“That’s right, we don’t..[have the originals] so there is no way of knowing which are the closest to the originals. To make a conclusion that the oldest would be the most accurate is a mistake.” kathy
to assume that the newest would be the most accurate is an even bigger mistake.
Ryan, I’m glad you have a great time. I can just imagine how beautiful it was sleeping under the stars there, especially if you were in an area where city lights didn’t obscure the stars.
“I don’t see it like that. I don’t feel betrayed…but then again personally, I still believe in God. I have lots of shortcomings and inconsistencies, but I believe a person can be both reasonable and a believer.
Atheists I do not think have a monopoly on reason and clear thinking. “
Most of us who were once devout Christians tend to have a more in-depth understanding of the Christian belief system than actual believers. As deconverts, we have a unique perspective and insight that a believer cannot grasp nor relate to. I do think that to believe by faith and feelings is not representative of clear thinking. Belief comes from the primitive limbic system. Our brain is so good at duping us which is why it’s important to apply critical thinking skills (frontal lobes) and utilize unbiased tools like scientific methodologies and instruments.
I have not seen in any of your comments where critical thinking or scientific method was utilized to come to your conclusion. All that is necessary is faith, need and a ripe imagination.
Christians do not have a monopoly on love and prosocial behavior.
“Our Savior giving His life for us should make you feel “sick”? I don’t get it.. can either of you explain this in greater detail?”
Worshiping a god who made a mess of everything, then sent his 30-something kid to be tortured and die to straighten out the mess the god himself made, is enough to make any rational person sick – but as I said, I wouldn’t expect you to get that.
“People won’t give their lives for flimsy speculation. They won’t create a fiction and then die for it.”
Possibly not, but one person can create a fiction that other people die for – you know, like all of the American boys and girls who died for Bush’s WMDs in Iraq lie —
interesting discussion, I agree with both neuro and Portal.
I agree with portal in that I have seen and I know several believers who are very rational and intelligent people who routinely use and demonstrate high level critical thinking abilities.
I agree with Neuro in that having faith in this bible god (or any other that i am aware of) is a position maintained outside of good reason.
I think certain people, who are very intelligent and prudent, suspend their intellect when it comes to their god out of fear – fear of being wrong, fear of being rejected by god, fear of eternal punishments, etc. It is their suspension of reason that keeps these wise and intelligent people in the faith and not the use of reason.
What evidence is there for the bible really being from god? kathy points to martyrs. others point to existence, and some point to jesus and others point to a need for forgiveness.
none of these are good evidences at all. would concede that believing in islam because of muhammad makes any sense? or do sihk martyrs convince us that they worship the true god? Does our existence prove Zeus or Anne Frank’s diary as divine? does the connection I feel with all life prove wicken?
in one of the earlier kathy threads, someone was asked how many times the angels appeared at the tomb of jesus according the gospels, as each gospel account is different. after many attempts at ignoring the question, the comment-or finally said something like, “all the gospels were right, so the angels appeared several times.” This answer was given to try and prevent contradictions like “angles on the stone vs angels in the tomb,” but this presents other problems that should be obvious like, why were the women still unaware where jesus was, after the angels on the stone told them what happened to jesus, that made it necessary for the angels to reappear in the tomb and tell them the same thing again… why did the angles have to go through this 4 times, and why did each gospel only record it as of their telling was the only occurrence? there is no good answer, but otherwise reasonable people will make all sorts of unreasonable arguments if they want something to workout bad enough.
there are many red flags that come with the bible. is it our reason that tosses them aside, or is it our suspension of reason that lets us ignore them?
“People won’t give their lives for flimsy speculation. They won’t create a fiction and then die for it.” – kathy
and who has said this is what happened?
people believed a fiction enough, that they wrote it down. They believed it enough that they created “fill-ins” to try and cover gaps and holes they saw in the story. They didn’t realize they were making anything up, they thought that they were “wisely” deciphering god’s plan – much like christians do with the genealogies of matthew and luke. Both genealogies claims to through joseph, but that cant be, so they make stuff up like, “well, luke’s was really through mary,” etc.
That is a fiction created to patch what they already think is true, they’re just trying to clarify for everyone else, or create reasons to still believe it, even when it looks problematic.
So these martyrs, much like the martyrs of religions you think are false, died only for what they believed was true – not what was in fact true. It was a fiction, even if they believed it was history.
this concept is so basic that defies all reason as to why we’re still having to discuss it.
