Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8

 

2007-02-26 14:35:21
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|6903|InGerLand

topal63 wrote:

You are being absurd...!

sfarrar33 wrote:

...me? your the one who is without empirical evidence claiming that an important spiritual figure to one of the worlds largest religions doesn't exist and never did
all i am trying to do is point out that without empirical or logical evidence you can't really say that
The stuck-on conception is the word: myth you are stuck on this idea; you have attributed a shallow meaning to the word; when what is implied is: uncertainty, meaning contained in the myth vs the literal happenstance of the myth; that acceptance of uncertainty means rejection of a value system (or all faith); people are often stuck on a word.

You’re expecting an absolute; a clear resolution; and trying to use logic; that only works when we are talking about pure mathematics; or simplistic symbolic logic. It does not work for actual things you can know about; the physical world (or history); those are arrived at / by pattern-recognition; corroboration of facts; duplication; repeatability; data; empirical evidence; in short generalizations by induction.

With your logic you could say a “teacup” exist on the other side of the Sun (not viewable from earth) orbiting around the Sun. And, until proven otherwise it is true; or reasonable; or at least possible. But that is the very definition of an un-true thing as far as humans can actually know things; it is un-reasonable; it is only minimally possible; there is no evidence to support the claim; it is discordant with known physical natures (utterly inconsistent; how did it get there?); and considering the minimal possibility that a “teacup” was made; then launched into orbit around the Sun; I am not required to provide “evidence” of non-existence (as there is no such thing; it is an absurdity).
wow... you spent a while thinking that one over, anyway
to paragraph 1: yes because that was the wording you used and even highlighted in bold, it seems like you and i take the word to have different meanings, a slightly less blunt use of wording with a similar meaning would have meant i wouldn't have stuck with it and would have adjusted my argument, maybe there wouldn't hae need for an argument.

to paragraph 2: yup, its quite easy to logically argue Jesus' existance and its just as easy to argue his non-existance, which is where many of the problems come from i spose.

to paragraph 3: again yup you have hit the nail on the head there, for a start who said we made the teacup?
also we could disprove that one, all we do is fly a shuttle round the sun and hunt for teacups (the hard part) if we find one then the theory was right and if we don't then the theory was wrong, simple as. I believe that its completely possible to do that with Jesus and God and all manner of things, just simply not at this moment in time (lack of money, science, will power, any number of things that exist in the world now that might not in the future). The only thing that limits what hummanity can do and can't do is time, and one day we may even beat that, who knows.
2007-02-26 15:15:25
topal63
. . .
+533|7003

sfarrar33 wrote:

wow... you spent a while thinking that one over, anyway...

to paragraph 2: yup, its quite easy to logically argue Jesus' existance and its just as easy to argue his non-existance, which is where many of the problems come from i spose.

to paragraph 3: again yup you have hit the nail on the head there, for a start who said we made the teacup?
also we could disprove that one, all we do is fly a shuttle round the sun and hunt for teacups (the hard part) if we find one then the theory was right and if we don't then the theory was wrong, simple as. I believe that its completely possible to do that with Jesus and God and all manner of things, just simply not at this moment in time (lack of money, science, will power, any number of things that exist in the world now that might not in the future). The only thing that limits what hummanity can do and can't do is time, and one day we may even beat that, who knows.
No I didn't spend any time thinking about that nor that much time typing it... anways, the word is accurate and fair. These words are accurate: myth or mythical; legend or legendary; it is a literary tale with no proof whatsoever; thereby no means to begin the process of actual human knowing; generalizations by induction.

No there is no logical argument for the life; historical life; actual life; of Jesus- period - it is not either logical; nor is there a 'logical' argument you can construct - that cannot be shown to be an absurdity. And that is really OK ... it isn't really a critic, or criticism, it just seems that way (that the accurate word: myth inspires the reaction to it) from certain perspectives; when the expectation of a belief; or belief in something - is often assumed to be based upon a high degree of confidence... and that - that is equal to knowing.

