Why Are People So Critical About Christian Beliefs

[Principia Moderni]

There are some sects of Christianity that I'm not too fond of because of how uppity they are. Southern baptists are rampant where I live and I am constantly being made fun of for being Catholic. If you hear of super-uppity sects, they're usually baptist. They do the strict interpretation of the bible. They think Catholics aren't Christian. However, Catholics have actually accepted science a while ago actually. We know the bible is a history book, not a science book.

no, "history book" suggests that the bible contains mostly verifiable fact. The bible is closer to a historical fiction (see, for example, the Richard Sharpe series), some of the places and names are right and the timing's generally close but there's been a LOT of stuff added.

Is there any way to prove what was said to have happened in the bible DID NOT happen? I had my doubts, believe me, but I wanted to be on the safe side.

[Seperates]

Fixed

Truly, you miscontrue me.

For you see, my theory goes like this - the scientific consensuses of the past 2 millenia have been proven wrong, and any man who expresses the opinion, say, that the Earth is flat or that the square root of two must be rational is mocked endlessly in this time. Though many theories have come into vogue, they have almost all been refuted.

Yet what exactly makes our modern-day theories any more correct? For they are based upon the same inputs! In another century, they will laugh at us and call us idiots and troglodytes for embracing the theories that are currently popular. And in a hundred years, those ideas of the near future, too, will be criticized!

The theories that are in consensus today are all theoretical, though, not practical, unlike the tried and tested ideas of the past two centuries. Whence my belief that that was the time that science reached its peak, it's pinnacle - the modes of today are hardly more relevant, and will be put down just as soundly in the coming years.

And all in all, I prefer those theories that brings results: Phrenology, Humourism, Esotericism, etc.

You mean other than the fact that our current theories vastly improve upon the ones previously made. Phrenology is a psuedo-science that has never truely brought results to anyone, quite like homeopathy. The "theories" of today have saved millions if not billions, of collective lives. Perhaps in a hundred to two hundred years our current ideas will be laughed at, but the fact is, they will be laughed at when there is proof of their invalidity. And that is why we laugh at Phrenology, Humourism, and all the other old ways of science and medicine. We know better now.

[Seperates]

no, "history book" suggests that the bible contains mostly verifiable fact. The bible is closer to a historical fiction (see, for example, the Richard Sharpe series), some of the places and names are right and the timing's generally close but there's been a LOT of stuff added.

Is there any way to prove what was said to have happened in the bible DID NOT happen? I had my doubts, believe me, but I wanted to be on the safe side.

There is no historical or archological evidence of the existance of the ancient coutry of Israel. Even Jewish archeologists admit it.

[Principia Moderni]

Is there any way to prove what was said to have happened in the bible DID NOT happen? I had my doubts, believe me, but I wanted to be on the safe side.

There is no historical or archological evidence of the existance of the ancient coutry of Israel. Even Jewish archeologists admit it.

Probably due to constant raids from various civilizations and the conquest by Rome

[Unilisia]

There is no historical or archological evidence of the existance of the ancient coutry of Israel. Even Jewish archeologists admit it.

Probably due to constant raids from various civilizations and the conquest by Rome

Needless to say, there is still no evidence, and thus it can't be said to have ever truly existed except in writing.

[Octopucta]

Probably due to constant raids from various civilizations and the conquest by Rome

Then why does the Bible depict Israel as completely intact during its occupation by Rome?

Edited for non-stupidity.

[Principia Moderni]

Is there any way to prove what was said to have happened in the bible DID NOT happen? I had my doubts, believe me, but I wanted to be on the safe side.

There is no historical or archological evidence of the existance of the ancient coutry of Israel. Even Jewish archeologists admit it.

Sources?

[Seperates]

There is no historical or archological evidence of the existance of the ancient coutry of Israel. Even Jewish archeologists admit it.

Probably due to constant raids from various civilizations and the conquest by Rome

Jewish Fucking Archeologists. Troy survived. Athens survived. What makes you think that ancient Israel (which would have been younger, btw) who be any different.

[Principia Moderni]

Probably due to constant raids from various civilizations and the conquest by Rome

Then why does the Bible depict Israel as completely intact during its occupation of Rome?

It may have been a province. Or the Jews still saw the land as theirs and did not want to admit Israel had fallen.

[Avenio]

There is no historical or archological evidence of the existance of the ancient coutry of Israel. Even Jewish archeologists admit it.

Sources?

Israel hasn't really existed in any independent form since the 8th century B.C., and even then was dominated by the Assyrians as a vassal state.

[Seperates]

There is no historical or archological evidence of the existance of the ancient coutry of Israel. Even Jewish archeologists admit it.

