Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid

[KevinFinnerty]

A lot of people justify their belief in a certain religion by claiming that there is basically no difference between believing in religious texts and believing in commonly accepted historical texts. They'll say something like, "What's the difference between believing in the Bible and believing all the written accounts of the Civil War, for example? You choose to believe those accounts, even though you weren't actually there, just like I choose to believe in the Bible even though I wasn't actually there. Therefore, they both deserve the same respect with regard to their validity." However, this comparison just doesn't hold water.

The fundamental difference between believing in the Bible and believing in, say, historical accounts of the Civil War is that when you accept the Bible as being true without a shadow of a doubt, you are also accepting without a shadow of a doubt that those who don't believe in the Bible are subject to eternal damnation for not doing so. This is HUGELY different from believing in historical accounts of the Civil War. Nobody is saying that if you don't believe said accounts you'll be subjected to eternal damnation. Also, opponents of the commonly accepted accounts of the Civil War would not claim that you'll be subjected to eternal damnation for believing in what you believe about the war.

I don't want to hear any more religious people justify their belief that non-followers of their religion will endure eternal pain and suffering simply for not "accepting" Jesus (or Muhammad, or whoever) by saying that it's the same as believing any historical text. It's simply not even close to being the same, and anybody who offers such justification is way off-base.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

You haven't actaully explained why the argument is logically invalid, you've only explained why it's immoral.

[JaggedEdge]

From Thomas Paine's Age of Reason.

CHAPTER II - OF MISSIONS AND REVELATIONS.


EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.


Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.


As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.


It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. [NOTE: It is, however, necessary to except the declamation which says that God 'visits the sins of the fathers upon the children'. This is contrary to every principle of moral justice.--Author.]


When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it.


When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.


It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.


It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.




The Age of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/)

[miley]

I think that the fact that reading and writing at that period in time(biblical times) was not such a common thing for people to do and the fact the the majority of the bibical texts(the christian at least) were recording a long long time after the fact. Ever heard of a thing called a tall tale. Now i'm not saying that they are all lies but it would have been very easy for the generations of people passing the stories down to alter them slightly each time. Civil war accounts were documented as they occurred and copied many many times. That is the difference between the bibical and the historical thing.

[sd6515]

Dead sea scrolls that agree with the Bible, and the fact that many of the events in the Bible are backed by historical facts and documentation in non religous texts?

[Hardcore Newbie]

A common feature in some fiction is to detail it around real events so that the fiction seems more realistic. It's easy for a reader to identify with new york as a real place, because it is. But just because the writer puts in real events into their book, that doesn't make the book true.

[krazy chino]

i believe most of the bible, its a good book ....nothin bad in it

[Divestoned]

there is a huge difference between text writin' by historians...and text writin' by some guy, who climbed a mountain, and say's god spoke to him.

Dive:stoned:

[mfqr]

i believe most of the bible, its a good book ....nothin bad in it

Then I suppose you don't consider the idea of chopping people up into little pieces for not believing in God, and killing everyone in a whole town of non-believers, is nothing bad. And I suppose you don't consider the support of sexism and slavery bad either. Oh well.

[sd6515]

Then I suppose you don't consider the idea of chopping people up into little pieces for not believing in God, and killing everyone in a whole town of non-believers, is nothing bad. And I suppose you don't consider the support of sexism and slavery bad either. Oh well.


I don't, not in the time that the Bible was written, the Bible doesn't preach to do these things it was what was considered acceptable and moral in that time, there are stills laws on the books in the US restricting women and minorities rights but that does not mean that we now condone it in fact we are working daily to remove them. But this argument sounds like a typical atheist rant which makes no sense when thought through a logical mind, are history books bad because they talk about the horrible act committed by the nazzis etc., no. Not to mention that the parts in the Bible you are reffering to are more of a history of our religion and definately not saying how we should act as Christians. Sure there are insane fundalmentalist Christians out there, like Bush and his war, but that is not what the Bible preaches to us in any way.

But anyways if we all were high all the time every thing would be a lot better. Well I'm of to smokem peace pipe

[sd6515]

Just re-read that and I didnt mean for it to come out at all that aggressive or ranty sorry for that.

[psychocat]

Belief is just that and we are entitled to believe what we want.
I believe history as much as I believe the bible since they were both written before my time and I have no absolute proof of either. Has nobody heard of the saying "History is written by the victor" ?

Unless it's first hand how can anything be believed (including history) without concrete evidence?

[JaggedEdge]

I don't, not in the time that the Bible was written, the Bible doesn't preach to do these things it was what was considered acceptable and moral in that time, there are stills laws on the books in the US restricting women and minorities rights but that does not mean that we now condone it in fact we are working daily to remove them. But this argument sounds like a typical atheist rant which makes no sense when thought through a logical mind, are history books bad because they talk about the horrible act committed by the nazzis etc., no. Not to mention that the parts in the Bible you are reffering to are more of a history of our religion and definately not saying how we should act as Christians. Sure there are insane fundalmentalist Christians out there, like Bush and his war, but that is not what the Bible preaches to us in any way.

But anyways if we all were high all the time every thing would be a lot better. Well I'm of to smokem peace pipe

No the history books aren't bad because of Nazi Germany, but Hitler and his followers are.

The bible doesn't condone violence, really?
Taken from Does The Bible Preach Violence? (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1086.htm)


1)Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.


2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.


3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.


4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.


5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.


6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.


7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.



Rwanda was caused at the hands of a Christian fanatic with the support of a number of Bishops and priests.

The list of atrocities caused at the hands of religion is far to numerous to list here.

Your argument is extremely flawed.

[JaggedEdge]

Belief is just that and we are entitled to believe what we want.
I believe history as much as I believe the bible since they were both written before my time and I have no absolute proof of either. Has nobody heard of the saying "History is written by the victor" ?

Unless it's first hand how can anything be believed (including history) without concrete evidence?

A vast majority of history is not only based on written accounts, but archaeological discoveries as well. Historians also follow the historical method, meaning, it is a combination of primary sources (sources written near the time of the event), secondary sources, and evidence such as relics and artifacts found.

Religions are based on revelations, books written by the illiterate, and leaders with ulterior motives.

History generally doesn't claim to know what it can't reasonably prove. History gets it wrong sometimes, but is still far more reliable than one book.

[sd6515]

The bible doesn't condone violence, really?
Taken from Does The Bible Preach Violence? (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1086.htm)



Rwanda was caused at the hands of a Christian fanatic with the support of a number of Bishops and priests.

The list of atrocities caused at the hands of religion is far to numerous to list here.

Your argument is extremely flawed.[/QUOTE]

1.Most of your quotes are from the old testament for one which is a completely different tone then the new testament the one most protestant religions concentrate on. The old testament is meant much more as a history then teachings although they are there. The old testament God is described and portrayed as a vengful God. It is the old testament because it was written before the coming of Christ to save the world from there horrible wrong doings. God sent Jesus here to preach forgiveness not vengance.
2. The entire middle east is still in turmoil and yes it is religion that is there dispute but Christianity like Islam is a peacful religion and as with any beliefs religious or secular there will be radicals and fundmentalist who take the wrong message from the teachings.
3. I love how out of context your quotes are. Have you ever read the Bible, I mean read it like a book like it was intended to be read and then after you have read the bible front to back it then becomes a reference book. But never as a source to quote or justify reason for commiting attrocities. I more then agree that the Bible is used to justify unjustifiable things but that is not because of the Bible, these people would just find another religion or reason to commit these acts.
4. Out of context quotes are not a realistic way to defend a point, especially when you are not just quoting a paragraph of a 2 page story but a portion of one sentence of one verse. You could change a ton of meanings to a lot of things with that logic and "evidence".
5. Even the way the Bible is today is put together with the books, passages, and tone that the Catholic religion wanted at the time. A time when they required you to buy your salvation and forgiveness from the church. After you have read the entire Bible and not radicalist out of context quotes you could then read the multiple books of the Bible that the Catholic church has removed like the optic gospel of Paul and others that did not support the Catholic churches views. You know who he is right? The man who used to be Saul of Tarsus who went village to village killing Christians who was converted by God to peacefulness and spreading the gospel of love. The time of the Bible was a time of war and poverty by todays standards pretty much all religions were fighting with each other which is not the religion but mans need to be superior in every way to his foe and dominate him until they are. It is human nature that is the cause of these not the Bible or religion man just uses them to try to justify his actions.:jointsmile:

[sd6515]

The Gospel of Paul 1:1-2
1 My friends I am writing to bring
you the good news of our Lord, Jesus
Christ; and, to tell you of the remarkable
events that happened in the fortieth year
of my life. God delivered me twice from
death, and now I am writing to reveal
His majesty and love.
Verily God is compassionate, God is
merciful, God is lenient, God is wise, all
knowing. He knows what is in our
hearts, He knows what is in our minds.
He is the Lord of all Worlds. Blessed be
the name of the Lord.

[sd6515]

sorry 2 did show up
2 Here begins my journey inward:
Having been consumed by excess and
sin for decades, I was full of the world
and the world was full of me. I had
devoted my life to indulgence, and the
idolatry of money. Material things ruled
me, and I worshiped the physical
pleasures of this world. It was at this
moment that the most terrible and
wondrous of events happened. At the
twilight of spring a robber attempted to
murder me. His attempt failed, I
crippled him, and he would later die
from the wounds I inflicted. The Lord
had saved me from the wrath of man,
but not from myself.

[miley]

Unless it's first hand how can anything be believed (including history) without concrete evidence?

We have visual and physical evidence of the events listed in History books. If ya think about it believing that god created all is about the same as believing in the Big bang theory. Both are ways certain groups think the universe and everything was created but no one really knows for sure and most likely will never know. Its like an open ended question where you just fill in the blank with whatever you want. But we know for sure that the civil war existed because of all the photos, written accounts, and physical evidence.

Me personally I am more of a scientific guy. I'm not saying that i dont believe that there might be a god but it just makes more sense to me that the universe was created from itself a long ass time ago. Way before man, the dinosaurs, or even single celled organisms existed.

[sd6515]

the Bible supports that, the translation of the hebrew word we translated to days can also mean eons so they themselves are not mutually exclusive

[miley]

supports what?

[sd6515]

well if you know or study the original language the Bible was written then you would see that in the creation story when we say and translate on the first day God created, it can and most likely does mean eon as in in the first eon God created, this is too little known and leads to many discusions with differing views but in reality if you know that it can be translated from its original launguage as day or eon you begin to see that the Bible can support virtually the same theories if not the same as science.

[sd6515]

and the creation story says that in the begining there was no darkness or light no life or death therefor it was created from itself i think we all get to hung up on the translation of days.

[sd6515]

he deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.
Saints are a myth made up by catholics and aplies to the catholic religion not the many protestant christian religions ie presbyterian, methodist, epispicol, etc.

[miley]

Sounds like a loop hole bible bangers are promoting. I honestly doubt that when the bible was written that they had comprehension of the word eon. cmon man.

[JaggedEdge]

Saints are a myth made up by catholics and aplies to the catholic religion not the many protestant christian religions ie presbyterian, methodist, epispicol, etc.

Tell Thomas Paine that, not me.

[KevinFinnerty]

sd6515 I think you've missed my point. My objection with Christianity (for the basis of this discussion I'll stick to this religion, although the same applies for Judaism, Islam, etc.) is not necessarily with the believability of its texts, however far-fetched they may be. Rather, the thing that bothers me is that these religions claim that if you do not believe what they have to say (Jesus is the son of God, he died for your sins, blah blah blah) you will endure eternal pain and suffering, even if you live a perfectly moral and altruistic life in terms of how you treat yourself and others. Then, these religions try and equate believing in them with believing in secular historical accounts. Like I said in my original post, believing in commonly accepted accounts of the Civil War does not require you to also believe that non-believers in said accounts suffer eternal damnation.

