The Faith Poll

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Yet you feel the need to cut down anyone who disagrees with your view, as if you have the only true path.

Careful, snakeeye... Statements like this might get you a smack to the face with the book of Cheese.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It may not be cool, but is it worthy of being put to death?

Well, with my dying moments of consciouness, I must reply to this gem.

WP, if you're the type of brain that merely believes what the internet tells you, then you might as well follow Cheese. If you are gullible enough to take Cheese's mutilated version of the bible as fact, then you might as well jump on the "kill the Muslims" bandwagon. They're no better informed.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Cheese

All of this because they have no proof in their God....none.

Author- Mark Crane

Once disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ, and Christianity will collapse like a pack of cards. For it all depends on this fundamental conviction, that God was made manifest in human flesh. And that is a matter not of ideology or mythology but history. 1
Just how well founded the claim for the historical Jesus is will be seen in the evidence as follows.
1. Micahel Green Runaway World, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 12.
From Pagan Sources
Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman. 2 This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him.
2. Ibid., p. 12.
1. Thallus
Our initial witness makes a contribution of a unique sort inasmuch as he had no intention of making Christianity to appear genuine. To the contrary, Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about A.D. 52, wrote to offset the supernatural element which accompanied the crucifixion. Though the writings of Thallus are lost to us, Julius Africanus, a Christian chronographer of the late second century, was familiar with them and quotes from them. In a comment on the darkness that fell upon the land during the crucifixion (Mark 15:33), Africanus says that "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun."3 Africanus stated his objection to the report arguing that an eclipse of the sun cannot occur during the full moon, as was the case when Jesus died at Passover time. The force of the reference to Thallus is that the circumstances of Jesus' death were known and discussed in the Imperial City as early as the middle of the first century. The fact of Jesus' crucifixion must have been fairly well known by that time, to the extent that unbelievers like Thallus thought it necessary to explain the matter of the darkness as a natural phenomenon. Will Durant observed that Thallus' "argument took the existence of Christ for granted."4 Neither Jesus nor the darkness at his death were ever denied as factual. Durant summed up the matter of Christ's historical existence for himself by saying that it never occured to the early opponents of Christianity to deny the existence of Jesus.5
Ironically, Thallus' efforts have been turned into the mainstream of historical proof for Jesus and for the reliability of Mark's account of the darkness at his death.
3. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmens, p. 113.
4. Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, Simon and Schuster, p. 555.
5. Ibid.
2. Mara Bar-Serapion: F.F Bruce, Rylands professor at Manchester University, tells of a manuscript in the British Museusm preserving the text of a letter sent to his son by a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. In prison at the time of the writing, the father pleads with his son to be wise. He illustrated the folly of persecuting wise men like Socrates, Pythagoras, and the wise king of the Jews, which the context obviously shows to be Jesus.
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their king?
It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger, the Samians were overwhelmed by the seas; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which He had given. 6
6. British Museum Syriac Mss., F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 31.
Some inaccuracies exist in the letter, says Bruce, about Samos and Athens, but the references to Christ and to the Jews are undeniably accurate, and there is no denying the historical existence of the three men mentioned. By the time this letter was written, Jesus had already received a place of recognition equal to the sages of the ages. Jesus was as real a person of history as was Socrates and Pythagoras.
3. Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius
Three Roman officials, who held stature with emperors as well as with the empire, wrote of Jesus in such a way as to take his historical existence for granted. Their writings appeared at the turn of the century.
The first of these, usually rated as the greatest of Roman historians, was Cornelius Tacitus, who was born about A.D. 52-54. At about the age of sixty, while writing of the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68), he told how the Christians were made scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64. It had been rumored that Nero had himself started the fire so that he could attain to glory by rebuilding the great capital city in more glorious fashion. When Tacitus wrote about this, he mentioned Jesus by the name of Christus:
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. 7 To Tacitus, a pagan who knew little or nothing of Jewish messianism, "Christus" was more than likely only a proper name; but to him, Christus was as real as the Roman procurator who executed him.
C. Plinius Secundus, called Pliny the Younger to distinguish him from his uncle, the elder Pliny, was governor of Bithynia about A.D.112. He often wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking his Imperial advice on how best to deal with the problem of the Christians in his province. According to him, they were causing trouble. In one of his letters, he spoke of Christ as he reported of some information which he extracted from some Christian girls by torture, "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed . . . after which it was their custom to separate, and then meet again to partake of food, but food of an ordinary kind."8
7. The Annals and the Histories, 15:44. From Britannica Great Books, Vol. 15, p. 168.
8. Epistles, 10:96.
Pliny seemed to be perplexed by the innocence of the whole matter, and perhaps to keep from countermanding any governmental policies about Christians, he thought it best to write to the Emperor before taking any action.
There is also a testimony to the historical Jesus from Suetonius, annalist and court official of the Imperial House during the reign of Hadrian. About A.D.120, he wrote the Life of Claudius. From this work comes his most famous statement: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."9 The reason for the fame of this quotation is due to the fact that Luke, some sixty years earlier, had recorded this same incident as the reason for the apostle Paul yoking up with a Christian Jewish couple named Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-2). Again, the mention of Christ in the historical context is observed in extra- biblical literature.
After having referred to the above three Roman officials as an evidence for the actual existence of Jesus Christ, Durant explains that while these references prove the existence of Christians rather than of Christ, unless we assume that Christ did indeed live, we will be driven to the "improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation; moreover we must suppose that the Christian community in Rome had been established some years before 52, to merit the attention of an imperial decree."10
9. Life of Claudius, 25:4.
10. Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 555.
When this evidence is compiled in the company of such an historian as Tacitus and with Roman officials of the stature of Pliny and Suetonius, it makes the historical reality of Jesus as certain as that of any outstanding figure of antiquity.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Cheese, your silence is deafening. I'd almost rather be scrapping Hakan or Agamemnon. Oh, but they actually use fact. No, scrapping you is more fun.

