Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:
Shroud of Turin. You decide

Hoax.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Anti-theism to me seems to be finding the stupidest most cack-handed religious person you can, then proving why he's wrong. There's been very little theology in this debate, just people picking holes and talking about religion rather than the idea of god.

The idea of a god does not prove a god. Feel free to prove he exists. Maybe all the christians, muslims and any other theists could have a prayer day and pray for god to appear on Oprah.

As it happens I'm atheist. However, there is also no proof that logic works. God and logic are both equally invalid.

Just had to butt in because I've been seeing creationism bandied about a lot. While some of the tenants of creationism are quite silly (see the world is only about 6000 years old and we were just popped in to existence) evolution and science in general isn't proof in the non-existance of a divine being from any stand point.

If something has the power to create LITERALLY everything, aren't we being a bit pretentious to assume that we understand the process by which that was all created? To a being outside of time surely it was the blink of an eye, to our linear perspective it's surely feasible that it all took a couple billion years and that evolution is a tool of the divine in action. If there is a divine power that power is on a level incredibly beyond our vaguest comprehension. Literally creating everything from the smallest particle on up, even the smallest flea is a creature of an incredibly complex nature. The simplest plant. All of it works and interacts together in it's ecosystem.

If there is a god, we're in the subbasement of a skyscraper, trying to find out what's going on in the penthouse suite by listening to the pipes.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein

 Testify wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Anti-theism to me seems to be finding the stupidest most cack-handed religious person you can, then proving why he's wrong. There's been very little theology in this debate, just people picking holes and talking about religion rather than the idea of god.

The idea of a god does not prove a god. Feel free to prove he exists. Maybe all the christians, muslims and any other theists could have a prayer day and pray for god to appear on Oprah.

As it happens I'm atheist. However, there is also no proof that logic works. God and logic are both equally invalid.

Well you could show that logic works in most normal circumstances most of the time. But yeah, there are a lot of things that are made on faith based assumptions in life

 youbedead wrote:

 Testify wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Anti-theism to me seems to be finding the stupidest most cack-handed religious person you can, then proving why he's wrong. There's been very little theology in this debate, just people picking holes and talking about religion rather than the idea of god.

The idea of a god does not prove a god. Feel free to prove he exists. Maybe all the christians, muslims and any other theists could have a prayer day and pray for god to appear on Oprah.

As it happens I'm atheist. However, there is also no proof that logic works. God and logic are both equally invalid.

Well you could show that logic works in most normal circumstances most of the time. But yeah, there are a lot of things that are made on faith based assumptions in life

If you make an assumption based on faith though, without any evidence, you have a equal chance at having a wrong assumption than a correct assumption.

I could be wrong about gods existence, all it takes is some proper evidence to prove it to me. He can either pop over for lunch, or put in an appearance on Oprah. Showing me a book of metaphors is not proof of anything, Just like I wouldn't accept showing the harry potter books as proof Hogwarts is real.

any christians in here care to admit they could be wrong, and there is no god? or comment on the chance they could have the wrong god?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 Testify wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Anti-theism to me seems to be finding the stupidest most cack-handed religious person you can, then proving why he's wrong. There's been very little theology in this debate, just people picking holes and talking about religion rather than the idea of god.

The idea of a god does not prove a god. Feel free to prove he exists. Maybe all the christians, muslims and any other theists could have a prayer day and pray for god to appear on Oprah.

As it happens I'm atheist. However, there is also no proof that logic works. God and logic are both equally invalid.

Well you could show that logic works in most normal circumstances most of the time. But yeah, there are a lot of things that are made on faith based assumptions in life

If you make an assumption based on faith though, without any evidence, you have a equal chance at having a wrong assumption than a correct assumption.

I could be wrong about gods existence, all it takes is some proper evidence to prove it to me. He can either pop over for lunch, or put in an appearance on Oprah. Showing me a book of metaphors is not proof of anything, Just like I wouldn't accept showing the harry potter books as proof Hogwarts is real.

any christians in here care to admit they could be wrong, and there is no god? or comment on the chance they could have the wrong god?

Yeah I could be wrong, that's the entire bloody point of faith. You can not prove or disprove a metaphysical being as the very thing that makes it a metaphysical being would prevent you from doing so. It like the bit from the HGTTG god ceases to be after he proved his existence as he exists on faith


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, by specifically calling out Christians it just shows that you have an ax to grind

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Orlanth, when you truly understand why you dismiss every other religion on earth, you'll understand why you should dismiss Christianity.

