Imagine a small shack in Bethlehem (or wherever the hell Jesus was born). Born to a raped mother (or possbly a prostitute) and a poor shepherd father (Mary and Joe Christ) in a shack, Jesus Christ would go on to achieve many great things.


Through the use of propaganda, lies, and cheap parlor tricks, a crazed arrogant man (hence his "disciples") became the most known and worshipped man in the history of our world (Cept maybe Pam's boobs). It is the fault of common propaganda and inflammatory speeches that our world isnt a better place. Its all cause of that one man's ability to fool people. Once Jesus had followers, the chain kept spreading and spreading, until even though you wouldnt accept the truth, you were pressured into by the twelve disciples (a.k.a "Shock Troopers")

When you think about it, Jesus Christ pulled off the biggest scam ever. He was a very smart man, possibly even a little crazy. But he got people's attention, and when he had their attention, he could take everything else.


If Jesus was born last year, he would only become the next David Copperfield-and thats ironic-they've pulled off some similiar tricks.


(NOTE:This is just my opinion. Don't attack me, I am trying to create a meaningful debate with excellent points. Now lets all act like intelligible adults and debate instead of insult.)

Originally posted by Unregistered
When you think about it, Jesus Christ pulled off the biggest scam ever. He was a very smart man, possibly even a little crazy. But he got people's attention, and when he had their attention, he could take everything else.

I'm not too sure about your interpretation. Do you have anything to back it up or is it purely hypothetical?

Whether or not an individual named Jesus was the source or the sect began with a small group of people "Christianity" is an interesting offshoot of Judaism. However, the person most directly responsible for the proliferation of Christianity was Paul.

His evangelization to the Gentiles, specifically the Romans, and especially his alteration of Jewish tradition made the Christian religion acceptable to the Romans. (Note: There is some evidence that there was quite a bit of dissention over his alterations.) Eventually Christianity inserted itself into the power structure of the Roman Empire assuring it's widespread survival.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
Originally posted by Unregistered
When you think about it, Jesus Christ pulled off the biggest scam ever. He was a very smart man, possibly even a little crazy. But he got people's attention, and when he had their attention, he could take everything else.

I'm not too sure about your interpretation. Do you have anything to back it up or is it purely hypothetical?

~Raithere

It is purely hypothetical, but chances are its true. Its a very logical deduction.

IMHO-you're being too extreme
he gained nothing but his death from it
he's phylosophy was used by others
personally I have nothing against Yeshua...it was his later followers who built christianity

if it wasn't christianity, then it was judaism or some other religion now

Now lets all act like intelligible adults and debate instead of insult.)

What is there to debate? Are we to argue against your imagination?

First, off, your naming of "Joe Christ" is off. Its not a proper first and last name. Christ meant the annointed one or something like that. But by the time of Paul it becames synonymous with Jesus (ergo Jesus Christ). I don't even remember any references to "last names" in the Bible.

Wouldn't it have been Jesus ben Joseph?

""""""Through the use of propaganda, lies, and cheap parlor tricks, a crazed arrogant man (hence his "disciples") """""""""

I can simply flip that:

Through compassion, love, the telling of truth and the performing of miracles, this sinless and perfect man with a lot of charisma (hence his disciples)

See? Your statement does not actually argue a position. Its merely your speculation. You have offered no evidence in favor of your "logical deduction." As such, there is nothing to debate here. The same goes for the rest of your comments.

Jesus christ was a great teacher and I think that all of us have something to learn from him.
A measure of his greatness I think is that so much of what he taught survived the violent, evil, corrupt, life denying sinkhole of instuitionalized christianity.
If we could practice what he taught in our daily lives the world would certianly be a better place.
Institutionalized christianity is all about judging "those others" who arent like us and thats its main problem, yet their greatest prophet said "let those who are without sin cast the first stone".
Every great religious tradition has something to teach us, with christianity the problem is that you have to wade through so much dross to get to the gold that the temptation is to just chuck the whole thing.

Originally posted by Unregistered
It is purely hypothetical, but chances are its true. Its a very logical deduction.

Purely hypothetical indeed. I don't see any deduction at all and chances are that the details of the Bible are far enough from the literal truth that even if you had used deduction it would have no resemblance to the truth in any way.

BTW if your desire is "Don't attack me, I am trying to create a meaningful debate with excellent points. Now lets all act like intelligible adults and debate instead of insult." then you might not want to begin with language that most people find insulting, such as; "raped mother", "prostitute", "propaganda, lies, and cheap parlor tricks", "crazed", "Shock Troopers", "scam" and think about providing some actual content. In particular you might think of brining some evidence to the table or giving a rational argument rather than blessing us with pure supposition.

Thus far all it looks like to me is an attempt to offend Christians. You're trolling.

~Raithere

Exactly. I was not creating a debate, I was drawing a parallel to the fact that religion is unsubstantiated. Therefore, both sides commit lies and ect. Thank you for giving the response I was expecting.

