Is there a God? [Archive] - Page 4 - SpursTalk.com Forums

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:13 AM

No, you don't get it. There is extremely compelling evidence that man came from monkey,

show me.

that the universe is 14.5 billion years old, and so on. Fossils, carbon-dating,

Carbon dating has be exposed for not being reliable.

the expansion of the universe clearly shown by doppler shifts in spectrums of light emitted by celestial bodies, the theory of relativity that shows these bodies had/have a finite speed, etc. are all authoritative clues that point us in the direction you are in such violent opposition to (why, because they don't have the whole story?).

If your just going by what you read instead of common sense, then there is really no hope trying to educate you.

Your line of reasoning is like saying you're not going out on a date unless the woman tells you she'll suck your cock beforehand or no one should go out and play ball unless they can already shoot like Larry Bird.

At least both of those reasons are possible unlike your monkey to man theory.

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. But what evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Evolutionists want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones4). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

This is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

http://www.newgeology.us/DogTail.jpg

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that many beneficial mutations were passed on to every species that ever existed, since that is the only way evolutionists think different species are made.

There are two versions of evolution. The first (neo-Darwinism) proposed that many tiny changes made new creatures. They could not find these tiny changes between one type of creature and another in the fossil record, so a few evolutionists proposed instead that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium). Each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death. So punctuated equilibrium is not really one leap at a time. It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years. Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any. On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book The Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs. Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.
http://www.newgeology.us/Platypus.jpg[img]

Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.
[img]http://www.newgeology.us/Archaeopteryx_.jpg

The same is true for the famous horse series. Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction. There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found. The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time. In the late 1800's, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series. However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis) shown in this chart...

http://www.newgeology.us/HorseSeries3.gif

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:15 AM

How can you even remotely say you want the truth when you believe a book that says a man can walk on water and all other sorts of stuff yet provide NO EVIDENCE?

You aren't searching for any truth.

If we are not going to be able to use a book we read as a tool to help prove our points then you need to do the same.

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:20 AM

Are you confusing science with religion? Do you even know HOW science works?

Do you even know HOW scientists win Nobel prizes and become legends of their time?

Albert Einstein proved Newton wrong.

If any man could prove scientists wrong on these major issues, he would become internationally famous, applauded, win a Nobel prize, and be thought of as a genius of his time.

In any man would prove religion wrong, he would be hanged/beheaded/burned alive/tortured as a heretic.

Maybe I am trying to find someone who will check out my findings and give me a unbiased answer without bringing up the Bible.

Whats wrong with saying I am right but you still believe your ancestor was cheeta. I will tell you when I think your right.

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 03:20 AM

If your just going by what you read instead of common sense, then there is really no hope trying to educate you.

Next time an ambulance or fire truck comes rolling by with its siren on, notice how the sound is different when it's coming towards you versus going away. Exact same thing happens with light when something is moving relative to you. There's no hope trying to educate someone who thinks cut and paste is an argument.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 03:21 AM

Evolution proved false using peanut butter

FZFG5PKw504

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:22 AM

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 03:27 AM

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works. Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory. They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Make me an argument where intelligent design is scientific. No cut, no paste. I just want to see how this is scientific. Where is the evidence for creation in 7 days? I have yet to hear an argument for it that didn't boil down to absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:27 AM

Evolution proved false using peanut butter

FZFG5PKw504

It's the only way to teach simple minded people, you have to break it down 5th grade style.

THE LIES OF EVOLUTION

The "Piltdown Man" was "discovered" among other bones in Piltdown, near Sussex England, in 1912, and immediately proclaimed as the "missing link" between men and animals. Accredited scientists the world over dogmatically declared the bones to be half a million years old and dogmatic proof that man descended from animals. The bones were placed in the prestigious London Museum of Natural History and thousands came to see the unquestioned proof that evolution was a scientific fact. And there was the obvious implication that the Bible was not true, that man was not created in the image of God.

When humble Bible believers asked for "proof," they were ridiculed as ignorant and uneducated. A common statement by "educated" people for years has been, "I do not know of any educated person who rejects evolution and believes the Bible literally!" Lowly Bible believers were told that scientists were always right; that they believed only scientific "facts," and that scientists were truly objective and without prejudice! The faith of many Bible believers was shaken, including multitudes of students. Some became atheists or agnostics. Many so-called Christian scholars tried to "harmonize" the Bible and evolution. They reinterpreted creation references as parables or metaphorical descriptions of God's work in "language that man could understand." And these explanations always favored unbelieving scientists at the Bible's expense.

(Many Baptist colleges lost their testimony by following these unbelieving "scholars" and teaching evolution. They also rejected the King James Bible for the same "intellectual" reason.) All sorts of "scientific" explanations were offered to show that God used evolution as His method of creation, and that the Bible could not be taken literally. Such Christian "scholars" rejected faith, in their lust for the world's approval as "intellectuals"! But they can never be compared with Abraham (for example) who "staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 03:33 AM

THE ATHEISTS NIGHTMARE

Y4yBvvGi_2A

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:34 AM

Make me an argument where intelligent design is scientific.

No cut, no paste.

I wish you would have said this 10 pages ago.

I just want to see how this is scientific. Where is the evidence for creation in 7 days?

I wasn't there so I won't say for sure, just like you wasn't around 250 million years ago to see a baboon turn into a man.

I have yet to hear an argument for it that didn't boil down to absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"Intelligent Designer" or "Sudden Appearence" argument. The complex molecules of life, including DNA, are, they say, "too complicated" and "too improbable" to have arisen on their own through random chance, and therefore they must have been deliberately strung together by an "intelligent designer" the odds of an intact strand of DNA forming all at once from chance are the same as the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a functional Boeing 747.

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:36 AM

THE ATHEISTS NIGHTMARE

Y4yBvvGi_2A

About time you posted some real evidence! :tu

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 03:38 AM

the odds of an intact strand of DNA forming all at once from chance are the same as the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a functional Boeing 747.

You show a disgusting lack of understanding about evolution.

You really need to stop posting and go read up about evolution. What you described is a common misconception among laymen.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 03:38 AM

About time you posted some real evidence! :tu

Yup.

That video and your reaction to it sums it all up pretty well.

:bang:bang:bang

It's the only way to teach simple minded people, you have to break it down 5th grade style.

I find that quote to be extra special considering the circumstances.

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 03:42 AM

I wish you would have said this 10 pages ago.

I wasn't there so I won't say for sure, just like you wasn't around 250 million years ago to see a baboon turn into a man.

"Intelligent Designer" or "Sudden Appearence" argument. The complex molecules of life, including DNA, are, they say, "too complicated" and "too improbable" to have arisen on their own through random chance, and therefore they must have been deliberately strung together by an "intelligent designer" the odds of an intact strand of DNA forming all at once from chance are the same as the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a functional Boeing 747.

And the odds of an even more complex god being built from nothing all at once are worse than the odds of that tornado coming in and building DFW with a fleet of 747s. I still cannot believe that you're holding onto this idea that natural selection is completely random. Your argument is a strawman to the nth degree. You completely misrepresent evolution. When one argues from a false premise, he can correctly come to an arbitrary conclusion with a valid argument. Kind of like all flying pigs are green, because assume you have a flying pig. Then it must be green is vacuously true, since there is no flying pig that isn't green.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 03:48 AM

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:51 AM

You show a disgusting lack of understanding about evolution.

You really need to stop posting and go read up about evolution. What you described is a common misconception among laymen.

Why don't you and your banana eating friends start posting some facts that prove man came from the ape? Why do I and many others have to be the only ones to post evidence?

Hell I can just look around and see we was put here by an intelligent being. I have the sun,water,food,and air. And man has enough intelligence to send a man to mars, clone a sheep, and invent high tech electronic gadgets like black berries ,laptops, and nuclear missiles. what monkey you know can do any of that?
All you and your Darin worshiping simple minded clones have is some old petrified bones that belong to an old man who happened to have a large skull.

So we must have been a fish at one time that sounds so much more convincing! :tu

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 03:52 AM

Do you want to tell mouse the truth behind the banana video yet? mouse took it as evidence lol :downspin:

What... that the guy on the right looks like he's about to go down and fellate the old one after seeing him jerk the fruit off? :lol

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 03:53 AM

Why don't you and your banana eating friends start posting some facts that prove man came from the ape?

Because there are 918391287382900371 sources for your question. It is well established. You are using the internet aren't you?

Start reading.

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 03:55 AM

Because there are 918391287382900371 sources for your question. It is well established. You are using the internet aren't you?

Start reading.

That's not a good way to argue, but then again, mouse completely ignored Summers posting evidence of transitional species a few pages back, so I can understand it.

mouse

01-02-2009, 03:58 AM

And the odds of an even more complex god being built from nothing all at once are worse than the odds of that tornado coming in and building DFW with a fleet of 747s. I still cannot believe that you're holding onto this idea that natural selection is completely random. Your argument is a strawman to the nth degree. You completely misrepresent evolution. When one argues from a false premise, he can correctly come to an arbitrary conclusion with a valid argument. Kind of like all flying pigs are green, because assume you have a flying pig. Then it must be green is vacuously true, since there is no flying pig that isn't green.

I am just posting data that contradicts your findings. I never said I 100% agree with it. I don't think all those stories of Johna and the wale and Noah are 100% correct I am not the Bible thumper you try to label me as.

I just feel your theory does not add up since no one can seem to find any proof the earth is 100.000 years old and yet you want us to believe it's 25 Billion years old? Come on brah don't be so gullible.

You can still not believe in Gad and agree with some of my findings. But you won't because your bias. I on the others hand look at the big picture with an open mind.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:02 AM

I don't think all those stories of Johna and the wale and Noah are 100% correct I am not the Bible thumper you try to label me as.

Sorry, you can't do that.

The bible itself takes itself as "The Word of God" and cannot be questioned.

You can't pick and choose which part is the word of god and which is not.

You either have to

1) Believe the whole thing as 100% accurate

2) Say you don't know

3) Don't believe

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:05 AM

That's not a good way to argue, but then again, mouse completely ignored Summers posting evidence of transitional species a few pages back, so I can understand it.

It's the only logical way to argue in this situation.

mouse is showing a large lack of understanding about the theory of evolution.

It is EACH PERSON'S responsibility to be educated on the subject if you want to argue about it.

If mouse isn't educated on the subject, mouse can do 2 things :

1) Don't talk about things you don't know

2) Go educate yourself

It's not my responsibility to waste my time teaching mouse about evolution when it has been extensively recorded and even taught in school, apparently mouse wasn't paying attention.

mouse

01-02-2009, 04:20 AM

Because there are 918391287382900371 sources for your question. It is well established. You are using the internet aren't you?

Start reading.

How many different sites have 9/11 as an inside job? or have pills to make your penis larger?
There are also millions of websites that have psychic's that doesn't mean they are real. http://www.marclamonthill.com/mlhblog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/cleodbts.jpg

How many websites you find that show your not gay?
And if I only find two or three then that means you are gay?
Get away from how many fools believe in Evolution and have a website.
It doesn't make your point anymore legit. If that was true I can show you many websites that have unicorns and Mermaids does that mean they are real?
try and study the evidence i have posted. And begin to prove to me your related to Gorilla. I will wait for some hard facts before I keep posting mine.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:23 AM

There are also millions of websites that have ..... that doesn't mean they are real.

Nobody can be this stupid.

mouse, you don't understand the theory of evolution. You are misrepresenting the theory in your arguments. It doesn't matter if you believe it's real or not

Mouse is trolling, nobody is this stupid

mouse

01-02-2009, 04:25 AM

Sorry, you can't do that.

The bible itself takes itself as "The Word of God" and cannot be questioned.

You can't pick and choose which part is the word of god and which is not.

You either have to

1) Believe the whole thing as 100% accurate

2) Say you don't know

3) Don't believe

That's not true I can believe there is an outside power that put us here and still not be a Bible thumper. How many times you see me post Bibles verses.

I only post facts I find that you guys seem to have a problem de-Bunking them.
and where in all your witty come backs and insults is the proof your supposed to show me there is no creator?

You guys can keep the the heckling coming but sooner or later your will have to prove Darwin was right.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:27 AM

I never set out to prove a God doesn't exist. I just posted facts that the CHRISTIAN GOD doesn't

mouse

01-02-2009, 04:28 AM

Nobody can be this stupid. Mouse is trolling

And your avoiding my questions. Dude do you even know what a troll is?

And what does it matter who posted the questions, you need to start proving my posts are false. And quite making excuses.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:29 AM

You guys can keep the the heckling coming but sooner or later your will have to prove Darwin was right.

There is tons and tons of material on the subject. Go read about it or go create your own thread about it.

mouse, you don't understand the theory of evolution. You are misrepresenting the theory in your arguments. It doesn't matter if you believe it's real or not, you need to educate yourself on the topic. Otherwise shut up.

I am here to discuss God, in this case, the Christian God.

mouse

01-02-2009, 04:30 AM

I never set out to prove a God doesn't exist. I just posted facts that the CHRISTIAN GOD doesn't

Then you have no room to be giving others a hard time. If your going to just ask questions and not answer mine.

You should just read and maybe learn a thing or two, and only post when you Google something worth reading.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:31 AM

Then you have no room to be giving others a hard time. If your going to just ask questions and not answer mine.

You should just read and maybe learn a thing or two, and only post when you Google something worth reading.

Hey moron, the answers you want ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

STOP BEING A LAZY TROLL AND GO READ ABOUT IT.

mouse

01-02-2009, 04:32 AM

There is tons and tons of material on the subject. Go read about it or go create your own thread about it.

mouse, you don't understand the theory of evolution. You are misrepresenting the theory in your arguments. It doesn't matter if you believe it's real or not, you need to educate yourself on the topic. Otherwise shut up.

I am here to discuss God, in this case, the Christian God.

ok so i need to do all the research to prove your right? Then I may as well be debating myself.

And if you can't prove there is no God and you can't prove Darwin was right then what is your purpose in the topic?

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:34 AM

ok so i need to do all the research to prove your right? Then I may as well be debating myself.

Yes, you might as well. You are the dumb fuck tries to disprove evolution when you don't even UNDERSTAND the theory of evolution.

You see, I don't give a fuck if you care about evolution. I never brought it up. You did.

I care about the history behind Christianity and with the facts I provided, I believe I answered "Is there a God? "

mouse

01-02-2009, 04:34 AM

Hey moron

Well there went your reputation as an adult. I will come back when someone who is old enough to drink has something to say.

But I still thank you for participating. :tu

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:35 AM

Thank "god" lol

Good riddance, your ignorance had no bounds.

mouse

01-02-2009, 04:37 AM

Yes, you might as well. You are the dumb fuck

You see, I don't give a fuck if "

That's some real good debating skills you have there brah! :tu
And to think I actually wasted my time responding to you.

DannyT

01-02-2009, 04:37 AM

ask god to help mouse clean out is inbox...nothing further....thanks

mouse

01-02-2009, 04:38 AM

Thank "god" lol

.

So there is a God now? nice flip flop.

baseline bum.

01-02-2009, 04:39 AM

Thank "god" lol

Good riddance,

Translation: whew! I am now off the hook I don't have to prove anything!

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 04:41 AM

Translation: whew! I am now off the hook I don't have to prove anything!

Huh? Is MiamiHeat advocating intelligent design now or something?

T Park.

01-02-2009, 04:44 AM

I have been reading and I don't totally agree with Mouse but he does bring up some interest points. Miami Heat is just looking to get peoples goats.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:46 AM

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:46 AM

I have been reading and I don't totally agree with Mouse but he does bring up s.

Fake T Park. and fake baselinebum

damn troll

They are all probably mouse

wrench

01-02-2009, 04:50 AM

Fake T Park. and fake baselinebum

damn troll

They are all probably mouse

Good detective work there! :tu

http://somecallmeduh.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/captainobvious.jpg

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 04:52 AM

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 04:54 AM

http://www.rof.com/v/vspfiles/photos/2290-PQ-2.jpg

I gotta get one of these for my car... and maybe a 9mm for if I catch a soldier of god defacing my car when he sees it.

DannyT

01-02-2009, 04:55 AM

whats good with you......I dont need no cash or nothing just checking to see if bix zags 360 fucked up yet..

mouse heres your PM

:tu

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:56 AM

I have been touched by His noodly appendage, and it has opened my eyes to the wonderfulness of His teachings. There is much to be learned from the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I must quickly don my pirate regalia and spread the teachings.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 04:58 AM

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

You will, of course, have noticed that 2008 has been colder, on average, than the preceding 20 years or so. There has also been a marked increase in pirate activity, especially around Somalia. The consequent drop in average temperature is entirely in line with the established correlation between pirates and global warming.

Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 04:59 AM

You will, of course, have noticed that 2008 has been colder, on average, than the preceding 20 years or so. There has also been a marked increase in pirate activity, especially around Somalia. The consequent drop in average temperature is entirely in line with the established correlation between pirates and global warming.

Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster

:lol

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 05:21 AM

The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is "go f*** yourself," unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the b******.
6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
1. Ending poverty
2. Curing diseases
3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.
7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?
8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

I Love Me Some Me

01-02-2009, 09:19 AM

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He created All Things with his Noodly Appendage. He is the Creator of All things and nothing is created if not created by Him.

I challenge anyone in the world to prove me wrong.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

Based on your own logic, you've disproven the FSM already.

I mean, this religion is basically just a copy-cat version of a previously existing religion, ergo, FSM proven to not exist.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 09:29 AM

Prove it.

I Love Me Some Me

01-02-2009, 09:30 AM

Prove it.

You already did.

BacktoBasics

01-02-2009, 10:02 AM

Just checking in to see if the Christians found anything tangible yet?

Answer: No

Any original documentation that nots second, third or forth hand?

Answer: No

I see a few her still like citing the bible has historical reference. Great job.

As far as the math lending credibility to Christian belief. hahahahahahahaha you guys will turn anything into a belief structure. I can hear it now.

/desperatechristian/"yeah well I see how the math there perfectly calculated the life of Jesus hundreds if not thousands of years before he existed. Obviously God did that when he balanced the books before setting Adam and Eve up in the super computer human simulator."/desperatechristian/

See see there above I proved the Jesus was real.

This thread will never

1. Show pysical tangile proof
2. Show original documentation from a historian during the life of Jesus
3. Stop quoting the bible as historical documentation
4. Stop quoting hearsay or third, forth, fifth, 30th hand accounts
5. Stop trying to discredit solid facts by attempting to call them opinions

carry on

JoeChalupa

01-02-2009, 10:13 AM

You guys just don't get. Carry on. :sleep

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 10:17 AM

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

He created All Things and nothing is created if not created by Him.

RAmen.

I Love Me Some Me

01-02-2009, 10:21 AM

Just checking in to see if the Christians found anything tangible yet?

Answer: No

Any original documentation that nots second, third or forth hand?

Answer: No

Why does original documentation have to exist only for the Christian (or the religious) argument?

I see a few her still like citing the bible has historical reference. Great job.

Has it been proven to be historically inaccurate?

This thread will never

1. Show pysical tangile proof
2. Show original documentation from a historian during the life of Jesus
3. Stop quoting the bible as historical documentation
4. Stop quoting hearsay or third, forth, fifth, 30th hand accounts
5. Stop trying to discredit solid facts by attempting to call them opinions

carry on

What I don't get is that people have repeatedly (Extra Stout most effectively)disputed what you call as facts as effectively (if not more effectively) that what MH and others have provided to dispute Christianity. Yet you are the one spouting that proof hasn't been provided by the other side. While what you consider to be proof that you provided has been discredited, except only to you and MH.

Just because you keep saying you've proven something, doesn't mean you've proven anything. It just means you've convinced yourself that you have.

jack sommerset

01-02-2009, 10:47 AM

Miami Heat is trying to help you bible thumpers. Religion is the biggest business out there and has cause more pain and death than anything else that has come across the flat earth (according to christian bible) and all you believers have to go on is "faith". Thats funny considering how much destruction religion has caused. Faith!

Flying Spaghetti Monster :lol

BacktoBasics

01-02-2009, 10:51 AM

Why does original documentation have to exist only for the Christian (or the religious) argument?

Original documentation and first hand accounts lend considerably more credibility to any argument. I guess I should point out that I don't believe in any modern day religions. I thinks its already well documented that the general belief about ancient gods were rooted in personified structures. So yeah we all agree that everything before Christ was a personification but not Christ. :rolleyes obviously he's the real deal.

Has it been proven to be historically inaccurate?

By not being an original design its automatically historically inaccurate because their is no source to check its authenticity. Even if you take portions of it and cross reference it with other sources its still only referenced by third or forth hand. Not to mention that the bible has more inconsistancies than consistancies. This would be like checking Billy's credibility using John who heard from James who heard from Gary who thinks Tommy was there. Then we'll use Johns testimony as historically accurate. No way that flies.

What I don't get is that people have repeatedly (Extra Stout most effectively)disputed what you call as facts as effectively (if not more effectively) that what MH and others have provided to dispute Christianity. Yet you are the one spouting that proof hasn't been provided by the other side. While what you consider to be proof that you provided has been discredited, except only to you and MH.

Just because you keep saying you've proven something, doesn't mean you've proven anything. It just means you've convinced yourself that you have.

I'll easy point out that you guys have convinced yourselves that its not proof more than having myself look at something logically and convincing myself its something that its not. I will and always will agree that a large portion of MH argument could be based on half facts and opinion. This is why MH and myself don't have the same identical argument. ES put a nice argument up against MH. You guys cheered all while completely ignoring MH counter points because you simply only want to hear one side of a story. You don't hear me debating the finer points of correlations of mythological gods. I won't argue that. Its up for interpretation. I think it holds significant value but I can understand the lack of credibility there. I typical cite more credible facts, along with a pysical tangible calendar thats not up for interpretation, to display the correlations. Something mathematically provable has a stronger base than mythological interpretation. I also stand strong on the fact that you have zero proof on the other side of the argument.

I don't believe that I've been disproven. I don't believe that anyone disproved a calendar. The personifications attributed to the calendar and the mathematical correlation between all of it.

Your sides answer was and always has been: "yeah we know dates and times were lifted, stolen or borrowed." and "yeah dates and times and math doesn't matter".

Thats not proving anything its ignoring it. Trying to descredit something by paying it no attention isn't how you win an argument.

I'm not going to continue arguing against people who refuse to acknowledge facts, math and tangible items.

Obviously its not a winable argument. I know this. I wouldn't be here if I thought I could win. I'm here for the fight

Stating that you think something has no value doesn't equate to proving me wrong. I still have solid evidence and you have hearsay thats inconsistant even within your own church and denominations.

Satan

01-02-2009, 10:52 AM

Happy Devil

01-02-2009, 10:54 AM

These threads make me one happy camper!!!

CuckingFunt

01-02-2009, 11:00 AM

you and your Darin worshiping simple minded clones

Which Darin is being worshipped?

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/9946/darrineffectba9.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7937/bobbydarin01ul7.jpg

or

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/6775/img6390yn1.jpg

?

Salad Tosser

01-02-2009, 11:07 AM

lettuce pray

BacktoBasics

01-02-2009, 11:09 AM

Which Darin is being worshipped?

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/9946/darrineffectba9.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7937/bobbydarin01ul7.jpg

or

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/6775/img6390yn1.jpg

?:lmao

I Love Me Some Me

01-02-2009, 11:19 AM

Original documentation and first hand accounts lend considerably more credibility to any argument.

Not much original documentation exists for any other historical person from 1 AD anyway. What we know (based on original documentation) of any ancient person from the time of Jesus could probably fit on just a few pieces of paper. It's kind of disingenuous to claim we know so little about Jesus based on original documentation, when we probably know more about Jesus (based on historical research alone) than we do to most other ancient peoples. There are a handful of reasons why you won't have original documentation, not the least of which being the type of person Jesus was (not historically significant at his time, executed as a criminal, primarily stayed away from major urban cities, against the religious grain, ran around with a lower class of people).

By not being an original design its automatically historically inaccurate because their is no source to check its authenticity. Even if you take portions of it and cross reference it with other sources its still only referenced by third or forth hand. Not to mention that the bible has more inconsistancies than consistancies. This would be like checking Billy's credibility using John who heard from James who heard from Gary who thinks Tommy was there. Then we'll use Johns testimony as historically accurate. No way that flies.

Then find a professional HISTORIAN who has concluded that Jesus never existed..........you can't. The most prominent Christ-mythers are a professor of German (Wells), a professor of math (Doherty), and a quack with a lower degree in classics (Archaya S). You will be hard-pressed to find a professional, qualified HISTORIAN who will argue that Christ did not exist. The late Morton Smith (noted professor of HISTORY at Columbia University) says of Christ-myth theories posted in this thread:

"I don't think the arguments deserve detailed refutation"
"(the arguments) are mainly from silence"
"many (Christ-myth arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space"

When someone or something is on trial, and you call witnesses to the stand, you are likely to include someone who is an expert on the subject. Forensic pathologists...psychologists...medical doctors...etc. Citing a professor of German when trying the historicity of Christ is like calling a podiatrist to the stand when you need the testimony of a forensic pathologists. It holds no credibility.

Find a consensus of professional HISTORIANS who dispute the historicity of Jesus, and you'll begin to have a case. But you'll be hard pressed to find that consensus.

I'll easy point out that you guys have convinced yourselves that its not proof more than having myself look at something logically and convincing myself its something that its not. I will and always will agree that a large portion of MH argument could be based on half facts and opinion. This is why MH and myself don't have the same identical argument. ES put a nice argument up against MH. You guys cheered all while completely ignoring MH counter points because you simply only want to hear one side of a story. You don't hear me debating the finer points of correlations of mythological gods. I won't argue that. Its up for interpretation. I think it holds significant value but I can understand the lack of credibility there. I typical cite more credible facts, along with a pysical tangible calendar thats not up for interpretation, to display the correlations. Something mathematically provable has a stronger base than mythological interpretation. I also stand strong on the fact that you have zero proof on the other side of the argument.

The reason you and MH have different responses (although they are not really THAT different) is because you are actually capable of individual thought, while MH is simply regurgitating what he's read somewhere else.

I don't believe that I've been disproven. I don't believe that anyone disproved a calendar. The personifications attributed to the calendar and the mathematical correlation between all of it.

Your sides answer was and always has been: "yeah we know dates and times were lifted, stolen or borrowed." and "yeah dates and times and math doesn't matter".

Thats not proving anything its ignoring it. Trying to descredit something by paying it no attention isn't how you win an argument.

I'm not going to continue arguing against people who refuse to acknowledge facts, math and tangible items.

Obviously its not a winable argument. I know this. I wouldn't be here if I thought I could win. I'm here for the fight

Stating that you think something has no value doesn't equate to proving me wrong. I still have solid evidence and you have hearsay thats inconsistant even within your own church and denominations.

I still don't understand how calendars and math conclusively disprove the historical existence of Jesus Christ. Maybe I'm missing that in all the big words and rhetoric, but I just haven't seen how your math disproves that the man lived on this earth. I think ES pointed out earlier, the prior projection of his life and times either proves for the believer that the prophecy was correct, or it provides the skeptic with an additional source for his skepticism.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 11:23 AM

some of the dumbest posters I have ever seen have shown their face in this thread

Richard Cranium

01-02-2009, 11:27 AM

some of the dumbest posters I have ever seen have shown their face in this thread

And that makes you #1.

MiamiHeat

01-02-2009, 11:30 AM

Extra Stout was exposed for being full of hot air, types a lot but doesnt know what the hell he is talking about yet you say he 'disputed' facts?

what was posted can't be disputed. you can't dispute the indisputable fact

Richard Cranium

01-02-2009, 11:31 AM

BacktoBasics

01-02-2009, 11:38 AM

I still don't understand how calendars and math conclusively disprove the historical existence of Jesus Christ. Maybe I'm missing that in all the big words and rhetoric, but I just haven't seen how your math disproves that the man lived on this earth. I think ES pointed out earlier, the prior projection of his life and times either proves for the believer that the prophecy was correct, or it provides the skeptic with an additional source for his skepticism.It disproves the existence of Jesus because it explains his entire path before he allegedly walked it. Only it doesn't explain the path in Jesus talk it explains it as a relation of time to earth using celestial bodies as a point of mathematical orgin. You guys somehow like to twist this into divine intervention or sorts.

So now we have a calendar rooted in mathematics that uses the stars to map out key cylical timelines that are significant to the earths rotation. This tells us how the moments in time when events of importance for Jesus happen and it shows us where it came from. Seasons, solstices, certain celestial eras, shorter days shorter night and vice versa along with other significant rotational moments of importance. Then a story is formulated over the top of the significant date. Guess what...thats nothing new because you guys agree that it was done that way in the past. Remember you guys don't dispute that key dates and storylines such as Christmas, passover and the ressurection were lifted, borrowed or stolen for your own. You guys already agree to half the argument. Its fact that all of the mytholigical dieties share the same basis of origin. The particulars don't really matter. Only Jesus and only for you guys. Every other god is a personification of a eliptical timeline except Jesus. Only he was real but you still borrowed the dates or celebrations for your own. With thousands of years showing you how its done you have only two things left to offer.

1. Stone cold physical proof to refute the precedence

2. Faith

You guys choose faith. Most of your ancestors didn't have the choice. When it didn't add up to them they were murdered. You either believe the story or die. Now its believe the story or go to hell.

EDIT: I fixed some typos and added some points.

Insomniac

01-02-2009, 11:48 AM

:sleep :sleep

I Love Me Some Me

01-02-2009, 12:38 PM

It disproves the existence of Jesus because it explains his entire path before he allegedly walked it. Only it doesn't explain the path in Jesus talk it explains it as a relation of time to earth using celestial bodies as a point of mathematical orgin. You guys somehow like to twist this into divine intervention or sorts.

Again...the believer will tell you that's a fulfillment of prophecy. The skeptic will see it as something else.

So now we have a calendar rooted in mathematics that uses the stars to map out key cylical timelines that are significant to the earths rotation. This tells us how the moments in time when events of importance for Jesus happen and it shows us where it came from. Seasons, solstices, certain celestial eras, shorter days shorter night and vice versa along with other significant rotational moments of importance. Then a story is formulated over the top of the significant date. Guess what...thats nothing new because you guys agree that it was done that way in the past. Remember you guys don't dispute that key dates and storylines such as Christmas, passover and the ressurection were lifted, borrowed or stolen for your own.You guys already agree to half the argument. Its fact that all of the mytholigical dieties share the same basis of origin. The particulars don't really matter. Only Jesus and only for you guys. Every other god is a personification of a eliptical timeline except Jesus. Only he was real but you still borrowed the dates or celebrations for your own. With thousands of years showing you how its done you have only two things left to offer.

1. Stone cold physical proof to refute the precedence

2. Faith

You guys choose faith. Most of your ancestors didn't have the choice. When it didn't add up to them they were murdered. You either believe the story or die. Now its believe the story or go to hell.

EDIT: I fixed some typos and added some points.

Actually, I don't concede that the storyline was "borrowed or stolen." In fact, the argument has been made that a true "VIRGIN BIRTH" is exclusive to the Christian faith. I can concede that some general similar traits of a god HAVE TO apply to any religious leader...throughout history. They have to be good leaders, they have to do noteworthy feats of goodness or the supernatural, the have to establish teachings and traditions, the have to create community rituals, and they have to battle evil in some form. These are common elements of religion...NOT things that require some theory of dependence. It's simply not enough to point to some vague similarities and call Christian's "copy-cats." You'd have to show that the parallels are numerous, detailed, striking, complex, and central to that religion.

And, I'm referring only to the Jesus described in the New Testament. I'm not referring to talking about the variety of interpretations of other Christians (including the First Church). I'm talking about the authors of the New Testament (the Gospels and the epistles). For example, the New Testament never assigns a specific date to the birthday of Jesus. The thought that the First Church or Christians after that decided to borrow a birthday from a rival god (Mithras, Sol Invictus) is irrelevant to the Gospel's description of Jesus. Thus, irrelevant to my understanding of the earthly Jesus.

BacktoBasics

01-02-2009, 12:51 PM

Again...the believer will tell you that's a fulfillment of prophecy. The skeptic will see it as something else.

Right. You just turned common reasonable sense into happy magic kingdom. This is why arguing is pointless. The use of the supernatural and magical is endless. hahahaha magic did it. Thats not an argument to me. Its avoiding facts for a horseshit scape goat.

Actually, I don't concede that the storyline was "borrowed or stolen." In fact, the argument has been made that a true "VIRGIN BIRTH" is exclusive to the Christian faith. I can concede that some general similar traits of a god HAVE TO apply to any religious leader...throughout history. They have to be good leaders, they have to do noteworthy feats of goodness or the supernatural, the have to establish teachings and traditions, the have to create community rituals, and they have to battle evil in some form. These are common elements of religion...NOT things that require some theory of dependence. It's simply not enough to point to some vague similarities and call Christian's "copy-cats." You'd have to show that the parallels are numerous, detailed, striking, complex, and central to that religion.

And, I'm referring only to the Jesus described in the New Testament. I'm not referring to talking about the variety of interpretations of other Christians (including the First Church). I'm talking about the authors of the New Testament (the Gospels and the epistles). For example, the New Testament never assigns a specific date to the birthday of Jesus. The thought that the First Church or Christians after that decided to borrow a birthday from a rival god (Mithras, Sol Invictus) is irrelevant to the Gospel's description of Jesus. Thus, irrelevant to my understanding of the earthly Jesus.

Well many of your other supporters including ones on this board understand the points of borrowed storylines. If you're refering to the Jesus in the New Testament then you are furthmore expanding on the hearsay point. Its so far removed from any of the closest third and forth hand accounts. All of it lacks the ability to cite any original author of the work, especially the Gospels and the epistles. Even the Church questions it. All this garbage is irrelevant to you because it threatens the myth. You're simply choosing to ignore things. I can't debate anything when someone closes their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and hums loudly.

All these points have been made before in this thread. Nothing new here.

Super magic time solves any debate.

but what about....

super magic time

well what if....

super magic time

how about....

super magic time

Jesus said....

no way super magic time fooled you

huh...

super magic time fulfilled prophecies

Magic time. Its what your religion has been boiled down to. When all else fails and the argument is a good one just bust out the magical trump card and look like you walked away a winner.

ashbeeigh

01-02-2009, 12:55 PM

This thread is still around?

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 12:57 PM

B2B, help me out here. Did I or did I not just show that Extra Stout doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to the Egyptian story of Mut-em-usa ? He said it was a poor translation by someone named Acharya S, who I don't even know of.

I just showed him that the damn thing is accurate and was published in 1922 in a book, and I'm sure in other places too.

Yet somehow JoeChalupa still says I haven't proved 'jack squat' ?

Am I missing something here? I don't get it. what's your take?

Google search for "Acharya S" found the answer. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Acharya+s&btnG=Search)

FWIW:

A guy named DM Murdock used it as a pseudonym.

Acharya is a hindu word that approximates "enlighted teacher", by the by.

BacktoBasics

01-02-2009, 01:01 PM

Its a she unless I'm completely missing something here.

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 01:10 PM

Yet somehow JoeChalupa still says I haven't proved 'jack squat' ?

Am I missing something here? I don't get it. what's your take?

I have gone a few rounds with ES on something a while back that I can't quite remember at the moment, but here is something you should be aware of:

ES is in seminary school pursuing, I think, a PHD in theology. He probably won't tell you as much in a thread like this, because that would be a bit petty, and that isn't the way he rolls.

He is also the most intelligent and educated person I see post here regularly. When he makes statements of fact, they are ALWAYS thorough and accurate. The width and depth of his knowledge on any topic you would care to name is good to excellent. In his area of expertise, which is theology, he could easily write authoritive textbook that any college would find more than acceptable. It would not surprise me if he does just that for a living. :lol

I'll stop there, but it seems to me that you are doing fairly well, but haven't really conclusively locked anything up from what I have read.

Good luck.

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 01:11 PM

Its a she unless I'm completely missing something here.

My bad.

This is so NOT my area of expertise.

I Love Me Some Me

01-02-2009, 01:15 PM

Well many of your other supporters including ones on this board understand the points of borrowed storylines. If you're refering to the Jesus in the New Testament then you are furthmore expanding on the hearsay point. Its so far removed from any of the closest third and forth hand accounts. Much of any of it lacks the ability to cite any original author of the work. Even the Church questions it. All this garbage is irrelevant to you because it threatens the myth. You're simply choosing to ignore things. I can't debate anything when someone closes their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and hums loudly.

The historical accuracy of the Gospels and epistles has not been disproven. In fact, the former professor of Archeaology at Oxford University, Sir William Ramsey, worked for years to discredit the gospel of Luke. At the end of his research he concluded, "Luke is a historian of first rank...In short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."

See...I just don't see that I'm closing my eyes, putting my fingers in my ears, and humming loudly. I've responded to each and every one of your critical claims. You, on the other hand, offer no rebuttal but to simply repeat what you've said over and over again. Perhaps it is you who closes your eyes, puts your fingers in your ears, and hums loudly.

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 01:39 PM

The Evolutionist have to create stuff like the "Oort cloud" to justify how Comets can still be burning after Billions of years. And yet they have the nerve to get on people who believe in Noah's ark?

I give you the Mysteries Oort cloud!

Fact: Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.

[intervening material omitted]

Of course, if the solar system is much younger than most astronomers think, then there is no need for the Oort comet cloud. Since it cannot be detected, the Oort cloud is not a scientific concept. This is not bad science, but non-science masquerading as science. The existence of comets is good evidence that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, just as the recent-creation model suggests.

Ignoring for the moment the misnomer that "evolutionary theory" really says anything about comets, lets point out the factual mistakes the article makes:

1) Comets and the material in the solar system are older than 5 billion years, having both been ejected from a supernova at some point in the very distant past.

2) The implication that if something can't be detected, it isn't a "scientific concept is false. Things that can't be detected, such as dark energy, and gravitons are scientific concepts that can't be detected, merely their effects are observed.

3) The entire article presents an inaccurate depiction of what modern understanding of what the Oort Cloud is.

Besides the galactic tide, the main trigger for sending comets into the inner Solar System is believed to be interaction between the Sun's Oort cloud and the gravitational fields of near-by stars[1] or giant molecular clouds.[30] The orbit of the Sun through the plane of the Milky Way sometimes brings it in relatively close proximity to other stellar systems. For example, during the next 10 million years the known star with the greatest possibility of perturbing the Oort cloud is Gliese 710.[35] This process also serves to scatter the objects out of the ecliptic plane, potentially also explaining the cloud's spherical distribution.[36][35]

In a static, unchanging universe where our solar system was not in motion relative to other stars, we would indeed have seen the last comets within 100,000 years of our solar system formation.

The mechanism that drives the occasional comet into close solar orbit supplies new comets over time due to the disruptions and very tiny pushes/pulls from nearby stars.

If one is going to try and discredit a theory, one should try to understand what it says first. :nope

BacktoBasics

01-02-2009, 01:41 PM

The historical accuracy of the Gospels and epistles has not been disproven. In fact, the former professor of Archeaology at Oxford University, Sir William Ramsey, worked for years to discredit the gospel of Luke. At the end of his research he concluded, "Luke is a historian of first rank...In short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."

See...I just don't see that I'm closing my eyes, putting my fingers in my ears, and humming loudly. I've responded to each and every one of your critical claims. You, on the other hand, offer no rebuttal but to simply repeat what you've said over and over again. Perhaps it is you who closes your eyes, puts your fingers in your ears, and hums loudly.There have been many arguments surrounding Luke. No original text is the easiest one and if it was real it wasn't written based on first hand accounts but off other gospels and most arguably from other sources entirely. So we have hearsay. Obviously the question would be answered if we had a copy with his signature on it from said time period. We don't and I'm not ever sure if you have a copy of a copy of a copy that would be within 100 years.

Just checked and I was right.

The Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV, handwritten in Greek around the year 200, contains "about half of each of the Gospels of Luke and John," Cardinal Tauran explained.

So well over a century later they have a copy of a copy. A century is a long time. Could have been rewritten 100's of times by then. No doubts its different than the others and some have argued that its the most contradicting.

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 01:50 PM

When we think of the effort and knowledge that has been put into developing these artificial imaging systems, we can get a grasp on the superior creation that has gone into designing the eye.

:spin

Talk about circular logic.

"Our eye is a marvel of design and superior creation, therefore it was created and not evolved."

Eyes are advantageous adaptions, no more, no less, just like lungs, and thumbs/legs/fins and what have you.

I Love Me Some Me

01-02-2009, 01:55 PM

There have been many arguments surrounding Luke. No original text is the easiest one and if it was real it wasn't written based on first hand accounts but off other gospels and most arguably from other sources entirely. So we have hearsay. Obviously the question would be answered if we had a copy with his signature on it from said time period. We don't and I'm not ever sure if you have a copy of a copy of a copy that would be within 100 years.

Just checked and I was right.

So well over a century later they have a copy of a copy. A century is a long time. Could have been rewritten 100's of times by then. No doubts its different than the others and some have argued that its the most contradicting.

When you include the Chester Beatty Papyri (dated 250 AD, including most of the book of John), the Ryland Papyri (dated 120 AD, including pieces of the book of John), and you consider that John was the latest gospel written, you can support the other gospels being written in the first century. Also throw in the writings of Clement of Rome (dating 95 AD), Ignatius (115 AD), Polycarp (120 AD), and Justin Martyr (150 AD) which include references to the gospels. By this you can conclude that the gospels were written and circulated by the end of the first century.

This dating shows that the gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses of Jesus, and they very likely include firsthand accounts. This, of course, according to noted historians and archeologists.

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 01:57 PM

Watching a movie or reading a book or website doesn't always count as facts.

I do have a problem when someone who claims to be a scientist tells me the earth is Billions of years old. And that we evolved from molecules and gasses that were floating around in space. Like anyone on this planet has the right to say what was going on 10,000 years ago, and yet they want to say what took place Billions of years ago? just because they tested a bone they found, or a fossil? it's all speculation. And therefore is no different then people who believe in a GOD.

Again, not accurate.

Science is about having a testable hypothesis.

"If creatures evolve and change over time, then we would expect to see intermediate forms".

"If creatures evolve and change over time, then the more recently any two species had a common ancestor, the closer they should be genetically."

"If the universe is older than 10,000 years, we would expect to see X, Y, and Z."

"If the universe is only 10,000 years old, we would expect to see A, B, C."

These are all testable hypotheses.

johnsmith

01-02-2009, 02:00 PM

If this thread has shown me anything, it's that: mouse = worst troll ever.

johnsmith

01-02-2009, 02:01 PM

Or best troll ever since you guys keep responding to his crap.

Dark Gable

01-02-2009, 02:03 PM

Never understood why those who don't believe try to prove something they can't.

johnsmith.

01-02-2009, 02:04 PM

Or best troll ever since you guys keep responding to his crap.

true dat!

johnsmith

01-02-2009, 02:14 PM

true dat!

A short, fat, burntout, douchebag that spends his life on the internet pretending to be someone he's not..........................shocking.

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 02:29 PM

This is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that many beneficial mutations were passed on to every species that ever existed, since that is the only way evolutionists think different species are made.

oooh, wrong again. This entire article completely misstates what the "theory of evolution" says.

Genetics is the newest scientific discipline to add to the weight of evidence supporting evolution and let me outline what it has shown us.

When we sequence the genes of closely related species, we expect to see similarities.

Mutations generally don't "create" new appendages, or startlingly different animals, but rather tend to be neutral ones that don't create new genes, but simply modify how existing genes are expressed.

Our hands for example are different from a chimpanzee's merely through the length of time certain genes are expressed in fetal development. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94563043)

The majority of differences in our genomes are not entirely new genes, for new proteins or anything that drastic. Simple on/off switches that slightly effect the timing of genetic expression.

Our brains, our thumbs, and a host of things that make us different turn out to be almost all due to simple timing.

The mutation that gives us a different number of chromosomes from our nearest ape cousins is an example of a non-fatal mutation.

Most apes have 24 pairs, we have 23.

A mutation that "loses" a chromosome's worth of information is 100% fatal, no ifs, ands, or buts.

A creationist says "AHA! God simply created us this way. It is not a problem. If you are right then for that reason there is absolutely NO way we could be related to a common ancestor with the apes as you say we are."

What would the theory of evolution predict then? At some point our ancestors should have had 24 chromosomes.

Care to guess what we found when we went out and sequenced the genes of a chimp and a human?

Did we lose a chromosome?

Nope.

Two chromosomes fused together at some point, in a non-fatal mutation. A simple coding error, and no important information was lost.

Evolutionary theory would predict this, because if most apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we all shared a common ancestor, then it is highly likely that we could find exactly where we had 24 chromosomes at some point.

monosylab1k

01-02-2009, 02:48 PM

Never understood why those who don't believe try to prove something they can't.

It's gotten to the point where both sides don't even care about the truth, they just want to be right. In the end it's just like any other debate on SpursTalk, except everybody thinks they're smarter because they've substituted God and Evolution for LeBron and Kobe.

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 03:28 PM

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 03:28 PM

It's gotten to the point where both sides don't even care about the truth, they just want to be right. In the end it's just like any other debate on SpursTalk, except everybody thinks they're smarter because they've substituted God and Evolution for LeBron and Kobe.

??

truth=right

Either there is a God or not.

Unless of course God is Schroedinger's Cat. In which case there is a 50% chance we are screwed when we figure it out.

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 03:31 PM

I have a quick question. Does an aborted baby go to Christian hell? It's alive right, and there's clearly no bible nor church in the womb, so the fetus can have no concept of Jesus. He's not going to make up the idea and the history of the church on his own.

This question has been addressed at some point by some Catholic scholar or another.

Can't remember the doctrine, something about "innocent......." (fill in the blank)

Basically if you never have the chance to hear about Jesus, God presumes you are innocent until proven guilty.

He/She/It is nice that way, I guess. I am sure ES has the scoop.

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 03:32 PM

This question has been addressed at some point by some Catholic scholar or another.

Can't remember the doctrine, something about "innocent......." (fill in the blank)

Basically if you never have the chance to hear about Jesus, God presumes you are innocent until proven guilty.

He/She/It is nice that way, I guess. I am sure ES has the scoop.

But is it a Catholic doctrine, or is it actually in the bible? Catholic doctrine used to be buying your way into heaven at one time.

Bonnie Bunion

01-02-2009, 03:36 PM

Is there a God? God, I hope so.

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 03:39 PM

The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works.

Actually, it is quite obvious from your articles that is often the case.

The Oort Cloud and the mutation thing were two really obvious bits that very clearly demonstrated that the authors of the articles didn't really quite understand what they were critiquing.

In this case, I would not ridcule them as simpletons, just encourage the writer, and by extension the normal reading audience of such material, to develop an accurate understanding, which is all that science seeks in the first place.

RandomGuy

01-02-2009, 03:41 PM

But is it a Catholic doctrine, or is it actually in the bible? Catholic doctrine used to be buying your way into heaven at one time.

That is something I can't answer. I dimly remember hearing about it at some point.

We will have to wait for ES to finish his pint at the pub and log on. :lol

I Love Me Some Me

01-02-2009, 03:54 PM

There is a theory in Christian thought that talks about an "Age of Accountability", and is sort of supported by the following scriptures:

"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." (Deu 1.39)

"For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings." (Isa 7.16)

Basically, that's saying that children have no knowledge of good and/or evil and are not capable of choosing one or the other. They will be allowed into heaven.

jack sommerset

01-02-2009, 04:04 PM

I have a quick question. Does an aborted baby go to Christian hell? It's alive right, and there's clearly no bible nor church in the womb, so the fetus can have no concept of Jesus. He's not going to make up the idea and the history of the church on his own.

Like anything in life people have different asnswers. Most Christians I know say HELL HELL HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

leemajors

01-02-2009, 04:09 PM

But is it a Catholic doctrine, or is it actually in the bible? Catholic doctrine used to be buying your way into heaven at one time.

you have to be born to be subject to original sin, if i remember correctly. i may be wrong, however. It's been some time.

Homeland Security

01-02-2009, 04:10 PM

This is obvious:

The aborted children of Republican donors go to heaven.

If the parents vote straight-ticket Republican, their aborted infants go to purgatory.

All other infants go to hell. Heaven is an eternal RNC.

jag

01-02-2009, 05:12 PM

I find it ridiculous that so many in this thread are attempting to prove the other side wrong.

A few people watch the movie Zeitgeist and think they've been explained the mysteries of the world. When a man like Stephen Hawking has a difficult time explaining the origins of the universe and suggests that intelligent design is highly possible, it's humorous to see atheists in here acting as if they have some type of insight on the topic.

BacktoBasics

01-02-2009, 05:27 PM

jag

01-02-2009, 06:00 PM

Its about as interesting as dickfaces dropping into 30+ page threads and acting like they've read the entire thing.

I'd apologize, but i feel more intelligent for not reading the last 15 pages.

If there's anything you think i might have missed please enlighten me, but otherwise, reread my previous post. Reread it as many times as necessary...it's obvious that simple concepts seem to elude you.

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 06:43 PM

In other words, god and religion have to be tip-toed around and cannot be questioned.

ididnotnothat

01-02-2009, 07:13 PM

In other words, god and religion have to be tip-toed around and cannot be questioned.

Questioned yes but proven as fact? NO.

samikeyp

01-02-2009, 07:17 PM

There is a God, Melmart be thy name. :)

monosylab1k

01-02-2009, 07:18 PM

??

truth=right

Either there is a God or not.

Unless of course God is Schroedinger's Cat. In which case there is a 50% chance we are screwed when we figure it out.

truth=right for only one side, but that doesn't matter for whoever is wrong because I don't believe they'll accept the truth if it means they're wrong.

I think either side, in the face of insurmountable evidence contrary to their beliefs (meaning God himself walks up to an atheist and says "hey I'm God" and proves that he's God, or there is irrefutable scientific evidence explaining the beginning of life itself not coming from a god).....the wrong side would still deny it to the bitter end, because it's not about knowing the truth, it's about proving that the other guys are stupid.

baseline bum

01-02-2009, 08:27 PM

truth=right for only one side, but that doesn't matter for whoever is wrong because I don't believe they'll accept the truth if it means they're wrong.

I think either side, in the face of insurmountable evidence contrary to their beliefs (meaning God himself walks up to an atheist and says "hey I'm God" and proves that he's God, or there is irrefutable scientific evidence explaining the beginning of life itself not coming from a god).....the wrong side would still deny it to the bitter end, because it's not about knowing the truth, it's about proving that the other guys are stupid.

You think wrong. Most atheists aren't 100% sure the way most Christians claim to be.

rep

01-03-2009, 12:45 AM

There is a god and only one god. It's hard to believe because it's hard to believe that one can be the creator of mankind and all that we see and don't see and all that we know and don't know. But that's what makes god so great and worthy of worship, is that he created us and gave us good and bad of everything so that we may learn and in doing so may return to him in repentance. As long as you are sincere is your repentance, you are forgiven by the one and only Allah.

Frenzy

01-03-2009, 01:50 AM

some folks say all truth is realtive it just depends on what u believe...un know ain't no way for sure who god is or whats really true but that means u believe you own statement. thats there's no way to really know whats true u saying thats that statement is true ...u killing yourself ...if whats truth for you is truth for you whats truth for me is truth for me ..what if my truth says yours is a lie..is it still true?....c'mon man,

paraphrasing

oh and hello i'm new

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 03:10 AM

mavs>spurs2

01-03-2009, 05:03 AM

It's been documented and known to scholars for CENTURIES that Jesus myth is just another incarnation of the same ancient Sun god worship. Humans have been changing the characters and details around but it's the overall same story.

It goes all the way back to Osiris/Horus in ancient egypt. This is -provable with archeological evidence and history. There is no debate. You can't debate facts.

The correlation of EVERY MAJOR DATE in Jesus' life is DIRECTLY in line with a major solar event that has been recognized in many other religions that PRE-DATE christianity.

Next, when pertaining to Judaism and the Old Testament as known to you Christians, it has also been explained. There are no 'miracles'.... it's all a form of telling real events in story form.

Anyone arguing this is just intentionally dishonest or blind and holding onto straws.

Were you there to prove that Jesus didn't perform miracles? IMO both sides to this debate suck, everyones just saying "No what I believe is right you're stupid if you think anything else." You can debate every last story in the bible all day, but who's to say the bible wasn't created by God to give us guidelines to live by and providing examples rather than an actual account of history? Neither side has presented any sort of a real argument yet..

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 07:07 AM

Were you there to prove that Jesus didn't perform miracles? IMO both sides to this debate suck, everyones just saying "No what I believe is right you're stupid if you think anything else." You can debate every last story in the bible all day, but who's to say the bible wasn't created by God to give us guidelines to live by and providing examples rather than an actual account of history? Neither side has presented any sort of a real argument yet..

Were you there to prove Horus, Mithras, etc didn't perform those miracles?

They all have the same outline story that Jesus did.

Why do you choose to ignore that and just say the Jesus version is real and the others are fake? The Catholic Church did it's job well.

Here is a crash course of what is being talked about :

- Ancient Egypt, 4,000-3,500 BC somewhere around that time Horus/Osiris/Isis spread in the Upper and Lower Kingdoms of Egypt. Eventually, the Upper and Lower kingdoms were unified into the Egyptian empire. Horus is worshipped in many forms, most importantly as the Sun god. He 'travels' across the sky (the Sun) and saves mankind from darkness (night time). He is the Son of God (Osiris) born of a miraculous birth (Isis, his mother) and he comes to Earth to save us, his birth is said to be during the winter solstice of Dec. 21-25th, etc. There is a LOT of material on the meanings and astrology behind everything on this matter.

http://www.occultopedia.com/images_/ankh.jpg

Horus is portrayed carrying an Ankh, the egyptian symbol for "life"

The Ankh is the basis for the Christian Cross, which also has come to symbolize Christ's 'ressurection' aka Life.

Isis caring for Horus / Mary caring for Jesus
http://static.flickr.com/52/178424292_2e53c6a3d0.jpg

- Time is passing, humanity continues to create Sun gods, influenced by Horus/Osiris. Mithras, Krishna, a lot of others. The Roman Empire has heavy influences. Mithraism is extremely popular. Mithras shares the same story. Son of God, etc etc. Greeks, everyone have their own.

- eventually, a Roman Emperor by the name of Constantine is having trouble. The Empire is in shambles. Barbarians are invading. Major military defeats are suffered on different fronts. Constantine declares Christianity the official religion of the Empire. The birthday, Easter celebrations, everything is carried over from ancient Sun Gods into the story of Jesus to facilitate easier acceptance by the public. The Roman Church begins it's work.

- The last Roman Emperor outlaws all practice of Mithraism and others. The stamping out of other religions to cover up and legitimize Christianity begins.

- The Roman Catholic Church burns books, destroys churches, statues, all sorts of destruction.

- Eventually, during the Dark Ages, the Church takes it a step further and just begins to burn people at the stake, torture people. mass murder on large scales to anyone who denies that Jesus LITERALLY walked on water and is the son of god. No more ancient Sun worship and the true meanings. That is being covered up now. Confess that Jesus really DID ressurect or we torture you and cut your head off.

- Time passes, here we are in 2008.

I left A LOT out. A ton. I didn't get into the MANY similarities between Horus/Mithras/Dionysus/etc and Jesus and into the bigger history timeline.

This isn't up for debate. These are facts.

mavs>spurs2

01-03-2009, 09:01 AM

You're taking real events such as the ones you listed which are BELIEVED by scholars to be true and mixing them in with personal opinion. You do not KNOW that Jesus didn't walk on water. And not everyone who believes in God interprets the bible literally. Who says that it wasn't written by God as a set of guidelines for us to live by with the stories having an underlying meaning besides being taken literally. Just because MiamiHeat posted some correlations between early Egyptian beliefs, astronomy, and Christianity doesn't mean that no God exists. Your argument is pretty much a weak one, unless you're just simply here to post history facts. None of those things prove in any form or fashion that God doesn't exist.

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 09:30 AM

You're taking real events such as the ones you listed which are BELIEVED by scholars to be true and mixing them in with personal opinion.

Where is the personal opinion in what I wrote?

Go ahead and try and point it out.

You do not KNOW that Jesus didn't walk on water.

And you do not KNOW that Horus didn't perform miracles.

So with this logic, every god, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can't be questioned.

And not everyone who believes in God interprets the bible literally. Who says that it wasn't written by God as a set of guidelines for us to live by with the stories having an underlying meaning besides being taken literally.

The Bible is the Word of God, as it says so itself. The book is taken to be the Word of God. You can't pick and choose which to believe literally and which not to believe literally.

Who decides what parts are real and what aren't? By the way, the Catholic Church already tried that. A committee got together and chose which books would become CANON and which would be left out of the Bible you see today. That didn't fix the problem now did it?

and what type of logic do we use to decipher what is bullshit and what isn't?

Let's be honest here. You can't do this and tell me with a straight face that there isn't something fishy going on here.

Just because MiamiHeat posted some correlations between early Egyptian beliefs, astronomy, and Christianity doesn't mean that no God exists.

I never said "No God can possibly exist"

I said "Christianity and Judaism's God doesn't exist"

Now, what do you have to say about the mountains of evidence that religion is man-made and Christianity in particular owes it's roots to Sun worship?

Skywalker

01-03-2009, 10:12 AM

You can't pick and choose which to believe literally and which not to believe literally.

sure we can.

I never said "No God can possibly exist"

I said "Christianity and Judaism's God doesn't exist"

i think you've done an excellent job of letting us know what you don't believe in...would you now progress to tell us what God you do believe in?

Gawd

01-03-2009, 10:19 AM

I will see you all in about 3 years...... My children

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 10:30 AM

sure we can.

No, you can't. Once you acknowledge that even -1- instance is corrupted and is not the word of god, then you admit that the whole thing is now in question. It would mean the Bible is not the Word of God and cannot be taken literally.

i think you've done an excellent job of letting us know what you don't believe in...would you now progress to tell us what God you do believe in?

Your user name is interesting :P Most people would probably reference Star Wars, but you have an avatar of the Sun. You know what I know :P

Here's a little story for those who don't know :

The Sun is said to 'travel' across the sky and through the constellations, etc. Ancient Egyptians used the Sun to tell time. Horus, being the Sun God, is said to 'walk across the sky' during the day. Therefore, Egyptians would divide the time by saying "Horus of the first step, Horus of the second step, Horus of the third step" etc...

Consequently, we use the word "hours" as a play on "Horus" to tell the time.

Extra Stout

01-03-2009, 10:58 AM

And here is a crash course of the responses.

- Ancient Egypt, 4,000-3,500 BC somewhere around that time Horus/Osiris/Isis spread in the Upper and Lower Kingdoms of Egypt. Eventually, the Upper and Lower kingdoms were unified into the Egyptian empire. Horus is worshipped in many forms, most importantly as the Sun god. He 'travels' across the sky (the Sun) and saves mankind from darkness (night time). He is the Son of God (Osiris) born of a miraculous birth (Isis, his mother) and he comes to Earth to save us, his birth is said to be during the winter solstice of Dec. 21-25th, etc. There is a LOT of material on the meanings and astrology behind everything on this matter.
A look at the account of Horus from reputable contemporary Egyptologists puts to lie the notion that Jesus and Horus are paralleled in anything more than a superficial and specious fashion. All who claim otherwise are either relying on old sources which have been debunked, or on amateur skeptics with an axe to grind.

Horus is portrayed carrying an Ankh, the egyptian symbol for "life"

The Ankh is the basis for the Christian Cross, which also has come to symbolize Christ's 'ressurection' aka Life.
Most if not all Egyptian Gods carry an Ankh, not just Horus.

The popularity of the physical cross as a Christian symbol ABSOLUTELY originated with Egyptian Christians. Early Christians did not use it the way modern Christians do. There are accounts of early Christians tracing out the sign of the cross on their foreheads, but we cannot know for sure that the cross was absolutely the symbol we are thinking of today. The Greek term stauros and the Latin term crux referred to a variety of configurations for the same kind of torture, from a single vertical pole, to a T, to the cross we think of, to an X or even a Y shape.

The notion that the traditional shape we think of is sort of backed up in Scripture by the account of Jesus carrying his cross and Simon the Cyrene having to pick it up, and by the account of there being room to attach the sign, but it wasn't a point belabored by the early followers. Adopting the cross right away would have been sort of like the NAACP adopting the hangman's noose as its chief symbol at its founding -- shocking and painful. A few Early Church Fathers reported that the cross was really a T.

I don't think there is much doubt that the cross really became popular as a dominant symbol in Alexandria, Egypt, largely because of the ankh, which looked like a kind of a crux immissa, and already had symbolism for eternal life. Egyptians saw the parallels and carried over the symbol. Coptic Christians still use the Ankh.

This is the whole reason Jehovah's Witnesses reject the sign of the cross and insist that Jesus was crucified on a vertical stake.

Some of those 19th-century skeptics MiamiHeat is so fond of went so far as to say not only that Jesus' crucifixion never happened, but that crucifixion as a Roman means of execution was a myth. That was put to rest when skeletal remains with a nail through the heel bone and scratches on the wrist bones was found in Israel in 1968.

Isis caring for Horus / Mary caring for Jesus
The image of Mother and Child predates Christianity. It is a universal theme of humanity. Christian artists absolutely carried on these themes from earlier traditions. I don't think there are too many Christians out there who are going to claim that God went on inspiring ex nihilo completely unprecedented art forms for the Christian church.

Other things that have been co-opted in:

The basilica shape of a lot of churches is carried over from the typical Roman meeting hall.

The image of Jesus as a long-haired guy with a beard is probably of Greek origin. Some Early Church Fathers, especially the Levantine ones, describe Jesus' appearance as that of a skinny young man with frizzy, relatively short hair, a prominent hook nose, and a rather weak beard. In fact, there was a dispute between some Syrian Fathers and Greek Fathers over the proper depiction, with the Syrians in favor of frizzy, Semitic-looking Jesus, and the Greeks in favor of bearded long-haired Jesus. The Syrians accused the Greeks of co-opting the appearance of Zeus. As time has gone on, Italians depicted Latin Jesus, Goths depicted white, blue-eyed Jesus, Africans depicted Black Jesus, and Asians have depicted Chinese Jesus in his silk robe. Now Middle Eastern Christians just have a Semitic-looking long-haired bearded Jesus.

Not only is the date of Christmas carried over from Roman Saturnalia, so is the tree with its decorations, evergreen branches in the home, the colors red and green, the garland, and the lights. The further east one gets from Rome, the less important Christmas is to Christian communities dating from antiquity. The pagan symbols were really, really popular with the Germanic tribes who come from areas colder than the Mediterranean. The Anglo, Dutch, and German white people who settled what became the United States were mostly descendants of that tradition, which is why Christmas is a bigger deal here than say, Argentina.

The Parthenon was converted into a Christian church in late antiquity, with the Athena statue reconsecrated as the Virgin Mary. This happened over and over and over. When Muslims started conquering, they did this too, converting a lot of churches into mosques. The Ottoman Turks did this in spades.

Time is passing, humanity continues to create Sun gods, influenced by Horus/Osiris. Mithras, Krishna, a lot of others. The Roman Empire has heavy influences. Mithraism is extremely popular. Mithras shares the same story. Son of God, etc etc. Greeks, everyone have their own.
Parallels between Horus and Krishna are even more strained than the ones between Horus and Jesus. This is just a sloppy assumption from someone that has made up his mind that all gods are based upon sun worship, damn the evidence otherwise.

eventually, a Roman Emperor by the name of Constantine is having trouble. The Empire is in shambles. Barbarians are invading. Major military defeats are suffered on different fronts. Constantine declares Christianity the official religion of the Empire. The birthday, Easter celebrations, everything is carried over from ancient Sun Gods into the story of Jesus to facilitate easier acceptance by the public. The Roman Church begins it's work.
This is sloppy both in terms of Roman history and religious history. Skeptics have created quite a legend about old Constantine, and also about what was decided at the Council of Nicaea.

Constantine never, ever declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He declared it a permissible religion. Constantine's mother became a Christian. Constantine also wanted to move his capital away from Rome, into a strategic area that just happened to be in the only area of the Empire that was majority-Christian. Tolerating Christianity suddenly became politically desirable.

The celebration of Christmas had been observed, mostly in the West, a century prior to Constantine, but it was primarily a means of competing with the extremely popular Roman festival, much like Jews in America have elevated the relatively minor holiday of Chanukah to compete with Christmas today. With Constantine, the celebration became Empire-wide, though it never took hold in the East the way it did in the West. Christmas was not discussed at the Council of Nicaea, as the skeptic legend claims.

Easter was discussed at the Council of Nicaea, and the longstanding dispute between those who wanted Pascha based on the Jewish calendar and those in favor of the Roman calendar was decided in favor of the pro-Romans.

It is also often claimed that the Council of Nicaea wiped out all competing forms of Christianity. Nicaea did anathematize Arianism, a belief somewhat similar to what JW's believe, but it was far from the end for that belief system. Subsequent emperors were Arians, and oppressed the Nicenes. Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the official religion once and for all in 381. In the West, Arianism was less popular, but ironically, Gothic kings tended to be Arian, because at the time, Arianism was seen as a sign of being a good military leader for some reason. The king of the Franks converted to Nicenism in 496, but Arianism persisted a while longer, so much that Western bishops changed the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed to buttress the case of Jesus' divinity (which is why the Catholic and Orthodox versions are different).

It is also claimed that Nicaea banned a whole bunch of New Testament books that were previously in the canon, like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Judas, etc. Actually, no ecumenical council ever defined the books of the New Testament. A Western synod did, but the East never did, though it uses the same books. The ancient Syriac church actually omits four General Epistles and Revelation.

The Gnostic works were particular to the Gnostics. Claiming that the Nicenes were suppressing those works from the Church is, from a historical standpoint, akin to claiming that evangelical churches today are suppressing the Book of Mormon, or various New Age writings. They don't use them because they don't believe them. When Midwesterners were persecuting Mormons in the 19th century, it wasn't because Protestant churches were confused about whether the Pearl of Great Price belonged in the canon.

The books that were occasionally included in the early churches but ultimately omitted from the canon make up part of the Apostolic Fathers, a collection that is by no means hidden from us. Any questioner is free to read them.

- The last Roman Emperor outlaws all practice of Mithraism and others. The stamping out of other religions to cover up and legitimize Christianity begins.
Theodosius did this in 394. Constaninople goes further and further over the years, adopting a penchant for persecuting anybody who goes against what the emperor says about religion. The Copts, Syriacs, Latins, and Armenians all got a taste of the sword from time to time. Nicenes who preferred their own local rites to the Byzantine Rite got harassed. Byzantium's behavior was so oppressive that Levantine and Eastern Christians found life as dhimmis under Islamic rule much more favorable. The only check on the emperors' behavior was the citizenry of the City who only put up with so much.

- Eventually, during the Dark Ages, the Church takes it a step further and just begins to burn people at the stake, torture people. mass murder on large scales to anyone who denies that Jesus LITERALLY walked on water and is the son of god. No more ancient Sun worship and the true meanings. That is being covered up now. Confess that Jesus really DID ressurect or we torture you and cut your head off.
Say anything that went against Catholic dogma, such as "hey, isn't the Eucharist supposed to be bread and wine?" or "We're teaching that you can buy coupons to get into heaven now? Seriously?" and you got offed.

- Time passes, here we are in 2008.
You left a few centuries out.

This isn't up for debate. These are facts.
Your argument is specious when it pertains to the historicity of Jesus and generally accurate when it pertains to the expropriation of symbols and observances from other religions as Christianity spread, and to the persecution of other groups when the church became entangled with the power of the state. As to historicity and the parallels of Jesus to the sun god, regardless of how many times you repeat it, it is still a fringe position rejected by all mainstream scholarship on the subject, whether religious or historical, whether Egyptian or Jewish. The denial that Jesus existed is appealing as a skeptics' myth, because believing in it is a magic bullet. But it is not "facts."

Skywalker

01-03-2009, 11:00 AM

No, you can't. Once you acknowledge that even -1- instance is corrupted and is not the word of god, then you admit that the whole thing is now in question. It would mean the Bible is not the Word of God and cannot be taken literally.

i personally feel that the bible is a playground for allegorical interpretation.

i do not feel that this eliminates the possibility of divine inspiration.

Here's a little story for those who don't know :

The Sun is said to 'travel' across the sky and through the constellations, etc. Ancient Egyptians used the Sun to tell time. Horus, being the Sun God, is said to 'walk across the sky' during the day. Therefore, Egyptians would divide the time by saying "Horus of the first step, Horus of the second step, Horus of the third step" etc...

Consequently, we use the word "hours" as a play on "Horus" to tell the time.

that is interesting and something i did not know.

But what i am asking is if you, yourself, believe in a higher power, and if so, what details are you willing to share regarding the God you believe in?

I feel our purpose in life is to become better human beings...selfless...reaching a point of enlightenment. I believe this is a journey from within. The Christian guide is clearly Jesus Christ.

What do you feel our purpose of life is? And if it is similar, than who is your guide?

Extra Stout

01-03-2009, 11:24 AM

No, you can't. Once you acknowledge that even -1- instance is corrupted and is not the word of god, then you admit that the whole thing is now in question. It would mean the Bible is not the Word of God and cannot be taken literally.
:lmao Well, crap, since a bat is not a kind of bird, I guess you win!

Consequently, we use the word "hours" as a play on "Horus" to tell the time.
Oh, baloney. That's a silly folk etymology from some of the same crank Egyptologist wannabes that spout the Jesus=Horus parallel. "Hour" has the same root as "year" and comes from the proto-Indo-European language. Look up the cognates in some of the Indian languages.

BacktoBasics

01-03-2009, 11:38 AM

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 11:40 AM

But what i am asking is if you, yourself, believe in a higher power, and if so, what details are you willing to share regarding the God you believe in?
What does it matter? Anyway, you have been very polite so I will honor your question.

I don't believe in any God. We (humans in general) invented them for a variety of reasons. Do I deny that a God COULD exist? Maybe there is some sort of God somewhere, but I know that religion is man-made, fake. If a God does exist, he has nothing to do with these religions. The Universe is gigantic, enourmous, so expansive that we can't even comprehend how big it is.

I feel our purpose in life is to become better human beings...selfless...reaching a point of enlightenment. I believe this is a journey from within.

That is what these pagan passion plays were at first. A way to become enlightened to become your own 'Christ', to kill your mortal desires and flesh and be 'reborn' into a new spirituality.

I agree that all men should become better human beings, selfless, etc.

What do you feel our purpose of life is? And if it is similar, than who is your guide?

When you get down to it, we have no real purpose other than to survive and reproduce.

Does a cockroach have a purpose? Does a mosquito have a purpose? Does a monkey have a purpose?

We are just organisms, a collections of cells that have specialized for survival. We are alive and then one day we will die. There is no purpose.

Now, since we ARE alive, we might as well make the best of it. I don't have a guide. I learn from anywhere I can learn and live an honest life. Through logic, everyone on earth will come to the same conclusions. Compassion, justice, temperance, wisdom, all of these things are favorable, they are 'good' things. You don't need a 'guide' to edify yourself. Learn from your ancestors who went through everything you can imagine. Learn from anywhere you can learn from and judge for yourself. This is why I sometimes quote the Bible. Just because I know it is not real doesn't mean it doesn't contain wisdom.

All of this is irrelevant but you have been very polite so I answered.

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 11:41 AM

BacktoBasics

01-03-2009, 11:43 AM

Good luck.

I already proved Extra Stout is full of hot air in previous pages. He's not worth wasting your time, but good luck if you want to.I'm just curious more than anything. I didn't ask the question to debate.

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 11:47 AM

Extra Stout

01-03-2009, 12:12 PM

Out of curiousity I'd like to know what ES thinks is the single most compelling piece of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. I'm not talking about God just a mortal man named Jesus who was the son of God....magical powers and all.

I don't want 5, 6 or 10 things. Just the one single most compelling piece of evidence.
The single most compelling piece of evidence of a historical Jesus would be the physical fragment from the Gospel of John called P52, which dates from ~AD 125. This dating is determined from the style of script. That the fragment exists several hundred miles from its traditional date of authorship indicates that the Gospel of John was a document in wide circulation. That is is dated merely 30 years from the tradtional dating of the Gospel of John to AD 90 lends much credence to the ancient witnesses that claimed that date.

Literary criticism of John's Gospel indicates that it was written after the Synoptics, independent of them, and providing theological content they do not have, in response to them. That means the author had to have read one or more of the Synoptics or their hypothetical source documents. This places their authorship somewhat earlier than 90 and reinforces the traditional witness to NT authorship dates.

The earliest of Paul's epistles date to the mid-50s. Since they have quantitatively zero content from the four Gospels, it is taken by literary criticism that they are written beforehand. Writings from the Apostolic Fathers dated from AD 90 to AD 120 do quote the New Testament and some other early documents now lost, for example. So the dating is considered reliable.

If Paul wrote epistles in the 50s to Christian communities, that means Christian communities existed as little as 20 years following when Jesus was supposedly executed.

That is not near enough time for a myth to form out of nowhere. It takes a couple of centuries at least for myths to develop like that. That was the whole reason why skeptics 100 years ago argued for very late authorship of the New Testament, and why archaeological evidence to the contrary found in the 20th century disproves their thesis.

Take away that papyrus, and there are a handful more almost as old. Take them away, and you have independent witnesses to the existence of Christians in the first century.

The solid physical documentary existence of Christians soon after Jesus' life, and the lack of evidence of them beforehand, demonstrates that some kind of Jesus lived.

Of course, it doesn't prove he was the Son of God. No one can ever prove that.

Extra Stout

01-03-2009, 12:17 PM

weird repost

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 12:28 PM

Let's get the facts straight on this.

1) P52 is believed to be dated anywhere from 125 to 170 AD. You have generously chosen 125 AD for your argument. P52's date is heavily debated. Some argue it can even be from around 250 AD or even 50 AD.

2) The method of dating P52 is based on hand writing. The style of writing. Knowing that script style cannot be used to accurately determine the age of a text, and knowing that Christians have been scandalous forgers throughout history, it is irresponsible to use P52 as a 'compelling piece of evidence'

Papyrologists themselves will tell you that paleography is not an effective method of dating texts.

Extra Stout

01-03-2009, 01:23 PM

Let's get the facts straight on this.

1) P52 is believed to be dated anywhere from 125 to 170 AD. You have generously chosen 125 AD for your argument. P52's date is heavily debated. Some argue it can even be from around 250 AD or even 50 AD.
At 170, the point becomes moot because Church Fathers from that era quote John.

2) The method of dating P52 is based on hand writing. The style of writing. Knowing that script style cannot be used to accurately determine the age of a text, and knowing that Christians have been scandalous forgers throughout history, it is irresponsible to use P52 as a 'compelling piece of evidence'

Response from a paleographer: "Nevertheless, experienced paleographers have looked at a sufficiently large number of such documents and, have to a certain extent, internalized what the acceptable range of variation of the hands is supposed to be." -- Brent Nongbri

Scandalous forgers? Is that even an argument? You have zero evidence to suggest that P52 is a forgery. You are engaging in wishful thinking.

If it irresponsible to use P52, or the other fragments similar to it, to date the authorship of the New Testament, then all of mainstream scholarship on the dating of ancient documents, Christian and otherwise, is irresponsible, I guess. Apparently you are qualified to critique those who study it for a living.

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 01:29 PM

Response from a paleographer: "Nevertheless, experienced paleographers have looked at a sufficiently large number of such documents and, have to a certain extent, internalized what the acceptable range of variation of the hands is supposed to be." -- Brent Nongbri

He also said :

What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel.
--------------------------------

Sigh. It's almost like you are intentionally trying to be deceitful.

Anyway. This is your compelling evidence?

jack sommerset

01-03-2009, 01:31 PM

In 50 years our grandchildren will talk as if scientology is REAL. "Grand Dad there is a alien born in all of us, you must get rid of the alien in order to move on to the next stage of life" If not you will DIE!....HAHAHAHAHA....

Every religion has torture or deathly consequences if you donot do what the leaders want you to do. Be sure to give them money.

MiamiHeat

01-03-2009, 02:44 PM

I think Extra Stout needs to look up the definition of 'compelling'

BacktoBasics

01-03-2009, 04:44 PM

Thanks ES.

spurspf

01-03-2009, 05:40 PM

I've found him! I have Jesus in my trunk!

jack sommerset

01-03-2009, 06:48 PM

I've found him! I have Jesus in my trunk!

Check to see if he has a green card,to many illegal Mexicans in SA already

MiamiHeat

01-04-2009, 12:04 AM

http://thisrecording.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/the_big_lebowski_jesus.jpg

smeagol

01-05-2009, 11:39 AM

I already proved Extra Stout is full of hot air in previous pages. He's not worth wasting your time, but good luck if you want to.

You have proven squat, zilch, nada.

JoeChalupa

01-05-2009, 11:55 AM

Are you all giving up anything for Lent?

desflood

01-05-2009, 12:00 PM

I will see you all in about 3 years...... My children
So Nostradamus and the Mayans were right?

I knew it.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 12:02 PM

You have proven squat, zilch, nada.Neither did you

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee96/haywoodgiablomi/rollbarf.gif

smeagol

01-05-2009, 12:14 PM

Neither did you

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee96/haywoodgiablomi/rollbarf.gif

I never set out to prove the unprovable (God's existance).

You and MH have . . . and failed.

And the sad thing is that you guys think you have accomplished something.

JoeChalupa

01-05-2009, 12:19 PM

I'm watching the Armageddon series this week on the HIstory Channel. Pretty interesting.
Wrong thread?

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 12:41 PM

I hope everyone noticed how conclusively the point was driven home.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 12:41 PM

I never set out to prove the unprovable (God's existance).

You and MH have . . . and failed.

And the sad thing is that you guys think you have accomplished something.
Listen up. I'm not going to explain it again. I know how hard it is for you to pay attention so I'm going to spell it out slowly and with large bold print so you can try and understand this with additional visual help.

I NEVER SET OUT TO PROVE OR UNPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. NEVER ONCE DID I ATTEMPT TO DO SUCH. YOU FUCKSHITS STILL AFTER 30 PAGES THINK THIS IS A DEBATE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. HOW FUCKING BLIND ARE YOU. CAN YOU FUCKING READ. CAN YOU? THIS IS AND ALWAYS WAS A DEBATE ABOUT MODERN DAY CHRISTIANITY AND JESUS. THE THREAD WAS HIJACKED ON PAGE 1 OR 2. PLEASE TAKE YOUR "GOD" LINES AND SHOVE THEM UP YOUR ASS.

FUCK SAKE PEOPLE HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE EITHER NO LESS THAN 10 TIMES HAVE YOU FUCKING DENSE ASSHOLES REFERENCED "GOD". I KNOW WHAT THE TITLE OF THE THREAD IS AND IF YOU READ THE THREAD YOU'D REALIZE ITS MOVED IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

OH OH OH IS THAT TOO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU TO DO? IS IT? DO WE NEED TO READ IT PAGE BY FUCKING GOD DAMN PAGE FOR YOU. FUCK. YOU FUCKING PEOPLE WILL NEVER GET IT. I'M SURE TWO MORE PAGES MORE AND I'LL HERE "WELL WELL YOU DIDN'T PROVE THERE IS NO GOD". I BET I FUCKING READ IT. YOU MORONS CAN'T HELP YOURSELVES.

THIS MOTHERFUCKING THREAD ISN'T DEBATING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD OR ANY HIGHER POWER. YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND NOW? DO YOU?

smeagol

01-05-2009, 12:42 PM

I hope everyone noticed how conclusively the point was driven home.

Without a shadow of a doubt :rolleyes

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 12:45 PM

Well technically, the thread wasn't hijacked at all B2B.

The original poster's post makes it clear he believes in some form of Judeo-Christian god

Spurs fans are a good cross-section of society to ask this question..........

Is there a God?

I hope so. I don't know for sure, but I admire those who have such incredible faith. I would like to have that faith as well, but sometimes.....I just don't know. I've read the Bible. I've talked to many, many people and still....I just don't know. I've studied other religions, etc., but still......I just don't know.

So technically, we've been on topic all along because the OP is asking about the existence of the Bible's God

smeagol

01-05-2009, 12:48 PM

B2B, you have no point. You have proven shit. Deal with it and move on.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 12:49 PM

Well technically, the thread wasn't hijacked at all B2B.

The original poster's post makes it clear he believes in some form of Judeo-Christian god

So technically, we've been on topic all along because the OP is asking about the existence of the Bible's GodI didn't want to preach particulars because no way would the idiots who frequent this thread understand that we might be reserving judgement on a "higher power" while disproving a "christian god". By showing the orgins of modern day christianity and disproving Jesus it by default disproves the existence of that percieved god just not all potential gods.

You and I know their little heads would explode trying to figure that out.

smeagol

01-05-2009, 12:49 PM

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 12:50 PM

smeagol, do you have anything useful to say other than one-liner troll attempts?

I don't remember you contributing in any way. Correct me if I am wrong.

smeagol

01-05-2009, 12:53 PM

I didn't want to preach particulars because no way would the idiots who frequent this thread understand that we might be reserving judgement on a "higher power" while disproving a "christian god". By showing the orgins of modern day christianity and disproving Jesus it by default disproves the existence of that percieved god just not all potential gods.

You and I know their little heads would explode trying to figure that out.

Make up your mind. Are you or are you not disproving the existance of God?

And don't give me that bullshit higher power crap. It's easy to say "I believe in a higher power" and leaving it at that. WTF does that really mean? I'll tell you. It means nothing.

By the way, so it thinks on your thick little head. You have not disproven Jesus. You have not disproven the Christian God.

smeagol

01-05-2009, 12:55 PM

smeagol, do you have anything useful to say other than one-liner troll attempts?

I asked a couple of questions a while back. You dismissed them completely while bringing your Horus-Osiris-Jesus comparisions which led us nowhere. I can ask the questions again, and see if you can attempt to answer them.

I don't remember you contributing in any way. Correct me if I am wrong.

I have let ES do the job for me. He does it beeter.

JoeChalupa

01-05-2009, 12:57 PM

This thread cracks me up. This is just one area that I totally disagree with B2B on but he at least appears to think on his own and not just cut and paste like MH.
No big deal to me. I'm done. Carry on.

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 12:58 PM

You have not disproven Jesus. You have not disproven the Christian God.

It already was disproven. You just don't want to admit it. All people like you do is filter information to fit your view, you are too scared of the boogieman to let go of your belief of talking snakes.

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 12:59 PM

blah blah.

Do you even realize how long I have been studying this matter? For about 10 years. I have forgotten more on this matter than you even know about it.

I also have done a ton of typing in this thread, so I fail to see where your cut and paste crap comes from.

What a load of bullshit out of you

JoeChalupa

01-05-2009, 01:09 PM

Do you even realize how long I have been studying this matter? For about 10 years. I have forgotten more on this matter than you even know about it.

I also have done a ton of typing in this thread, so I fail to see where your cut and paste crap comes from.

What a load of bullshit out of you

Well, I've been a Catholic all my life so no matter how much crap you post and type it is all bullshit to me because it doesn't PROVE anything at all. YOU may think it does and that is fine with me so go on with your bullshit. If it makes you feel better than as I"ve said over and over again. MORE POWER TO YOU.
Just don't expect to buy into it.
Have a great day and life and I've got nothing against you. I posted my opinion and you can take it for what ever you feel like it is.
Oh, and God bless.

and one last thing. I was basing my posts on the question of "Is there a God?" Which cannot be proven either way and that is just a simple fact. Now if you are arguing about the creation of the Christian faith then that is different. But nothing that you've posted has made me question or doubt my faith. That is all.
Kumba ya my friend....Kumba ya.

Blake

01-05-2009, 01:12 PM

I NEVER SET OUT TO PROVE OR UNPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. NEVER ONCE DID I ATTEMPT TO DO SUCH. ......

This reminds me of a quote from a very smart man from a cinematic masterpiece known as Anchorman:

"LOUD NOISES"

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 01:29 PM

B2B, you have no point. You have proven shit. Deal with it and move on.My point is that you thought this was about disproving god, you mouthed off about it. You were wrong. We weren't debating that. We were debating something else.

So your point was wrong and I explained why. You just don't like my answer.

Move on huh.

I should just move on. For what? Why should I move on? Is this fucking thread closed? Am I not allowed to debate within this thread? Am I banned? Did a shark bite both my hands off leaving me with the inability to type?

I'm pretty fucking sure the answer to all of the above is no.

SO IF YOU DON'T FUCKING LIKE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY TOO FUCKING BAD. I WON'T MOVE ON. NOR DO I HAVE TO. GET OFF YOUR HIGHHORSE AND STOP ATTEMPTING TO DIRECT ME AS TO WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO IN THIS THREAD.

Fuck makes you think you can tell me to move on? I'll move on when I'm god damn fucking ready to move and until then I'll discuss whatever I feel like discussing and there isn't one god damn thing you can do about it.

So fuck you.

Move on? hahahah

Move on.

Go fuck yourself.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 01:29 PM

This reminds me of a quote from a very smart man from a cinematic masterpiece known as Anchorman:

"LOUD NOISES"I was thinking that as I typed it.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 01:33 PM

Make up your mind. Are you or are you not disproving the existance of God?

And don't give me that bullshit higher power crap. It's easy to say "I believe in a higher power" and leaving it at that. WTF does that really mean? I'll tell you. It means nothing.

By the way, so it thinks on your thick little head. You have not disproven Jesus. You have not disproven the Christian God.See MH this is why I didn't try and explain it. He doesn't understand.

smeagol

01-05-2009, 01:35 PM

It already was disproven.

Keep saying that to yourself.

You just don't want to admit it.

Nothing to admit.

All people like you do is filter information to fit your view, you are too scared of the boogieman to let go of your belief of talking snakes.

You sound to me like another 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Hey, I've disproven Christianity! Look, Jesus is really Osiris!

Dude, that does not cut it. Everything you posted has been refuted.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 01:35 PM

Everything you posted has been refuted.I can do this to

Everything you posted has been refuted.

smeagol

01-05-2009, 01:37 PM

My point is that you thought this was about disproving god, you mouthed off about it. You were wrong. We weren't debating that. We were debating something else.

So your point was wrong and I explained why. You just don't like my answer.

Move on huh.

I should just move on. For what? Why should I move on? Is this fucking thread closed? Am I not allowed to debate within this thread? Am I banned? Did a shark bite both my hands off leaving me with the inability to type?

I'm pretty fucking sure the answer to all of the above is no.

SO IF YOU DON'T FUCKING LIKE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY TOO FUCKING BAD. I WON'T MOVE ON. NOR DO I HAVE TO. GET OFF YOUR HIGHHORSE AND STOP ATTEMPTING TO DIRECT ME AS TO WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO IN THIS THREAD.

Fuck makes you think you can tell me to move on? I'll move on when I'm god damn fucking ready to move and until then I'll discuss whatever I feel like discussing and there isn't one god damn thing you can do about it.

So fuck you.

Move on? hahahah

Move on.

Go fuck yourself.

Asshole, I meant disprove the Christian God. Something you have not done.

Now you can move on.

smeagol

01-05-2009, 01:38 PM

See MH this is why I didn't try and explain it. He doesn't understand.

Talk to me about the higher power you belive in. what can he do? What has he done? Develop your thoughts . . .

smeagol

01-05-2009, 01:39 PM

I can do this to

Everything you posted has been refuted.

Show me where. I have asked a couple of questions and nobody has answered them.

Blake

01-05-2009, 01:39 PM

my personal belief is that there is a Dog.

Sure, there have been different variations of Dog over the years, as has been noted by the early Sumerians and Egyptians. There are many different stories of how the son of Dog turned toilet water into wine, helped the blind to see, and even raised himself from the dead (although some say he was just playing dead). Some say the son of Dog's mother was a real......

ok.......I had better stop before I purchase a permanent ticket to lleH.

Blake

01-05-2009, 01:42 PM

Asshole, I meant disprove the Christian God. Something you have not done.

Now you can move on.

ok, first you disprove Bigfoot.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 01:55 PM

I still don't have to move on. I'm still not discussing the Christian god because that question gets answered by default.

Still not moving along.

angel_luv

01-05-2009, 02:04 PM

I still don't have to move on. I'm still not discussing the Christian god because that question gets answered by default.

Still not moving along.

You make an intersting point, so, if I may ask you...

Why do you think there is such a distinction between the "Christian God" as opposed to other gods, who are usually lumped into one category?
Why is the Christian God historically such a hot topic?
Doesn't it seem to you that the Christian God is always in the midst of things?

smeagol

01-05-2009, 02:14 PM

I still don't have to move on. I'm still not discussing the Christian god because that question gets answered by default.

Still not moving along.

You are a walking contradiction. This is what you said earlier:

By showing the orgins of modern day christianity and disproving Jesus it by default disproves the existence of that percieved god .

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 02:21 PM

mavs>spurs2

01-05-2009, 02:29 PM

I think she's trying to say why do Christians take all the heat

angel_luv

01-05-2009, 02:30 PM

Wha?

Go to any arab country and see what the hot topic is.

Go to china and see if anyone cares about christianity as much as the western world.

Really, wha? You live in an environment that's primarily christian, and your logic is "how come nobody cares about the other gods?"

reeally now

Even the people on Spurstalk who refuse to accept Christ can't seem to help but discuss Him.
Do you really not wonder at least a little bit why that is?

As for the rest of the world, believe what you like, but the Gospel is being embraced in all corners of the world.

My mom lives in China and can testify that multitudes of the college students there have begun to consider Christ and many are choosing Him.

desflood

01-05-2009, 02:34 PM

I think at least some of it has to do with the fact that, within the confines of religious history, Christianity has had some of the more... ah, vehement followers compared to some other religions. Like Islam, in a way. They seem to be more prone to take things to the extreme for their faith than, say, Buddhists or Taoists.

