Hope you enjoy your day, Kalb. I remember a song years ago by the Statler Brothers in which the bass singer couldn't say Ararat and instead it came out something like, "A-rare-a-rat". Every time I see the word Ararat now, that is how I hear it in my mind.
1. the mountain named Mt. Ararat is almost definitely not the mountain(s) mentioned in the Bible. Nobody really knows where they are. 2. The Ark definitely never existed.
Saying the Ark never existed doesn't make it so. Be honest and say that you don't WANT the Ark to have existed. The arrogance of some humans knows virtually no bounds.
Don: saying "the Ark never existed doesn't make it so" doesn't make your belief that Ark ever existed even remotely plausible. Be honest and say that you WANT the Ark to have existed, even though, obviously, that's completely absurd. What's more arrogant? Accepting facts, or denying them and calling people names who don't believe in your fairy tales? Accepting that none of us really knows everything but acknowledging what is most plausible and supported by evidence? Or ignoring all evidence and insisting that YOU have some kind of special direct mental pipeline to information coming from the Creator of the Universe? The hypocrisy of some people knows no bounds.
that's fine. It doesn't really matter to me if you believe what I say. The important stuff you can verify for yourself if you take the time to learn about it. I'd be very happy to think I may have encouraged even one person to go and look something up.
The Ark definitely did not exist. It is not possible for a boat smaller than the Titanic to hold even one of every species of animal, let alone seven of the clean and two of the unclean. It would not even be capable of holding one of every "kind" of animal, as Biblical Literalists are always quick to suggest. What did they feed to the carnivores? And what did they do with all the waste the animals left behind? For that matter, what did Noah and his family eat? Also it's completely impossible for two members of a species to rebuild its population. The Ark did not exist.
The Bible contains scientifically accurate information that was not available to humans at the time it was written. That is a stone cold fact. Whether it's related to migratory habits of birds, the DNA blueprint being drawn within minutes of conception, the fact that the Earth us spherical and hangs upon nothing....the Bible had it right centuries before humans even had a clue. It is also a fact that corrupt religious groups throughout the centuries have falsely represented what is in the Bible, leading some to disregard the Bible instead of disregarding those who claim the Bible says things that it actually does not. (e.g. hell as an actual place, Earth created in less than a week, etc.)
stone cold fact? More like steaming pile of bull poo.
QM: I used to believe in some of this nonsense. I could list a few things. Interestingly (or not so interestingly) Muslims make the same *exact* argument. And they are equally as wrong. They say that the Quran mentions that salt water and fresh water don't mix and that this is true (it's not), they say that the Quran had medical knowledge about embryology not available at the time (the Quran's embryology is copied almost entirely from Galen, and it's also completely wrong), they say the Quran detailed how mountains keep the surface of the Earth stable and prevent earthquakes (actually the opposite, mountains appear in regions with a lot of tectonic activity and they have no "roots"), they say that the description in the Quran of the origins of the universe being smoke and light lines up with the theory of the Big Bang (it doesn't, and it also contradicts the young Earth Islamists). Could go on for several pages.
A very brief (sceptical) introduction to the idea that the bible makes scientific predictions, including links to pages which debunk various books trying to support the idea - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge
If he existed at all, he almost certainly was. He was known as Jesus the Nazarene, after all. And there was no reason for his parents to travel to Bethlehem at the time of his birth. But... this quiz is about stories from the Bible and not historical facts. According to the Bible stories, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, same place David was supposed to have born. This was a necessary detail to include by Jesus' biographers, writing anonymously many decades after his death without any primary sources, because in order for Jesus to fulfill the prophecy of the messiah he was supposed to be born in the city of Bethlehem. They fabricated a reason for him to be there (the census which did not take place that year), and thus the story is almost surely made up.
This is actually one of the reasons why I believe Jesus was based on a real person. If he were entirely fictional or celestial as some scholars believe, then why go to the pains of retconning his origin story? Why not just make him Jesus of Bethlehem. If he was a real person known to be from Nazareth, then there is some incentive to retain that part of the story even if it creates a little problem with the prophecy fulfillment aspect of the story that requires editing.