How can you say that Ruth, when you KNOW that a broken window is evidence of a burglary?!
I’m not sure why this is so hard for Kathy to grasp.
A house with a broken window has missing items. Was the window broken to gain access or was the window already broken? A broken window alone might be evidence or it might not even if a burglary has taken place. More investigation is necessary.
“I think certain people, who are very intelligent and prudent, suspend their intellect when it comes to their god out of fear – fear of being wrong, fear of being rejected by god, fear of eternal punishments, etc. It is their suspension of reason that keeps these wise and intelligent people in the faith and not the use of reason.”
William, I agree. As I’ve mentioned before, deconversion is not for the faint of heart. Even when one comes to the conclusion that there is no need to fear rejection or punishment from a god, there is still a price to pay (rejection) regarding a social safety net which one is most likely to lose once they become an open agnostic/atheist. Especially if one lives in very religious cultures. Understanding was more important to me than the notion of security.
@Ryan, here’s what I mean with regard to applying critical thinking regarding a god belief:
“ Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.”
My conclusion: If there is a god/creator, it’s not the biblical god.
Zoe, I follow a blog, “Godless in Dixie”, and I think you do, too. I’m behind on my reader, so I’m glad Carmen brought his latest article Apologetics Isn’t for the Lost, It’s for the Saved to my attention today. I just finished reading it. For those who may not be aware, the author of the blog, Neil Carter, is a former church elder with a seminary education. For all of his life, he was a member of the largest protestant church in America, the Southern Baptist Convention. As noted in his bio, he mostly writes now about the struggles of former evangelicals living in the midst of a highly religious subculture. He tells it like it is.
Curious … many non-believers/atheists/agnostics make this statement: If there is a god ….
When they do, I often wonder why a person even considers that such a being … entity … organism exists at all. Especially one that cannot be seen, heard, or touched. What is it that creates this uncertainty?
Personally, while I tend to believe in a universal “presence,” to imagine it as an actual entity is difficult, if not impossible, for me to consider.
It becomes even stranger when I think about the bible god — a being that is simply a glorified version of ourselves.
Maybe this is all too deep. But every time I see the above phrase, it triggers my imagination. .
Nan, personally, it’s not about uncertainty. I don’t believe god exists, not any god that man has conjured up. There’s a vast historical graveyard full of gods. But I’m open to the possibility that there might be a creator, though I am not a deist. When I was a believer, I was so certain that Christianity was the truth, and that the biblical god was theGod. It was humbling to realize how wrong I was.
Curious … many non-believers/atheists/agnostics make this statement: If there is a god ….
When they do, I often wonder why a person even considers that such a being … entity … organism exists at all.
Nan, I can only speak for myself in regards to this. When I make that statement it is usually a concession that there might be some entity that is invisible and that I am unaware of. I don’t believe that to be the case, but as it is ultimately unprovable one way or the other, I leave room for the possibility that I don’t know everything.
As for why I ever believed such a thing; I was, like Neil Carter, told at a very young age that there was such a being. I never questioned whether that was true or not because the people that told me there was were adults – trustworthy adults. They were people who loved me, who cared about me, who cared for me.
I was never given the sweetness and light version of how great everything would be forever and ever. In fact I was keenly aware because of the struggling of those around me (and my own) that there was no such thing as happy all the time and forever. Yet I still believed that the cure to all of that was in eternity where all of these would triumph over poverty, illness, and death.
“If someone actually saw Yahweh leave the building the Bible would be equivalent evidence to the defendant walking out of the house. The Bible is oral tradition written down [in many cases] hundreds of years after the tradition began. So none of the people who wrote the scriptures down were even there when these things supposedly happened. Flimsy evidence at best. So it’s not the same. Moreover, if all the evidence is the defendant walking out of the house then it’s really not good evidence that the defendant committed a crime. There isn’t a jury who could convict on that basis alone. And if you would convict on that evidence alone I wouldn’t want you on any jury. ”
Ruth, are you intentionally being this obtuse? Where did I ever state that the evidence was the same as the accused walking out of the house?? Either you’re trying to obfuscate or you truly aren’t aware of your own pride that is clearly controlling you, not allowing you to apply objectivity and honesty.
And what is your evidence that the Bible is based on “oral tradition”? This is NOT claimed in
the actual scriptures. What do you base this claim on??
I’d still like to know.. which is it? Is the archaeological find of dinning rooms in the temples evidence that supports Paul’s testimony? Or not?
