Mocking people's beliefs.

[TheInspiration 1]

All religion should be banned imo, root of all evil

How is it the root of all evil? Look at all the evil caused in the previous century - I don't think Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc were influenced by any religion.

 

Hitler wasn't fond of the Jews like it has to be said.

 

I know what you're getting at tho.

True, he didn't like Jews much and so you can't really deny the Jews had some role in WWII. However it's a bit harsh to go round calling them the "root" of the evil we witnessed then, which is what certain people are implying if they really think religion itself is the root of all evil. Edited September 3, 2007 by TheInspiration

[Renton 17723]

Surely its the love of religion that is the root of all evil.

 

The Inspiration, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to think that you believe in the only real God (i.e. the one that has a son called Jesus) and that everybody else is wrong? What do you think you would have believed in if you had been born in Egypt? Basically you believe in what you do because of a fluke of where you were born if you think about it. Which strikes me as a bit odd really, that God would create such an unequal playing field as it were. It's also odd that he gave me the mental faculties to be a skeptic, fooled me with fossil artefacts, and then is going to torture me for eternity when I die because of it!

 

Anyway, of course it's ridiculous to claim religion is the root of all evil, but it certainly is used as good excuse for evil and engenders bigotry.

[TheInspiration 1]

The Inspiration, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to think that you believe in the only real God (i.e. the one that has a son called Jesus) and that everybody else is wrong? What do you think you would have believed in if you had been born in Egypt? Basically you believe in what you do because of a fluke of where you were born if you think about it. Which strikes me as a bit odd really, that God would create such an unequal playing field as it were. It's also odd that he gave me the mental faculties to be a skeptic, fooled me with fossil artefacts, and then is going to torture me for eternity when I die because of it!

 

Anyway, of course it's ridiculous to claim religion is the root of all evil, but it certainly is used as good excuse for evil and engenders bigotry.

I think I should make clear that I don't believe in Christianity simply because I live in a country where the biggest religion is Christianity and that I've had a Christian upbringing. People generally come to Christ through their own experience - something that is supposed to not happen in Islam. This is why Christianity deals with a personal relationship with God and not merely just a belief. If the only reason to believe was the country I'm in it wouldn't surprise me to think I could well be an atheist now, being a pretty sceptical guy myself. As it stands I think there is a lot of evidence for Christianity in different forms.

 

The Bible clearly states God will respond if people come to him, which is what atheists aren't prepared to do. You make a fair point about different countries, however the Bible again makes a case that you can still get eternal life even if you don't follow Christianity. Otherwise, it would be quite tough for those in Saudi Arabia. As for your point about an unequal world, sadly I doubt God designed it that way, yet he gives free will if you go by the Bible and that is how Egypt for example, was invaded and became an Islamic country.

 

I accept you have made points which I've partly responded to with my point about skeptics/atheists refusing to come to God, but I'm not going to deny there's some issues we can't answer. This doesn't however mean the religion is stupid. Certainly not right now can we say that.

[NJS 3974]

Also I admit you have a point about evolution there and I've wondered about that myself. There's no denying evolution does not wipe out the possibility of any higher being, however I very much understand those who think it makes any god "redundant". Either way there's a lot about this universe science has to answer and I currently see no reason why believing in the Christian God is silly as there are a number of different reasons for it.

 

 

My Mam was a catholic who completely accepted evolution but believed God kicked it all off 14bn years ago - more akin to deism than theism which I admit is harder to disprove as easily as pointing out the "atheists for all the Gods bar one" argument.

 

On Renton's point I get the feeling you may be one of the few who "chose" a system from the menu rather than a simple matter of upbringing - I have to say I find myself in two minds on such cases - I respect the choice but it goes against my brainwashing argument and Renton's regional fluke argument which I think are generally valid.

[NJS 3974]

The Inspiration, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to think that you believe in the only real God (i.e. the one that has a son called Jesus) and that everybody else is wrong? What do you think you would have believed in if you had been born in Egypt? Basically you believe in what you do because of a fluke of where you were born if you think about it. Which strikes me as a bit odd really, that God would create such an unequal playing field as it were. It's also odd that he gave me the mental faculties to be a skeptic, fooled me with fossil artefacts, and then is going to torture me for eternity when I die because of it!

