christian

[GamblinLeaf 0]

The case for god is as compeling as the case for the Easter Bunny using your criteria.

Nice try. You continue to wander aimlessly in vain search of a coherent thought. First, you claim that there is little or no "credible evidence" that Jesus ever existed when there is far more evidence of his existence, both physical and word of mouth, than for any other single individual in history. Then, having lost that argument, you cleverly shift the argument to whether or not there is a God at all, taking the untenable position that you "find it laughable" that there can be one; putting yourself in the, once again, untenable position of knowing with certainty that something of such cosmic scope is impossible. Finally, in the last ditch effort of one who has more interest in his own opinion than in the merits of the discussion, you attempt to belittle the argument with an example that is not analagous to the discussion in the first place, as my logic is irrefutable. My original statement holds up. The position of the strident atheist is both supremely arrogant, and unsupportable.There are those here who, I'm sure, will pray for you. There are still others who will simply marvel at the lengths to which some people will go to defend a logically vacuous, ego-riddled, opinion.

[Filesharer 0]

My original statement holds up. The position of the strident atheist is both supremely arrogant, and unsupportable.There are those here who, I'm sure, will pray for you. There are still others who will simply marvel at the lengths to which some people will go to defend a logically vacuous, ego-riddled, opinion.

But the position of the God-Worshiping Christian is based on a solid grounding of fact. Yes, yes indeed.

[faketree 0]

The case for god is as compeling as the case for the Easter Bunny using your criteria.

Nice try. You continue to wander aimlessly in vain search of a coherent thought. First, you claim that there is little or no "credible evidence" that Jesus ever existed when there is far more evidence of his existence, both physical and word of mouth, than for any other single individual in history. Then, having lost that argument, you cleverly shift the argument to whether or not there is a God at all, taking the untenable position that you "find it laughable" that there can be one; putting yourself in the, once again, untenable position of knowing with certainty that something of such cosmic scope is impossible. Finally, in the last ditch effort of one who has more interest in his own opinion than in the merits of the discussion, you attempt to belittle the argument with an example that is not analagous to the discussion in the first place, as my logic is irrefutable. My original statement holds up. The position of the strident atheist is both supremely arrogant, and unsupportable.There are those here who, I'm sure, will pray for you. There are still others who will simply marvel at the lengths to which some people will go to defend a logically vacuous, ego-riddled, opinion.

Your logic was good until this statement in bold. It completely breaks down in fact. There are supportable arguments for atheism as well as theism. If somebody had proved without a doubt that there were a god, then and only then would atheism be arguably unsupportable.And as for arrogance, that is just your opinion and nowhere near being a fact. An appearance of arrogance is purely based on your obsevations and nothing else. You simply cannot make an argument for atheistic statements being arrogant. If you could, you can easily say that theistic arguments are arrogant from an atheistic point of view as well.

[Red 0]

What is the difference between cult and religion?

cult - A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

There is, of course, no difference

Thanks, that's what I thought. And also that religion/cult status is in the eye of the beholder and based mainly on the number of people who accept "it" as being legitimate. Ie., if you have a lot of people who believe, it is a religion and if there are only a small number, they are a cult. Terms like extremist, false, unconventional and authoritarian are all subjective and would probably be used by many so called religious people to describe/label others and their groups.To digress slighlty, from BetItAll's post,"...generally considered to be extremist or false" ...by whom I ask? Certainly not atheists. I see all religions as being pretty hokey. This leaves mainly religious people, the ones who consider their religion/belief system to be legitimate.Definitely an interesting non poker topic.Red

[Red 0]

After reading natedoggs comments...

Is that NateDogg a FCP forum poster or the former Death Row rapper you're quoting? I'm having a hard time scanning so many pages for the answer.

[Smasharoo 0]