An no you could not disprove the "teacup" you could easily say that there is a teacup orbiting every Star in existence. The size and the distance from the Star: its a variant orbital distance, its specific location in its orbit variant, the size of the tea-cup (tiny or very tiny; or very very tiny; whatever; another variant); the reflective quality of the object (variant); all these (and more!) problems can pose a problem that would be impossible to resolve. The gravity of the teacup is to small to be observed by indirect evidence of its effect on another gravitational body; the size is to small for any telescope to see now or in the distance future; the position in orbit is a mere guess that could easily prove to be a fruitless guessing game.... And all you have done is try to prove an absurdity; that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  There is no such thing as empirical evidence of a non-existent thing. There is no reason to think the 'teacup' in orbit is a real thing; there is no reason to attempt the absurd and prove a non-existent thing is non-existent - it cannot be done.

You don't EVER prove things don't exist. ( <--- This list is infinite ).
You only prove by critical examination of data; what you can humanly know within reason; with theories arrived at / by generalizations based upon empirical data or events that are consistent with physical nature (as physics has been demonstrated to be consistent throughout the Universe and in subjective-time-frame comparisons); that is you actually only know things by the process of induction. Or you know what other men / women have learned; theorized by their induction.

It is not that much of claim to say something inconsistent with physical-reality; something uncorroborated - something lacking historical proof; translated many times; filled with previous extant mythical forms; etc; tales from antiquity - are legendary or mythical. It does not even de-value the tale/myth - that you / me / anyone can or could say that myths are not literal-truths - that they are symbolic truths.

Sgt.Gene wrote:

Does it really matter if he was the son of god or not? Does it really matter if he had special powers or not? No. What matters is the words he preached, he preached, love everyone, be good, do the right thing. We need to not focus on what "powers" he had or if he was the son of God, but look at the guidance he gave to the people of Jersualem.
Yes...

There is some truth in the latter part of your statement, but it is not a universal... not by a long shot - so it does matter; what is being conveyed; and in what form.

Many (throughout history) have not known the Jesus myth; many do not really know the totality of the Gospels; what they are and how they were written & when - many will never accept or know the teachings ever - and many merely know them by the fact of proximity - it is a matter of growth to learn and deal with the reality of it - that the Jesus-myth has not shaken the world into a better place; that it is utterly discordant with the concept of humility and spirtuality to reject those individuals outside the sphere of influence and assume damnation (Parents; Country; region = proximity to the value-system - the biggest reason anyone is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc, etc, etc).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-20 14:20:39)

2007-02-26 15:18:57
Sgt.Gene
...
+215|7048
Does it really matter if he was the son of god or not? Does it really matter if he had special powers or not? No. What matters is the words he preached, he preached, love everyone, be good, do the right thing. We need to not focus on what "powers" he had or if he was the son of God, but look at the guidance he gave to the people of Jersualem.
2007-02-26 16:58:51
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|6903|InGerLand

topal63 wrote:

An no you could not disprove the "teacup" you could easily say that there is a teacup orbiting every Star in existence. The size and the distance from the Star: its a variant orbital distance, its specific location in its orbit variant, the size of the tea-cup (tiny or very tiny; or very very tiny; whatever; another variant); the reflective quality of the object (variant); all these (an more!) problems can pose a problem that would be impossible to resolve. The gravity of the teacup is to small to be observed by indirect evidence of its effect on another gravitational body; the size is to small for any telescope to see now or in the distance future; the position in orbit is a mere guess that could easily prove to be a fruitless guessing game.... And all you have done is try to prove an absurdity; that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  There is no such thing as empirical evidence of a non-existent thing. There is no reason to think the 'teacup' in orbit is a real thing; there is no reason to attempt the absurd and prove a non-existent thing is non-existent - it cannot be done.
the rest of what you wrote is well thought out and inarguable [for me anyways]
but i can prove the teacups do exist (despite the thread derailment) its easy
on the information you have provided, not one but many teacups exist that surround stars and orbit them, the ones we know of are attached to a body of mass colloquially referred to as earth, and as the earth orbits the sun the teacups go with them, and as all stars rotate around the centre of the milkyway then surely all the teacups will eventually rotate around every star as different parts rotate at different speeds (oh yes i do enjoy being a bit of a smart arse )
and you never know in the future we maybe able to to pinpoint the location of objects as small as a single atom anywhere on the planet, if not the solar system or anywhere, 'tis merely a question of time...

I do wonder and if anyone does know the answer it would be appreciated though i doubt you will.
How do we think, how does a collection of vibrating or excited atoms with no real energy in the grand scheme of things, when collected together, allow us to imagine absolutly everything and anything, a space smaller than we can measure allows us to imagine things further than we can see or could possibly see, a great trait and curse of hummanity is our ability to be crazy to see things which arn't there and to allow them to actually distort our perceptions of reality.