 

Anyway, of course it's ridiculous to claim religion is the root of all evil, but it certainly is used as good excuse for evil and engenders bigotry.

I think I should make clear that I don't believe in Christianity simply because I live in a country where the biggest religion is Christianity and that I've had a Christian upbringing. People generally come to Christ through their own experience - something that is supposed to not happen in Islam. This is why Christianity deals with a personal relationship with God and not merely just a belief. If the only reason to believe was the country I'm in it wouldn't surprise me to think I could well be an atheist now, being a pretty sceptical guy myself. As it stands I think there is a lot of evidence for Christianity in different forms.

 

The Bible clearly states God will respond if people come to him, which is what atheists aren't prepared to do. You make a fair point about different countries, however the Bible again makes a case that you can still get eternal life even if you don't follow Christianity. Otherwise, it would be quite tough for those in Saudi Arabia. As for your point about an unequal world, sadly I doubt God designed it that way, yet he gives free will if you go by the Bible and that is how Egypt for example, was invaded and became an Islamic country.

 

I accept you have made points which I've partly responded to with my point about skeptics/atheists refusing to come to God, but I'm not going to deny there's some issues we can't answer. This doesn't however mean the religion is stupid. Certainly not right now can we say that.

 

Thats your take but surely you are aware that a lot of christians (and other faiths) believe that only they are saved and the rest are damned.

[Fop 1]

That is there's nothing to stop a Christian accepting Evolution as the mechanism through which "God" works (and equally there's nothing in Evolution that denies "God")

 

I accept that premise but still haven't seen a good explanation for such an acceptance - the mass extinctions and dead ends for our ancestors in our past suggest to me a very "disjointed" plan at best.

 

I think even if it were the case thats a long way from the all powerful God most believers define.

 

 

Well an omniscient being knows everything, and therefore could work though anything no matter how complex.

 

Evolution proves well..... Evolution, God is fairly irrelevantly to the whole thing (much like Maths neither proves nor disproves the existence of God).

 

The only think Evolution disproves is a literal acceptance of the bible, but as I said so does Geology, Physics etc. etc.

[Fop 1]

I'm quite sure that the creation story as we read it in the Bible is metaphorical, however I do not think this means Adam and Eve can't have existed, perhaps a bit more than 6000 years ago, and maybe not quite as they were presented in Genesis. I see the story as rather poetic and mystical in its language, however there is an important story there displayed regarding sin. Personally I think it makes sense to see the "fall of man" as representative of how all humans sin, not just Adam performing the original sin.

 

Eve likely did exist, there was likely a convergence from all modern humans to one female (or small group of very closely related females) in an exodus from Africa.... however said female didn't appear or get made, but came from a long line of earlier hominids.

 

Also I admit you have a point about evolution there and I've wondered about that myself. There's no denying evolution does not wipe out the possibility of any higher being, however I very much understand those who think it makes any god "redundant". Either way there's a lot about this universe science has to answer and I currently see no reason why believing in the Christian God is silly as there are a number of different reasons for it.

 

Yes there is an argument that with Evolution (and perhaps taking it way back into the origins of life and even through physics to the origins or planets, Galaxies and even the Universe) a God/Creator may not be necessary, but equally again that is neither here nor there to the existence of a God.

 

Although I have to disagree with reasons for believing, really there is only faith (which as mentioned is based on well faith) and ignorance (which is just based on a lack of understanding) to be honest.

[Park Life 70]

I'm tired of debating these things....Just break out the guns and let the chips fall where they may.

[Renton 17723]

The only think Evolution disproves is a literal acceptance of the bible, but as I said so does Geology, Physics etc. etc.

 

I don't agree, if that were true then why would so many sensible theists have such a specific problem with it?

 

Evolution takes human beings out of a special place in the Universe, whereas all the major religions, at least the Abrahamic ones, have us at the centre of the Universe. We are supposedly created in God's image after all. If we are descended from apes, what does that say about God?

[NJS 3974]

The only think Evolution disproves is a literal acceptance of the bible, but as I said so does Geology, Physics etc. etc.

 

I don't agree, if that were true then why would so many sensible theists have such a specific problem with it?