Remember guys, if my parents were 100% American, but I was born in Australia, I'm not American whatsoever at all, not even if I moved there at 2 years old and grew up there. I would be 150%, pure, authentic, Australian. Nothing else matters. The only thing that decides what you are in life is where you were born, not diddleysquat, anything else. Just remember that guys.
Sorry to confuse you. But if your parents are American, you could be born in Timbuktu and you would STILL be a citizen of the USA. In this country if at least one parent is a US Citizen then so are you!
I think that may have been Fiddle's point. I read his comment as a sarcastic, joking type comment, but that is hard to show online. I could be wrong, though. But the way I read it, it seemed like Fiddle was mocking the others, basically saying that Jesus could totally have been born in Bethlehem and still be called a Nazarene because that's where his parents were from, and he grew up there, and so on. He didn't have to be born in Nazareth to be called Jesus of Nazareth. Kal said that Jesus was born in Nazareth, because he was known as Jesus of Nazareth, but Fiddle was mocking that, trying to say that where you are born is not the only thing that matters. But like I said, I could be totally wrong. I may have completely misunderstood his comment, but that's just how I read it.
Actually, I was making a point, called, a joke, and that nobody can identify, because, their, like, hard to detect. In text form. So, yeah. I know that you, like, like to pretend that your smart, Kal, and that you know what people were trying to do, but uh, well. You're just wrooong this time. Like, its one thing to think I was making one point when I was making another, but it's really bad when you think I'm making one point, and, I wasn't making a point at all... Yeah... Anyway, Kal, when you decide to come back and talk trash to me that nobody cares to see, just make sure to do it after Christmas, so you can retain any respect you might have left. That would be quite honorable of you.
Oh there isn't. It's just that I didn't want you to spend part of your Christmas trash talking people, and there's people I know that would despise your very existence for doing so on. I didn't want that to happen to someone even as annoying as you. Merry (late) Christmas!
So super awesome and Christian of you to feign concern and politeness while publicly attacking someone and despising their existence. Jesus is proud of you, I'm sure.
Mhm, mhm, nice, nice. Go on. I especially love the part where you accused me of being Christan and despising your existence when I stated neither of those thing, thats good work. What else?
You clearly implied what I observed even if you are too sleazy, cowardly, or disingenuous to just say what you mean directly. I used Christian as an adjective to sarcastically describe your behavior. I don't care if you are or not it's not relevant. If you're not, that makes your hiding behind the sanctity of a Christian holiday while you feign civility and say vile things even more low than it already was. "What else?" Anything else and I'll get censored again if I haven't gotten there already.
Interesting... I see... So is it skepticism that makes you think I'm hiding? Is it a feeling deep down inside that tells you I'm hiding, or is it something else? Your dead wrong any way, but I could use the information. I'll wait for your reply.
Hmmm... not a very unique way to escape an argument. Knowing you Kal, I thought for sure you would have a more, well, unique way. Well, I guess I thank you for your time then. Twas fun playing with you this long.
Escape? I didn't say that I was escaping. But that's interesting you would use this word. So even you believe that to have a conversation with you is to fall into a trap? Anyway wish I could say the same but you are just wasting everyone's time.
Hey you came back! I'm so happy that you've decided to come back and play, even though you think its wasting time. Like, that's nice of you to waste your own time just to make an excuse to make it look like you weren't trying to find a way out of the conversation. How sweet. And you even tried to put words in my mouth to draw us away from the fact that you're trying to "escape". Awww, silly kal... Yeah... Never said it's a trap to converse with me, never implied it, but I can't say its not true, kal, and you fell for the trap. You've fallen for it in the past as well, actually. Do you realize how fun and easy it is to "capture" you?
Sour 'bout not being able to use stronger language there. Unfortunate... Um, so, I made one the of most calm, collected, and intelligent guys on this website scramble, rage, and call me names when he had nothing else to say. I wouldn't call that worthless. I do, however, totally approve of you calling me a piece of excrement. Accurate.
Your description of your own worthwhile accomplishment is the exact description of Internet trolling. I have plenty of things to say; that doesn't mean it's worth my time to say them to someone who considers trolling a worthwhile use of their time.