I don't see why it's so hard for some people to see how demented it is to send a guy to hell simply because he believes in, for example, Muhammad instead of Jesus. Do you really think Ghandi (a Hindu) should burn for the rest of eternity because he didn't "accept Jesus as his savior"? When posed with this sort of question, many Christians like to answer by saying things like, "well that's for God to decide, not me," but that's just a cop-out. Being Christian requires unequivocal belief in the Bible, which in turn requires unequivocal belief that accepting Jesus is the only way to avoid eternal punishment, and unequivocal belief that people like Ghandi will go to hell. I think punishing someone not for their actions but instead for not believing one far-fetched story in favor of another is ridiculously spiteful and mean-spirited, to say the least.

Another thing that's wrong with the notion that religious accounts are on par with secular historical accounts is the fact that secular historians are entirely willing to consider the idea that they are completely wrong, while religious people, by definition, are not. If a secular historian were to find evidence that suggests his previous beliefs about something might be incorrect, he'd sit down and try to figure out if the overall collection of evidence still supports his beliefs. If it doesn't, then he'd be willing to change his beliefs. On the other hand, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. have been taught to NEVER, under any circumstances, consider the fact that they may be wrong in their beliefs. There's a massive difference between this mindset and that of secular historians.

[Iambreathingin]

Metaphor.

[sd6515]

Most of these points I completely agree with. I do not believe people should suffer eternal damnation for not believing in God. I don't agree that Christianity or other religions should concentrate on that because I do not believe this is completely true. One major reason is there is many reason not to believe in the Bible, most if not all are not even in our control, be it raised in a different religion or country or any other reason or situation that is not our control. Because of my views I am a Christian but do not belong to or attend a church, I carry my own beliefs in God and Jesus and do not judge any others, I believe that God will damn you for working against him militously as a believer, but not for simply not believing, I do not agree with this at all. In fact I believe the Bible instructs us not to judge which includes telling people they will go to hell if they don't believe.
Also I do agree with you that even as a believer myself I do not accept the Bible as fact like I do a history book, I believe in it because of my faith and as a whole not every individual story or fact. I also agree that it is crazy how so many believers think they are renouncing there faith in some way by denying that anything in the Bible or our history as a religion could be different then we were taught.
And finally I also believe that some of the worst people and attrocities were/are commited by religous people in the name of religion. From the Crusades to the radical Islam to fundalmentalist Christians going around telling everyone they are going to hell.
Sorry if I came off really agressive and defensive in other posts but igorant arguments tend to send me into a rant. I am not speaking of you when I say this but some of the other posts I had responded to. I thoughly enjoyed reading your logical and on point response and as you see I actually agree with most of what you are saying. I just went off on tangents in response to other post about this topic and apologize for that but when people quote the Bible who don't believe in it as support for there argument using out of context verses totaling less then 1 page of over a 1000 page book, which using that logic, you could change the meaning of even the most accurate history book. And then responding to logical refutes of there misinformed, misguided, or simply uneducated views with don't tell me tell Thomas Paine it gets me a little touchy. It is ignorant people like that on all sides of any topic that leave us all stuck ranting and preaching our views to each other expecting them to listen to us when we don't listen to them, it leaves all of us stuck and damning each other which is not in the best interest of anyone and does not lead to anything productive.

[Fallen_Icarus]

There have been hundreds if not thousands of historians who can verify the accounts of the historical events you talk of, please go and find me one person that can verify the events in the Bible e.g. The crucifixion, the Romans were meticulous in their historical records, yet there is not a shred of evidence to show that the crucifixion even took place.

And i doubt it ever did.

Would you rather believe Hitler was a figment of the worlds imagination and that Auschwitz never existed?

I thought not, lets not get this muddled up - there is a clear distinction between what can be proven as actual factual history and that of which is built from myth and ledged, for example, we know that the Aztecs and the Mayas existed, we know this from evidence i.e. Deep underground excavations and physical evidence of civilisation - however, there is little evidence to support the existence of Quetzalquatle (the ancient serpent God whom the indigenous people of that region of the world believed in).

So saying believing in the healer of the blind and the man whom walked on water would be as sensible (historicaly speaking) as saying I whom believe in modern history also believe in the great tinman of the african jungle.

[jdmarcus59]

I think that the fact that reading and writing at that period in time(biblical times) was not such a common thing for people to do and the fact the the majority of the bibical texts(the christian at least) were recording a long long time after the fact. Ever heard of a thing called a tall tale. Now i'm not saying that they are all lies but it would have been very easy for the generations of people passing the stories down to alter them slightly each time. Civil war accounts were documented as they occurred and copied many many times. That is the difference between the bibical and the historical thing.

we can apprecitate the tremendous wealth of manuscript authority for the new testment by comparing it to textual material available to support other notable ancient writings.

The history of thucydides {460-400 BC} is available to us from only 8 manuscripts dated about AD 900 almost thirteen hundred years after he wrote it.
The manuscripts of the history of Herodotus are likewise late and scarce. And yet ,as F.F.Bruce, Rylands Professer of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, concludes," No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earlist manuscripts of there works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later then the originals.
The quantity of the new testment matarial is almost embarrassing in comparison with other works of antiquity.
We have over 5,600 greek manuscripts of the bible. The whole being written before the fall of jerusalam in A.D. 70.

[JaggedEdge]

There have been hundreds if not thousands of historians who can verify the accounts of the historical events you talk of, please go and find me one person that can verify the events in the Bible e.g. The crucifixion, the Romans were meticulous in their historical records, yet there is not a shred of evidence to show that the crucifixion even took place.

And i doubt it ever did.

Would you rather believe Hitler was a figment of the worlds imagination and that Auschwitz never existed?

I thought not, lets not get this muddled up - there is a clear distinction between what can be proven as actual factual history and that of which is built from myth and ledged, for example, we know that the Aztecs and the Mayas existed, we know this from evidence i.e. Deep underground excavations and physical evidence of civilisation - however, there is little evidence to support the existence of Quetzalquatle (the ancient serpent God whom the indigenous people of that region of the world believed in).

So saying believing in the healer of the blind and the man whom walked on water would be as sensible (historicaly speaking) as saying I whom believe in modern history also believe in the great tinman of the african jungle.

If I remember correctly, Roman documents to attest to the crucifixion of J.C. It has been theorized however, that Jesus never actually died on the cross. In the bible it says Mary Magdalen (I believe) walked over to Jesus and placed a cloth to his head. Something to that extent. Some believe the rag may have been soaked in a substance in order to make Jesus lose consciousness and appear dead. Later, when he was taken off the cross, they brought him to the tomb and placed the Shroud of Turin (lathered in healing agents) over his unconscious body. He than regained consciousness (hence the resurection) and lived a life in hiding.

This is only a theory I saw on the history channel as best as I can remember it. It is safe to say, Jesus was crucified on the cross, the Romans thought they crucified Jesus on the cross but it was an impostor, or Jesus survived the crucifixion.

As for everything else, I agree. :)

[sd6515]

Fallen- there are so many of the events in the Bible verified by the romans that it makes the entire rest of your argument based on misinformation and therefore just your opinion. Including the crucifixion which is actually supported in multiple secular historical documents, and as to other events not only are they document in other places as well, but physical evidence has been found by arceologist. There are many things in the Bible that can not be seen in other document and whether that is because they didn't happen or because it was important to people outside the christian religion or simply because they were being persecuted at the time is up to you and your faith or lack there of.
But as for making completely false statements, do research before wasting space or don't be so adamit about things you do not know and try to make it sound better by calling false statements facts. I mean to actually say that there is no evidence of the crucifixion is ridiculous it is recorded by the very people you say didn't record it and that IS a verifiable fact. I mean if you are going to choose something to argue didn't happen next time don't use such a well supported fact of history and the Bible. So do your research next time I can enjoy disputing things with jaggededge to an extent because he at least makes sense and supports his statements with facts. But trust me you can truly believe and accept as fact that the crucifixion did happen and that it is recorded in many places including the romans you so ridiculously said didn't

[Fallen_Icarus]

there are so many of the events in the Bible verified by the romans that it makes the entire rest of your argument based on misinformation and therefore just your opinion

Can you source this? Otherwise I believe this is of your opinion.

I dont believe there is any probable evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.


but physical evidence has been found by arceologist

And what evidence is this? A frozen boat in the arctic you believe belongs to Noah lol.

And please name some archeologists you are referring to :D


I mean to actually say that there is no evidence of the crucifixion is ridiculous

Is there evidence of the crucifixion? Please prodive it, do not assume there is.

And i want you to make me BELIEVE that the crucifixion happend with this evidence.


it is recorded by the very people you say didn't record it and that IS a verifiable fact.

Any chance of showing me any of this, you seem to have the ability to prove the existence of jesus, im suere there are a few others that would like to see this :cool:




at least makes sense and supports his statements with facts

Yes and you are certainly following that law lol



And then you say....

After all of this...


But trust me

LOL



you can truly believe and accept as fact that the crucifixion did happen

OKAY THEN... ALL HAIL JESUS CHRIST...

[Fallen_Icarus]

If I remember correctly, Roman documents to attest to the crucifixion of J.C. It has been theorized however, that Jesus never actually died on the cross.

This is only a theory I saw on the history channel as best as I can remember it.


Yeh.. the african Tinman is also a theory.





.

[JaggedEdge]

Fallen, there is evidence of a man named Jesus existing, the same Jesus that is written about in the bible. As for his divinity, there is no proof, but to deny he ever existed...? Simply wrong.

[sd6515]

Is there evidence of the crucifixion? Please prodive it, do not assume there is.

And i want you to make me BELIEVE that the crucifixion happend with this evidence.


If you really are interested there is plenty of sources out there im not going to sit here and have a discussion with someone who wants no part in an intellectual conversation which for one does not ever include the term lol. But if you are dead set that nothing in the Bible ever happend and that it isn't documented anywhere then as an american it is your right to be ignorant.

[sd6515]

Fallen, there is evidence of a man named Jesus existing, the same Jesus that is written about in the bible. As for his divinity, there is no proof, but to deny he ever existed...? Simply wrong.

Jagged,:thumbsup: Ignorant people is all. I have no problem accepting listening and discussing as we have jagged but will no longer waste my time with fallens ignorance. I accept that not everyone should or does believe in his divinity but they can't just out right deny his existance I would never fault anyone for not being a believe but this outright ignorance is unbelievable.:jointsmile:

[Hardcore Newbie]

If you really are interested there is plenty of sources out there im not going to sit here and have a discussion with someone who wants no part in an intellectual conversation which for one does not ever include the term lol. But if you are dead set that nothing in the Bible ever happend and that it isn't documented anywhere then as an american it is your right to be ignorant.
Unless I'm mistaken, no one's saying that nothing from the bible ever happened. Some of it is probably true, the question is whether all of it happened.

[JaggedEdge]

Haha, we agree on something. :)


Jagged,:thumbsup: Ignorant people is all. I have no problem accepting listening and discussing as we have jagged but will no longer waste my time with fallens ignorance. I accept that not everyone should or does believe in his divinity but they can't just out right deny his existance I would never fault anyone for not being a believe but this outright ignorance is unbelievable.:jointsmile:

[sd6515]

"Unless I'm mistaken, no one's saying that nothing from the bible ever happened. Some of it is probably true, the question is whether all of it happened."

well if that were the case then we would really have nothing to discuss b/c I don't believe that all of it happened nessicarily happend either. But I do believe that that fallen did imply that when he wrote
"please go and find me one person that can verify the events in the Bible"

I knew we would eventualy we probobaly would on everything but here because I do like your points and the way you state them just not the exact point.:smokin:
"Haha, we agree on something."