Nice try. You continue to wander aimlessly in vain search of a coherent thought.No, I'm making a perfectly valid argument which you can't defend against *at all*. There is as much evidence of the Easter Bunny existing as there is of God existing.Exactly the same amount, in fact. There are books sayig so, there are people who belive in the easter bunny because they've been told by someone else that he exists.The parallel is pretty complete really. First, you claim that there is little or no "credible evidence" that Jesus ever existed when there is far more evidence of his existence, both physical and word of mouth, than for any other single individual in history.There is none, I'm afriad. There is absolutely no "physical" evidence of any kind. Zero, zilch, none. There is also no historical evidence from the time period. None, zero, nada. There's plenty of word of mouth that the Easter Bunny exists and hides eggs every year. Ask an eight year old. You see, that's what this debate is. An adult who knows the reality, arguing with a child who's belived what he was told because he doesn't know any better.Do you see it now? How ludicrous it is for anyone to accept the propisition tha the case is equal on both sides? Would you say the case for the Easeter Bunny is equal on both sides?I'd argue you'd have to if you're going to persist in your pathetic attempts to claim some proof of any sort of either the existance of God or the reality of Christ even being a real person. Then, having lost that argument, you cleverly shift the argument to whether or not there is a God at all, taking the untenable position that you "find it laughable" that there can be one; putting yourself in the, once again, untenable position of knowing with certainty that something of such cosmic scope is impossible.Lost what argument?Christan scholars accept the fact that there is no physical or direct historical evidence that Christ ever existed. The only people who don't are "belivers" who don't want to have face the uncertainty of it. You've offered not a shred of evidecne to support your argumet, I can't see how I could possibly have lost when you've presented nothing. You're making presicely the same case an 8 year old would make for the Easter bunney. "Look, in my coloring book it says the Easter bunny is real!"Presicely. Can't you see just how sad that it is? Finally, in the last ditch effort of one who has more interest in his own opinion than in the merits of the discussion, you attempt to belittle the argument with an example that is not analagous to the discussion in the first place, as my logic is irrefutable. My original statement holds up. The position of the strident atheist is both supremely arrogant, and unsupportable.You haven't used logic at all in any of your arguments, you've used fallacies like "It's more unlikely that the random events nessicary to occur to spawn life would have happened than that God created it".That's not logic, that's hyperbole. It's a meaningless statement with no logical foundadtion that masquerades as logic to people who don't understand what logic is. Logic requires a foundation in fact. Somewhere along the line, there has to be a fact to build logic from. I've given you several excellent examples which demonstrate the diffrence between logic and what you're attempting to use to argue, and you haven't refuted a singe one of them. Mainly because you can't.Again, let me say that your arguments aren't new, they're used by Christians to to attempt to bring those questioning the existance of God back into line. They work on people who don't understand reasoning or logic in the slightest and who frankly, aren't bright enough to see how rediculous it is to argue that something with no evidence at all is more likely than something wich there is eveidence for.It is, however, the best you can do. Because you're arguing the Easter Bunny case to an adult who knows that it's realy people who hide the eggs, just as it's realy people who who created the idea of a God to deal with their fears and petty insecurities. All I can do is continure to point out the massive gaping holes in your argument that make it uterly worthless or just pat you on the head and say "Yes, of course, you know god exists because the Bible tells you so. That's right. Of course The Easter Bunny and Santa are real too, little one, run along and let the grown ups talk now"Your last few attempts at arguing while ignoring the utter destruction of your premise for argument have me really leaning twoards the latter option there.There are those here who, I'm sure, will pray for you. There are still others who will simply marvel at the lengths to which some people will go to defend a logically vacuous, ego-riddled, opinion.I agree. It is amazing the lengths they will go. Even to the point of ignoring clear points that uttterly destroy their arguments because they have no answer for them. Allthough I wouldn't call your arguments eg0-riddled. I'd just call them gullable.There really is one born every minute it appears. Barnum, the Atheist, was right after all. quod erat demonstrandum

[Red 0]

It takes more faith to think that magically something appeared from nothing to start the big bang? Last time i checked if you have a perfect vacuum with nothing in it..no molecules atoms or anything else...nothing will appear no matter how much you hope for it.  Then lets look at some of that science that you seem to base your faith that there is no God on. If just one part out of 10^120 was different Id show the zeros but thats a whole lot of zeros after that one. Basically since this is a place full of people who understand gambling odds..Its like winning the lottery over and over. We are not here.  Another example. Lets look at carbon...which is a huge part of most material.  "The formation of carbon sits on a knife edge of uuncertaintiy. To form carbon, radioactiver beryllium (element number 4) must absorb a nucleus of helium (elemnt 2) and build to elemtent 6 carbon. Seems easy right. we all learned that in high school. But there is a big problem with it. See radioactive beryllium has a life of 10^-16 seconds. that would be .0000000000000001 of a second. Yet somehow carbon is the 4th most abundant element on this earth."  So to say that it takes more faith to believe that a God created us then to believe that all these millions of random occurrances just happened is an interesting question. Since this is poker...I woudl say its like winning 10^120 hands in a row. just isnt gonna happen

What's more laughable, a semi-ignorant religious person trying to explain science or a semi-ignorant science based person trying to explain religion? I ask because I don't know. We learned that in high school? When was this, last semester? I'm tempted to pick this apart but I think the statement speaks for itself.RedP.S. Where'd you get that "knife edge of unncertaintiy" (sp) quote? That is priceless.

