God???

[dossantos]

Allah, Buddha, christin etc.. all a hoax to keep man tame?

[Mr. Clandestine]

"Allah" is just a Arabic translation for "God", but Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) and Jesus Christ really existed. Whether or not they were divine is a hotly contested topic, but history has reasonably proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the men did once walk this earth, and did lead lives that many would consider extraordinary.

If you'd prefer not to believe in God, that's your prerogative... but it's pretty silly to assume that religion has succeeded in keeping men "tame." Some may have worked better than others, but there's good and bad apples in every bunch.

[killerweed420]

Not sure about buddha but there's never been a shred of proof that Jesus ever existed. I think probably religion was started for the same reason some governments are started. Some petty little person that thought he should be important starts some religion to fill the void in some peoples lives and start manipulating them into believing that they are the only ones that have the answer. Its really all about power and selfishness.

[Mr. Clandestine]

thereâ??s never been a shred of proof that Jesus ever existed.

Actually, there's a ton of historical evidence that Jesus existed. If you're looking for tangible proof, like some old bones lying in a tomb, then don't expect "proof" like that to ever surfaceâ?¦ but if youâ??re looking for historical evidence, wellâ?¦ thereâ??s plenty of it.

We'll put the Gospels and Epistles aside, because even though those are indeed historical documents dating back to the time of Jesus (and the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that Old Testament manuscripts have been meticulously preserved - so one would think the New Testament manuscripts would be just as accurate, if not more so), I already know where raising that argument will lead me and I'm not here to debate theology anymore. (Too many dead-ends, needless insults, and wasted time.) Regardless, there really should be no debate over this particular area of recorded history, because even secular historians nearly all agree that Jesus did exist... again, they just canâ??t agree on whether or not He was actually divine.

Flavius Josephus (c. 37ADâ??c. 100AD) was a Roman citizen who wrote "Jewish Antiquities" somewhere around 93AD, and mentioned Jesus at least twice that I know of. Read "Testimonium Flavianum" for the exact quotes, which I can't remember off the top of my head, but there's no mistaking who he was talking about. And Josephus was also a Jew, who would have had absolutely no reason to lie about the presence of Jesus... which would only have served to prove that Jesus' life, ministry, and crucifixion by the Romans was based on historical fact, not legend.

Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56AD-c. 115) is another historian (a secular one) who wrote in his most popular work, "The Annals", of Christians "who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius" and wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44) to whom the persecution could be attributed to. Again, Tacitus was vehemently opposed to religion, preferring instead to worship Ceasar, and would have had no reason whatsoever to fabricate the story of Jesus. In fact, just writing about Jesus during Roman rule could have potentially subjected a person to arrest, or worseâ?¦ so Tacitus deliberately wrote from the perspective of a skeptic, but a skeptic who was convinced 100% that Jesus existed.

Those are just two of the most common references, but there are many, many more. Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Julius Africanus, and many more, all wrote about Jesus' life less than 150-200 years after Jesus' crucifixion... which most historians agree would have been too early for grandiose mythological ideas to spread. Even the Babylonian Talmud speaks of Jesus' crucifixion on the day of Passover, and speaks very negatively of His character. Regardless, it does speak of His character, which it would have absolutely no reason to do if Jesus never existed. Again, what logical reason would any secular or Jewish historian have to fabricate a story that's only going to further the Christian cause? They acknowledged His existence in attempts to shine a bad light on Him, calling Jesus an apostate, heretic, etc., but what they really did was just serve to prove what I've been saying all along: That the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth did, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exist.

...whether or not you want to believe in His divinity is a decision that's entirely up to you.

[killerweed420]

One of the problems with proving Jesus existed is that Jesus was a very common name back then. So if some book mentions somebody the name of Jesus it doesn't mean he's That Jesus.

[Mr. Clandestine]

One of the problems with proving Jesus existed is that Jesus was a very common name back then. So if some book mentions somebody the name of Jesus it doesn't mean he's That Jesus.

"Yeshua" (Jesus) may or may not have been a fairly popular Hebrew name at the time, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that there was clearly a man named Yeshua who lived in and around Jerusalem somewhere between 30-33 A.D., who reportedly performed many miracles during his short ministry, amassed a HUGE group of devoted followers (many of whom were willing to be persecuted and killed for their faith), was crucified at the hands of the Roman procurator named Pontius Pilate, and who reportedly rose from the grave - which many faithful witnesses gave testimony to (completely disregarding the fact that this would only bring them more persecution).