Sorry...I was out feeding Christians to the Lions last night...you know ridding the world of heretics stuff?
You Mr 4x4 have been asked by everyone on my side to offer up some proof...anything...and you continue to drop the same ole garbage we already know and the same old crap that Cow has hung you out to dry on at least 10 times now. Go to church, have fun with your life, but in fact its you who has yet to provide a shred of eveidence supporting your cause. Hearsay is not proof.

/ignore

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The death you are speaking of is the death of the soul.

Please refer us to the section in the bible that refers to this Firefly.
Proof of your knowledge.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by timbit

Author- Mark Crane

Once disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ, and Christianity will collapse like a pack of cards. For it all depends on this fundamental conviction, that God was made manifest in human flesh. And that is a matter not of ideology or mythology but history. 1
Just how well founded the claim for the historical Jesus is will be seen in the evidence as follows.
1. Micahel Green Runaway World, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 12.
From Pagan Sources
Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman. 2 This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him.....

Timbit...that passage was dealt with a long time ago.
The rest of the stuff you write is all hearsay...and thats been dealt with ad-nauseum as well. It is like you mentioning something to me and 100-200- years later someone writing what they assume was passed down correctly. Even 4x4 admitted that there would be many errors or miscinceptions.

Since Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of Jesus, who supposedly was crucified in 30 CE.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Timbit...that passage was dealt with a long time ago.
The rest of the stuff you write is all hearsay...and thats been dealt with ad-nauseum as well. It is like you mentioning something to me and 100-200- years later someone writing what they assume was passed down correctly. Even 4x4 admitted that there would be many errors or miscinceptions.

Since Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of Jesus, who supposedly was crucified in 30 CE.