I can see only two logical things, either theres some force that we do not know about yet that allows this, but the implications of this are that potentially any atom can think or imagine and then our definition of life would change dramatically (their collective might not think in the same way however...)
The other logical thing is that there must have been a divine body to create it to give us the power of thought a body that is so far above us we cannot yet comprehend it at all but merely register its presence.

Mind you this is only what i can see and i highly doubt either is true.
2007-02-27 06:41:04
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7056|PNW

sfarrar33 wrote:

not one but many teacups exist that surround stars and orbit them, the ones we know of are attached to a body of mass colloquially referred to as earth, and as the earth orbits the sun the teacups go with them, and as all stars rotate around the centre of the milkyway then surely all the teacups will eventually rotate around every star as different parts rotate at different speeds (oh yes i do enjoy being a bit of a smart arse )
You forgot a particular condition: a teacup may be taken on an interstellar journey, thus breaking from Sol orbit. For all we know, one may already have been smuggled onto a probe.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-02-27 06:43:01)

2007-02-27 10:56:44
topal63
. . .
+533|7003

sfarrar33 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

An no you could not disprove the "teacup" you could easily say that there is a teacup orbiting every Star in existence. ...
the rest of what you wrote is well thought out and inarguable [for me anyways]
Clarification... since you are creating a fact; that I did not introduce; therefore my bad(!); the teacup is not on a planet... as I said it is singularly in orbit by itself; this is implied by "how did it get there" and "who & why would someone launch one into space." The clarification of what was implied: it is not on any planet - it is singularly in orbit by itself.

and you never know in the future we maybe able to to pinpoint the location of objects as small as a single atom anywhere on the planet, if not the solar system or anywhere, 'tis merely a question of time...
That [above] idea falls into the absurd "teacup" category... invoking the anything-is-possible concept is equal to the previous example (which is part of that infinite list of non-existent things); and that is not how we know anything.

To examine anything in the universe; no matter what the means (you use energy to inspect energy); you are examining change; and have a record of a past quantum state; you would need a computer that could account for EVERYTHING (known; and yet unknown) in existence (all energy; as all energy might be entangled in some way) - all the way back to source of all things; lets call it the God-particle-wave-string-source(!). It is also conceivable that such a thing as a “quantum computer” to examine ALL-STATES is not something that can be engineered EVER; there are excellent demonstrations that such things could fall into the non-existent impossible category - thus data-mining and examining the flow of quantum states over subjective time is not possible; so you will then and therefore not be able to pinpoint a single atom anywhere in the universe EVER.

Oh, by the way it was just a demonstration that you don't have to disprove a possible infinite list of absurd claims; it works the other way around... the one making the claim is the one who offers proof first; then makes the claim... anyways ideas / concepts are actually fun to mess around with? No?

.
.
.
After reviewing the details of the find:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/to … 02-ah-1024
Airs on the Discovery Channel on March 4, at 9:00 PM ET/PT

Experts involved in the Documentary,
Dr. James D. Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Dr. Charlie R. Pellegrino, Author
Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, Professor of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Toronto
Dr. Shimon Gibson, Senior Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research
François Bovon, Frothingham Professor of the History of Religion, Harvard Divinity School

I am inclined to think this is extremely interesting way of presenting a known archeological find (previously dismissed by scholars, for the last 20-some years as nothing more than evidence of: typical 1st Century Jewish Names). But, the statistics presented FALSELY attribute conservative odds of 600 to 1 & that this aligns with the names of Jesus' Family in the mythical account(s).

The odds presented are a misrepresentation of statistics. It is like a lottery ticket; all the numbers have to be right to win (those are the odds of winning) in this case the assumption is 600 to 1; but to be wrong only one name (one number) needs to be wrong... the odds are if any ONE name is not translated properly in the mythical account vs. any ONE name is not actually translated in the TOMB properly (or is not the variant; or they are substituting variants & saying one name is actually another and the substitution is totally reasonable); then the whole reasonable argument fails.