Again, these weren't reports from Christians, but from Jewish priests and secularists of that time period. The reports from Christians, as depicted in the Bible, naturally coincide with the secular accounts. So, yeah, there may have been other Yeshua's living at the same time, but only one of them stood out in all the historical manuscrips as a man that fits all the descriptions that I listed above, and was crucified as the "King of the Jews." That was Yeshua bin Yosef (Jesus, son of Joseph), or Jesus of Nazareth. Nobody else could have possibly fit that description.

[headshake]

Not sure about buddha but there's never been a shred of proof that Jesus ever existed. I think probably religion was started for the same reason some governments are started. Some petty little person that thought he should be important starts some religion to fill the void in some peoples lives and start manipulating them into believing that they are the only ones that have the answer. Its really all about power and selfishness.

i guess every biblical scholar and most skeptics are wrong. wow. all they had to do was come to cancom to find the truth.

good points, mr. clandestine!

religion has been going on since the beginning of time. ancient egypt had religion, the mayans, aztecs, incans, greeks, romans and just about every other civilization since the beginning of time.

(granted, most of those religions were polytheistic, although the idea of monotheism goes back to ancient egypt. akhenaten (who most think is tutenkhamun's dad) tried to get rid of all idols except, aten (disk of the sun).

on an interesting side not, akhenaten was more than likely a bisexual and possibly the first known homosexual in history. pretty interesting to think that maybe the first (possibly known homosexual) was also responsible for trying to buck polytheism for monotheism.)

once a civilization is defeated by another (obviously not applicable to the ones that just disappeared) then some of the defeated civ's religious ideologies, customs, traditions etc are absorbed into the victor's. often it's easier to keep some aspects of culture.

i can't remember the two major religions before christianity, but both of their "gods" had birthdays on december 25. what, wait a minute, that's the same as jesus' birthday. no, actually it's not, jesus was born in march. and you can ask any biblical scholar this. it was just easier to keep it the same. christmas was a pagan holiday, although it obviously didn't go by the same name.

it might have come from the roman Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or the birthday of the unconquered sun. Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god.

the tree part comes from other pagan traditions.

why would we celebrate jesus birthday on a pagan holiday? because it's just easier that way!

christianity was taken, by constantine, a pagan, because he knew it was starting to spread like wildfire. he used this to his advantage. so in a way, christianity was stolen from the "true followers".

or so some think.

anyhow, enough with the random history. i think a more appropriate question would be, "organized religion, a plot to keep man tamed?"

but that's just me.



-shake

[dossantos]

A dude could have been puffin on the green in a cave somewhere a long long long time ago n had a "vision"... found god...

Man needs hope.
He has to have something to believe in whether its jesus, Buddha or even ufo's... Gotta hand it to ole tom cruise.. no ordinary boring religion for him...

Everybody has the right to believe whatever they want...

I kinda like the rasta take..
At least ya will be happy..

:rasta:

[killerweed420]

"Yeshua" (Jesus) may or may not have been a fairly popular Hebrew name at the time, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that there was clearly a man named Yeshua who lived in and around Jerusalem somewhere between 30-33 A.D., who reportedly performed many miracles during his short ministry, amassed a HUGE group of devoted followers (many of whom were willing to be persecuted and killed for their faith), was crucified at the hands of the Roman procurator named Pontius Pilate, and who reportedly rose from the grave - which many faithful witnesses gave testimony to (completely disregarding the fact that this would only bring them more persecution).

Again, these weren't reports from Christians, but from Jewish priests and secularists of that time period. The reports from Christians, as depicted in the Bible, naturally coincide with the secular accounts. So, yeah, there may have been other Yeshua's living at the same time, but only one of them stood out in all the historical manuscrips as a man that fits all the descriptions that I listed above, and was crucified as the "King of the Jews." That was Yeshua bin Yosef (Jesus, son of Joseph), or Jesus of Nazareth. Nobody else could have possibly fit that description.
Any citations to prove the theory. Again Jesus was a very common name back then as so was Joseph. Its like me saying I've got a neighbour named Hitler. It doesn't mean its THAT Hitler. And part of the problem is these notationa you talk about are in Religious books. There needs to be more evidence outside of the religious community

[killerweed420]

i guess every biblical scholar and most skeptics are wrong. wow. all they had to do was come to cancom to find the truth.

good points, mr. clandestine!

religion has been going on since the beginning of time. ancient egypt had religion, the mayans, aztecs, incans, greeks, romans and just about every other civilization since the beginning of time.