[GamblinLeaf 0]

There is also no historical evidence from the time period.  None, zero, nada.  

This is factually untrue. You will say "no it's not", I will say "yes, it is", and we will carry on ad infinitum. You are in the position of trying to prove a negative (an impossibility). You are entitled to do hold this position ... it's called faith. You have faith in what you believe to be true, and I have faith in what I believe to be true. Sooner or later, we will both find out who was right.

[Smasharoo 0]

This is factually untrue. You will say "no it's not", I will say "yes, it is", and we will carry on ad infinitum. You are in the position of trying to prove a negative (an impossibility). You are entitled to do hold this position ... it's called faith. You have faith in what you believe to be true, and I have faith in what I believe to be true. Sooner or later, we will both find out who was right.The burden of proof isn't on me. If you argue it's factually untrue you're required to show evidence demonstrating that fact. Just as if you told me the Easter Bunny was real, the burden would on you to demonstrate it.It's not an equal situation, just as it's not na equal situation or an open question regarding the Easter bunny. He doesn't exist.You see?The biggest fallacy bellivers in God perpitrate is the lunatic assumption that complete lack of any evidence of something leaves it an open question. It doesn't.

[Mattnxtc 0]

It takes more faith to think that magically something appeared from nothing to start the big bang? Last time i checked if you have a perfect vacuum with nothing in it..no molecules atoms or anything else...nothing will appear no matter how much you hope for it.  Then lets look at some of that science that you seem to base your faith that there is no God on. If just one part out of 10^120 was different Id show the zeros but thats a whole lot of zeros after that one. Basically since this is a place full of people who understand gambling odds..Its like winning the lottery over and over. We are not here.  Another example. Lets look at carbon...which is a huge part of most material.  "The formation of carbon sits on a knife edge of uuncertaintiy. To form carbon, radioactiver beryllium (element number 4) must absorb a nucleus of helium (elemnt 2) and build to elemtent 6 carbon. Seems easy right. we all learned that in high school. But there is a big problem with it. See radioactive beryllium has a life of 10^-16 seconds. that would be .0000000000000001 of a second. Yet somehow carbon is the 4th most abundant element on this earth."  So to say that it takes more faith to believe that a God created us then to believe that all these millions of random occurrances just happened is an interesting question. Since this is poker...I woudl say its like winning 10^120 hands in a row. just isnt gonna happen

What's more laughable, a semi-ignorant religious person trying to explain science or a semi-ignorant science based person trying to explain religion? I ask because I don't know. We learned that in high school? When was this, last semester? I'm tempted to pick this apart but I think the statement speaks for itself.RedP.S. Where'd you get that "knife edge of unncertaintiy" (sp) quote? That is priceless.

O you know, I think he was a nobody...let me see...O he was a graduate of MIT with a Doctorate from there... But yah hes probably not very smart...Obviously doesnt know what hes talking about...Im sure ur a much smarter person then him

[Mattnxtc 0]

Christan scholars accept the fact that there is no physical or direct historical evidence that Christ ever existed. The only people who don't are "belivers" who don't want to have face the uncertainty of it. You've offered not a shred of evidecne to support your argumet, I can't see how I could possibly have lost when you've presented nothing. You're making presicely the same case an 8 year old would make for the Easter bunney. "Look, in my coloring book it says the Easter bunny is real!"What I have found to be interesting from reading the different posts smash writes is that he will tend to ignore the parts he cant argue with and focus on a small section that he thinks he can attack. He continually says that there is no reference to Jesus from from secular historians. I listed 4 or 5 and he attacks one that mentions the christian followers that happens to be written by a guy living o about 60ish years after Jesus lived. The others which directly reference Jesus are ignored. So i will again put a list of a few more with direct quotes about Jesus. 1. TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.)Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome."Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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 Judea, 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." 2. PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D.)Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, Pliny wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan regarding how to deal with Christians who worship Christ. These letters concern an episode which marks the first time the Roman government recognized Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, and sets a precedent for the massive persecution of Christians that takes place in the second and third centuries."They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." 3. LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)A Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13.4. LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.)Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian who lived in the first century A.D. He wrote a letter to his son Serapion that mentions the Jews who killed their King. The letter is now in the possession of the British Museum."What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?...After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men...The wise king...Lived on in the teachings he enacted." 5. CELSUS: (2nd Century)Criticizes the Gospels, unknowingly reinforces the authors and the content, he alludes to 80 different quotes in the Bible. Admits that the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the 2nd century.But smash is right theres no evidence at all to support that Jesus every existed. Now maybe you can explain to me how these are all just lies. You use the easter bunny scenerio to try and prove well it could exist. Well its quite easy to know it didnt exist b/c you can see parents up early in the morning putting eggs out for there kids. Therefore it can be proved that the easter bunny in fact isnt the one doing it. Yet you cannot disprove that Jesus lived without ignoring people of that time saying he did. So you can go on believing he didnt exist which is fine. When you end up in Hell it wont be b/c we didnt warn you.

