Why the biblical religions are dangerous?

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


Let any gods come. I will see to it that they are all indicted and tried for their crimes against humanity, that both Heaven and Earth may witness true justice at the hand of the underdogs! Sure, they laugh now, but the power of humanity will not be scorned with impunity!

Originally posted by WonderBoi
God does not reveal His word, until you seek His way of doing things. Unfortunately, mankind isn't willing to do things His way. Mankind has always done things: "The HARD WAY".

Said with such authority and sincerity, such knowledge.

Heard that sentiment somewhere before, think it gets a mention in "cult brainwashing techniques 101".

God is not a genie in a bottle.

Certainly not. Though he amounts to the same thing (non existent).

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Let any gods come. I will see to it that they are all indicted and tried for their crimes against humanity, that both Heaven and Earth may witness true justice at the hand of the underdogs! Sure, they laugh now, but the power of humanity will not be scorned with impunity!

Won't happen any time soon, I'll wager. I can think of one who is still very busy trying to figure out how he got his creation (story) so mixed up. Bit of a bungler it seems. Perhaps water was meant to be highly flammable?

Originally posted by Seede

There are about 40 (forty) different people who wrote the present day bibles and perhaps more.

Fascinating. The brothers Grimm must have been indefatigable in comparison, when you also consider they wrote to a much higher standard, yet kept a similar level of historical accuracy concerning their main characters. Jesus, Moses, Mary et al being every bit as verifiable, no doubt, as Rumplestiltskin .


Does this mean there are "40 or more" traceable known authors? Or is this a guess? Perhaps we could discuss authorship of some of the more popular ones (though old testament authorship claims might be interesting). Such as who wrote the gospels? Would there be any genuine historical sources for the authorship of these?

These same 40 (forty) manuscripts depict both religion and archaeology and at vast time lines. What more do you want in this theological realm? These were also outside books at one time. And you demand more outside books?

Are you trying to say the bible is an historically sound document, backed by archaeology? In view of.....the flood myth (didn't happen), Jewish slave race in Egypt (didn't happen), exodus (didn't happen), crossing a certain sea (didn't happen), wandering the desert (didn't happen) just to name a few. Or perhaps I misunderstood you?

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


If you are intent on arguing against the case being made here, perhaps you should cite sources the clearly disprove the case being made. Let's start with sources debunking each of those Biblical events you claim never happened.

I'm just saying that if one side should provide sources, both sides should provide sources. Let us take nothing for granted in this discussion.

Text ok...what i dont get is that afterinfinity said that hydrogen is the combustible gas, and water has to be broken down into its separate molecules in order to have it be flammable...but then to refute that statement you say the exact same thing as he did, but instead (to make yourself sound important), you cut and pasted something that came out of a publication like scientific american or some such thing...when he already said the same thing in short summary and well enough for a three year old to understand...there was no need for that...

reply to post by studythem1


@ studythem1

The article was intended to show that water does burn and it does burn. The experiment has progressed now so that regular tap water can also burn. The original experiment was with salt water. There are three basic forms of H 2O and they are ice, liquid, and steam but in all reality all three are still H 20 and all three forms contain one oxygen atom to 2 hydrogen atoms. The experiment here was with the liquid form of H 20 and the original experiment did not separate the atoms but instead separated the salt from the atoms. RFG cannot split an atom and therefore did not create a gas as you suppose. If you separate the atoms you then do not have a water but instead you have atomic particles of independent source. Once H 20 is separated it cannot be called water. The only way a gas can be described with H 20 is that it is in a steam (gas) state and even then the atomic structure is not broken. So regardless of your and afterinfinity's lack of understanding the suspension of this experiment, the fact still remains that water does burn and it is not turned into a gas.

You wrote Quote "and furthermore, i do not understand why it is ok to scrutinize someone else's statement, then refute it by saying the same EXACT thing, and then on top of that claim that biblical theology is exempt from scrutiny, because it just has to be believed...even without the slightest shred of external proof or repeatability at all...even if it defies all reason and truth." Unquote

You cannot show me in quote where I have ever said that biblical theology is exempt from scrutiny. That shows me that you have not followed the entire discussion one whit. If you had then you would have seen that I have repeatedly cited that my entire blog was theology and theology cannot be proven by any source. It can be believed but not established. Go back to page eleven and re read the entire discussion before you give a false rant. Just as I said to afterinfinity, you can not have external proof of any sort in theology such as you have just stated. You make the same mistake in your assumptions as did afterinfinity. In fact you did not not even address the issue with clarity or reason so I will repeat my stance on biblical theology.

