True in comparison to what? A true thing meets some standard. Is the bible a book. Yes, this is true.
If something has been created-then there has been a creator for it. What that creator/s may be is not determined by what we as humans can understand. If we could, we would have- and any discussion of the topic would be moot and/or obvious.
If God is real then he would understand and accept me,assuming she is concerned with every human who ever lived and is alive now.If said God judged me harshly then he is a pious unintelligible asshole who I would reject and would not worship.
bibles and gods are two very different things. with very good odds, of being completely unrelated to each other. if god is real, the greatest likelihood is of its being unlike anything any belief has ever claimed or any one imagined. of course 'the bible' is 'real'. it really is a bunch of pieces of paper with words written on them. human manufactured paper. human manufactured ink. human manufactured words. were the people who wrote them wise? well intended? honest? they were the same mixture of all of these things and imperfections of them, as you, and i, and everyone else, today, tomorrow and yesterday. but gods or a god, sure, why not? but creating a universe? ruling over it? not required.
"if" is the operative term here. if we see something exists, on what basis to we assume it was created? WE make some things. other things are the result of ongoing process.
I agree with max that the bible or any holy text, or frankly any text, are unrelated to any potential god(s). Though most people who bash on the bible clearly haven't read it, it's one of the few religions that does take actual history into account, many roman documents have cross verified events and people mentioned in the bible. It's a fact that jesus was real/the man who claimed and is known to be jesus, and the bible isn't the only source. Also, one of the reason's it is so boring to read, is it keeps a very accurate long recording of family lineages
^ I agree with everything you wrote until you say it is a fact Jesus was real. How is it a fact? I think it is likely but not factual (unfortunately). It does seems to be factual that biblical people like Herodes, Pilates and Nebucadnezar etc. were real. What are other sources than the bible that make sure that Jesus was a real person, Sleepy?
-This is actually an excerpt from an atheist site. you can read more here I've also seen the stone chiseled by pontius pilate in israel, (which makes me sound super religious, i'm not at all, but history fascinates me.)
I'd have to agree with Asmo on this. Pontius Pilate's existence isn't in dispute, but that doesn't show there was an historical Jesus. Evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus isn't overwhelming, although I think it's sufficient to establish Jesus's existence. We have the epistles of Paul, who never knew Jesus in the flesh but only in visions; the four gospels, written by anonymous authors (not necessarily Matthew, Mark, Luke and John--so who were the "eyewitnesses"?), based on hearsay and differing from one another on significant details; the Q, L, and M sources, the existence and content of which is inferred from the four canonical gospels; some Roman and Jewish sources from decades after the event that can be interpreted as dealt with Jesus in passing, probably on the basis of reporting by Christians; and various gnostic writings of the second and third centuries that the Church rejects as inauthentic. Most of the alleged supporting evidence for an historical Jesus is, on close inspection, questionable. Ancient secular sources and the Jewish Talmud were written long after the time when Jesus supposedly lived and died. One passage in Josephus referring directly to Jesus is thought to be a Christian forgery, leaving the other more indirect reference to "James, the brother of Jesus", which so far hasn't been discredited. I happen to be convinced there was an historical Jesus on the basis of what I consider to be reasonable inferences from this available evidence. (See my posts on the thread Jesus Myth Theories) But it's not exactly an open and shut case. To me, the deciding factors are that (1) The notion of a crucified god went counter to Jewish beliefs about the Messiah, and therefore would not be made up by the gospel writers. (2) the notion of a Jewish Messiah who was baptized by John the Baptist was inconsistent with the idea that Jesus was superior to John and was born without sin, and would therefore not be made up by the gospel writers; s; (3) Paul refers to his meetings with Peter and James the Just, the brother of Jesus, both thought to have been close to Jesus; and (4) Jewish historian Josephus apparently confirms the role of James the Just as brother of Jesus. Ordinarily, if a person's brother existed, that's good evidence that the person existed, as well. BTW, the "atheist" source that you cite seems really fishy to me, since it cites so many points made on Christian websites that have been challenged by secular scholars as misleading. The passage you provided appears to be a verbatim reprint of a 2011 article from JesusOnline Ministries. "This article is a supplement to Y-Jesus magazine by Bright Media Foundation & B&L Publications: Larry Chapman, Chief Editor." With "atheists" like this, who needs Christian apologetics?
I have the feeling the same happens to me (that I sound like that to some others), but with me it is also just a big fascination and interest in both history and how people thought (and believed) in other times, societies and situations. And also how they think and believe now