept that the events in Star Wars actually happened. But I bet you don't believe they do, do you, Christians?

 

[Morm]

which is precisely why metaphysics is for people who want to do what they want without any need to justify it.

 

[mattj]

Anyone who accepts god's existence as real logically must accept that the events in Star Wars actually happened. But I bet you don't believe they do, do you, Christians?

Because there are hundreds of thousands of ancient source texts and artifacts that show that the events described in the Starwars movies actually happened.

This has devolved (heehee) into sillyness.

And cookie, the structure to the interpretation process is called hermeneutics. I can't speak for every christian, (just as you can't speak for every individual scientist), but the majority of us do believe in absolute truth (the Bible), and that some interpretations are correct, and some interpretations are incorrect. Just as you get wacko "quote unquote scientists" with crazy, mostly disproven theories (such as microbial life on meteorites from Mars, which large groups still believe), we get wacko "quote unquote preachers" with crazy, mostly disproven theories (such as the Bible teaches that no one will go to Hell, which large groups still believe).

 

[Lanturn314]

Because there are hundreds of thousands of ancient source texts and artifacts that show that the events described in the Starwars movies actually happened.

Well, there's the movie itself. Actual video footage of what happened. Christians don't even get that much.
Anyway, why believe a series of desert scribblings by men in ancient times who most certainly had their own biases about the world and didn't know the first thing about science? We have much better tools now to evaluate what's going on in the world... and you know what? If God actually existed, theoretically, we should be better able to figure it out now with our tools than we would have been back then, and yet atheism is steadily on the rise, particularly among educated people. Why do you think this is?

This has devolved (heehee) into sillyness.

I'll say. You refuse to listen to logic.

And cookie, the structure to the interpretation process is called hermeneutics. I can't speak for every christian, (just as you can't speak for every individual scientist), but the majority of us do believe in absolute truth (the Bible), and that some interpretations are correct, and some interpretations are incorrect. Just as you get wacko "quote unquote scientists" with crazy, mostly disproven theories (such as microbial life on meteorites from Mars, which large groups still believe), we get wacko "quote unquote preachers" with crazy, mostly disproven theories (such as the Bible teaches that no one will go to Hell, which large groups still believe).

Hermeneutics, eh? That's one of those words that means a hell of a lot of different things. Wikipedia gives a bajillion different definitions, and pastors themselves don't really agree on a single approach as evidenced by these survey results. So, mattj, would you mind explaining exactly what you take the term hermeneutics to mean? Because, you know, there's no one standard process (although evidently, everyone thinks their process is the right one... go figure)
And even if you were to agree on what process to use to interpret the bible, that still ignores the fact that you're using circular logic. Q:Why believe what the Bible says? A: Because it's the word of God. Q: How do we know it's the word of god? A: The Bible said so...

By contrast, the scientific community does rely on a single process to determine what is real and true. Scientific theories hinge on evidence and are subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. Scientists test their hypotheses continually, whereas Christians choose to blindly accept what is presented to them in a book written thousands of years ago as the absolute truth, ignoring anything that might possibly contradict their viewpoints and selectively interpreting it to suit what they already blindly believe... examples: things said in this thread, stuff from the holy book itself

 

[Morm]

And cookie, the structure to the interpretation process is called hermeneutics. I can't speak for every christian, (just as you can't speak for every individual scientist), but the majority of us do believe in absolute truth (the Bible), and that some interpretations are correct, and some interpretations are incorrect. Just as you get wacko "quote unquote scientists" with crazy, mostly disproven theories (such as microbial life on meteorites from Mars, which large groups still believe), we get wacko "quote unquote preachers" with crazy, mostly disproven theories (such as the Bible teaches that no one will go to Hell, which large groups still believe).

This is why the peer review system is in place, to cull the turds from the herds. They are accountable, unlike faith who can't even form an aggregate process and instead chooses to dabble. There is no accountability and your stories in the bible, to quote J-man, are "Exhausted". Nothing exhausts like being flogged for 2000+ years and ridden for every single answer ever, yet faith can't even figure out their asshole from a hole in the ground. As we should be able to recall, the whole dark ages were spurred by a period of churches clamping down on heresy (ie any progressive thought). When science waxed hard, we wind up with the 20th and 21st century, a time of unparalleled scientific achievement for the benefit of all (ie vaccines) not for the benefit of church (ie massive unwarranted taxation).

You quite literally have fallen into the exact same logical fallacy as ghost hunters or the knuckle dragging cryptozoologists (mind you, not all of them are complete shit heads but 99% sure are). It's called Authority Through Antiquity. Just because a story has been since before you were born it is not automatically granted credibility to clemency to say whatever illogical bullshit is spewed forward. Those stories all come from a time where the human brain, hardwired to find an answer, went for the lowest common denominator- a force beyond their abilities to understand/observe. From there it's a small step to anthropomorphize it or apply other qualities, since it's a "fill in the blank answer" to begin with.

That, MattJ, is whacko.

 

[Cartoons!]

