Nonetheless, I have provided a secular figure. One that the existence, or non-existence, of does not depend on whether that figure was mentioned in the Old or New Testament. One whose existence has been doubted.

And I can only speak as a simple mind, I guess.
One who believes in Jesus, in God.
And does not need any historical support to believe so.

I guess I came to these conclusions through my life's experience, making it this far through mangled car wrecks and a mangled life in general.
'If the Lord sees you to it, the Lord shall get you through it'.
And that has been my experience./

I stand accused. And bow my head to my accusers.
I have said this many times before.

I have my beliefs. I do not try to inflict them upon nor wish to confront those who do not have the same beliefs as I do.
I respect you in your beliefs, or none at all, if that is the case.

But, I shall never be ashamed to say here, before anybody, that I have that faith, and only ask that you afford me the same respect.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

There is no secret that science and religion does not always go hand in hand.

As an alternative to understanding religion, history must be studied.

If you happen to be a protestant by means of religious belief or affiliation, you know that the founder of this part of religion or religious belief was Martin Luther.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Notice the possible resemblance of names here. The other one I do not think should be discussed right now.

I have not read the article yet, but skimming through, it may seem that he may have got an edge with a noble figure, or perhaps a local monarch being in charge of his area of living. He may possibly have got so with the Pope as well, but for now I do not find anything more here.

More specifically, the Catholic church goes back further in time than the Protestant church.

As time changes, new opinions arises and with that new beliefs when it comes to certain subjects.

This by means of knowledge being obtained about the same or similar subject.

You may not find the same continuity when it comes to science.

Science is often the result being obtained by individuals. Other times similar results are being obtained by means of lecturers belonging to education systems like Universities.

Religion is supposed to be based on belief and conscience. Science on the other hand is about proving facts.

Only asked why the existence of Jesus, or his reported sayings. Should be held to a higher standard, than others in History.

Really simple.

About a month ago I suggested:

By all means start a separate thread on these matters. Discussion of them in this one would appear to be off topic.

I don't see those threads, yet you continue with this line of inquiry. Perhaps you could provide the names of some of the other historical figures are held to a lower standard when it comes to questions of existence, and someone else can start threads on them for you.

bobby...

Your, as others, non-answer, to inconvenient questions. Regarding the assertions of another Poster. Who states he has great knowledge of Biblical History.

Question #1 - What is the difference between Accepted Secular (with their own Gods and Beliefs) History, and Biblical references?

Question #2 - Why is the above accepted, and the other (with their own God and Beliefs) not?

Any answers?

I suggest a secular figure:
Helen of Troy.
Certainly, there was doubt she existed or that Troy itself ever existed. Correct? Now we have evidence, via Heinrich Schliemann, that Troy did exist. (I have heard that Schliemann's method were, however, decried.) Does this say much else about the works of Homer? Do we now believe in the Olympian gods and goddesses as well?
Am I incorrect that, for a long time, Helen of Troy was not an accepted secular figure?

That is correct, and as you noted, the very existence of Troy.

As I have stated many times. I am an atheist. However, this does not mean that a peoples historical history (The Bible), must be denied because of their belief in a Deity.

This unthinking, or perhaps Anti-Jewish/Christian bigotry. If applied to Non-Biblical History. Would render all history, as false.

Do they really believe that?

I have no reason to doubt some deny Jesus' existence, or that of other Biblical figures (such as Moses) based simply on bigotry and rigid ideology.

However, around the time you first entered the politics forum (I see you posted occasionally in the Cafe and mostly number crunching until about 2 years ago), there was this: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=72926&sort_style=5&start=75. Please do note that it was Bobby who worked hardest against the anti-Semitism of Matt Giwer. I did what I could, probably as a dilettante.

Only asked why the existence of Jesus, or his reported sayings. Should be held to a higher standard, than others in History.

Really simple.

About a month ago I suggested:

By all means start a separate thread on these matters. Discussion of them in this one would appear to be off topic.

I don't see those threads, yet you continue with this line of inquiry. Perhaps you could provide the names of some of the other historical figures are held to a lower standard when it comes to questions of existence, and someone else can start threads on them for you.

bobby...

