I have absolute proof that there is no God.

[seeker]

I've just seen in our local paper that a little girl who lives in our town has died. She has been the focus of much prayer since she was taken ill last year. Her parents were thoroughly good Christian people who trusted God absolutely.

The is no way that a loving, omnipotent, beneficent God who notes even a sparrow falling would not have answered these people's prayer.

So, if I had even a scintilla of doubt, it is now gone. There is no God.

It is not astonishing that from small beeginning a faith springs up they happen
every other decade or so. Some get bigger some fail after time.

Cult of scientology 40 to 60 years old
Cult of mormonism 150 ish years old
Cargo cults of polynesia are a prime example of how one charismatic person visiting a society can leave and a whole religion grows up behind.

There are at least 8 different abrahamic religions alone let alone christianity and then 100's of sects and cults within them including the polytheistic and monotheistic variaties.

But Christianity has never stopped,nor will it.

neither of the mahority of the others. Not whilst you are allowed to brainwash children into your cults no they won't stop

When it is the truth,it is teaching.

It is brainwashing and you know it. Calling it the truth is just arrogance which is what it is all about.

I was just about to make the same point about Socrates as Novack has. I would have put it differently

Your argument that stuff just wasn't written about unimportant folks in outposts of the Roman Empire is unsustainable by your own mythology. Joseph & Mary were going to do Sate admin, correct? Tax, Census, marriage, whichever you prefer. They weren't travelling all that way just to put a stone in a jar: as Novack says, both Roman and Jewish governments were big on record-keeping.

A humble birth attended by three kings/overlords/monks/noblemen would hardly have gone unremarked - oh, wait, it didn't, did it? The king of that entire territory, apparently, was so pissed off about this humble birth that he ordered a baby-killing spree. This, too, went unnoticed in Rome although they were certainly taking notes of his other crazed behaviour.

There are NO archaeological remains of a settlement at Nazareth during the time. None of his dad's tools, no money dropped by the flood of religious tourists you would have expected to be visiting, no jars or cookpots, no walls, not even a cesspit. Really, you wouldn't need written records - which there should be - to find evidence of a town that millions of people are so keen to find!

I find this immensely frustrating because it is interesting, imo, to seek the facts behind mythologies and to examine the cultural and philosophical messages behind their stories. When a whole raft of educated, intelligent and powerful people insist those myths are true despite weighty evidence to the contrary, such inquiries are pretty much strangled at birth. "Jesus said" is acceptable as an opening position, just as "Buddha said" or, for that matter, "King Lear said". But when that's stated as a bald, indisputable fact, it stifles all further discussion especially when Jesus very likely said something else that contradicts your quote.
Gah!

At the very beginning of that very interesting book by Diarmaid MacCulloch, he says christianity is a personality cult. Yet you scholars of christianity are going "No, it's not a cult! It's not like those others!" Well, no, it's not like the others, but it is a cult.

Novack, just to pick out one small point out of the mish-mash of fantasy, half truth and misconception in your posts, nothing attributed to Socrates and Plato are facts. All of the sayings of Socrates recorded by Plato, and all of the writings of Plato himself are philosophical arguments. They're foundational to Western metaphysics, ethics and political philosophy. That one sentence alone shows that if you are not arrogant, you are ignorant - it certainly gives me no reason to trust that anything else you say is well founded.

That looks interesting garlic - might well get that - how are you finding it ?
The blurb describes him as a Christian historian ? Do you find him fair and un-biased ? (as much as anyone can be ?)

niminupiminy

Please try to avoid misrepresenting what I wrote about Plato and Socrates.

I wrote things attributed to them are seen as facts) not necessarily truths) e.g. Plato had a misguided idea of planetary movement that perpetuated is a fact when in fact others had already said at his time it was heliocentric is a fact. I did not say we accepted plato's writings as truths.

Garlicnuts, yes he does. But his tongue is firmly in his cheek, isn't it? But that's not all he has to say about Christianity is it - as you will find once you read past page 1.

I Christian historian is no different to being a historian of say...scientology... he just researches where they woo woo was written or came from not whether the woo is an actual fact. Plenty of people lecture in classics and research it and make television programs, but none believe there was a minotaur or that Sisyphus pushed his rock all day long.

MacCulloch is not himself a practising Christian, that is precisely why I recommended it.

