|
3 registered members (wandaluciaia, AndrewAMD, 1 invisible),
765
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#76318
07/18/06 17:34
07/18/06 17:34
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
How many times did you guys accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. And here you go doing exactly what you chastised me for (not) doing. There's so much going on here, that there's very little a lone person like me could do to handle these posts. But I'll do what I can anyway. As I'm sure you're all glad to hear.  Quote:
i am sorry but i dont think you got my points right.
the cross was the standard punishment method for slaves and low level criminals (stoning and beheading where absolutely not popular public punishments for the romans).
Ok, but Jesus was nearly stoned Himself. Someone was almost stoned in front of Him. It was very common. Remember too, that the Jews lived among the Romans, but they weren't completely integrated into society. They were allowed their own establishments.
Quote:
all of this has happened years and years before jesus was born. a lot of prophets or messias where killed on the cross before him and a lot after him.
Sources? Specifics?
Quote:
predicting that he would die by the cross is like predicting today that somone who robbs a bank will get punished by arresting.
Yes, but I'm talking about Psalm 22 specifically, which actually was written about 1000 years before Jesus. Check that out. The earliest reference to known crucifixion I could find was 700 B.C. The psalm doesn't talk about 'crucifixion' it talks about some form of piercing damage to the hands and feet. Predicting that, along with the gambling for the clothes, and numerous other fulfilled references, Jesus' death is pretty unlikely.
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/psalm_22_1.htm
Quote:
the resurrection point is not somthing to argue about subernatural things or the bible its simply the observation that the only way to keep your "religion" alive
It is much more important than that. Jesus didn't have a religion. He didn't show up on the scene to overturn the Torah.
Quote:
(usualy religions die after the messias and his prophets died) is to make something subernatural that is big enough to leave a mark.
Someone who was ignored by the establishment, who lived with the dredges of society, and died like a common criminal would somehow be completely celebrated just because a few people claimed He rose from the dead. Right....
Quote:
knowing the standard punishment leaves only two options: not to die by the cross or to get resurrected. only these two icons will show the people that you are god sent.
Apparently not, the religious 'higher ups' covered up the resurrection, and just as Jesus predicted, most people don't really believe. So you're thinking isn't really following reality here.
Quote:
the scientific approach to this is not accepting that jesus is the son of god and to find evidence for that
No its not. The scientific approach would be to try and falsify it by finding evidence of Jesus' body to prove He didn't rise from the dead. You can't scientifically touch the claim that Jesus is the Son of God. Nothing can or cannot prove that scientifically, but we can prove or disprove certain claims about Him, or whats left of the evidence after all this time.
Quote:
i am amazed what people like copperfield can do. and you will agree with me that he is probably not the son of god but a good magician.
His tricks aren't in any way similar to what Jesus did.
Quote:
if you keep the same distance to the supernatural when talking about jesus as you would do when you think about david copperfield you can investigate how much of the written is true.
No you can't, we can investigate Copperfield in person, we can't do that with Jesus.
Quote:
keeping an emotional distance to the topic can help a lot
Which I'm sure not many people could do, pro or con. Jesus has a lot of implications on a lot of people in society.
Quote:
i have heared a lot about predictions so far but either they are so vague that you can interprete god and the world into every sentence or they simply need to be bent so much to fit that they lose all context.
Have you actually read the bible and not just looked at specific claims from athiest websites? Some prophets detailed certain historical events with extreme accuracy.
Quote:
and if we are sceptical with all the stories above, why cant we be as sceptical and questioning when it comes to religion.
Well, I could remain skeptical about whether or not atoms really exist for the rest of my life, but eventually there's enough evidence to call it a day.
Quote:
do we have to accept everything said or written just because its said or written?!
Nope. I haven't claimed to accept all written things, nor do I claim to accept the bible just because its written. So I don't get what you're even talking about here.
Quote:
the bottom line of religion is that you want to believe. for e variety of reasons and nothing said could change that.
I could say that you don't want to believe, because you're threatened by the idea of a creator who can hold you accountable, but what does my claim matter?
Quote:
but again, not understanding something is not reason engough to say its supernatural.
I agree. But if an event is supernatural, then its not understandable. I understand how life could have come into existence naturally, but that doesn't mean I should automatically accept that over the not-understandable supernatural explanation. If I did, someone could rightly say I have a bias against any other alternative (for better or worse).
