Here is an old, but interesting story. It should be a familiar story to our Christian readers. Deanna Laney was commanded by God to stone her children to death as poof of her devotion to Him. Unlike the Biblical story of Abraham, God didn’t pull any punches at the last minute. He did not stop Laney from hitting her sons, ages 8, 6, and 1, with rocks weighing up to 14 pounds. Maybe He was out of sacrificial goats to use as replacements. She fulfilled God’s will by killing the two eldest, but failed Him by only permanently injuring the one-year-old. Perhaps that is why He abandoned her to the Texas ‘justice’ system.
While this story is not new, I recently had a couple of thoughts regarding this issue. First, how is Laney’s claim that God spoke to her any different from Akiane Kramarik’s claim? Christians cannot claim that God would never command a parent to perform such a horrendous act because He’s done it before. If the two situations are any different, what is the criteria? How are we to determine the validity of future claims of messages from God?
Secondly, since Laney ended using an insanity plea, how do we know that Abraham wasn’t suffering from similar delusions? Maybe, like Laney, Abraham only thought that God told him to kill Isaac. Claiming he was crazy would certainly go a long way to removing this problematic feature of Christian theology. Then again, it would admit that there is an error in the Bible.
–Sidfaiwu
No related posts.
You can’t have faith in something might change all the time, so as you said theories could change, but god never change.
Just to let you know something, I don’t read any of the wikipedia links, I don’t trust Wikipedia, I don’t like to read user writting and fantasis, based on wishings and dreams.
Man with out beleif is an empty man, what are you here for in this life, is it working and eating and drinking, is it any purpose for your existence, or it’s just happend, have you ever thought about, and if you thought about, did you read about it, and see what options out there to explain what you are here for in this life, or it’s just life you are going to spend it with no purpose.
That’s why Gasonmo felt the way he is feeling now, the way he can’t explain, the emptiness in his life, even though as he mentioned he has every thing any man could hope for, but it still something missing, the purpose why is he here for.
I didn’t want to jump on this topic when he mentioned it, but that’s the truth, if you forget god, god will make you forget your self, he will make you confused.
“You can’t have faith in something might change all the time, so as you said theories could change, but god never change.”
Good, so don’t ever say: “Stop being ignorant, and don’t forget that you beleive in fairy tales(evolution and big bang)” again, because you know it’s a lie!
As to your unsubtle attempt to change the subject.
I don’t believe in god and I have a great life. I know many people who also don’t believe in god and have a great life. So, you using Gasmonso as evidence, without any proof as to why he is having a funk is just wishfull thinking on your part. You have no proof that it’s because he doesn’t believe in god. It’s quite sad how religious people use other’s suffering as proof that they are somehow in command of a truth. Like those guys who said the recent college shootings in Virginia were proof that god was angry that he’d been kicked out of the classroom. As if you could kick an all powerful god out any place. Silly.
Brian, dont you see? It’s because god gave us free will that we have pushed him out of the classrooms. So god sent an unbalanced college student into the world to set it all straight by killing innocent fellow college students. Man, that is some sick logic, however iv heard it more than a few times on my college campus(NCSU is a lot like VT and not to far away). I really wish all the best to the survivors of that tragedy and hope that this changes their lives for the better in the end. The most powerful story that came out of this was a professor giving his life to save those of his students. This man survived the Holocaust, he survived against an entire country wanting to kill his kind, all so that he would be murdered is cold blood by a sick little prick. What god would let that happen?
Sorry for not being on lately, just wrapping up exams. Plus most of the fundies seem to have disappeared.
Maybe not, but humanities view of god has changed A LOT over time.
Why does life have to have a purpose? This is where most religious nuts go wrong. You asume, most egocentrically, that life has to have a purpose, your mind simply cannot grasp that the world is not about you.
If you need comfirmation of life in the form of God, then that is a weakness in YOUR character. If you need to hide from real life, in the feeling that God wants good for you and that everything will be fine, then go ahead and hide in religion, we don’t mind.
However, when you call us empty and sad (clearly not the case, i’ve never been happier since i left church and christianity behind me) I have to say that you are obviously wrong, and know nothing at all about humanity.