How do we know that Jesus really existed? How do we know that Abraham Lincoln existed or George Washington or the founding fathers who signed the U.S declaration of Independence testifying that they were all eye-witnesses to this history and agree to its contents? We know they existed because historical documents tell us they existed and we hold these as credible testimony. As individuals, very few of these men are mentioned in great detail. Mostly their names show up in history as having been at an event but little is known about them as individuals. Where is Jesus mentioned in history?
Obviously, the Bible will give the detailed description of Jesus because He is the central figure of the Bible. However, Jesus is accounted for in many other historical documents.First, lets look at the Talmud. The Talmud is a historical document that includes commentaries on the Jewish books of the law and civil and religious records. The Talmud is very hostile to Jesus. The Talmud praises the trial, conviction and execution of Jesus. The Talmud also refers to Jesus as a ******* son of Mary. The account of Jesus in this historical document was clearly written by those who were openly enemies of Jesus. In a courtroom, if your enemy testifies on your behalf, willingly or unwillingly, it is a highly credible testimony. The Talmud testifies on behalf of many of the Bible's claims about Jesus. It verifies the existence of Jesus, that Jesus was a teacher, the trial of Jesus as instigated by the religious leaders, and the conviction and crucifixion of Jesus. Even more importantly, the Talmud verifies that Jesus performed many healings and miracles. It claims that Jesus did these through sorcery, but the key evidence is that the enemies of Jesus do not dispute the miracles. They testify that Jesus indeed performed the miracles that the Bible recounts for us. If your enemy validates your works, that is a strong testimony, even if he judges your intentions as evil.Josephus the great Jewish historian wrote about Jesus. Josephus also claimed that Jesus was a teacher that wrought many surprising feats. He won over many Jews and Greeks.
He was condemned under Pilot and killed. He appeared restored after three days and his followers were called Christians after Him.Roman governor Pliny the Younger wrote about sending Christians off to be executed for "stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy that ought not to go unpunished...". "They would not recant and they worshipped and honored Christ as if he were a god".There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus did in fact exist and other historical documents hold testimonies that do not contradict the biblical account.
The Crucifixion

We have already seen that Josephus and the Talmud validates the crucifixion. Lets look at the picture of the crucifixion. In an essay on a popular atheist website, the writer makes the comment, "On the cross Jesus said, 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?' That doesn't sound much like Jesus' plan went as he expected". As we have seen from the opening passage of this study, if this atheist had been knowledgeable in what the scriptures say, he would have known that this indeed was the plan and that the Jesus' sacrifice for sin has been foretold since the beginning of the Old Testament. Not only did God foretell of Jesus' death for sin, but even foretold of the method of execution 1,0000 years before this method of torture was conjured up. The historical account of Matthew 27:46 matches the prophecy of Psalm 22. Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
To add to the historical significance of the crucifixion, look at the following passages:
Luke 23:44 Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
45 Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two.Matthew 27:50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,
History validates these accounts as well. Thallus and Phlegon, though they did not witness the crucifixion, they were both eye witnesses to these events. Look at their accounts:
Thallus finished his historical account of the world since the Trojan war in 52 A. D. His work was destroyed but quoted by Julius Africanus in AD 221. Julius gives a commentary on Thallus' AD 33 record of the darkness across the land. "Thallus in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably as it seems to me."
A Greek author from Caria named Phlegon wrote about the darkness that occurred in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad (equivilant to 33 A.D.). "There was the greatest eclipse of the sun. It became as night in the sixth hour of the day (noon) so that the stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia and many things were overturned in Nicaea".
Thallus' account did not mention an earthquake but Phlegon did, however both reported the same darkness. The earthquake was regional, but the Bible says that the darkness was over all the land. Thallus was not close enough to feel the earthquake. This is why Julius Africanus commented that Thallus' eclipse of the sun was unreasonable. To put this in perspective, look at how an eclipse occurs. If Atlanta gets a full eclipse, Texas will only get a partial eclipse. So by the same token, if two records of the same event occurred thousands of miles apart, an eclipse cannot explain it. Not to mention that even a full eclipse darkens the sky to the point where the stars are clearly seen. Another point of question is that the Passover celebration was carefully planned to coincide with the full moon. It is impossible for an eclipse to occur at the full moon because the sun must pass behind the moon. The moon can only reflect the light of the sun if it is opposite of the sun. Jesus died at the season of the Paschal new moon. Though these men may have sought natural causes to explain the darkness, they clearly validate the biblical accounts.