(Note: This is not meant to be an example of a proper debate, but an example of questionability. If this is made a sticky or what be it I need to point out that this is NOT how you debate.)

Now, I admit, this is probably an un-needed comment from my part...

But I'm sorry, Unregistered but me thinks that you realized what a doofy thing you said, and then to keep some face, resorted to forming a really stupid response to the whole thing.

Originally posted by Tinker683
Now, I admit, this is probably an un-needed comment from my part...

But I'm sorry, Unregistered but me thinks that you realized what a doofy thing you said, and then to keep some face, resorted to forming a really stupid response to the whole thing.


Not the case.

According to the Romans of the period,Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Greek soldier.
Adopted by a man called Joseph & given the name Joshua Bah Joseph.
He was re-named Jesus after his death,by the Greeks who believed him to be the foretold prophet of God.

Originally posted by odin
According to the Romans of the period,Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Greek soldier.
Adopted by a man called Joseph & given the name Joshua Bah Joseph.
He was re-named Jesus after his death,by the Greeks who believed him to be the foretold prophet of God.

Where is your evidence to back up this claim? You sure? I would like to see.

I think Jesus was a really good man. He was probably altruistic and possessed all those 'good' abilities. A very wise and intelligent man. Maybe he saw all the horrors of the world and wanted to change it. Therefore he started to preach, but would people just follow 'to be good'?? Then he probably thought of a higher power so that people would then want to do good for a reason. Besides, everybody wants to do something for a reason, every human being. But anyways, just my thought.

No-one seems to be interested in drawing any conclusions from the recurring themes of death and resurrection in many religions. The similarities in names, stories...

I'm with you, Unreg.

And could it be that 'Jesus', if he did indeed exist at all, is merely a retelling of other stories from earlier beliefs and religions that christianity in its infinte wisom adapted, then stomped on?

I for one do not feel his daily presence in my life, man.

:p

Where is your evidence to back up this claim? You sure? I would like to see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not my claim.It is a stated fact in ancient Roman history,& can be found in several documents of the period.
I believe it can also be found in the diaries of Claudius.

Originally posted by Unregistered
Imagine a small shack in Bethlehem (or wherever the hell Jesus was born). Born to a raped mother (or possbly a prostitute) and a poor shepherd father (Mary and Joe Christ) in a shack, Jesus Christ would go on to achieve many great things.


Through the use of propaganda, lies, and cheap parlor tricks, a crazed arrogant man (hence his "disciples") became the most known and worshipped man in the history of our world (Cept maybe Pam's boobs). It is the fault of common propaganda and inflammatory speeches that our world isnt a better place. Its all cause of that one man's ability to fool people. Once Jesus had followers, the chain kept spreading and spreading, until even though you wouldnt accept the truth, you were pressured into by the twelve disciples (a.k.a "Shock Troopers")

When you think about it, Jesus Christ pulled off the biggest scam ever. He was a very smart man, possibly even a little crazy. But he got people's attention, and when he had their attention, he could take everything else.


If Jesus was born last year, he would only become the next David Copperfield-and thats ironic-they've pulled off some similiar tricks.


(NOTE:This is just my opinion. Don't attack me, I am trying to create a meaningful debate with excellent points. Now lets all act like intelligible adults and debate instead of insult.)


Sheer brilliance. I believe I will now burn all my Bibles and join a free-love cult. Thanks!

-Mike

Originally posted by dickbaby
No-one seems to be interested in drawing any conclusions from the recurring themes of death and resurrection in many religions. The similarities in names, stories...

I'm with you, Unreg.

And could it be that 'Jesus', if he did indeed exist at all, is merely a retelling of other stories from earlier beliefs and religions that christianity in its infinte wisom adapted, then stomped on?

I for one do not feel his daily presence in my life, man.

:p

Exactly. Christianity as we know it was spring boarded off Paganism. Scary, how they can take something, and just change it into a huge worldwide organization. They just did a little name changing and prodded....an voila! Christianity!

Originally posted by Ekimklaw



Sheer brilliance. I believe I will now burn all my Bibles and join a free-love cult. Thanks!

-Mike

I knew you'd com around sometime. I'm glad I could help you put your life on track.

Originally posted by Unregistered
Exactly. I was not creating a debate, I was drawing a parallel to the fact that religion is unsubstantiated. Therefore, both sides commit lies and ect.

It is entirely possible that Unregistered was drawing a parallel and did not mean for his post to be taken factually. Why he would do this without anouncing in his thread is shady. The only reason I can see is to draw out exactly the kind of response he got. If he was trying to draw a valid parallel he would have stated something like, "Here is a claim of which I have little or no proof, does the christian view of Jesus have any more validaty?" Not doing so merely requests to be flamed for ignorance and have ones intelligence and education called into question.

If Jesus was born last year, he would only become the next David Copperfield-and thats ironic-they've pulled off some similiar tricks.
You give this Jeus fellow too much credit. He jsut walked on water and payed people off to pretend they were healed. Copperfield can make the statue of liberty dissapear.

