I just love it
-
Red Stateler wrote:
And that's simply a matter of faith. However, seeing as His miracles were well-documented, it's a greater leap of faith to believe that there is no God (something not documented) than to believe Jesus performed miracles. Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
Well documented? That would be like 5 people writing Harry Potty spinoffs but all the characters had the same name. In 2000 years people might worship Harry!
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)CleaKO wrote:
Well documented? That would be like 5 people writing Harry Potty spinoffs but all the characters had the same name. In 2000 years people might worship Harry!
They would probably be the same people as modern-day atheists. You never addressed my question. Did Socrates exist? Did Plato? Did Marie Antoinette? Did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg? All of history is a tale and Christ's story is just as valid as any of the above (actually more so given the number of eye witnesses). In fact, atheism probably takes a greater leap of faith than Christianity because you're required to completely discount vast swaths of history in favor of the scientific method (which has no bearing on this topic) in order to support your religious belief. Are you willing to put into question the entire history of western civilization? That's pretty wacko.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Jessica Alba as an unreformed Mary Magdalene...
Now THAT, I would go and see.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Pfft, I'll take Monica Bellucci as Mary *any* day of the week over Jessica. I mean, don't get me wrong, Jessica is nice, but she's just a little battery powered Vespa compared to the Harley Davidson of Babeitude that is Monica Bellucci.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
Tim Craig wrote:
And why did so little survive Alexandria?
Because it never actually existed? :rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
Because it never actually existed?
Because a bunch of fanatical christians wanted to get the dark ages off to a roaring start. Handed out a sainthood for that little escapade, didn't you?
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
CleaKO wrote:
Well documented? That would be like 5 people writing Harry Potty spinoffs but all the characters had the same name. In 2000 years people might worship Harry!
They would probably be the same people as modern-day atheists. You never addressed my question. Did Socrates exist? Did Plato? Did Marie Antoinette? Did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg? All of history is a tale and Christ's story is just as valid as any of the above (actually more so given the number of eye witnesses). In fact, atheism probably takes a greater leap of faith than Christianity because you're required to completely discount vast swaths of history in favor of the scientific method (which has no bearing on this topic) in order to support your religious belief. Are you willing to put into question the entire history of western civilization? That's pretty wacko.
Red Stateler wrote:
They would probably be the same people as modern-day atheists. You never addressed my question. Did Socrates exist? Did Plato? Did Marie Antoinette? Did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg? All of history is a tale and Christ's story is just as valid as any of the above (actually more so given the number of eye witnesses). In fact, atheism probably takes a greater leap of faith than Christianity because you're required to completely discount vast swaths of history in favor of the scientific method (which has no bearing on this topic) in order to support your religious belief. Are you willing to put into question the entire history of western civilization? That's pretty wacko.
Wacky packs, wacky packs, lalalalalalala!!!!! Anyway, yes those people existed and those people did what they did. The issue here is different. What we have from the Bible are stories written by people. Those people in some cases knew each other or knew of each other. Therefore they could communicate their stories with each other in order to have a somewhat same version. There may be evidence that a man named Jesus existed that exicted the people and was crucified. Does that mean that God exists or that he performed miracles? No.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School) -
Tim Craig wrote:
I think most atheist accept someone named Jesus existed. We just don't believe his divinity.
Actually that depends. Some atheists (as Teacup) flat out believe He didn't exist because admitting it comes precariously close to adopting Christianity. Jews also believe Jesus existed but don't believe in His divinity. Believing that Jesus didn't exist at all is just a manifestation of atheist dogma whereby reason is (once again) thrown out the window.
Tim Craig wrote:
Yeah, we have trouble with the miracles part. It's just not reasonable and is the result of Jesus's publicist trying to hype him into the big time. I don't believe David Copperfield really made that jet disappear either.
And that's simply a matter of faith. However, seeing as His miracles were well-documented, it's a greater leap of faith to believe that there is no God (something not documented) than to believe Jesus performed miracles. Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
Red Stateler wrote:
seeing as His miracles were well-documented,
And David Copperfield's trick with the jet is very well documented. I saw it on TV.
Red Stateler wrote:
Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
And, of course, there's nothing silly about christian beliefs.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm sure Cameron will produce much better fiction than the bible.
