... malevolent bully.

[Tigger]

Your mountains of evidence merely show that everyone who has died stayed dead, except for Jesus. I have evidence that everyone who played the lottery lost, except the person who won.

And where's your "mountains of evidence" to prove that a dead man came strolling out of his tomb like a zombie? (Incidentally, having seen first hand the decay that ensues after death, I find it highly unlikely that anyone, including your beloved Jesus, is capable of coming back.

It is unlikely. Winning the lottery is likely, but it happens. Life on earth is unlikely, but here we are having fun!

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

Oh dear, Bruce. Sadly you lose. You are going to lose the biggest game ever. You are wasting your life even contemplating the existence or necessity of your deity for even a moment. One day, having frittered away the existence that you evolved to enjoy in your pursuit of the ridiculous, you will die. And then there will be nothing left of you save some memories. You won't be anywhere else, for there is nothing else. The problem atheists have is there's no way for us to say that we're right; however, the burden of proving your everlasting life, that lies beyond all reason and rationality, is yours.

[Pappa]

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

Can you show us this evidence?

[Hermit]

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

Can you show us this evidence?

Uhm, I anticipate it'll be something like "It says so in the bible, and the bible is true. I know it's true because it says so in the bible."

Theists...

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course believers could be wrong. But it is not incredible that people believe, since people have always believed. For all of history, religious faith of some sort has been the norm, and still is. So it should surprise no one that people believe.

It's not incredible that people believe in gods, or in new age "Energy" or in "Karma" or in "reincarnation" or in "astrology."

For all of history, astrology, etc., of some sort has been the norm, and still is. So it should surprise no one that people believe in astrology.

It's really not a question of being "surprised" by belief in gods. It's a question of whether that belief can be distinguished in any meaningful way from make-believe. Can you distinguish your belief in any meaningful way from make-believe? If so, can you please tell me how you do it? Because I would like to know.

[Coito ergo sum]

Since when is truth a Democratic thing "most people " believe lots of silly things and a few hundred years ago almost everything people believed was rubbish .
Lots of people believing in god doesn't mean there is one and I doesn't mean you have any concept of what god is like. Your book is obviously total gobshite

Just give it up Bruce you KNOW you don't need this stupid belief the insane mental hoops you have to jump through to to sustain it are not worth it .

. It's really not hard to believe when your experience leads you in that direction.

What experience, exactly?

[Coito ergo sum]

Quite, but there is no clue from the text what that would be. However, the text does use quotes, and specifically refers to God speaking, in the active voice, and not Abraham thinking or perceiving something. Certainly, it is allowable for you to read the passage not as literally meaning God said X, Y or Z but rather Abraham thinking it. But, I wonder, why would a god inspire a book in that way? We can't know for sure, or even surmise that more likely than not, that your version is correct. As far as we can tell, it might be referring to a literal event and literal words spoken by God, or it could be referring to thoughts in Abraham's head. Or, it could be referring to something Abraham dreamed, or something Abraham imagined altogether. Is there a way to distinguish which one, if any, are correct? If so, let me know.

Who said that God inspired the book? Abraham had an experience, told someone about it, and later it was written down.

Fair enough. I would add that in reality someone wrote down a story about a supposed experience by someone supposedly named Abraham, but there is no way to tell whether the story is a creation of someone's mind in toto, or based on a true story.

No inspiration of the book is required.

Of course not. I agree with you there.

[quote="Bruce Burleson"

The book stands between us and the experience that Abraham had.[/quote]

The book contains a story about someone supposedly named Abraham who, according to the storyteller, had certain experiences.

We look through the lens of the book and attempt to interpret something that happened 4000 years ago.

If it happened at all.

The inspiration was in the encounter between Abraham and God. Everything that happened after that is interpretation.

Why isn't the encounter between Abraham and God interpretation too? Why isn't the whole idea that there even was an encounter with God open to interpretation? Maybe it was really Satan in disguise? Maybe it was schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder? Maybe it was a dream? On what basis do you prefer your interpretation?