Then, you'll be really embarrassed.

Heard this one before, though we can work with your paraphrase. Every choice is in seperation. So its a case of religious preference: choose one.

And when you understand why you choose the one you do, you'll understand why you shouldn't choose any.

Do you get it? The same reason you aren't a Hindu is the same reason you shouldn't be a Christian.

youbedead wrote:

Also, by specifically calling out Christians it just shows that you have an ax to grind

Nope, you're wrong again.

Why wouldn't I address the christians? I've never seen anyone post here claiming any other gods. But the question still stands.
any theists in here care to admit they could be wrong, and there is no god? or comment on the chance they could have the wrong god?
is that better?

 Orlanth wrote:

Well, if you are going to ask about religious arguments then it helps to look at them in the context applied.

Providing a quote from an affirmation doesn't show context. It simply shows the affirmations.

An argument based on the Biblical account has internal consistency when talking about Christian values whether or not you believe in Christianity, or follow the teachings of the Bible.

That's tautological. An argument from the sacred text of a religion will be consistent with that religion. Hurr durr.

If you are just going to dismiss the Bible wholecloth then you might as well just dismiss the thread and move on elsewhere.

You might be surprised to learn that it is entirely possible to discuss theism or atheism without a single reference to the Bible.

Thats rather conceited frankly. Much greater men than you and I have found a lot of value in the Scriptures.

Not in that passage, they haven't. The passage quoted is, as I demonstrated, packed full of petition of principles.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


Ask God. Seriously.

Seek and you shall find.

I just did. No one answered. .

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Shroud of Turin. You decide

Hoax.

Anyone with sense (and basic historical knowhow) should know most 'holy relics' are highly unlikely to be real, and most saintly churches probably aren't the burial sites of the saints supposedly there. Especially since one really must wonder how Jesus' death shroud ended up in north Italy cause you know, that makes sense... Somewhere...

any christians in here care to admit they could be wrong, and there is no god? or comment on the chance they could have the wrong god?

Well duh. Welcome to faith. It's a concept our ancestors were masters of.

Also, by specifically calling out Christians it just shows that you have an ax to grind

Of course he has an ax to grind. It's a religion thread

Do you get it? The same reason you aren't a Hindu is the same reason you shouldn't be a Christian.

Well... No. Hinduism really doesn't work without the caste system. Not being of Indian descent is kind of a hindrance to getting pure Hinduism to work.

Of course, using this logic most of us shouldn't vote, get driver's licenses, or do much of anything, since almost ALL human behaviors are adopted from parents.

Any atheists care to admit that they could be wrong and there is a god, maybe even the God?

Using a silly pointless argument against the arguer? My d-usa, you clever devil you.

 d-usa wrote:
Any atheists care to admit that they could be wrong and there is a god, maybe even the God?

Which god is that exactly? and could you please define this god first.

Because according to the definition of god, I am one. So I'm a god, I believe in myself, ergo I am a theist so I'm not really the target you are looking for to answer your question.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Any atheists care to admit that they could be wrong and there is a god, maybe even the God?

Which god is that exactly? and could you please define this god first.

Because according to the definition of god, I am one. So I'm a god, I believe in myself, ergo I am a theist so I'm not really the target you are looking for to answer your question.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.

Well, if you are not an atheist then I wasn't asking you

 d-usa wrote:
Any atheists care to admit that they could be wrong and there is a god, maybe even the God?

I'm not sure what this proves, obviously not all atheist are gibbering bible haters, but if it helps ; yes I could be wrong about my unbeleif.

sirlynchmob wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Also, by specifically calling out Christians it just shows that you have an ax to grind

Nope, you're wrong again.

Why wouldn't I address the christians? I've never seen anyone post here claiming any other gods. But the question still stands.
any theists in here care to admit they could be wrong, and there is no god? or comment on the chance they could have the wrong god?
is that better?

Well you addressing a Jew and there has been at least one Druid, I know there also Muslims and at least one sikh on this board. And I did I could well be wrong that is the entire fething point of faith

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

1 Corinthians 7: 1-6
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” Petition of principle But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. Petition of principle The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.Petition of principle The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. Petition of principleIn the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Petition of principle Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Petition of principleThen come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Petition of principle, sophism through fear I say this as a concession, not as a command. Lie, every sentences used the imperative mode I wish that all of you were as I am. Claim to authority But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Thats rather conceited frankly. Much greater men than you and I have found a lot of value in the Scriptures.

