There is no evidence that shows Christian beliefs are false

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]He was mentioned by some historians....and in the NT. While one may debate the "faith" part of the Bible they should not debate the historical part.

LJS9502_basic

Yes they should, If the Bible is believed to be factually wrong on so many accounts as to bring into question its legitimacy then what makes you think the Historical accounts held within are any more reliable?

...Not quite sure what you're asking.

There is no physical evidence that Harry Potter isn't real.

You can't prove that things don't exist, it's the lack of evidence that proves it is false

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Yes they should, If the Bible is believed to be factually wrong on so many accounts as to bring into question its legitimacy then what makes you think the Historical accounts held within are any more reliable?

mattisgod01

...Not quite sure what you're asking.

There is no physical evidence that Harry Potter isn't real.

You can't prove that things don't exist, it's the lack of evidence that proves it is false

toast_burner

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And that would be?LJS9502_basic

...Not quite sure what you're asking.

Proof that the Bible isn't Historically accurate or proof that it is full of factually untrue statements in general?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

...Not quite sure what you're asking.

mattisgod01

Proof that the Bible isn't Historically accurate or proof that it is full of factually untrue statements in general?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]Live came into being on this planet, we know there are billions and billions of other planets.There is nothing to support religion.LJS9502_basic

The way you worded that amused me... it makes it sound as if Mary was not on earth when she was impregnated.Baconbits2004

But we do know that life started on this planet so we know it happened at least once, God (s) on the other hand have no supporting evidence.

People often say "Oh, there's no evidence that Jesus lived" and that God doesn't exist etc. But there isn't any that disproves Jesus and God exists.

gameking5000

But we do know that life started on this planet so we know it happened at least once, God (s) on the other hand have no supporting evidence.

tenaka2

People often say "Oh, there's no evidence that Jesus lived" and that God doesn't exist etc. But there isn't any that disproves Jesus and God exists.

gameking5000

I think that Jesus should come back and rise from the dead again to shut these atheists the f*** up, already.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'm asking for proof of your statement.LJS9502_basic

Proof that the Bible isn't Historically accurate or proof that it is full of factually untrue statements in general?

This whole exchange has been vague. I was under the impression you were inferring that although alot of the contents of the Bible may require faith the Historical accounts are accurate and reliable. My position was that any book containing so many disputable facts can not be considered a reliable source of historical events.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

But we do know that life started on this planet so we know it happened at least once, God (s) on the other hand have no supporting evidence.

LJS9502_basic

I don't 'believe' they do.

I believe is statistically probable.

Where as gods have no supporting evidence of any kind.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Proof that the Bible isn't Historically accurate or proof that it is full of factually untrue statements in general?

mattisgod01

This whole exchange has been vague. I was under the impression you were inferring that although alot of the contents of the Bible may require faith the Historical accounts are accurate and reliable. My position was that any book containing so many disputable facts can not be considered a reliable source of historical events.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

But we do know that life started on this planet so we know it happened at least once, God (s) on the other hand have no supporting evidence.

tenaka2

I don't 'believe' they do.

I believe is statistically probable.

Where as gods have no supporting evidence of any kind.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The Bible is not intended to be a history book...that said it does have history/people mentioned in it. I'm not sure what your vague sentence refers to TBH.

LJS9502_basic

This whole exchange has been vague. I was under the impression you were inferring that although alot of the contents of the Bible may require faith the Historical accounts are accurate and reliable. My position was that any book containing so many disputable facts can not be considered a reliable source of historical events.

Sure there's history in the Bible. There's some history in 'the Grapes of Wrath' as well. It's still a work of fiction though.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But life takes specific requirements...and we don't know that those same requirements exist elsewhere. You "believe" they do and that life is "likely"....but you still have no proof that is so.

LJS9502_basic

I don't 'believe' they do.

I believe is statistically probable.

Where as gods have no supporting evidence of any kind.

But we have verifiable elements, we can verify that this is a planet and we can verify that it has life on it, so we know that life can and will come into existance on planets. So the chances of it happening has already been proved a positive (because it happned here).