Consider the mythical account and these 3 important names; Jesus (variants: Yeshua, Yehoshua or Yeshu), Mary, Joseph... only 1 of these 3 needs to be in error [translated / interpolated / the wrong variant] - in either the mythical account... or in the deciphering of the TOMB inscriptions. This could make the statistical odds more like 50% / 50%, like flipping a coin, you either believe it is true - or it just isn't proof of anything.

Also, there is the problem of forgery... one of ossuaries in question is a controversial one; involving an accused antiquities forger (Oded Golan) - the ossuary of "James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

A number of scholars have questioned the authenticity of Golan's finds, with some deriding them as obvious forgeries. Following investigations by the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Israeli police announced in December 2004 that they intended to charge Golan with crimes including fraud and forgery.

The geological evidence:
The committee turned to geology. Dr Yuval Goren, a geo-archaeologist and head of the Archaeological Institute at Tel-Aviv University, soon found evidence that a team of sophisticated forgers had led the earlier experts astray.

    The patina on the stone had in fact been manufactured artificially.
    The charcoal particles which produced the convincing radiocarbon date had been added by hand.
    The gold fragments hinting at an ancient fire were a clever final addition.
    The authorities presented their conclusions. They state: the stone tablet & James Ossuary, were elaborate fakes.

Scientists who call it a fraud cited the absence of a patina, or fossilized sheen, over the inscription as evidence that it was carved in modern times. After measuring the box's oxygen isotopes, which indicate weathering, scientists concluded that the sheen over the inscription was a water-and-chalk paste intended to imitate ancient weathering.

But Shanks and others, including Amos Bein, the director of the Israel Geological Survey--the research institute that conducted the test--say the patina could have been rubbed off By vigorous cleaning. Golan claims his mother scrubbed the ossuary with hot water.

Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University" and Avner Ayalon of the Israel Geological Survey said they found the sheen covering the inscription to be of a different geological nature than the patina on the rest of the ossuary. Most notably, he says, the material on the inscription contained micro-fossils of plankton and marine micro-organisms--the kind that are naturally found in chalk or limestone--from rock formed tens of millions of years ago in ancient seas.

Such fossils wouldn't be part of the geological footprint of a chalk patina, Goren contends, since that natural patina is made of calcium carbonate that recrystallizes after exposure to ground water. "True patina is like the stone crust that accumulates on the bottom of a tea kettle," the scientist said. "The calcium carbonate, a common mineral in an area rich in limestone, dissolves in the ground water, and with the loss of carbon dioxide, it recrystallizes. The process may be accelerated by heat. But in land conditions, like a burial cave, you can't expect a patina to contain any fossils in it."
But who was producing these fakes and how? Dr Goren decided to piece together how the stone tablet had been made. He tracked the origin of the stone itself - apparently a building block taken from a Crusader castle. It was even possible to work out how the fake patina had been manufactured and the ingredients used. What was clear was the team of forgers included experts in a range of disciplines.

More fakes suspected:
When the police took Oded Golan into custody and searched his apartment they discovered a workshop with a range of tools, materials, and half finished 'antiquities'. This was evidence for an operation of a scale far greater than they had suspected.
Investigators have established that collectors around the world have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for artefacts that came through Oded Golan's associates. Dozens of these items have now been examined by Dr Goren, and all have been revealed to be forgeries. Police now suspect that artefacts made by the same team of forgers have found their way into leading museums around the world.

Some archaeologists have now concluded that everything that came to market in the last 20 years without clear provenance should be considered a fake. Many of these objects, like the stone tablet which started the investigation, were cynically playing on the desire of many of the collectors to see the bible confirmed as history. For those in search of the temple of Solomon - their goal is as far away as ever.

The Trial of Oded Golan, is expected to last 10 years(!).
While this FIND lends no credibility to the myth of Christ... which is one thing.

It does lend some credibility to the idea that this is related to the (common dying resurrecting God-man) myth in some conflagrated way; there could be a relationship here. That the myth is a distortion of some other event in the life of someone of the variant name: Jesus (*Yeshua).

*Yeshua, son of Yosef; but rectifying that with the mythical account is a matter of assumption (a massive amount!) and the actual inscription is actually very-mangled (in Aramaic): ..."this ossuary inscription [the first name] is difficult to read."