Not in that passage, they haven't. The passage quoted is, as I demonstrated, packed full of petition of principles.

I think the Book of Corinthians can stand up to your critique. You might consider that the most studied book in human history has been looked at in detail, by supporters and critics alike. Its not one of the problematic scriptures to any reasoned student of the Bible. Anyway it behooves me to explain why:

You bandy about 'petition of principles' as if you were surprised to find the Bible commenting like it had an authority. That shouldn't really surprise you.
However somehow it did. As you did remark 'Claim to authority' also in red text. Its the Bible, yes it does make a claim to authority. That claim is fairly rationalised in other books especially the Book of Esther. However that is another discussion.

You claim the passage is 'sophism through fear', regarding sexual temptation by Satan. Do you understand what is meant by temptation from Satan? Its not a literalist comment, Satan as a personage has not got the power to be able to influence the individual sexual desires of the entire human population. So where is the fear aspect? Also do you understand at all what Paul is saying here, or know that the New Testament repeatedly suggests that we fear only what God can do, not Satan.

As for 'Lie, every sentences used the imperative mode'. Try reading it properly, it makes sense. Paul explains the ideal - celibacy, which is also his gift from God. Paul also understands that is too much for most.

Blanket declaring Biblical passages of being sophistry without any reasoning whatsoever for doing so is just flat denial, and has all the hallmarks of a nasty emotive reaction. I wrote the above mainly to help those who may be hoodwinked into believing you had a point because you liberally used philosophical terminology.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Well, if you are going to ask about religious arguments then it helps to look at them in the context applied.

Providing a quote from an affirmation doesn't show context. It simply shows the affirmations.

Lets try again:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


3) Understand that the regulations against homosexual behaviour are not motivated by 'gay hate' and that determination of absolute morality is the rightful province of a just God.

This is achieved by understanding the spirit in which Gods laws are contained, a spirit of both judgement and mercy, with compassion at its core.
Anyone making application of what God says any other way is missing the point.

4) Understand that reproduction isn't the only end acheived by human sexuality.

It might help to read what Christianity thinks on this issue then, rather than desiring to assume that a negative opinion has special merit. Here let me help:

1 Corinthians 7: 1-6 [snip]

You implied that additional option 4 is understanding the sex is for more than just procreation as if Christians were unaware of that.
I showed you evidence that recreational sex is plainly and clearly acceptable in Biblical theology.
Simple really.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

If you are just going to dismiss the Bible wholecloth then you might as well just dismiss the thread and move on elsewhere.

You might be surprised to learn that it is entirely possible to discuss theism or atheism without a single reference to the Bible. It shouldn't be, but then it might.

It is indeed, but that is no excuse to remove the Bible from the topic just because you don't like it. Especially when talking about theism in relation to the Judaic religions that use that particular book.
If we were specifically considering Hinduism or Buddhism etc it would be right to consider the Bible irrelevant in internal discussions of those faith systems. Anyone but a fanatic would have no problems with that.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

I just did. No one answered. .

Did you? God is a good judge of character, He only answers an honest call. Allowing for your attitude so far you should not be surprised if you heard nothing, I'm not. Which is why I addressed the comment to someone else, though you are welcome to have another go as often as you like.

It usually takes a bit of patience even if you are honest about looking for God. Thats why its 'seek and you shall find', not 'demand and you shall immediately find'.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Any atheists care to admit that they could be wrong and there is a god, maybe even the God?

I'm not sure what this proves, obviously not all atheist are gibbering bible haters, but if it helps ; yes I could be wrong about my unbeleif.

I know they are not, and I think that the majority of the responses in this thread also demonstrate that.

 youbedead wrote:


Well you addressing a Jew and there has been at least one Druid, I know there also Muslims and at least one sikh on this board. And I did I could well be wrong that is the entire fething point of faith

I can safely say we are all wrong, at least in part. No-one has a complete theology let alone a complete understanding of that theology. There is too much to understand and too many variables, many of which are understood by noone except God.
I claim to know God and speak with Him and am aware that I get bits wrong a lot of the time, we all do. Don't sweat the small stuff, God wont punish us for getting details mixed up.
Only the Popes and cult leaders claim infallibility, I wish they didn't, they would be closer to infallibility if they didn't.