Without the Bible, we can prove through historical evidence that:

• Jesus was a Jewish teacher
• Many people credited Jesus with healing and exorcisms
• People believed He was the Messiah.
• He was rejected by the Jewish leaders.
• He was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
• After his shameful death, His followers believed he was still alive and this faith spread to the multitudes throughout Rome by AD 64.
• The Christian faith was held dear by all manner of people; women, men, slave, free, rich, poor.
• Those who converted, worshipped Jesus as God

[Cheese]

wow lots of info timbit...and useful to Christians. There is a lot of info there and I would think that the vast majority of people would simply glaze over at the thought of 1. reading it all and 2. understanding it all. Seeing as though you like long reads here ya go...

How do we know that Jesus really existed? How do we know that Abraham Lincoln existed or George Washington or the founding fathers who signed our declaration of Independence testifying that they were all eye-witnesses to this history and agree to its contents?

Again…you are straying from what is asked…we aren’t asking about the signing of the declaration of independence. You could start another thread on that if you like. If you want to take the stand that there is no credible info on this Id love to read that thread. Seriously, it’s a bad parallel.

However, Jesus is accounted for in many other historical documents.First, lets look at the Talmud. The Talmud is a historical document that includes commentaries on the Jewish books of the law and civil and religious records. The Talmud is very hostile to Jesus. The Talmud praises the trial, conviction and execution of Jesus. The Talmud also refers to Jesus as a ******* son of Mary. The account of Jesus in this historical document was clearly written by those who were openly enemies of Jesus.

The entire Talmud issue has been dealt with as well…as opposed to copying copius amounts of text I will simply provide you a link to read.
The Jesus the Jews Never Knew
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...1/ai_105160324

You may also like this…
Virtually all claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.


Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E, happened after the alleged crucifixion, and he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the unknown authors wrote the gospels. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, born in 62 C.E. wrote well after the life of the purported Jesus. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of an eyewitness account.
Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although there occurs many disputes as to the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happend after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity can only provide us with hearsay accounts.
Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus" in his writings, a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.
Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud derived from the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
Christians use above authors as the most "authoritative" sources for evidence for Jesus. Considering that none of them lived during Jesus' claimed life time, this brings up a glaring question of the reliability of Christian historicity. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), also come well after the alleged life of Jesus, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (cira 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

Again…you haven’t provided proof…only hearsay. Here is what that means.


No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. Not a single contemporary Roman record shows that a Pontius Pilate executed a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus reveal that its authors wrote well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.
Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

[Kybosh]

Seems like this thread is heading towards petty namecalling, let's keep it civil people.

One thing I find interesting with this thread is that it seems to be dominant on getting the religious to have proof for their beliefs. I don't think one person has asked the non-religious to prove that there is no omnipotent. Why is that? Cheese, do you have proof that there is no god (lets leave Jesus out of this one) or only hearsay?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Seems like this thread is heading towards petty namecalling, let's keep it civil people.

One thing I find interesting with this thread is that it seems to be dominant on getting the religious to have proof for their beliefs. I don't think one person has asked the non-religious to prove that there is no omnipotent. Why is that? Cheese, do you have proof that there is no god (lets leave Jesus out of this one) or only hearsay?

You can't prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God.

I'm agnostic and hold out some hope, in the end, there is a God . . . . . or Gods.

Believing in God does not require the warm blanket of an organized religion.

But I've seen nothing to convince me there was a Jesus and that in turn leads me to believe Christianity is based on a false precept.

Cowperson

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Seems like this thread is heading towards petty namecalling, let's keep it civil people.

One thing I find interesting with this thread is that it seems to be dominant on getting the religious to have proof for their beliefs. I don't think one person has asked the non-religious to prove that there is no omnipotent. Why is that? Cheese, do you have proof that there is no god (lets leave Jesus out of this one) or only hearsay?

As Cow so aptly put it...