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-20 14:26:22)

2007-02-27 11:43:37
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6974|Tampa Bay Florida

ncc6206 wrote:

Do you take every thing you read as the truth??? Christ rocks!!!
LOL!  cough BIBLE cough cough
2007-02-27 13:45:15
Ratzinger
Member
+43|6676|Wollongong, NSW, Australia

ncc6206 wrote:

Do you take every thing you read as the truth??? Christ rocks!!!
Well, he told them not to THROW rocks.....
2007-02-27 14:04:23
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6885|132 and Bush

You know what I find kind of funny is we have no Idea what Jesus looked like. All the paintings and descriptions are from Paul, a person who never saw the man.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-28 08:44:01
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|6903|InGerLand

topal63 wrote:

sfarrar33 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

An no you could not disprove the "teacup" you could easily say that there is a teacup orbiting every Star in existence. ...
the rest of what you wrote is well thought out and inarguable [for me anyways]
Clarification... since you are creating a fact; that I did not introduce; therefore my bad(!); the teacup is not on a planet... as I said it is singularly in orbit by itself; this is implied by "how did it get there" and "who & why would someone launch one into space." The clarification of what was implied: it is not on any planet - it is singularly in orbit by itself.
you take my teacup theory far too seriously lol
i mean if i really wanted to do it i would just go put one in space in orbit around the sun problem solved

topal63 wrote:

To examine anything in the universe; no matter what the means (you use energy to inspect energy); you are examining change; and have a record of a past quantum state; you would need a computer that could account for EVERYTHING (known; and yet unknown) in existence (all energy; as all energy might be entangled in some way) - all the way back to source of all things; lets call it the God-particle-wave-string-source(!). It is also conceivable that such a thing as a “quantum computer” to examine ALL-STATES is not something that can be engineered EVER; there are excellent demonstrations that such things could fall into the non-existent impossible category - thus data-mining and examining the flow of quantum states over subjective time is not possible; so you will then and therefore not be able to pinpoint a single atom anywhere in universe EVER.
at the moment you are right, in the future you may not be right
but again its all about time, in 50 years, 100 years, a 1000 years, time a scientist may one day find a metaphorical loophole in the very basic laws of physics and it could all change
remember that once god (see the thread relation here yeah yeah ) unquestionably created everything and the world and all of that, and for some people he still has but for most theres an intigration of science and religion or a complete rejection of it. The very basic fundamentals of science you hold dear may be right today but maybe not tomorrow, its not an argument just a thought btw since the argument will lead us nowhere...
2007-02-28 09:13:13
topal63
. . .
+533|7003

sfarrar33 wrote:

remember that once god (see the thread relation here yeah yeah) unquestionably created everything and the world and all of that, and for some people he still has but for most theres an intigration of science and religion or a complete rejection of it. The very basic fundamentals of science you hold dear may be right today but maybe not tomorrow, its not an argument just a thought btw since the argument will lead us nowhere...
This is not a theological debate (nor a philosophical debate) about the un-prove-ability of God as a conception of higher being (that is something specific; something else; I am inclined not to bore the BF2S crowd or you with; as they; you would not read it anyways). I am not talking Science here either - I am talking philosophical truths - things actually worked out in philosophy (science being a discipline were good logical philosophical practice is necessary). The main conceptions in question being: what you actually know - and how you actually know - NOT the endless infinite list of absurd claims and / or possibilities that could be (OR WONT BE) realized in the future.

As I said indirectly - scientists / philosophers with a great deal more knowledge and brain power to spare - even they have said (stated many times in many ways) there is a limit to know-ability and all descriptions in any theory (formal and that probably includes informal as well) - will be incomplete.

sfarrar33 wrote:

at the moment you are right, in the future you may not be right
but again its all about time, in 50 years, 100 years, a 1000 years, time a scientist may one day find a metaphorical loophole in the very basic laws of physics and it could all change
You’re doing it again, that [above] idea falls into the absurd "teacup" category... invoking the anything-is-possible concept is equal to the previous example (which is part of that infinite list of non-existent things); and that is not how we know anything.

sfarrar33 wrote:

i mean if i really wanted to do it i would just go put one in space in orbit around the sun problem solved
No I don’t take it seriously. It is (a form of) an old mythical lecture ascribed to Bertrand Russell, to illustrate a point, so continuing with the “un-provable teacup hypothesis.”