[Smasharoo 0]

Hi, I adressed it. Try READING my post and see if you can find it.Not one of the sources you've mentioned has anything to do with someone mentioning Christ, merely Christians.LEt me for the second time say that the existance of Christans in no way proves the existance of Christ. If it did, the existance of Satanists would prove the existance of Satan.If you'd like me to take it point by point and refute it, I will. Here you go:1. TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.)Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome."Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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 Judea, 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."Also possibly a forgery, but not as obvious as Josephus.Setting aside the forgery question for a moment, even were it genuine, it simply reports what Tacitus would have known about the history of the sect that he's speaking of. It's hardly evidence. If someone tells me they saw bogfoot and I write down "Bob saw bigfoot" does it somehow prove the existance of bigfoot?To you it might, I suppose judging by your standards of proof here.2. PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D.)Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, Pliny wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan regarding how to deal with Christians who worship Christ. These letters concern an episode which marks the first time the Roman government recognized Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, and sets a precedent for the massive persecution of Christians that takes place in the second and third centuries."They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."Again, reports what Christians do. Christans worship Christ, Captain Crunch worshipers sing a hymn to Captain Crunch.Doesn't mean Captain Crunch sailed around the cows milk sea shredding the roofs of his enemies mouths, now does it?3. LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)A Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters."The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13.Written about century after Christ had died. Proves that Christians said they worshipped Christ. See the Captain Crunch example.4. LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION: (73 A.D.)Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian who lived in the first century A.D. He wrote a letter to his son Serapion that mentions the Jews who killed their King. The letter is now in the possession of the British Museum."What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?...After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men...The wise king...Lived on in the teachings he enacted."Doesn't even *mention* Christ. Not even a good example to make your case. I'd prefer you use Thallus, but apparently he wasn't on the website you cut and pasted from. His is a more intresting citation at least.5. CELSUS: (2nd Century)Criticizes the Gospels, unknowingly reinforces the authors and the content, he alludes to 80 different quotes in the Bible. Admits that the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the 2nd century. Again, written a century after Christ's allged death. I'm waiting for Suetonius, Lucian, Aristdes, Trajan, etc. etc.There's no historical evidence of Christ existing. None. Zip. Zero.One would think, considering the detailed record keeping of the Roman Empire at the time and the importance of Christ to Christans even in the second century, that someone might have thought to write down somewhere "Crucified a few people today, some guy named Barabas and a delusional nut job named Jesus". Nope.How odd.The reality is that early Christans coudln't have cared less if Christ existed or not. It wasn't what their religon was about. It wasn't untill the writing of the gospels, a generation or more after Christ's supposed death that anyone even thinks to mention having seen the guy. Those same gospels which have been changed radiaclly in the time between then and now, but still contain contradictory passages to *one another*Look, I realzie this is hard for you because you're working from baised web sites, ad hoc, in a hope to impress people as knowledgeble and I actually know what I'm talking about, so I'm sorry about that.Problem for you is there is no objective historical document in existance that says "I saw this guy Christ, we killed him"None.Not one.Zero.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I never realized how naive some people could be until I read that last post... You see something that u cant explain away so o it must be a forgery. I woulda thought somebody who thinks so highly of himself coulda done better then a awful captain crunch answer but i guess after the easter bunny example i guess not. So the LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION dont seem to mention Jesus. How many other King of Jews have you read about that were killed by the Jews before AD 73? Now even the dumbest person could put 2 and 2 together to get 4. I didnt use Lucian mainly b/c it was a longer piece of text but here yah go.LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)A Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13. Of course youll say o well it doesnt mention Jesus. But ill refer u to the 2+2=4 quote above. Suetonius had a little something to say about it too:SUETONIUS: (69-140 A.D.)A Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. He refers to Christ and Christians and the "disturbances" caused by them, namely not worshipping idols and loving all, including their tormentors."Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city [Rome]." Acts 18:2, which took place in 49 A.D.Life of Claudius, 25:4.In another work Suetonius wrote about the the fire which devastated Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians and exacted a heavy punishment upon them, among them covering them with pitch and burning them alive in his gardens."Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief."Lives of the Caesars, 26.2 Im sure that was just forged too. Um maybe your thinking of a different Aristides:ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.)Aristides was a second-century Christian believer and philosopher from Athens. This portion of his defense of Christianity was addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, who reigned from 138-161 A.D. "The Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preaching...He selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth. And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination."Carey, "Aristides," 68.Hmm now I know you were right about Trajan not mentioning Jesus...o wait what have I found: "All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ. However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ."He makes a few more mentions of Christ. Again anybody with common sense knows that there was only one considered to be Christ. Im sure though that b/c Christ was used instead of Jesus that is just so totally wrong. Well I was able to find context for the 4 you mentioned. But of course those have to be forgeries b/c those people would never mention something that doesnt exist. And Yes I was using a website...I happened to find the website not by typing in some secret christian code to find bias letters..but actually just by typing in secular writers on Jesus.. Brought up a whole bunch of websites to pull info from. Gotta love googles. Sorry i didnt have every one of thier books but Im still young so I cant afford to buy all the ancient text yet.