 

Evolution takes human beings out of a special place in the Universe, whereas all the major religions, at least the Abrahamic ones, have us at the centre of the Universe. We are supposedly created in God's image after all. If we are descended from apes, what does that say about God?

 

 

Exactly - by the time Darwin released Origin there was widespread acceptance that the earth was millions of years old (the exact figure unknown) - the reason for the opposition was that humans (more specifically white Europeans) were considered "one step down from angels" and certainly not as animals.

 

People were able to come up with ideas like the "days" being millenia (ignoring the wrong order) but common descent and close relationship with animals (though blindingly obvious) was and is a step too far for many.

[Fop 1]

The only think Evolution disproves is a literal acceptance of the bible, but as I said so does Geology, Physics etc. etc.

 

I don't agree, if that were true then why would so many sensible theists have such a specific problem with it?

 

I don't think they actually do, just fringe nutter groups generally (in the case of Christianity, anyway, although a lot more widespread in the context of say wadist Islam - but given their medieval beliefs Evolution is just one on a long list).

 

Evolution takes human beings out of a special place in the Universe, whereas all the major religions, at least the Abrahamic ones, have us at the centre of the Universe.

 

So did Geology, and Physics.

 

Evolution is just the latest and probably most personal, and really even US evangelists don't try to renounce Evolution these days (because it's insane to even try), but more twist it and introduce elements of doubt in those that don't really understand it with a bizarre forms of "Intelligent Design" (although even ID in its most liberal form isn't mutually exclusive to Evolution).

 

We are supposedly created in God's image after all. If we are descended from apes, what does that say about God?

 

I suppose any sensible religious person would say that the method of getting their is irrelevant to the result, whether created directly or though a process of Evolution, neither negates faith.

 

 

 

The only think Evolution disproves is a literal acceptance of the bible, but as I said so does Geology, Physics etc. etc.

 

I don't agree, if that were true then why would so many sensible theists have such a specific problem with it?

 

Evolution takes human beings out of a special place in the Universe, whereas all the major religions, at least the Abrahamic ones, have us at the centre of the Universe. We are supposedly created in God's image after all. If we are descended from apes, what does that say about God?

 

 

Exactly - by the time Darwin released Origin there was widespread acceptance that the earth was millions of years old (the exact figure unknown) - the reason for the opposition was that humans (more specifically white Europeans) were considered "one step down from angels" and certainly not as animals.

 

People were able to come up with ideas like the "days" being millenia (ignoring the wrong order) but common descent and close relationship with animals (though blindingly obvious) was and is a step too far for many.

 

There was still an awful lot of debate on the age of the Earth then (it absolutely could NOT be called "widespread acceptance") and for a long time after (even now in some more nutty circles).

 

 

 

It basically goes back to the same thing again and again: Some religion has a problem with science, but religion is irrelevant to science. And neither is really mutually exclusive to the other (until a point where science does disprove the existence of God, anyway).

[TheInspiration 1]

In addition in plenty of cases religion and science combine together well. It's not always a case of them being direct opposities. This is where people who claim that religious people will dread the progression of science as if it's tearing religion apart.

[NJS 3974]

I suppose any sensible religious person would say that the method of getting their is irrelevant to the result, whether created directly or though a process of Evolution, neither negates faith.

 

I agree with that but I'd say it again comes down to a personal definition of God - if someone says "this is how my God worked his magic with evolution" then thats fine even though I don't agree. All I'm saying is that in terms of the general definition of the Abrahamic God based on the bible it doesn't equate imo.

 

This is where I think a person who does have their own definition who dips into the bible for moral lessons is "fine" (though I dispute the need to look there) but the more dogmatic believers who want to hold onto some if not all biblical "truths" are the more "dangerous" in my view.

 

My opinion is that science and religion are irreconcilable. You can't accept the scientific method and recognise that everything should be investigated and then have lines which can't be crossed and get out clauses for things you don't understand.

 

For an example I keep reading anti-atheist articles talking about the "magic of love" etc, etc and denying that brain chemistry can explain it. Heres a hint - look up Oxytocin.

[Renton 17723]

In addition in plenty of cases religion and science combine together well. It's not always a case of them being direct opposities. This is where people who claim that religious people will dread the progression of science as if it's tearing religion apart.