That [above] is almost a reasonable statement, but you actually know better than that. We are not talking about what you “can do”; we are talking about “what is” - “what you can know” - and “how you know things.” You have put a teacup in orbit; but you have not addressed the other “teacup” I claim was there before you launched “your different Earthly originating teacup.” The problem is the same as it was before; it is not a riddle; it is an illustration of a known philosophical truism: you don’t ever prove things FALSE; they are assumed to be BASELESS or POINTLESS or INVALID; etc; until there is proof to indicate the existence of it; either direct or indirect.

You keep wandering back to the absurd, why? It is a simple thing; not you; nor I; nor anyone in existence; can demonstrate the reality of: a future thing (yet unknown, possible is not-knowing), an unknown unknowable thing, or a non-existent thing.

Knowing something / anything is arrived at / by induction (specific conclusions drawn from data and or generalizations that are consistent within itself and over time). This is not a debate; it is an exchange of ideas; you are holding onto a misconception. I am illustrating the error - that has been known for a long time (by others far smarter than I). *I am an idiot; I am a device (like a telegraph machine); I am merely relaying to you: what know-ability is (as a conception), and how you actually know something.

*I am an idiot : feel free to quote this out of context.

Kmarion wrote:

You know what I find kind of funny is we have no Idea what Jesus looked like. All the paintings and descriptions are from Paul, a person who never saw the man.
It is one of there reason's why it is extremely easy to ascribe anonymous authorship to all Gospel (Greek: good news) accounts whether Synoptic (Mark, Mathew or Luke : Greek), Proselytizing (John : Greek), or Gnostic Traditions (Coptic):

1.) No one ever has seen Jesus - and then described him.

2.) Even the supposed earliest Synoptic Gospels do not appear in Early Christian Writings (the historical record) until around 150 CE. How could the authors have seen him?

3.) Not sure about paintings of Jesus by Paul (Saul of Tarsus), I have never heard of such a thing before. I misunderstood your statement. I am almost certain you meant "all paintings and /or descriptions" of Jesus are derived from Paul's Epistles... my bad(!)

4.) There is no description of Jesus in the Epistles to the Early Christian Church.

5.) The only descriptions existing extant within the Gospels are what he fictitiously could look like; when the mythical 2nd coming happens in Revelations (“... and that right soon!” even).

6.) When my priests told me “the Gospels are eye-witness accounts of a life” they told a lie to me; but they told this lie to me in “good faith” ; they did not know or verify (test the veracity of) this traditional belief.

7.) Jesus is not Jesus’ name - we really don’t know what this unknown person’s name really is: all the known references come from the Greek translations of Hebrew Names: and Greeks did not like the sound of those names; so they changed them to masculine Greek forms. It is common in the Septuagint (overall name given to the Greek translation of the Hebrew; we call - The Old Testament portion of the Bible); to find this: Yeshua, Yehoshua; or Yeshu - condensed into just one Greek Name: *Eee-aye-sooce (Iesous : Greek for the English Jesus).

8.) All images of Christ as a person with specific unique human details (looks, color, nose, hair, whatever) are pure fiction.

*Sort of the sound of the name in Greek: the “c” is a “s” sound.

[edit]: I misunderstood your statement. I am almost certain you meant "all paintings and / or descriptions" of Jesus are derived from Paul's Epistles... my bad(!)

Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-20 14:31:18)

2007-03-01 03:10:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6885|132 and Bush

Most of what we know about Jesus comes from Paul even though he never knew Jesus in life. There were two separate Jesus movements that came about after his death. One from James (Jesus's brother) and Paul.

Enjoy
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1336439518030057130[/google]


[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-803878529665320340[/google]
















EVieira wrote:

And he had a son, too. How will Christianity cope with this? How does the Romam Catholic Church explains this? Coincidence?
One thing is for sure they won't take to the streets and start burning cars.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-01 03:35:19)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-03-02 08:15:15
m4s3rchi3f
Member
+122|6579
Anyone noticed that of all religions, Christianity gets flamed the most? It's hated on more than Buddhism or even Islam and more doctrates spend their time proving Jesus was only a mere human.

I forget the link but there was a hoax where these group of scientists came up with this skeleton and claimed it was Jesus. Many professors and acclaimed men said they analyzed the data, how the body was discovered, and said that this indeed was Jesus' body. But at the time of the revealing of the body, at a conference, the group of people let known it was all a hoax and there really was never a body. At the time, all the people who took the scientists word that the body existed and data was accurate, now had eggs on their faces.