Quote:
where did the universe come from? how did it come from nothing? what is "nothing"?
good questions, but because you fail to have an answer isnt profing god in any way.
You have failed to understand every single point I've made thus far. You see every comment I make as some kind of argument in favor of God. Actually, even if my logic is completely correct, I still can't prove God created the universe. I can just make it seem like a likely answer. For all I know there's some mystical frootrin force that created the universe, and I can never grasp the how or why. I just think that's a stupid explanation considering the details of the universe.
Quote:
science needs proof and evidence to be true, religion needs believers to be true.
Yes I agree. But then we wouldn't have many of the theories we have right now. No one has evidence that the big bang occurred, because no one was there. We just accept it as a likely explanation for what we can see. Well, some of us do.
Quote:
we do not understand the terms infinite or nothing.
Yes we do. We may not be able to visualize them, but we can know a few things about them.
Quote:
the thing we dont understand is that mater needs mater to be created. its something we asolutely cant understand that maybe just a little "white" or "black" and the infinite ammount of time are enough to "create" something.
That's why I set out to 'prove' that infinite time isn't possible.
Quote:
because if the universe was created supernatural who created the time before that? and how can there be something if there is no time?
and if god can exist without time, how come that nothing else can?
did god created "white"?
Why go on to those points before we've even established the basic facts? You fail to make state any relevant questions. If we can get to that point and agree on a few things before that point, then we can deal with that when we get there.
Quote:
You're assuming that all events are preceded by a sequence of causes. This, however, is not the case in nature. We've already discussed this some weeks ago -> Bell's theorem.
Under the assumption of infinite time you can also safely assume that there are infinite many events (if there is an event at all). But you can not assume that all these events are necessarily connected by cause-effect relations.
I mentioned events to put a friendly handle on it. But whether or not events are occuring during infinite time, or whether nothing is happening during infinite time, it really doesn't matter.
Quote:
No. It would only mean that many (in fact infinite many) universes would be dead right now.
But doesn't solve the problem of whether or not infinite time can exist before the universe.
Quote:
Your thinking seems still restricted to the assumption that our universe, and/or our time, is in some way unique or privileged. However there is no logical reason to assume that.
Its the focus of the discussion, because either there was infinite time before now, or there wasn't. So all arguments are made in reference to our universe.
Personally I do believe our universe is special, but it doesn't have any effect on the thought experiment.
In fact, let me rephrase the experiment in a visual way, and tell me if you disagree with this. Imagine a peice of paper in your mind. Now imagine that you've drawn a circle on this peice of paper. Now, place an imaginary pencil with the tip resting anywhere on this circle. This circle is the infinite time before our universe (if our universe even exists). Make the lead of the pencil follow the circle until you reach the end of the circle. When you reach the end, you may say that you've reached the universe. This is why I see it as impossible.
Quote:
What do you mean the writer wouldn't know about this? It was a common thing to do, you can hardly miss a cross with a mourning person on it, now can ya... Anyways, yes, it might be a coincident that he predicted the 'right' way of execution, yet he could have meant another 'jesus' too.
Another Jesus with all of the other details correct? Including not just the death, but the birth and life? Read the link I posted above. That's just a small sampling of the prophecies.
Many of these prophecies were made in such a way that they wouldn't seem to predict anything, until they actually happened.
Quote:
Besides, I could predict that the weather will be exactly 35' degrees celcius tomorrow, if I turn out to be right, that still would mean exactly nothing
If you predicted not only the temperature, but the exact beginning and end of a rain storm, the exact amount of water dropped, the exact area affected by the rainstorm, as well as wind speeds, etc, I might pay attention.
Quote:
but at least in those predictions by these persons with a certain power to predict. What makes you so sure it's not purely chance?
Because you can calculate reasonable chance and unreasonable chance. For anyone to deny the prophecies in the bible, is to say that it was a conspiracy, or some kind of planned deception because it couldn't happen by accident.
Quote:
I think you will reply that there are so many predictions that according to you came true, that chance is unlikely, however unless you trully believe in magic so to speak, this 'lack of chance' can only mean they have been cheating it.
Case and point. Nothing will ever be good enough to prove it to you. So I guess it really doesn't matter.