“Ruth, I’d really like to hear you agree.. the defendant walking out of the house is just evidence of him walking out of the house… right?
Okay. If that’s all the evidence you’ve got, then yeah. How many times has someone been accused of a crime that they did not commit because of rash conclusions such as this?”
Again, you’re being obtuse.. or deliberately ignorant due to pride.. I didn’t ask if it was “proof”… I asked if it was evidence.
“Dave gave you 20 yet you call his weak. Any evidence anyone has for or against a god would be circumstantial at best. We are all doing the best we can to be as objective as we can. ”
And here it looks like an attempt to divert away from my point that you cannot acknowledge.
I’ve already addressed most of what he’s brought up.. I’m addressing right now his “best” “argument”.. that Christianity started as a polytheistic and was dishonestly changed to the “lie” we follow today.
Ruth, you (all) are NOT doing the best you can to be objective.. I’ve proven this over and over.
there are many red flags that come with the bible. is it our reason that tosses them aside, or is it our suspension of reason that lets us ignore them?
Just speaking for myself, when I was a Christian, not only did I ignore problems, but I was also ignorant of a lot things that I have since learned. I never looked at non-canonical texts that did not make it into the Bible. I never knew anything about comparable ancient religions like Zoroastrianism. I never studied anything from ancient near east literature. I never studied anything that supported evolution or an old universe. I did not really know anything about biblical criticism or formation.
Even though I was aware of the genocide in the old testament I never really thought through it or considered the unfair judgments that were being made: killing David’s baby for David’s sin, killing Egyptian firstborns for the pharaoh’s stubbornness, killing 70,000 men for David’s census, etc.
In order to really take a fair look at the Bible I had to first remove it from it’s glorified position within my mind. I think this is a critical step, we have to change our perspective before we can approach something without prejudice.
Ruth, are you intentionally being this obtuse? Where did I ever state that the evidence was the same as the accused walking out of the house?? Either you’re trying to obfuscate or you truly aren’t aware of your own pride that is clearly controlling you, not allowing you to apply objectivity and honesty.
Obviously I missed something. What point were you attempting to make about the defendant walking out of the house?
And what is your evidence that the Bible is based on “oral tradition”? This is NOT claimed in
the actual scriptures. What do you base this claim on??
Let’s clear up a misconception here. I said much of it was based on oral tradition. If, indeed(and there is some doubt), a character named Moses wrote the ‘five books of Moses'(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus ,Numbers, and Deuteronomy) much of what was written had to have been oral tradition. Moses was not alive at the creation, nor was he alive at the time of Noah, nor was he alive at the time of Abraham. Many of the previous generations are reported to have lived hundreds of years and had died many years before Moses was even born. Based on that alone I’d say that much of the Torah, at least, was based on oral tradition. Do you have any question on that? The Bible does lay out that it had to be based, at least partially, on oral tradition.
I’d still like to know.. which is it? Is the archaeological find of dinning rooms in the temples evidence that supports Paul’s testimony? Or not?
Supports Paul’s testimony about what? Idol sacrifices? Greek idolatry? Meat sacrificed to idols? That the Greeks ate meals in the temples?
Okay. If that’s all the evidence you’ve got, then yeah. How many times has someone been accused of a crime that they did not commit because of rash conclusions such as this?”
Again, you’re being obtuse.. or deliberately ignorant due to pride.. I didn’t ask if it was “proof”… I asked if it was evidence.
Who said anything about proof? I’m saying that if all the evidence there is is a man walking out of a house where a crime was committed it’s not very good evidence.
Finding Truth 
“That’s right, we don’t..[have the originals] so there is no way of knowing which are the closest to the originals. To make a conclusion that the oldest would be the most accurate is a mistake.” kathy
to assume that the newest would be the most accurate is an even bigger mistake.
LikeLike
Ryan, I’m glad you have a great time. I can just imagine how beautiful it was sleeping under the stars there, especially if you were in an area where city lights didn’t obscure the stars.
“I don’t see it like that. I don’t feel betrayed…but then again personally, I still believe in God. I have lots of shortcomings and inconsistencies, but I believe a person can be both reasonable and a believer.