(granted, most of those religions were polytheistic, although the idea of monotheism goes back to ancient egypt. akhenaten (who most think is tutenkhamun's dad) tried to get rid of all idols except, aten (disk of the sun).

on an interesting side not, akhenaten was more than likely a bisexual and possibly the first known homosexual in history. pretty interesting to think that maybe the first (possibly known homosexual) was also responsible for trying to buck polytheism for monotheism.)

once a civilization is defeated by another (obviously not applicable to the ones that just disappeared) then some of the defeated civ's religious ideologies, customs, traditions etc are absorbed into the victor's. often it's easier to keep some aspects of culture.

i can't remember the two major religions before christianity, but both of their "gods" had birthdays on december 25. what, wait a minute, that's the same as jesus' birthday. no, actually it's not, jesus was born in march. and you can ask any biblical scholar this. it was just easier to keep it the same. christmas was a pagan holiday, although it obviously didn't go by the same name.

it might have come from the roman Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or the birthday of the unconquered sun. Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god.

the tree part comes from other pagan traditions.

why would we celebrate jesus birthday on a pagan holiday? because it's just easier that way!

christianity was taken, by constantine, a pagan, because he knew it was starting to spread like wildfire. he used this to his advantage. so in a way, christianity was stolen from the "true followers".

or so some think.

anyhow, enough with the random history. i think a more appropriate question would be, "organized religion, a plot to keep man tamed?"

but that's just me.



-shake
Yaeh thats the main issue. Was religion used as a tool to tame man. I think it probably was but yet you see how much violence was perpetrated in the name of religion. As we see Islam today. You either join Islamic faith or you die. That is the simple bedrock of Islamic Faith. They do not believe nonbelievers should live.

[JaggedEdge]

Flavius Josephus (c. 37ADâ??c. 100AD) was a Roman citizen who wrote "Jewish Antiquities" somewhere around 93AD, and mentioned Jesus at least twice that I know of. Read "Testimonium Flavianum" for the exact quotes, which I can't remember off the top of my head, but there's no mistaking who he was talking about. And Josephus was also a Jew, who would have had absolutely no reason to lie about the presence of Jesus... which would only have served to prove that Jesus' life, ministry, and crucifixion by the Romans was based on historical fact, not legend.

Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56AD-c. 115) is another historian (a secular one) who wrote in his most popular work, "The Annals", of Christians "who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius" and wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44) to whom the persecution could be attributed to. Again, Tacitus was vehemently opposed to religion, preferring instead to worship Ceasar, and would have had no reason whatsoever to fabricate the story of Jesus.


Neither of these are exactly primary sources and they both focused on his followers and not necessarily the man Jesus. I say they aren't primary because both were born after the death of Jesus, meaning, neither scholar could have firsthand knowledge of anything other than the followers of Jesus. Although, they had more sources and eyewitness accounts to go by, we can't say for certain how accurate the accounts are.

The fact Jesus is briefly mentioned neither proves or disproves anyones point.

I agree however, it does appear a man named Jesus lived around the time theological Jesus is based on. I don't think there is evidence to support actual miracles though.

Also, if I'm correct their are no surviving Roman documents regarding his execution.

[headshake]

Yaeh thats the main issue. Was religion used as a tool to tame man. I think it probably was but yet you see how much violence was perpetrated in the name of religion. As we see Islam today. You either join Islamic faith or you die. That is the simple bedrock of Islamic Faith. They do not believe nonbelievers should live.

islam is pretty much an extension of christianity. they believe in jesus just as well as muhammad. they were both prophets. muhammad was just the final prophet.

they believe that the word of god was passed to muhammad from the angel gabriel.

muslims do not believe muhammad is the founder of a new religion, but the restorer of a faith that was distorted by jews and christians.

the word jihad, or struggle, originally meant to "fight the good fight" or the fight of being a good muslim. it wasn't unitl later that it was taken and used to mean actual holy war (against infidels).

all infidel means is one without faith. so to exterminate a group of people for having no religious beliefs is an oxymoron!

like many other aspects of many other faiths, it was contorted and misconstrued to fit one groups view as needed.