Quote:
It's like in a casino, if a guy get's a bit too lucky and wins too much, he becomes suspicious and they will observe and investigate it. Now explain to me why this doesn't or shouldn't apply to the biblical predictions .
That's an ok metaphor, but it puts it in a negative light. Now let's imagine we come up with a theory of evolution, and it consistently makes predictions that come true. Do we go, "Hmm, let's be suspicious because its almost TOO true."? Perhaps not. Perhaps that's a bad metaphor. But you seem to think that prophecy automatically means 'lie'. If it comes true. So for you, ancients are religious nuts for believing prophecy, and if they come true (thus vindicating the ancients), anyone is a nut for not believing its some kind of conspiracy or trick. Maybe not in those harsh of terms....but you get the point.
That said, I might believe it was a trick if the circumstances were different.
Quote:
Even today there are quite some 'prophet'-like people, claiming to be able to perform all sorts of holy miracle stuff, from talking to dead people's ghosts to healing others by performing some sort of ritual. Well, not one of them has been proven to be something other than a simple fraud, still large amounts of people believe them.
Yes, of course. People have a fascination with the supernatural. But the things modern day 'mystics' claim to do, and the things Jesus did really aren't comparable. And Jesus hardly did it to get famous. In fact, He predicted that He would be killed. What mystic would keep doing what their doing knowing it would lead to their death?
Quote:
In my opinion, if there really was a jesus like in the bible stated, then he most likely must have been a fraud to, we have no logical reason to believe a human to be able to perform the miracles claimed.
Logic would assume that you could eliminate all possibilities by sorting through what makes the most sense, or what's true. Does it make sense that people would risk their lives (and actually did die as historically verified) just to perpetuate the lie for a man who lived with prostitutes, fishermen, and the lowest of society? And furthermore died like a nobody? I don't think I would risk being stapled to a tree, unless I thought Jesus was the real deal (speaking of His disciples who would have seen many of these miracles).
To claim this is some kind of mass fraud would be comparable to saying some bum could somehow orchestrate so many false miracles (getting people to go in on it), that entire cities would cheer when he arrived, and people would risk their lives to tell his story. I don't think its logical to conclude that that is possible. Jesus had a curious impact on people.
Quote:
Its not about going arround and fake people to believe. i think he knew exactly what the people wanted to hear/get/have at this period of time.
Again, they wanted someone who lived with the lowest of society? Who basically died as a nothing? Who questioned the religious establishement? He did anything except give the majority what they wanted.
Quote:
during his time religion was more or less a work or law. you have to obey, obey, obey.
You need to stop making historically false claims, especially when you absolutely refuse to back them up.
Quote:
But people are forgetting that there is no evidence anyone like Jesus actually existed.
There are several people who wrote about Him. This includes what are considered the four reliable sources. The best the "Jesus Myth" people can do is say there are a dozen writers who didn't write about Him. I like the analogy, "The criminal in court had four witnesses who saw him commit the crime. The defense brought 13 witnesses who didn't see him do it. He went to jail."
Considering who He was, and the relative amount of information we have on any historical figure of that time, its pretty impressive that we have as much as we do.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
I almost hesitate to quote this link because there's something in it that will probably alienate atheists, but.....considering your guys' worldview and suppositions, I don't think its going to matter.
I can't prove He did what He did. Its impossible. Furthermore, you guys have a presupposition that limits anything I say. You have to fit any miracles into a naturalistic worldview, without any further reasoning.
However, logically...
Based on His life, death, and evident existence. Its fair to say that it would be illogical to believe that people lied about His life, to gain absolutely nothing (except certain, gruesome death). It may not be 'scientific' to believe in miracles without evidence. But it certainly isn't logical to believe these miracles were simple parlor tricks.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76319
07/18/06 21:27
07/18/06 21:27
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Based on His life, death, and evident existence. Its fair to say that it would be illogical to believe that people lied about His life, to gain absolutely nothing (except certain, gruesome death). It may not be 'scientific' to believe in miracles without evidence. But it certainly isn't logical to believe these miracles were simple parlor tricks.
This must be genius reasoning, because I cant understand wtf you are saying here. Can anyone else?
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76320
07/19/06 00:27
07/19/06 00:27
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
That's an ok metaphor, but it puts it in a negative light. Now let's imagine we come up with a theory of evolution, and it consistently makes predictions that come true. Do we go, "Hmm, let's be suspicious because its almost TOO true."? Perhaps not.