And yet you keep responding to this "troll" Kal. You realize that's all trolls want, right? Responses, responses, RESPONSES!!! If you're so sure I'm a troll, then why keep responding? Or will your previous comment, finally be your last? Now don't get me wrong, I'm fine if you keep responding to me, I love talking to you, it makes my day. I just don't understand you sometimes, that's all.
We have substantially more historical accounts and writings documenting the existence of Jesus and what he did than we have of the existence of Plato. Yet no one ever argued that Plato didn't exist, and numerous people throughout the ages have tried to say Jesus didn't exist and all of the stories are fake. From this I can only conclude that Jesus was a very powerful and important figure. Otherwise why go to the trouble of shutting him up and making all these arguments about him? He was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. He believed what he was saying, so he wasn't a liar. Too many other people believed him and died for the sake of the gospel for him to be a lunatic. So he must be Lord.
There's no good reason to doubt the existence of Plato. He is not a god figure at the center of a cult that performed magical feats and rose from the dead. The people who wrote about Plato were not members of a religion with him at the center. There are no stories in Plato's biography that are demonstrably wrong because they contain historical inaccuracies or are self-contradictory. Why go to the trouble of arguing about the historicity of Jesus? Well, historians will go to the trouble because that's their job. Why do meteorologists go to the trouble of talking about the weather every day? Is it because hail storms are Lord? Other people go to the trouble because there are millions of delusional people out there who believe this guy was a god and because of this delusional belief, they try to do things like discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, traumatize children into hating their own sexuality, deny women reproductive choice, burn witches alive...
...declare war on other non-Christian countries, bomb women's health clinics, ban books that are critical of their religion, make our kids dumber by replacing science education with theology and mythology, stop funding on important medical and scientific research, steal money from gullible people, convince people that prayer works better than medicine, and so on and so on and so on.... as soon as those people stop doing those things, then I guarantee you the rest of the world will for the most part stop giving a flip about Jesus. Or at best they'll pay as much attention to him as Thoth or Mithra or Thor. Who knows maybe some day he'll be on The Avengers.
Historians will probably still care. But that doesn't make him a lord. Or "Lord." Or even Lourde.
you do know that Jesus was the first supporter of women's rights (He used women, and only women, as His eyewitnesses to His resurrection, which is enough to prove that everything is true, because if the "fake authors" wanted their "fake religion" to be believed, they would've had all male eyewitnesses (in official courts of the time, a woman's testimony would be considered invalid because they were believed to be inferior to men)) try again buddy
brandy: I've met plenty of them. I, and most atheists, have no problem with that variety of Christian believing, practicing their faith, and living as they choose. The problem really is when irrational beliefs influence politics, local ordinances, or voting behavior; and also when the millions of nice, non-extreme irrationalists give cover to the smaller number of extremists. This is a perfect example of that, actually. We can't criticize behaviors that are truly harmful to society, because those behaviors are being done by Christians, and inevitably someone will come along and defend these behaviors by stating that there are other Christians who don't do those things, somewhat missing the point.
Hunter: I read your first sentence and then couldn't stop laughing so I was unable to finish. Sorry.
Wait, Kal. Isn't Hunter's entire comment actually only 1 sentence??? How are you able to read only his first/only sentence but not finish!?!!?*GAAAAASP*
Oh, I meant to say something forever ago, but I guess I never hit the "submit comment" button. I was just gonna say, "Ah, I figured that's what you meant Kal. You know I just gotta give you a hard time. Its all just fun and games in the end".
Also re: the arguments against lunacy... Jesus had 12 apostles. There were 24 members of the Manson Family. Jim Jones got more than 900 people to commit suicide with him. Sathya Sai Baba's followers number in the MILLIONS and include many actual eye-witnesses to miracles he performed that are still alive today.
So all of these people must also be Lord. Much moreso than Jesus apparently.
Muhammad and Joseph Smith and David Koresh and Sun Myung Moon and Kim Il Sung and many many many others all had WAY more followers than Jesus, too. Many of whom died for their beliefs. Try again.
What haave you got against Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? One day when you are burning in Hell will you realise your fatal mistake, but it will be too late. So stop making statements that you have no clue about.
pearl, slug: right. so by your logic, Jesus is awesome but not as awesome as Emperor Hirohito. Because dying for something makes that thing true or good.
pianos: might want to follow your own advice, there.