-shake

[Mr. Clandestine]

Any citations to prove the theory. Again Jesus was a very common name back then as so was Joseph. Its like me saying I've got a neighbour named Hitler. It doesn't mean its THAT Hitler. And part of the problem is these notationa you talk about are in Religious books. There needs to be more evidence outside of the religious community

Sure I've got citations, and I've already cited them! "The Annals" (or Annales in Latin), by Tacitus, is one of the most renowned and meticulous histories of the Roman empire that was ever written, which also happens to have been written by a very secular historian - and is available at any major bookstore. Likewise, Josephus is also an extremely noteworthy historian, well-respected by most biblical scholars and secular historians alike, and he was a devout Jew... a Jew would have had absolutely no reason whatsoever to fabricate the story of Jesus. (He also gives a much more detailed account about the miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, etc... which is pretty odd coming from someone who didn't subscribe to Christian theology.) But to save the frustration on both of our parts, I'll just list Tacitus, since he is the most widely recognized (and most secular) historian. There's probably a site somewhere that posts ancient texts like this one online, but I'm not entirely sure where you'd find it. What I'm quoting here is from an actual book... and I'll provide the full quote this time for context:

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." (The Annals: Tacitus, book 15, verse 40, translation by A.J. Woodman)

This biography was translated straight from the Greek copies of the oldest manuscripts by Alan Woodman (a professor of classic literature at the University of Virginia with a keen interest in Tacitus). His biographies are commonly regarded as extremely accurate translations, reflecting only the best of scholarship.

Tacitus wrote, in his own words, "Christus, from whom the name (Christians) had its origins." Once again, who else but Jesus of Nazareth would have been accused of starting such a "mischievous" religion and at that exact time? Tacitus even described some of the methods of persecution used by Roman emperor Nero against the Christians, because the Annals were actually written for the sole purpose of serving as a definitive history of Rome, and this particular book is documenting the time periods between the death of Agustus (in 14 A.D.) and the suicide of Nero (in 68 A.D.). There is simply no possible way that he was speaking of another Jesus, and neither were any of the other writers. The Jesus he was writing about was known as "Christos", or Christ. There's only one documented Jesus (who was also called Christ) in all of recorded history, and all of the writings indicate that He lived during this particular time period. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they were not and could not have been referring to any other historical Jesus... because there simply weren't any.

So, there you go, one BIG (and very rarely disputed) source of evidence outside the religious community. I'd list the others I mentioned for you, but you've made it clear that anything with religious undertones will probably just be ignored, and as I mentioned before, I'm not here for a debate. I just want to share the facts with you. If you'd like to read more about Josephus, Justin Martyr, Pliny the Younger, etc., just check out any bookstore, or Google. It may only be written history, but do try to remember that written and oral history is the only reason we know anything about ancient history today.

Take care. :)

[Mr. Clandestine]

Neither of these are exactly primary sources and they both focused on his followers and not necessarily the man Jesus. I say they aren't primary because both were born after the death of Jesus, meaning, neither scholar could have firsthand knowledge of anything other than the followers of Jesus. Although, they had more sources and eyewitness accounts to go by, we can't say for certain how accurate the accounts are.

The point is, there's very little dispute over the sources... primary or otherwise. Let me ask you a question; Have you ever read a biography written about Julius Caesar, Constantine, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great, Christopher Columbus, William Shakespeare, etc.? None of the biographies are word-for-word accounts of the subject's lives, and each biography that you'll find today was almost certain to have been written sometime in the last 100 years. Is there any reason to believe that the authors would embellish the facts about those historical figures? Probably not, they'd rely on written historical accounts that were available to them, and probably relied only on the most credible and non-biased sources for their own work. It's highly unlikely that they'd even list aspects about the lives of the historical figures that are considered controversial or heavily disputed. They'd just list the facts. But since some of these biographies were written hundreds (even thousands) of years after the lives of their subjects, should we then discard everything said about them since it's not a "primary source?" Of course not!

Why, then, should anyone discount what was written by Tacitus, which was written not even 100 years after the death of Christ? Tacitus, after all, was as secular as secular historians could get, and was meticulous about listing the facts that he either read or was told by actual eyewitnesses during that time period. Same goes for Josephus, who may have happened to be Jewish, but had absolutely no reason to fabricate an entire story about Jesus Christ if the man never actually existed.


I agree however, it does appear a man named Jesus lived around the time theological Jesus is based on. I don't think there is evidence to support actual miracles though.