[Smasharoo 0]

I never realized how naive some people could be until I read that last post... You see something that u cant explain away so o it must be a forgery.Actually, I said it's commonly thought to be a forgery, but lets set that aside and then pointed out how useless it was as a source even if it were genuine. I woulda thought somebody who thinks so highly of himself coulda done better then a awful captain crunch answer but i guess after the easter bunny example i guess not. Yeah, I notice nothing you've said refutes either example.You really haven't even tried. You're mocking the sillyness of them because they use cartoon characters, while I'm using cartoon characters to demonstrate how silly your case is.See what I did there?So the LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION dont seem to mention Jesus. How many other King of Jews have you read about that were killed by the Jews before AD 73? Now even the dumbest person could put 2 and 2 together to get 4.No, only someone who wants a specefic answer to be true could arive at the conclusion that Christ is intended there. Christ *wasn't* a king of Jews, by the way.Kind of derails that argument fairly quickly, no?I didnt use Lucian mainly b/c it was a longer piece of text but here yah go.LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)A Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters."The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13.Oh, hey, I guess it was your web site after all.Of course youll say o well it doesnt mention Jesus. But ill refer u to the 2+2=4 quote above.Yeah, imagine that, I won't accept something as proof of Jesus existing when it doesn't mention him, crazy me!Suetonius had a little something to say about it too:SUETONIUS: (69-140 A.D.)A Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. He refers to Christ and Christians and the "disturbances" caused by them, namely not worshipping idols and loving all, including their tormentors."Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city [Rome]." Acts 18:2, which took place in 49 A.D.Life of Claudius, 25:4.In another work Suetonius wrote about the the fire which devastated Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians and exacted a heavy punishment upon them, among them covering them with pitch and burning them alive in his gardens."Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief."Lives of the Caesars, 26.2Im sure that was just forged too.No, but Chrestus isn't Latin for Christ...but let's assume it was. Does it strike you as a little odd that Christ would be instigating disturbances 10 years after HE'S DEAD?Just wondering.Um maybe your thinking of a different Aristides:ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.)Aristides was a second-century Christian believer and philosopher from Athens. This portion of his defense of Christianity was addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, who reigned from 138-161 A.D."The Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preaching...He selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth. And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination."Carey, "Aristides," 68.Yeah, more than 100 years after the fact, again.Hmm now I know you were right about Trajan not mentioning Jesus...o wait what have I found:"All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ. However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ."He makes a few more mentions of Christ. Again anybody with common sense knows that there was only one considered to be Christ. Im sure though that b/c Christ was used instead of Jesus that is just so totally wrong.Wow, you're really not very good at this, are you. You should consider just cutting and pasting the arguments too. If you go back and read my last post you'll see that I point out that he's merely mentioning what Christans do. They worship Christ. Norse worship Odin. A historian mentioning that people worshiped Odin doesn't suddenly make Odin real, does it?Well I was able to find context for the 4 you mentioned. But of course those have to be forgeries b/c those people would never mention something that doesnt exist. And Yes I was using a website...I happened to find the website not by typing in some secret christian code to find bias letters..but actually just by typing in secular writers on Jesus.. Brought up a whole bunch of websites to pull info from. Gotta love googles. Sorry i didnt have every one of thier books but Im still young so I cant afford to buy all the ancient text yet.Young and naive.Don't feel bad, though, I thought Santa was real untill I was about 8. It takes some people longer than others to figure these things out.None of what exists offers a first hand historical record of Christ existing. None of it.In point of fact, much of the BIBLE says that he didn't as well, but you're trying so hard here I don't want to completely ruin your night.