There were over forty men in a vast timeline who wrote or had scribes write their viewpoints. These manuscripts were collected from various parts of the world and over vast periods and compiled into one collection. Not one book but one collection of books. There are also thousands of other manuscripts which are of equal value to some that were not put into this collection. These are called outside sources of this collection but are still referenced by scholars and regarded as invaluable. This collection of which we are concerned is called Bible. Many outside books were also collected and compiled into several large volumes which we call Pseudepigraphic. There are still hundreds more outside books which have never been gathered into a collection. The contents of all of this literature is called theology and it is so vast that not one man can read and understand all of it.

Theology cannot be proven. I repeat. Theology cannot be proven as it stands but once it is proven it is no longer theology. The original discussion was that I used theological literature to show that it had historical value and it does. The historical value is that the bible can prove much of its archaeological record and teaches the scholars many facts of the ancients. This entire thread was that "biblical religions are dangerous" and the subject matter was diverted into water burning. That diversion was instigated by your friend afterinfinity. Now getting back to the thread. I have asked infinity and now ask you to show me your sources of established fact that the archaeological literature of the established bible is false. Not the theological portions but the archaeological portions. That was the original quest and not water on fire. Both of you seem not to understand that the spiritualism of the bible is theology but the archaeological aspects have been proven thousands of times over by many outside sources. Show me otherwise.

reply to post by Seede


Regardless of the unnecessary tantrum you threw (I forgive you, by the way) I'm interested in seeing your response to Cogito Sum's post.

ETA: We might be willing to take your 40 certified historical and scientific experts ( ) more seriously if they didn't contradict each other throughout the majority of the Bible. If you ask nicely, I might even post proof.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


@ Cogito

Your answer, after your fairy story, is no. I repeat that the answer is no. No, I have never said that the manuscripts of the bible are all historically sound. You seem to have difficulty in comprehension of what you read. What I said was – Quote “The original discussion was that I used theological literature to show that it had historical value and it does. The historical value is that the bible can prove much of its archaeological record and teaches the scholars many facts of the ancients.” Unquote

Most universities have advanced literature studies and their teachings depend upon their sources just the same as biblical universities teach in the same manner. Here is a portion of literature taught in most universities. Ceasar (Gallic Wars) 10 manuscripts exist. Plato with 7 – Tacitus with 20 – Pliny the Younger with 7 – Thucydides with 8 – Herodotus with 8 – Sophocles with 193 – Lucrefius with 2 – Euripides with 9 – Demosthenes with 200, Aristophanes with 10 or 12 and Aristotle with 49. That is a total of thirteen authors with 533 manuscripts or codex. Have you any idea of how many manuscripts pertain 40 authors of the bible? Try the number 24,633 manuscripts and according to you they are all bogus and you are right. Are you actually brain dead to even imagine what you are saying? By the way, I do challenge you to show proof of your claim that the Noah flood never happened or that the Red and Reed Sea dispute has been settled and that the Exodus has never happened. You do understand that if there was no Exodus from Egypt you would have no Red or Reed Sea controversy. Or did that just slip your mind? If it were in my power I would dub you with five Pinocchio’s and one Rumplestiltskin. You deserve the very best in your recovery--

reply to post by Seede


I have one answer to your claims regarding the Red Sea. Trichodesmium erythraeum. It's a type of algae found in the Red Sea that turns the blue-green water to a reddish brown as the blooms die off. Nothing to do with the Bible. And if you're so certain that you are in fact correct regarding the more spectacular events recorded in the Bible, then post your evidence and sources for every event.

reply to post by Seede


historicity does not prove theology is true...

in fact if biblical theology were even half close to what is said in the bible then nobody would want to follow the theology...so theology is propped up by historicity, when as you said yourself, that there is nothing that can prove it...but that is exactly what apologists try to do all the time...