In the Book of Genesis, God is quite clear that he does want animal sacrifices.

Yes, I am quite aware of what the OT says, having studied it all my life. My argument is that the people of the OT misinterpreted God, and that Jesus gave us a proper interpretation.

O.k. - that is your argument. On what basis do you accept the proposition that Jesus gave us a proper interpretation? Perhaps he is wrong too? How do you distinguish the whole thing from make-believe?

However, how are we to know? Are sacrifices desired by God or not? A whole bunch of people trying to be faithful to God sure thought they were back in the day, right? Now, however, since culturally we don't do the animal sacrifices anymore, we are prone to view the Bible passages as saying something other than they actually say. That's fine, but how are we to know? And, why would a God make it so that we have to "interpret" these stories in the dramatic fashion that you do - especially when, clearly, reasonable minds can differ as to your interpretation?

We don't know.

We don't know even that a god or gods exist, right?

That's why it is called faith.

Faith - belief without proof or reason. Yes, that is it, isn't it?

An even better definition: Faith - belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge of things without parallel.

That's what we're dealing with here. We have to have "faith" in something that is indistinguishable from make-believe. Yes?

I simply think that Jesus gave a better presentation of God than the OT. His view is more "reasonable", if I can use that word in this context.

O.k. - but, how do you make that determination? You "simply think" it? It sounds better to you?

I'll ask it again - how do you distinguish your belief from make believe? I hope you'll answer that.

Perhaps, but quite possibly, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had it wrong....how are we to tell?

Maybe they did have it wrong. In fact, I'm pretty sure they got parts of it wrong.

How can you be pretty sure?

So it comes down to whether the individual has a revelatory experience that convinces him/her of the validity of the faith. No rational certainty here.

There's another reference to experience. What experience, exactly?

Why do you find that to be a reasonable interpretation, but my suggestion that the whole thing could have been an invention of the author as an illustration, and that Abraham may never have existed, why do you find that to be something you are unwilling to entertain? Or, are you willing to entertain that notion? You said that you saw no reason to believe that Abraham did not exist - but, by the same token, is there any reason to believe he did? Or, if he did exist is there any reason to believe he talked to God? Or, is there any reason to believe that he got it wrong and was only thinking things in his head?

It is certainly possible that Abraham never existed.

Not only that, but we have an equal amount of evidence of his existence as his nonexistence, i.e. - none. Right?

We do have an account of his life, however,

We have a story.

We also have a story of the lives of various heroes in ancient Greek religious traditions - Hercules, Achilles, Perseus....

People write a lot of books and stories.

and there is no reason that I can see why one should not accept his existence.

Do you believe in everything that you can't see why you should not accept?

The reason one would not accept his existence is the same reason one would not accept Perseus' existence, or think that Perseus' mother Danae was impregnated by Zeus in the form of a shower of gold. Right? There is no evidence for it. But, can you see any reason why one should not accept Perseus' existence, and that he married Andromeda, killed the Gorgon and had an encounter with Atlas, etc.

There is no reason "not to accept" Perseus, Danae, Zeus and the Gorgon's existence, right? Or, is there?

If you reject the Perseus myth, but accept the Abraham myth, on what basis do you do so? On what basis do you distinguish either story from make-believe?

But we can't be certain. Life is full of uncertainties, isn't it?

Absolutely. That's why we don't believe things until we have reason to believe them, and not just an inability to see a reason not to believe them.

I have no reason not to believe that there is an Earthlike planet surround a star in the Adromeda galaxy with an alien on it doing jumping jacks, while juggling flaming sticks and chewing alien bubble gum. But, I don't believe it because I also have no reason TO believe that such an event is happening.

I am confused by your decisions as to what to believe and what not to believe. On what basis have you made these choices?

Personal, subjective experience.

What experience, exactly?

Did you see something? Did you hear something? Did you feel something? Did you think something? Did you get a message? How so? Did you receive a revelation? How did it come to you? In a dream? While meditating?

What experience, exactly?