Heh, I almost dated one, until she asked if I was “A good catholic guy” When it turned out she was serious, I ran like hell.
“Why does life have to have a purpose?”
Alcari, its very simple, as humans our purpose is to continue and further the progress of mankind. This is the same with all other animals for that matter. So its not that we dont have a purpose, its just that our real purpose isnt good enough for them.
Pseudonym,
you say “I think it’s intellectually dishonest when a small minority of secular historians and prehistorians (usually armchair historians) treat Judeo-Christian religious texts differently from any other work of ancient mythology.”
So, you accuse people of being intellectually dishonest and when I respond to that, you belittle my answer by saying “that was not the question asked”. If that’s not dishonest, it’s disingenuous.
Then you go on, being more dismissive: “BTW, I suspect that you don’t actually believe that the stakes are high. I know I don’t.” Let me explain why I believe that they are very high, although I suspect that you’re a troll. People organize bible study groups all the time. The bible is quoted to them every time they go to church, and by every bible thumper. Fundies (many of them in the bible belt here) believe firmly in what is written in it. The characters in the bible are used to indoctrinate us from early childhood, with story books, etc… Then these people go and make political and ethical decisions, they vote, make laws, and judges smuggle monuments to the 10 commandments in the courtroom with religious fervor (real event). To suggest that the accuracy of the bible doesn’t matter is disingenuous, when it makes such extravagant claims and people believing in it almost word for word have such a great influence on our world. And finally, because the accuracy of that book is not questioned openly and often enough, you get people doing copy-cat crimes, sacrificing their children and whatnot without understanding that they are committing a crime. If those are not high enough stakes, I’d like to know what you think are.
Then don’t get me started on Sharia law: an entire legislative system ruling the lives of millions, based on the interpretation of another old book that could be a complete fantasy. So, I believe it is evident that all religious books that carry power in our lives should be held to greater standards of evidence, due to that very power, whether they are from the “Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion” or any other religion.
You say:
“The suggestion that the question of the existence of Abraham requires two pieces of evidence is, quite frankly, obtuse. You’re lucky to get one piece of evidence at all.”
To get back to the original post, the question is not whether or not someone named Abraham existed; it’s whether or not there really was someone ordered to sacrifice his children to God, by God himself, as some kind of sick test of his faith, who was going to do that, and who got spared at the last minute by God’s intervention. Why doesn’t that happen all the time anymore? If it was a just thing to do then why isn’t it now? Or did God make a mistake? Or is this story pure fantasy, or the telling of the story of a psychopath, serving as a justification for yet more psychos?
Mohamed Says:
“The evidence again, that Muhammed told the stories in Quran and it’s the same prophets that the bible mentioned, he didn’t know how to read, nor how to write…”
Huh, thanks for trying to explain it. That doesn’t make sense to me, however. I find it somewhat humorous and sad that I must appear as obtuse to you as you appear to me (this is not meant as an insult).
It doesn’t make sense to you, because you don’t want to think about it, you don’t want to think how his stories about the prophet which came in Quran matched the bible.
You are going to say he might heard it and he fooled people with it, but would that be reasonable?, if somebody want to fool somebody, I think he would get his own stories and compete with the bible, but it’s all from God, so there is no competetion, he was just telling what comes to him from God.
I know it’s not going to make sense to you again.
@Mohamed
If a man writes a book then says “I couldn’t read or write, but now I can, by magic of god! So I wrote book, but I didn’t copy, promise! It is the same by magic of god!”
2 possibilities are:
#1. He can write by magic of god
…or…
#2. He is lying crazy guy
What do you think?
And… “I didn’t copy, honest, it was miracle” – sounds exactly same like every lazy university student who copies!!!
