Sportsmack 0 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Sports,Do you not understand that the new testament is the hand picked word of the early christian church. It is composed of books that were written by authors who did not even know Jesus but who had an interest in promoting the growth of the early church. There were many other books that were considered for inclusion with exactly the same authenticity, which was none, but they were rejected because they gave a different image to Jesus than what the church wanted to portray. Do you also not understand that before these books about Jesus there were many others about different prophets that had many similarities with Jesus. Horus for instance from the Egyptian book of the dead. He was the son of the god osiris, born of a virgin mother, baptized in a river by anup the baptizer who was later beheaded. He was tempted alone in the desert, healed the sick and the blind, cast out demons and walked on water. He was raised asar from the dead. Asar translates to lazarus. He had 12 disciple, and he was crucified and resurrected. This is just one example of many of the stories that predate jesus. But somehow you know what to believe because the bible tells you so. Wow. They are ancient stories among thousands that have obvious even more ancient roots. In fact you can trace the resurrection story almost all the way back to prehistory and the the rising and setting of the star sirius. You worship ancient nonsense, and you know nothing of the truth of it except what a few men, interested in establishing a new church, wanted you to read. And now you worship it as if it is the source of all knowledge. Very sad.Wow, just wow Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Wow, just wow Powerful retort.LOLLERCOSTER Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 So if we pit Jesus vs. Horus in a death match, who wins? Horus, because he was first? Or Jesus, because more people still believe in his legend? Can you fight them with a piece of heaven, like kryptonite with Superman? Maybe holy water has this effect? Maybe Jesus is a vampire!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Don't think I'm looking for an e-fight.... I dont do that.LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Fraud alert. Link to post Share on other sites
kozz 0 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 "So if we pit Jesus vs. Horus in a death match, who wins?"Who cares? That still leaves Mohamed on the loose. I'd rather see Mohamed and Jesus go at it, and if we get real lucky, we might just see a double mortal blow. Link to post Share on other sites
Fade2241 0 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Good lookin out, DN! God Bless! Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 nice summaryhttp://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 nice summaryhttp://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm haha. You're pretty insane Crow...I especially love how he starts his damning piece about no Jesus with "why are no piece of carpentry in existence made by Jesus.." awesome.Do you think Plato is real? How about Socrates? Everything we know about them is heresay also. Along with basically everyone else who lived 2,000 years ago. The Bible wasn't written by one author... it's wasn't one book in 60AD. It was 27 different books written by many different authors describing the man Jesus in detail, including personal experiences with him.This site should also include stuff about the moon landing hoax and Roswell... maybe even some stuff about World Trade Center 7. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Do you think Plato is real? How about Socrates? Everything we know about them is heresay also.really? dont we have writings directly attriubted to both of them? Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 really? dont we have writings directly attriubted to both of them?Yes. That's my point.From Plato's wiki page:"Thirty-five dialogues and thirteen letters have traditionally been ascribed to Plato, though modern scholarship doubts the authenticity of at least some of these."Even though we don't have his signature on a certain piece of paper, I still know that he existed. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Yes. That's my point.From Plato's wiki page:"Thirty-five dialogues and thirteen letters have traditionally been ascribed to Plato, though modern scholarship doubts the authenticity of at least some of these."Even though we don't have his signature on a certain piece of paper, I still know that he existed.yes, but my point was that (the website said) we dont have any writings even attributed to jesus. just stories about him. but plato and socrates wrote things, and we still have them, because they were real people. who didnt walk on water and turn one fish into a thousand. or rise from the dead and so on and ridiculous forth. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 haha. You're pretty insane Crow...personal attacks just make you look desparate and don't help your caseI especially love how he starts his damning piece about no Jesus with "why are no piece of carpentry in existence made by Jesus.." awesome.he was just making the point that there is no contemporary evidence of any kind.Do you think Plato is real? How about Socrates? Everything we know about them is heresay also. Along with basically everyone else who lived 2,000 years ago.along with whatever of their personal writings are considered genuine, there are multiple contemporary references to both plato and socrates elsewhere in ancient greek literature, and their alleged history doesn't fit any pattern of mythology. it is of course possible that they weren't "real", but the evidence strongly and directly suggests that they were. there is no comparison to jesus.It was 27 different books written by many different authors describing the man Jesus in detailconsidering the synoptic problem you could say there is surprisingly little unique information about jesus IN the bible, given what a polarizing figure he supposedly was. in fact most of the books that describe jesus in detail AREN'T in the bible.including personal experiences with him.that's an assumption. the canonical gospels are all written in 3rd person and none of the authors (whoever they were) say anything explicit about personal experience.This site should also include stuff about the moon landing hoax and Roswell... maybe even some stuff about World Trade Center 7.sad attempt to shift the burden of proof. Link to post Share on other sites
Sportsmack 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 LOL @ anything ever getting accomplished or anyone really hearing the other side in this forum. Does make for interesting reading though...carry on. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 LOL @ anything ever getting accomplished or anyone really hearing the other side in this forum.i hear everything the "other side" says. and the aim is to help educate neutral readers (if there are any here) and to help them think critically, notto sway the other side. Link to post Share on other sites
