I won't pretend any great knowledge of greek history, but the wiki article on Greek Mythology certainly suggests that there was a time at least when few doubted the veracity of the tales. That may have changed in later years.

Do you have any sources that indicate few ever believed the tales as true?

The mystery cults of the time had pretty much been brought across from ancient egypt, and were heavily concerned with what we would now call "the occult", amongst other things. All the smartest, most powerful and most capable men of the age were engaged in these mysteries, or were philosophising their own versions of events, or both; while the unwashed masses who tilled fields and the like were left with the wooden spoon state religion.

Inasmuch as "few" people ever believing in zeus as a literal character, it's impossible to pin down. many of the hoi polloi would have believed no doubt, others wouldn't, but certainly all the smart influential people while acknowledging the importance of the state religion in athenian society did not believe for a second in its literal reality.

Sources are out there if you dig, I studied classical civilisation at A-level so my sources are all to be found in books i have long since given back to college/lost, primary sources and commentary on primary sources. Not much help I know. but fwiw i don't think anything you'd find on wikipedia is massively worthwhile.

sorry for being no real help. i wouldn't feel offended if you discarded everything i said, but with all due respect i don't have the energy to go digging around on the net for obscure references :-/

That was very good. Rivaling many verses of Psalms and Proverbs.


That part is completely optional.

The question of what percentage of "believers" actually believe specific things is why I created these polls.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...o-wine-736116/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...y-true-736031/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...-babel-736047/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...y-true-736108/
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...y-true-736066/

Like PT and HEM, it may take a few hundred hands for the stats to converge.

It would be nice if we had the results for ancient Greece as well. But we don't. They had crummy internet in those days.

I call bull**** with this.

Like what, the disciples are allowed to get a resurrected Jesus standing before them that they can touch? Paul basically gets touched by God?

Other people were allowed to see amazing miracles, like Jesus raising someone from the dead.

What about their "free choice to believe"?

Not to mention BELIEF ISN'T A CHOICE. This is a ******ed thing religious people have thrown around for centuries without questioning. You don't choose to believe anything is true, you just do or don't. I don't choose to believe Australia exists, I just do. If you think you're choosing to believe something, the reality is you probably don't believe it, but want to, and are pretending to.

Nobody can FORCE you to believe anything, but that's not the same as you being able to choose to believe something.

Good post, raises some interesting and honest points.

They are very good points.

"A miracle is an event described by those to whom it was told by people who did not see it."

Perhaps God just wants to maximize faith based belief using as little direct evidence as possible. Carving "Jesus Lives" onto the face of the moon would not be consistent with that requirement.

Perhaps if I am never around my children physically, but leave anonymous envelopes of birthday money on his doorstep from time to time, I can contrive the love from them using as little direct evidence and presence as possible. Being doubtlessly existent, let alone present, would not be consistent with that random operating procedure.

It was Thomas (an Apostle of Jesus) who did not believe that Jesus was alive.

The Bible asserts (in red letters) that Jesus said, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Where does that leave us? We didn't see it, and we have only the admittedly altered, non-original collection of miscellaneous writings that claim supernatural events.

And we have paid people for the last 2000-3000 years to explain what these cryptic writings mean.

Of course, some of the red letter sentences were added later by someone else. Were they inspired writers also?

better yet , if you are the father of a child leave the mother when the child is newly born but keep leaving vague clues to your existence. Regularly threaten to kill both the mother and boy if she doesnt send you 10% of her salary each month, send worthless christmas gifts and advice how the boy should be properly raised. Should she not send you the money write to her about forthcoming homocides and start sending her sawed-off bodyparts.

Just stop obsfuscating for moment and address the actual issue.

An argument was made that absolute direct evidence would eliminate a persons free choice to believe. A counter argument was made that the above is inconsistent with certain stories in the bible. Then I gave a reason for the inconsistency but instead of addressing it you decide to attack the belief in God in some other direction.

Now I ask you, why must God be egalitarian? What rationale argument can you make that God would reveal Himself in a way that leaves no doubt to some and not others? Personally I expect God to interfere in the affairs of men as little as possible. The "as little has possible" is not above all but rather something beholden to God's plan.