That is NOT proof. You are smart guy, come on, you know in your heart that, even if there is proof, THIS is not it…
sorry, #2 is vague – I should say
#2. He is crazy guy who learned to read the normal way but wants to tell lies about it
so you mean to tell me that “the prophet” taking a highly successful (already was at that point) religion model and copying it, is somehow unlikely and hard to believe? what better way to give one self “credibility” than to claim one is the last (ever) prophet in a long line of other “holy” prophets. if i was to start a religion, thats exactly what i’d do…
mohammed, i have a bridge to sell you. god told me you need a bridge… interested? think about it, i know nothing about bridges. truly a miracle…
Plagiarism is rife with religious texts and as any good salesman knows. Selling a new, unknown product with little commonality with the crowd is a hard sell. Where upon a product with ties to existing product is easier to sell as people respond more positively to something which has been tested and found usable.
It does not have to be the same product but it has to be similar so people are familiar enough with it. Familiarity breeds contentment.
We could also debate which parts of the bible were not already plagiarized by Christians from other cultures, would be a short to non-existent list but that is not the point.
The point is that there is really nothing confirming that the stories of bible or quran are original but those stories do try to obfuscate the true origin with internal references and various taradiddle with the oh, so willing help from the believers.
Me, I believe Abraham and Laney both were insane but Abraham had the good fortune to have some servant bold enough to stop him from killing his son. Deranged mind transformed that servant into an angel.
I find it highly peculiar that god who talks to people never seem to talk them out of silly acts or just tell them to stop acting like twits but keeps sending angels to do the stopping.
to make a short translation of what jagannath said, and what is our biggest problem with the bible and quran.
There is nothing that proves the books are true, other then what is written in the books themselves
Ah, well my sentiments can be composed with elect words as Alcari has established here. :)
Not sure if this was covered, but God actually did allow this in the bible:
Judges 10:6-12:7. The story of his daughter’s sacrifice is covered in Judges 11:29-40.
So, let’s not think that God won’t allow anyone to go all the way.
Actually Jephthah decided it himself to sacrifice the first living thing coming to meet him after he returned victorious, that was not required by the god. Not really comparable with Abrahams story where god told him to go and sacrifice his son.
God does allow and disallow sacrifices in the bible and that is the root of the problems. One would expect to make his mind of such issue instead of dilly dallying around it.
Alcari,
“There is nothing that proves the books are true, other then what is written in the books themselves”?
So, are the places, people and events mentioned in the Bible all made up? Were the apostles fictional characters or real people? If they were real people, why on earth would they commit their lives to spreading the “made up” story of the resurection? Why endure constant ridicule, abuse, arrests, and finally death for what they must have known was a lie?
Boris,
If you read enough, christinity wasn’t spread at the area where Muhammed raised, so there is nothing to copy from.
Muhammed didn’t write by him self, Muhammed was telling it and Osman write it down for him.
Muhammed didn’t know any thing about any other reiligions, the only thing he didn’t do, that he didn’t worship idols like his people, other than that he had no knowledge of any other religion.
Does the Koran teach that Muhammed died?
Also, I believe that large portions of the Koran seem to have been taken directly from the Torah.
The Quran teach that Muhammed is just human being he was chosen and he is the best human being came to this earth, so human being mean he also died.
We beleive in Torah and Bible and Quran, Muslim can’t be a Muslims with out beleive in the three messages, Torah and Bible change by people through the time, but it still has the god word in most part of it, while Quran didn’t change.
The other thing Quran is written differntly than the Torah and the Bible, Torah and Bible wrote by people after Moses died and after Jesus lifting to the sky(he didn’t die yet), but the Quran has been written as Muhammed said after revlation in his life.
@mohammed
how exactly do you know that he had no knowledge of other religions? islam is so similar to other abrahamic mythology that there are only two explanations: plagiarism or divine influence. i don’t need to tell you which one is infinitely unlikely.
@Doug:
You have to be joking. If, as I interpret from this, you are a christian, then you hold hinduism, islam, sihkism etc all to be lies, and yet you see these people on the TV news doing exactly what you say the appostles did. You think they “must know” it’s a lie? Or not? Yet early christians would be different???
How is that an argument????
uhh, all the places, most of the people and some events in the last Tom Clancy novel are real. Does that make it thruth?
@Mohamed:
Muhammed didn’t write by him self, Muhammed was telling it and Osman write it down for him.