Only the Popes and cult leaders claim infallibility, I wish they didn't, they would be closer to infallibility if they didn't.

Nothing like a little real life irony

 Orlanth wrote:
I think the Book of Corinthians can stand up to your critique. You might consider that the most studied book in human history has been looked at in detail, by supporters and critics alike. Its not one of the problematic scriptures to any reasoned student of the Bible.

To the contrary, Paul is quite often criticized. Onfray pretty much has a seizure by only hearing a reference to it, and then writes a new book about it.

You bandy about 'petition of principles' as if you were surprised to find the Bible commenting like it had an authority. That shouldn't really surprise you.

It does not surprise me. Nowhere did I say I was surprised about the Bible being packed full of poor argumentation. I simply pointed out the differents sophisms in the quoted text.

As for 'Lie, every sentences used the imperative mode'. Try reading it properly, it makes sense. Paul explains the ideal - celibacy, which is also his gift from God. Paul also understands that is too much for most.

It is still a lie.

Blanket declaring Biblical passages of being sophistry without any reasoning whatsoever for doing so is just flat denial, and has all the hallmarks of a nasty emotive reaction.

You need a reasonning to recognize a petition of principle? Simple, it's when an affirmation doesn't have a rational foundation provided with it.

You implied that additional option 4 is understanding the sex is for more than just procreation as if Christians were unaware of that.
I showed you evidence that recreational sex is plainly and clearly acceptable in Biblical theology.
Simple really.

Then by the same argument homosexual sex is also acceptable. The point was also more to indicate that recreational sex as a purpose. Regular sex has quite a few health benefits.

Did you? God is a good judge of character,

Yeah, thanks for that, not only do you offensively ascribe value to my person, you also ascribe value to the person of God, assuming He wouldn't help someone who might be in doubt. Real christian of you. You'll again be surprised that some people are honestly curious and capable of seeking intellectual truths without necessarily developping faith. Your claim that 'seek and you shall find' is either a factually wrong one, either an insult to the character of all honest and non-dogmatic atheists.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Did you? God is a good judge of character,

Yeah, thanks for that, not only do you offensively ascribe value to my person, you also ascribe value to the person of God, assuming He wouldn't help someone who might be in doubt. Real christian of you. You'll again be surprised that some people are honestly curious and capable of seeking intellectual truths without necessarily developping faith. Your claim that 'seek and you shall find' is either a factually wrong one, either an insult to the character of all honest and non-dogmatic atheists.

'You will know them by their fruit.'

So far you have written off the Bible as sophistry, fearmongering and lies. "You especially don't help people when you use sophism by authority based on a book containing affirmations that have never been factually based."
You seem very sure that the Bible is not factually based. Your comments are not full of ifs but firm statements of belief. I am a way you have as much faith in your conclusions regarding the Bible as I do.
How do you therefore consider yourself a seeker when you already have your chosen answer?

The biggest problem with religion demonizing homosexuality is that the people following the religion think that lifestyle is a choice. Why so many people in today's society claim that someone would willingly choose a lifestyle that's been demonized, prejudiced against, and whose practitioner's have been murdered for the merest evidence of for so long is beyond me. It makes no sense in that way.

I can say that after growing up and living on a farm for 30 years, I have seen evidence of it in many other animals, who many people believe are incapable of such a higher choice, and so thus it's my belief that it's just the way some animals are-including people, and in that case, if someone believes in an infallible higher power, then that must be the way it created them in particular for reasons we might never fathom. Who's to know?

Also, who's in a place to pass judgement on a person's personal happiness in love between two adults when people out there are actively choosing to doing so much worse to others?

As for the bible.....it should be taken as a book of wisdom written at first by people who lived thousands of years ago with the viewpoints therof, and has been translated by thousands of people in the times since- many times to reflect the "feel" of their own views, rather than the literal translation of the words. It is at best a type of "Aesop's Fables" book, and was based upon a giant multi-generational game of "telephone". Which does not destroy it's wisdom- but it cannot be taken unthinkingly as canon anymore.

That's how people start dancing with snakes in church.

For example, if I remember correctly, the passage "Suffer not the Witch to live" never existed before one of the kings of England wanted it in there as the translation. Before, I was led to understand that the Aramaic version more literally meant "suffer the Tyrant to live" or "Suffer not the person to live who uses their power for evil". Much more apt of an idea to live by than a reason to kill thousands and thousands under suspicion of Witchcraft, just because a book says so.

 d-usa wrote:
Any atheists care to admit that they could be wrong and there is a god, maybe even the God?