Novack, I don't think what you have said in clarification makes that any clearer, nor does it change the central point that you don't know what you are talking about.

Do you not see the difference between a philosophical discussion and religious dogma, niminy?

Socrates said: "All men's souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine." - Well, I take issue with him on souls and immortality, but I can have a jolly good discussion about what "righteous" means and whether we need promises of immortality to keep us righteous. Anybody will have that discussion with me, because Socrates's words are not viewed as the last word by anybody.

Jesus's thoughts on the matter, by contrast, are taken as diktats. Followers consider his ideas about soul, immortality and righteousness the absolute truth. They will not discuss these matters with me, except to try and persuade me into the same cult. That's not debate; it's dogma.

Ah keep the personal attacks keep coming niminy. Instead of giving one scrap of evidence to back up any of your woo woo claims.

Niminy asnwer me this how many years old do you think rougthly is the earth?? Do you accept darwinism and evolution??

There's been a whole lot of discussion going on on this thread, a far as I can see. I'm very happy to talk about what Jesus said, and I'm not in the business of trying to convert anyone via arguments on the web. As it happens I do know the difference between philosophy and theology - although that wasn't a distinction that existed for Plato. But, yes, let's talk about Jesus, if you want to.

Novack: millions, and yes.

So you do accept that the god breathed bible is wrong then on it's own basic fundamentals and therefore it is without truth and merit.

And oh it's actually billions of years old so you were only out by a few thousand times the answer but never mind.

Juggling, I've not read the whole History book and am unlikely to, tbh. Yes, I thought it intriguing, well-argued and engaging. It's good to see christianity placed firmly within wider historical contexts, and to get a readable insider's view of the church(es). He's too christianity-positive for me, though. He was an Anglican deacon, but declined promotion to bishop because he's gay.

Niminy, I am really tempted to quote Jesus at you and get you to put yourself through logical gymnastics while trying to make your creed look sensible. But I can look up the gymnastics on t'interweb if I want to. I've lived 57 years without ever wanting to hear it, so I shan't start now!

My point about Socrates is that metaphysical questions like the existence of a soul don't matter when discussing his philosophy. It's damn hard to discuss theology without talking about that, but Socrates never started a religion so it's not a core issue :)

For what it's worth I do think it's perfectly possible to be a Bible believing christian without taking the story of Genesis chapter one literally - for one thing (as has been mentioned) Genesis chapter two has a different story (things happening in a slightly different order and the eve from adam's rib story)

I wouldn't describe myself as a bible believing christian anymore though I was for many years, and take some exception to fundamentalist evangelicals thinking they have the only definition of "christian" possible. I know that christian thinking and tradition and heritage has shaped so much of western thinking and culture, especially throughout our history. Therefore it's something that will always have some effect on my outlook I guess.

But I think for the record we should acknowledge there are christian believers who do not take the creation stories literally, or other famous stories such as Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel (to give two examples)
The fundamentalists and evangelicals just tend to be both the most vociferous and to get the most attention from the media and in clashes with famous atheists like Dawkins.

BTW I was just talking to DS about this thread !! And said that in the story of Genesis God creates the world in 7 days, and quick as a flash he comes back with ... "6 "

It's probably wise that he is clear on that seeing how working on the sabbath carried a death penalty.

Some truly awful things have been done ostensibly in the name of christianity That one seems unbelievable (though I do believe you) and I hadn't heard of it before reading this thread

Garlic, it's fine if you don't want to talk about what Jesus said. But I think if you say that you don't want to hear it you are making yourself sound as if you have a closed mind.

I'm not sure I agree that it doesn't matter whether Plato's metaphysics are true or not. Plato thought they were true, in the sense that they described the true condition of our existence in the world. And, of course, early Christianity was hugely influenced by its encounter with Hellenistic though, amongst which were many Platonic ideas. So the conception of the soul developed in the John's Gospel and in the letters of Paul owes a great deal to Plato's thought - though it is by no means identical.

It's most irksome when atheists try to insist that Christians must take the Bible literally. Believe or don't believe, either way is fine; but if you don't believe then you can't dictate what it is that Christians are supposed to believe. Most Christians think the Bible is true on different levels, some of it as history, some of it as myth. Just because something is a myth, that doesn't mean it has no message for us, no kernel of truth about the human condition, and the relationship between humans and God, at its core.