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that – sorry for my ignorant presumption…
But it doesn’t change anything, what you are describing, these days, is called “academic collusion” or “conspiracy to fraud”….. So if we have Osman saying “it wasn’t me, honest, it was all him”, and Mohamed saying “yeah, what he said”… that’s pretty weak evidence for god-magic.
Also, what about Islam people today who can’t read, but hear Islam only from the Mullah? So if Mohamed can’t read but knows about Jewish religion, then I think perhaps then the similarities show Mohamed was sneaking off into the Synagog to worship with the Jews! Well ok… I know that’s not a very nice idea, but still, what would make that so impossible?
So still we have:
Observation: Someone says a book came from god-magic
Possible causes:
1) They saw some god-magic
or
2) They are lying
Like I said before – and you are too smart not to know it – there might be evidence, but THIS is not evidence.
Lets see, christianity had been around for nearly 700 years at the time of quran was written but for some reason rumours and knowledge of it had managed to skip by the lands of muhammed.
Seriously, claiming that no one knew of christianity or judaism in medina makes it look really bad for the society and I for one am not ready to believe the arabs of that time were as ignorant as claims like that would require them to be.
They would not admit of borrowing texts from others but claiming that they just managed to avoid the myths of their own homeland and new teachings being spread around and then wrote near identical holy book to existing ones borders ridiculous and I for one cannot believe it.
Today you can be a muslim without believing in any of the holy books as you are born to a society where converting to other religion or to forsaking religion is impossible without moving to a country where it is possible and even then you are in danger of being targeted by some true believer.
Jagannath,
There was Christians around and there were Jews around too, but they didn’t dare to invite people to their religion, because the people wouldn’t let them do that. Mecca was the pilgrimage for a lot of people who worship idols, which brought them business, so nobody dared to change this fact(Christians or Jews).
Again, if people treat Christians so bad in ME, that’s not Islam, it’s from the ignorance of Muslims, not from Islam.
By the way I was in Egypt, and I visited the Alexandrian catacombs, it’s really amazing place to see, I lived in Alexandria for 25 years, I didn’t know such place exists, thanks for my wife, you can see how the Roman tortured Christian in this place. Here is the link if you want to see the pictures, and one of the pictures for Hall Of Caracalla Remembrance To Christians Killed in Alexandria’s Amphitheater.
Islam saved Christians from the Roman, the evidence in this link if you want to check the web site http://www.delange.org/Catacombs/EP8.htm.
Any way you can visit the web site, it’s really amazing place to see, I was so amazed how this people build this thing, and how they buried their dead people, and how civilized and organized they were, by the way this place now is under the modern city of Alexandria, where they had to dig so deep to show this place.
I’m sorry if I got off topic here, but it something I wanted to share with you, and I think it proves how the Christian were prosecuted under the Roman and who saved them, and it was Islam but different Muslims than what you see now, so the Islam is right and the Muslims now is wrong.
recovered catholic,
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I just got home.
The difference between the Hindus, Muslims, and others who die for their beliefs today and the apostles is huge. Someone may die today for what they believe to be true but no one will die for what they know to be a lie. The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection and they went to their deaths affirming that claim. Not something most would be willing to do for a made up incident.
Oh, and Alcari, are you aware of anyone who believes that Tom Clancy is writing non-fiction?
Sorry, Doug, but I still don’t see a difference. Would you mind elaborating a little more please? Also, how do we know the apostles were martyred and for what reason?
sidfaiwu,
A person may be sincere in their religious belief and may even die for that belief, even though it may actually be false. The apostles however, claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection. If they were fabricating the story, it is inconceivable that they would face a lfe of persecution, arrest, and ultimately death for what they knew was a lie. Could they keep the conspiricy going? Does that seem reasonable? It’s not like they had anything to gain by spreading this crazy sounding story about Jesus. What was their motivation? What changed them from cowardly followers of a dead rabi to bold proclaimers of an impossible sounding claim?
As far as the apostles deaths go, there are some deaths recorded in the NT, (which you probably won’t consider trustworthy), for instance Acts 12 records the death of James by Herod Agrippa who died in AD 44, the 4th year of Claudius Caesar. Also, early church history records other deaths (which you will also probably find unsuitable).