You can't prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God.

The burden of proof lies directly on the Priest...or anyone else for that matter to prove beyond a doubt that there was a Jesus.
I think that between myself and quite a few others we have provided links to a great number of sites that place doubt...and in fact convincing doubt that there ever was a historical Jesus as written in the Christian Bible.

Unlike Cow...I dont hold out any hope for a God, there are far better things to concern myself and my families lives with than that of an omnipresent.

[Vulcan]

Cheese, you seem to have based your nonbelief on whether Jesus actually lived or not. Probably two thirds of the world don't relate Jesus to god at all. There are other possibleties to finding god. If you like to keep your head in the sand by declaring their is no god without a thorough personal search, I find your arguements of little worth. I can only put people into two classifications. Those who know and those who don't and each of us can only answer that question for ourselfs.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

As Cow so aptly put it...

The burden of proof lies directly on the Priest...or anyone else for that matter to prove beyond a doubt that there was a Jesus.
I think that between myself and quite a few others we have provided links to a great number of sites that place doubt...and in fact convincing doubt that there ever was a historical Jesus as written in the Christian Bible.

Unlike Cow...I dont hold out any hope for a God, there are far better things to concern myself and my families lives with than that of an omnipresent.

And yet you spend a lot of time on here trying to prove to others that there isn't a God....


As for the 'death of the soul' comment you wish me to prove, I'm afraid I don't have my Bible here in front of me, however, if you read the Book of Revelation, those souls who were good before Jesus are to rise up, (as there was no life after death before Jesus,) meaning that the soul would not die for those who believe and follow the Bible. However, you also fail to realize that the rules changed with Jesus. So if you're preaching the Old Testament to a Christian, you're barking up the wrong tree. While my soul may no longer die if I do not honour my parents, a lot of that hinges on my believe in Jesus as the Christ.

Besides, how do I prove anything to one who does not believe in the Bible, especially if the prove of those words is also there?

Seriously Cheese, for someone who has better things to do with their time, you sure do spend a lot of time 'preaching' and bringing your anti-religious speal to this forum. I guess while you may have better things to do, it doesn't take that long to do them....

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Cheese, you seem to have based your nonbelief on whether Jesus actually lived or not. Probably two thirds of the world don't relate Jesus to god at all. There are other possibleties to finding god. If you like to keep your head in the sand by declaring their is no god without a thorough personal search, I find your arguements of little worth. I can only put people into two classifications. Those who know and those who don't and each of us can only answer that question for ourselfs.

Vulcan,
Again...and this is probably the 25th time or more Ive mentioned this. I WAS a religious person a long time ago. I am not an 18 year old person. I have lived a full life to this point and have experienced religion(s) first hand. I think I have enough experience in these religions to make as valid an argument as anyone here. I personally dont care whether you find little worth in my arguments...it makes zero difference to me.
You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care.
I draw the line at teaching children lies and fallacies. Teach it as the myth it is.
I have never once on this board suggested that anyone stop believing in anything. I have asked for valid proof...as has Cow and trout and many others. Yet you pick me out of the crowd. So be it. Prove your theories before teaching it as "gospel" to unknowing children!

[Frank the Tank]

How can anyone beleive there is a god when you look at what goes on in the world today? I don't get that. But then the inherent flaw to most religion is to be selectively thankful, but never blameful. Makes no sense.

[transplant99]

But then the inherent flaw to most religion is to be selectively thankful, but never blameful. Makes no sense.

Why would God be to blame for man made misery?

Thats what makes no sense.

[Frank the Tank]

I didn't realize the tsunamis were man-made. Or the flooding in New Orleans.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And yet you spend a lot of time on here trying to prove to others that there isn't a God....


As for the 'death of the soul' comment you wish me to prove, I'm afraid I don't have my Bible here in front of me, however, if you read the Book of Revelation, those souls who were good before Jesus are to rise up, (as there was no life after death before Jesus,) meaning that the soul would not die for those who believe and follow the Bible. However, you also fail to realize that the rules changed with Jesus. So if you're preaching the Old Testament to a Christian, you're barking up the wrong tree. While my soul may no longer die if I do not honour my parents, a lot of that hinges on my believe in Jesus as the Christ.