Quote was working

[sd6515]

*wasn't

[Fallen_Icarus]

I am ignorant because I choose not to believe something without a shred of evidence for its support of existence?

lol

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

So lets be sensible about this, evidence is not based upon hearsay, which is the only type of evidence one can provide in terms of the existence of jesus christ.

And im still waiting for the evidence that Jesus Christ existed


I accept that not everyone should or does believe in his divinity but they can't just out right deny his existance

And why not?

Why does the Jesus on the Cross for all our sins story hold so much weight that we all MUST believe it?

IT and HIS EXISTENCE holds as much weight as the earlier comparision to the great African Tinman.

So do you believe that nobody should deny the existence of the African Tinman?

Because i dont see the difference in terms of evidence for existence between the two Myths

[Iambreathingin]

How dare you call somone who doesn't follow a linear faith ignorant.

[Fallen_Icarus]

lol yes i too would like to know how on earth someone who chooses not to believe in jesus christ (the existence or the divinity) is ignorant.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Unless I'm mistaken, no one's saying that nothing from the bible ever happened. Some of it is probably true, the question is whether all of it happened.

i'm not sure that even that is the question. even if every action attributed to jesus were proven to have been truthfully related, there are possible scientific explanations for most of it and the remainder could easily be disregarded as misinterpretation or dozens of other flaws in observation. the real problem seem to lie in the reasons for the actions, not the actions themselves.

miracles occur every day. most are easily explained away by the lunatic nature of reality or as out and out fraud, but some remain unexplained. those unexplained bits always seem to end up being attributed to some higher power or other and i would imagine that such was the case two thousand years ago as well. once the idea of god is taken out of the equation it all becomes nothing more than tales of interesting goings on in the middle of the desert.

so, there we are again. back to mankind's need for scapegoats and saviors.:beatdeadhorse:

[Iambreathingin]

In the end what's important is what's learnt from teachings and stories. Everyone knows about the kid who cried wolf, and lots of children learn a valuble lesson from it, but nobody I'm aware of debates the historical accuracy of the story, because we accept that its truth is irrelvant, and we get the point. We learn the lesson, or atleast understand what it's communicating.

While I am happy to let Christian people follow their own faith and find their own path to spiritual peace, it seems that most christians will not extend me the same cursoty. Perhaps it's due to weak faith in need of reassurance. Perhaps they genuninly want to "Save me", or heck, maybe they want to get into one of the few remaining spots left in "heaven".

Who knows, but like I said, please try and take the message from these teachings, instead of taknig them all literally leading you to violently disagree with people on a level associated with your ego.

-thanks.

[Fallen_Icarus]

I dont know about heaven lol

I mean..

Can you imagine spending 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years in heaven?

im sure if you times that by 50 trillion you havent even entered the mathematical realm of "eternity" yet.

Just a thought.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

In the end what's important is what's learned from teachings and stories.
as philosophy it is a gem, but the creation of religion brings with it a huge amount on unwieldy baggage.

many years ago i inadvertently insulted an electrician i was working with by praising the ideals in the bible as a great philosophy. what followed was a frightening diatribe, vehemently demanding that i realize that the bible was not some mere philosophical text but the true and only word of god. this seems to be the eventual outcome of spiritualizing morality. it creates an us against them mentality that glorifies one set of ideas at the expense of all others.

[sd6515]

TO this

Why does the Jesus on the Cross for all our sins story hold so much weight that we all MUST believe it?

IT and HIS EXISTENCE holds as much weight as the earlier comparision to the great African Tinman.

So do you believe that nobody should deny the existence of the African Tinman?

Because i dont see the difference in terms of evidence for existence between the two Myths
and this

How dare you call somone who doesn't follow a linear faith ignorant.
Reply With Quote
This would be the reason you are ignorant. one to the first quote a re read this

I accept that not everyone should or does believe in his divinity but they can't just out right deny his existance
Speaking to the historical fact that there was a man named Jesus who is the same Jesus in the bible, not ignorant that you do not believe in "my" "liniear faith" you can choose to or not to believe in the religon or divinity but to use history as you defense and then deny history is true is pretty much the definition of ignorance and then to further compund this and give us the full definition of ignorance you can't understand simple english in which no one if ever called or reffered to as being ignorant for not believe at least we did find someone more ignorant that fallen who actualy wrote this after read the original writing and then again reading a quoted text and still not being able to comprhend what is being said maybe this is a little over your head so to slow things down for you I will quote what was said again, that twice here and 4 times total it has been used can you understand it yet iambreathingin

I accept that not everyone should or does believe in his divinity
and considering that it is said that Jesus used to use cannabis in is healings and other religous acts performed I am shocked that so many atheiests are on hear but i think it has a lot to do with the other fact of the high depression suicide and confrontational acts of athiests

[sd6515]

I DO NOT judge anyone for not believing and have said that multiple times I do not push my religon on anyone but I do defend my beliefs to the death as I would expect you to and respect you all for your strong beliefs in non believing, the only ignorant thing is deny the historical facts you so greatly claim to desire. It just makes you seem just like the frieken radical christians out there who do force religion and ridiculous claims on people and claim that they will be eternally damned. I have no problem with athiest until they begin to atack me and my faith with ignorance.

[sd6515]

I am sorry to last 2 I did sult I was very testy bc my power had been out for last 2 hours i am sorry.
and i do agree that christians should not try to force there faith on anyone and especially not talk about how they will be damned to hell bc there is nothing more idiotic then to tell someone they are going to your hell when they dont believe in your God then your hell in turn does not exist and is therefor a mute point.
I also do agree that radical christains are among the most hypocritical people I know and even though I am a christian i do not share in there methods or all there beliefs.
sorry to triple post

[krazy chino]

cant agree with u more SB im a christian also and i see where u comin from man

[Iambreathingin]

Thing is, you assume we're all atheists for not agreeing with you, but I have yet to make a single assumption about anyones person. I accept that everyone must follow their own sense of truth, and even if that truth disagrees with my truth, I understand that we are both equally right to believe in what we do, because it's entierly based on perspective.

Myself I study Buddhism, and the Dhamma, teachings that literally tell me to not believe it if it doesn't seem right to me. At the same time it also talks about how desire, and how it breeds attachment to life. We must let go of our metapysical desires if we want to be free. To desire xxx years in paradise is the wrong motivation to be a moral person. This is my belief, atleast, and like I keep saying I appreciate that it is mine and mine alone. Others may have similar understandings, and others might disagree totally, but everyone has the right to their own freedom of thought. To deny people this by aggressive preaching is to deny them a chunk of their freedom as humans, EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU'RE SAVING THEIR SOULS.

Once a monk pestered Buddha about philosophy of cretion and existance. Buddha tol that monk that he was as a wounded man who would not recive medical tretment until he learned the name and location of man who harmedd him. Those who refused to live by peace beacause of differnces over why we are here and what put us here would die on the hospital bed beforethey got this useless information. What differnce does it make how we got here, greif suffering and pain would still exist.

That god will threaten to make this suffering eternal should I chose to base my life on the reduction of suffering seems abusurd to me. But hey, tommorw will bring a new perspective. I reserve my judgment of others, eternally. I make my opinions, but my no means give them the basis of absoloute truth.

-Cock :D

[Mr. Bubbles]

Atheists are as bad as Christians in the sense that they believe that God either exists or doesn't without substantial proof. Agnostics, like myself, admit that we're only human and can't possibly know if something as powerful as a God could exist. It's possible, but I'm not yet sure.

[KingOfMyWorld]

Today's bible is largely based on the translations of the Church of England in the 1600's where King James ordered it translated. That's a problem because at the time, the church and the King wanted control of their people and were given the ability to pick and choose what went into the translation and what they wanted in it. How can one believe in a bible that was translated to fit the rule of a King, whose ultimate goal was to keep his people in check and fearful of him? I'm not sure I can believe in that too much. Give me an ancient historical form of it, and we'll talk when it's put together by an objective body of workers.

But don't get me wrong, I'm a believer of a higher power of some sort, call it God, Zuess or Allah, I don't care what, it's their somewhere. And that's based on the scientific process that says everything must have a beginning...well, if the world is just here based on the big bang or whatever, how did it start? How did it happen to be here, but of course that would go into a continuous loop, because how did the higher power get there?

I say let the world become tolerant, that's all I want, tolerance, but of course I'll be long dead before that happens.

[sd6515]

I say let the world become tolerant, that's all I want, tolerance, but of course I'll be long dead before that happens.

I completely agree I want the same and as a christian I believe that God would want the same as well, but I also thing that I will be long gone before we see that.

[Fallen_Icarus]

Speaking to the historical fact that there was a man named Jesus who is the same Jesus in the bible,

Can you prove this? Can you prove that the man you even know to have died upon the cross for our sins was named Jesus?

I doubt Christians are even sure about this, dont some people believe his name was Isa or Yeshua lol - wasnt Jesus a Greek King?

Note that Joshua = Yoshua or Yahushua because there is no "J" sound in Hebrew. The letter "J" is only about 500 years old and isn't even found in the original 1611 King James version

The answer lies in the Greek/Latin corruption of the Messiah's original Hebrew name. Originally, the name of the Messiah was pronounced Yahushua. This is the Messiah's original name. When the Gentiles tried to transliterate His name into Greek, they came up with ihsoun or "Iesous". But originally, this word was from #3091 in the Hebrew which is . When Iesous was transliterated into Latin, it became "Iesus", which was then carried over into English it became our modern day "Jesus" when the letter "J" developed.

So even the name of Jesus is a muddled mystery most historians cant get their heads around.

And you want me to believe he even existed?


you can choose to or not to believe in the religon or divinity but to use history as you defense and then deny history is true is pretty much the definition of ignorance

Not true.

History is not a faith which must be either entirely accepted or entirely dismissed, as i have stated before, there are a number of historical events which have a profound deal of evidence which i support, i do not however support the mythological aspects to certain civilisations which cannot no matter how hard you believe be proven to have ever had existed (by the way im still waiting for your evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ).


and considering that it is said that Jesus used to use cannabis in is healings and other religous acts performed I am shocked that so many atheiests are on hear

Can you prove that Jesus used cannabis?

(And dont pull a subjective verse from the Bible because thats not evidence, its as good as me asking for proof of jack falling down his beanstalk - and you pulling out a kids fantasy nursery book as evidence)

If jesus had mystical powers from God then why on earth did he need to use EARTHLY medicine to aid in his healing processes?

I really dont get you.

You think because APPARENTLY jesus used cannabis that users of cannabis should not come on internet forums and talk about it - that to use cannabis you must firstly accept jesus as your personal saviour.

SD651552 or whatever... you talk utter nonsense


the high depression suicide and confrontational acts of athiests

And why dont we compare the figure to the millions upon millons of children, men & women killed in the name of God through the hundreds upon thousends of religious wars throughout the entire history of religion...

Im sure we've lost count now.

I mean if i stood in the middle of a gathering of atheists or in a village of atheists and shouted God exists and lives etc etc - what kind of reaction do you believe i will recieve?

Yet what if i stood in front of a mosque in the middle of a highly muslim populated area and shouted Allah is dead!

In which scenario do you think I would face execution?

I think you know the answer.

And then after saying that he says....


I do defend my beliefs to the death

Oh i better get out of your way before you chop my head off aswel lol.


the only ignorant thing is deny the historical facts

I DO NOT DENY HISTORICAL FACT YET THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS IS NOT HISTORICAL FACT


I have no problem with athiest until they begin to atack me and my faith with ignorance.