Yep, I could be wrong. God could be real.

There could also be an invisible Unicorn behind me.

 Orlanth wrote:
So far you have written off the Bible as sophistry, fearmongering and lies.

Thus far, only that passage in particular. I'm sure there are a few rational 'because' following affirmations in the Bible, simply not in that passage.

You seem very sure that the Bible is not factually based.

It clearly isn't. It's not that much of a problem, you can act on well articulated speculative knowledge, but not something which contains no rational content whatsoever.

How do you therefore consider yourself a seeker when you already have your chosen answer?

You again ascribe qualities to my character, which, honestly, I don't have. I abhor poor argumentation, especially when it's under the veneer of religiosity. I have absolutely nothing in principle against the possibility of God, I've often found myself defending beleivers in the philosophical social functions I've attended, since my first U's philosophy department was very close to the theology dept, while my second U is ridiculously anti-theist. Yes, to someone with any degree of learning in philosophy, pure exegesis will be seen has utterly lacking. Exegesis based on a text which doesn't provide one bit of rational content, well, that goes without saying...

[quote=youbedead

sirlynchmob wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Also, by specifically calling out Christians it just shows that you have an ax to grind

Nope, you're wrong again.

Why wouldn't I address the christians? I've never seen anyone post here claiming any other gods. But the question still stands.
any theists in here care to admit they could be wrong, and there is no god? or comment on the chance they could have the wrong god?
is that better?

Well you addressing a Jew and there has been at least one Druid, I know there also Muslims and at least one sikh on this board. And I did I could well be wrong that is the entire fething point of faith

Since I feel I've been mean to Christian folk lately, I've decided to switch sides.

I'm surprised no one has brought up the quote, "if your parents never had (children/sex), chances are you won't either".

The concept that everything had to come from something because everything else had to come from something else is undeniably interesting.

The unicorn believes in you Lictor.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

The unicorn believes in you Lictor.

But do you believe in the great space butterfly

 Orlanth wrote:


So far you have written off the Bible as sophistry, fearmongering and lies.

that might be because it is. The book has been used to justify mass murder, and dare I say, genocide, and has been one of the reasons for which 1.) jews and muslims were exterminated during the conquests of the holy land 2.) many "pagan" religions were exterminated and nearly exterminated by the romans and their expansion of the religion throughout europe 3.) why the aboriginese in every corner of the world suffered under contact with religious nations which were trying to "christianise" (read "subjugate") the populations, or just exterminate them outright. 4.) is used to support racism and bigotry, because jesus was apparently a white and straight man.

What we do know with a fair degree of certainty is that Jesus is NOT white, and welcomes all who embrace him and his ways, so he is not racist, and there's argument about whether he really was married, but the only version of events that makes sense is if he is in fact married, so we can grant at least that he was straight. The trick is though, he was, by today's standards, a complete misogynist prick.

You seem very sure that the Bible is not factually based.

Please forgive the slaughter and the butchering that comes below. I try and condense several books' worth of information in just a few paragraphs, so stuff is likely to get assumed, oversimplified or insufficiently detailed.

I have studied enough of the bible and surrounding material to know that the old testament contains one hell of a lot of allegory, based around kernels of truth. There is sufficient scientific evidence to give certain events credibility. Now, was there a fellow called Noah, who built a massive tug, and took two of every animal onto it? I know enough that every continent has their own version of a great-flood story. But that comes from the fact that each culture had a healthy fear of the sea. We know for certain that there was a (series of??? ) massive tidal event(s???) that caused mass damage. We also know that the Sumerians kinda come right the hell out of nowhere, without any history. They just kinda sprang up, but it seems like they are the survivors of a tidal event.