Your, as others, non-answer, to inconvenient questions. Regarding the assertions of another Poster. Who states he has great knowledge of Biblical History.

Question #1 - What is the difference between Accepted Secular (with their own Gods and Beliefs) History, and Biblical references?

Question #2 - Why is the above accepted, and the other (with their own God and Beliefs) not?

Any answers?

I suggest a secular figure:
Helen of Troy.
Certainly, there was doubt she existed or that Troy itself ever existed. Correct? Now we have evidence, via Heinrich Schliemann, that Troy did exist. (I have heard that Schliemann's method were, however, decried.) Does this say much else about the works of Homer? Do we now believe in the Olympian gods and goddesses as well?
Am I incorrect that, for a long time, Helen of Troy was not an accepted secular figure?

That is correct, and as you noted, the very existence of Troy.

As I have stated many times. I am an atheist. However, this does not mean that a peoples historical history (The Bible), must be denied because of their belief in a Deity.

This unthinking, or perhaps Anti-Jewish/Christian bigotry. If applied to Non-Biblical History. Would render all history, as false.

Do they really believe that?

Still no examples of your own? And I suspect that your claim that all history would be rendered false if the same veracity rules are applied is somewhat exaggerated and does a disservice to historians.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

That is what I taught.

I am just questioning the foundation of the ascertains, of those who dismiss a peoples history. Simply because of universal [as in all history] errors/lying/miss-categorizations, 'history written by the victors', etc.

The Jewish/Christian belief in a Deity. Does not render their history false. Just as Greek, Roman, Sumerian, etc. belief in Deity's, renders their history false.

Where are these claims by others that you are questioning? Are you arguing that the non-mythical portions of the bible are to be accepted as much a true and accurate record as the writings of Samuel Pepys? Does this mean you believe the great fire of 1666 and Noah's flood are on equal footing?

More to the point where are your examples of historical figures that are accepted as "secular history" for which evidence of their existence is poorer than that for Jesus? Your refusal to provide any is leading me to suspect that the claim is baseless.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I've never heard anyone cast doubts on the accounts of Josephus, except for the paragraph about Jesus. Are the other writings of Josephus generally accepted?

bellum omnium contra omnes (" The condition of man . . . is a condition of war of everyone against everyone".

Homo homini lupus est, "A man is a wolf to another man"

Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened for you. – Luke 11:9

When someone hits you on the cheek offer the other as well. When someone takes your coat let him have your shirt too. Luke 6:29

Gooba Gabba Hebba Habba aack aack fO shO fO evA - Dull

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Again. Your refusal to read this entire thread, and failure (on purpose?) to understand what I am replying to.

Heh, funny. The questioning of the existence of Jesus in this thread started in another (for example). Why do you believe it's a failure to understand as opposed to a failure to communicate?

Is just another example of refusing to respond to Inconvenient Questions, and is starting to change my opinion of you.

bobby wrote:

CLYDE wrote:

Question #1 - What is the difference between Accepted Secular (with their own Gods and Beliefs) History, and Biblical references?

Question #2 - Why is the above accepted, and the other (with their own God and Beliefs) not?

Without you providing examples of what you mean by "Accepted Secular (with their own Gods and Beliefs) History" I can't answer the question. Hence the request for you to provide them. I don't know which historical figures you're talking about. I'd prefer not to speculate.

That's a refusal to respond to an inconvenient question? In that case, as you refuse to provide examples by which I can understand your questions, the best answer I can provide to these two questions is:
#1, objectivity, biblical references exist independently of your posts, while, to the best of my knowledge, "Accept Secular (with their own Gods and Beliefs) History" does not.
#2, biblical references can be verified (for example), while the other term does not seem to have any meaning.

Continue with your "Baseless" and false accusation.

I am still awaiting a reply, from the Original Poster. Regarding his statements. He doesn't need any help from you, nor anyone else.

Correct?

I am not omniscient, thus I am unable to provide anything other than a "perhaps" in response to this question. Not that you'll take note, though some clarity may have been added to your comment by judicious use of embedded links.