I am asking you to provide evidence for the existence of Jesus, how on earth is this ignorant?



Thing is, you assume we're all atheists for not agreeing with you, but I have yet to make a single assumption about anyones person.

I agree with this aswel, SD61515 you only assume I am an atheist is that not real ignorance?


Once a monk pestered Buddha about philosophy of cretion and existance. Buddha tol that monk that he was as a wounded man who would not recive medical tretment until he learned the name and location of man who harmedd him. Those who refused to live by peace beacause of differnces over why we are here and what put us here would die on the hospital bed beforethey got this useless information. What differnce does it make how we got here, greif suffering and pain would still exist.

Grief pain and suffering will always be here yes, but when a race of indoctrinated people roam the earth killing anything that doesnt submit to them in the name of God with little or any proof that what they speak of is correct, something has to be done about it, these doctrines have to be contained and controlled and proven that the contents is clearly misunderstood if anything completley wrong!

Afterall, we dont want primitive minds pushing 21st century red buttons now do we?


Atheists are as bad as Christians in the sense that they believe that God either exists or doesn't without substantial proof. Agnostics, like myself

I agree entirely yet the ability to question the beliefs which are shown to you is a concept of the human brain which should never be taken for granted, id ask people to question everything.

But its a question of odds, what makes more sense to you?

And sd6515 im stil waiting for the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.


if the world is just here based on the big bang or whatever, how did it start? How did it happen to be here, but of course that would go into a continuous loop, because how did the higher power get there?

Im guessing it took you around 15 minutes to enter the site, look around for a bit and type that message, I hope you know that in that time the universe expanded an extra 162 million miles.

If you think that our planet and solar system are amazing and unique then, although we cant show you life on other plants we can show you millions upon millions upon millions of stars, and remember almost every star you see when you look outside is within our galaxy.

The nearest star from us is something like 4 light years away, thats 4 x 6 trillion miles away.

Our tiny galaxy alone is around 100,000 x 6 TRILLION miles accross

You would have to travel at around 186,000 MILES PER SECOND for 100,000 years to get from one end of our galaxy to the other.

The galaxy next door to ours is 2 Million light years away, thats 2 million x 6 trillion miles away.

Yes you would have to travel at a rate of around 186,000 miles per second for 2 MILLION YEARS to reach the Galaxy NEXT DOOR to ours.

And I would say at an underestimate there are around 800 BILLION galaxies in this universe.

The numbers are beyond anyones comprehension.

And remember what ive talked of is nothing, times it by a billion and your not even close when you begin to think about what this space is expanding into - and how far the 4th universe is from this pale blue dot you call earth, Gods earth.

Yet do you really think that God would have created all of this over that vast amount of space and time...

So that Jesus and Muhammed could mess about in the Dessert?

[sd6515]

Do you really think I am going to waste any more of my time talking to you you are a sad sad little man who is commiting the very same acts he claims to hate and just as a side note you can read were you missed the fact were you mentioned you were an athiest I did not assume anything,and for some reason you seem to have a problem with religion and christanity when ive said over and over that i do not force my religion on others and hate that people do and you still seem to not be able to grasp that I dont care what you believe i dont care what you say and I certainly dont care to converse with you being that you even quote me and others the way you try to support you other claims out of context. and as to this:
And sd6515 im stil waiting for the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.
I already said 3 times now I have absolutely no reason to converse with you and the evidence is there and if you really cared you could find it and then discredit it yourself because regardless of what is brought to you your ignorant a*s will deny it and just so this doesnt happen again your ignorance has NOTHING to do with your belief or nonbelief in God or Jesus. Why should i waste my time sighting my sources for you to reject them before you even read them. now go F**k the horse you rode in on. The last thing I need is to continue to converse with someone so full of hate.

[sd6515]

Sorry to all for my launguage and tone in that last post but this has just gotten a little to ridiculous for me so it will be my last in here, I can not stand this one ignorant person and by the way yes I as well as most christian do know that his name was yeshua, Jesus Christ, where "Christ" is a title derived from the Greek christós, meaning the "Anointed One," which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived "Messiah". The name "Jesus" is an Anglicization of the Greek Ίησους (Iēsous), itself a Hellenization of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua), meaning "YHWH is salvation".

and here is a link for a ton of websites for you to discredit fallen.

[sd6515]

historical proof jesus and crucifiction - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Cgu&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=historical+proof+jesus+and+crucifiction&spell=1)

[jdmarcus59]

I am ignorant because I choose not to believe something without a shred of evidence for its support of existence?

lol

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

So lets be sensible about this, evidence is not based upon hearsay, which is the only type of evidence one can provide in terms of the existence of jesus christ.

And im still waiting for the evidence that Jesus Christ existed



And why not?

Why does the Jesus on the Cross for all our sins story hold so much weight that we all MUST believe it?

IT and HIS EXISTENCE holds as much weight as the earlier comparision to the great African Tinman.

So do you believe that nobody should deny the existence of the African Tinman?

Because i dont see the difference in terms of evidence for existence between the two Myths

read my post.

[Fallen_Icarus]

I did not assume anything,and for some reason you seem to have a problem with religion and christanity when ive said over and over that i do not force my religion on others

That doesnt mean I cant question your faith with the most simple methods of questioning (which you yourself cannot seem to answer).

And i didnt seek you out of a crowd, you came to me and defended your faith, and you said you would do this "until death" yet you cant even provide me with one piece of evidence that Jesus existed - i know, its always been an easier option for religiously minded people to pick up the sword and be violent clearly that makes me feel you have doubts about your belief.

If not then i suggest you turn around and walk back accross the dessert into the barren isolated village of people who wish also not to question their faith, who wish also not to look at the facts and what 'simply makes more sense'.


Sorry to all for my launguage

I think I am the one who deserves a direct apology, I dont respect people who swear, shout and call names, its in simple terms an idiotic moronic act.


a little to ridiculous for me

Look back over my posts, what do you find so ridiculous about asking questions about your faith? Is there some sort of law which forbids it?


yeshua, Jesus Christ, where "Christ" is a title derived from the Greek christós, meaning the "Anointed One," which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived "Messiah". The name "Jesus" is an Anglicization of the Greek Ίησους (Iēsous), itself a Hellenization of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua), meaning "YHWH is salvation".

Thanks for repeating what I said in a previous post, oh and did you know that the Greek etymology of the term christ is 'oil'.


historical proof jesus and crucifiction - Google Search

The link you provided, the google search (lol), I ask you for evidence and you give me a Google search, well i looked around in that search (an act which clearly I have done before many a time).

And again found nothing, but despondent attempts by biasd journailsts and archeologists approaching the society of the science class with vague, fallacious attempts to prove the existence of the 'son of god'.

Do you think, you could head to the world of science with a google link and tell them "Now do you believe me?"

It is laughable and anyone reading this with any sense would agree.

Come on SD, is this the best you can do? I give you an infinite speed of space and time unimaginable and unthinkable to the human brain, areas in space which could erase the logicality of the thought process of our minds, I give you the closest major entity of our universe to us being over 2 MILLION X 6 TRILLION MILES AWAY - SOMETHING WHICH IS POSSIBLY 500,000 LIGHT YEARS ACROSS MEANING YOU WOULD HAVE TO CREATE SEVERAL CIVILISATIONS TO REACH IT AT THE TOP SPEEDS WE CAN TRAVEL AT TODAY!!

....and you give me a google link?

Ask yourself why scripture spoke so beautifully of this earth in such great description, but yet hardly uttered a word about 'what's out there', because in comparison (the earth and the universe alone) the earth is left as an image of a single grain of sand compared to the beauty and the amazing, never ending depths of our universe.


Why should i waste my time sighting my sources

Because you have none thats why.

Why wouldnt you, i mean lets think about this, im challenging your faith, clearly you would score points if you could prove me wrong, so why wouldnt you?

You know deep down you would do it if the evidence existed, but it just doesnt, im sorry to say.

So just admit it, all you have are vague google links, that are simply not facts - just assumptions and biasd opinions.

[jdmarcus59]

That doesnt mean I cant question your faith with the most simple methods of questioning (which you yourself cannot seem to answer).

And i didnt seek you out of a crowd, you came to me and defended your faith, and you said you would do this "until death" yet you cant even provide me with one piece of evidence that Jesus existed - i know, its always been an easier option for religiously minded people to pick up the sword and be violent clearly that makes me feel you have doubts about your belief.

If not then i suggest you turn around and walk back accross the dessert into the barren isolated village of people who wish also not to question their faith, who wish also not to look at the facts and what 'simply makes more sense'.



I think I am the one who deserves a direct apology, I dont respect people who swear, shout and call names, its in simple terms an idiotic moronic act.



Look back over my posts, what do you find so ridiculous about asking questions about your faith? Is there some sort of law which forbids it?



Thanks for repeating what I said in a previous post, oh and did you know that the Greek etymology of the term christ is 'oil'.



The link you provided, the google search (lol), I ask you for evidence and you give me a Google search, well i looked around in that search (an act which clearly I have done before many a time).

And again found nothing, but despondent attempts by biasd journailsts and archeologists approaching the society of the science class with vague, fallacious attempts to prove the existence of the 'son of god'.

Do you think, you could head to the world of science with a google link and tell them "Now do you believe me?"

It is laughable and anyone reading this with any sense would agree.

Come on SD, is this the best you can do? I give you an infinite speed of space and time unimaginable and unthinkable to the human brain, areas in space which could erase the logicality of the thought process of our minds, I give you the closest major entity of our universe to us being over 2 MILLION X 6 TRILLION MILES AWAY - SOMETHING WHICH IS POSSIBLY 500,000 LIGHT YEARS ACROSS MEANING YOU WOULD HAVE TO CREATE SEVERAL CIVILISATIONS TO REACH IT AT THE TOP SPEEDS WE CAN TRAVEL AT TODAY!!

....and you give me a google link?

Ask yourself why scripture spoke so beautifully of this earth in such great description, but yet hardly uttered a word about 'what's out there', because in comparison (the earth and the universe alone) the earth is left as an image of a single grain of sand compared to the beauty and the amazing, never ending depths of our universe.



Because you have none thats why.

Why wouldnt you, i mean lets think about this, im challenging your faith, clearly you would score points if you could prove me wrong, so why wouldnt you?

You know deep down you would do it if the evidence existed, but it just doesnt, im sorry to say.

So just admit it, all you have are vague google links, that are simply not facts - just assumptions and biasd opinions.
if it can be proven to you without a any doubt, that christianty is true, would you fall to your knees and give your life to christ?

[JaggedEdge]

I seem to have jumped the gun in agreeing with SD, here.

Upon further research, I have come to the conclusion that Fallens questioning of the actual existence of Jesus is not ignorant in the least. It is an uncommon view, even amongst scholars, however there are reasonable reasons as to why some believe he was nothing more than a mythical creation.

Here is one interesting fact I found.

Only one out about forty Roman Historians in the 1st and 2nd century CE mentioned Jesus.

With this and other information I have found, there is reasonable cause to question the existence of Jesus.

Fallen, I apologize.

SD I feel you need to retract your comment regarding Fallen being ignorant.

[JaggedEdge]

if it can be proven to you without a any doubt, that christianty is true, would you fall to your knees and give your life to christ?

This isn't directed at me, but I would like to answer it anyway.

1. There is no plausible way to prove Christianity is true.
There are far to many dissenting views as to what Christianity actually is.
At the same time, everything Christians believe in would have to be proven.
Jesus Christ being the Messiah
Mary being a Virgin
The Resurrection
Heaven and Hell
Original Sin
Etc 2. Even if some of Christianity were proven no one should be required to obey. Personally, even if I one day discover with 100% certainty, there is a god. I will bow down to no one. I life of servitude is not a life I would like to live.