Text historicity does not prove theology is true...

reply to post by studythem1


@ studythem1
I agree one hundred percent but once a theory is proven then it is no longer a theory. Most all science at one time was in the exact same way. A thought brings action and a model is born but it is still theory till that model becomes a fact. All science is based upon that principal and the bible is no exception. The bible has a vast wealth of archaeological revelations and much of that wealth has been adopted by mainstream science but the spiritual aspects of the bible are hotly debated even by the religionists who control the material.

That is why I thought so highly of Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeology. He did not mix his own theology with his facts and was a great editor and professor of archaeology. In fact I remember when the scholars sat on the dead sea scrolls for a great many years and refused to share the information with the laity. Mr. Shanks was the leader in freeing that information to the public. He is a great and honorable man.

reply to post by Seede


ok, so then theology is a theory that has to be proven, or is proven? what are you saying...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


@ Afterinfinity

No. I will not play that old game of having the burden of proving to you events of the bible. That is a worn out tactic of diversion and leads to dead ends of vast arguments. I stated my case and repeated my stance several times. I will only repeat my original blog and that is that the bible has two distinct avenues which are spiritual theology and some provable archaeological facts. Both are intertwined in a vast amount of biblical and non biblical literature and has taken professors of religion many years of study to teach and show their results of their years of study. And even then they argue like magpies over nothing of my interest.

The burden of proof cannot be established in theology. If Noah's flood is nothing but deception then it is either a lie or theory. If the Hebrew tribes were not enslaved in Egypt then that also is bogus and is either a lie or theory. I can prove neither of those events but I can believe those events. Belief in a Creator and proof of a Creator are altogether two different sources of the mind. Once it becomes proof then it is no longer theory and that is where I and the entire world is at this day. To argue events can only lead to suppositions and hatred with no solution.

reply to post by Seede


noahs flood is the most documented ancient event in history in all cultures, so that is not disputed...but it is also not original to the bible, so it is not a valid point when trying to prove the bible is 100% true...

there were judaic people in egypt, this is known, but the circumstances surrounding their exodus is probably not exactly the way the bible portrays...there are some questions that still need to be answered, and there is also some anomalies that need to be accounted for in the way of technology...such as what was the ark really? how did the sea part? they already located the site of the crossing (far from where they first thought it was located) but they refuse to allow dating of the artifacts on the sea floor or thorough examination of the place in saudi arabia where the jews were thought to have camped for a long time...this would disclose a lot of things and further clear up those questions, but it is actively being prohibited...but even with this kind of evidence, it would still not prove that the jews were indeed being led by god...and i suspect since the saudi government is corrupt, that it is not just the fear of validating the jews that keeps them from allowing the examination of the areas in question...they are after all in the pocket of the NWO...

the evidence we do have of who they were being led by, in the bible itself...paints this being as a bloodthirsty and cruel entity that fits more the description of what many religious claim to be fallen angels, or demons...not a loving and benevolent god...but a tyrant that tricked them into the wilderness to die and to be forced into bondage harsher than the egyptians had them under, and to then act out the same kind of horrors on a land they invaded...it was systematic abuse where the abused became the abusers...we can see parallels in people today who are subjected to similar abuse in our own cities and countries...we see the same kind of abuse used on the victims of MK ultra in numerous accounts, and they also have favorite methods in order to achieve the results they want with abuse that mirrors the same abuses in exodus...it is the same identical psychology being used...even in a muted sense today it is used in congregations all over the world...where the bible cannot be questioned, and the fear of hell is used to re-enforce the doctrines, many of which are not even biblical, and in fact if we want to be honest none of them really are, because they ignore the very context of the passages they claim to source the doctrines from...

why was it prohibited in leviticus to commit incest, but many of the heroes of the bible, even many of the patriarchs, get to commit incest and get off scott free? is that what it means to be chosen? anyone else would have perished by the sword or the stone...but they obviously did not, they got an exemption...even abraham...

this is just but a few examples of why the bible cannot be believed at face value, and if we go further into the christian age, we find that constantine further hijacked anything of real spiritual and altruistic value and made that into a state religion of tyranny modeled after the jewish tyranny of the sanhedrin...

these are not just conjecture, but clearly exposed by the bible itself...why else would jesus have only preached about hell (actually the grave, but the sanhedrin started the doctrine of hell when they figured out it made them more money in the offering jar) when referring to the sanhedrin, in retort to their cruel practices? because if they really believed that the creator was that cruel to send people to death, then they deserved to be there themselves... why did they want him dead? because he exposed them and was kind to the people they were instrumental in abusing, and was teaching them ways to heal... against the power hungry religious rulers of the day...who made more money off of fear and punishment than on truly helping people help each other...

the same dynamics are evident today in our own world and this is why these books were assembled and are still embraced and coddled by the powers that be, because the twisted psychology that this theology forces people into makes them ripe to accept tyranny in the most evil forms, and to applaud it as well...