The entire Christian argument for why God can't reveal himself is obfuscation. First its always argued God can't show himself because it would interfere in free will (an argument that will be made again in another thread even though anyone with any knowledge of the bible knows he can apparently show himself without interfering in free will so i can only assume the argument is disingenuous).

Then when its pointed out that he did show himself without interfering in free will. You say well...maybe he does it as little as possible. Well maybe.

But the Christian God according to some is supposed to reveal himself to all humanity during the end times and millennial rule stuff. As to why he revealed himself in the past and might reveal himself to all humanity in the future but can't reveal himself to all now. Idk. But any argument you can make will be in the vain of God works in mysterious ways and can't be argued against anyway.

Stu -

God revealed himself to Satan. There is zero doubt Satan believes in God. Not to mention countless characters in the Bible who spoke directly to God only to eventually turn away from him (Saul comes to mind).

So God making it 100% clear he exists isn't disqualifying the right to follow, worship and adhere to him, or do the exact opposite.

In fact most of the world's violence is arguably caused by different groups of people convinced that other groups of people are believing in the wrong God. So wouldn't God's undisputed existence be better for the world, and NOT force people to follow his ways at the same time? It won't invariably eliminate freedom of choice, and the Bible testifies to that claim.

The reason there is the thesis of God wanting to remain in the realm of 'reasonable doubt' and 'invisibility' is because that is the reality at hand, and such a thesis has been built around that reality. Conversely, the aforementioned thesis of God revealing himself, is based on logic first and not results-oriented reverse-engineering

Amen brother,

This ties in with the entire "God cannot be tested" explanation of why God does not answer prayers (except by probability). Sometimes mixed with "your faith was insufficient", and some other Priestcraft.

It is obfuscation.

But they have the "eternal, unchanging, divinely inspired word of god", which most Christians never realize is anything but eternal, unchanging, and divinely inspired.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...-bible-739490/

Very good.

You'll find on this forum that people will bring up the same points over and over when they're never addressed. And don't think you're the only one not answering stuff. I've seen endless christians point out their personal religious feelings, for instance, as proof that their religion is correct. When pointed out that people of other faiths describe relatively the exact same experiences and use it as proof that their religion is true... most Christians simply ignore it. Its old news on this forum.

Not sure I exactly said I know little to nothing about it but whatever. I don't believe I'm the only one who pointed out that your comments are applicable to all religions and you never really addressed them. So I don't expect you to do any better when I point it out. At least perhaps you can understand the intellectual frustration some non believers have here.

You seem to be thinking I have said things I haven't. If anything, I'm suggesting that things are more complex then the average believer believes it to be. And that the arguments they use don't make their case but are as likely to promote other belief systems as well as their own.

until next time, take care.

the the whole "no free will choice to believe" is ******ed considering every Christian should know the own basis of their OWN FAITH which is that *belief that He exists* is not even important to God, its the choice to worship Him and to obey His will, etc, etc, ALL OF WHICH CAN STILL EXIST EVEN IF YOU ARE 100% SURE OF HIS EXISTENCE. (hint: according to your beliefs, the devil and his demons are 100% sure he exists, that doesn't change the fact that they apparently have some choice in choosing whether to follow God or Satan)

However, giving everyone 100% certainty he exists puts *everyone* on a level playing field. Something you would expect from a perfectly loving and just deity.

+1.

As it is... many atheists have affirmed that even if the Christian god was real, they wouldn't necessarily worship him. Many think god as portrayed in the OT is an evil creature. You know... the whole killing the first born, wiping out the earth, stoning children... all that good stuff.

as i understand it (and i freely admit i may not have understood it very well) the original gnostics believed that the god of the OT was a charlatan who fabricated reality for some purpose or other, and the god christ told everyone about in the nt was actually a higher being, with authority over the first, who practiced love and all the real good stuff.

they were pretty crazy ppl from what i can gather but maybe you guys are really closet gnostics? :-)

no.

I can´t come over the thought about which language God would have used? Hebrew? Can you give any language such a priority? I hope we don´t expect it to be in English (only).

classic gnostic response

The jews had a mistaken pre-conception about the messiah. I would venture that people who suscribe to that belief have a mistaken pre-conception too.

Satan had a misconception about God and thought he was on the same footing as Him. So now you have to ask yourself....was Satan an idiot or did God reveal everything about Himself to Satan.