We should live our lives for ourselves and the benefit of our fellow man, not a mythical being, such as god.

[Hardcore Newbie]

historical proof jesus and crucifiction - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Cgu&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=historical+proof+jesus+and+crucifiction&spell=1)
The first page in this search is from a personal geocities page, hardly a bastion of proof.. The second and third are sceptic sites that claim that jesus doesn't exist. Great job with your link. Get an actual source instead of hoping that your vague search terms work in your favour.

[JaggedEdge]

The first page in this search is from a personal geocities page, hardly a bastion of proof.. The second and third are sceptic sites that claim that jesus doesn't exist. Great job with your link. Get an actual source instead of hoping that your vague search terms work in your favour.

I agree, the google search link was laughable. I seem to be having the same problem though, I'm looking for documents attesting to the Historical existence of Jesus, and all that shows up are Christian, Catholic, and other religiously biased sites.

[sd6515]

It was meant as a joke not as serious in anyway but it is funny you went there

[jdmarcus59]

This isn't directed at me, but I would like to answer it anyway.

1. There is no plausible way to prove Christianity is true.
There are far to many dissenting views as to what Christianity actually is.
At the same time, everything Christians believe in would have to be proven.
Jesus Christ being the Messiah
Mary being a Virgin
The Resurrection
Heaven and Hell
Original Sin
Etc 2. Even if some of Christianity were proven no one should be required to obey. Personally, even if I one day discover with 100% certainty, there is a god. I will bow down to no one. I life of servitude is not a life I would like to live.

We should live our lives for ourselves and the benefit of our fellow man, not a mythical being, such as god.

you did not answer the qustion. It is a yes are no answer.

[jdmarcus59]

well at second thought I guess you did answer the qustion. so I guess you would live your life a lie then, sence you said it was proven to you 100%. Well it is your right to live aganst
the truth.

[JaggedEdge]

If you must have a yes "are" no answer... than the answer is a LOUD RESOUNDING NO.

Edit: You corrected that.

Your question asked if we will "hand our lives over to god." No I will not.

[sd6515]

I seem to have jumped the gun in agreeing with SD, here.

Upon further research, I have come to the conclusion that Fallens questioning of the actual existence of Jesus is not ignorant in the least. It is an uncommon view, even amongst scholars, however there are reasonable reasons as to why some believe he was nothing more than a mythical creation.

Here is one interesting fact I found.

Only one out about forty Roman Historians in the 1st and 2nd century CE mentioned Jesus.

With this and other information I have found, there is reasonable cause to question the existence of Jesus.

Fallen, I apologize.

SD I feel you need to retract your comment regarding Fallen being ignorant.
to this I must request you look at all post by fallen and you will soon see he just likes to play devils advocate and insult for the most part.
I know that all/most events in the Bible can not be proven and that is why religon calls upon faith which is every persons right to except or reject.
religion is everyones right to have or reject and defend in that manner but this will always cause a heated debate and one should know this before they begin as for retracting calling fallen ignorant I do not retract that because even though he did have some valid points most of his points about 90% were taken out of there original context to support his beliefs. but to each there own and to john kerry i mean jaggededge just because you found a source that makes you change your mind instantaniously and do not stand behind your convictions does not mean I am the same way.

[JaggedEdge]

well at second thought I guess you did answer the qustion. so I guess you would live your life a lie then, sence you said it was proven to you 100%. Well it is your right to live aganst
the truth.

What does that even mean? What truth? It was a hypothetical question.

You can't exactly prove anything with a hypothetical question. The bottom line is this, Christianity will never be proven to be 100% correct.

[sd6515]

The Bible says to believe with faith so that even if you were able to prove it which I can admit is impossible it would not be believing, although from the otherside of this I can see how this would be such a easy thing for everyone to use against Christians so I'll save you the trouble I know this helps build your case that religion is made up and equivalant to the tinman myth(lol, you love that one) but I do have my faith and that is my right.

[JaggedEdge]

but to each there own and to john kerry i mean jaggededge just because you found a source that makes you change your mind instantaniously and do not stand behind your convictions does not mean I am the same way.

Hmmm... I will have fun with this one.


because you found a source that makes you change your mind instantaniously and do not stand behind your convictions does not mean I am the same way.

This is the huge problem with believers, most of them don't do independent research and look at other possible explanations because they "want to stand behind their convictions." Honestly, when most believers actually start thinking for themselves and doing a little research, they tend to cross over to the dark side. Thats what happened to me. I grew up Catholic, started questioning my faith, researched the subject in great detail, and came to the conclusions I have. Perhaps, you should look at other ideas and open your mind to new possibilities rather than simply being firm in your "convictions."

Secondly, all I did was do a little research on the subject and concluded that Fallen is not ignorant for questioning whether Jesus actually existed. I never once said I agreed with him, I simply conceded it was a reasonable question.

Unlike you, I'm keep my mind open to new ideas and different ways of thinking. It doesn't make me wishy washy, it simply makes me open minded.

Also, why are you so reluctant to show Fallen the sources he has been asking for?

Finally, you have a serious problem with name calling. Calling me John Kerry... you are the one showing ignorance here, not Fallen. For future reference, if that was meant as a joke, use a smiley.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

if it can be proven to you without a any doubt, that christianty is true, would you fall to your knees and give your life to christ?
not even then would i praise that cruel master, it would just give me a reason to rail against the universe. to find that there was indeed a god who could have revealed itself and ended so much suffering would only prove to me that this reality is ruled by a being of such callousness that it does not deserve my loyalty nor my adoration. i would gladly join the ranks of the damned and our watchwords would be "better an eternity of torment than service to a tyrant". such a revelation would finally allow me the ultimate act of defiance, i would revel in the bloodshed and destruction it would free me to bring down upon the lambs of that pernicious deity.

[JaggedEdge]

not even then would i praise that cruel master, it would just give me a reason to rail against the universe. to find that there was indeed a god who could have revealed itself and ended so much suffering would only prove to me that this reality is ruled by a being of such callousness that it does not deserve my loyalty nor my adoration. i would gladly join the ranks of the damned and our watchwords would be "better an eternity of torment than service to a tyrant". such a revelation would finally allow me the ultimate act of defiance, i would revel in the bloodshed and destruction it would free me to bring down upon the lambs of that pernicious deity.

Very well said, I to would join the ranks of the damned.

I originally had writing in reply to the above: If god revealed himself to me in person, I would likely tell him to f*ck off. I deleted it though out of tact.

Do I have your permission to put that on a bumper sticker?:thumbsup:

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Very well said, I to would join the ranks of the damned.

I originally had writing in reply to the above: If god revealed himself to me in person, I would likely tell him to f*ck off. I deleted it though out of tact.

Do I have your permission to put that on a bumper sticker?:thumbsup:
one of the benefits of being considered completely off my rocker is that i'm free to be as honest as i damn well please.

the worst part of religious hypocrisy is that they are willing to overlook their lords part in our daily atrocities. they blame it on the devil or mankind's perversity or they cloak it with phrases like "mysterious are the ways of the lord". they may even claim that these are tests of some kind, designed to weed out the undeserving. what undeserving; if we are created by this magic man, then it would be his failures we are paying for. the simple truth would seem to be that any caring, omnipotent god would cherish its creations and treat them as its beloved children, not heap abuse and injustice upon them.

thankfully i'm not an overly spiritual sort of guy. if i were i would spend my days bemoaning our apathetic treatment at the hands of this supposedly loving creator.



the bumper sticker should read:
better an eternity of torment than one moment's service to a tyrant

[jdmarcus59]

one of the benefits of being considered completely off my rocker is that i'm free to be as honest as i damn well please.

the worst part of religious hypocrisy is that they are willing to overlook their lords part in our daily atrocities. they blame it on the devil or mankind's perversity or they cloak it with phrases like "mysterious are the ways of the lord". they may even claim that these are tests of some kind, designed to weed out the undeserving. what undeserving; if we are created by this magic man, then it would be his failures we are paying for. the simple truth would seem to be that any caring, omnipotent god would cherish its creations and treat them as its beloved children, not heap abuse and injustice upon them.

thankfully i'm not an overly spiritual sort of guy. if i were i would spend my days bemoaning our apathetic treatment at the hands of this supposedly loving creator.



the bumper sticker should read:
better an eternity of torment than one moment's service to a tyrant

God bless:)

[Hardcore Newbie]

I honestly can't blame people for not liking the God in the Bible. If I found out that He were real, before submitting my will to Him, I'd have to ask a few hundred questions on His rationalities and logic, as they completely differ from mine. I'm sure He'd make me understand, being all powerful and stuff. If I disagreed on a few minor things, I'd let it slide, but I doubt there'd only be a few minor things.

[sd6515]

I am very open minded and while defending my view and have done my own research and have started it into overdrive now I did not say ignorant bc of his questions in fact some of them were quite good and raised questions of my own but the one thing I do know is the existance of the man talked about in the bible is cited in other places and the crucifiction as well as for sources if you earnestly want to read some and throughly read them not dismiss them site unseen I can get those for you after gathering from my source, probably sometime tommorow.
as for name calling I must admit I am guilty of the typical christian short coming when resorting to low blows because of so little to back my case besides my faith and I will now re read and delete after so as not to post anymore.
as to these however...

not even then would i praise that cruel master, it would just give me a reason to rail against the universe. to find that there was indeed a god who could have revealed itself and ended so much suffering would only prove to me that this reality is ruled by a being of such callousness that it does not deserve my loyalty nor my adoration. i would gladly join the ranks of the damned and our watchwords would be "better an eternity of torment than service to a tyrant". such a revelation would finally allow me the ultimate act of defiance, i would revel in the bloodshed and destruction it would free me to bring down upon the lambs of that pernicious deity.

Very well said, I to would join the ranks of the damned.

I originally had writing in reply to the above: If god revealed himself to me in person, I would likely tell him to f*ck off. I deleted it though out of tact.

wow thats just some crazy sh*t, I mean to not believe is fine but thats just some evil stuff if you do not believe in God then does that mean I have the right to say if God revealed himself to me or came down to earth I would tell you to f*ck off or join with the "christians" and shed the blood of non believers? because I can assure I would not, even if it meant rebuking my God and being attack by the very people I used to call my brethren.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

wow thats just some crazy sh*t, I mean to not believe is fine but thats just some evil stuff .....
my reaction to a sudden revelation of the existence of god may seem drastic to you, but i see it as just vengeance for the centuries of abuse and apathy. the concept of making war upon the gods for their cruelty is not unprecedented in mythology and when battling an immortal the only real target would be its mortal minions.

can you honestly say that if your god came to you and demanded that you slay the unbelievers you would defy him? if so, i would say that your belief in his infallibility leaves a bit to be desired.

[sd6515]

I can because I do not believe my God would command us to and yes if he did I would rebuke him he has an army of angels and I do not believe he would require or ask us to do this and the fact that christians out there do and thendo act upon these thoughts is one of the greatest problems we have.
but yes I would rebuke my God if he ask me to commit such horrible acts and it does not make my faith any weaker at all in any way because the God I believe would not require that of me and if he did he would not be th God I had thought I was following and therefore it would not be weak of me or leave anything to be desired of my faith it would just prove that I had a misguided faith that I believed in a God that would require me to shed the blood of innocent people whos only "guilt" beyond mine is not believing in him. Which I do not see as a guilt at all and I believe it is my duty to be a christian follow the lord help those who want help and on top of all not force my religion down the throats of others which I have and will never do. just defend and love my faith.