Just curious, what would it take for you to consider the New Testament reliable?
sidfaiwu,
Hey, I guess I am talking to you on two threads:^) I will stick with this one for the duration. I am off to study algebra and will look for your response in the am. Later.
“Islam saved Christians from the Roman”
Ok, a few dates here. Unless I’m wrong christianity was a separate cult from Judaism in the decades after the supposed crucifixion/resurection thingy. The Christians were persecuted for a few centuries by the romans. Then Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire. All this happened before Mohamed was born. So which christians were saved by Islam? Were they heretics? And secondly, were they forced to pay a tax for not beling muslims and treated as second class citizens to speed up their conversion?
Brian,
Let me tell you the history my friend, when Muhammed shows up, Roman was still in Egypt, and they slaved Christians, you can read the history and you will find me correct, Muslims went to Egypt and they throw the Roman out, and Christian suffering stopped.
Muslims paid Zakat too, there were not taxes at this time, otherwise I shouldn’t pay taxes in USA because I’m not Christian, if that’s your logic.
Christians didn’t convert because of what you mentioned, Christians converted for what they found are true, and they found Muslim mercifull with them, that’s why, you can’t change somebody’s beleif by money, Both parts pay money, Zakat couldn’t be for non-Muslim.
I’m afraid you are going to accuse me that I’m liar again :) just kidding.
By the way GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO UTAH JAZZZZZZZZZZZ(off Topic).
The Roman Empire under emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion. He died in 337. So any romans in Egypt at the time of the Islamic conquest would have been christian. It is possible that the christians you refer to were Coptic not orthodox. But they were still christians just like the romans. In fact I think you’ll find the romans were actually byzantine greeks. The muslims didn’t go to Egypt to throw out the Greeks, they did it to expand the muslim territories.
The tax I was refering to was the “Jiyza”, which only non muslims living in a muslim country pay. And non believers have to acknoledge the supremacy of Islam and not convert anyone to their religion. I think anyway. I’m sure you’ll correct me.
Hello Mohammed. You really have your history mixed up. Christianity flourished across North Africa in the six centuries before your prophet, but the persecution of the Roman Ceasars ended with Constantine in the early 4th Century, four centuries before the beginning of Islam. When Islam subjugated the North African church, the Christians became second class citizens and were prohibited to practice freely, if not forced to convert. Also, North African Islam has always practiced the evil of slavery even to this day.
All too often the Islam that is preached in the West is sanitized to make it more platatable. If you would look at the history of your religion from *outside* of Islamic sources, including the history of the Quran and your prophet, you might get a clearer picture.
Hello Doug,
Forgive for taking a while to respond. I’m actually entertaining a guest all week so my participation will be intermittent, I’m afraid.
So the difference between the apostles and other religion’s martyrs is that they were eye witnesses? Okay, I can give more credence to firsthand accounts than secondhand or more. But that is precisely the issue I have with the accounts of the apostle’s deaths and the NT. The earliest copies of the New Testament that we have were written over 300 years after the life of Jesus. These have probably been copied, interpreted, and translated numerous times. Worse yet, these copies were not used to create our moder New Testament, inferior copies were. These where then copied, interpreted, and translated numerous times. The conclusion that I draw from this is that is that the miraculous elements of the New Testament were added slowly and incrementally over the centuries by parties who had an interest in adding them. This would especially be the case if the stories were passed down orally for a few generations before making into writing.
I admit that I am no biblical historian and can easily be mistaken on some of what I wrote. I have only talked with people who have a lot more knowledge on the subject than I and read some online information. So please, don’t take my word for it. Instead read up on Biblical history and make your own conclusion how reliable the NT is.
“Just curious, what would it take for you to consider the New Testament reliable?”
Separate, written, eye-witness accounts from multiple and separate parties that can conclusively be tied to the location and time of the eye-witnesses. Some of the witnesses would have to be non-believers as well.
