Science v Religion BBC Debate

[BulgarianPride]

I've got to be honest, I've no idea what you were talking about when you started on about astronauts and the like so I don't find it too hard to understand why PD called it nonsense, it seemed like incoherant gobbledegook to me as well!





Of course it's a historical document, it was written nearly 2000 years ago, and it's a book. So it is both "historical" and a "document". Not that this means it is a work of non-fiction rather than fiction of course, people have written books which fall into both categories for centuries.

If something did not make sense to you maybe you should of googled it.

Ancient astronauts : <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts</a>

While we are at it google Historical Document.

Historical documents are documents that contain important information about a person, place, or event.

Like i said, as a whole the bible is not a historical document.Only a handful of the stuff written in the bible has been proven to have occurred, and this is usually regarding cities.

Maybe I could have Googled it, or possibly you could have written something that was coherant and didn't need others to do research simply to have any clue what you were going on about.

And I can't remotely discuss things with you if you insist on trying to claim the bible is not a historical document, your assertion it is not is simply ridiculous. By any sensible measure the bible is both historical and a document, quite how you can try and say a 2000 year old book is neither historical or a document is unfathomable. Even in your own attempts to describe what a historical document you admit it is "documents that contain important information about a person, place, or event", he bible, particularly the New Testament, is all about Jesus and his life. Explain again how Jesus isn't a person, or how his life isn't filled with events?

First of all there is very little evidence to suggest Jesus was a real person.
A historical document is not a document written in the past. It is a document that describes real events, real places and dealing with real people. So far the bible is the only reference to Jesus, and there are no other documents to suggest the Jesus in the bible is a real person. Very little archeological evidence as well. So no the bible as a whole is not a historical document. It is a document written in the past but that does not make it historical.

Secondly, if you have completely read my post you would of understood that i meant by "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation".

how do you feel about ancient astronauts theorists' interpretation? In summary replace any reference of god, angels, devils with aliens, and advanced technology.

 

[ElanJo]

Aren't the God of the OT and the NT one and the same?

Yep. How he went from being infinitely worse than Hitler to an alleged doe-eyed hippy type has never quite been explained by the religious tho.

 

[Matty]

If something did not make sense to you maybe you should of googled it.

Ancient astronauts : <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts</a>

While we are at it google Historical Document.



Like i said, as a whole the bible is not a historical document.Only a handful of the stuff written in the bible has been proven to have occurred, and this is usually regarding cities.

Maybe I could have Googled it, or possibly you could have written something that was coherant and didn't need others to do research simply to have any clue what you were going on about.

And I can't remotely discuss things with you if you insist on trying to claim the bible is not a historical document, your assertion it is not is simply ridiculous. By any sensible measure the bible is both historical and a document, quite how you can try and say a 2000 year old book is neither historical or a document is unfathomable. Even in your own attempts to describe what a historical document you admit it is "documents that contain important information about a person, place, or event", he bible, particularly the New Testament, is all about Jesus and his life. Explain again how Jesus isn't a person, or how his life isn't filled with events?

First of all there is very little evidence to suggest Jesus was a real person.
A historical document is not a document written in the past. It is a document that describes real events, real places and dealing with real people. So far the bible is the only reference to Jesus, and there are no other documents to suggest the Jesus in the bible is a real person. Very little archeological evidence as well. So no the bible as a whole is not a historical document. It is a document written in the past but that does not make it historical.

Secondly, if you have completely read my post you would of understood that i meant by "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation".

I'm sorry, but that's simply rubbish. There is reference to Jesus in both the Qur'an and the Talmud (Islamic and Jewish texts), in fact the Qur'an actually refers to Jesus, by name, on more occasions that it refers to Mohammed by name.

Oh, and I completely read your post, twice, and still have no idea what on earth "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation" means.

Having glanced at the google article you linked to I now understand, but that had nothing to do with your attempts to ask the question.

I doubt humans have had previous alien visitors just as much as I doubt God exists.

 

[ElanJo]

Maybe I could have Googled it, or possibly you could have written something that was coherant and didn't need others to do research simply to have any clue what you were going on about.