Atheists I do not think have a monopoly on reason and clear thinking. “
Most of us who were once devout Christians tend to have a more in-depth understanding of the Christian belief system than actual believers. As deconverts, we have a unique perspective and insight that a believer cannot grasp nor relate to. I do think that to believe by faith and feelings is not representative of clear thinking. Belief comes from the primitive limbic system. Our brain is so good at duping us which is why it’s important to apply critical thinking skills (frontal lobes) and utilize unbiased tools like scientific methodologies and instruments.
I have not seen in any of your comments where critical thinking or scientific method was utilized to come to your conclusion. All that is necessary is faith, need and a ripe imagination.
Christians do not have a monopoly on love and prosocial behavior.
LikeLike
“Our Savior giving His life for us should make you feel “sick”? I don’t get it.. can either of you explain this in greater detail?”
Worshiping a god who made a mess of everything, then sent his 30-something kid to be tortured and die to straighten out the mess the god himself made, is enough to make any rational person sick – but as I said, I wouldn’t expect you to get that.
LikeLike
“People won’t give their lives for flimsy speculation. They won’t create a fiction and then die for it.”
Possibly not, but one person can create a fiction that other people die for – you know, like all of the American boys and girls who died for Bush’s WMDs in Iraq lie —
LikeLike
interesting discussion, I agree with both neuro and Portal.
I agree with portal in that I have seen and I know several believers who are very rational and intelligent people who routinely use and demonstrate high level critical thinking abilities.
I agree with Neuro in that having faith in this bible god (or any other that i am aware of) is a position maintained outside of good reason.
I think certain people, who are very intelligent and prudent, suspend their intellect when it comes to their god out of fear – fear of being wrong, fear of being rejected by god, fear of eternal punishments, etc. It is their suspension of reason that keeps these wise and intelligent people in the faith and not the use of reason.
What evidence is there for the bible really being from god? kathy points to martyrs. others point to existence, and some point to jesus and others point to a need for forgiveness.
none of these are good evidences at all. would concede that believing in islam because of muhammad makes any sense? or do sihk martyrs convince us that they worship the true god? Does our existence prove Zeus or Anne Frank’s diary as divine? does the connection I feel with all life prove wicken?
in one of the earlier kathy threads, someone was asked how many times the angels appeared at the tomb of jesus according the gospels, as each gospel account is different. after many attempts at ignoring the question, the comment-or finally said something like, “all the gospels were right, so the angels appeared several times.” This answer was given to try and prevent contradictions like “angles on the stone vs angels in the tomb,” but this presents other problems that should be obvious like, why were the women still unaware where jesus was, after the angels on the stone told them what happened to jesus, that made it necessary for the angels to reappear in the tomb and tell them the same thing again… why did the angles have to go through this 4 times, and why did each gospel only record it as of their telling was the only occurrence? there is no good answer, but otherwise reasonable people will make all sorts of unreasonable arguments if they want something to workout bad enough.
there are many red flags that come with the bible. is it our reason that tosses them aside, or is it our suspension of reason that lets us ignore them?
LikeLike
“I am more baffled now than before I read it, more convinced that Christianity is not for me.”
Meeting Kathy generally has that effect on people.
LikeLike
“People won’t give their lives for flimsy speculation. They won’t create a fiction and then die for it.” – kathy
and who has said this is what happened?
people believed a fiction enough, that they wrote it down. They believed it enough that they created “fill-ins” to try and cover gaps and holes they saw in the story. They didn’t realize they were making anything up, they thought that they were “wisely” deciphering god’s plan – much like christians do with the genealogies of matthew and luke. Both genealogies claims to through joseph, but that cant be, so they make stuff up like, “well, luke’s was really through mary,” etc.
That is a fiction created to patch what they already think is true, they’re just trying to clarify for everyone else, or create reasons to still believe it, even when it looks problematic.
So these martyrs, much like the martyrs of religions you think are false, died only for what they believed was true – not what was in fact true. It was a fiction, even if they believed it was history.
this concept is so basic that defies all reason as to why we’re still having to discuss it.
LikeLike
“Moreover, if all the evidence is the defendant walking out of the house then it’s really not good evidence that the defendant committed a crime.”
How can you say that Ruth, when you KNOW that a broken window is evidence of a burglary?!
LikeLike
How can you say that Ruth, when you KNOW that a broken window is evidence of a burglary?!
I’m not sure why this is so hard for Kathy to grasp.
A house with a broken window has missing items. Was the window broken to gain access or was the window already broken? A broken window alone might be evidence or it might not even if a burglary has taken place. More investigation is necessary.