Originally posted by Seede
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

@ Cogito

Your answer, after your fairy story, is no. I repeat that the answer is no. No, I have never said that the manuscripts of the bible are all historically sound. You seem to have difficulty in comprehension of what you read. What I said was – Quote “The original discussion was that I used theological literature to show that it had historical value and it does. The historical value is that the bible can prove much of its archaeological record and teaches the scholars many facts of the ancients.” Unquote

The extent to which it has historical value is debatable. No doubt it has some, yet by way of an overall story that equals "(period) fiction/ mythology". We know the earth, various humans and various places (Egypt etc.) existed, so in this much at least, is accurate. After that, its claims can get a bit iffy. If this is what you are saying, then we agree. If not, you have only to back your claims or amend them to indicate they are simply personal belief.

There is much in this book that can only be backed, or denied, via opinion. Though not all. The various supernatural occurrences for example, we know cannot happen.

Most universities have advanced literature studies and their teachings depend upon their sources just the same as biblical universities teach in the same manner. Here is a portion of literature taught in most universities. Ceasar (Gallic Wars) 10 manuscripts exist. Plato with 7 – Tacitus with 20 – Pliny the Younger with 7 – Thucydides with 8 – Herodotus with 8 – Sophocles with 193 – Lucrefius with 2 – Euripides with 9 – Demosthenes with 200, Aristophanes with 10 or 12 and Aristotle with 49. That is a total of thirteen authors with 533 manuscripts or codex. Have you any idea of how many manuscripts pertain 40 authors of the bible? Try the number 24,633 manuscripts and according to you they are all bogus and you are right. Are you actually brain dead to even imagine what you are saying? By the way, I do challenge you to show proof of your claim that the Noah flood never happened or that the Red and Reed Sea dispute has been settled and that the Exodus has never happened. You do understand that if there was no Exodus from Egypt you would have no Red or Reed Sea controversy. Or did that just slip your mind? If it were in my power I would dub you with five Pinocchio’s and one Rumplestiltskin. You deserve the very best in your recovery--

As to the argumentum ad hominem, it pertains to fallacy and is usually the last bastion of those without a real argument, in this instance it is your first chosen port of call. If there is such strong emotional attachment to your position that this is your method, genuine discussion might not be possible.

If you trying to tell me that "De Bello Gallico" (for example) and the Noah/flood narrative are in any way comparable, perhaps our conversation might better end here also. Though some of the real historical authors mentioned are relevant, in that they give an insight into the particular penchant for interpolation/forgery of early Christians.

It doesn't matter how many authors or texts you site. It matters far more what can be provided by way of corroboration and support .....evidence. "Gilligan's Island" also gives a reasonable portrayal of certain aspects of twentieth century life. It appears there was an Ala Wai harbour at that time, the boat at least gives appearance of those used at the time, quite likely their are still uncharted Pacific Isle's, the fashion, speech, customs are consistent. Yet I have doubts about the story overall (despite a fondness for "Ginger") because it appears to be "period fiction", similar to much of the bible.

If my caricature doesn't please you, perhaps look up "Euhemerus". The practice of depicting fable and myth in a historical setting or of fitting (possibly real) historical figures into mythology, has largely been attributed to him. Perhaps you could also look up the genuinely academic hypothesis put forward by Richard Carrier, a Ph.D in ancient history, that the story of Jesus is a type of "Euhemerised" myth, unlikely to have existed as a historical person.

It can be difficult to prove a negative. Generally how it would work is for the one making a positive claim, to provide positive evidence in support, for perusal and review. There has never been any evidence of a flood engulfing the entire earth at one time, consistent with biblical myth, as far as I know. Can you provide any? I have doubts whether many scientific papers will be devoted to a "non flood". There is no evidence of a Jewish slave race in Egypt at the mentioned time, nor of plagues, an exodus, crossing the red sea, wandering the desert. Archaeology not only does not support, but at times conflicts with the stories.