New testament? Well, we know for a fact there was no "Jesus". There was however a "Yoheshua", so in fact its "Joshua". Several in fact. The only way you can reconcile "Jesus' " psychotic bipolar and multiple personalities is either by acknowledging the man 1.) suffered from mental illness, 2.) was actually a number of different men spread out over an era or 3.) the product of wildly diverging accounts of individuals that had a chance to morph and mutate for a 40 year period after his death. Now... we've all played a game of telephone, and know how the story can change as it moves along. By the time it gets to the end, it's no longer clear what the original message was, though there are some bits that bear a similarity to the original, so its likely that there were a number of important self-styled kings that bore the same name over a wide period of time, that tried to take on the mantle of leadership. One of them was simply much closer to achieving success, and kind of went off the deep end when his opposite number--jon the baptist--got axed by the Romans. (Gotta dig pretty far and deep here, turns out our Joshua was a member of an extremist fundamentalist sect of Judaism that believed in two kings, one was the king of all things religious, the other all secular. This is along the same kind of extremist fundamentalism that we can see with some sects in Islam)

We also have to understand the turns of phrase of the era. Say for instance, when we say today that something is "sick", in about, say, a century from now, anyone reading a blog as part of a case study of our time will have the word "sick" footnoted to denote what it meant in context, because it does not signify any state of illness or disgust. We know that it's a reference to approval and being impressed. We have to reconstruct the social and political era in which Joshua lived to get an understanding of why some of those turns of phrase are there. It's not physically possible that he materialized food out of thin air, but it is entirely possible that in the act of breaking up his own food to be given away he shamed the masses of people around him into giving up their own food and sharing as well. How is it possible? The first to step forward and "take food" from the baskets handed out actually add to it. In fact everyone who reaches into the basket need not be taking from it... Consider also the wedding which Joshua attended. It's already hotly debated as to whether he was a guest at this wedding, or whether he was the bridegroom, but the only interpretation here that makes sense is that he was in fact the bride groom. When he made water into wine, i suspect this is something that was horribly mutated in time. We know he often made mention of converting new adherents to the faith, as they were more willing to mold to Joshua's faith than the older fellows who had already grown accustomed to their moderate faith. The analogy used is of pouring wine into fresh skins. It's likely that his wedding ended up as a political event to bring converts into the fold. The same goes again for breathing life into the dead. We have been known to say to eachother "Steven is dead to me". Well, that would be because Steven did something to earn your ire. When Steven later admits his fault, apologizes and seeks to make amends, he ceases to be dead to you. Well, if he ceases to be dead, then, why of course he is risen from the dead. That analogy applies here. While Arabs were the forefathers of medicine, having made great advances, I do not believe that Joshua and his particular branch of followers were into that kind of medicine, and miraculous life healing is not very likely to have transpired either. The same again goes for blind men learning to see.....

Now, here's what I find to be the most critical problem on the christian faith, because once you understand this, and you realize that 4 separate accounts agree on the facts, then we know with a great degree of certainty that it is true, during the final trials and tribulations, Pilate paraded two prisoners before the crowd for release. What's important to note is that they did not choose Joshua, but Barabbas. You probably don't see the disconnect here. Let me make that connection for you. Bar is a word that means "Son of", and Abba means "father". So we have a man called "Joshua" that was sentenced to die on the cross, and we have another fellow, "the son of the father", that's released by Pilate. We can however surmise why they might have freed a milder-mannered self-styled king and crucified the extremist self-styled king. Jerusalem was fairly cosmopolitan, having picked up on many of the habits brought by the Romans, one of which would have been a greater level of integration between men and women, and the secluded country-style faith which Joshua came to practice from his time in the desert was extreme and unpopular in urban centers.

I'm more than confident the church was all very aware of these facts. However, it would not do to let commoners know this. Instead, the church proceeded to mutate the facts around the events in the bible until church could subjugate the entire European continent for its own benefit. Disagree with me? Why, take a tour of the great cathedrals of Europe, and especially of the Vatican. Don't argue with me that the churches business was not profitable, and mutating the bible into a document which supported the subjugation of individuals to the church made it so. We DO know that a certain little fellow by the name of "Paul" who came from out Rome became a convert to Joshua's strain of Judaism, but as all Romans were wont of doing, they converted and modified the the belief to be in accordance to Roman values. The original story from Joshua's own followers was that he was a failed messiah, just another prophet on the road. Paul happened not to like this, and instead chose to make Jesus a messianic figure that ascended to heaven. We know the Romans were fond of ascending individuals to heaven. Caesar was another fellow who the Romans insisted ascended to the heavens, and others came afterward.

TLDR: The bible is based on real events that transpired, but time and the machinations of the church have construed to obscure the truths therein, and by and large, they are a history of events that transpired and the opinions of those characters on what constitutes moral conduct, which even those characters could not come to a consensus on.