Hey Sidfaiwu,
I believe that you are a bit off as far as NT manuscript dates go. You can look at some early NT papyri such as p52(John Rylands Fragment)125 A.D., p46
(Chester Beatty Papyrus) 200 A.D., p66(Bodmer Papyrus) 200 A.D. These are some pretty good examples of early manuscripts. Especially p45 p46 p47 p66 p75 of the Chester Beatty Papyrus group which contains almost all of the New Testament and is dated around 200 A.D. The originals are thought to have been written between 50 and 70 A.D. Even though these papyri are from different geographical areas, they are very good copies with only minor grammatical differences between them and the numerous other copies of the text (aprox. 24,000).
I will also admit that I am not an expert in the field of Biblical textual criticism, but I do think that there is some compelling evidence for the New Testament’s reliability which should be seriously considered before casually dismissing it as myth or well intentioned exageration. The scribes thought that they were copying God’s word and were very careful as the ancient manuscripts prove.
Perhaps you would consider reading “The New Testament Documents, are they reliable?” by F.F. Bruce. It is only about 12 chapters and you can read it here: http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
As for non-believing witnesses of the same time and location, have you considered the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120)? In his “Annals” he writes about Nero’s persecution of Christians and he names “Christus” as the founder of their group who “…was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius…” He goes on to make an allusion to the resurrection by writing about the “…pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again…through the city of Rome also.” (Annals XV, 44)
There are more examples, but for now, algebra calls:^0
I will give serious thought to your points and I hope you will do the same.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Mohamed may be talking about the persecution of the Monophysites (in 629), ten years before the Arabs invaded in 639.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptus_(Roman_province)
———————————————————
relevant parts copied from the wikipedia page
———————————————————
Byzantine Egypt
…
The new religious controversy was over the nature of Jesus Christ. The issue was whether Christ had two natures (Human and Divine) or one. This may seem an arcane distinction, but in an intensely religious age it was enough to divide an empire. The Monophysite controversy arose after the First Council of Constantinople in 381 and continued until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which ruled in favour of the position that Christ was “In two natures”. This belief was not held by the monophysites as they stated that Christ was out of two natures in one nature called the “Incarnate Logos of God”. Many of the monophysites claimed that they were misunderstood, that there was really no difference between their position and the orthodox position, and that the Council of Chalcedon ruled against them because of political motivations. But Egypt and Syria remained hotbeds of Monophysite sentiment, and organised resistance to the orthodox view was not suppressed until the 570s.
The reign of Justinian (482–565) saw the Empire recapture Rome and much of Italy from the barbarians, but these successes left the Empire’s eastern flank exposed.
Persian conquest
The Persian conquest of Egypt, beginning in 619 or 618, was one of the last Sassanid triumphs in the Roman-Persian Wars against Byzantium. Khosrow II Parvêz had begun this war in retaliation for the assassination of Emperor Maurice (582-602) and had achieved a series of early successes, culminating in the conquests of Jerusalem (614) and Alexandria (619). A Byzantine counteroffensive launched by Emperor Heraclius in spring 622 shifted the advantage, however, and the war was brought to an end by the fall of Khosrow on 25 February 628 (Frye, pp. 167-70). The Egyptians had no love of the Emperor in Constantinople and put up little resistance. Khosrow’s son and successor, Kavadh II Šêrôe (Šêrôy), who reigned until September, concluded a peace treaty returning territories conquered by the Sassanids to the Eastern Roman Empire.
The Persian conquest allowed Monophysitism to resurface in Egypt, and when imperial rule was restored by Emperor Heraclius in 629, the Monophysites were persecuted and their patriarch expelled. Egypt was thus in a state of both religious and political alienation from the Empire when a new invader appeared.
Arab conquest
An army of 4,000 Arabs led by Amr ibn al-As, was sent by the Caliph Umar, successor to the Prophet Muhammad, to spread his new faith, Islam, to the west. The Arabs crossed into Egypt from Palestine in December 639, and advanced rapidly into the Nile Delta. The Imperial garrisons retreated into the walled towns, where they successfully held out for a year or more. But the Arabs sent for reinforcements, and in April 641 they captured Alexandria. Most of the Egyptian Christians welcomed their new rulers: the accession of a new regime meant for them the end of the persecutions by the Byzantine state church. The Byzantines assembled a fleet with the aim of recapturing Egypt, and won back Alexandria in 645, but the Muslims retook the city in 646, completing the Muslim conquest of Egypt. Thus ended 975 years of Græco-Roman rule over Egypt.
