its hard to respond because it comes from such a position of presupposition and is such a false analogy,, in my opinion

it is an analogy that implies one would only believe in Jesus to avoid hell, and that their belief is entirely PERSONAL guess work

I think a better analogy is that of the internet,,,lets re write


just imagine, you are in line at Starbucks, and a girl (or guy) says she has a strong personal relationship with Bob. You say "that is so nice, where does he live ??" she replies "somewhere in ohio",

"how long have you known him"...."I have known him ever since the day he emailed me and we started to share personal information"..

."Ohhh, have you ever seen him ??"... "no, he has no webcam and we havent exchanged pictures"....

"Hmmm, why do you feel so strongly about this relationship"..."that is easy, we share so many common values and goals, what he writes me inspired me and picks me up, and we have agreed to meet up eventually

,,,,

get the drift

its all about the validity with which each person holds the source

we are used to the internet, we know that it can be full of misinformation and programs posing as individuals, yet we continue to communicate through it with people we have not yet 'met' in person and develop relationshps with those people

The story of Jesus has documents TWO THOUSAND YEARS OLD which have held up enough to scrutiny as to not have been discarded or proven as untrue,,,the contents make sense on so many levels , though not on all levels to all people

We, some of us, believe in the integrity and EXISTENCE of those who wrote the materials even though we have never and will never 'see' those people

The belief, as has been mentioned so many times in these threads by others, is about a RELATIONSHIP,,,not about trying to avoid hell

Its like assuming that one marries a plastic surgeon so they can get free cosmetic work,,,although it is true in some cases,,,its not so absolutely THE reason that anyone marries a surgeon,,,although it might certainly be an 'added' benefit,, so to speak

double post

Too bad it is 2000 years old. That seems to be the only thing it has going for it because if it was written today it would be torn to shreds and tossed out as ridiculi. (my word)

That is exactly what happened to Paul Twitchell who founded a religion in 1965 called Eckankar, and invented fictional characters of a long unbroken line of "spiritual masters" whom he claimed dated back until before Jesus, and making the claim that these masters were the teachers of Jesus Christ himself during the missing years unaccounted for in the Bible.

A perfect example of tying in the new religion (Eckankar) to the old fables of the Bible to make it somewhat "believable." It also gave it the superiority over Christianity with the claim that Christianity is a "dead" religion because the master "Jesus" is no longer among the living.

How could he have known that the Internet would help to enlighten people world wide and spread the news of his plagiarism of the many books he wrote for his religion.

The story of the truth about Eckankar from a high ranking member is written in a book called Confessions of a God Seeker: The Book That Eckankar Cannot Refute.

DECEPTION, FRAUD & PLAGIARISM EXPOSED
in NEW AGE RELIGION OF ECKANKAR

http://truthabouteckankar.blogspot.com/2007/06/confessions-of-god-seeker-book-that.html

It is an eye-opening book about how religions are created.

I dont believe its simply the means of delivery that has kept the bible viable and valid.


I imagine, it would have to be a huge conspiracy lasting that same two thousand years to not have any indication from that period that it was a hoax, even without internet.


Imagine, these things being written in such a time when there was division and sacrifice and crucifixion. IN such a circumstance, I cant believe there would be not ONE (discovered) contradiction written by others in that time to state that these things didnt happen or werent true.


If I wrote a story today, about how X came to Nevada and was burned at a stake by order of a Judge. I would think that someone who knew the judge, perhaps the judge himself, or someone who was in Nevada when such burning was said to happen, would write or express that they had heard or seen no such thing, or that no such thing has happened.

To me, its amazing that noone from that period seems to have documented that these things DIDNT really happen.

,,,its the flip side of an absence of something seeming SUSPICIOUS

my suspicion is on the other side, that nothing from that period refutes what was claimed to have happened...

That is why I said it was lucky that your religion is 2000 years old. Being that old, witnesses are dead. It would be difficult to refute the actual stories.

According to Paul Twitchell's writings, "Every famous person who ever lived was secretly an Eckist"

"...the Eckankar writings are riddled with fear tactics right out of Scientology and dire threats of what damnation awaits anyone foolish enough to quit. Without the Living Eck Master's guidance, all a person's karma is dumped onto his head and will likely crush the poor soul.

With Christianity, it is the threat of eternal damnation.

Fear tactics are always part of religious cults.

They are always done in a very covert subtle and "loving" way.

Boo!

Don't worry, Jesus loves you. Just don't cross him.

You're not making any sense here Jb. On the one hand you say that you do not argue that someone wrote the Bible and claimed to know Jesus. On the other hand you claim that you're not arguing about what people wrote or what people believe...

So what is it that you're arguing about? What are you rooting around for; what are you looking for?

I said, and I will repeat it again:

Just because it was written, that does not make it true.
Just because some people believe it, that does not make it true.

What about that does not make sense to you?