What's at issue here, is that the claim is ridiculous. I, for a variety of reasons, trust information about Jesus that was written by people who knew him. Cameron is claiming to prove those sources wrong, via the finding of a tomb, which he knows contains Jesus' body, how ? DNA testing ? A sign over the door ? It's ridiculous because the claim can only exist to attack the church, and to make money through controversy. There is no way his claim can be proven, and no reason to believe it, unless you're desperate for something to attack the church with. I've had long phone conversations with my mother where I have to keep reminding her that the Da Vinci Code does not claim to be a book of fact, it's found in the fiction section. She believes it all, because it suits her. People who dislike the Bible, will believe this in the absence of any possible proof, for the same reason. And, as I said to Stan the other day, good luck to them. I won't be protesting, I'll just shake my head in amusement at those who take it seriously.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Red Stateler wrote:
They would probably be the same people as modern-day atheists. You never addressed my question. Did Socrates exist? Did Plato? Did Marie Antoinette? Did Lincoln deliver the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg? All of history is a tale and Christ's story is just as valid as any of the above (actually more so given the number of eye witnesses). In fact, atheism probably takes a greater leap of faith than Christianity because you're required to completely discount vast swaths of history in favor of the scientific method (which has no bearing on this topic) in order to support your religious belief. Are you willing to put into question the entire history of western civilization? That's pretty wacko.
Wacky packs, wacky packs, lalalalalalala!!!!! Anyway, yes those people existed and those people did what they did. The issue here is different. What we have from the Bible are stories written by people. Those people in some cases knew each other or knew of each other. Therefore they could communicate their stories with each other in order to have a somewhat same version. There may be evidence that a man named Jesus existed that exicted the people and was crucified. Does that mean that God exists or that he performed miracles? No.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)CleaKO wrote:
Wacky packs, wacky packs, lalalalalalala!!!!! Anyway, yes those people existed and those people did what they did. The issue here is different. What we have from the Bible are stories written by people. Those people in some cases knew each other or knew of each other. Therefore they could communicate their stories with each other in order to have a somewhat same version. There may be evidence that a man named Jesus existed that exicted the people and was crucified. Does that mean that God exists or that he performed miracles? No.
See? I dispute one excuse and you come up with another. Your atheistic beliefs religious in nature. However, to your latest excuse, the Apostles obviously all knew eachother. However, after Jesus' death they spread out geographically. Peter, for example, went to and died in Rome. Interestingly their stories are not identical. They are first person accounts rather than the retelling of an identical tale (each has its own details but they are all consistent with one another). That's rare as historical accounts go. But you're welcome to discount all of history in order to make your dogma fit. I have no interest in converting you.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
seeing as His miracles were well-documented,
And David Copperfield's trick with the jet is very well documented. I saw it on TV.
Red Stateler wrote:
Atheists, however, persist in their silly notion that their beliefs somehow transcend faith.
And, of course, there's nothing silly about christian beliefs.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
Tim Craig wrote:
And David Copperfield's trick with the jet is very well documented. I saw it on TV.
So then you're saying that if 500 years from now, it's well known that David Copperfield performed a trick on television, then that wouldn't be a valid belief? Jesus rose the dead, cured the sick, turned water into wine, fed crowds from a loaf of bread, argued with scholars as an infant and rose from the dead himself. All of these were witnessed by huge crowds and are not merely illusion. In fact, the lengths through which one has to stretch his own beliefs in order to make atheism plausible are rather astounding if you think about it.
Tim Craig wrote:
And, of course, there's nothing silly about christian beliefs.
Christianity doesn't require one to dispense with all of human history...
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Ah yes, but 4 who cannot be identified and whose surviving texts are full of internal inconsistencies and falsehoods. What "evidence" there is for him wouldn't even be accepted in a court of law. And knowing the court system, well... heh.
Inconsistencies and falsehoods? Where? And what do you mean they can't be identified? Where's Plato? The "evidence" surrounding Caesar's murder at the hands of his friends is just as significant (actually less so since it only comes from one source...Plutarch. Did he exist? If so where?). Basically the atheist approach to Jesus discounts history in entirety and depends on shadowy conspiracy theories. If you want to suspend belief in the historical accounts of pretty much everything, be my guest. My religion doesn't need such madness to survive.
Red Stateler wrote:
Inconsistencies and falsehoods? Where?
