I Know That God Does Not Exist

But the historical framework is also used for King Kong and Godzilla and with exactly the same validity. The fact that the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds) actually exists does not support the assertion that the Exodus fiction actually happened.It is not a matter of semantics but rather once again logic, reason and reality showing that the Bible is seldom historical beyond the same relevance as seen in the history found in any work of fiction.

Exactly like the Bible. People like you assert that it's unique but you hvae no revelation. Just like every other "holy" book. The Qur'an is a notable example. It has nothing to do with what I believe or what you believe. The fact is that the Bible is not unique.

There is no historical framework for the parting of the Red Sea. If it had happened, don't you think there would be some record in Egypt. Instead of just the wild ravings of goat herders?
There is also absolutely no historical framework for Jesus or anything to do with his life. There is no contemporary, historical evidence for the Jesus character.
There is no historical framework or evidence of any kind for the supernatural.
If there was it would have been presented and people would be acknowledging it.

I was replying to jar's remark in which the "moral" aspect of the writings in your bible are discussed:"We use logic, reason and reality to test what is written.Does a writing point to a model that is of use to all? Does it provide a moral guide to a functioning society? Does the writing teach us how to live today in harmony with other people, things and the environment itself?"

As for Egyptian records, what did the record-keepers of the Sixth Dynasty have to say about the great Flood that wiped out their entire civilization?(At least that's the usual biblical dating of the time of the Noachian Flood)

Not sure. Is it possible that different views of Jesus could be construed from different passages in scripture?

I'm going to defer to C. S. Lewis who preferred to call such people "Christians" but classified them as "bad Christians".After all, how are we to know what is in one's heart? I'd be willing to guess that a lot of politicians who make profession of faith and go to church (or temple or mosque, depending on the country they live in) regularly think to themselves it's all hogwash but they have to do it to get elected.

I think I understand historical framework a little differently.However

quote:

---

There is no historical framework for the parting of the Red Sea.

---

This is correct. Exodus contains no useful dating material at all. The few things pointing to dates, point to dates too late to be correct. None of the Pharaohs is named. Exodus just doesn’t fit into history. Neither does Joshuah’s conquest.This, on the other hand I disagree with.

quote:

---

There is also absolutely no historical framework for Jesus or anything to do with his life.

---

The Gospels do place Jesus in an identifiable time and place. Pontius Pilate, Herod and his sons, even John the Baptist are known to history. Jesus himself is obscure enough to suggest that his faddish popularity was exaggerated by the Gospels but that obscurity is not sufficient to prove that he didn’t exist at all. That is not to say that the Gospel depiction of Jesus is accurate - it is likely extremely inaccurate in many ways.

Reluctant? I've discussed it for longer than I'd really care to! But anyway, to continue...The concept of a god is a human invention, not a real thing, a personification of volcanoes or the ocean (Vulcan or Neptune) or of good and evil (Jesus and Beelzebub). It's no more logical or rational than a ouija board or horoscope or rabbit's foot (and how lucky was that rabbit?)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone puts Harry Potter into an identifiable time and place. If you are not happy with Harry Potter, I can find thousands of examples from the writings of Homer to the present day. That would be a strawman. I did not say anything about proving he could not exist. There is no contemporary, historical evidence for the existence of the Jesus character. Do you claim there is? Please present it. If you have it you need to write paper to present it. I am still waiting. How do we determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of something that we have no evidence for?

quote:

---

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone puts Harry Potter into an identifiable time and place. If you are not happy with Harry Potter, I can find thousands of examples from the writings of Homer to the present day.

---

This does not change the fact that we have a historical setting for Jesus. One in which it is plausible that there was a human original (who worked no genuine miracles). A historical setting which is clearly lacking for the Parting of the Red Sea.

quote:

---

That would be a strawman. I did not say anything about proving he could not exist. There is no contemporary, historical evidence for the existence of the Jesus character. Do you claim there is? Please present it. If you have it you need to write paper to present it. I am still waiting.

---

I think it is quite forgivable to think that your insistence on contemporary evidence is intended to argue against the existence of a historical Jesus, and even if you do not the comment is still accurate and relevant.

quote:

---

How do we determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of something that we have no evidence for?

---

Oh, there are ways. For instance we can identify the inaccuracy of the Gospels by noting the major disagreements between them.

I would guess that those who do it for a pretense are easily enough recognized by those who take it seriously, maybe in many cases even by unbelievers. We can't read the heart but we can judge how people talk and act over enough time to get a clear impression..

This is an old thread and I haven't followed the discussion but if all you've done is declare your opinion as you do above, one has to ask How do you know this? "Gods" have been known by experience all over the world back to antiquity. How do you know they are a "human invention?" I suppose I might have accepted that before I became a believer myself, but once I was a believer in the biblical God I understood all the "gods" according to its teachings, as real fallen angels who are followers of Satan, who became the "ruler of this world" at the Fall when he succeeded in deceiving our first parents.There are those who have actual experience of such entities, whose statements I suppose you just declare to be delusional because that's what you think without any evidence whatever. I've also had experience of demonic things, and heard stories from others with similar experiences. Why should I discount my own or theirs?You have no reason whatever for believing as you do -- just your own LACK of experience of such things. I guess Ayn Rand said so with the same lack of evidence and that's where you got your sense of certainty? "No evidence = irrational" -- OK, you have no evidence that what people describe as their own experiences is false, so your opinion is irrational. And unfair to other human beings.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's a question of how we use words. Jim Bakker may or may not be a Christian by your way of using the work "Christian", but how can we know? No definition of "Christian" says that a Christian must be unblemished! In any case, is that really the way we want to use the word "Christian"? Consider the words of C. S. Lewis:

quote:

---

The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

---

Surely you're not saying that Vulcan and Neptune (not to mention Ra, Vishnu, Shiva, Dagon, Marduk, Baron Samedi, Loki, Odin, Amaterasu, Uzume, Quetzalcoatl, Anansi, Dagda, Danu, Y Ti...) have any real existence outside the imaginations of human beings? Or that it would be unfair to those human beings to say that such gods are only inventions of those human beings?