Granted, the only evidence for His miracles is what has been written about them. Josephius, the Jewish historian, actually wrote about the miracles performed by Jesus... but, like I mentioned to killerweed420... I have no intention of derailing this thread even further with the actual quotes. (Some of them are quite detailed.) Still, they're widely available in books and probably several websites, if you want to look them up for yourself. Again, I didn't jump into to this thread with the intentions of converting anybody, and while I am a Christian, I'm definitely not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I was only responding to the claim that there is no historical evidence concerning Jesus Christ's existence, when there's actually plenty of evidence available. Whether or not a person wants to believe in the divine aspects of Jesus' life is another matter entirely, and isn't something I'm trying to push... at least not here. ;)

[dossantos]

i think we all need something to believe in...
even the non believers prob think in the very back of their minds maybe there is a God figure of some description...

to answer my question is impossible..
the only way u will find out is when u die..
its something to look forward to if u been a good boy but if...

Then again maybe we have been following rules with no absolute proof out of fear for nothing..

Maybe Everything is a hoax...

[FPU4eva]

[quote=Mr. Clandestine]Actually, there's a ton of historical evidence that Jesus existed. If you're looking for tangible proof, like some old bones lying in a tomb, then don't expect "proof" like that to ever surfaceâ?¦ but if youâ??re looking for historical evidence, wellâ?¦ thereâ??s plenty of it.

We'll put the Gospels and Epistles aside, because even though those are indeed historical documents dating back to the time of Jesus (and the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that Old Testament manuscripts have been meticulously preserved - so one would think the New Testament manuscripts would be just as accurate, if not more so), I already know where raising that argument will lead me and I'm not here to debate theology anymore. (Too many dead-ends, needless insults, and wasted time.) Regardless, there really should be no debate over this particular area of recorded history, because even secular historians nearly all agree that Jesus did exist... again, they just canâ??t agree on whether or not He was actually divine.

Flavius Josephus (c. 37ADâ??c. 100AD) was a Roman citizen who wrote "Jewish Antiquities" somewhere around 93AD, and mentioned Jesus at least twice that I know of. Read "Testimonium Flavianum" for the exact quotes, which I can't remember off the top of my head, but there's no mistaking who he was talking about. And Josephus was also a Jew, who would have had absolutely no reason to lie about the presence of Jesus... which would only have served to prove that Jesus' life, ministry, and crucifixion by the Romans was based on historical fact, not legend.

Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56AD-c. 115) is another historian (a secular one) who wrote in his most popular work, "The Annals", of Christians "who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius" and wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44) to whom the persecution could be attributed to. Again, Tacitus was vehemently opposed to religion, preferring instead to worship Ceasar, and would have had no reason whatsoever to fabricate the story of Jesus. In fact, just writing about Jesus during Roman rule could have potentially subjected a person to arrest, or worseâ?¦ so Tacitus deliberately wrote from the perspective of a skeptic, but a skeptic who was convinced 100% that Jesus existed.

Those are just two of the most common references, but there are many, many more. Pliny the Younger, Justin Martyr, Julius Africanus, and many more, all wrote about Jesus' life less than 150-200 years after Jesus' crucifixion... which most historians agree would have been too early for grandiose mythological ideas to spread. Even the Babylonian Talmud speaks of Jesus' crucifixion on the day of Passover, and speaks very negatively of His character. Regardless, it does speak of His character, which it would have absolutely no reason to do if Jesus never existed. Again, what logical reason would any secular or Jewish historian have to fabricate a story that's only going to further the Christian cause? They acknowledged His existence in attempts to shine a bad light on Him, calling Jesus an apostate, heretic, etc., but what they really did was just serve to prove what I've been saying all along: That the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth did, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exist.

...whether or not you want to believe in His divinity is a decision that's entirely up to you.[/QUOTE



actually josephus might not have wrote that. i was watcing the naked archologist. and they said that it looke dlike it was written later then the rest of the passages.

[yokinazu]

i would like to say here that as far as buddha goes that buddha is actually a conciesness not a person. there was no buddha so to say but there have baan many buddhas. this being the reason that the chinese indian and tibetans all have diferant representations of him. the chinese and indian being most differant with the fat buddha in china. the buddhist believes that even jesus was an incarnation of buddha. the buddha is so vast that its essence cannot be contained within the single human body. also this is the state that the buddhist trys to acheive, through many lifetimes, is to become the buddha.

[phatsesh101]

well if youve studied religion with an open mind, not the close minded narrowness of christianity. you would know that religion was formed to keep people in line becausefear of the unknown (god) was greater than the fear of government.

but with all that aside all religions can be traced back to the sumarians which believe we came from space, and the 12 followers of jesus the sun of god to the 12 follwers of joseph, or the 12 zodiac signs that follow the sun of god depending on who translates it.

i believe christianity was created by the jewish kings who wrote the christian bible to further control and manipulate society the same way they do today and always have with media and propaganda cause fear of god keeps people from poor.

oh and nobody worth mentioning has ever wrote of jesus, if he was what he is claimed to be many historians would have wrote about him

and i could go on to prove these things but that would take much longer than i would like, so do sum research and tell me about how every other man was resurected at the time of jesus and its commonality or how in ww2 a plane landed in an uninhabited part of the world and when people came back the ones that landed there had become the unitellctual peoples god.