And I can't remotely discuss things with you if you insist on trying to claim the bible is not a historical document, your assertion it is not is simply ridiculous. By any sensible measure the bible is both historical and a document, quite how you can try and say a 2000 year old book is neither historical or a document is unfathomable. Even in your own attempts to describe what a historical document you admit it is "documents that contain important information about a person, place, or event", he bible, particularly the New Testament, is all about Jesus and his life. Explain again how Jesus isn't a person, or how his life isn't filled with events?

First of all there is very little evidence to suggest Jesus was a real person.
A historical document is not a document written in the past. It is a document that describes real events, real places and dealing with real people. So far the bible is the only reference to Jesus, and there are no other documents to suggest the Jesus in the bible is a real person. Very little archeological evidence as well. So no the bible as a whole is not a historical document. It is a document written in the past but that does not make it historical.

Secondly, if you have completely read my post you would of understood that i meant by "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation".

I'm sorry, but that's simply rubbish. There is reference to Jesus in both the Qur'an and the Talmud (Islamic and Jewish texts), in fact the Qur'an actually refers to Jesus, by name, on more occasions that it refers to Mohammed by name.

Oh, and I completely read your post, twice, and still have no idea what on earth "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation" means.

Both written long after Jesus was supposed to have died

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Plenty of historians believe Jesus did exist.

A number of the stories in the bible re Jesus were essentially reworked tales of Krishna.

 

[Matty]

First of all there is very little evidence to suggest Jesus was a real person.
A historical document is not a document written in the past. It is a document that describes real events, real places and dealing with real people. So far the bible is the only reference to Jesus, and there are no other documents to suggest the Jesus in the bible is a real person. Very little archeological evidence as well. So no the bible as a whole is not a historical document. It is a document written in the past but that does not make it historical.

Secondly, if you have completely read my post you would of understood that i meant by "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation".

I'm sorry, but that's simply rubbish. There is reference to Jesus in both the Qur'an and the Talmud (Islamic and Jewish texts), in fact the Qur'an actually refers to Jesus, by name, on more occasions that it refers to Mohammed by name.

Oh, and I completely read your post, twice, and still have no idea what on earth "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation" means.

Both written long after Jesus was supposed to have died

When they were written isn't that important. The claim was:-

So far the bible is the only reference to Jesus, and there are no other documents to suggest the Jesus in the bible is a real person

He is referenced in the Qur'an and the Talmud. Yes they were written approx 600 and 200 years after his approx birthdate. If Jesus never existed why on Earth would a Jewish text, a text written by the people who Christians claim killed the so of God, acknowledge him as being a real person? Surely if he never existed they would denoince him completely rather than calling him a "false messiah"?

 

[ElanJo]

It seems alien to me that people with open minds are being abused and mocked by those who accept they follow a rigid and dogmatic belief system (ie - 'Dawkins said it so it's true')

Is this what you honestly think?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

It seems alien to me that people with open minds are being abused and mocked by those who accept they follow a rigid and dogmatic belief system (ie - 'Dawkins said it so it's true')

Is this what you honestly think?

I think that this thread has seen people abused for admitting believing in something or even not being so sure that all there is beyond this world is empty nothingness.

I'm not really sure why me believing makes me accountable for actions of Jews or Muslims. I'm also not sure why people can't see the difference between belonging to an organised religion and simply believing in something.

If people have queries than a quick Google search should see them right.

I only ever wanted to really point out that anyone belittling anyone for any belief isn't really nice and is negative behaviour which will only breed more negativity.

Peace and love

 

[Skashion]

First of all there is very little evidence to suggest Jesus was a real person.
A historical document is not a document written in the past. It is a document that describes real events, real places and dealing with real people. So far the bible is the only reference to Jesus, and there are no other documents to suggest the Jesus in the bible is a real person. Very little archeological evidence as well. So no the bible as a whole is not a historical document. It is a document written in the past but that does not make it historical.

Secondly, if you have completely read my post you would of understood that i meant by "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation".

I think there's enough evidence. The most compelling piece for me would be the Pilate Stone. For nearly two thousand years Christians were adamant that a guy called Pontius Pilate was involved with the death of Jesus. Now these Christians had no documentary evidence of Pilate's existence other than the Bible and yet in 1961 his existence is pretty conclusively confirmed by a physical artefact. From that we can likely infer a man called Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death for some reason - which is why Christians bothered to chronicle him when no Roman chroniclers thought he was of sufficient importance to worth bothering.

