At what age did you come to realize that God/Devil/Heaven/Hell/Angels/Demons are all man-made fairy tales?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I'll attempt at using an analogy here. Imagine a door that is locked shut. You have two people on the outside facing that door (make that three people). One says he believes there is nothing beyond that door. Another says he believes that there is something beyond that door and goes as far as saying it must be something good. The third person says he's not sure and that it is impossible to know for sure either way.

In that analogy - which of the three do you think represents the atheist?

The problem is to make this analogy accurate, none of the three can see the door. One claims it is there, the second says not sure but understands the first claims there is a door, the third sees no door, no evidence of a door and logically concludes there is indeed no door.

Which one is the Christian?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's testimony. Whether you choose to accept it as evidence is your choice. If you want to tell folks that the patriarchs of their religions are all liars, then feel free to do so.

It's a book for crying out loud. Get over it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's a book for crying out loud. Get over it.

Why does that particular book frighten you so?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Why does that particular book frighten you so?

Because it's scary when a book has that much influence over the sheep...especially when those same sheep turn deadly time to time.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Because it's scary when a book has that much influence over the sheep...especially when those same sheep turn deadly time to time.

So, we can say the same thing about Earth in the Balance?

[chri'stina 190]

I think that even if someone doesn't believe in the supernatural aspect of what the Bible says, some of it is historical. I took a Biblical Archaeology class in (secular) college. They have used bible passages to find locations of buried cities that existed during a particular time period. Also, religions mentioned being practiced in the old testament, artifacts found prove those in the areas mentioned.

I wouldn't think there would be much doubt as to whether an Abraham existed, but there could be doubt about what he experienced with God. I don't believe the tenets of Islam, yet I don't deny that Mohammad existed. I just don't agree with what he said. How about even further back than Jesus, Buddha. I believe he existed. But I don't agree with his views.

People wrote down things in books to pass along the information. And non-religious(well, I mean not a religious leader) people like Alexander the Great, we rely on written accounts about that. Should we forget every written account of events outside of our own lifetime? No. We can just disagree with what the people experienced.

Edited November 23, 2010 by chri'stina

[chri'stina 190]

It's testimony. Whether you choose to accept it as evidence is your choice. If you want to tell folks that the patriarchs of their religions are all liars, then feel free to do so.

If people don't believe what the patriarchs said, then of course they find them liars. That's understandable. But to completely deny that they existed at all is a stretch, IMO.

[mawilson 2,133]

But there is. If a person takes the position that they believe there is no God, regardless of whether they can prove it, they are no different from someone who believes there is a God. Both are unprovable positions of the same coin.

That's a silly argument. I believe lots of things do not exist; but I can't prove

for example that there's no invisible cat from another planet in my living room right

now watching me type this. How's believing that something DOESN'T exist equivalent

to believing that something DOES exist, assuming there's no evidence to prove either?

[mawilson 2,133]

God has spoken to many over the centuries and continues to do to this day.

No doubt - and we now have a scientific explanation for that. It's called "hallucinations",

which are often caused by brain tumors.

If you start hearing voices, I strongly recommend you see a medical professional immediately.

[Ban Hammer 13,669]

If you start hearing voices, I strongly recommend you see a medical professional immediately.

says the talking gecko....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why does that particular book frighten you so?

Why would you think that it frightens me? It doesn't frighten me at all. It is, as I said, just a book.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's a silly argument. I believe lots of things do not exist; but I can't prove

for example that there's no invisible cat from another planet in my living room right now watching me type this. How's believing that something DOESN'T exist equivalent to believing that something DOES exist, assuming there's no evidence to prove either?

Better hope that cat doesn't fancy geckos.

[Amby 490]

No doubt - and we now have a scientific explanation for that. It's called "hallucinations",

which are often caused by brain tumors.

If you start hearing voices, I strongly recommend you see a medical professional immediately.

[scandal 951]

I think that even if someone doesn't believe in the supernatural aspect of what the Bible says, some of it is historical. I took a Biblical Archaeology class in (secular) college. They have used bible passages to find locations of buried cities that existed during a particular time period. Also, religions mentioned being practiced in the old testament, artifacts found prove those in the areas mentioned.