[b]"A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness" Dever, William (2001) ISBN 3-927120-37-5. en.wikipedia.org...

Israel Finklestien, seems quite an honourable and laudable man.
www.middleeastmonitor.com... en.wikipedia.org...

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood covering all the mountains of earth, as depicted in the bible (let alone that people can live for 600 years), that I am aware of. I look over occupation sites dated well over 20k years regularly. There are many, some 40k years or older .They have been thoroughly surveyed and excavated, yet no evidence of such flooding. That seems to leave at least one continent excluded from the story. The best it seems anyone can come up with, is that a local flood brought on by glacial melt gave rise to extremely exaggerated mythology. It is looking less likely that this might even account for it.

news.nationalgeographic.com.au...
geodinamic.ro...

cont.....

cont.....

As to the story of Noah collecting said creatures, the rediculous scope of such a myth probably isn't worth debating in any serious way. Unless you can give genuine support for such a thing?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
If you are intent on arguing against the case being made here, perhaps you should cite sources the clearly disprove the case being made. Let's start with sources debunking each of those Biblical events you claim never happened.

I'm just saying that if one side should provide sources, both sides should provide sources. Let us take nothing for granted in this discussion.

See the relevant parts of above post. Though I would like to say that when it comes to extraordinary claims such as those posited in largely mythical texts (like the bible), the default position is (IMO) not that "it happened" until you can disprove it. Quite the opposite.

Some more about the supposed "exodus". There is plenty out there.

“Really, it’s a myth,” Dr. Hawass said of the story of the Exodus

www.nytimes.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

"The story of the Exodus did not happen the way the Bible depicts it, if it happened at all," said Rabbi David Wolpe, senior rabbi at Los Angeles' Sinai Temple. Rabbi Wolpe, a native Philadelphian and University of Pennsylvania graduate, kicked up a storm last year when he gave several sermons and classes at Passover focusing on research that casts doubt on the Exodus as a historical event. In doing so, he revealed information many rabbis and scholars have known for years - and shoved the discussion from the libraries out to the pews."

articles.philly.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Despite being regarded in Judaism as the primary factual historical narrative of the origin of the religion, culture and ethnicity, Exodus is now accepted by scholars as having been compiled in the 8th–7th centuries BCE from stories dating possibly as far back as the 13th century BCE, with further polishing in the 6th–5th centuries BCE, as a theological and political manifesto to unite the Israelites in the then‐current battle for territory against Egypt

Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Free Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-684-86912-4

Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide.

rationalwiki.org...

It seems that it is mostly "Religious Scholars" (oxymoron) who find all manner of biblical/archaeological truths, possibly due more to inherent bias?

reply to post by Seede

No. I will not play that old game of having the burden of proving to you events of the bible.

Oh, good. I mean, it's obviously so unreasonable to hold you to the same standards as hundreds of renowned scientists who have demonstrated their understanding and expertise through documented research and experiments with conclusive results and substantial contributions to the general public awareness of the subjects in which they were so actively involved.

But wait! There's a reason they say "Substantiate or suffocate". If you're refusing to substantiate something that is so clearly a legitimate historical event, that belies your very claim in itself. If you're going to refuse to play by the very rules that define logical debate, then don't bother with your condescension and insults. Look at Cogito - s/he has absolutely no problem substantiating his/her claims. And then there's you...doing your very best to remain arrogant and aloof without any reason to be so. Looks like you're running out of air - fast.

Stop digging while you can still climb out...with a little help.

The burden of proof cannot be established in theology. If Noah's flood is nothing but deception then it is either a lie or theory. If the Hebrew tribes were not enslaved in Egypt then that also is bogus and is either a lie or theory. I can prove neither of those events but I can believe those events. Belief in a Creator and proof of a Creator are altogether two different sources of the mind. Once it becomes proof then it is no longer theory and that is where I and the entire world is at this day. To argue events can only lead to suppositions and hatred with no solution.

Am I to understand that you claim that, should your beliefs be substantiated, the essence of their original purpose will be lost in the midst of the scientific validation? This, to my mind, is nothing short of a logical quandary. The more empirically valid an idea becomes, the less spiritually significant it becomes. Does something have to be impossible to have meaning? Does something have to be completely unfounded and irrational to be qualified as a spiritual omen?