It makes you ponder why people are so quick to try to disprove Christianity. Yet, after 2000 years of attack and such, Christianity is still going strong. And it only requires one proof of evidence that proves the Bible false which makes Christianity to be false, yet no one has been able to find that one fact, such as the ressurection.
2007-03-02 08:42:21
EVieira
Member
+105|6763|Lutenblaag, Molvania

m4s3rchi3f wrote:

Anyone noticed that of all religions, Christianity gets flamed the most? It's hated on more than Buddhism or even Islam and more doctrates spend their time proving Jesus was only a mere human.

I forget the link but there was a hoax where these group of scientists came up with this skeleton and claimed it was Jesus. Many professors and acclaimed men said they analyzed the data, how the body was discovered, and said that this indeed was Jesus' body. But at the time of the revealing of the body, at a conference, the group of people let known it was all a hoax and there really was never a body. At the time, all the people who took the scientists word that the body existed and data was accurate, now had eggs on their faces.

It makes you ponder why people are so quick to try to disprove Christianity. Yet, after 2000 years of attack and such, Christianity is still going strong. And it only requires one proof of evidence that proves the Bible false which makes Christianity to be false, yet no one has been able to find that one fact, such as the ressurection.
Christianity is only flamed more because it is discussed more. If we had more Muslims or people who knew a bit more about Islam here it would be just as flamed, even more.

That skeleton you talk about maybe some hoax, but these tombs are not. The have already been dated as being from the 1st century, the inscriptions though are being contested.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-03-02 14:27:02
theelviscerator
Member
+19|6573

EVieira wrote:

m4s3rchi3f wrote:

Anyone noticed that of all religions, Christianity gets flamed the most? It's hated on more than Buddhism or even Islam and more doctrates spend their time proving Jesus was only a mere human.

I forget the link but there was a hoax where these group of scientists came up with this skeleton and claimed it was Jesus. Many professors and acclaimed men said they analyzed the data, how the body was discovered, and said that this indeed was Jesus' body. But at the time of the revealing of the body, at a conference, the group of people let known it was all a hoax and there really was never a body. At the time, all the people who took the scientists word that the body existed and data was accurate, now had eggs on their faces.

It makes you ponder why people are so quick to try to disprove Christianity. Yet, after 2000 years of attack and such, Christianity is still going strong. And it only requires one proof of evidence that proves the Bible false which makes Christianity to be false, yet no one has been able to find that one fact, such as the ressurection.
Christianity is only flamed more because it is discussed more. If we had more Muslims or people who knew a bit more about Islam here it would be just as flamed, even more.

That skeleton you talk about maybe some hoax, but these tombs are not. The have already been dated as being from the 1st century, the inscriptions though are being contested.
BS you dont flame islam because you are afraid they will burn down your cities, rape your women and suck up your tax dollars.

O wait they already do!
2007-03-02 20:19:21
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6810|South Florida

m4s3rchi3f wrote:

And it only requires one proof of evidence that proves the Bible false which makes Christianity to be false, yet no one has been able to find that one fact, such as the ressurection.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
that is what ive been trying to say. It will only take 1 fact disproving 1 part of the bible to put this damn religion to a halt. I can name at least 5!

Last edited by Dezerteagal5 (2007-03-02 20:20:12)

15 more years! 15 more years!
2007-03-05 09:09:43
topal63
. . .
+533|7003

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

m4s3rchi3f wrote:

And it only requires one proof of evidence that proves the Bible false which makes Christianity to be false, yet no one has been able to find that one fact, such as the ressurection.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
that is what ive been trying to say. It will only take 1 fact disproving 1 part of the bible to put this damn religion to a halt. I can name at least 5!
LOL - Look [Dezerteagal5] religion is a complexity you simply don't understand yet.

You can't disprove an unprovable thing.
You can't disprove a symbolic meaning.
You can't disprove traditions.
You can't disprove the value of ritual.

     You can't disprove the psychological effect of the message contained in a deed (whether a fable, or real); it is all that is left - after the deed - is the story (of the deed). And, sometimes the parable (or story) was always a symbolic meaning - that the original intent was meaning / understanding, not a literal happening.  And, sometimes when it is difficult to pin a reality on a Biblical story (is it true? If not), then why bother with the story - this is your reasoning. That is a FLAWED conception - if the correct conception is symbolic - and has only acquired a tradition discordant with the original intent - that the (telling re-telling of the) story was intended to convey a symbolic meaning.
2007-03-21 17:09:19
theelviscerator
Member
+19|6573
BC:AD


Why would world time be set around an imaginary figure anyways?