 

[ElanJo]

It seems alien to me that people with open minds are being abused and mocked by those who accept they follow a rigid and dogmatic belief system (ie - 'Dawkins said it so it's true')

Is this what you honestly think?

I think that this thread has seen people abused for admitting believing in something or even not being so sure that all there is beyond this world is empty nothingness.

I'm not really sure why me believing makes me accountable for actions of Jews or Muslims. I'm also not sure why people can't see the difference between belonging to an organised religion and simply believing in something.

If people have queries than a quick Google search should see them right.

I only ever wanted to really point out that anyone belittling anyone for any belief isn't really nice and is negative behaviour which will only breed more negativity.

Peace and love

What I meant, putting aside the boring Dawkins comment, is do you really think that you and the believers you reference are open minded?

No-one has been mocked for "not being so sure that all there is beyond this world is empty nothingness"

You're not accountable for the actions of Jews, Muslims etc. not unless you excuse them or tell people that they shouldn't be criticised.

If that's what you wanted to point out perhaps you'd get your point across better if you didn't do exactly what you dislike whilst making it. But then you don't really believe "anyone belittling anyone for any belief isn't really nice and is negative behaviour". No sane person could. You just don't like your belief, or closely affiliated beliefs, belittled. And because you can't backup your belief/s all you can do is make a fuss and call people "meanies"

 

[BulgarianPride]

First of all there is very little evidence to suggest Jesus was a real person.
A historical document is not a document written in the past. It is a document that describes real events, real places and dealing with real people. So far the bible is the only reference to Jesus, and there are no other documents to suggest the Jesus in the bible is a real person. Very little archeological evidence as well. So no the bible as a whole is not a historical document. It is a document written in the past but that does not make it historical.

Secondly, if you have completely read my post you would of understood that i meant by "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation".

I think there's enough evidence. The most compelling piece for me would be the Pilate Stone. For nearly two thousand years Christians were adamant that a guy called Pontius Pilate was involved with the death of Jesus. Now these Christians had no documentary evidence of Pilate's existence other than the Bible and yet in 1961 his existence is pretty conclusively confirmed by a physical artefact. From that we can likely infer a man called Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death for some reason - which is why Christians bothered to chronicle him when no Roman chroniclers thought he was of sufficient importance to worth bothering.

Okay i stand corrected on the Jesus point. You are a history buff, do you consider the bible to be a historical document?

 

[xenon_]

 

[sinnerman]

First of all there is very little evidence to suggest Jesus was a real person.
A historical document is not a document written in the past. It is a document that describes real events, real places and dealing with real people. So far the bible is the only reference to Jesus, and there are no other documents to suggest the Jesus in the bible is a real person. Very little archeological evidence as well. So no the bible as a whole is not a historical document. It is a document written in the past but that does not make it historical.

Secondly, if you have completely read my post you would of understood that i meant by "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation".

I think there's enough evidence. The most compelling piece for me would be the Pilate Stone. For nearly two thousand years Christians were adamant that a guy called Pontius Pilate was involved with the death of Jesus. Now these Christians had no documentary evidence of Pilate's existence other than the Bible and yet in 1961 his existence is pretty conclusively confirmed by a physical artefact. From that we can likely infer a man called Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death for some reason - which is why Christians bothered to chronicle him when no Roman chroniclers thought he was of sufficient importance to worth bothering.

Okay i stand corrected on the Jesus point. You are a history buff, do you consider the bible to be a historical document?

More of a period drama than a historical document...

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Clearly the bible is,by any reasonable definition,a historical document.
However,the fact that is woefully inaccurate in terms of timescale,contradicts itself with monotonous regularity, was ghost-written by authors unknown on the basis of Chinese whispers,third-hand rumour and after the fact reconstructions of events which probably didn't happen and that would shame a low-budget episode of Crimewatch,tend to suggest that it is hardly the basis for any credible religious doctrine.
Unless,of course,you are a Creationist.

 

[SWP's back]

The Gospel contradict each other at every point. That's something I can't work out. How someone like PD or JC can rationalise these contradictions.