Hey Hokan, thanks for the info. Mohamed won’t accept it though, because you quoted Wikipedia and he doesn’t trust that source. Just teasing Mohamed ;-)
So, I think we can agree that Islam kicked out the Greeks, who saw themselves as successors of the roman empire?
Hey Doug you say that the papyrii were dated about a century or so after the time Christ is suppossed to have died/resurrected. What dating did they use? Second, it’s still a century after in a superstitious, highly politically charged and largely uneducated society that’s more than enough to make up resurrections and miracles. You only have to look at how quickly the cargo cults of the Pacific islands arose and how remarkably similar they were to the incipient christianity.
Brian,
I guess it would be easier to dismiss the NT if there were not so many accurate ancient manuscripts. The copies, which are dated around 150 A.D., (I’ll get back to you on the dating method used) are nearly complete copies of the entire NT of which fragments dated much earlier match almost exactly.
You mentioned a “superstitious, highly politically charged and largely uneducated society”. Were you talking about people who watch The View?
Also, I really think it’s a big stretch to compare early Christianity to the cargo cults.
One last thing, do you believe that Jesus was a real person?
Hi Doug, I think there we lots of people called Jesus around that time and no doubt a few were radical Jews, preaching some form of modification of the mainstream judaism of that time. So, sure, one or more of the Jesus preachers could’ve been recorded. But the message was massaged and changed so much. Miracles added to impress the superstitious people along the way.
It’s very much like the cargo cults. Within a few years people were waiting for the return of a John Frum, who would give them great material rewards. There is no evidence of this man existing, but don’t tell that to the faithfull. Just like christians waiting for superJesus to return and conquer the bad guys.
And the society of the era was superstitious, they believed in god (or gods if you’re roman), though sickness was caused by demonic possession, etc . It was politically charged as the Romans were supressing the Jews. And largely uneducated, if you weren’t a religious person or roman functionary, you probably didn’t read or know much more than local cultural “wisdom”.
Brian,
Just correction, Muslims didn’t conquer these countries to expand their empror, they did it to spread Islam, that want the only way to do it, like now I don’t thing it’s proper to do it this way, because there is a lot of ways to do it, communication now make it easier for people to hear about Islam, you have the media every where, you have the internet.
Muslims didn’t force Islam on any body, they conquer these countries to just tell there is religion called Islam, people stayed in Christinity, no body heard that Muslims tortured Christian to enter Islam.
You are right about Jizyah, but do you think it was wrong thing to do, especially when Muslim pay Zakat too?
I really don’t like Wikipedia, I’m sorry for my feeling for it, I know there are people objective about what they are writting, but I don’t trust that all people are.
I’m always skeptical about what I read, even when I read to sheikh, I have to think about what I’m reading, and if this sheikh didn’t make sense in what he wrote, I don’t even read to him again, and you can apply this to a lot of things that I read, sports and computer and other politics, the only one is not objective and I really like to hear him is Bill o’rally, because he really amazes me, he knows that he is lying and he is still lying.
The other thing that I want to indicate to here, that why always Jewish supressed from somebody?, is not werid?
Brian, your opinion doesn’t have foundation in fact. The documentry evidence for the reliability of the NT writings far outstrips any other ancient writings. It is such that to consistently deny it one has to deny the evidence for all the classical writings also. The science of textual criticism has established a 99+% accuracy of reconstruction of the original texts. There is nothing missing from those texts and where there are variants, no real difficulties arise as to probable meaning. The information available is massive.
The kind of theories you propose have no basis in historical fact. It sounds more like 19th Century theories that were created in a sceptical yet factual vacuum and have long been debunked. Yet these myths persist in this so-called enlightened age because people want them to. If you consider yourself a free thinking person, follow the evidence where it leads. Mohamed accepts what he has been told as true; are you not also following the opinions of pop secularism?
