The Bible (a discussion)

I'm not referring to poets or story tellers, but historians. Poems were left to the poets, stories were left to the story tellers, and history was left to the historians. It was pretty cut and dry, was it not?

Indeed it was not. Since when is Saul of Tarsus (aka Saint Paul) considered a professional historian? Or even an amateur one. What about Mark? And Luke? And Matthew? And John? These dreamers and worshippers are supposed to be historians? One of the reasons the Bible is worth reading is because the King James translation, at least, contains some remarkably beautiful poetry. I wouldn't trust it as reliable history for a micro-second.

The Washington's and my family shared side by side pews at the Pohick Church in Truro Parish of Virginia. I know you will come back with some bs as to how this means nothing, but I understand - you are full of ****. I can tell it, I am a professional **** discovery hound and you is full of it.

I'm speaking of the proof outside the bible. Historians like Herodotus, "the father of history", and Tacitus. Just to mention a couple.

They were liars?

Good question...Why should anyone else believe that you reject the figments of anyone else's own imagination?...And how could anyone else know that what you reject is not your own figments of your own imagination? How could anyone else prove or validate exactly which figments you reject yourself, unless they can see that you don't reject them, or can see that you would like someone else to convince you to believe them which no theist can do for any such atheist...

Cool, atheism has a new term, a rejection of figments of imagination...something new...

You're still just believing what someone has told you, period.

You choose what you will to believe, as I am. So you're just as full of **** as I am. I'm cool with that.

You got it timur!...if 50 million people came here to say that they reject a figment of someone else's imagination...while not understanding that they freely came here to discuss this figment that they claim they reject...then that is a foolish thing to claim...

I don't recall that Heredotus or Tacitus or any of their known colleagues in that fraternity mention Abraham or Moses or a universal flood or anything else that one finds only in the Bible. Of course, they lived quite a few hundred years before the time of Jesus.

There are relics, keep trying, you are so full of bs I don't truly believe you convince yourself - that's what I believ, the other I know...

Guess what Bill, I believe you. I believe George Washington existed. Not sure why I do since there isn't as much written about him as there is about the bibles contents. Probably because I figure it happened relatively recently. But I'm guessing no one 1500 years from now is going to believe those relics you talk of are legit. Go figure.

You got it!

Far from an insult, Frank. Simply an observation relative to the incredible strength of your confirmation bias

Those who seek license will find a way regardless of how clearly the law may be stated

I'm still very interested in hearing what a non-believer in God thinks a ghost is?

I'm not trying to be slick, a jerk, or judgemental. Surely someone here has seen one. Let's hear about it. I personally know several people that have seen them, and ufo's.

Interesting stuff. How's does it all figure in to the grand scheme of things. I've got my own revelation on the whole ufo thing, but I'll save that for another time.

There would be no A2K without the Bible. There are few certain things in life but that is one of them.

I just a person who can't be hoodwinked like you. You obviously have no need for me - you stolen this thread and don't want me, so goodbye, you're not interesting in truth anyways!

Why? What does a belief or non-belief in ghosts have to do with the putative subject of this thread, the Bible? Absolutely nothing, is what. But this is your whole style of arguing, Heath: you set up straw men and muddy the waters instead of sticking to the subject. The OP asked for opinions on the reliability and general provenance of the Bible, not an esoteric discourse on so-called ghosts. But, as has already been pointed out, you've just hijacked this thread to keep spouting your nonsense, all the time pretending that you're really very objective and willing to listen to contrary arguments.

Bullshit.

You didn't even give straight answers to legitimate arguments. I'm still waiting for an answer to what Haeredotus or Tacitus have to do with events described in the Bible which they, as historians, were apparently unfamiliar with. You just ignored that particular post of mine. You're a total phony and hypocrite, like the majority of so-called born-again Christians (I concede that there are one or two exceptions, but that's all).

Ahhh...I think that I will reject the idea that it might have been a bit of humor that didn't click.

This response tends to convince me that it was an insult...a relatively minor one that has now become a larger one.

No problem.

But if you work up the courage to actually talk about something I wrote and tell me what you find inadequate or offensive about it...perhaps we can get past all this silliness.

I don't find anything you say offensive, Frank.
I'll get back to this.

OK, Frank. I think you delude yourself. Not just you, but many.

You often claim I am afraid of consequences that may or may not be meted out by God as retribution for some unspecified sin. You rightly judge the perceived punishment as unspeakably cruel and can't imagine how any rational being could love such a God. And since millions have been so managed by the priesthood through the ages, it presents a perfectly good reason for you to discard the Bible as a provider of hope and/or guidance. I can't blame you; but have you ever asked yourself why the Bible writers insist that God's principle quality is love? How could that possibly fit with your world view?

Its a conundrum because the feared punishment is a myth. The early Jews did not believe in an afterlife. There could be no baking, boiling, frying or broiling. Nothing really to fear, at least nothing that any self respecting atheist or agnostic would fear. You live. You die. That's it. The lie of an afterlife, with dual eventualities of heaven/hell, is nothing but a management tool. Priests and kings have worked this implement for thousands of years. So you and I are in the same boat when it comes to this state of affairs.

Except you seem to apply some credence to the myth. And I submit your view of what you refer to as "the god" is a head in the sand reaction to a threat that does not even exist. Having judged "the god" according to your own standards, you focus entirely on passages which, left unexplained, bolster your position. The only payoff I can see from this line of reasoning is the freedom you have to choose for yourself what is good and what is bad, an ages old concept, don't you agree?

Perhaps you could benefit from a reexamination of your axioms and assumptions.