That seems to be question for Christians who take the Bible as a literal work rather than a question for religious people

SY is back, got out of prison early then ......

The Bible tells tales about the universe because it was written by Jews. One need only look to obi yo see they can't shut the fuck up.

o boy here we go agin

I can answer B...
They wrote things that way because that's what people could understand. People back then were completely satisfied with the way the Bible answered things, so they converted more easily. Even today, it's my understanding that people are satisfied with the answers the Bible gives, because if they weren't, we probably wouldn't have the millions and millions of Jesus followers here. And who's to say that a timeless and universal answer isn't still inspired by the word of God? You can say the stories are delusional and false, but that doesn't change the fact that people believed them then and that people believe them now. The Bible isn't around to discredit science, it's around to give people better ways of living their lives.

Jesus performed miracles to get some practice in ahead of his 2nd coming as David Copperfield.

Apparently the Pope does a neat trick with an industrial vacumn cleaner and a tub of Vaseline...

redhouse,

(a) Miracles demonstrated His authority. I don't really understand your contention that not doing miracles would make Him a more credible figure than doing them.

(b) This might be easier to answer if you gave an example.

"Miracles demonstrated His authority. I don't really understand your contention that not doing miracles would make Him a more credible figure than doing them."

Alright, let's be realistic about this okay? Miracles didn't demonstrate His authority because there were no miracles. There were made up stories about miracles sure, but no actual miracles. What's next? Are you gonna tell me the Tooth Fairy demonstrates her authority by changing teeth into coins now?

Oscar, how can you just categorically state that there were no miracles? That seems like quite leap of faith to me.

OP I just can't figure out what you're even asking in the second question. The bible is supposed to say what YOU want it to say about truths in the universe? And not say anything complimentary to what you think is true?

Sheesh, just gaze in a mirror then. Stay away from books.

For complimentary I meant contradictory.

@oscarjd "there were no miracles"

Can you explain how you determined there were no miracles? I don't see how arbitrarily deciding what is faction and not factual is any more reasonable than religious faith.

Yes, "Lord" Baldy was trying to be funny but how do you know this Jesus person didn't go around performing magic trick and illusions that then became the miracles of the bible. That certainly wouldn't make them "made up stories."

And another thing, what the hell is the Baldy person lord of?

fact (not faction)

Bart, I can categorically state that there were no miracles for the same reason I can categorically state that there is no tooth fairy. Are you seriously trying to tell me that some dude walked on water in the Bronze Age?

"Can you explain how you determined there were no miracles? I don't see how arbitrarily deciding what is faction and not factual is any more reasonable than religious faith."

It's not arbitrary. It's physics. The miracles in the Bible are just as silly as the creation myth. They are Bronze Age fictions. Narratives for stuff that people didn't understand at the time.

If you take that kind of stuff for granted then I suggest next time you need a doctor you demand that they provide Bronze Age medical care instead of 21st century medical care.

I suppose physics is a pretty good answer. I can accept that.

But don't knock the bronze age medical care. It's big business these days--acupuncture and Ayurveda-whatever.

So when are they going to bring leaches and bleeding back as a "natural alternative" to modern medicine?

Physics has nothing to do with History. You are stating that X did not happen in history, just because it is unlikely to happen. Science evaluates what is measurable and repeatable. How can you suppose to say that something did NOT happen just because it won't happen when you try it. It's a category mistake.

And about "narratives for stuff that people didn't understand at the time". Are you seriously claiming to say that, using your own example, people that lived 2000 years ago did NOT understand that a person does not normally walk on water?

You're silly. Physics has A LOT to do with history. How do you think carbon dating works? To mention just one example. And yeah, the laws of physics were the same then as they are now. You can't change water into wine or split a sea. That's not "unlikely", that's impossible. Saying such is impossible is not a "category" mistake. Taking some random stories from the Bronze Age and claiming they must be true even though they contradict the laws of physics (not to mention common sense), now that's a categorical mistake.

And no, I'm not saying people thought a person normally walks on water. I'm saying they had no idea about the origin of the earth and the sun and so they made up stories about them. But yeah, once you believe in a supernatural being that created the earth and the heavens then it's a small step to also believe something as silly as someone walking on water.

oscar, so you're saying you don't believe in a supernatural, omniscient and omnipotent being simply because his son performed miracles?

I don't believe in supernatural beings. So how would I possibly believe that someone is the son of one?

I don't believe in miracles (or fairy tales) so how would I accept your assertion that someone performed them?

I guess you just take that stuff for granted on the authority of a book of Bronze Age philosophy. Why would you place any truth value in such a book though, when it claims to explain how the earth and the heavens are created yet fails to mention that the sun is just a star less distant than other stars?

not to be an archaeology-Nazi, but, uh, Jesus was Iron Age

"I don't believe in supernatural beings"

How do you know what is and what is not "supernatural"? Even 200 years ago, a Defibrillator would be considered "magic" (or sorcery!) that brought the dead back to life. Just imagine a doctor from the year 2300 AD going back in time to 29AD with a small bag of tricks - I bet he could pull off most (or all) of Jesus' "miracles".

Here is the difference:

I have never said that these miracles have happened or must have happened.
You have said these events absolutely 100% did NOT happen. No matter what. They are impossible.

My worldview leaves room for the POSSIBILITY (not likelihood, not certainty, not even actuality) that such a thing as miracles could have happened.
Your worldview gives you no room whatsoever for even the possibility. You live in a closed system. And your system just fails historically. Tons of things have happened in history that defy logic. The most obvious example for Christianity is the empty tomb. There are no good explanations for the empty tomb historically.

You're starting with an assertion that miracles cannot happen. This is a faith step. Very very few people and cultures throughout the history of the world have started from that same assumption. My starting point, and I think the wiser one, is to say that sure, miracles are probably unlikely, but I'm at least open to the discussion of their validity historically.

I will say also that belief in the tooth fairy and belief in a religion based on historical events is not even close to the same thing.

The flying spaghetti monster's existence is simply a leap of faith with no standing historically. Christianity has never claimed to be anything but a religion based on things that have happened in history.

Then why do the Roman records of Pilate have no record of crucifying Jesus?

"There are no good explanations for the empty tomb historically."

Where is the tomb?

Guys, you are arguing with another militant atheist in Oscar, and this one doesn't even understand the fallacies within his own arguments. Give it up. Oscar is in, maybe 9th grade, and thinks he knows everything even more than Putin. I mean, at least Putin has a masters (no real life yet, but better than being 14).

You want to see an empty tomb? Huh?

Josephus was on the roman payroll and he does in fact have records of a crucified Jesus. Do you want Pilates personal records or something?

"You want to see an empty tomb? Huh?"

Yes. You said the tomb is a historical fact. Where is it?

"Josephus was on the roman payroll and he does in fact have records of a crucified Jesus"

Josephus's mention of the crucifixion is widely held to be a forgery. The Roman records, which were quite detailed in most respects, have no contemporary commentary on this event.