I realize the atheists have come up with a PC term called CE and BCE, but its the same frigging thing!

they just took out the name of Christ!

Laughable.
2007-03-21 17:20:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6689|North Carolina

theelviscerator wrote:

BC:AD


Why would world time be set around an imaginary figure anyways?

I realize the atheists have come up with a PC term called CE and BCE, but its the same frigging thing!

they just took out the name of Christ!

Laughable.
All I can say is that I find it laughable that you would take such a skeptical approach to global warming, but you apparently believe in an invisible man in the sky.
2007-03-21 19:11:58
VinghNigh
Member
+1|6531

ncc6206 wrote:

Do you take every thing you read as the truth??? Did you also miss the quote where the archeologist who found the site says ""The names that are found on the tombs are names that are similar to the names of the family of Jesus," he conceded.
Do you? What makes a crusty old manuscript, written as a piece of lore, translated, re-translated, edited, re-interpreted and then translated again magically more reliable then scientific knowledge and procedures?

Nothing, though you will argue differently I'm sure, because that's what religion is.  Faith with little reason.  Belief because that's what you believe.
2007-03-21 19:35:21
Zukabazuka
Member
+23|6970
One proffesor said,
If you can't believe that something basic was created out of nowhere billions of years ago, how can you then believe in a story where humans where created with higher inteligence and out of nowhere?
2007-03-21 19:42:55
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|6957|Colorado
Reason & Reality are all the proof I need. My mind atleast will not be destroyed by the mystics of faith who's motives are clear to anyone with reason.
2007-03-21 19:57:23
theelviscerator
Member
+19|6573

Turquoise wrote:

theelviscerator wrote:

BC:AD


Why would world time be set around an imaginary figure anyways?

I realize the atheists have come up with a PC term called CE and BCE, but its the same frigging thing!

they just took out the name of Christ!

Laughable.
All I can say is that I find it laughable that you would take such a skeptical approach to global warming, but you apparently believe in an invisible man in the sky.
Coincidentally almost all flaming left wing liberals who believe Bush caused 9/11,  Katrina was caused by gov  satellites and we bombed pearl harbor ourselves, also believe in global warming.

They also support the homosexual agenda and the full legalization of all drugs and the redistribution of wealth.

sound familiar?
2007-03-21 20:01:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6689|North Carolina

theelviscerator wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

theelviscerator wrote:

BC:AD


Why would world time be set around an imaginary figure anyways?

I realize the atheists have come up with a PC term called CE and BCE, but its the same frigging thing!

they just took out the name of Christ!

Laughable.
All I can say is that I find it laughable that you would take such a skeptical approach to global warming, but you apparently believe in an invisible man in the sky.
Coincidentally almost all flaming left wing liberals who believe Bush caused 9/11,  Katrina was caused by gov  satellites and we bombed pearl harbor ourselves, also believe in global warming.

They also support the homosexual agenda and the full legalization of all drugs and the redistribution of wealth.

sound familiar?
You forgot...  They are Commie bastards that want to kill babies, destroy churches, and make healthcare affordable.

The point I'm trying to make here is that most people have illogical beliefs.  Why not ditch all of them?

I'll ditch the global warming thing if you ditch religion.  Deal?
2007-03-21 20:11:27
theelviscerator
Member
+19|6573

Turquoise wrote:

theelviscerator wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


All I can say is that I find it laughable that you would take such a skeptical approach to global warming, but you apparently believe in an invisible man in the sky.
Coincidentally almost all flaming left wing liberals who believe Bush caused 9/11,  Katrina was caused by gov  satellites and we bombed pearl harbor ourselves, also believe in global warming.

They also support the homosexual agenda and the full legalization of all drugs and the redistribution of wealth.

sound familiar?
You forgot...  They are Commie bastards that want to kill babies, destroy churches, and make healthcare affordable.

The point I'm trying to make here is that most people have illogical beliefs.  Why not ditch all of them?

I'll ditch the global warming thing if you ditch religion.  Deal?
Never had "religion".

so deal.

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard