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 es, or something.
Based on your own logic, you've disproven the FSM already.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.
I mean, this religion is basically just a copy-cat version of a previously existing religion, ergo, FSM proven to not exist.
Prove it.
You already did.
Just checking in to see if the Christians found anything tangible yet?
Answer: No
Any original do entation 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 do entation from a historian during the life of Jesus
3. Stop quoting the bible as historical do entation
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
You guys just don't get. Carry on.
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
He created All Things and nothing is created if not created by Him.
RAmen.
Why does original do entation have to exist only for the Christian (or the religious) argument?
Has it been proven to be historically inaccurate?
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.
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
Why does original do entation have to exist only for the Christian (or the religious) argument?
Original do entation 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 do ented 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.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.
I can't wait to give some of you the rudest awakening of your pathetic lives.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
These threads make me one happy camper!!!
Which Darin is being worshipped?
or
?
lettuce pray
Which Darin is being worshipped?
or
?
Not much original do entation exists for any other historical person from 1 AD anyway. What we know (based on original do entation) 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 do entation, 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 do entation, 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).
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.
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 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.
some of the dumbest posters I have ever seen have shown their face in this thread
And that makes you #1.
Extra Stout was exposed for being full of hot air, types a lot but doesnt know what the he is talking about yet you say he 'disputed' facts?
what was posted can't be disputed. you can't dispute the indisputable fact
Yup, some of the dumbest posters indeed.
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 .
EDIT: I fixed some typos and added some points.
Last edited by BacktoBasics; 01-02-2009 at 11:45 AM.
Again...the believer will tell you that's a fulfillment of prophecy. The skeptic will see it as something else.
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.
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.
This thread is still around?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