[sd6515]

but i see it as just vengeance for the centuries of abuse and apathy.
says in the Bible God is a vengeful God and if you smite him you and your families will be smited for generations upon generations and even further, and we as a human race have smited God in many ways what right do we have to complain about the horids in our lives especially our sheltered lives of great wealth compared to the rest of the world, i dont know about you but with 2 cars a house a weeks worth of food in the fridge and money in the bank I feal pretty blessed myself, horrible things can and do happen but what kind of a life would it really be if everything were perfect all the time, not a life I would want. And I have Degenerative Disc Disease, 5 hernihated disc, sciatica, nerve root impingement, and am on cruches half my life and I still consider myself blessed at 23

[JaggedEdge]

says in the Bible God is a vengeful God and if you smite him you and your families will be smited for generations upon generations and even further, and we as a human race have smited God in many ways what right do we have to complain about the horids in our lives especially our sheltered lives of great wealth compared to the rest of the world, i dont know about you but with 2 cars a house a weeks worth of food in the fridge and money in the bank I feal pretty blessed myself, horrible things can and do happen but what kind of a life would it really be if everything were perfect all the time, not a life I would want. And I have Degenerative Disc Disease, 5 hernihated disc, sciatica, nerve root impingement, and am on cruches half my life and I still consider myself blessed at 23

Because, if god truly were a loving god, he would not be so egotistical, demented, and perverse as to torture his own creations. He would not require servitude or love, just as a loving father does not require that. The father strives for love and respect from his children by setting a good example, loving them unconditionally, and wishing the best for them under nearly any circumstance.

There is no place in this world for a vengeful god and no excuse for one. He has absolutely no right to smite the heretics or those who have wronged him. And if he were to feel that way, simply because he created us against our will, he is not a being that deserves my respect.

[Fallen_Icarus]

if it can be proven to you without a any doubt, that christianty is true, would you fall to your knees and give your life to christ?

As stated this is a hypothetical question, what if i can prove to you without a shadow of a doubt christianity is false, would you fall to will of reasoning, open thought and infinite questioning then?

I know which path i would rather take, even if you did find some type of evidence it would be forever conjectural which could never hit home that christianity is the infinite truth unless somehow you can take me into the suposed afterlife and show me the land of 'milk and honey' in its glory...

Even then, as i have stated how much milk and honey can you consume in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000 years?

In mathematical terms, eternity hasnt even begun.


I seem to be having the same problem though, I'm looking for documents attesting to the Historical existence of Jesus, and all that shows up are Christian, Catholic, and other religiously biased sites.

Ive always had that problem.


It was meant as a joke not as serious in anyway but it is funny you went there

Yeah because it seriously is a JOKE looking for evidence of Jesus Christ.


well at second thought I guess you did answer the qustion. so I guess you would live your life a lie then, sence you said it was proven to you 100%. Well it is your right to live aganst
the truth.

Lets not get caught up in an imaginary world however, lets switch back to reality, and the reality is that there is no evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ.

Like i stated before it cannot be proven to be correct, yet how about yourself? How about the Christians alike, im sure the lack of evidence points to the answer you oh so hate so much, which is that Christ never existed.

Are you not living the lie in reality?


to this I must request you look at all post by fallen and you will soon see he just likes to play devils advocate and insult for the most part.

Carry on trying to get people to support your illogical beliefs.


wow thats just some crazy sh*t, I mean to not believe is fine but thats just some evil stuff if you do not believe in God then does that mean I have the right to say if God revealed himself to me or came down to earth I would tell you to f*ck off or join with the "christians" and shed the blood of non believers?

And on what right does God have for throwing one into a hell for all eternity for simply not believing he existed?

Does the punishment fit the crime?

How would you feel if i sent you to a fiery pit for ETERNITY for simply not agreeing with what im saying?

How would you feel?

Now you can understand how we feel.


to this I must request you look at all post by fallen and you will soon see he just likes to play devils advocate and insult for the most part.

Let me just remind you of the kind of statement you have made against me:


now go F**k the horse you rode in on

I still have recieved no direct apology for this remark

And still no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.

[KevinFinnerty]

As stated this is a hypothetical question, what if i can prove to you without a shadow of a doubt christianity is false, would you fall to will of reasoning, open thought and infinite questioning then?
I was going to post this exact question. I'm interested to hear the response to it from the bible-thumpers.

Now SD6515, you said in one of your posts that you don't necessarily believe people should suffer eternal damnation simply for not believing Jesus while otherwise living a perfectly good life. The thing is, we're discussing Christianity, not what you believe, and this way of thinking deviates completely from what Christianity teaches. You may call yourself Christian, but your belief on this matter is distinctly non-Christian. It would be like if I said I believe in mathematics, and someone asked me what two plus two equaled, and I said i believed it equaled five and implied that this belief represents what mathematics teaches. Because you are rational enough to disagree with one of the many ludicrous and vindictive aspects of Christianity does not make that aspect any less a part of Christianity, and this aspect in particular should keep anyone in their right-mind from believing in Christianity. Unfortunately, it seems that a shockingly low percentage of the world's population are actually in their right-mind, if the number of religious people is any indication.

As far as your insistence on using references in secular historical texts as evidence the legitimacy of Christianity, you're missing the point once again. Sure, there are probably some texts that reference a guy called Jesus, just like there are texts that reference parts of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. However, it's a huge leap of irrationality to claim that these texts and references somehow "prove" what, by definition, is unprovable. Sure you might be able to provide substantial proof that there was a guy who named Jesus who lived about 2,000 years ago and claimed to be the son of god, but how can you possibly prove that he was telling the truth and that the founders of all those other religions were not? You simply can't, which is why no one religion is any less far-fetched and unbelievable than the other.

On the one hand, Christians often like to respond to requests for tangible proof of God, Jesus, etc., by saying such proof is completely unnecessary for believing in Christianity, then on the other hand they use the bible and historical references as their basis for believing in Christianity. If "proof" is not needed to believe in Christianity, how are you expected to decide to believe in it. For that matter, how is it acceptable in any way to punish people with eternal pain and suffering for not believing in it? Therein lies the paradox that makes religion as a whole a farce.

[jdmarcus59]

to try and answer a few qustion from above post i will simply say this, why would God throw you in hell? Well Hell was made for the devil and his followers, it was never made for man.
but men like your self who say I will not follow God even if I new Him to be true 100%, you say you will tell Him to f... of then when you die why would you what to be with Him then?
so if you chose to hate God then you will be on the side of the devil who we know hates God. There fore you will be with the evil one the father of all lies when your soul leaves this world.
I did not chose to be a christian, Iam just like you in many ways, I will not put knee to ground for any man, I haved lived a hard core life, and if you knew me you would belive my words. But one day out of the blue I met christ, and I wanted to be with Him, and get to know him for He is my God and creater. But even after I met Him I went and search every thing I could find, and I tell you this that are faith is not blind.
The truth is there, but you have already chosed not to be live, and that is your right.

[jdmarcus59]

P. S. You have chosen your path, and we have chosen are path.
there is nothing left to say, but to walk are own path. So walk. by.

[Hardcore Newbie]

to try and answer a few qustion from above post i will simply say this, why would God throw you in hell? Well Hell was made for the devil and his followers, it was never made for man.
but men like your self who say I will not follow God even if I new Him to be true 100%, you say you will tell Him to f... of then when you die why would you what to be with Him then?
so if you chose to hate God then you will be on the side of the devil who we know hates God. There fore you will be with the evil one the father of all lies when your soul leaves this world.
I did not chose to be a christian, Iam just like you in many ways, I will not put knee to ground for any man, I haved lived a hard core life, and if you knew me you would belive my words. But one day out of the blue I met christ, and I wanted to be with Him, and get to know him for He is my God and creater. But even after I met Him I went and search every thing I could find, and I tell you this that are faith is not blind.
The truth is there, but you have already chosed not to be live, and that is your right.Just because some people may have similar views with another, that doesn't mean that they're on the same side. Unfortunately, God doesn't see this, he only sees good... "Believe in Me please! Trust my words, some of which may not make sense, but you're good, so you'll know what's right" and evil... "I seems like you have better reasons for your morality, but I'm perfect, damn it, so I'm obviously right... Go to HELL!"

[sd6515]

P. S. You have chosen your path, and we have chosen are path.
there is nothing left to say, but to walk are own path. So walk. by.
Reply With Quote
well said jd I only wish I could be so tactful on this topic

[Mr. Bubbles]

The truth is there, but you have already chosed not to be live, and that is your right.

So then what about us agnostics? I don't know if any form of god exists or not. I don't deny the existence of one, either. I find it quite silly that the Christian 'God' would expect everyone to just believe in him without one shred of proof. If he really wanted people to believe and be saved, he'd give them a damn good reason to. I think the Christian religion is simply an outdated tool that was used to herd the sheeple of the past. I suppose it still works, though. Look at America for example. 'God Bless America!'
Or Europe, 'God Save The Queen!'

People in power associate God with themselves to make them seem 'right' and in tune with what God wants.

Sorry, but that sort of thing doesn't sound right to me. :jointsmile:

[JaggedEdge]

So then what about us agnostics? I don't know if any form of god exists or not. I don't deny the existence of one, either. I find it quite silly that the Christian 'God' would expect everyone to just believe in him without one shred of proof. If he really wanted people to believe and be saved, he'd give them a damn good reason to. I think the Christian religion is simply an outdated tool that was used to herd the sheeple of the past. I suppose it still works, though. Look at America for example. 'God Bless America!'
Or Europe, 'God Save The Queen!'

People in power associate God with themselves to make them seem 'right' and in tune with what God wants.

Sorry, but that sort of thing doesn't sound right to me. :jointsmile:

Just because you don't declare is no god doesn't mean you won't be burned at the stake right beside me. Haha, my exact classification is an agnostic atheist. Take that bro, I'm the worst of both worlds. :jointsmile:

[Mr. Bubbles]

I'm the worst of both worlds. :jointsmile:

If that's how you want to look at it. Religion and politics are so closely related.

[sd6515]

Proof of Birth (http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html)

Validity of the Bible (http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html)

Here are two different sections of just one sight with the information and links to information of historical and physical proof of the birth crucifition of Jesus and events in the Bible. Just a few of many I have and you can check each person and finding as well to see that you may not and do not have to believe inthe didvinity of Jesus Christ but he as a man did exist and there is physical and historical proof that he did exist. And there are many more but this sight is full of them and is others as well as this site but I figured rather then list all and waste my time( since you don't seem to care about proof just claim to so you can dismiss it) I would just give the one that complies it in one place it may be a sight run by a ministry but feel free to check the validity of there claims against real sites and source not anti christian sources and you can see they are backed and valid. You asked and I provided when you seem to really want the information not that I expect you to believe but you can then see that there is historical and physical proof that does support the existance of a man named Jesus and the crucifiction and other events and place in the Bible.

[sd6515]

Archaeological (http://www.creatingfutures.net/archaelogical.html)

[allah]

I just say fuck it, let what happens, happen. And when it comes down to the decision of right and wrong, what you choose, is what makes you who you are. Not what religion you call yourself. Now, thats not saying religion is stupid or doesn't exist. But I know for a fact, that something as important as our salvation couldn't be tossed up as a gamble for choosing the right god.