Frankly, Christians are more talked about because we have more nuts than a lot of other religions :lol

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

01-05-2009, 02:35 PM

You make an intersting point, so, if I may ask you...

Why do you think there is such a distinction between the "Christian God" as opposed to other gods, who are usually lumped into one category?

Who is lumping them into one category? It wouldn't be Christians, would it?

Why is the Christian God historically such a hot topic?

Depends on who is asking and where the question is asked.

Doesn't it seem to you that the Christian God is always in the midst of things?

Roughly two-thirds of the world's population, and I'd imagine based on the growing populations on the other side of the globe that that number will grow in a few generations, believes in something other than Christianity.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 02:36 PM

You make an intersting point, so, if I may ask you...

Why do you think there is such a distinction between the "Christian God" as opposed to other gods, who are usually lumped into one category?
Why is the Christian God historically such a hot topic?
Doesn't it seem to you that the Christian God is always in the midst of things?Your structure lumps them into one category. Lumping things together is also very American. The bigotry in this country leds to generalizations of lots of stuff.

Its a hot topic because of logistics. You live in an area (US of A) that primarily worships some form of what the Christian god appears to be. Its also targeted on a large scale for advertising reasons. Even with different denominations the theme is similar and especially in the South. Its also a hot topic because we now have over 50% of the majority of the polls indicating that people don't buy the story. The debates rage on.

The Christian god always appears to be in the midst of things because Chirstians have a habit of encrusting everything in God or Jesus' name. From who wins the baseball game to getting financing on a vehicle its always in gods hands. Not every religion leans on their god as heavily for insignificant daily activities. Again we're central to this.

You are a walking contradiction. This is what you said earlier:
I haven't contradicted myself one bit. I haven't debated the existence of God or any higher power. I feel the type of worship that christians partake in is rooted in falsehoods. I never debated the existence of God or a godlike entity. I don't care how you digest that.

smeagol

01-05-2009, 02:41 PM

I feel the type of worship that christians partake in is rooted in falsehoods. I never debated the existence of God or a godlike entity.

The first sentence contradicts the second.

If you never debated the existance of a (Christian) God? What the fuck is it you are debating for 30+ pages?

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 02:44 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion .png

Saw this little breakdown right here. I'm saying its 100% accurate but its along the lines of what I expected. Christianity isn't the majority across the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

Jump down to the bottom and the majority of the worship of a Christian like Jesus/God is the majority. Also notice how the numbers went down from 99 -2001. I'd image a further decline as of now.

Most other religions aren't shoved down our throats like the Christian like beliefs are. Its everywhere.

angel_luv

01-05-2009, 02:47 PM

Thanks to all of you who answered my question.
I appreciate you sharing your point of view and you're willingness to allow me to express mine.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 02:50 PM

The first sentence contradicts the second.

If you never debated the existance of a (Christian) God? What the fuck is it you are debating for 30+ pages?It didn't contradict.

I've debated the Christian religion and the existence of Jesus. A Christian like god might exist. I doubt it but it might. Since I can't disprove or prove the existence of a God I can't really say. Organized Christian religion and its structure based around the existence of Jesus Christ is horseshit.

I'll give you something that might be contradicting just so you feel better.

I think by proving (of course in my eyes because according to you I've proved nothing) that the Christian belief structure surrounding Jesus Christ wasn't as it appears to be its safe to also remove the Christian like God from the equation too. By proving everything around it to be false you might as well remove the rest of it because there is no credibility left.

That might be contradicting but I've tried hard to not say it because even though its all horseshit there still might be a higher power similar to a Christian God. One will likely never know with 100% certainty. So I've refrained from saying it.

baseline bum

01-05-2009, 02:53 PM

I think she's trying to say why do Christians take all the heat

Christianity is the one trying to shape our policy and laws, so it's the controversial topic. If this was a board based in Europe where countries are all of a sudden respecting Sharia and such, we would probably talk about Islam a lot too.

Winehole23

01-05-2009, 02:54 PM

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 02:57 PM

Even the people on Spurstalk who refuse to accept Christ can't seem to help but discuss Him.
Do you really not wonder at least a little bit why that is? .

No, I don't wonder why that is because this website is dedicated to an American basketball team and heavily composed of americans.

101A

01-05-2009, 03:16 PM

Most other religions aren't shoved down our throats like the Christian like beliefs are. Its everywhere.

Could that have something, anything, to do with the fact that you live in a country in which 80%+ of its population considers itself Christian?

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 03:19 PM

Could that have something, anything, to do with the fact that you live in a country in which 80%+ of its population considers itself Christian?

Just because a country is comprised of x christians, does not mean that said christians should impose their beliefs on others.

So, it's primarily because Christianity has been the world's most oppressive and scandalous religion in human history.

atxrocker

01-05-2009, 03:20 PM

where the hell is maryannkilledginger?

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 03:23 PM

Just because a country is comprised of x christians, does not mean that said christians should impose their beliefs on others.

So, it's primarily because Christianity has been the world's most oppressive and scandalous religion in human history.

So what should they do? Not vote?

Blake

01-05-2009, 03:34 PM

what are the overs/unders on this thread? I'd guess 52.5 pages

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 03:35 PM

doubt it. the believers have no ground to stand on so this thread has been one-sided all the way.

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 03:37 PM

doubt it. the believers have no ground to stand on so this thread has been one-sided all the way.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee96/haywoodgiablomi/rollbarf.gif

angel_luv

01-05-2009, 03:39 PM

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 03:39 PM

what do you have to say?

anything of merit ? you can't disprove facts.

Blake

01-05-2009, 03:42 PM

I cannot wait to see the world's reaction when Jesus' returns.

It's going to be the ultimate " You were saying?" moment.

Only, I know Jesus won't be gloating over forever proving wrong those who doubted Him, but instead He will mourn the loss of them.

I have discussed with my fiancee several times how great of thing it is that I am not God.
Because if I were God, I would be like "Bruce Almighty" gone bad some days.
For example, the Dallas Mavericks as the team is now would never win another game. :lol

The Heat either. ;) :lol

:lol

Jesus won't be gloating, but like a good Christian, I will.

That would be something if on the last day of the season, the Spurs need the Mavs to beat the Lakers, but they can't because you don't want them to win any more games......

ah hell, why don't you just make it where the Spurs win a title every year?

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 03:44 PM

what do you have to say?

anything of merit ? you can't disprove facts.

Neither can you.

In fact, you can barely provide them.

To say that what you've provided in this thread has conclusively shown that Jesus never existed is meritless. Nothing shown in this thread would draw even the most casual observer to conclude that Jesus (even in the most basic, historical, non-religious sense) never existed. To call them "facts" is ridiculous, and has been shown to be either untrue, or insignificant.

tlongII

01-05-2009, 03:46 PM

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 03:47 PM

To say that what you've provided in this thread has conclusively shown that Jesus never existed is meritless.

Strawman.

There is a major distinction between a historical human named Jesus and the mythological Jesus from Christianity.

It is analogous to a future civilization 2000 years from now, studying our culture. They study Santa Claus and St. Nicholas.

One is a myth who goes around giving millions of presents on a reindeer powered sled and the other was a real man.

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 03:48 PM

Strawman.

There is a major distinction between a historical human named Jesus and the mythological Jesus from Christianity.

Except for the fact that the Jesus from Christianity IS the historical human named Jesus.

angel_luv

01-05-2009, 03:50 PM

:lol

Jesus won't be gloating, but like a good Christian, I will.

I hear you.

There are days when I picture myself in Heaven, sitting on a cloud eating popcorn watching the Tribulation take place.
It will be like watching the Left Behind movies but in real time.

It is so awesome to know you are on the winning team.
I really want everyone to be on it though.

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 03:50 PM

angel_luv

01-05-2009, 03:51 PM

:lol

Jesus won't be gloating, but like a good Christian, I will.

That would be something if on the last day of the season, the Spurs need the Mavs to beat the Lakers, but they can't because you don't want them to win any more games......

See- a classic example of why it is bad to be vengeful and pays to show grace.
:)

angel_luv

01-05-2009, 03:52 PM

Tell me when you expect this to happen.

I don't know when it will happen ( God alone knows that). I just know that Jesus will return and it will be an awesome day for all of us Christians. :)

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 03:55 PM

It is analogous to a future civilization 2000 years from now, studying our culture. They study Santa Claus and St. Nicholas.

One is a myth who goes around giving millions of presents on a reindeer powered sled and the other was a real man.

According to you, they should come to the conclusion that St. Nicholas was Santa Claus and he lived in the North Pole and really did fly around on a reindeer powered sled.

We know that to be false. As I said, there is a major distinction between the two.

It's actually not analogous to that at all.

We're not saying anything more about Jesus than what was documented in the gospels. Choosing to believe that he was the son of God is a leap of faith that many choose to make...but because you find no reason to believe doesn't somehow eliminate his existence. Disprove the historical accuracy of the gospels (which you cannot do), then you have a discussion. But time and time again, qualified, professional HISTORIANS (not skeptics with an axe to grind) have validated the historical accuracy of the NT authors (specifically the gospels and epistles). I'll take their word for it over yours.

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 03:57 PM

By the way, the evidence for anyone named Jesus is down to -1- account by Josephus which was proven to be a forgery.

Find me a consensus of historians...HISTORIANS....who have come to the conclusion that he never existed.

And when was Josephus "proven" to be a forgery?

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 03:59 PM

But time and time again, qualified, professional HISTORIANS (not skeptics with an axe to grind) have validated the historical accuracy of the NT authors

Validated the historical accuracy of the NT authors??

What exactly did anyone validate and where is your proof of this?

Someone validated the accuracy that Jesus walked on water?

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 04:03 PM

Find me a consensus of historians...HISTORIANS....who have come to the conclusion that he never existed.

And when was Josephus "proven" to be a forgery?

1) Do you not understand that there is only -1- account outside of the New Testament that makes ANY mention of a Jesus? How could ANY HISTORIAN come to a conclusion that he existed with any legitimacy?

The surprising LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE of a man named Jesus would conclude that we can NEVER say he existed with certainty.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

"Jesus is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery."

We have another copy of Josephus' work and in that one, the stuff about Jesus is not there. It's a forgery.

The mention of Jesus also says "He was the Christ" which is ridiculous because Josephus wasn't even a christian.

It's been proven to be a forgery for a long time now.

Blake

01-05-2009, 04:06 PM

I hear you.

There are days when I picture myself in Heaven, sitting on a cloud eating popcorn watching the Tribulation take place.
It will be like watching the Left Behind movies but in real time.

It is so awesome to know you are on the winning team.
I really want everyone to be on it though.

Follow this train of thought with me if you will.....

let's suppose the rapture happens in our lifetime (which many hell beaters believe).......

several million people suddenly disappear (mostly in America and Europe I guess.....) cars crash, planes fall out of the sky etc......

a dude rises up and says "hey, how about we all put a mark on our hand/forehead?"

Will everyone will suddenly have gotten stupid and just plain forget about the book of Revelation or all the Hollywood movies about it? There is absolutely no way in this millenium that if a bunch of people suddenly disappeared that anyone would ever allow a forhead/hand mark because everyone is still very aware of the prophecy.....
and the dude that would try to suggest it, would be one dead dude......real quick.

just sayin...

and by the way.......popcorn? You are in heaven on a cloud and the best snack you can come up with is popcorn? I'm glad to know that microwaves go to Heaven with us when we die.

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 04:07 PM

Christians have been claiming the end of the world since WW2. They thought for sure Hitler was the anti-christ and the world was at an end very soon.

Crookshanks

01-05-2009, 04:08 PM

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

"Jesus is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery."

We have another copy of Josephus' work and in that one, the stuff about Jesus is not there. It's a forgery.

Question? The entries on wikipedia can be edited by anyone reading them - correct? If so, why in the world would anyone use them for a source?

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 04:11 PM

Validated the historical accuracy of the NT authors??

What exactly did anyone validate and where is your proof of this?

Someone validated the accuracy that Jesus walked on water?

Again, I'll quote a HISTORIAN, Sir William Ramsey. He was a skeptic who traveled the Middle East in an effort to verify the accuracy of Luke's work. Upon conclusion of his hands-on research, he states "Luke is a historian of first rank...In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands without error. Modern mariners have validated the accuracy of the details surrounding Paul's journeys. Luke accurately used the titles of government officials, proconsuls, and tetrachs. Archeological discoveries have proven the accuracy of John, include the Pool of Bethesda (accurately described in detail by John) and the Pool of Siloam (also accurately described in detail by John). Burial sites have been discovered with bodies verifying the method of Roman crucifixion.

The gospel author's record of historical accuracy entitles their work to be taken as accurate.

Blake

01-05-2009, 04:11 PM

It's actually not analogous to that at all.

We're not saying anything more about Jesus than what was documented in the gospels. Choosing to believe that he was the son of God is a leap of faith that many choose to make...but because you find no reason to believe doesn't somehow eliminate his existence. Disprove the historical accuracy of the gospels (which you cannot do), then you have a discussion. But time and time again, qualified, professional HISTORIANS (not skeptics with an axe to grind) have validated the historical accuracy of the NT authors (specifically the gospels and epistles). I'll take their word for it over yours.

I get nauseated whenever someone says "well you need to prove [X] doesn't exist."

No, nobody needs to prove something doesn't exist. It's ridiculous.

If a theory comes forward, then it is on the theorist to prove that the theory is fact.........it is not on the skeptic to disprove the theory. The skeptic may debunk a theory using whatever historical, scientific, or other means, but again, no.......it is not on anyone to prove that God doesn't exist or that Jesus never existed.

AlamoSpursFan

01-05-2009, 04:14 PM

let's suppose the rapture happens in our lifetime (which many hell beaters believe).......

I haven't read all 37 pages of this thread, just clicked "last page" out of sheer boredom, so if this has been done, forgive me, but I just...couldn't...resist...

"In case of rapture, can I have your car?"

One of my favorite bumperstickers of all time.

Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled religious argument, already in progress...

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 04:14 PM

Question? The entries on wikipedia can be edited by anyone reading them - correct? If so, why in the world would anyone use them for a source?

I wouldn't give you the link if it was not accurate. You can fact check if you like.

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/josephussilencewasdeafening.html
Pick one (http://books.google.com/books?id=SmW9xh71tZ8C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=josephus+forgery&source=bl&ots=D9dmDtdbti&sig=4xDDxLnwdh3AEBNQLP2sQKJQb6U#PPA120,M1)

I mean really, I gave you the information.

It's accurate, find the source you like the most.
lol

Blake

01-05-2009, 04:15 PM

I haven't read all 37 pages of this thread, just clicked "last page" out of sheer boredom, so if this has been done, forgive me, but I just...couldn't...resist...

"In case of rapture, can I have your car?"

One of my favorite bumperstickers of all time.

Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled religious argument, already in progress...

:lol

now that's funny right thar, I dont care who you are

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 04:16 PM

1) Do you not understand that there is only -1- account outside of the New Testament that makes ANY mention of a Jesus? How could ANY HISTORIAN come to a conclusion that he existed with any legitimacy?