No, eventhough skepticism is very good, basically that would be like seeing exactly how someone actually 'cheated'. Enough evidence to be able to state that it actually happened that way so to speak. So then it would be a bad methaphor indeed...
Quote:
His tricks aren't in any way similar to what Jesus did.
You'd be surprised at what exactly Copperfield can do.  Anyways, before the exageration of the story it could very well have been very similar copperfield's 'magic', turning water into wine for example.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76321
07/19/06 04:51
07/19/06 04:51
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
first of all i would say that thinking time is a line with a start and an end is wrong. i have recently heared i nice theorem on timeline (i hope i can get the basic idea right): get rid of the imagination that time is a constant value. assume that any force needs a counterforce to keep in balance. so does time. whenever a second passes here somewhere the exact negative ammount has to pass too. also there are areas where the speed of time is infinitive high and infinitive low. an example would be a checker field where the white pattern marks the infinitive slow time and black the fast one (both with a gradient to their corners). and whenever two of these fields touch each other the thin line between them is what we call existence. maybe the question of the universe is wrong. maybe we shoulnt ask who created it but where. this is just one of lots and lots of different theories. all of them though have in common to be very intersting even though the most are way too complex to understand or are against our natural 4d view of the world. about the qustions you raised: first of all i want to admit that quite some years passed since i read the bible (must be almost 10) so i am sorry if i cant quote it -->..Ok, but Jesus was nearly stoned Himself. Someone was almost stoned in front of Him. It was very common. Remember too, that the Jews lived among the Romans, but they weren't completely integrated into society. They were allowed their own establishments... thats not the case. the typical jewish punishment was probably stoneing but political prisoners had to be handed over to the protector and as other political and religous prisoners only the roman administration was allowed to call the death penalty and the standard for religious motivated riots and actions was and continued to be the cross. eversince the roman invasion (one or two days before jesus was executed) and with all political prisoners. -->..Sources? Specifics? (for crusifixation of other religious leaders) a torah verse: When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not defile the land that the LORD your God is giving you for possession. Deut 21:22-23 dont you think that writing this passage in the most important scroll of the jews had some reason. and dont you think that either the romans knew that, the jews and jesus who was raised "a little bit religious". -->..Psalm 22 .. i wont go into detail about the pierced hands and feet because the psalm contains way more then what should have happened. Most of the written is a combination of lyric and observation of common behaviour (death symptoms, fear and the pulic riot). afaik jesus was not the first one executed and even our days we pretty much know how such a thing would be like. the psalm also states things about swords and lions as well. so either is all a metaphor or none of it. -->..Jesus didn't have a religion. He didn't show up on the scene to overturn the Torah... ??? you think he knew that when he raised his voice againt the priests and held public hearings without the permission of the jewish leaders?! -->..Someone who was ignored by the establishment, who lived with the dredges of society, and died like a common criminal would somehow be completely celebrated just because a few people claimed He rose from the dead... exactly! because his whole religion was(is) based on this. imagine some of those weirdo newwave religion leaders who take your money for a spaceship actually manages that some alien rocket would land on the earth and take you away. man, i no time....hordes would follow like cattle. -->..Well, I could remain skeptical about whether or not atoms really exist for the rest of my life, but eventually there's enough evidence to call it a day. funny to see how you change your oppinion or the damand of evidence when you need it. i can remember sentences from you like "as long there is not 100% proof it cant be accepted as truth" anyway, you are comparing two different things here. while the whole atom theory answers things the whole jesus "theory" just opens more questions. While the atom theory allows me to build supernukes and ct scanners based on it i have to find workarrounds and accept the supernatural to make the jesus theory work. -->..Again, they wanted someone who lived with the lowest of society? Who basically died as a nothing? Who questioned the religious establishement? He did anything except give the majority what they wanted.... you are not understanding how martyrism works. take for example someone like bin laden as an example how a way of live can bind and fascinate people to do whatever you say. right or wrong. (and now i dont wanna hear any "how can you compare jesus with bin laden" bullshit) -->..You need to stop making historically false claims, especially when you absolutely refuse to back them up. (religion having impact on average life) best would be an example. lets see. roman religion: when your first born son reaches a certain age you have to give a big party. this required lots of money and lots of sacrifices to the gods and the priests. the bottom line: while most religions where not a brand the only money they could make was from their believers. as the example above some of these rituals could ruin a whole clan. jesus on the other hand got rid of this with the simple slogan: "read my lips! no more taxes!" pretty smart and you are right. absolutely nothing the average citizen liked and exactly what the religous crowed wanted to have a personal note: i dont get the point why jesus has to be the son of god. I think he said a few pretty smart things and i dont see any reason why this should be less worth just because he is not vip. nuff written
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Blattsalat]
#76322
07/19/06 10:36
07/19/06 10:36
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Based on His life, death, and evident existence. Its fair to say that it would be illogical to believe that people lied about His life, to gain absolutely nothing (except certain, gruesome death). It may not be 'scientific' to believe in miracles without evidence. But it certainly isn't logical to believe these miracles were simple parlor tricks.