[sd6515]

The old testament is what mainly speaks of damnation, owning slaves, and the vegfullneess of God and became the old testament when the new testament was written after Jesus came and died for our sins and then the entire tone of the Bible changed this is obvious when you read the Bible front to back. as it say in the Bible the more you are given the more you are responsible for which in turn logicaly means the less you are given the less you are responsible for, this is speeaking towards the knowledge and acceptance of the Bible so therefore a man in Africa who's only knowledge of good and bad and has no knowledge of the Bible but does his best to follow this rule he knows as right will not be damned for not believing this and many other similiar teachings are teaching of the christian faith other teaching are demented pervertions of the faith used to suit radicalist christian views, similar to the way that afghan terrorists are islam and claim to be following there religion when they commit there terrible acts when in reality Islam religion is one of the most peaceful religion on the planet so it is not fair to judge all christians based on the views and preachings of the small percentage of radicalist out there in the same way it is not fair to say all Islamic people are terrorist, the views of mainstream christianity are nowhere near what you have represented it to be.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Proof of Birth (http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html)

Validity of the Bible (http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html)

Do you understand what an independent source is? I believe people asked for an independent source for a reason. So we wouldn't get "proof" from a biased source. I hardly consider a site that has in it's mission statement, that it believes the following...

... the Bible to be the inspired and only infallible and authoritative Word of God. ... there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost
... in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal, future return to this earth
... water baptism by immersion
... the baptism in the Holy Spirit, in which the evidence is the proclaiming of the Gospel with boldness, and most of the time the receiving of a prayer language
... in the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a holy life.
... in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost, the one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting death.


Hardly an independent source, why not ask for drunk driving statistics from MADD?

[sd6515]

because in the same way you could verify the facts from madd you can verify the facts in there and for your information madd and various other groups are who started the gov. tracking of numbers on the topic and there numbers on there site are accurate as are these very bad example
and byt the way the sight links to all there information sources and the source are backed in many other places this is just a site that complied the evidence, every statement on those sites is sighted and as I said above I was ask for the proof Im not going to do the work for you of going to all the individuals source and individualy proving them to ppl that will still ignore and deny them regardless of how highly supportive the evidence is. I do know what an indepentent source is and they are listed on that site as welll next time try reading the whole site not just what you can find to think youve discredited and then you can go to those independant sources listed there and see for yourself I should not need to do the work for you do this next time before writing a discrediting statement, that is called indepentdant research do you know what that is or how to do that?

[sd6515]

by the way if your not an atheist you sure spend alot of time discrediting religion that in itself makes me wary of all you say

[JaggedEdge]

Proof Jesus never existed

Evidence that Jesus never existed (http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html)

Jesus Never Existed. End of story., page 1 (http://www.belowtopsecret.com/thread186877/pg1)

Proof the bible is false.

WHY JESUS NEVER EXISTED (http://www.religionislies.com/whyjesusneverexisted.html)

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs (http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm)


Here you go, see how simple it is to find unreliable sources.

See how easy it is to find unreliable sources supporting what you believe?

[Hardcore Newbie]

because in the same way you could verify the facts from madd you can verify the facts in there and for your information madd and various other groups are who started the gov. tracking of numbers on the topic and there numbers on there site are accurate as are these very bad example
You don't think that MADD has a different definition of "drunk" driver, "accident" and other words that people take for granted so they can skew things to make their message seem more legitimate?


and byt the way the sight links to all there information sources and the source are backed in many other places this is just a site that complied the evidence, every statement on those sites is sighted and as I said above
The whole site basically links to itself for it's proofs. The only outside recommended reading comes from yet more sites dedicated to "proving" that God exists. I did look for their sources, which I would have looked at. I found none.


... and then you can go to those independant sources listed there and see for yourself I should not need to do the work for you do this next time before writing a discrediting statement, that is called indepentdant research do you know what that is or how to do that?

You're assuming I didn't look for the sources, which is actually the first thing I looked for. Something I did find interesting though, was this quote, directly from Archaeological (http://www.creatingfutures.net/archaelogical.html) , bold italics and all.

It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the Bible by faith. Because of who God is, we will always have questions. In order to have eternal life, we need to believe the words of Jesus that we are sinners and are in need of a Lord and Savior.

Science literally means knowledge. Without knowledge, there is no proof. Thanks for playing.

[Hardcore Newbie]

by the way if your not an atheist you sure spend alot of time discrediting religion that in itself makes me wary of all you say
I am an agnostic. I just don't believe that a perfect being would be as silly as the dude that I read about in the bible. The descriptions of god fearing people reaching heaven, talking donkeys, playing hide and seek with adam and eve, and the roundabout way to save mankind through Jesus Christ. To think there wasn't a way that God could create to save mankind that actually makes sense. "Be a good person" would be one. "Don't let your kids die simply because they curse you" would be a great one.

[sd6515]

Once again I feel that the athiest and agnostics, which by the way I can completely respect athiests but not agnostics atheist at least have a firm belief in there feelings and findings and I feel I overlooked this before when I said I can respect all beliefs because the one to me and to all that should be unaccpetable is an agnostic. the basic definition of an agnostic is someone who is to weak faithed to be a Christian and to weak willed to be an athiest I can at least respect the other atheist and do even while at odds with them for there similiar strong will and beliefs neither of which an agnostic can claim to have. and if as an agnostic true firm belief was found and shown as Jesus was quoted as saying "you have seen me but those who have not seen and still believe have a stronger faith then you" I mean in my opinion even God himself would have more respect for an atheist. I retract my previous statement of calling a flip flopper to an athiest because upon further research have found that an agnostic is the true weak one unable to come come to there own conclusion I mean I can take research and dispute religion with a atheist but an agnostic is just a lost cause to both sides the most pathetic of all.
At this time I do retract all statements against the athiest I insulted especially the f*ck you and the horse you rode in on" i am sorry you have convistion and belief in your opinions and I respect that and again appologize for that and the time it took me to do so.
At least you have the conviction to name your horse LOL
I mean come on I know we are on opposite side but agnostic please just another name for I don't know and I am to scared to choose. Can we at least agree on that? out of some common ground.
Agnostic LOL to weak to chose LOL choose a side and them rejoin at least I can respect an atheist for there beliefs an agnostic basically has none or at least won't stand behind them and regardless of what you say your own catoragation defines that. Common ground fallen etc.?

[sd6515]

:thumbsup:?:jointsmile: as common ground as our love for cannabis:jointsmile:

[sd6515]

talking donkeys, playing hide and seek with adam and eve, and the roundabout way to save mankind through Jesus Christ. speaking of siting sources and baking what you say where do you get talking donkeys or hide and go seek LOL once again agnostic LOL:wtf:

[Hardcore Newbie]

the basic definition of an agnostic is someone who is to weak faithed to be a Christian and to weak willed to be an athiest There are more sides to belief than "no god" or "XIAN GOD ONLY ZOMG!"

The definition of an agnostic is not what you describe. The definition of agnostic is "I don't know". I don't know if there is a god, GOD, G-d, deity, supreme being, all knowing creator, or if there isn't. Just because you underline, bold and italicize something, that doesn't make it true.


I can at least respect the other atheist and do even while at odds with them for there similiar strong will and beliefs neither of which an agnostic can claim to have. and if as an agnostic true firm belief was found and shown as Jesus was quoted as saying "you have seen me but those who have not seen and still believe have a stronger faith then you" I mean in my opinion even God himself would have more respect for an atheist.
So because I don't know how the universe was created, then I must be weak willed? Can you explain the logic in that one?


I retract my previous statement of calling a flip flopper to an athiest because upon further research have found that an agnostic is the true weak one unable to come come to there own conclusion I mean I can take research and dispute religion with a atheist but an agnostic is just a lost cause to both sides the most pathetic of all.
I think that saying "I don't know" is much better than pretending to know and making up answers. Again, a person must be weak willed if they can't explain the origins of... everything. And, there are more than two sides.



I mean come on I know we are on opposite side but agnostic please just another name for I don't know and I am to scared to choose. Can we at least agree on that? out of some common ground.
Why are you so eager to be on opposite sides with people on the first place? I'd rather everyone be on the same side and be nice to each other, regardless of beliefs.

You obviously have no grasp on what it is to be an agnostic if you think it's because "I'm too scared to choose a side". Agnosticism isn't about choosing known sides, because if the "sides" were known, there's nothing to claim ignorance about. It just doesn't work like that.



Agnostic LOL to weak to chose LOL choose a side and them rejoin at least I can respect an atheist for there beliefs an agnostic basically has none or at least won't stand behind them and regardless of what you say your own catoragation defines that. Common ground fallen etc.?Laugh all you want. I have beliefs regarding humanity and the way we should treat each other. I have no "beliefs" about the universe, and the ones I do have are just that... beliefs. Things that I think could be true, or ways that it might have happened. I'm not going to come to the conclusion that my beliefs are an better than another person's, and that my beliefs are the only way to receive a cosmic award of which there is no proof of. I'd be ridiculous to expect it of anyone else, but yet you believe I should follow your beliefs (or the atheists, to how "both" sides), for unsubstantiated reasons.

[sd6515]

if you are reffering to numbers chapter 22 you will clearly see it is God speaking through the donkey not a speaking donkey and once again LOLOLOLLOLOLOOL and know what you quote before you quote LOL

[sd6515]

if you are as weak as not being able to chose at least know your facts at a min. and not booged down this already heated thread with nonsense and un researched claims I mean please either do this or do not post if you can not claim faith either in or against you put yourself on an even higher level of requirement to even participate in this discussion

[sd6515]

Proof Jesus never existed

Evidence that Jesus never existed

Jesus Never Existed. End of story., page 1

Proof the bible is false.

WHY JESUS NEVER EXISTED

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs


Here you go, see how simple it is to find unreliable sources.

See how easy it is to find unreliable sources supporting what you believe?

this I must say is truly laughable

[Hardcore Newbie]

speaking of siting sources and baking what you say where do you get talking donkeys or hide and go seek LOL once again agnostic LOL:wtf:Can you at least be civil and stop laughing at my lack of spiritual beliefs?

Numbers 22 - Talking Donkey
28 Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"
29 Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now."
30 The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?"
"No," he said.

Genesis 3 - Hide and seek with God
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

Just to remind you, these are things that I don't believe. Talking donkeys.... nope. An all knowing being playing a game of hide and seek? Seems kinda silly to me.

[sd6515]

talk about no sources and not indapendent I mean please a rant as "proof" OMG wow these are more laughable then the joke source link i sent before
anyways what about the common ground post before an atheist must be able to see that an agnostic is just a person who can not make a choice and is too afraid if they do

[sd6515]

and soft core newbie hide and seek with adam and eve because you can realize either a metaphore or that God had take a human for and come to see adam and eve as an equal to talk as he did many times please such a weak argument from a weak point of view or lack there of again i must say atheist and christians are equal on there beliefs and have reasons of there own to stand behind them but an agnostic has none and therefore has no right to stand on either side i reject you and your opinions as i feel a true athiest would because all you are doing is supporting there side because it suits you now in your quest can you be as firm in your beliefs as them i fear not i respect them for that but not you you have no strenghts no beliefs as that is the meaning of agnostic weak with no beliefs i would rather you take a side against me then try to play there side now because you have no proofs or strenght to believe either way agnostics are typically the quiet ones bc of this and you should stick with this

[Hardcore Newbie]

if you are reffering to numbers chapter 22 you will clearly see it is God speaking through the donkey not a speaking donkey and once again LOLOLOLLOLOLOOL and know what you quote before you quote LOLThere's only one reference. It's not hard to "predict" what passage I'll use. Whether god put a voice in the donkey's mouth, or the donkey actually spoke, I don't really care, but they're both just as likely, rather, just as unlikely.


if you are as weak as not being able to chose at least know your facts at a min. and not booged down this already heated thread with nonsense and un researched claims I mean please either do this or do not post if you can not claim faith either in or against you put yourself on an even higher level of requirement to even participate in this discussion
I'll do whatever the fuck I please. You just assume that I haven't done research because "I don't know". The fact that you say you know and show me a site that just references itself for proof shows me that you're as clueless as I am, you're just not brave enough to admit it.