However the chances of there being a god are currently zero as it hasn't happened anywhere, ever.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

This whole exchange has been vague. I was under the impression you were inferring that although alot of the contents of the Bible may require faith the Historical accounts are accurate and reliable. My position was that any book containing so many disputable facts can not be considered a reliable source of historical events.

worlock77

Sure there's history in the Bible. There's some history in 'the Grapes of Wrath' as well. It's still a work of fiction though.

Sure, he French revolution happened, but the rest of the book? Not so much.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I don't 'believe' they do.

I believe is statistically probable.

Where as gods have no supporting evidence of any kind.

tenaka2

But we have verifiable elements, we can verify that this is a planet and we can verify that it has life on it, so we know that life can and will come into existance on planets. So the chances of it happening has already been proved a positive (because it happned here).

However the chances of there being a god are currently zero as it hasn't happened anywhere, ever.

this is one of those topics where false or true aren't that important. the question is what do your beliefs do for you? that's all that matters.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

This whole exchange has been vague. I was under the impression you were inferring that although alot of the contents of the Bible may require faith the Historical accounts are accurate and reliable. My position was that any book containing so many disputable facts can not be considered a reliable source of historical events.

worlock77

Sure there's history in the Bible. There's some history in 'the Grapes of Wrath' as well. It's still a work of fiction though.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The Bible is not intended to be a history book...that said it does have history/people mentioned in it. I'm not sure what your vague sentence refers to TBH.

LJS9502_basic

This whole exchange has been vague. I was under the impression you were inferring that although alot of the contents of the Bible may require faith the Historical accounts are accurate and reliable. My position was that any book containing so many disputable facts can not be considered a reliable source of historical events.

Well it was written almost 2000 years ago, Lots of books written in X time period contain history from that time. That doesn't mean that the Historical accounts in the Bible are necessarily correct or reliable. If a book written 2000 years ago said that Julius Caesar lived in 46 BCE, Was Emperor of Rome and was 10 feet tall and breathed fire. It is technically historically correct however that is not a basis for considering the latter statements as being true. And a basis for considering everything else written in the book to be questionable without further verification.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Your statistics should be based on verifiable elements. Since we have no idea if the "billions and billions" of planets have life sustainable atmospheres those statistics aren't worth very much. If we use statistics we can find those believing in a religion of some kind greatly outnumber those that don't. But that would not prove the religion is correct. Statistics are fun to play with....but they don't always say what we think they do.LJS9502_basic

But we have verifiable elements, we can verify that this is a planet and we can verify that it has life on it, so we know that life can and will come into existance on planets. So the chances of it happening has already been proved a positive (because it happned here).

However the chances of there being a god are currently zero as it hasn't happened anywhere, ever.

one of nine/eight depending on how you see it.

But we havnt visisted any of the planets as yet so it is difficult to verify.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yet historians do say there is history in the Bible. LJS9502_basic

Sure there's history in the Bible. There's some history in 'the Grapes of Wrath' as well. It's still a work of fiction though.

What is not factual about it? Are you saying 'the Grapes of Wrath' is not a work of fiction?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

This whole exchange has been vague. I was under the impression you were inferring that although alot of the contents of the Bible may require faith the Historical accounts are accurate and reliable. My position was that any book containing so many disputable facts can not be considered a reliable source of historical events.

mattisgod01

Well it was written almost 2000 years ago, Lots of books written in X time period contain history from that time. That doesn't mean that the Historical accounts in the Bible are necessarily correct or reliable. If a book written 2000 years ago said that Julius Caesar lived in 46 BCE, Was Emperor of Rome and was 10 feet tall and breathed fire. It is technically historically correct however that is not a basis for considering the latter statements as being true. And a basis for considering everything else written in the book to be questionable without further verification.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yet historians do say there is history in the Bible. LJS9502_basic

Well it was written almost 2000 years ago, Lots of books written in X time period contain history from that time. That doesn't mean that the Historical accounts in the Bible are necessarily correct or reliable. If a book written 2000 years ago said that Julius Caesar lived in 46 BCE, Was Emperor of Rome and was 10 feet tall and breathed fire. It is technically historically correct however that is not a basis for considering the latter statements as being true. And a basis for considering everything else written in the book to be questionable without further verification.