His silence is deafening.

Silence is all I've ever heard from Him, and while I don't question the honesty of others when they claim to have heard His voice, I do question the details of the circumstances.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The only evidence that Jesus existed is because of the writings of a very small group of his Jewish sect followers. That doesn't say he didn't exist, only that, at the time, he was a virtual unknown.

But in another case, a national state has been built on the existence of a person, mentioned in great detail in the Bible, but there is absolutely no archaeological evidence he existed. The one piece of evidence, that people use to prove his existence relies, on the interpretation of one disputed word and whether his group is a family, a tribe or a nation. And that is the so called King David.

I am still awaiting a reply, from the Original Poster. Regarding his statements. He doesn't need any help from you, nor anyone else.

Correct?

His silence is deafening.

Original Poster would be Dave(The Admiral)Nelson who started this thread here.

Hasn't he answered all the questions you asked?


I went back and read this entire thread and, after gleaning some other information, have come to the conclusion that I'm not the only person here that has issues with your debating style, CLYDE.

---

I've been wondering if it's ever useful to discuss Jesus or religion on boards such as this for the Backfire Effect seems to come into play and the only end result is to harden everyone's initial stance.

So why try?

This would make an interesting new thread.

---

Interesting ...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God

A TEAM of scientists have made what may turn out to be the most important discovery in HISTORY – how the universe came into being from nothing.

Perhaps Jesus is moot.

---

I've been wondering if it's ever useful to discuss Jesus or religion on boards such as this for the Backfire Effect seems to come into play and the only end result is to harden everyone's initial stance.

So why try?

This would make an interesting new thread.

My guess is that pretty much every human being can be susceptible to this. I think a lot will say "Ah ha!" At least, at first. However, there must be a portion of humanity that will eventually say "What? Wait a minute ... !" Otherwise, how would this phenomenon be recognized, observed & analyzed? I do be most of us posting here will often say the second thing. Part of my evidence is for this is people here changing how they speak to each other.

Religion is a mental disease.
Many educated,intelligent people believe in religion.
Many educated,intelligent people are mentally ill.
They are afflicted with the SWI syndrome.
Selective Willful Ignorance.

---

Dave Nelson

Jesus was a terrorist to the Jewish establishment at the time, which is why they had him killed.

I thought the Romans killed Jezus?

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Jesus was a terrorist to the Jewish establishment at the time, which is why they had him killed.

I thought the Romans killed Jezus?

According to historical evidence, he may not have existed at all.
There were 129 authors at the time and place that wrote about everything, but not one word about Jesus, until Peter wrote 20 years later. Outside of the gospels, there is one inference to Jesus, about 100 years later, saying someone named Jesus was crucified. That one statement is the only historical evidence he existed. Even several of his sayings, were almost word for word copies of ancient Egyptian mythology.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

I have only studied, and continue to study Christianity in depth. I do not know what I have not yet learned. Given that I get some free time, I can back up everything I have said, and will readily admit it when I am wrong. What I am finding, is that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that the whole of Christianity was made up, and embellished as it went along.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Jesus was a terrorist to the Jewish establishment at the time, which is why they had him killed.

I thought the Romans killed Jezus?

According to historical evidence, he may not have existed at all.
There were 129 authors at the time and place that wrote about everything, but not one word about Jesus, until Peter wrote 20 years later. Outside of the gospels, there is one inference to Jesus, about 100 years later, saying someone named Jesus was crucified. That one statement is the only historical evidence he existed. Even several of his sayings, were almost word for word copies of ancient Egyptian mythology.

Steve

Steve...

How many Accepted Non-Christian/Jewish Personality's, were not mentioned during their lifetime? And who are they?

I am just asking. Because you apparently take great interest, and have knowledge, regarding history.

Jesus can't be the only one, of course.

I see, after weeks of saying that there are accepted historical figures for which there is less evidence than what we have for Jesus, you now ask somebody else to provide the names of some. The emperor has no clothes.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Do I understand that Marmot desires to ask me some questions?

At your service.

---

Dave Nelson