If such is the case, then Christianity is the art of irrationality and you have just admitted it.

Textnoahs flood is the most documented ancient event in history in all cultures, so that is not disputed...but it is also not original to the bible, so it is not a valid point when trying to prove the bible is 100% true...

reply to post by studythem1


Much of what you have blogged is true in my opinion. There is much to be revealed in biblical comprehension. I also agree as to the flood of Noah whether it was local or world wide. I have a tendency to believe that if there was this flood of Noah it could very well have been a local event. Some of the animal species could have been gathered from that area and could account for the boat being large enough to accommodate what existed in that particular area. I have great difficulty in believing that the entire world species of birds and animals could be gathered and cared for in the span of one year and in one container. That and the labor of eight people trying to feed and care for the entire species of this world is fantastic in itself.

Text and if we go further into the christian age, we find that constantine further hijacked anything of real spiritual and altruistic value and made that into a state religion of tyranny modeled after the jewish tyranny of the sanhedrin...

I absolutely agree with that statement 100 % -- Modern religion will not recognize the true first Christian church which was the Jerusalem church. The first Christians were Jewish with Hebrew liturgy and the Jerusalem church existed under its own doctrine for about 130 years or so. You have hit that nail on the head with absolute truth.

reply to post by studythem1

this is just but a few examples of why the bible cannot be believed at face value, and if we go further into the christian age, we find that constantine further hijacked anything of real spiritual and altruistic value and made that into a state religion of tyranny modeled after the jewish tyranny of the sanhedrin...

Constantine didn't hijack anything, anymore than the White House hijacked the constitution when they started making amendments:

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:

"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art" (ibid.). "These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

Text Oh, good. I mean, it's obviously so unreasonable to hold you to the same standards as hundreds of renowned scientists who have demonstrated their understanding and expertise through documented research and experiments with conclusive results and substantial contributions to the general public awareness of the subjects in which they were so actively involved. But wait! There's a reason they say "Substantiate or suffocate". If you're refusing to substantiate something that is so clearly a legitimate historical event, that belies your very claim in itself. If you're going to refuse to play by the very rules that define logical debate, then don't bother with your condescension and insults. Look at Cogito - s/he has absolutely no problem substantiating his/her claims. And then there's you...doing your very best to remain arrogant and aloof without any reason to be so. Looks like you're running out of air - fast. Stop digging while you can still climb out...with a little help.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


@ Afterinfinity

Now there you go again blowing a gasket. Settle down and join the living.

If you recall I have never ever blogged the assumption that I could prove the bible. You will never see this in this thread simply because I have never ever even suggested that I could prove any theology. In fact I have repeatedly
been forthright in saying that you can never prove theology. Now I will repeat this to you for the last time. You nor I can prove theology. You nor I can prove theology. How many more time do I have to say this before you will understand that there is no man, woman, or child that can prove theology. Not even the most brilliant scientist can prove theology. That is why there are theoretical scientists as as well as teachers of theology.

These hundreds of so called scientists that you claim can prove theology is in your imagination. Quite frankly you do not know what you are talking about. Once a scientist proves his or her model it then moves into the realm of fact. Not theology but fact. That means that there are two schools of thought involved in a model. One is provable and the other theory. So don't get all upset over something that you do not seem to understand.

When you demand that someone prove biblical theology, you do not know what you are talking about. Now if a person declares that he or she can prove a portion of the bible then you have the right to demand that proof from that person who declares that knowledge. Now go back through this thread and quote me as to saying that I can prove the bible or any other theology. If you should want me to discuss theological aspects of the bible then say so and state the portion that you want discussed but not be arrogant with hatred and name calling that incites nothing but ignorance.

Most scholars of biblical knowledge have devoted many years in this field of theology and facts but do not claim to be able to prove any of the spiritual aspects of the bible. As far as the archaeological aspects of the bible are concerned there is also great division among themselves because this field is also divided into provable and theological aspects. So for you to demand proof of the bible is funny and yet pathetic. You could not live long enough to be taught even the theological portions of the bible much less comprehend the factual archaeological portions. Don't be so full of yourself and let hatred override common sense.