 

When have science and religion combined together well out of interest? Historically, religion has usually opposed science, right back to the days of Copernicus and through to Darwin. More recently of course, the major 'sensible' churches have realised the futility of their position and have reluctantly accepted that only science can describe the physical world we live in. At the same time, in the interest of self preservation, the bible has become a metaphor and religion is the domain of the super natural that supposedly can't be tested by science.

 

The vast majority of scientists I know are not religiously inclined, most have been bought up as christians but realise, whilst not being fundamentally incompatible with christianity, the two don't marry up at all well. The christian scientists I do know are an enigma to me. The only explanation for their beliefs that I can see is that they have decompartmentalised their minds into rational and irrational sections. Their motives imo stem from comfort in some case and fear in other cases, such is the strengh of religious brain washing. Some I suspect don't believe at all but do it for family committments - my Dad fits this type (a converted catholic chemist).

[Fop 1]

I suppose any sensible religious person would say that the method of getting their is irrelevant to the result, whether created directly or though a process of Evolution, neither negates faith.

 

I agree with that but I'd say it again comes down to a personal definition of God - if someone says "this is how my God worked his magic with evolution" then thats fine even though I don't agree. All I'm saying is that in terms of the general definition of the Abrahamic God based on the bible it doesn't equate imo.

 

This is where I think a person who does have their own definition who dips into the bible for moral lessons is "fine" (though I dispute the need to look there) but the more dogmatic believers who want to hold onto some if not all biblical "truths" are the more "dangerous" in my view.

 

Fanatics are fanatics though and are always dangerous in any context (same can be said in science or anything else really). But there's loads in the Bible that doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, but largely religion has "evolved" around this (not many people believe and fewer argue that the Earth is the center of everything or that the world is 6000 years old).

 

Science does disprove a literal believe in the Bible, but that is also a long way from disproving religion (if indeed science could ever do such a thing).

 

 

My opinion is that science and religion are irreconcilable. You can't accept the scientific method and recognise that everything should be investigated and then have lines which can't be crossed and get out clauses for things you don't understand.

 

I still don't believe they are (and have talked to many religious scientists that would say the same thing), at least until the point the existence of "God" is proven or disproven to a significant degree of certainty (which most likely will be never in real terms).

 

Logic and scientific method just move in a different street to faith and belief (even if they touch occasionally).

 

For an example I keep reading anti-atheist articles talking about the "magic of love" etc, etc and denying that brain chemistry can explain it. Heres a hint - look up Oxytocin.

 

Again though that's the mechanism (or part of it), not the result. There's nothing in that mechanism that disproves "love", only an understanding of the part of the mechanism behind it (again being omniscient how does one go about creating "love"?).

 

Although equally to deny that biochemistry cannot explain (at least part of) it, is utterly wrong and should be vigorously refuted.

 

 

 

But that closed mindedness THE a big issue on any side really.

 

Science is about questioning everything, even things that someone/you personally believe(s) to be absolutely correct OR equally absolutely wrong. Where as religion is about keeping faith no matter what.

 

Personally I think a Big Purple Sky Fairy is about as likely as a caring, loving, God.... but equally I'm more than willing to accept that whilst there is no direct evidence for such a thing, equally there is no direct evidence against such a thing either.

[TheInspiration 1]

In addition in plenty of cases religion and science combine together well. It's not always a case of them being direct opposities. This is where people who claim that religious people will dread the progression of science as if it's tearing religion apart.

 

When have science and religion combined together well out of interest? Historically, religion has usually opposed science, right back to the days of Copernicus and through to Darwin. More recently of course, the major 'sensible' churches have realised the futility of their position and have reluctantly accepted that only science can describe the physical world we live in. At the same time, in the interest of self preservation, the bible has become a metaphor and religion is the domain of the super natural that supposedly can't be tested by science.

 

The vast majority of scientists I know are not religiously inclined, most have been bought up as christians but realise, whilst not being fundamentally incompatible with christianity, the two don't marry up at all well. The christian scientists I do know are an enigma to me. The only explanation for their beliefs that I can see is that they have decompartmentalised their minds into rational and irrational sections. Their motives imo stem from comfort in some case and fear in other cases, such is the strengh of religious brain washing. Some I suspect don't believe at all but do it for family committments - my Dad fits this type (a converted catholic chemist).