The surprising LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE of a man named Jesus would conclude that we can NEVER say he existed with certainty.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

"Jesus is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery."

We have another copy of Josephus' work and in that one, the stuff about Jesus is not there. It's a forgery.

The mention of Jesus also says "He was the Christ" which is ridiculous because Josephus wasn't even a christian.

It's been proven to be a forgery for a long time now.

You use that word "proven" so loosely, it's almost laughable...all the while citing sources that use the words "disputed" and "view", but never state it's been proven.

Also concerning Josephus from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_jesus

"Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus"

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 04:17 PM

....it is not on anyone to prove that God doesn't exist or that Jesus never existed.

Certainly the one who claims they have proven such, should prove what they claimed they have proven, no?

baseline bum

01-05-2009, 04:21 PM

I cannot wait to see the world's reaction when Jesus' returns.

It's going to be the ultimate " You were saying?" moment.

Only, I know Jesus won't be gloating over forever proving wrong those who doubted Him, but instead He will mourn the loss of them.

I have discussed with my fiancee several times how great of thing it is that I am not God.
Because if I were God, I would be like "Bruce Almighty" gone bad some days.
For example, the Dallas Mavericks as the team is now would never win another game. :lol

The Heat either. ;) :lol

Tell me when you expect this to happen.

January 20th, I think.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 04:22 PM

A man coming down from the sky to kill billions of people who refused to follow him blindly. I can't seem to tell the difference between your god and your devil.

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 04:24 PM

"Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus"

The rest of the quote goes like this :

"....really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree."

Corrupted, interpolated, forgery.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

So, -1- account by Josephus in which we have proof it was a forgery. Josephus may have actually wrote something of Jesus, but it was tampered with and corrupted.

Secondly, the place where the mention of Jesus actually shows up, is in the early 90's CE "Antiquities" but NOT in the earlier "The Jewish War".

This is to be taken as he had no idea who Jesus was until he heard about him from religious people many years later.

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 04:27 PM

The rest of the quote goes like this :

"....really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree."

Corrupted, interpolated, forgery.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

So, -1- account by Josephus in which we have proof it was a forgery. Josephus may have actually wrote something of Jesus, but it was tampered with and corrupted.

Secondly, the place where the mention of Jesus actually shows up, is in the early 90's CE but NOT in the earlier "The Jewish War".

This is to be taken as he had no idea who Jesus was until he heard about him from religious people many years later.

I quoted the part which was relevant, which suggests that Josephus did, in fact, write about Jesus. Now, if you want to discuss the interpolation, forgery, or corruption of what was written, knock yourself out. That wasn't my point...my point, as quoted, was that the general consensus is that Josephus did, in fact, write SOMETHING about Jesus.

baseline bum

01-05-2009, 04:27 PM

A man coming down from the sky to kill billions of people who refused to follow him blindly. I can't seem to tell the difference between your god and your devil.

+1

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 04:40 PM

Blake

01-05-2009, 04:43 PM

Certainly the one who claims they have proven such, should prove what they claimed they have proven, no?

who here has claimed that they have proof that Jesus is for sure not the Son of God?

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 04:44 PM

Furthermore why can't we just co-exist? Is this entity so self-concious that its relegated itself to destruction when everything living doesn't worship it. Why does he need worship....if we already know he's the creator can't we all just be happy?

Your Christians purest evil and purest good are nothing more than an instance in a mirror. They're identical.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 04:45 PM

who here has claimed that they have proof that Jesus is for sure not the Son of God?There are a number of people in this thread that feel there is enough proof that Jesus wasn't real.

I'm not going to start on the "god" discussion again.

Blake

01-05-2009, 04:48 PM

Blake

01-05-2009, 04:50 PM

There are a number of people in this thread that feel there is enough proof that Jesus wasn't real.

:lol

well ok.......I guess they should provide the proof then.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 04:53 PM

:lol

well ok.......I guess they should provide the proof then.Where is the vomiting rolleyes emoticon when I need it.

I'm not starting again but a few of us have provided substantial proof of an alternate source for the creation of Christianity and Jesus in this thread.

baseline bum

01-05-2009, 04:55 PM

yet a serial killer on death row that raped his victims first will go to Heaven if he repents and asks Jesus to come into his heart at the last second.......if he is truly sincere.....

God has sympathy for his own kind?

Blake

01-05-2009, 04:56 PM

Where is the vomiting rolleyes emoticon when I need it.

I'm not starting again but a few of us have provided substantial proof of an alternate source for the creation of Christianity and Jesus in this thread.

Prove it.

j/k

I'm not digging thru 37 pages to find it so I'll take your word on it.

Blake

01-05-2009, 04:58 PM

God has sympathy for his own kind?

apparently so.

I guess the serial killer will be sitting on the cloud eating popcorn next to angelluv.

I Love Me Some Me

01-05-2009, 05:01 PM

It just doesn't make sense.

The creator. The entity that is the epitome of all that is good or perfect. Right...God represents all that is good and perfect? This entity instead of loving everything it creates only loves the ones who follow his word thats been handed down amist half truths and destruction.

This is like a man telling his kids that he won't love all of them but only the ones who see things his way and follow him word for word.

See I can be a good person. I can live by the moral standard but choose to not worship at all. This doesn't mean I'm a bad person but means I utilized the abilities he gave me to do as I see morally fit. So even though I live by the exact code or moral I don't cut it.

So this man would kill his own children even if they were morally good. All because they didn't worship the ground he walked on.

Kneel before me or be stricken with death.

Thats not love. Thats not good. Its disgusting. Shameful...so horrible that even flawed man holds himself to a higher standard.

It amazes me how people can preach what good God is without realizing that if the man rises again he will be the single most destructive thing we have ever seen. I wouldn't be suprised if his own people turned against him for killing their loved ones while flexing his power.

I know what I'm about to answer won't be emotionally satisfying to a lot of people (including believers). Especially for those who deny that God kills (in spite of what they read in their Bibles about the firstborn in Egypt, and Sodom and Gomorra). Everyone was indiscriminately destroyed...same thing with the Flood of Noah. It's not just Old Testament either...Revelations tells us that God will pass judgement on the world once again.

The question is, really, what gives God the right? And the answer is, since He gave it, He can take it away. That just goes with the territory of being God. He created it all, it all belongs to Him. He needs no further justification because He is not compelled by any law higher than Himself. It's his prerogative to take life, and it's also his prerogative the manner in which He takes it.

But, what about innocents and women and children? Them too...and this really appeals to me on an emotional level, but I find another aspect to keep in mind. God not only deals with people as individuals, but as groups. When the nation of Israel is doing well as a nation (in His eyes...right by God, if you will), He prospers the whole nation. On the flip side, if the nation is corrupt, then God judges the whole nation. This isn't foreign to us as Americans, as we watch our President wage a war in Iraq...the President and Congress made the decision, but the people are the ones at war. My point is, we are all suffering alike in the process.

But ultimately, as B2B is asking, the question is "If God were really good, how could He do such things?" And what you're looking at is all the death and destruction you see that God can do. But, looking at the same record (Old and New Testaments), you'll find that God IS good. He continually demonstrates not just his goodness, but his patience and forbearance for those that consistently rebel against Him, even though he's cared for them.

When we were kids, we learned that our parents acted in ways we didn't understand. We didn't think their decisions were fair. But later in life, we learned that our parents had insight and information unavailable to us that influenced their decisions. Eventually we figured out (for the most part) that Mom and Dad were acting in our best interests, even though we didn't see it at the time. So, the possibility exists that maybe God just knows a few more things than we do.

Even if none of that "learning as we grow" mumbo jumbo doesn't work for you...He is still the creator of life, and He still has the right to take life according to His own judgement.

MiamiHeat

01-05-2009, 05:09 PM

:bang

Christians will make up all sorts of crap in defense of their boogieman.

My neighbor is a better person than God is

anyway, I really am not going to involve myself in this shitty discussion. When you stray away from a factual debate, Christians can come up with all sorts of dumbass answers and philosophy.

You will never get anywhere and the end result is going to be "Agree to disagree" that God shouldn't be a jealous vindictive and destructive prick.

atxrocker

01-05-2009, 05:12 PM

I know what I'm about to answer won't be emotionally satisfying to a lot of people (including believers). Especially for those who deny that God kills (in spite of what they read in their Bibles about the firstborn in Egypt, and Sodom and Gomorra). Everyone was indiscriminately destroyed...same thing with the Flood of Noah. It's not just Old Testament either...Revelations tells us that God will pass judgement on the world once again.

The question is, really, what gives God the right? And the answer is, since He gave it, He can take it away. That just goes with the territory of being God. He created it all, it all belongs to Him. He needs no further justification because He is not compelled by any law higher than Himself. It's his prerogative to take life, and it's also his prerogative the manner in which He takes it.

But, what about innocents and women and children? Them too...and this really appeals to me on an emotional level, but I find another aspect to keep in mind. God not only deals with people as individuals, but as groups. When the nation of Israel is doing well as a nation (in His eyes...right by God, if you will), He prospers the whole nation. On the flip side, if the nation is corrupt, then God judges the whole nation. This isn't foreign to us as Americans, as we watch our President wage a war in Iraq...the President and Congress made the decision, but the people are the ones at war. My point is, we are all suffering alike in the process.

But ultimately, as B2B is asking, the question is "If God were really good, how could He do such things?" And what you're looking at is all the death and destruction you see that God can do. But, looking at the same record (Old and New Testaments), you'll find that God IS good. He continually demonstrates not just his goodness, but his patience and forbearance for those that consistently rebel against Him, even though he's cared for them.

When we were kids, we learned that our parents acted in ways we didn't understand. We didn't think their decisions were fair. But later in life, we learned that our parents had insight and information unavailable to us that influenced their decisions. Eventually we figured out (for the most part) that Mom and Dad were acting in our best interests, even though we didn't see it at the time. So, the possibility exists that maybe God just knows a few more things than we do.

Even if none of that "learning as we grow" mumbo jumbo doesn't work for you...He is still the creator of life, and He still has the right to take life according to His own judgement.

translation: because he can>?????? wow, thanks for clearing that up for me.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 05:13 PM

I know what I'm about to answer won't be emotionally satisfying to a lot of people (including believers). Especially for those who deny that God kills (in spite of what they read in their Bibles about the firstborn in Egypt, and Sodom and Gomorra). Everyone was indiscriminately destroyed...same thing with the Flood of Noah. It's not just Old Testament either...Revelations tells us that God will pass judgement on the world once again.

The question is, really, what gives God the right? And the answer is, since He gave it, He can take it away. That just goes with the territory of being God. He created it all, it all belongs to Him. He needs no further justification because He is not compelled by any law higher than Himself. It's his prerogative to take life, and it's also his prerogative the manner in which He takes it.

But, what about innocents and women and children? Them too...and this really appeals to me on an emotional level, but I find another aspect to keep in mind. God not only deals with people as individuals, but as groups. When the nation of Israel is doing well as a nation (in His eyes...right by God, if you will), He prospers the whole nation. On the flip side, if the nation is corrupt, then God judges the whole nation. This isn't foreign to us as Americans, as we watch our President wage a war in Iraq...the President and Congress made the decision, but the people are the ones at war. My point is, we are all suffering alike in the process.

But ultimately, as B2B is asking, the question is "If God were really good, how could He do such things?" And what you're looking at is all the death and destruction you see that God can do. But, looking at the same record (Old and New Testaments), you'll find that God IS good. He continually demonstrates not just his goodness, but his patience and forbearance for those that consistently rebel against Him, even though he's cared for them.

When we were kids, we learned that our parents acted in ways we didn't understand. We didn't think their decisions were fair. But later in life, we learned that our parents had insight and information unavailable to us that influenced their decisions. Eventually we figured out (for the most part) that Mom and Dad were acting in our best interests, even though we didn't see it at the time. So, the possibility exists that maybe God just knows a few more things than we do.

Even if none of that "learning as we grow" mumbo jumbo doesn't work for you...He is still the creator of life, and He still has the right to take life according to His own judgement.Nothing noble about a grown child playing a game of Army men with living breathing creatures only to throw a fit when the game doesn't go according to plan.

Being a creator doesn't equate to being the destructor. Thats just not morally satifying. Can a mother or father kill their children? No. Law or no law they still don't or shouldn't have a right to do such.

Sounds like God is just one big baby and when the game doesn't go well he just flexes his ability to hit the reset button.

You Christians should be disgusted by the fact that he can't even live up to his own moral code.

BacktoBasics

01-05-2009, 05:14 PM

Christians will make up all sorts of crap in defense of their boogieman.

My neighbor is a better person than God is

anyway, I really am not going to involve myself in this shitty discussion. When you stray away from a factual debate, Christians can come up with all sorts of dumbass answers and philosophy.

You will never get anywhere and the end result is going to be "Agree to disagree" that God shouldn't be a jealous vindictive and destructive prick.
I'll take the blame here. I got bored and just felt like insulting their precious god.

Blake

01-05-2009, 05:19 PM

I know what I'm about to answer won't be emotionally satisfying to a lot of people (including believers). Especially for those who deny that God kills (in spite of what they read in their Bibles about the firstborn in Egypt, and Sodom and Gomorra). Everyone was indiscriminately destroyed...same thing with the Flood of Noah. It's not just Old Testament either...Revelations tells us that God will pass judgement on the world once again.

The question is, really, what gives God the right? And the answer is, since He gave it, He can take it away. That just goes with the territory of being God. He created it all, it all belongs to Him. He needs no further justification because He is not compelled by any law higher than Himself. It's his prerogative to take life, and it's also his prerogative the manner in which He takes it.

But, what about innocents and women and children? Them too...and this really appeals to me on an emotional level, but I find another aspect to keep in mind. God not only deals with people as individuals, but as groups. When the nation of Israel is doing well as a nation (in His eyes...right by God, if you will), He prospers the whole nation. On the flip side, if the nation is corrupt, then God judges the whole nation. This isn't foreign to us as Americans, as we watch our President wage a war in Iraq...the President and Congress made the decision, but the people are the ones at war. My point is, we are all suffering alike in the process.

But ultimately, as B2B is asking, the question is "If God were really good, how could He do such things?" And what you're looking at is all the death and destruction you see that God can do. But, looking at the same record (Old and New Testaments), you'll find that God IS good. He continually demonstrates not just his goodness, but his patience and forbearance for those that consistently rebel against Him, even though he's cared for them.

When we were kids, we learned that our parents acted in ways we didn't understand. We didn't think their decisions were fair. But later in life, we learned that our parents had insight and information unavailable to us that influenced their decisions. Eventually we figured out (for the most part) that Mom and Dad were acting in our best interests, even though we didn't see it at the time. So, the possibility exists that maybe God just knows a few more things than we do.

Even if none of that "learning as we grow" mumbo jumbo doesn't work for you...He is still the creator of life, and He still has the right to take life according to His own judgement.

so what you are saying is that God makes the law, but is above His own law.

'Thou shalt not kill' only applies to human/human relations.

Let me know when it's ok for mom and dad to indiscriminately kill all their kids because one of them is a bad egg.