Where logic and wishful thoughts collide ...
(Why would people NOT lie about him? Have any idea how much he actually gained ?)
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: PHeMoX]
#76323
07/23/06 20:54
07/23/06 20:54
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
This is going to be somewhat brief. I don't really have so much time to post here any more. I've got some personal things going on, and plus I'm not really in the mood because my car was broken into and my CD player stolen...on my birthday no less. That and I'm prototyping a game that (and this is VERY VERY VERY iffy, but I talked to the XBox rep whom I see at work and he said its worth a try) I'm hoping might make it to the XBox live arcade using 3d gamestudio to whip something up quick so I have something to show. So that will probably take a few minutes of my time (moreso than my little hobby rpg). Quote:
No, eventhough skepticism is very good, basically that would be like seeing exactly how someone actually 'cheated'. Enough evidence to be able to state that it actually happened that way so to speak. So then it would be a bad methaphor indeed...
Well, can you prove to me that they were lying? Otherwise we have two presuppositions. I believe they wouldn't lie, for all the reaons I find the bible believable. You, on the other hand, have a naturalistic presupposition. Both of our presuppositions are going to cause us to look at the text differently, and I can't really do anything about that on this forum.
Quote:
Anyways, before the exageration of the story it could very well have been very similar copperfield's 'magic', turning water into wine for example.
But turning water into wine really isn't that important. How about a bigger one like healing a blind man that everyone knew had been blind his whole life? That's not a copperfield-style trick, you'd have to claim that its a lie.
If copperfield came and healed my cousin who has been deaf her whole life, I would be truly stumped as to how he could fake that.
Quote:
first of all i would say that thinking time is a line with a start and an end is wrong.
We don't really know. Logically, I don't think it never had a start. On the other hand, there are many reasons to think it will end.
Quote:
maybe the question of the universe is wrong. maybe we shoulnt ask who created it but where.
I don't find it useful dwelling on theories that either have no 'proof' or solve absolutely nothing. Its all philosophical. They're usually disproven before long anyway and replaced with another theory that will eventually be highly disputed or also disproven.
Quote:
thats not the case. the typical jewish punishment was probably stoneing but political prisoners had to be handed over to the protector and as other political and religous prisoners only the roman administration was allowed to call the death penalty and the standard for religious motivated riots and actions was and continued to be the cross.
eversince the roman invasion (one or two days before jesus was executed) and with all political prisoners.
The point is that psalm 22 is very specific, with possibly one exception.
Quote:
dont you think that writing this passage in the most important scroll of the jews had some reason.
and dont you think that either the romans knew that, the jews and jesus who was raised "a little bit religious".
I don't know. Is there any reason it would matter if they did? Amongst all of the other things psalm 22 says will happen? Or for that matter, can you prove they're not talking about hanging by the neck?
Quote:
the psalm also states things about swords and lions as well.
so either is all a metaphor or none of it.
Nothing about swords in that verse. If you take the possible literal translation, it might say, "Like a lion my hands and feet." Which makes no grammatical sense. The problem is the use of a word (kaaru or something) that has since lost meaning. So it throws the passage into some kind of doubt. There are other versions that are more explicit, and refer to some form of peircing damage, or even something along the lines of people 'attacking' the hands and feet like a lion (as in they eat it? or they peirce it like a lion's teeth?). Of course, these other versions are disputed by skeptics, but if that one specific detail is thrown in doubt, I see no reason to cast off all of the other predictions. Ignoring the passaged about being thirsty, and other general descriptions like that.