I said just becuase there are aspects that can be considered historically correct isn't a basis for considering everything written within historically correct.

You said "While one may debate the "faith" part of the Bible they should not debate the historical part." While this is a vague comment you have yet to clarify your position. The Bible contains so many questionable statements that in and of itself it cannot be considered factual. Alteast not without faith, Which would contradict your statement.

[QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"]

Christianity is almost identicle to an old Egyptian religion but i can't for the life of me remember what the religion was called. Can someone help me out here?

Stavrogin_

That's like saying Norse Paganism evolved out of Greek Paganism because Greek Paganism came first.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"]

Christianity is almost identicle to an old Egyptian religion but i can't for the life of me remember what the religion was called. Can someone help me out here?

th3warr1or

Care to offer an alternative or are you of the view that Judaism is completely original?

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Christianity is nothing more than a Jewish sect, and Judaism originated from Atenism, or the cult of Aten. I believe that's the "old Egyptian religion" you were referring to. Probably the first monotheistic (some say henotheistic) religion.mattisgod01

Care to offer an alternative or are you of the view that Judaism is completely original?

Completely original? As in, being in the first monotheistic religion? Yes. People often argue that Manichaeism is monotheistic and that it precedes Judaism. As far as preceding Judaism goes, yes it did. But as far as the monotheistic claims go, Manichaeism is dualistic. Ahura Mazda may be the Supreme God, but Ahriman is his "brother," not his creation. Both of them are uncreated.

The only reason they're not polytheistic (worship of multiple deities) is because nobody in their right mind would worship Ahriman.

[QUOTE="gameking5000"]

People often say "Oh, there's no evidence that Jesus lived" and that God doesn't exist etc. But there isn't any that disproves Jesus and God exists.

tenaka2

I am from the planet jupiter, my species is quite lucky, life only exists on a small number of gas giants. I am 27,000 years old and I navigate though the gas layers using a complex bladder floatation system. I am also host to a varied parasitic ecosystem.

But it can get boring just floating about so I post here for the lols.

I could care less on what people believe in. I'm a good Christian and I believe in Jesus. At least I'm not the one that's going to burn in hell. :PScottMescudi

Yes, you will. Every other religion says that you are wrong and worshipping the wrong god. You are going to the hell equivalent of those respective religion.

[QUOTE="ScottMescudi"]I could care less on what people believe in. I'm a good Christian and I believe in Jesus. At least I'm not the one that's going to burn in hell. :PXaosII

Yes, you will. Every other religion says that you are wrong and worshipping the wrong god. You are going to the hell equivalent of those respective religion.

I could care less on what people believe in. I'm a good Christian and I believe in Jesus. At least I'm not the one that's going to burn in hell. :PScottMescudi

[QUOTE="ScottMescudi"]I could care less on what people believe in. I'm a good Christian and I believe in Jesus. At least I'm not the one that's going to burn in hell. :PXaosII

Yes, you will. Every other religion says that you are wrong and worshipping the wrong god. You are going to the hell equivalent of those respective religion.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"] Judaism is not from Atenism. That's stupid. th3warr1or

Care to offer an alternative or are you of the view that Judaism is completely original?

Completely original? As in, being in the first monotheistic religion? Yes. People often argue that Manichaeism is monotheistic and that it precedes Judaism. As far as preceding Judaism goes, yes it did. But as far as the monotheistic claims go, Manichaeism is dualistic. Ahura Mazda may be the Supreme God, but Ahriman is his "brother," not his creation. Both of them are uncreated.

The only reason they're not polytheistic (worship of multiple deities) is because nobody in their right mind would worship Ahriman.