Sportsmack 0 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 i hear everything the "other side" says. and the aim is to help educate neutral readers (if there are any here) and to help them think critically, notto sway the other side.I didn't say you were trying to sway the other side, I just said that nothing gets accomplished because no one (with the exception of the VB and BG debate) really listens to each other. Everyone just talks over and around each other. It's like talking to someone face to face, all the while knowing that they're not really listening to you...instead they're trying to think of what they're going to say next. That's all I'm saying. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Everyone just talks over and around each other. It's like talking to someone face to face, all the while knowing that they're not really listening to you...instead they're trying to think of what they're going to say next.nobody in the prior exchange was doing that Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 yes, but my point was that (the website said) we dont have any writings even attributed to jesus. just stories about him. but plato and socrates wrote things, and we still have them, because they were real people. who didnt walk on water and turn one fish into a thousand. or rise from the dead and so on and ridiculous forth.Most of Matthew are the words of Jesus verbatim. They aren't less real if a friend or family member recorded them instead of his hand. He is still the 'author' of the words... and they are explicitly attributed to him. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 he was just making the point that there is no contemporary evidence of any kind....and yet if it was any other figure of history 27 books would be overwhelming contemporary evidence. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 none of the authors (whoever they were) say anything explicit about personal experience.Either you haven't read them... or you have a different definition of personal than I do. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 ...and yet if it was any other figure of history 27 books would be overwhelming contemporary evidence.except there's no evidence any of them were written contemporarily. that's the problem. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Either you haven't read them... or you have a different definition of personal than I do.none of the gospels explicitly states "I, the author of this book, was an eyewitness to or involved in any of these events" or anything similar.they are all written in unbroken third person. the authorship of the gospels and the notion that they are 4 separate actual eyewitness accountscomes from church tradition that evolved much later, not from evidence within the gospels themselves. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 This case against the multitude of secondary defendants has been dismissed and the defendants have been remanded to psychiatric therapy under custody of the State until such time as they exhibit suppression of their severe delusions. The lead defendant Christ, however, has been found guilty of first degree murder on reason and assault upon the minds of innocent sheeple everywhere. It is the Court's decision that Christ is to be sentenced to... what? Hold on a moment I'm being informed... well... I guess that relieves the Court of that particular burden. Bailiff, please take the other defendants to the appropriate authorities. Link to post Share on other sites
Mills 0 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I know that the last post in this thread was a while ago, and it is entirely possible no one is reading....still....I have absolutely no problem with what anyone believes as long as they acknowledge that it is, in fact, a belief. That is, it is not based on evidence. These people who think that god has been proven scientifically often have less than a highschoolers understanding of the material they are trying to argue for or against.It is entirely possible (as is anything) That some sort of God exists.. however, up to this point, we have absolutely no evidence of such a thing, so the question I would ask believers is "on what basis do you believe?"Personally, I don't think it is very healthy to believe things without evidence of them... If I told you I could fly, you would ask me to prove it... I think most would agree that faith believes are not good practice in general, so why the exception? If you have the meseals, do you rely on faith to heal you, or will you instead go with what is proven to fight meseals?I would also be very skeptical of so called "former atheists.." Most of the time (from my experience) this is a ploy to make apologists seem less biased than they are. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 I know that the last post in this thread was a while ago, and it is entirely possible no one is reading....still....I have absolutely no problem with what anyone believes as long as they acknowledge that it is, in fact, a belief. That is, it is not based on evidence. These people who think that god has been proven scientifically often have less than a highschoolers understanding of the material they are trying to argue for or against.It is entirely possible (as is anything) That some sort of God exists.. however, up to this point, we have absolutely no evidence of such a thing, so the question I would ask believers is "on what basis do you believe?"Personally, I don't think it is very healthy to believe things without evidence of them... If I told you I could fly, you would ask me to prove it... I think most would agree that faith believes are not good practice in general, so why the exception? If you have the meseals, do you rely on faith to heal you, or will you instead go with what is proven to fight meseals?I would also be very skeptical of so called "former atheists.." Most of the time (from my experience) this is a ploy to make apologists seem less biased than they are. Being biased like this makes your points much duller than you intended. Not that it was real sharp to begin with.First you try to act like you open minded with your 'allowance' for us to believe, then you close that door by explaining that since you don't buy it, it must be 'highschoolers understanding'.Of course you are so gracious to allow us to think this, as long as we accept that we are being dolts to do this because you have set a requirement that you feel is not met. Must be nice to be the standard of all truth.Then you go on to explain why not only are we dolts for being so blind as to believe something obviously not true, but we are also being unhealthy, but in general it is exactly the same as having a disease and pretending it will go away on it's own.Then you destroy the obviously only defense we have, the former atheist who now are Christians because you know they were just plants designed to pretend they were atheist just to try to fool you with their phony conversions.If yours was the standard mental level of these debates, there is no way I would even remotely be interested in any discussions. So you sir should thank the likes of VB, Base and LLY for having enough brains to actually present rational arguments instead of your paranoia based propaganda level speech where you are so busy patting yourself on the back that you have no idea how foolish you sound. Link to post Share on other sites
Mills 0 Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 wow, are you serious???????RE: Former Athiests...I said 'based on my experience' meaning that it is anecdotal and... based on my experience... I never said this was absolutely 100 pct the way it was.I also said that based on my experience, the majority of those trying to argue against things like evolution have less than a high schoolers understanding of what they are (this would include people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron etc.... I could go on and on... can you honestly say these people understand the theory of evolution?)I also stated that it is my PERSONAL belief ( as in, this does not have to be shared by you) that it is unhealthy to believe things that do not have evidence of being true. I never said anybody was stupid for believing in god... why do you insist on spinning everything I said? I posed a serious question, on what basis do you believe what you believe? What on earth is biased about that?I have chosen my words very carefully, unlike you. I stated over and over that this is my viewpoint on the matter and does not apply universally... however, in all of your dishonest glory, you managed to twist every word I said into some attack on faith, making me the evil athiest and you the good righteous Christian whose duty it is to take him down. Setting up false dichotomies such as these is a staple of dishonest creationists, such as yourself, so I am not very surprised.honestly, get a clue.also, when the hell did I say anything that resembles this:"but in general it is exactly the same as having a disease and pretending it will go away on it's own".??? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now