Quote:
you think he knew that when he raised his voice againt the priests and held public hearings without the permission of the jewish leaders?!
Jesus explicitly said that none of the 'the law' would go away, and that wasn't His intent. Regardless of the traditions at His time, I'm speaking of Him contradicting the bible up to that point.
Certainly He pissed off the leaders of that time by saying they sinned by trying to please God with their works, when faith was the only way to attain grace. For example, the story of the man who boasts while praying that he's a lot better than the bumb who's downtrodden, quiet prayers God showed more favor towards.
He questioned the Pharisees, etc, not the bible (or 'the law').
Quote:
exactly! because his whole religion was(is) based on this.
You missed the point. I'm saying, just randomly claiming some nobody rose from the dead couldn't have been enough. Regardless of whether or not that's what the 'new' religion was based on.
Quote:
imagine some of those weirdo newwave religion leaders who take your money for a spaceship actually manages that some alien rocket would land on the earth and take you away.
man, i no time....hordes would follow like cattle.
Miracles wouldn't be enough for me, but if this happened I wouldn't be surprised. Jesus prophecied that there would be many lies in the coming generations. Currently, there are. Raelians, mormons, JWs, etc.
Quote:
funny to see how you change your oppinion or the damand of evidence when you need it. i can remember sentences from you like "as long there is not 100% proof it cant be accepted as truth"
No I didn't. I only demand some convincing evidence.
Quote:
anyway, you are comparing two different things here. while the whole atom theory answers things the whole jesus "theory" just opens more questions.
Only for the atheist. If I was skeptical of atoms, I'm sure I could come up with questions. The amount of questions isn't parallel to the truth of the claim.
Quote:
While the atom theory allows me to build supernukes and ct scanners based on it i have to find workarrounds and accept the supernatural to make the jesus theory work.
Jesus isn't a scientific theory. He's a spiritual savior. So if you called on Him to save you from your sin (remembering that God knows when you're serious or not...) and He ignores you, then that would falsify the salvation.
Quote:
you are not understanding how martyrism works. take for example someone like bin laden as an example how a way of live can bind and fascinate people to do whatever you say.
You mention martyrism and then talk about Bin Laden? He's still alive last I heard, and he's trying to keep it that way.
Besides, that's not a very good comparison in any way. There are of course many many people asking you to believe what they believe. That there are numerous askers, doesn't mean that one of them isn't true.
Quote:
(and now i dont wanna hear any "how can you compare jesus with bin laden" bullshit)
I really don't care. You won't have to answer to me for anything you do or say, so I'm not going to sit here and chastise you.
Quote:
jesus on the other hand got rid of this with the simple slogan: "read my lips! no more taxes!"
pretty smart and you are right. absolutely nothing the average citizen liked and exactly what the religous crowed wanted to have
This is exactly opposite of what Jesus did, but whatever. I'm too tired to correct you anymore and this Jesus discussion is getting boring.
Quote:
a personal note: i dont get the point why jesus has to be the son of god
Well, if it makes sense to you that your works are good enough to get you favor from God, then I would expect you to be a muslim. Otherwise, Jesus would make more sense. But its not scientifically possible to prove Jesus is the son of God.
Quote:
Where logic and wishful thoughts collide ...
(Why would people NOT lie about him? Have any idea how much he actually gained ?)
He was stapled to a cross. Then His disciples were ridiculed, before pretty much all of them were murdered in various ways like also being stapled to a cross, or being thrown off a cliff, etc. We have an idea.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76324
07/24/06 12:39
07/24/06 12:39
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
But turning water into wine really isn't that important. How about a bigger one like healing a blind man that everyone knew had been blind his whole life? That's not a copperfield-style trick
Copperfield would not make much money when he just "healed a blind" in his show!
Travel through India for a while and you'll meet a dozen people who heal blinds. There are also places like Lourdes where blinds and lames are healed all the time. Because of hysterical blindness, it's even possible that some of those healings are true.
If Jesus had been able to heal real blinds, why hadn't he healed all the blinds in Palestina?
Bewitching water to become vine seems much more remarkably to me. Altough there are also Indian gurus, for instance Sai Baba, who easily top Jesus in performing such miracles.
Quote:
I don't find it useful dwelling on theories that either have no 'proof' or solve absolutely nothing.
Then why bother about Jesus at all?
|
|
|
|