LikeLike
“I think certain people, who are very intelligent and prudent, suspend their intellect when it comes to their god out of fear – fear of being wrong, fear of being rejected by god, fear of eternal punishments, etc. It is their suspension of reason that keeps these wise and intelligent people in the faith and not the use of reason.”
William, I agree. As I’ve mentioned before, deconversion is not for the faint of heart. Even when one comes to the conclusion that there is no need to fear rejection or punishment from a god, there is still a price to pay (rejection) regarding a social safety net which one is most likely to lose once they become an open agnostic/atheist. Especially if one lives in very religious cultures. Understanding was more important to me than the notion of security.
@Ryan, here’s what I mean with regard to applying critical thinking regarding a god belief:
My conclusion: If there is a god/creator, it’s not the biblical god.
LikeLike
NeuroVictoria: “My conclusion: If there is a god/creator, it’s not the biblical god.”
Mine too.
LikeLike
Zoe, I follow a blog, “Godless in Dixie”, and I think you do, too. I’m behind on my reader, so I’m glad Carmen brought his latest article Apologetics Isn’t for the Lost, It’s for the Saved to my attention today. I just finished reading it. For those who may not be aware, the author of the blog, Neil Carter, is a former church elder with a seminary education. For all of his life, he was a member of the largest protestant church in America, the Southern Baptist Convention. As noted in his bio, he mostly writes now about the struggles of former evangelicals living in the midst of a highly religious subculture. He tells it like it is.
LikeLike
Curious … many non-believers/atheists/agnostics make this statement: If there is a god ….
When they do, I often wonder why a person even considers that such a being … entity … organism exists at all. Especially one that cannot be seen, heard, or touched. What is it that creates this uncertainty?
Personally, while I tend to believe in a universal “presence,” to imagine it as an actual entity is difficult, if not impossible, for me to consider.
It becomes even stranger when I think about the bible god — a being that is simply a glorified version of ourselves.
Maybe this is all too deep. But every time I see the above phrase, it triggers my imagination. .
LikeLike
What is it that creates this uncertainty?
Nan, personally, it’s not about uncertainty. I don’t believe god exists, not any god that man has conjured up. There’s a vast historical graveyard full of gods. But I’m open to the possibility that there might be a creator, though I am not a deist. When I was a believer, I was so certain that Christianity was the truth, and that the biblical god was theGod. It was humbling to realize how wrong I was.
LikeLike
Curious … many non-believers/atheists/agnostics make this statement: If there is a god ….
When they do, I often wonder why a person even considers that such a being … entity … organism exists at all.
Nan, I can only speak for myself in regards to this. When I make that statement it is usually a concession that there might be some entity that is invisible and that I am unaware of. I don’t believe that to be the case, but as it is ultimately unprovable one way or the other, I leave room for the possibility that I don’t know everything.
As for why I ever believed such a thing; I was, like Neil Carter, told at a very young age that there was such a being. I never questioned whether that was true or not because the people that told me there was were adults – trustworthy adults. They were people who loved me, who cared about me, who cared for me.
I was never given the sweetness and light version of how great everything would be forever and ever. In fact I was keenly aware because of the struggling of those around me (and my own) that there was no such thing as happy all the time and forever. Yet I still believed that the cure to all of that was in eternity where all of these would triumph over poverty, illness, and death.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“If someone actually saw Yahweh leave the building the Bible would be equivalent evidence to the defendant walking out of the house. The Bible is oral tradition written down [in many cases] hundreds of years after the tradition began. So none of the people who wrote the scriptures down were even there when these things supposedly happened. Flimsy evidence at best. So it’s not the same. Moreover, if all the evidence is the defendant walking out of the house then it’s really not good evidence that the defendant committed a crime. There isn’t a jury who could convict on that basis alone. And if you would convict on that evidence alone I wouldn’t want you on any jury. ”
Ruth, are you intentionally being this obtuse? Where did I ever state that the evidence was the same as the accused walking out of the house?? Either you’re trying to obfuscate or you truly aren’t aware of your own pride that is clearly controlling you, not allowing you to apply objectivity and honesty.
And what is your evidence that the Bible is based on “oral tradition”? This is NOT claimed in
the actual scriptures. What do you base this claim on??
I’d still like to know.. which is it? Is the archaeological find of dinning rooms in the temples evidence that supports Paul’s testimony? Or not?
“Ruth, I’d really like to hear you agree.. the defendant walking out of the house is just evidence of him walking out of the house… right?