My argument is that they claim it is true and the evidence (that it is true,) is nonexistent. Some people proclaim and demand it is true.

I don't believe it. I challenge it. I challenge them to challenge it.

Extremely simple.

How do you know when you've acquired truth?

But it does appear to be ok to nail him to a cross.

Then he'll forgive you for not knowing what you're doing.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I have no problem with Jesus. He sounds like he would have been a cool dude to hang around with on occasion. Maybe. Then again maybe not if all he does is sit around reciting parables about morals.

Surely there's more to life than to just sit around discussing morals. What do you do after you're in agreement about the morals?

Just sit there and nod at each other?

It seems to me that in these stories the people that Jesus was attempting to teach good morals too had already been taught horrible morals by their previous religion.

Most of the things that Jesus had to convince them to stop doing were things that they had been taught to do by the Torah to begin with.

If Jesus was God, then why did he bother teaching such bad morals in the old testament to begin with?

That's a bit part of why these things make no sense to me. You have a God who supposedly teaches people to have horrible moral values and then having to send his son to change all the rules.

And this is a God that's supposed to have an unchanging character.

That's unreasonable to me.

That's all I know to say.

Everyone knows that wars are not "holy" or 'moral.' People realize that religion is used as a tool to instigate wars. People believe that they are righteous according to their beliefs, and they believe the enemy is "evil" and should be destroyed.

Yes, immorality of war does play a small part in my quest. So what? But morality does not play a part in my asking for valid evidence for the characters in the Bible who spawned the "God of Abraham" and the Abrahamic religions.

For people who justify fighting and killing for their religious beliefs I ask them to consider that their beliefs are based on false information. If that is false..... what else is false?



No single person will ever acquire the whole of truth.

But putting together truths is like working on a jigsaw puzzle. There are many pieces. When they begin to fit together, you are getting somewhere.

Listen Jb, there is an underlying issue at hand that you do not seem to be aware of. That involves what it takes for a claim to be true. The truth of a claim is not determined by any amount of evidence that is offered. A claim is true solely by virtue of it's correspondence to fact/reality. It must match up to the way things are/were. Thus...

"A man named Jesus lived" is a true statement if and only if a man named Jesus lived.

It makes no difference what anyone believes. Belief is insufficient for truth. All people hold their belief to be true. It is humanly impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood. As soon as we know, or believe, that it is false we can no longer believe it. Truth is central to all thought, belief, and communication thereof, but it is proven by none of it.

And I ask again...

How do you know when you've acquired truth?

a... no kidding.



Yes....




duh..... so what is your point?

I'm not asking for "proof." I am asking for better evidence to support their claims.

It is pretty clear that it does not exist.

Subject over.

I feel that it is necessary to point something out here. If all of the pieces of a belief system fit together nicely, then we have a coherent belief system. That is good, but coherency itself is also insufficient for truth. We can confidently say this because we can know that an imaginary belief system can be completely coherent and yet still not be true, nor have a basis in reality.

I think of it more like an investigation into a crime.

Who did what to who and why.

Motive, opportunity, etc.

Those types of puzzle pieces fitting together, supported by hard evidence, witnesses, observations etc... paint an accurate picture of what probably took place.

How can you be confident of that?

If you have an imaginary belief system that is completely coherent, how can you be confident that it isn't true?

I actually approach spiritually in precisely that way.

If I can imagine a completely coherent belief system, then why shouldn't I imagine that it can also be true?

In fact, if there is any reason why I should doubt that it could be true, then there must be something about it that I feel isn't completely coherent.

I look at the biblical picture like that too. Only I most certainly don't limit myself to just that picture. That would be foolish, IMHO. (not suggesting that you do by the way )

But what I'm saying is that when I look at things like the Old Testament, I not only look at those stories, but I look at what other nearby cultures were thinking and writing about at the same time. If all these different mythologies contain very similar superstitions (like male Gods who are appeased by blood sacrifices), then I think it's safe to concluded that these are just common myths being spread around.

Same thing when viewing something like the New Testament. I knew there were problem with the story of Jesus being the son of the God of Abraham, but it didn't truly come together for me until years later when i studied the various forms of Buddhism and discovered the ideals and practices of Mahayana Buddhism and the concept of a Bodhisattva. Then it all fell together very nicely. Even the historical timing couldn't have been more perfect. It fit like a glove.

But that's something that I would have never seen from within the biblical stories themselves. That could only be discovered from having studied the history and evolution of Buddhism.

So to really see the big picture it's necessary to back-off and look outside the biblical story for answers.

Uh... no. No kidding.





This is false, and able to shown as such. I've already given you exactly what you asked for. I even offered you a valid argument for the existence of Jesus. A valid argument is "valid evidence". You been asking for "valid evidence" all along, and I've given it - all along. You've ignored it. I've pressed it. I've made note of the fact that the evidence that you've asked for has since been given, several times over...

Is this "valid evidence" now not good enough?