Not up to date on our biblical scholarship, are we? Well, I suppose faith makes you unquestioning...that's the entire point, right? There are alot of glaring inconsistencies, particularly between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the gospel of John. The Gospel of John presents a much different picture of the life of Jesus than the synoptic gospels. These discrepancies lead to the Two-Source Hypothesis (if you are unfamiliar with it, you should read about it). If you believe the authorship of the gospels can be established (and by that I mean put an actual name to the authors other than "anonymous"), well then the Biblical Scholars are just waiting to hear from you right this moment. In fact, the descrepancies are so evident, biblical scholars believe the gospels are independent interpretations of an older document or documents - the "Q Document" is one proposal. It is thought that the sources of Matthew and Luke are Mark and the Q document. The implications are, of course, that the other two synoptic gospels are copies or individual interpretations of Mark and Q. This two document source idea for Matthew and Luke is just one of many solutions historians propose for the Synoptic problem. The point is that there are numerous discrepancies across the canonical gospels that aren't due to mistranslation. That's inherent inconsistency. That's a problem. Unfortunately for your argument, no such contradictions surround the other authors you quote: Plato, Plutarch, etc... But for biblical historians and scholars the problems I mentioned are large. These aren't conspiracy theories, but definitive problems that need to be addressed. The list is extensive and you can find many scholarly books on Amazon that treat these problems. I suggest you read them so that you don't just naively ask "What?, Where? How?". Anyways, my wife has suggested in no uncertain terms that I stop picking on the Christians and other religions for the evening. So, I will conclude my criticism and instead offer an olive branch and bid you good evening.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
So my Beer God says:
I wouldn't be surprised if after drinking your alcoholic beverage you'd start believing it created the heavens and the earth...
Finding Allah Surah AlHaaqa(The Reality) Surah Qaf Eid Alfitr
A.A. wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if after drinking your alcoholic beverage you'd start believing it created the heavens and the earth...
Actually it did - that's how my religious book starts out: "In the beginning there was beer...and BeerGod saw that it was good..." I like it - has a nice ring to it.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
But can your beer god slay the infidels? Only the bad ass gods can do that...
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
But can your beer god slay the infidels? Only the bad ass gods can do that...
No, he's like all other god's - there's no direct evidence for him, but that shouldn't stop anyone from believing.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Great God of Beer and Wine
Hey that might go well with flying spagetti monster! yes I am hungry
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus
dnh wrote:
Hey that might go well with flying spagetti monster!
Yes. Actually the Church of the FSM is a separate sect.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
My snide post was a trigger happy response to all kinds of crap being said in a thread further down. I was bored at work. :) But there's a grain of sincerity in my post. What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"? Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"?
Several things. The thing I highlighted is, I am relying on eye witness accounts. Given their nature, they deserve some sort of examination, but, nevertheless, they are more likely to be true than the claims made 2000 years later, claims which pretty much belie any sort of actual proof.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
Sure - you're free to believe in pink unicorns, based on your faith alone. But, having faith in something intangible is different to claiming to find tangible proof of something. Cameron is doing the latter.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Inconsistencies and falsehoods? Where?
Not up to date on our biblical scholarship, are we? Well, I suppose faith makes you unquestioning...that's the entire point, right? There are alot of glaring inconsistencies, particularly between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the gospel of John. The Gospel of John presents a much different picture of the life of Jesus than the synoptic gospels. These discrepancies lead to the Two-Source Hypothesis (if you are unfamiliar with it, you should read about it). If you believe the authorship of the gospels can be established (and by that I mean put an actual name to the authors other than "anonymous"), well then the Biblical Scholars are just waiting to hear from you right this moment. In fact, the descrepancies are so evident, biblical scholars believe the gospels are independent interpretations of an older document or documents - the "Q Document" is one proposal. It is thought that the sources of Matthew and Luke are Mark and the Q document. The implications are, of course, that the other two synoptic gospels are copies or individual interpretations of Mark and Q. This two document source idea for Matthew and Luke is just one of many solutions historians propose for the Synoptic problem. The point is that there are numerous discrepancies across the canonical gospels that aren't due to mistranslation. That's inherent inconsistency. That's a problem. Unfortunately for your argument, no such contradictions surround the other authors you quote: Plato, Plutarch, etc... But for biblical historians and scholars the problems I mentioned are large. These aren't conspiracy theories, but definitive problems that need to be addressed. The list is extensive and you can find many scholarly books on Amazon that treat these problems. I suggest you read them so that you don't just naively ask "What?, Where? How?". Anyways, my wife has suggested in no uncertain terms that I stop picking on the Christians and other religions for the evening. So, I will conclude my criticism and instead offer an olive branch and bid you good evening.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Not up to date on our biblical scholarship, are we? Well, I suppose faith makes you unquestioning...that's the entire point, right? There are alot of glaring inconsistencies, particularly between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and the gospel of John. The Gospel of John presents a much different picture of the life of Jesus than the synoptic gospels. These discrepancies lead to the Two-Source Hypothesis (if you are unfamiliar with it, you should read about it). If you believe the authorship of the gospels can be established (and by that I mean put an actual name to the authors other than "anonymous"), well then the Biblical Scholars are just waiting to hear from you right this moment. In fact, the descrepancies are so evident, biblical scholars believe the gospels are independent interpretations of an older document or documents - the "Q Document" is one proposal. It is thought that the sources of Matthew and Luke are Mark and the Q document. The implications are, of course, that the other two synoptic gospels are copies or individual interpretations of Mark and Q. This two document source idea for Matthew and Luke is just one of many solutions historians propose for the Synoptic problem. The point is that there are numerous discrepancies across the canonical gospels that aren't due to mistranslation. That's inherent inconsistency. That's a problem.