If God actually existed, theoretically, we should be better able to figure it out now with our tools than we would have been back then

Unless God was actually a real, conscious being, powerful enough to set down the rules as to how people come to know him. The bible says that you come to the know God through grace, and not through works; this way no one has the opportunity to boast before others or God. God resists the proud, and what could be more prideful than stubbornly trampling God's grace and attempting to decide who or what he is on your own terms?

edit, found a quote by Kitty Ferguson that says it better:
"if the supernatural world exists, and if it is inherently beyond testing by the scientific method, then there is truth beyond the range of scientific explanation."

and yet atheism is steadily on the rise, particularly among educated people. Why do you think this is?

Because in the last days, people will be always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Also, these things are hidden from the wise. Finally, the cross is described as being foolishness to the world, and we're told that those who follow Christ are going to look like idiots to the majority.


You're not going to find the salinity of the ocean by scooping sand in the desert, so if you're sincere in your search to see if God is real or not, follow the process that he's laid out. You won't be disappointed.


On the side, I ran into this short video sort of describing how the militant atheist and zealot christian tend to relate to each other. I apologize for times in the past when I might have been snarky or presumptuous and I hope we can keep this civil.

 

[Morm]

Unless God was actually a real, conscious being, powerful enough to set down the rules as to how people come to know him.

What an amazingly non determinant way of saying "You're wrong but I can't tell you why affirmatively." So you're saying he possesses the ability to do this but you have no idea about the mechanics? That is so armwavy that I'd think your legs might be involved too, if only it wasn't an argument that was running in circles.

God resists the proud, and what could be more prideful than stubbornly trampling God's grace and attempting to decide who or what he is on your own terms?

Actually what is prideful is knowing you have an answer without even asking the questions and being completely unwilling (or unable, as the case usually is) to discuss it beyond full compliance by the opposition. A humbler man would ask "What if I'm wrong? Well, why don't I find an exhaustive way to determine if I am wrong and then call that process science."

Because in the last days, people will be always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Also, these things are hidden from the wise. Finally, the cross is described as being foolishness to the world, and we're told that those who follow Christ are going to look like idiots to the majority

Speaking of pride, did you actually just advocate knowing everything without bettering yourself through learning? Did you actually just quote something that says everything but what you specifically think is foolish? Borrowed wisdom, even if it's right, is perhaps the least humble thing of all...and the most foolish.

You're not going to find the salinity of the ocean by scooping sand in the desert, so if you're sincere in your search to see if God is real or not, follow the process that he's laid out. You won't be disappointed.

Actually it really depends on if that desert is a dried ocean lobe or not or even basic sedimentary rocks. The salts actually still bleed out of the Bearpaw and Clearwater formations (among others) here in Alberta, so these marine shales demonstrate that you CAN find the salinity of an ocean by scooping sands in a desert. Believing what others tell you and knowing that a feeling in your heart is real is the exact opposite of a process, just so you're aware, so his process is "believe what you want so long as you believe in me and don't cheat on me and you will be right no matter what."

No worries Cartoons, you aren't one of the snarky ones.

If Kitty Ferguson is right you have absolutely no way of knowing if you are right or wrong for sure about anything you believe.

 

[J-man]

Sweet so that means I am going to heaven then! I can say what I want, do what I want and the rules don't really matter. TOP SCORE pascal's wager won (lol).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206&version=NIV


Yeah no... You have great blind faith in your knowledge of the Bible though.

here's a "what if" for you: Sin is a construct of society to keep people in line and is radically volatile from society to society. Then your death of one man is just another dickforge that the Roman's saw fit to nail to some wood. Lesson learned: Don't piss off the Romans.

Red Herring? No one “pissed the Romans off” during the murder of Christ. The Sanhedrin had it out for Jesus, and had enough grip on Pilate that they could get anyone executed that they thought needed the axe. They mobbed where pilate was and pretty much forced him to kill Jesus (even though records in the Bible and other historical records say Pilate thought Jesus was innocent). There’s no what if. What ifs are for alternate historians and there is no such thing as alternate history. If there was, Hitler would have won the war and we’d all be speaking German :P

Yeah I'm 100% sure you'd be muslim and say no other religion makes sense if you were raised in Baghdad by musliums....just like every other christian.

Your responses are becoming very exhausted aren't they? Logic isn't relative you know. It is visual every day that it is impossible for man to keep any law perfect. He transgresses it every day.

The jews were, infact, never enslaved by the Egyptians. The Egyptians point blank state what tribes they were enslaving and the jews (in ANY form) were never one of them. Ergo the story of moses is incorrect. Speaking of Egyptians, how about that Horus? Pretty similar story to Jesus, except how many hundred years before him? That's called plagiarism.

Proof that they never had Hebrew slaves? Under King Neferhotep 1 there was a mass exodus of Semitic slaves. His son never ruled after him. His body was never found. If you bring the 13th dynasty down to the time of the exodus (a move that has growing support by scholars), suddenly the evidence exists.

Coincidence? You deside.

Technically it's called pleading to a higher power. Though I simply brought it up to demonstrate that this person researches this stuff for a living quite intensely and therefore is quite likely to know things you do not. Ergo, your typical backwater preacher is a little outgunned on the historical relevance of things, as well as the backing information for the bible. Just pointing out that the book might be worth a read for you, no big deal man!