@Neando
Which branch of textual criticism gives the 99+% accuracy? Eclecticism, Stemmatics, Copy-text or Cladistics? I am asking this as the highest score I know is, 83,5% by United Bible Societies, admittedly that number is from few years back but it probably has not changed that much.
One has to remember that textual reliability does not equal historical reliability, merely how well the original text has been preserved.
Harry Gamble put it better than I can,
@Pseudonym
I personally have issues with Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and I cannot really suggest anyone to use it as basis for evaluating the story of abraham.
Kierkegaard separated ethics and faith to autonomous concepts and even allowed to use faith as means to be elevated above the law. I do admire Kierkegaards battle for individuality against the Hegelian unity concept but on this issue, I believe he dropped the ball. Maybe it was due his personal issues of the time.
If one is to use great authors in regards of abraham then perhaps one should consider Kant.
This would be much more feasible interpretation of the whole issue of a talking god, who is for some reason overly fond or dialog instead of public speaking.
Also, assuming the existence of god and the story of abraham, then one comes to a conclusion that the whole situation is all bent out of shape to start with.
Why would a god, omniscient god need the act of sacrifice to know the depths of Abrahams faith? God would know it already and this leads to a thought that faith was not in the test but understanding.
Bible makes it seem so that Abraham had a direct line to god and they had a personal relationship, he if any should know what god wanted but the sacrifice test showed that he had no clue of gods desires. God was forced to stop him from destroying the grand-sire of gods chosen people.
This is peculiar also as story says an angel stopped Abraham but why? If god is omnipotent why he did not stop Abraham directly? God who loves parting seas and burning bushes decides that on this occasion grandstanding is bad taste?
I still do believe that Abraham was insane as are any who perform such acts in name of god or any other authority figure.
Hi Mohamed, how are you today?
“Muslims didn’t conquer these countries to expand their empror, they did it to spread Islam”
Couldn’t the have sent a few envoys? Maybe a few muslims to live in a town and demonstrate that Islam was better than conquering? Would seem a better way to me. Worked for the early christians.
“Muslims didn’t force Islam on any body”
That’s not true Mohamed, many people were given the choice, die or convert.
“You are right about Jizyah, but do you think it was wrong thing to do”
Why should they pay any different to muslims? They were humans after all.
I didn’t quite get your comment about Jews. Can you repeat please?
Hi Neando, Jagannath said it for me already. :-)
@Brian,
“That’s not true Mohamed, many people were given the choice, die or convert.”
Only true for non abrahamic religion followers(atheists included of course). Those of an abrahamic religion were treated (according to the standards of that time) well.
“Why should they pay any different to muslims? They were humans after all.”
This one sparked my curiosity actually… Moslems claim that Jiziah is and Zakat are just two different names for taxes(one is payed by a moslem because he believes in god, the other is protection money since the infidel lives in a moslem country), but I have never actually seen how this stuff was payed… Zakat is easy: 2.5% of the money you have if it meets certain conditions. How was/is Jiziah payed?
@mohammed
i just love your comment about islamic conquerings of the time. it demonstrates one very important principle of most religions: manipulating people to believe that imperialism has some divine purpose. the american equivalent began with manifest destiny, and to this day many xtian americans believe USA is somehow chosen by god for whatever. mohammed, you’ve already demonstrated (with some of your comments on science, as well ‘black magic’, spirits and all that nonsense) a grave lack of education.
there was *nothing* altruistic about islamic empires of the time, the conquer of other countries happened solely for the purpose of widening the sphere of influence for the ruling class. believers like you were used as a tool. had you lived in those times you would be more than happy to pick up a spear and go convert them infidels.
in western countries, most people will admit that their respective countries’ imperial times were not their proudest moments and were wrong on many levels (there are exceptions to that i.e. neo-nazis in germany, but they tend to be in minority). in contrast, muslims believe that they were conquering for betterment of man kind. what BS! what would you say to someone who claimed the crusades happened to the benefit of muslims? same rationale…