[megann813]

well i personally think it's kinda silly (to be nice) to believe in god and christianity. it sounds nice i guess, it's comfortable to think that when you die you go to some magical place with jesus but it's doesn't make sense. i'm not neccessarily saying we just rot away in the ground but we probably do. the bible has some crazy shit in it that's really not possible (noah's ark, creation in genesis) i'm not gonna bash it though, i mean whoever came up with that shit was pretty smart they have like billions of followers now that believe we all came from some magical dude in the sky that watches us and loves us and blah blah. watch george carlin talk about religion ;)
:stoned:

[hachiman6677]

Confessions were invented...to confess your sins to man..so that the authorities would come get you later (real easy way to police the populace right?)

Confess your sins to God. I mean seriously if the good lord does exist he was there when we did what we did right? Why would we have to confess it to man.

Dont lie dont steal dont cheat on your wife dont murder. I dont think many of us needed a book to know that those things are wrong and we shouldnt do them.

I believe in God but not to the extent that I let rome run every aspect of my life or even some of it. I live my life day to day doing the best I can for myself and my fellow man whether God exists or not. I think thats the way we all should be regardless of religion. :hippy:

[BlueBlazer]

Religion is the opiate of the masses. ~ Karl Marx

Humor is reason gone mad. ~ Grocho Marx

:D

[jakester]

If by tame you mean civilized then yes, religion has kept man tame.

Religion has also created organization and infrastructure where man alone couldn't be inspired enough to do it. You can rag on churches all day but where would modern publication be without the church? Where would humanity be? Religion is an evolutionary tool that has shaped social structure and created standards where there were only animals.

So go ahead, pull the steeple down if you think people can handle your "truth".

[BlueBlazer]

You can rag on churches all day but where would modern publication be without the church?

Explain please.

[Trip06]

I think most people dont want to believe in God and Jesus because they dont want to have to follow the rules. They wanna use drugs, get shit faced, fuck like a bunch of jack rabbits, and be moraly irrsponcible with out and recourse.
Saying things like Theres no proof of Jesus, or He could just be some hippie who smoke to much pot, All just excuses because you never tried to live in the morals of Gods eyes and get to know him. Im not a big religious nut, I dont even go to church, but your sitn on here ripping on some thing you never even tried. Go find him, Or be moraly lazy.

[BlueBlazer]

I think most people dont want to believe in God and Jesus because they dont want to have to follow the rules. They wanna use drugs, get shit faced, fuck like a bunch of jack rabbits, and be moraly irrsponcible with out and recourse.
Saying things like Theres no proof of Jesus, or He could just be some hippie who smoke to much pot, All just excuses because you never tried to live in the morals of Gods eyes and get to know him. Im not a big religious nut, I dont even go to church, but your sitn on here ripping on some thing you never even tried. Go find him, Or be moraly lazy.

I don't believe in god. This does not make me morally bankrupt. Maybe by religions' puritanical standards, but I don't really care to try to measure up to rules created by other men that I don't agree with. All in all, I try to enjoy my life without harming others. I'm polite to people and prefer harmonious relations rather than conflict. To observe my life, you wouldn't notice much of a difference between me and someone who believes in god. I don't need a god to scare me into acting good.

[jakester]

Explain please.Quite simply, remove religion and you would set the evolution of language, storytelling and publication so far back that it would likely be closer to cave scrawling by this date.

Let's not even get into education. People love to tout the ignorance of religion ignoring the amazing intellectual enabler that religion has been to date.

[GetDown]

"Allah" is just a Arabic translation for "God", but Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) and Jesus Christ really existed. Whether or not they were divine is a hotly contested topic, but history has reasonably proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the men did once walk this earth, and did lead lives that many would consider extraordinary.

sorry, i know this post is a bit old, but just wanna correct one major error most people have, i dont know about Buddha, but there is no proof (other than the new testament) that JC existed, no historians living at the time ever recorded any information about a man running around bethleham performing miracles, im not saying the man didnt exist, just saying there is no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, in fact the only evidence is the new test, which wouldnt hold up in court