I wouldn't think there would be much doubt as to whether an Abraham existed, but there could be doubt about what he experienced with God.

I agree with you _partly_ on the above, not entirely.

The Bible (I'll refer here only to the Old Testament - I'm Jewish and really have almost no familiarity or interest in the NT), is indeed, in parts, a book of mythology, a book of factual history, a book of records, a book of ethics and civics, and a book of law. It is all of those things.

For example, much of Leviticus is a codification of civil and criminal law, as well as ritual law - which animals to be sacrificed on which occasions on which altar by which priests to atone for which sins of the people - that sort of thing. Those instructions and laws were absolutely followed very precisely by the people of the kingdoms of Israel and Judea during the period 1000BCE-586BCE, when it ended at the Babylonian conquest.

As to the historical record, I think it's very important to distinguish between the primary historical figures among the Kings, Judges and Prophets who lived in the Kingdoms of Israel/Judea, versus the Biblical figures who "lived" prior to that. The early Judean kings Saul, David, Solomon - are quite possibly real historical figures. The later kings - e.g. Josiah, Hezekiah were absolutely real people, and their recorded Biblical exploits are probably more fact than fiction. There is compelling archeological and independent historical verification of the Kingdom and we know many of the dates quite precisely from corroborating Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek records.

However, the Biblical figures that predate the Kingdoms are mythological. I refer to virtually all the figures of the Pentateuch. Adam, Noah, the patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. the 12 sons of Jacob, Joseph's sons Menashe and Ephraim, Moses and Aaron, Joshua - and all the stories surrounding these characters - were (and are) the mythology created by the inhabitants of Judea to explain their own origins and coming to the Land. There is absolutely no independent corroboration of an Abram who wandered from Ur Casdim, of a sacrifice of Isaac, of Esau or Ishmael, or of Joseph being sold into bondage into Egypt only to be joined there by his brothers and becoming the kernel of the Israelites, or of Moses receiving the Law at Sinai. This entire part of the story is our mythology - what my people's ancestors told THEMSELVES was their own origin as a people. For good measure - they tossed in yet earlier mythology about Noah and the flood and Adam and Eve to predate their own genesis as a people.

The way to think of it is: a tribe of people is in the Land, circa 1100BC. They've wandered in, nomads tending their flocks. They settle down. There are other tribes there (Canaanites, Jebusites, etc.) and a turf war breaks out. The newcomers settle down, get comfortable, obtain a sense of permanence, but are still treated as outsiders by the locals. A few decades go by, the older generations die off, the younger generation, still feeling foreign, wants to create a sense of belonging. They start telling themselves stories of where they've come from, how did they come to the Land, why they feel they have a claim to it (God gave it to Abraham). They create those stories in a dim past, generations before their time. Those stories stick, and become part of an oral tradition handed down, a social glue amongst the tribes. Eventually the distinction between reality and stories is smudged. Meanwhile, they start recording their own histories - real histories of their own time. So now you have a record that is a work of fiction from the period prior to the real people, mixed with the actual story of the real people, all written down on parchments by many different authors (J, E, P, D, Redactor, plus the authors of Neviim/Ketubim). At the time - probably some would have known that parts were fiction and parts were fact. But now fast forward a few more centuries, toss in a Babylonian and then a Roman exile, and all that's left is a book that everyone takes to be literal truth, every last word.

Until the 19th century, when finally some proper scientific analysis starts to be applied, and the thing begins to be unraveled again in the Documentary Hypothesis.

It's really very analogous to the Legends the ancient Saxons told themselves about mythical King Arthur and his Knights, Camelot and the Round Table. Arthur and Gwenevere and Lancelot and Gallahad and Merlin were not real people. However the Norman conquest and William the Conqueror were. I bet if you put together a book that had the fables of Camelot mixed together with the stories of the kings of England 1000 years ago, and passed along that book as your historical record, and waited a few more hundred years, at some point people would no longer care whether Arthur was real or not. They'd accept the whole record as a single historical work. That's roughly what the OT is.

[chri'stina 190]

Scandal, I will reply without quoting your whole post for space. I appreciate your information. I know we disagree especially on the faith aspect but much of what you wrote was interesting. I don't have the time now with traveling tomorrow and Thanksgiving coming to look more into what you posted, but I will in the future.