Science attempts to describe the physical world. Why can it not be a creation used to sustain the world? A lot of Christians perceive it that way - in fact many great scientists from the past have been Christian, many who even took the Bible literally.

 

Lots of people use science as a means of arguing for a god/creator of some sort. Lee Strobel's book The Case For a Creator combines a range of ideas from interviews with different people to point out evidence for a creator. Intelligent Design, whatever you think about, only disagrees with atheism and doesn't attempt to prove evolution is false, though it is wrongly assumed to. I think there's plenty of evidence for design in this world. I know it's all very well to say assuming there is a God explaining a certain scientific law is effectively giving up hope of finding new answers, but I don't see why there has to not be a God when it makes sense to think that way - we may never find any explanations for order, complexity and purpose in the world without going outside the universe. I'm aware people often talk about intelligent design being an "argument from ignorance" but I don't think that's quite right when we're talking about a God who can be believed in through personal experiences and personal relationships and the evidence for Christ.

 

I know it's all very well to point out disease and mental disabilities in humans can't be the creation of an all-loving God - it instead questions why God does it. It doesn't discount other evidence for a creator in this universe. It merely asks questions.

[NJS 3974]

You make a point about religion evolving - to some extent thats true (sometimes at "gunpoint" for things like geocentricity) but I think its reluctance to do so is a problem and its too easy to hark back to the nastiness in the OT for too many people - see the Leviticus quotes always used against homsexuality.

 

The "Roads" that science and religion travel cross too often without causing a pile-up for me - evolution and the size of the cosmos are the biggies but like I said its the erection of fences which say "don't go there" that annoy me.

 

Supposedly science isn't allowed to answer "Why are we here?" - how about We're evolved animals - a view supported by mountains of evidence in which process a divine creator is complete unnecessary. Next.

 

and the evidence for Christ

 

Apart from the heavily politicised gospels there is none.

[TheInspiration 1]

You make a point about religion evolving - to some extent thats true (sometimes at "gunpoint" for things like geocentricity) but I think its reluctance to do so is a problem and its too easy to hark back to the nastiness in the OT for too many people - see the Leviticus quotes always used against homsexuality.

 

The "Roads" that science and religion travel cross too often without causing a pile-up for me - evolution and the size of the cosmos are the biggies but like I said its the erection of fences which say "don't go there" that annoy me.

 

Supposedly science isn't allowed to answer "Why are we here?" - how about We're evolved animals - a view supported by mountains of evidence in which process a divine creator is complete unnecessary. Next.

 

and the evidence for Christ

 

Apart from the heavily politicised gospels there is none.

Have you studied/read about the issue much? No matter how much evidence for Jesus is found, scpetics will carry on asking for more and more in my view.

 

Also how are the Leviticus quotes particularly nasty?

[NJS 3974]

Have you studied/read about the issue much? No matter how much evidence for Jesus is found, scpetics will carry on asking for more and more in my view.

 

Also how are the Leviticus quotes particularly nasty?

 

I know the "evidence" usually given is dubious at best - it really does just leave the gospels.

 

In all honesty I think there probably was a preacher around at the time who may have been "good".

 

What happened to him and what he taught in a factual sense I doubt very much (especially the later added resurrection bits(different style of writing apparently)).

 

Levticus: 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Always quoted by bigots on the issue.

 

Its a lovely chapter that - if you have sex with a woman during her period you should be cast out of your town. It also has the classic "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - the justification of hundreds of murders by the church of love.

[Tom 13830]

Tennis

[Fop 1]

You make a point about religion evolving - to some extent thats true (sometimes at "gunpoint" for things like geocentricity) but I think its reluctance to do so is a problem and its too easy to hark back to the nastiness in the OT for too many people - see the Leviticus quotes always used against homsexuality.

 

The "Roads" that science and religion travel cross too often without causing a pile-up for me - evolution and the size of the cosmos are the biggies but like I said its the erection of fences which say "don't go there" that annoy me.

 

Supposedly science isn't allowed to answer "Why are we here?" - how about We're evolved animals - a view supported by mountains of evidence in which process a divine creator is complete unnecessary. Next.

 

Aye all that is true in a way.