As I recall, a couple months ago I directed you to somewhere indicating that the gospels were all written in the apostles' lifetimes. You had previously claimed they were written in the 4th century. So you're clearly not a scholar on the subject and likely Googled this "Q document" today on some atheist web site. However, the gospels are not inconsistent in their account at all. The tone varies (especially that of Luke's), but not the witnessed events. In fact, they're more constitent with the accepted notion that they are each first-hand accounts. If you and I both witnessed the same event and wrote about it, we would describe the same event but in a different way depending on our individual perspective. Would that make either (or both) accounts incorrect? Or would that be the expected outcome of two different accounts?
The Apocalyptic Teacup wrote:
Unfortunately for your argument, no such contradictions surround the other authors you quote: Plato, Plutarch, etc... But for biblical historians and scholars the
-
Christian Graus wrote:
She believes it all, because it suits her.
And you keep thumping the bible because it somehow suits you in spite of the inconsistencies and contradictions. So what's your point?
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
Tim Craig wrote:
And you keep thumping the bible
Do I ? When ?
Tim Craig wrote:
in spite of the inconsistencies and contradictions
I love all the people who talk about all the 'inconsistencies and contradictions', it makes me laugh. Why ? Because most people can't list any, it's a truism. Or, they will google for a list, some of which will be right ( some dates may not line up, a number here or there is reported differently between books ). The Bible does not contradict itself on anything that it sets out to be an authority on.
Tim Craig wrote:
So what's your point?
That people will flock to this film, and regard it as absolute truth, because it supports their belief system. Other people will believe anything they are told that seems, to them, to support what they believe about the Bible. In both cases, you have groups of people taking in whatever source supports their world view. But, the athiests will be the ones more likely to be arrogant about it.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
There is no way his claim can be proven, and no reason to believe it, unless...
Are we talking about His existence or non-existence?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
*grin*
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Pfft, I'll take Monica Bellucci as Mary *any* day of the week over Jessica. I mean, don't get me wrong, Jessica is nice, but she's just a little battery powered Vespa compared to the Harley Davidson of Babeitude that is Monica Bellucci.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
Not unless she looks better in motion than she does in google image search.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
My snide post was a trigger happy response to all kinds of crap being said in a thread further down. I was bored at work. :) But there's a grain of sincerity in my post. What makes Cameron's claim any less credible than the "official version"? Faith is the proverbial can of worms, because it allows for pretty much any argument. Regardless of what is known and not known.
Because Cameron is pretending to use "science" as his methodology. Claiming DNA testing as a way to verify this (what the hell is testing *against*????) pretends to use scientific methods to back up his claim. If he had simply said, look we found this tomb, we think this is where Jesus was buried, then that would be one thing. But to claim that DNA (and whatever other absurd "technology" is helping this along) is being used as a tool puts the burden on him. In other words, he is *not* asking you take his word as faith.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Techno Silliness
-
CleaKO wrote:
Wacky packs, wacky packs, lalalalalalala!!!!! Anyway, yes those people existed and those people did what they did. The issue here is different. What we have from the Bible are stories written by people. Those people in some cases knew each other or knew of each other. Therefore they could communicate their stories with each other in order to have a somewhat same version. There may be evidence that a man named Jesus existed that exicted the people and was crucified. Does that mean that God exists or that he performed miracles? No.
See? I dispute one excuse and you come up with another. Your atheistic beliefs religious in nature. However, to your latest excuse, the Apostles obviously all knew eachother. However, after Jesus' death they spread out geographically. Peter, for example, went to and died in Rome. Interestingly their stories are not identical. They are first person accounts rather than the retelling of an identical tale (each has its own details but they are all consistent with one another). That's rare as historical accounts go. But you're welcome to discount all of history in order to make your dogma fit. I have no interest in converting you.
The funny thing is that I am Christian but I still believe the Bible is just a collection of stories written over a period of time. If someone is to believe in God/Jesus/whatever, they need to do it understanding that there is not much in factual evidence to backup that belief.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School) -
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Faith is out of style these days?
Strawman!!!!!!!
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about