[MDXS 0]

Oh boy...here we go...or not, Smash beat me to it.Anyway, Mattnxtc, the short of it is that all these sources would be far more convincing had they been written when Jesus was alive. Since they were written afterwards (and don't really say anything, etc...), they are useless to your argument.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Just for you Ill do some copy and paste..So the LETTER OF MARA BARSARAPION dont seem to mention Jesus. How many other King of Jews have you read about that were killed by the Jews before AD 73? Now even the dumbest person could put 2 and 2 together to get 4.No, only someone who wants a specefic answer to be true could arive at the conclusion that Christ is intended there. Christ *wasn't* a king of Jews, by the way.Kind of derails that argument fairly quickly, no?Actually Christ was referred to as the King of Jews by his followers. As he was being crucified he was mocked as being the king of Jews. But I guess you just ignore that and base it saying that all the writings about his death are fake... or that since he existed its a non point...Kinda convient for you. I didnt use Lucian mainly b/c it was a longer piece of text but here yah go.LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)A Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters."The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13.Oh, hey, I guess it was your web site after all.If you had read my whole article you would have seen that I said I qouted a website. I have yet to claim to be a master of the ancient writings. So as I said i just went ahead and typed in secular writers on Jesus. It brought up a whole bunch of different sites..But those are just all so biased arent they. All forgeries. Of course youll say o well it doesnt mention Jesus. But ill refer u to the 2+2=4 quote above.Yeah, imagine that, I won't accept something as proof of Jesus existing when it doesn't mention him, crazy me!So if you describe something that is well known of the time if you dont use thier name then it must be fake? So if i were to go onto the general post and describe a guy who was from canada, has blonde hair, lives in vegas, became a christian and was engaged for a while...would u claim that since i didnt use a name I must be making that person up? Of course not b/c we living at this time know exactly who I am talking about...Wow its amazing what a little common sense will do. Um maybe your thinking of a different Aristides:ARISTIDES: (138-161 A.D.)Aristides was a second-century Christian believer and philosopher from Athens. This portion of his defense of Christianity was addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, who reigned from 138-161 A.D."The Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preaching...He selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth. And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination."Carey, "Aristides," 68.Yeah, more than 100 years after the fact, again.Well this quote was only put in here b/c you specifically mentioned him. So your going to have to be more careful when say that somebody doesnt mention Jesus when it is obvious that he did. Hmm now I know you were right about Trajan not mentioning Jesus...o wait what have I found:"All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ. However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ."He makes a few more mentions of Christ. Again anybody with common sense knows that there was only one considered to be Christ. Im sure though that b/c Christ was used instead of Jesus that is just so totally wrong.Wow, you're really not very good at this, are you. You should consider just cutting and pasting the arguments too. If you go back and read my last post you'll see that I point out that he's merely mentioning what Christans do. They worship Christ. Norse worship Odin. A historian mentioning that people worshiped Odin doesn't suddenly make Odin real, does it?Hmm well when did trajan live? TRAJAN: (53-117 A.D.) Ok now lets look at this logially. He was born what about 20ish years after Christ woulda been crucified which means that he was also alive with the people who had been around and seen Jesus. Yet he seemed that this made up thing was big enough to discuss ways to get this christians to worship the romans. Well I was able to find context for the 4 you mentioned. But of course those have to be forgeries b/c those people would never mention something that doesnt exist. And Yes I was using a website...I happened to find the website not by typing in some secret christian code to find bias letters..but actually just by typing in secular writers on Jesus.. Brought up a whole bunch of websites to pull info from. Gotta love googles. Sorry i didnt have every one of thier books but Im still young so I cant afford to buy all the ancient text yet.Young and naive.Don't feel bad, though, I thought Santa was real untill I was about 8. It takes some people longer than others to figure these things out.again same bad argument as the Easter Bunny. At 8 all you woulda had to do is either A walk down stairs Christmas night and see your parents putting your presents under the tree or B you could go look in the book at history and wow you woulda seen the background of how it came to be. The key is that you could go look in a book and im sure you would believe what was written. It seems though that when you find something that challenges your power over yourself you get defensive. Its part of the whole man is God or God is God. Which sounds more like something man would make up? None of what exists offers a first hand historical record of Christ existing. None of it.In point of fact, much of the BIBLE says that he didn't as well, but you're trying so hard here I don't want to completely ruin your night.haha thanks for the last line..I needed a good laugh

[Smasharoo 0]

I'd like to reply to your post, wll not really, but I'm bored enough to, however it's really quite unreadable.If you want me to reply to it, fix it.It's not that hard, just have faith in the markup tools. They know not what they do when you post, apparently. They're at the top of the page, below the subject line in your post.