Re-read it? Your post was so brief that i've read it 50 times in the last 30 seconds, That was my point. If you are going to say that someone else is wrong it helps to have a little more substance in your post to back your assertion. As you have just done. That is all.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Care to offer an alternative or are you of the view that Judaism is completely original?

mattisgod01

Completely original? As in, being in the first monotheistic religion? Yes. People often argue that Manichaeism is monotheistic and that it precedes Judaism. As far as preceding Judaism goes, yes it did. But as far as the monotheistic claims go, Manichaeism is dualistic. Ahura Mazda may be the Supreme God, but Ahriman is his "brother," not his creation. Both of them are uncreated.

The only reason they're not polytheistic (worship of multiple deities) is because nobody in their right mind would worship Ahriman.

Re-read it? Your post was so brief that i've read it 50 times in the last 30 seconds, That was my point. If you are going to say that someone else is wrong it helps to have a little more substance in your post to back your assertion. As you have just done. That is all.

My apologies. I tried updating the post (that I asked you to re-read), but then I ran into some error with the WYSIWYG post editor, so the post didn't update, and I decided to re-word everything and then include it in the second post.

Just a misunderstanding/miscommunication.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The Bible is not intended to be a history book...that said it does have history/people mentioned in it. I'm not sure what your vague sentence refers to TBH.

LJS9502_basic

This whole exchange has been vague. I was under the impression you were inferring that although alot of the contents of the Bible may require faith the Historical accounts are accurate and reliable. My position was that any book containing so many disputable facts can not be considered a reliable source of historical events.

People didnt even think pontius pilate was real untill the 1960s when they found the pontius stone. Not many records we have from that far back in time. Atheists even goes as far as to say jesus was not even real. They hold jesus to standards they don't use on anyone els. Did you know we have no record of Alexander the great until 200 years after he died? We have information on jesus around his life time but that's not good eunght to them .We even know about jesus brother james.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"]

Christianity is almost identicle to an old Egyptian religion but i can't for the life of me remember what the religion was called. Can someone help me out here?

th3warr1or

That's like saying Norse Paganism evolved out of Greek Paganism because Greek Paganism came first.

Partly right, Judaism didn't so much evolve from atenism as it did in reaction to atenism. There's evidence of a lower-class revolt against the Egyptian ruling class and iconoclastic damage to signs of the pharoh's power at around the time that the exodus was said to have taken place.Judaeic theology and the names and practices attributed to god share more with the local Cannanite gods than they do with the Egyptian ones.

I could care less on what people believe in. I'm a good Christian and I believe in Jesus. At least I'm not the one that's going to burn in hell. :PScottMescudi

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Care to offer an alternative or are you of the view that Judaism is completely original?

th3warr1or

Completely original? As in, being in the first monotheistic religion? Yes. People often argue that Manichaeism is monotheistic and that it precedes Judaism. As far as preceding Judaism goes, yes it did. But as far as the monotheistic claims go, Manichaeism is dualistic. Ahura Mazda may be the Supreme God, but Ahriman is his "brother," not his creation. Both of them are uncreated.

The only reason they're not polytheistic (worship of multiple deities) is because nobody in their right mind would worship Ahriman.

Atenism is monotheistic, and was practiced in exactly the same region where Judaism originated from.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Christianity is nothing more than a Jewish sect, and Judaism originated from Atenism, or the cult of Aten. I believe that's the "old Egyptian religion" you were referring to. Probably the first monotheistic (some say henotheistic) religion.theone86

That's like saying Norse Paganism evolved out of Greek Paganism because Greek Paganism came first.

Partly right, Judaism didn't so much evolve from atenism as it did in reaction to atenism. There's evidence of a lower-class revolt against the Egyptian ruling class and iconoclastic damage to signs of the pharoh's power at around the time that the exodus was said to have taken place.Judaeic theology and the names and practices attributed to god share more with the local Cannanite gods than they do with the Egyptian ones.