Besides, how do I prove anything to one who does not believe in the Bible, especially if the prove of those words is also there?

Seriously Cheese, for someone who has better things to do with their time, you sure do spend a lot of time 'preaching' and bringing your anti-religious speal to this forum. I guess while you may have better things to do, it doesn't take that long to do them....

Fly...I have gone through this before as well. Would you prefer that I shut up and just let religions do as they please?
IF religions are free to preach then why not me? Seems I live in a free country and if I want to tell people what I think thats my choice? You seem to have no problem with that in the least.
I did believe at one point Fly...before i knew the lies, inconsistencies and the hypocrisy of it all. Dont you worry about what I do with my time...I have ample time to discuss this, which is close to my heart...as much so as religion is close to yours. I promise I wont send you a collection plate though!
My anti religion shpiel is...prove your point. You cant, so you tell me to stop preaching....basically the same thing Im asking the Priests to do.
That is what you have a problem with.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I didn't realize the tsunamis were man-made. Or the flooding in New Orleans.

And then there is the infamous pronounciation of Pat Robertson recently that IF Pennsylvania has tornado or flood problems, its because God wasn't there to stop it after the state denied intelligent design in classrooms.

Meanwhile, the hardcore Muslim insurgents in Indonesia say the tsunami was a result of people not being pious enough. God was angry. And then they point to the fact that many Mosques were left standing - but nothing else - as further evidence.

Disaster is often used by organized religion to keep people in line.

Cowperson

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Fly...I have gone through this before as well. Would you prefer that I shut up and just let religions do as they please?
IF religions are free to preach then why not me? Seems I live in a free country and if I want to tell people what I think thats my choice? You seem to have no problem with that in the least.
I did believe at one point Fly...before i knew the lies, inconsistencies and the hypocrisy of it all. Dont you worry about what I do with my time...I have ample time to discuss this, which is close to my heart...as much so as religion is close to yours. I promise I wont send you a collection plate though!
My anti religion shpiel is...prove your point. You cant, so you tell me to stop preaching....basically the same thing Im asking the Priests to do.
That is what you have a problem with.

You have no proof there is no God, much like I have no proof there is. Yet you are teaching that there absolutely is no God. I don't care which God is the 'right' one, or even if any versions we currently pray to are accurate, my point is that while I have no proof in Christ, that doesn't negate there being a God, just not the Christian God. Yet you tell people there absolutely is no God.

Try to refrain from putting words in my mouth Cheese. I don't care if you do or do not believe. I don't preach to anyone, and I expect that same courtesy in return. If I choose to go to Church, THEN I wish to be preached at. If you have an issue with someone preaching to you, tell THEM! You'll notice I never hop into these threads until well after the discussion has started, and yet you and other anti-religious persons on the site seem to always be starting threads like this one. You are the one who keeps bringing it all up, and yet you tell me that if I'm allowed to preach, you should also be able to?

Also, you have no idea how close religion is to my heart. You don't know how far or close I am to the church, whether I go every Sunday, or anything about my personal beliefs. You don't know if I pass over the collection plate or not, yet you jab. Always jabbing.

Religions have done some bad things. They've also done some really good things as well. Why can't you accept that some people like to believe there's something more to live than the hell we're put through on Earth? As I've said before, a 'zealot' without religion is still a psycho.

Every single thread on religion turns into a 'you're wrong, and I want you to prove to me that Jesus existed' thread. Some of us have faith in things we can't explain. Do you ever stop to ask why the 'big bang' can't be properly explained? You ever ask yourself what happens if something mystical did cause it? No. You just assume science will get to it one day. It's another form of faith, Cheese. Just another religion.

Science caused the atomic bomb, but you don't blame science for those deaths, you just look at the horrors religion caused. I might have to tell you that the horrors science has caused/is causing are just as, if not worse.