[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

1 or 1000, it doesnt really change the possibility of it just being made up. L. Ron Hubbard just sort of threw a story together and seemingly made up Scientology, I dont see why it couldnt have happened with the bible.

I agree that the possibility certainly could exist whether 1 writer or 1000 are responsible. The point I was trying to make however, was that with a greater number of writers responsible, the statistical probability that those writers all decided to get together and create a new religion around the same time is much smaller than if it was a single writer. Would you agree?

To further support this line of thinking, there are numerous recorded incidences in early Christianity of the Church fathers seeking out heresy and vigorously removing it. If we have several writers creating a new religion, who decides what is right and wrong? Obviously there was a coordinated movement with a vested interest in assuring accuracy. This is very difficult to do if everyone is just making things up. There was clear authority in the early church as well as a clear knowledge among the people as to who held that authority.

Finally, the general academic consensus is that the Gospels were written between 60 A.D. and 100 A.D. with Mark generally placed around 70 A.D. While we have no way of knowing for sure, it is at least possible that people who were alive during Jesus's time were still alive when the Gospels were written. If not, children of those who knew Jesus were definitely still around. In addition, this occurred during a time where the culture placed a strong emphasis on accurate oral tradition. Do you think it likely that these accounts would have spread as they did if they were myth? Many people existed at the time these books were written that had second and possible first hand knowledge of Jesus and who he was. Inaccurate histories would not have survived. Too many people would have known they were false.

Furthermore, we are talking about a time when Christians were severely persecuted. To call yourself a Christian in this time was to risk the possibility of death. Do you know of anyone who would willingly profess faith in something they knew was false if it could get them killed? I don't know of any.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I said Jesus could have been around, im not denying his existence, just his magical abilities.

What do you think of what I presented above? Do you still believe it likely that the bible was created by imaginative writer(s)? These are the historical accounts of Jesus's life. Either they are true or not. If they are true, we therefore can surmise that their accounts of the miracles of Jesus are also true.

If you still think it likely that the bible is a myth, what specifically makes you believe that? Do you hold similar skepticism for other historical works of the time period? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Thats good, although im sure if we ever found alien life, you guys would be cramming bibles down their gizzards.

Naturally.

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Yes. People are stupid. in the words of the great Agent K. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Seeing as how this was in response to an argument that I further detailed above, I'll assume that your response will again be that "people are stupid." But this is a dismissal. You have stated that people can be stupid, and I agree with this statement. But what does it say about our scenario? What proof do you have that the early Christians were stupid and were not acting with logic and reason?

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I think something science happened. I couldnt possibly begin to explain or even comprehend it, but I find that more believable than some omnipotent being simply snapping his fingers and "poof", theres the universe.

Do you believe science has all the answers? Science is a method. It is a tool through which we understand our world using observation and experimentation. Science cannot explain how the universe began because it relies on observation. You cannot observe nothing. Our universe necessarily arose from nothing. Science cannot tell us what existed before the universe began anymore than science can prove mathematical proofs or the existence of logic. Do not give in to the recent temptation to elevate science to the realm of a belief.

Please answer this question for me: Should we only believe as true that which can be proven true using the scientific method?

Originally Posted by Combine 017

Morality is just a basic human trait. What I think is right or wrong is probably different than what you think, or any other person in the world. If God was governing these morals, then wouldnt we all just think the same? Then people like Edison and Hitler never would have existed.

Is morality just a basic human trait? Why then do we have objective morality? Why is murder unlawful? If morality is unique to each of us, why do we legislate it?

Would I be correct in assuming that you would agree with the statement that "there are no absolute truths. Everything is relative?"

As far as God governing morality, God gives us free will. Morals are not compulsions, but rather truths concerning right and wrong. Just because we are allowed to choose wrong actions, it does not then follow that there can be no right action.