[Smasharoo 0]

The key is that you could go look in a book and im sure you would believe what was written. It seems though that when you find something that challenges your power over yourself you get defensive. Its part of the whole man is God or God is God. Which sounds more like something man would make up?The God one. Making up Santa is much sillier than making up God was. Making up God served lots of purposes and consolidated power over the frightened confused masses (you) into the hands of the people who understood how to handle those people who were far too bright to think that killing ten bulls actualy made the wheat grow higher (me), but knew that it would make the lemings feel better and as if they had some controll over things they didn't.By the way, I'm not defensive about this as I don't have anything to prove. I'm mostly laughing about it, to tel you the truth, and occasionally showing my wife who says "that's so sad, I hope he's just a kid who hasn't had a chance to have much life experience and who's just being loyal to what his parents told him"/shrug.Let me say again, it's not like there's an actual debate here. You're bringing up points that were laughable a decade ago and I'm teaching you why. For me it's like teaching a new player, that, yes you should raise with AA pre-flop even though you lose doing it some of the time and him trying to prove me wrong.It's really that clear cut.

[edpunk 0]

I'm sure that this will start another 6 page thread but, the Book of Mormon does talk about the life and teachings of Christ imself. It also tells of his whereabouts after he was resurrected, and his dealings with the people in the Americas at the time before, during and after his life. The culminating point is when Christ himself visits the people in the Americas and organizes his church among them.

[Smasharoo 0]

I'm sure that this will start another 6 page thread but, the Book of Mormon does talk about the life and teachings of Christ imself. It also tells of his whereabouts after he was resurrected, and his dealings with the people in the Americas at the time before, during and after his life. The culminating point is when Christ himself visits the people in the Americas and organizes his church among them.It does indeed.I think we can all agree that the book of Mormon is the ramblings of a delusional 1800s guy, can't we?

[edpunk 0]

YOUR AWAKE?

[natedog04 0]

Back to the posts arguing the actuality of Christ or not. The historical evidence does suggest that if he was alive, he was almost certainly a warrior, trying to reclaim the throne that he felt was rightfully his. He was a descendant of David and thus had real backing to proclaim himself king of the Jews. It was not a spiritual term, as Messiah was not used until much later in history meaning other-worldy, in Jesus time it simply meant king, nothing more.Jesus was in fact a practicing Jew, obvioulsy influenced by pagan mythology, I forget the name of the myth, though if prompted i could look it up, that basically had a prophet who had died after being pierced and rose after three days. Also, well read enough in scripture to actively fulfill it, not through destiny, but through his will to fulfill it. He never did accomplish the destruction and rebuilidng of a temple. Christians will argue that it was Christianity that he founded though he did no such thing. He and his brothers and most loyal followers were all devout Jews.If Christ were in fact their savior why do Christiachoose to ignore Jewish law, if anything the logical continuation according to Jesus would be to simply insert himself into Jewish history, effectively making it a sect of the Jewish Church, much like other churches have splinter groups. So even if Christ was a historical figure the point is rather moot, because the evidence suggests not only that he was a militant Jew, but that also a devout Jew with no intention of creating a new religion.Paul created Christianity by blending historical Jesus with pagan mythology, and the addition of pagan holidays. Christians are followers of Paul not Christ.

[GamblinLeaf 0]