[Coito ergo sum]

You'll agree, it's not authoritative at all, right? It has no authority?

Right, authority has no place in my argument. You look at what you have, and you make evaluations.

One may, of course, also interpret the human belief in gods much in the way you interpret the human belief in sacrifices. You cited a psychological need to sacrifice to the deity. Perhaps we can interpret all the references to a God in the Bible as just thoughts in people's heads, reflecting a psychological need to believe in some sort of supernatural higher power.

That is certainly possible.

And, no less plausible than your idea of the psychological need for sacrifices, right?

The way I see it, there can be many alternative interpretations. We can even view the Jesus dying and rising again story as metaphorical, can't we? We could even interpret the existence of God as metaphorical, yes?

You can, if that is how you evaluate the available manuscript evidence.

My position is that the crucifixion of Jesus is established as an historical event by a preponderance of the historical evidence, [/quote]

O.k. - fair enough.

Would you link to, cite to, or reference the historical evidence upon which you rely?

but you can interpret it any way you like. Belief in God and the resurrection of Jesus only comes when one has a personal revelatory experience, IMHO.

What personal revelatory experience did you have, exactly?

[Coito ergo sum]

Your mountains of evidence merely show that everyone who has died stayed dead, except for Jesus. I have evidence that everyone who played the lottery lost, except the person who won.

And where's your "mountains of evidence" to prove that a dead man came strolling out of his tomb like a zombie? (Incidentally, having seen first hand the decay that ensues after death, I find it highly unlikely that anyone, including your beloved Jesus, is capable of coming back.

It is unlikely. Winning the lottery is likely, but it happens. Life on earth is unlikely, but here we are having fun!

Winning the lottery is quite likely - it happens every day. A specific individual winning the lottery can be very unlikely, but it is very likely - in fact very high probability - that someone will win the lottery, as long as the lottery drawing takes place. It may be 1 in a billion chance that John Doe will win the lottery, but as we see from the Powerball drawings, rarely do we go more than a week without a winner.

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

You don't have any "evidence" that he rose from the dead. You, at best, have the New Testament writings. We have no forensic evidence. We have no archeological evidence. Nothing except the New Testament. Yes, you can call that evidence.

However, what kind of evidence is that?

Is it not the same kind of evidence we have for the existence of Zeus, Perseus, Danae, Achilles, Medusa the Gorgon, etc.?

So, I have a little evidence that Danae was impregnated by Zeus and fathered Perseus who went on to kill Medusa and marry Andromeda, and you have none that those events didn't happen. I win! Right?

You do see that, don't you?

[tytalus]

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

It is interesting to see, spelled out so plainly, the quality of evidence by which believers choose to take on ridiculous belief systems and spend such quantities of time and energy on them. I suppose the only way they survive at all is their ability to compartmentalize such extreme credulity.

[Bruce Burleson]

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

Can you show us this evidence?

Sure - eyewitness testimony recorded in the writings of Paul and John, It's some evidence, as all historical manuscripts are.

[Bruce Burleson]

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

Can you show us this evidence?

Uhm, I anticipate it'll be something like "It says so in the bible, and the bible is true. I know it's true because it says so in the bible."

Theists...

No, I won't say that it is true because it is in the bible. I will say that there is some eyewitness testimony recorded in the writings known as the new testament, and when evaluated historically, they constitute some evidence.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I don't have mountains of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. I have a little evidence that he did and you have none that he didn't. I win!

Can you show us this evidence?

Uhm, I anticipate it'll be something like "It says so in the bible, and the bible is true. I know it's true because it says so in the bible."

Theists...

No, I won't say that it is true because it is in the bible. I will say that there is some eyewitness testimony recorded in the writings known as the new testament, and when evaluated historically, they constitute some evidence.

The key word there is 'some'. On a scale of 'Unbelievable by any sane person' to 'Undeniably true', I would place the gospels somewhere slightly below the Cottingley fairies in terms of corroborating evidence.

[Bruce Burleson]

Faith - belief without proof or reason. Yes, that is it, isn't it?