Aesthus: eh... there are just over 2 billion Christians in the world today. Saying "billions" seems slightly misleading. And given how rapidly world population has grown the past 100 years or so I'd be skeptical about that 5 billion figure. It's possible. Source?
Man, Kal, I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to pearl. I noted that it was a fact because I wanted people to know that's all I was doing, was stating a fact, not stating opinions. I guess the way I put it wasn't really the best, given my intentions however... But I wasn't trying to make a point, give opinions, or prove anything. I am a Christian, yes, I believe in God, yes, but I agree, the above argument is a bit..... Lacking everything..... But anyway, what I'm getting at, I guess, is, no, that's not my logic, that dying for something makes it true/good. I never meant to state an opinion or prove anything, or whatever. I only wanted to state a fact, and I'm sorry that I worded my sentence in such a way that you felt the need to have a keyboard warrior internet brawl with me. Okay? Good day sir.
i chuckled at the mention of the story with the bear mauling children because I love telling it to people to point out how random and crazy the bible is some times.
When you see children making jokes about a guy's bald spot and ask yourself "what would Jesus do?" just remember the answer is send wild bears to maul the children to death.
A frequent commentator on these quizzes is either independently wealthy, an air/ship hostess or steward, possessed of a vivid imagination or is a bald-faced liar!
Why? - The bible account specified "golden calf". Why alter it (and thereby make it less accurate)? If you can remember calf, then you should be able to remember golden calf. Give me a BREAK!
Why do people get so bent out of shape about this? It's hilarious. As if surviving inside a whale is impossible, but inside a fish? Sure, why not? If anything it makes the story even worse.
I think Bible quizzes are presented just to start ridiculous theological arguments. (And next will be someone objecting to my use of the word "ridicuIous.)
I mean, if you count me as an actual army, you probably have at least somewhere between 0-9001. Otherwise, I've only seen I think 2 other slugs. Slugs are overpowered dude.
The clue for the story of 'Doubting Thomas' should be that he was 'invited' to put his hands in Jesus' wounds. That is what the Bible actually says. We don't know if he did, or not. He certainly didn't need to, once Our Lord invited him to do so, and it doesn't matter, anyway. Did or didn't --- the only thing we know for sure is that the invitation was there.
I'm 60 years old and have never read the Bible (or the Quran for that matter). As an atheist though, I feel I should at least read the "good book" if just for the stories that remind me of science fiction literature. Maybe L.Ron Hubbard was right after all.
also as an atheist, I feel like I should know more about the Bible given my interest in classic literature and the history of ideas... love it or hate it, the cultural legacy of the Bible in western Europe is absolutely immense, and it's probably as well to read a little of it
Man, that thing is ridiculous
QM: I used to believe in some of this nonsense. I could list a few things. Interestingly (or not so interestingly) Muslims make the same *exact* argument. And they are equally as wrong. They say that the Quran mentions that salt water and fresh water don't mix and that this is true (it's not), they say that the Quran had medical knowledge about embryology not available at the time (the Quran's embryology is copied almost entirely from Galen, and it's also completely wrong), they say the Quran detailed how mountains keep the surface of the Earth stable and prevent earthquakes (actually the opposite, mountains appear in regions with a lot of tectonic activity and they have no "roots"), they say that the description in the Quran of the origins of the universe being smoke and light lines up with the theory of the Big Bang (it doesn't, and it also contradicts the young Earth Islamists). Could go on for several pages.
You are not worth my time.
Historians will probably still care. But that doesn't make him a lord. Or "Lord." Or even Lourde.
Hunter: I read your first sentence and then couldn't stop laughing so I was unable to finish. Sorry.
So all of these people must also be Lord. Much moreso than Jesus apparently.
pianos: might want to follow your own advice, there.
Aesthus: eh... there are just over 2 billion Christians in the world today. Saying "billions" seems slightly misleading. And given how rapidly world population has grown the past 100 years or so I'd be skeptical about that 5 billion figure. It's possible. Source?
The drawing of the bears attacking the children was awesome for many reasons :)
I wish I still had those books...