Okay. If that’s all the evidence you’ve got, then yeah. How many times has someone been accused of a crime that they did not commit because of rash conclusions such as this?”
Again, you’re being obtuse.. or deliberately ignorant due to pride.. I didn’t ask if it was “proof”… I asked if it was evidence.
You lack objectivity Ruth.. period.
LikeLike
Ruth, cont..
“Dave gave you 20 yet you call his weak. Any evidence anyone has for or against a god would be circumstantial at best. We are all doing the best we can to be as objective as we can. ”
And here it looks like an attempt to divert away from my point that you cannot acknowledge.
I’ve already addressed most of what he’s brought up.. I’m addressing right now his “best” “argument”.. that Christianity started as a polytheistic and was dishonestly changed to the “lie” we follow today.
Ruth, you (all) are NOT doing the best you can to be objective.. I’ve proven this over and over.
LikeLike
. . .and OUT pops the jack-in-the-box!
oops, I might not have spelled jack correctly. .
LikeLike
LOL Carmen, speaking of box, I was just about to post right at the same time your comment posted.
LikeLike
Kathy, please get off this “objectivity” kick.
The definition of objective is undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.
Based on this definition, YOU are the one not being objective in that you have no observable phenomena to offer when you claim there is a god.
And you quite obviously have personal bias as related to Christianity, the bible, Jesus, God, Paul, the OT, etc., etc.
So it is YOU that is not being objective.
LikeLike
Just speaking for myself, when I was a Christian, not only did I ignore problems, but I was also ignorant of a lot things that I have since learned. I never looked at non-canonical texts that did not make it into the Bible. I never knew anything about comparable ancient religions like Zoroastrianism. I never studied anything from ancient near east literature. I never studied anything that supported evolution or an old universe. I did not really know anything about biblical criticism or formation.
Even though I was aware of the genocide in the old testament I never really thought through it or considered the unfair judgments that were being made: killing David’s baby for David’s sin, killing Egyptian firstborns for the pharaoh’s stubbornness, killing 70,000 men for David’s census, etc.
In order to really take a fair look at the Bible I had to first remove it from it’s glorified position within my mind. I think this is a critical step, we have to change our perspective before we can approach something without prejudice.
LikeLike
Dave, I’m with you, almost exactly.
LikeLike
Ruth, are you intentionally being this obtuse? Where did I ever state that the evidence was the same as the accused walking out of the house?? Either you’re trying to obfuscate or you truly aren’t aware of your own pride that is clearly controlling you, not allowing you to apply objectivity and honesty.
Obviously I missed something. What point were you attempting to make about the defendant walking out of the house?
And what is your evidence that the Bible is based on “oral tradition”? This is NOT claimed in
the actual scriptures. What do you base this claim on??
Let’s clear up a misconception here. I said much of it was based on oral tradition. If, indeed(and there is some doubt), a character named Moses wrote the ‘five books of Moses'(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus ,Numbers, and Deuteronomy) much of what was written had to have been oral tradition. Moses was not alive at the creation, nor was he alive at the time of Noah, nor was he alive at the time of Abraham. Many of the previous generations are reported to have lived hundreds of years and had died many years before Moses was even born. Based on that alone I’d say that much of the Torah, at least, was based on oral tradition. Do you have any question on that? The Bible does lay out that it had to be based, at least partially, on oral tradition.
I’d still like to know.. which is it? Is the archaeological find of dinning rooms in the temples evidence that supports Paul’s testimony? Or not?
Supports Paul’s testimony about what? Idol sacrifices? Greek idolatry? Meat sacrificed to idols? That the Greeks ate meals in the temples?
Okay. If that’s all the evidence you’ve got, then yeah. How many times has someone been accused of a crime that they did not commit because of rash conclusions such as this?”
Again, you’re being obtuse.. or deliberately ignorant due to pride.. I didn’t ask if it was “proof”… I asked if it was evidence.
Who said anything about proof? I’m saying that if all the evidence there is is a man walking out of a house where a crime was committed it’s not very good evidence.
You lack objectivity Ruth.. period.
Meh…okay.
LikeLike
Ruth, you (all) are NOT doing the best you can to be objective.. I’ve proven this over and over.
Again, I say….meh…okay. *shrug*
LikeLike
“I asked if it was evidence.”
You’re forgetting, Kathy – “evidence” is one of the 14+ words that you don’t understand.
LikeLike