A lot of religions came as reactions to other religions though. For example, there are verses in the Tanakh that are clearly meant in opposition to Manichaeism/Zoroastrianism. As Zoroastrianism was dualistic (Ormazd was ALL good, and Ahriman was ALL evil), Judaism countered that by stating that all things, good and evil, came from God. As such, this is why I reject the Christian concept of an all-good God.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Well it was written almost 2000 years ago, Lots of books written in X time period contain history from that time. That doesn't mean that the Historical accounts in the Bible are necessarily correct or reliable. If a book written 2000 years ago said that Julius Caesar lived in 46 BCE, Was Emperor of Rome and was 10 feet tall and breathed fire. It is technically historically correct however that is not a basis for considering the latter statements as being true. And a basis for considering everything else written in the book to be questionable without further verification.

mattisgod01

I said just becuase there are aspects that can be considered historically correct isn't a basis for considering everything written within historically correct.

You said "While one may debate the "faith" part of the Bible they should not debate the historical part." While this is a vague comment you have yet to clarify your position. The Bible contains so many questionable statements that in and of itself it cannot be considered factual. Alteast not without faith, Which would contradict your statement.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Care to offer an alternative or are you of the view that Judaism is completely original?

theone86

Completely original? As in, being in the first monotheistic religion? Yes. People often argue that Manichaeism is monotheistic and that it precedes Judaism. As far as preceding Judaism goes, yes it did. But as far as the monotheistic claims go, Manichaeism is dualistic. Ahura Mazda may be the Supreme God, but Ahriman is his "brother," not his creation. Both of them are uncreated.

The only reason they're not polytheistic (worship of multiple deities) is because nobody in their right mind would worship Ahriman.

Atenism is monotheistic, and was practiced in exactly the same region where Judaism originated from.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"] Judaism is not from Atenism. That's stupid, and purely speculation.

That's like saying Norse Paganism evolved out of Greek Paganism because Greek Paganism came first.

th3warr1or

Partly right, Judaism didn't so much evolve from atenism as it did in reaction to atenism. There's evidence of a lower-class revolt against the Egyptian ruling class and iconoclastic damage to signs of the pharoh's power at around the time that the exodus was said to have taken place.Judaeic theology and the names and practices attributed to god share more with the local Cannanite gods than they do with the Egyptian ones.

A lot of religions came as reactions to other religions though. For example, there are verses in the Tanakh that are clearly meant in opposition to Manichaeism/Zoroastrianism. As Zoroastrianism was dualistic (Ormazd was ALL good, and Ahriman was ALL evil), Judaism countered that by stating that all things, good and evil, came from God. As such, this is why I reject the Christian concept of an all-good God.

Isn't that a slight against a religion's validity, though? Religion has been held to be completely true by its followers, most of the time revealed by divine means. Why would reactions and counter-reactions be necessary if this were true? If that's the case, then religion holds no more validity than a period of art. Saying, "this religion is true" is like saying only Baroque art is true art.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

This whole exchange has been vague. I was under the impression you were inferring that although alot of the contents of the Bible may require faith the Historical accounts are accurate and reliable. My position was that any book containing so many disputable facts can not be considered a reliable source of historical events.

dontshackzmii

People didnt even think pontius pilate was real untill the 1960s when they found the pontius stone. Not many records we have from that far back in time. Atheists even goes as far as to say jesus was not even real. They hold jesus to standards they don't use on anyone els. Did you know we have no record of Alexander the great until 200 years after he died? We have information on jesus around his life time but that's not good eunght to them .We even know about jesus brother james.

You are comparing apples and oranges, Alexander the Great, While being referred to as great is not held up to be a Supernatural/Godlike being. Whether Jesus existed or not isn't even that relevant as this isn't an issue of whether a person named Jesus during those times existed but whether the Biblical account of who he was and what he did is true. If Jesus did exist but he was just a common man and nothing more then he would be irrelevant to everyone. We are talking about the Jesus, Son of God. Not the Jesus, Common man. You take away the Biblical account of Jesus and you have very little evidence to back up the Biblical claims and very little evidence to prove he even existed.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"] Re-read my post. If a man in China was the first to cough, it doesn't mean a Greek man copied him by coughing. Similarities in religions happen a lot, but when you look deeper, they all but disappear completely.