For anyone following along, especially any christian who is still reading this, Smash's numerous posts have provided an invaluable insight into the thought process of the atheist. Since he's decided that there is no God, he has elevated himself to the level of highest moral arbiter in his universe. After all, to be able to declare with certainty to know what CANNOT POSSIBLY exist takes a level of knowledge beyond any mere human's. And since there is no God, the atheist feels most confident that whatever he thinks is right. The easter bunny analogy is pathetic, by the way. The easter bunny is not an icon of cosmic scope. The easter bunny is not said to have created the universe. Wars have not been fought over the easter bunny. The easter bunny has not affected the lives of, literally, billions of people, some on a very personal level, over the course of many millenia. The easter bunny is, in fact, a western hemispheric phenomenon, as is Santa Claus. As a first generation American, I know better than most that some lore is entirely regional in nature, unheard of in other parts of the world. My chinese mother, for instance, had never heard of Santa or the easter bunny until coming to this country, but she'd heard of Jesus. The word of the One True God, and His Son, Jesus Christ, are available anywhere, they permeate the entire world, more so today than ever before. Were He a figment of some first century charlatan's fevered imagination, His legacy and words would have vanished long, long ago. The sheer vastness and complexity of the universe is an issue that must be contemplated when dealing with an issue like a deity but, in an elevated state of, yes, arrogance, the strident atheist claims to know the possibilities and impossibilities of issues of universal scope. Note you'll see I use the word "strident". An atheist who says "I don't believe there's a God" is not strident. Even if he or she says "I think you're an idiot for believing that there's a God", that person isn't being strident. Rude, perhaps, but not strident. It is only the ones who say "what you believe is not possible", that person is claiming knowledge that NO, I repeat, NO human being is capable of, period.So, to my fellow followers of Jesus Christ, remember that we should always be ready to share our faith with anyone who's interested. Peter says, "... and always be ready to render an account to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you ..." (1 Peter 3:15). DN does a good job of this, eager to share with anyone who expresses an interest, but not seeking out a street corner to preach on. However, when confronted with someone who is not interested in what you believe, but only wants to belittle, scoff or demean your faith, it is better to take an entirely different track and remember what the scripture says:"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - Psalm 14:1"He who reproves a scoffer gets shame for himself,And he who rebukes a wicked man gets himself a blemish." -Proverbs 9:7"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." -Matthew 7:6All blessings through Christ,GamblinLeaf -http://spiritofchrist.blogspot.com

[BilliardsBoy 0]

:clap: Wow, very well said. I think you hit it on the head. My personal view as I stated earlier is that I cannot prove the existence of God, I only have faith, and you (others) cannot disprove the existence of God but don't personally believe in his existence.Yes, there is no document that says "I am next to Jesus right now, He says hi, they are going to kill him tomorrow." Very few people followed him and his teachings, but the word was spread and more and more people believed. My faith is based in the teachings of Jesus and his followers that followed him, that's what faith is. I don't know with scientific certainty that He exists, I cannot even fathom doing so, but that is why there is a difference between Faith and Knowledge.

[Mattnxtc 0]

The God one. Making up Santa is much sillier than making up God was. Making up God served lots of purposes and consolidated power over the frightened confused masses (you) into the hands of the people who understood how to handle those people who were far too bright to think that killing ten bulls actualy made the wheat grow higher (me), but knew that it would make the lemings feel better and as if they had some controll over things they didn't.Let me say again, it's not like there's an actual debate here. You're bringing up points that were laughable a decade ago and I'm teaching you why. For me it's like teaching a new player, that, yes you should raise with AA pre-flop even though you lose doing it some of the time and him trying to prove me wrong.It's really that clear cut.

haha u seem to have missed the point of Santa but it is ironic that we talk about him b/c Santa was made up after an actual person. A Saint who brought gifts to kids who werent in the best of situations. Its all quite interesting and you can read about it in a book if you choose to believe it. As for using it to control people? Yeah some of the Church has grown into that mainly beign the Catholic Church. It lives by a bunch of rules. Doesnt happen to really go with the teachings of the Bible but you dont believe it so lets move on. You call my points laughable b/c they dont fit your specific views. What i tend to find laughable is that you will stare at solid facts and deny them. For example...for years scientests claimed that the Bible got it wrong about a group called the Hittites..Seemed that there was no evidence of them...Well that all changed not to extremely long ago with the discover of the civilization right where the Bible said they were.. Now you can take classes to learn thier history or langauge. But im sure thats just another coincidence. As i said in my other reply....Just because somebody isnt named specifically, if they are described in a way that people know who it is thats really quite good enough. It would be like me describing this blonde poker player from canada who lives in vegas and his mom visits all the time and he has a website. Now we dont need a name b/c we know who I am talking about. You arent going to sit there and say o well you just made that up b/c it is obvious. So then just as Jesus is mentioned so is Peter and Paul. Well lets think about them for a minute. Peter was looked at as being a direct disciple of Jesus. He went out after Jesus's death and resurrection and preached in the name of Jesus. Now did he live to a ripe old age? No he was beaten several times and eventually murdered. Now would you die for the easter bunny or Santa or anything else that you know to be not true? Of course not. But Im sure ur jsut gonna say o well those people are made up to..and so are the people that are named as having direct relationships with Peter and Paul. Im finding that it is taken a lot more belief on your part to discredit these known people of history in order to fit yoru beliefs. What i find to be laughable is that your right there isnt much of an argument.. You stare at the facts and distort them b/c you cant afford to give up any power. I will continue to simply so the facts and let everybody decide. And yes I will continue to use google to find out information. Why wouldnt I? were else could i find information on specific secular writers you talk about that mention Jesus? Maybe you should learn to use the internet more often.