I don't need a title to demonstrate that I too research this stuff intensely, though probably not in the same form or manner as she does. I’m not ignorant, and passionately study Christian apologetics.

This is called a Red Herring argument. You are diverting attention away from something important to devalue the argument.

Yup, i'm diverting attention away from an argument concerning a piece of pottery found in ancient israel saying that God has a wife (or sanai, *is too lazy to look it up*) by saying finding a piece of pottery in ancient israel that says "God has a wife" doesn't necessarily mean he had a wife, while pointing out that the line of reasoning clearly left out other reasonable conclusions to this finding. Herp derp i am so dumb...

and it was edited out of the bible Also it's a non sequitur at the end.

what

Who wrote the bible? It was man.

Thank you captain very obvious. But might i add without your our offense (2 Timothy 3:16).

You have no actual evidence that the stories (not historical text as very little is reliable) within the bible are even the word of god.

The stories are the historical text?

Hell, the gospels are all damn letters from one man to another.

Try one man to an entire group of people.

I guess by that same logic, the entirety of the new testament is thrown right out the window?

I’m definitely not following you.

You do understand that people make objects, such as crucifixes to wear around their neck, as a method of worship?

der, nope!

It leaves tangible evidence to what the people were worshiping at the time and is much more reliable than stories passed down for two thousand years or more.

clearly you don’t understand how exactly well kept the books of the Bible were in the past.

There was even historically a monotheistic Judaic cult (yes, it was considered a cult much like christianity once was) that knocked the main sects of polytheistic Judaism off rather violently and then did a little purge. I'd suggest you check out the book.

Hmmm.... The Bible also tells of Monotheistic Jews killing off what they considered to be persons doing detestable acts that should not be allowed amongst their people. Their law actually commanded it...

Again, i'll read the book when you've read it. Stop telling me to read a book you're arguing about WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT YOURSELF. Do you realize how silly you sound?

I personally don't know the details,

You know, it might just help us out if you did know.

I just wanted to bring it up to discuss the possibility of narrowing down the word of God to be more specifically correct.

We believe that Christ Jesus is our Lord, one God who is in the Father and begotten of the Father. We believe what he taught was faithfully kept by the apostles, who were given no reason to alter his message. We believe that the old testament, which Christ taught out of, to be the word of God because he fulfilled all of what the prophets (whose messages were believed to have come from God). If this Christ never resurrected from the dead (I have yet to run into an anti resurrection theory I can’t answer), then the message of the apostles, which is the same thing as Christ taught (you know, Christ is God and thus they are his words), is null and our faith is nothing.

I don't really need to prove anything,

so based on this, I expect no response from you because you don’t want to argue at all. Thus, you’ve wasted all our time with this rubbish story.

the point is that you can read the book or be dogmatic,

False dilemma. I don’t have to read a book to know I’m wrong. Many of us have already demonstrated based off the article that this woman is wrong. But you keep on pleading to this book like it will be the life saver of the point you have expressed you don’t want to make.

it doesn't really matter to me.

good, then stop debating religion. It makes you look very foolish.

For the record, Russel's Teapot refers to an unfalsifiable claim- my claim is 100% falsifiable and you can accomplish this by simply reading the book and contradicting the evidence in an authoritative and reasonable way.

We already have, and we didn’t need to read some book. Also, since we are using books to argue our cause… I want to prove the Jesus of the Bible existed. Go read “Case for Christ” and it will prove my case for me. Reading “A Case for Faith” will also help out a lot thanx…

God on the other hand is unfalsifiable- it's a claim with no evidence (direct or indirect).

No evidence? On the contrary:
http://carm.org/transcendental-argument
http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
http://carm.org/failure-atheism-account-rationality
http://carm.org/why-do-you-believe-jesus-not-santa-claus

http://carm.org/there-no-proof-god-exists

This is the pot calling the kettle black right here. Someone with blind faith in the bible (one book) taking ignorant swings at a book without even reading it.

if this isn’t Ad Hominem Tuquoque, I don’t know what is.

All I did was humbly say: "this is what the article says, the book likely knows more. It is an interesting idea to me that if people can narrow down the word of god to be more specific they might not. Lets discuss!"

might not what? Please finish your sentences. Anyways, we responded by showing, based on the article, how this woman is wrong. We don’t need a book to prove a point.

On top of that, saying "I'll read it when you read it"

why should I read something that you clearly have no interest in reading? To prove a point you clearly aren’t interested in making? It sounds really silly that I have to go out of my way to prove a point you want to make because you obviously aren’t excepting are arguments already.

Again, not everything is an attack on your faith, J-man, and when you act like that you come off as someone who is choosing to remain completely uneducated in the stark realities of your faith as well as insecure about what he believes.

So we’re uneducated because we are choosing not to read some dumb, illogical book. You wanna know how I came to this conclusion about that book? Because the article you gave us gave no reason for us to further to investigate this based on the knowledge of History that we already know. The evidence against this claim is already smothered around this thread. You are clearly ignoring it and are the one coming off as uneducated and very ignorant.