Completely original? As in, being in the first monotheistic religion? Yes. People often argue that Manichaeism is monotheistic and that it precedes Judaism. As far as preceding Judaism goes, yes it did. But as far as the monotheistic claims go, Manichaeism is dualistic. Ahura Mazda may be the Supreme God, but Ahriman is his "brother," not his creation. Both of them are uncreated.

The only reason they're not polytheistic (worship of multiple deities) is because nobody in their right mind would worship Ahriman.

th3warr1or

Atenism is monotheistic, and was practiced in exactly the same region where Judaism originated from.

There's no proof that Moses even existed, much less that the Biblical figures that preceeded him did. The ten commandments? Allegory, the Jews didn't wander the desert for forty years nor did an elderly man climb Mt. Sinai to ahve a private chat with god. In fact, I don't even think Jews self-identified as Jews at the time the commandments were said to have been written. I go by the evidence I have, and all the evidence points to the Jewish people being disgruntled Egyptian citizens in the lower caste in Egypt's Cannanite territories. They revolted against Egyptian rule, they revolted against Atenism, and they tried to create new monotheistic religions using existing Cannanite gods, with Jaweh eventually winning out.

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You said it had historical inaccuracies and now you said its historically correct. Okay then. Now that you have revised what I found inaccurate in your initial post I'd say we are done here.LJS9502_basic

I said just becuase there are aspects that can be considered historically correct isn't a basis for considering everything written within historically correct.

You said "While one may debate the "faith" part of the Bible they should not debate the historical part." While this is a vague comment you have yet to clarify your position. The Bible contains so many questionable statements that in and of itself it cannot be considered factual. Alteast not without faith, Which would contradict your statement.

Do you actually have a point to make or do you just want me to keep providing the substance while you make unproductive one liners?

http://youtu.be/NUuzxjwXVXE

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Partly right, Judaism didn't so much evolve from atenism as it did in reaction to atenism. There's evidence of a lower-class revolt against the Egyptian ruling class and iconoclastic damage to signs of the pharoh's power at around the time that the exodus was said to have taken place.Judaeic theology and the names and practices attributed to god share more with the local Cannanite gods than they do with the Egyptian ones.

theone86

A lot of religions came as reactions to other religions though. For example, there are verses in the Tanakh that are clearly meant in opposition to Manichaeism/Zoroastrianism. As Zoroastrianism was dualistic (Ormazd was ALL good, and Ahriman was ALL evil), Judaism countered that by stating that all things, good and evil, came from God. As such, this is why I reject the Christian concept of an all-good God.

Isn't that a slight against a religion's validity, though? Religion has been held to be completely true by its followers, most of the time revealed by divine means. Why would reactions and counter-reactions be necessary if this were true? If that's the case, then religion holds no more validity than a period of art. Saying, "this religion is true" is like saying only Baroque art is true art.

Not necessarily. It depends on how one views religion. A religious book (believed to be divinely inspired, by its followers) could very well be the sayings of its gods or God.

In the same way humans debate, gods could have their own conflicts (often even within the same religion itself, as I mentioned earlier with the example of Manichaeism). As such, if Thor were to declare himself god of thunder, Zeus could tell his followers that he (Zeus) is the true god of thunder. In that vein, whatever was written down by the Greek scribe, would be that "Zeus alone is the true god of thunder," and you would be right in saying that it is a reaction to the Norse declaration of Thor being the thunder god.

Obviously, this wouldn't work too well in the event where a religion's deity claims to be the only god in existence. Nonetheless, I have an alternative; there is only one correct religion in the world (for the sake of this discussion, do not counter me by saying "there is no god or correct religion"). As such, what is percevied as "reactive" by people observing the religious book, is actually a god "correcting" its followers' misconceptions.

Think of it as such. If for some reason, I had the preconceived notion that babies came from overeating (which is obviously wrong), and I voiced that opinion in front of my mother/father/brother who happens to be a biology major, they will "correct" me by stating otherwise. Their statement is a direct consequence of my erroneous claim, and is "reactive." It does not, however, make it any less their statement.