Sources?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _and_Judah

It's freaking common knowledge. Jewish history barely stetches back to 1200 B.C.

[Principia Moderni]

Probably due to constant raids from various civilizations and the conquest by Rome

Jewish Fucking Archeologists. Troy survived. Athens survived. What makes you think that ancient Israel (which would have been younger, btw) who be any different.

Probably because Israel didn't use durable materials and most buildings decayed or they burned to the ground. Remember that they've had plenty of history with people who liked to burn shit down.

[Seperates]

Jewish Fucking Archeologists. Troy survived. Athens survived. What makes you think that ancient Israel (which would have been younger, btw) who be any different.

Probably because Israel didn't use durable materials and most buildings decayed or they burned to the ground. Remember that they've had plenty of history with people who liked to burn shit down.

Because they were farmers... and that doesn't constitute a great ancient country with a capital.

[Principia Moderni]

Is there any way to prove what was said to have happened in the bible DID NOT happen? I had my doubts, believe me, but I wanted to be on the safe side.

There is no historical or archological evidence of the existance of the ancient coutry of Israel. Even Jewish archeologists admit it.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_solomon>

[Principia Moderni]

Probably because Israel didn't use durable materials and most buildings decayed or they burned to the ground. Remember that they've had plenty of history with people who liked to burn shit down.

Because they were farmers... and that doesn't constitute a great ancient country with a capital.

Jerusalem survived. At least parts of it.

[Ceannairceach]

Because they were farmers... and that doesn't constitute a great ancient country with a capital.

Jerusalem survived. At least parts of it.

Probably because it's been built and rebuilt by every major power who ever owned the Levant.

[Octopucta]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_solomon>

"it is possible that the temple continued an earlier Jebusite sanctuary predating the Israelite conquest of Jerusalem"

[Seperates]

There is no historical or archological evidence of the existance of the ancient coutry of Israel. Even Jewish archeologists admit it.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_solomon>

That's not ancient. Nor does it constitute the "twelve tribe" nation described in the Bible. Besides all the Polytheistic things that were going on at that time period, Yahweh was one of many gods according to ancient Jews.

[Principia Moderni]

Jerusalem survived. At least parts of it.

Probably because it's been built and rebuilt by every major power who ever owned the Levant.

Exactly. There isn't much to look for because it's been a playground for several other empires.

Again, I say there isn't anything to DISPROVE God. I prefer to be on the safe side.

[Ceannairceach]

Probably because it's been built and rebuilt by every major power who ever owned the Levant.

Exactly. There isn't much to look for because it's been a playground for several other empires.

Again, I say there isn't anything to DISPROVE God. I prefer to be on the safe side.

Pascals Gambit, eh? A firm position. But the main thing to think about is that in the billions of years this universe has been in existence, no proof for god has ever surfaced.

[Seperates]

Probably because it's been built and rebuilt by every major power who ever owned the Levant.

Exactly. There isn't much to look for because it's been a playground for several other empires.

Again, I say there isn't anything to DISPROVE God. I prefer to be on the safe side.

So has Egypt.

Other than all the other equally valid versions of God.

[Octopucta]

Pascals Gambit, eh? A firm position. But the main thing to think about is that in the billions of years this universe has been in existence, no proof for god has ever surfaced.

Hardly. It assumes only two possible states. The existence of the Christian God, and the existence of no god at all.

[Seperates]

Exactly. There isn't much to look for because it's been a playground for several other empires.

Again, I say there isn't anything to DISPROVE God. I prefer to be on the safe side.

Pascals Gambit, eh? A firm position. But the main thing to think about is that in the billions of years this universe has been in existence, no proof for god has ever surfaced.

What if there is a God, but only atheists can get into heaven?
Heaven would be full of bittersweet atheists

Me: Aw fuck, I was wrong... *grumble grumble*
Angel: Cheesecake?
Me: Oh, sod off you.

[Roman Cilicia]

I'll gladly fax you the brochure and conference plans. May I ask your fax number? Feel free to telegram it to me.

Or you can find it on the web, and post it here.

I looked for it. Basmanov's website has escaped my memory, though I retain his pamphlets. I'm sure if Kennarkough is actually reputable and a real person, as opposed to a troll, he won't mind divulging his fax number.

[Ceannairceach]

Pascals Gambit, eh? A firm position. But the main thing to think about is that in the billions of years this universe has been in existence, no proof for god has ever surfaced.

Hardly. It assumes only two possible states. The existence of the Christian God, and the existence of no god at all.

An edited form can work for any religion; Pascal only assumed the first, but one can form-fit it to any religion as a justification for faith.