You ridicule me, yet you have no proof of your own, yet you think your opinion is more valid than mine because "you believe it". I believe that your god is an implausibility. There's my belief. Just because you have a belief, it doesn't make that belief any more right than mine, that of unknowing.

[sd6515]

as i have said several times I RESPECT ATHEISTS even though i disagree with them but I nor no one else should ever respect such a weak position or lack there of as agnostic if you are unsure and can not decide stop posting on either side as i am sure neither appreciate it I wouldn't as an atheist I would say take my side or get out obviously fallen and other are beyond strong enough to support there own side and do not need an in between which is really weekening there position by being considered on the same side as such a weak individual.

[sd6515]

I'll do whatever the fuck I please. You just assume that I haven't done research because "I don't know".

You ridicule me, yet you have no proof of your own, yet you think your opinion is more valid than mine because "you believe it". I believe that your god is an implausibility. There's my belief. Just because you have a belief, it doesn't make that belief any more right than mine, that of unknowing.
LOL please you do not know and do not believe in anything that is the definition of an agnostic

[sd6515]

agnostic according to the dictionary-An Agnostic [1] [noun] [OW] embraces a worldview in which the existence of deity is unknown or unknowable. Derives from the Greek agnostos, a = without, gnostos = known or knowledge. "Agnostic[ism] [CE] was coined by Professor TH Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." ie undecided ie cant choose a side until your are decided i would listen to and defend my views to you if you were able to

[sd6515]

an agnostic by definition can not have an opinion on this so at least admit atheism before continuing

[Hardcore Newbie]

talk about no sources and not indapendent I mean please a rant as "proof" OMG wow these are more laughable then the joke source link i sent before
anyways what about the common ground post before an atheist must be able to see that an agnostic is just a person who can not make a choice and is too afraid if they doCare to use English? or to use the quote button? I have no idea what you're talking about since a lot was said.

I don't think atheists care that agnostics haven't chosen a side. What are you even trying to get at?


and soft core newbie hide and seek with adam and eve because you can realize either a metaphore or that God had take a human for and come to see adam and eve as an equal to talk as he did many times please
But he couldn't find them? Does He lose his all knowing status when he takes a human form?


such a weak argument from a weak point of view or lack there of again i must say atheist and christians are equal on there beliefs and have reasons of there own to stand behind them but an agnostic has none and therefore has no right to stand on either side i reject you and your opinions as i feel a true athiest would because all you are doing is supporting there side because it suits you now in your quest can you be as firm in your beliefs as them i fear not i respect them for that but not you you have no strenghts no beliefs as that is the meaning of agnostic weak with no beliefs i would rather you take a side against me then try to play there side now because you have no proofs or strenght to believe either way agnostics are typically the quiet ones bc of this and you should stick with thisI'd like to debate your thoughts point by point but you clearly can't separate them for me to do so. I'll just state again that just because someone is rooted in their belief, that doesn't make their belief more valid.

I can't choose a side because I don't know the sides. If you think you do, that's fine. Again, why are you so eager for me to oppose you?

Again, I'll do whatever the fuck I please. Don't tell me what I should and shouldn't do. Actually tell me all you want, it doesn't matter.

[Hardcore Newbie]

LOL please you do not know and do not believe in anything that is the definition of an agnostic


agnostic according to the dictionary-An Agnostic [1] [noun] [OW] embraces a worldview in which the existence of deity is unknown or unknowable. Derives from the Greek agnostos, a = without, gnostos = known or knowledge. "Agnostic[ism] [CE] was coined by Professor TH Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas." ie undecided ie cant choose a side until your are decided i would listen to and defend my views to you if you were able toWhich dictionary? Right.


an agnostic by definition can not have an opinion on this so at least admit atheism before continuingSorry, I thought it was assumed in the spirituality boards that atheist pertained to spirituality and religion.

I am a theistic agnostic.

[birdgirl73]

Moderating

Take a break from this thread, you two. Enough of the multiple posts, SD and Hardcore Newbie, and easy on the F word there, Hardcore. We are particularly serious about respect in this forum area, and the F word doesn't qualify as respectful, even if you're using it exclamatorily.

I mean it. Go to opposite corners or I will shut this thread down. SD, I will not delete any of the posts above. You were not personally insulted, and this is indeed a heated discussion. You're helping engender that heat, too, and you're free to leave for safer ground if the temp has gotten too hot.

http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/124543-respect.html#post1541717

[JaggedEdge]

talk about no sources and not indapendent I mean please a rant as "proof" OMG wow these are more laughable then the joke source link i sent before
anyways what about the common ground post before an atheist must be able to see that an agnostic is just a person who can not make a choice and is too afraid if they do


Do you even read.

From me in the post with the links.


Here you go, see how simple it is to find unreliable sources.

Did you really not catch that? They weren't meant to be quality links... Let me spell it out for you, I was mocking ya.

Also, for future reference, when engaging in a debate, people will take you more seriously if you write coherently.

[sd6515]

please refrain from using profanity and when you feel it is needed at least ** it out this is not appropriate nor belong on the post we have all respected this and would apprceciate the same cunnuck

[Hardcore Newbie]

an agnostic by definition can not have an opinion on this so at least admit atheism before continuing
I don't subscribe to atheism. I believe that it's possible that the universe was created. That's not an atheist. I will debate the plausibility of the Bible, if you can accept that.

[sd6515]

so jagged I guess there is no common ground not even on agnostics?

[sd6515]

so there is no common ground not even on agnostics jagged? and to quote, when making a joke use a smiley, or at least a lol

[JaggedEdge]

There is common ground in that I feel history is correct in that a man named Jesus once existed.

Sorry BG, I saw your moderation comment, but got booted from the server due to it being busy.

What common ground among agnostics? What is that in reference to?

[Hardcore Newbie]

I'm taking a break as per BirdGirl's request.

[birdgirl73]

You seem like you're fine to continue, Hardcore, if you feel you can do so respectfully and want to. I just wanted everyone to take a few deep breaths.

I really need to sign off here in a moment and don't want to feel like I'm leaving a thread vulnerable to a violent escalation. Can y'all avoid escalation if I sign off and go to bed? Trust me, you don't want me to have to come back in here if you wake me out of a deep sleep cursing at each other! :)

[slipknotpsycho]

sd... i really must say, all your arguments are completely ridiculous... and in actuallity... i respect HN even more then i repsect my own brood, which is atheist... i DON'T believe in a higher being, but he's open to the idea that something more may be there.... as he's said so many times, there aren't two sides to it..... and the fact he can both argue higher being and debate against it deserves alot more respect then those of us who pretend to know (although i freely admit i may be wrong, i still lean towards nothing rather then, there could be something)

really tho, you should step back and look at everything you posted.... it seems to be more about 'showing how he's an idiot' rather then the debate at hand....

[sd6515]

to jagged and fallen I appologize for my heated responses I respect your opions without agree to them and again appologize for what I have said and do appreciate the questions you have raise in my own faith, i also appreciate the great passion you show on your side of the debate and hope to have further discussions in the future you are truly worthy opponents I also at this tim would like to retract all comments of ignorance as I have realized it is never ignorance to believe strongly in your beliefs I respect them and appologize for all comments contrary to this. I know I get very heated in defense of my beliefs which is not nescary and hope we can all become freinds now or at some point in this great forum cannabis.com not this one in particular as i see we could never come to come ground you two were truly great adversaries in this heated debated and appreciate all the concepts and thoughts you have brought to my attention, thank you. I can at least know, i hope, we share the same love for cannabis, i hope at this website, and we can have better conversation in the future as i do and have respected your intelligence and again appologize for the ignorance comments after doing research of my own. not admiting weakness in my beliefs but i can understand yoursafter all research i have conducted.

[sd6515]

thnx slip but your input is not needed

[sd6515]

as mentioned by others and me before if you did read all post i accept my short comings because of my faith i do resort to confroting the source rather then the topic you will see this was not need especcially at this point

[slipknotpsycho]

thnx slip but your input is not needed

well too bad :p this is my home, and while i tend to stick to the sidelines in religious debates because they so frequently get out of hand.... i still chime in now and then...

and your arguments were really so ridiculous i had to post....

[birdgirl73]

SD, you're about a hair's width from getting a short-term ban just so you'll stop your condescension. Slip's input is as welcome as yours. This is a free forum.

Hardcore Newb, check your User CP.

[slipknotpsycho]

as mentioned by others and me before if you did read all post i accept my short comings because of my faith i do resort to confroting the source rather then the topic you will see this was not need especcially at this point

refer to the above....

btw just as a hint, if you don't want to receieve criticism in the future, i'd suggest not posting :D sorry but it's an open and public forum.... as they say, if you can't handle the heat, stay outta the kitchen

besides it's not like i'm coming off calling you an insane idiot or something.... i'd say i'm commenting with a fairly respectful, easy going tone....

btw, i always read here, so i've pretty much read everything... just so you know.

[sd6515]

and im just saying at this pint it is really not needed especially as a first post in the forum and even more to the point with really joining the discussion just commenting on previous points isnt need at this point, pg6, as you can tell I have stayed in the kitchen regardless of the points or one sidedness

[slipknotpsycho]

and im just saying at this pint it is really not needed especially as a first post in the forum and even more to the point with really joining the discussion just commenting on previous points isnt need at this point, pg6, as you can tell I have stayed in the kitchen regardless of the points or one sidedness

still holds no bearing, as i said, i'm always reading up here, i just don't post much.... so i pretty much know everything that's said in this entire forum (not thread) so my input on any thread as just as valuable as the next... it's not like i'm just chiming in after reading three posts...

[Hardcore Newbie]

as mentioned by others and me before if you did read all post i accept my short comings because of my faith i do resort to confroting the source rather then the topic you will see this was not need especcially at this pointWell hopefully we can stay on topic. Insulting the person is generally what school children do when they can't defend themselves or their actions. let's stay away from this. If we can get back on topic, which may have to take some looking back a page or two, we can ignore the insults.

[sd6515]

I dont know about the rest but this has become a dead end post and i am done posting here by the way previous post of mine were direct to fallen and jagged

[sd6515]

*dead end thread*
especially when i leave seeing im the only one to represent the other side here i still do not appreciate the blatant use of profanity and did not appologize bc of it

[slipknotpsycho]

i expected as much... sorry if you can't handle a little criticism...

[Hardcore Newbie]

Well if you'd like to continue, the last post I made before we got off topic was this one

http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/132662-argument-made-religious-people-just-isnt-valid-5.html#post1643442

Basically, my post was saying that your links in fact didn't source their information, except from other places with the same type of mission statements. Also, on one of the pages you posted, a direct quote.

It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the Bible by faith. Because of who God is, we will always have questions. In order to have eternal life, we need to believe the words of Jesus that we are sinners and are in need of a Lord and Savior.

So while I claim ignorance, so does the page you linked to. Looks like our beliefs (or lack thereof) are on more even ground than you'd like to admit.

[sd6515]

i do not know what you are responding as nothing else has been address to you but i do feel the need to find it a little odd to say you do not post much when you have over 15.000 posts and to the fact of reading the posts it is no different and your point is less valid when you have not been a particpant of the discusion it is still a mute point regardless of how up to date you are because you were not part of the discusion in the first place so therefore your input is not needed

[birdgirl73]

This one is closed for business now. We cam reopen it tomorrow. SD, you should have taken my advice to cease your arguing. You'll be getting a message from me through your User CP momentarily.

[jdmarcus59]

and here we go 1 and 2 and 3 GO........................lol

[sd6515]

I'm done here but thanks for the heated discussion all and sorry it went so far. Good bye for this thread hope to meet you all again in other threads and on the same side.