That is not my definition of faith. Faith is trust that comes from personal encounter with someone. In the case of religious faith, it comes from personal encounter with God. Everyone who has had such an encounter has his or her own reasons for believing. In the case of the Christian faith, there is the objective component of the historical record about Jesus, which I judge to be generally accurate. Then there is the subjective component of personal experience in which the life of Jesus becomes real to the believer through an encounter with the Holy Spirit. The experience is unique to each person who has it. I explained some of my own experience, a small part of it, in another thread. For me, one consequence of the encounter was that the story of Jesus came alive to me. It became real, whereas before it had simply been words on a page. I do not experience this with any other religious text. And it also appears to me on a purely objective historical basis that the account of Jesus in the gospels is more accurate than pagan myths. So, it is convincing to me.

What experience, exactly?

Did you see something? Did you hear something? Did you feel something? Did you think something? Did you get a message? How so? Did you receive a revelation? How did it come to you? In a dream? While meditating?

What experience, exactly?

I recounted my first experience in the "My Take On Jesus" thread. Generally, the daily experience is of the presence of God, a sense that he is real and connected to my life. Reading the words of Jesus is like hearing a real person speak. His presence is like an elation, a sense of glory, peace, joy. Sometimes it bubbles up and I begin speaking in tongues. Other times it is just a quiet sense that he is there. The experience is varied, like that of the experience of any other person It also seems to match what I read in the NT about the early Christian experience. I understand what they were talking about

[Bruce Burleson]

You don't have any "evidence" that he rose from the dead. You, at best, have the New Testament writings. We have no forensic evidence. We have no archeological evidence. Nothing except the New Testament. Yes, you can call that evidence.

However, what kind of evidence is that?

Is it not the same kind of evidence we have for the existence of Zeus, Perseus, Danae, Achilles, Medusa the Gorgon, etc.?

So, I have a little evidence that Danae was impregnated by Zeus and fathered Perseus who went on to kill Medusa and marry Andromeda, and you have none that those events didn't happen. I win! Right?

You do see that, don't you?

No, there are a couple of eyewitness statements in the NT about seeing the resurrected Jesus Paul in I Cor 15 and John in John 20-21.. I don't believe you have any eyewitness statements of Zeus impregnating Danae. Eyewitness testimony, while not perfect, is some evidence, and is admitted in court proceedings every day. If you can give me an eyewitness account of an ancient pagan miracle that is given by a contemporary of the person/event at issue (Paul and John were contemporaries of Jesus - I'm not sure about George and Ringo, however), then I will acknowledge that you have evidence of that event.

[Hermit]

there are a couple of eyewitness statements in the NT about seeing the resurrected Jesus Paul in I Cor 15 and John in John 20-21..

I regard those eyewitness statements as being on par with accounts of people testifying that they saw Jane Doe flying through the air on a broom stick. Women used to be burnt at the stake on the basis of such "evidence".

Bruce, you also seem to have overlooked this post on a previous page:

Bruce, the god you believe in, the biblical god, is a bully ... Christian religion uses this character to bully people into submission. The resulting morality/behaviour (level of personal conduct of each individual) are irrelevant to this - the fact is, the being described in the bible is, as has been so eloquently put: "... arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

And yet, people introduce their children to it and admonish faithful submission and worship.

Jesus does not fit this description at all. For me, the Old Testament description of God was colored by the barbaric nature of the people, and Jesus came in part to correct our perception of God. I read the OT to help me understand the historical and cultural context of the New Testament, but I don't consider it to give an accurate depiction of the nature of God. I rely almost completely on the NT portrayal of Jesus for my concept of the Deity.

If the new testament is regarded as a reliable historical source regarding the life and attitudes of Jesus, you'll have quite a problem explaining his stance on the old testament. According to Matthew 5:17 he fully supported the god of the old: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

But, I suppose, as with all so called holy texts you can - it could in fact be argued that you must - pick the bits that suit your taste and ignore the ones that don't.