 

But ironically you're portraying many of the issues that end up in human strife (only against religion). It's pretty true that religion has been at the center of a LOT of misery, but really in almost all cases such things were as much about politics and power (and even economics) as beliefs per se. Just religion was/is a good excuse.... so really it's us, humanity, that cause the issues.

 

 

 

and the evidence for Christ

 

Apart from the heavily politicised gospels there is none.

I dunno, there's a bit of non-bible 3rd party stuff around. Enough that if I had to bet I would bet that there was a Jewish preacher called Jesus that was crucified around that time.

[Fop 1]

Tennis

 

Now that should be mocked wherever possible.

[Renton 17723]

You make a point about religion evolving - to some extent thats true (sometimes at "gunpoint" for things like geocentricity) but I think its reluctance to do so is a problem and its too easy to hark back to the nastiness in the OT for too many people - see the Leviticus quotes always used against homsexuality.

 

The "Roads" that science and religion travel cross too often without causing a pile-up for me - evolution and the size of the cosmos are the biggies but like I said its the erection of fences which say "don't go there" that annoy me.

 

Supposedly science isn't allowed to answer "Why are we here?" - how about We're evolved animals - a view supported by mountains of evidence in which process a divine creator is complete unnecessary. Next.

 

Aye all that is true in a way.

 

But ironically you're portraying many of the issues that end up in human strife (only against religion). It's pretty true that religion has been at the center of a LOT of misery, but really in almost all cases such things were as much about politics and power (and even economics) as beliefs per se. Just religion was/is a good excuse.... so really it's us, humanity, that cause the issues.

 

 

 

and the evidence for Christ

 

Apart from the heavily politicised gospels there is none.

I dunno, there's a bit of non-bible 3rd party stuff around. Enough that if I had to bet I would bet that there was a Jewish preacher called Jesus that was crucified around that time.

 

I was under the impression Jesus flew completely under the radar of the historians of the time. Certainly there is no evidence that a lot of what is said in the Bible, for example Herod's slaughter of the babies, or even the census, was true. I'd take the whole thing with a pinch of salt.

 

There were also numerous other Jesus type messiahs during that period in the Middle East. Jesus just got lucky.

[NJS 3974]

Aye all that is true in a way.

 

But ironically you're portraying many of the issues that end up in human strife (only against religion). It's pretty true that religion has been at the center of a LOT of misery, but really in almost all cases such things were as much about politics and power (and even economics) as beliefs per se. Just religion was/is a good excuse.... so really it's us, humanity, that cause the issues.

 

Undoubtedly - I'm not one who says remove religion and wars end.

 

What does need to end is all the criteria for gang forming of which religion, nationalism, tribalism (football) are all examples- it still might not work but I think we'd be nearer.

 

I think Europe post WWII, apart from a couple of hotspots, is a good ideal for a general conglomeration of people where the above gangs matter less than other places - thats why I'm opposed to Merkel's attempts to refer to a "christian heritage" in any new mission statements of the EU.

[TheInspiration 1]

Have you studied/read about the issue much? No matter how much evidence for Jesus is found, scpetics will carry on asking for more and more in my view.

 

Also how are the Leviticus quotes particularly nasty?

 

I know the "evidence" usually given is dubious at best - it really does just leave the gospels.

 

In all honesty I think there probably was a preacher around at the time who may have been "good".

 

What happened to him and what he taught in a factual sense I doubt very much (especially the later added resurrection bits(different style of writing apparently)).

 

Levticus: 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Always quoted by bigots on the issue.

 

Its a lovely chapter that - if you have sex with a woman during her period you should be cast out of your town. It also has the classic "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - the justification of hundreds of murders by the church of love.

Do you think they wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for religion? Granted people have acted appallingly in the past to homosexuals and "witches", but Leviticus was written at a time when "witchcraft" and homosexual behaviour was commonplace and many were disgusted by it. In any case what Jesus said is more relevant than what we find in Leviticus.

 

As for the evidence for Jesus, I'm reading The Case For Christ which has been interesting so far and I've already read Why Can You Trust The Bible? by Amy Orr-Ewing, which explains why we can rely on the Bible and answers other common queries surrounding it. I would recommend them. I know we can't exactly "prove" Jesus was the son of a higher being, but we can't really "know" anything several decades into the past. There are thousands more manuscripts that support the New Testament than the writings of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle etc, which were written not too long before.