It also makes the saying "take it as Gospel" literally men "I've made it up"

Catholicism is based on the virgin birth yet only Matthew & Luke are the only one's that mention it. Plus they can't decide where Jesus was born and Bethlehem is only mentioned to fit in with Jewish prophecies.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

The Gospel contradict each other at every point. That's something I can't work out. How someone like PD or JC can rationalise these contradictions.

It also makes the saying "take it as Gospel" literally men "I've made it up"

Catholicism is based on the virgin birth yet only Matthew & Luke are the only one's that mention it. Plus they can't decide where Jesus was born and Bethlehem is only mentioned to fit in with Jewish prophecies.

And yet we swear an oath to 'tell the truth,the whole truth,and nothing but the truth' on this laughable work of fiction in court.
You may as well testify having pledged over a Jeffrey Archer novel,or an MP's expenses claim.
But that's just it - the god squad pick and choose which bits to believe.
Pauldominic renounces the entire Old Testament when it suits him,or when it says something daft,which is most of the time.
Or,(my personal favourite),say - 'well,what god actually meant to say was..'
Because trying to reinterpret what your supreme god and creator was really getting at seems a tad presumptious to me.

 

[daveduke67]

First of all there is very little evidence to suggest Jesus was a real person.
A historical document is not a document written in the past. It is a document that describes real events, real places and dealing with real people. So far the bible is the only reference to Jesus, and there are no other documents to suggest the Jesus in the bible is a real person. Very little archeological evidence as well. So no the bible as a whole is not a historical document. It is a document written in the past but that does not make it historical.

Secondly, if you have completely read my post you would of understood that i meant by "ancient astronauts theorist's interpretation".

I think there's enough evidence. The most compelling piece for me would be the Pilate Stone. For nearly two thousand years Christians were adamant that a guy called Pontius Pilate was involved with the death of Jesus. Now these Christians had no documentary evidence of Pilate's existence other than the Bible and yet in 1961 his existence is pretty conclusively confirmed by a physical artefact. From that we can likely infer a man called Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death for some reason - which is why Christians bothered to chronicle him when no Roman chroniclers thought he was of sufficient importance to worth bothering.

Okay i stand corrected on the Jesus point. You are a history buff, do you consider the bible to be a historical document?

Will The Daily Mail be considered a historical document in years to come? A record of what was going on in the world on that day or thereabouts?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

The Gospel contradict each other at every point. That's something I can't work out. How someone like PD or JC can rationalise these contradictions.

It also makes the saying "take it as Gospel" literally men "I've made it up"

Catholicism is based on the virgin birth yet only Matthew & Luke are the only one's that mention it. Plus they can't decide where Jesus was born and Bethlehem is only mentioned to fit in with Jewish prophecies.

But we're back again to the difference between believers and religious leaders.

Even if we managed to discredit every religious movement ever between us this afternoon, that won't change the fact that I believe.

Religion is man made, it's primarily a tool of social control. That doesn't prove or disprove anything relating to God or a god.

 

[KentBlue]

Catholicism is based on the virgin birth yet only Matthew & Luke are the only one's that mention it.

I can't remember where I read it (I think it might have been 'The God Delusion') but apparently the Hebrew word for 'young woman' is very similar to the Greek word for 'virgin,' so the chances are that this was down to misinterpretating the translation from Hebrew to Greek.

Yet another example of the total bovine excretia that is the bible.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

The Gospel contradict each other at every point. That's something I can't work out. How someone like PD or JC can rationalise these contradictions.

It also makes the saying "take it as Gospel" literally men "I've made it up"

Catholicism is based on the virgin birth yet only Matthew & Luke are the only one's that mention it. Plus they can't decide where Jesus was born and Bethlehem is only mentioned to fit in with Jewish prophecies.

But we're back again to the difference between believers and religious leaders.

Even if we managed to discredit every religious movement ever between us this afternoon, that won't change the fact that I believe.

Religion is man made, it's primarily a tool of social control. That doesn't prove or disprove anything relating to God or a god.

Nobody cares what you believe,or is trying to stop you,despite what your massive persecution complex may tell you.
Myself and SWP's back were merely pointing out historical inaccuracies,contradictions and downright lies contained in the two doctrinal religious documents of the Christian church,and how they are ignored or followed to suit the whims of their adherents.
Who are you trying to convince by proclaiming 'I believe'?
Us,or yourself?