And think that all this culminated in an attck on some Jewish moneychangers. He and 10-15 followers assaulted some poor dolt and then tried to flee. That was the whole of what we can get from the stories.
Avatar: he's phylosophy was used by others
Actually any philosophy that can be weaned has more to do with the four people who told contradictory stories about an individual who died 70-100 years earlier. For all we know they made this person up.

"Actually any philosophy that can be weaned has more to do with the four people who told contradictory stories about an individual who died 70-100 years earlier. For all we know they made this person up"

contradictory stories? what fundemental contradictions are you talking about which relate remotly to their motivation for writing their stories down?

made person up? Jesus is recorded by christians, Romans, and Jews. People do not respect you if you write letters about imaginary friends who died 15 years ago. because people have real friends and ask their real friends about your imaginary friend.
the probability of these people [authors] all having the same imaginary friend?

"I knew you'd com around sometime. I'm glad I could help you put your life on track"
do not judge another's life track unless you know for sure where it is going.

peace uall

contradictory stories? what fundemental contradictions are you talking about which relate remotly to their motivation for writing their stories down?
When you have multiple accounts of a story 100 years after the fact there are bound to be some discrephencies. That means they are third or fourth parties to the story.
made person up? Jesus is recorded by christians, Romans, and Jews.
There are no Roman records. There is a wealth of christian records (duh! they would be the ones to invent the man). You are incorrect in your pluralization of "Jews;" instead there is but one Jewish record of Jesus. It is a footnote in a history of the Jews (title escapes me now) about a small cult within the Jewish community. None of this proves that he existed. We know that Caesar existed because of the very thorough records of the Romans. Meticulous + agreement in all sources=truth. None of the Jesus myths have any of that equation.
the probability of these people [authors] all having the same imaginary friend?
What if I told one person and they believed in my imaginary friend. Then they told others until it became a cult. Wouldn't you say that might take 70-100 years before it caught on?

I think that a Jesus did exist. I do not think this person could cast magic, and we know for sure that if he did exist he never had more than 15 followers. He was probably the result of a marital affair. The only thing that he did that is plausable is knocking over a money changers table and being executed.

Teg wrote:

... there is but one Jewish record of Jesus. It is a footnote in a history of the Jews (title escapes me now) about a small cult within the Jewish community. None of this proves that he existed.
Josephus

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Antiquities 20.9.1. "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

-- see Testimonium Flavium (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html)
As noted in Kirby's excellent site, there is good reason to believe that the first is a partial or complete interpolation.

I cant beleive that u dare to write things like that!? Do u think god will come down and SHOW u that he exists because of what u have written, and then u will beleive because u know!!?? Have u even read the bible?? How can jesus be some kind of scamming genius/madman when he came back from the dead!?? Over 500 people saw him walking around the streets after he had been killed. Also, other people were tortured and killed withought refuting what they had seen! Why would they die for a lie!?? Its u who issues propaganda. I bet ull even start to now say that they all were just saying it because they wanted their religion to carry on yeah? They died without refuting it so people in the future would beleive in it and therefore, follow thier religion. That they died for this. Have u ever thought that it might have actually happened!!??

p.s U dont want to start an arguement with what uve written!? Well maybe u should consider people who might beleive in it. U have attacked thier beliefs and laughed at their faith!! U should be careful what u write/say!!! (this is not a threat.) i would love to know if uve ever looked at the bible. BTW. How old are u??

p.s.
you can awake after you are thought to be dead from others

head contusia, shock, faint etc etc

it's quite common to wake people after death nowadays - and noone says them to be gods

I cant beleive that u dare to write things like that!?

I cant beleive it either.

Do u think god will come down and SHOW u that he exists because of what u have written, and then u will beleive because u know!!?? Have u even read the bible?? How can jesus be some kind of scamming genius/madman when he came back from the dead!??

What makes you think Jesus came back from the dead? Because the Bible says so?

Well, my little sister has a book about this kid whose parents were killed by an evil wizard, but he amazingly survives and becomes a wizard himself.

Over 500 people saw him walking around the streets after he had been killed.

Harry Potter has lots of friends who saw him do various magic tricks.

Also, other people were tortured and killed withought refuting what they had seen! Why would they die for a lie!??

I'm willing to die to affirm the truth of athiesm. Ergo, there is no God.

How many people died for Communism? How many soultherners died to defend their "right" to keep slaves? You think their deaths were pleasent?

p.s U dont want to start an arguement with what uve written!? Well maybe u should consider people who might beleive in it. U have attacked thier beliefs and laughed at their faith!! U should be careful what u write/say!!! (this is not a threat.) i would love to know if uve ever looked at the bible. BTW. How old are u??

Deal with it, honey. People will laugh at you. This is called life.

As for being careful what you write, I wouldn't issue threats.

laugh and world will laugh with you
cry - and world will laugh even louder

forgot where I read this

I have never said this before,but I really appreciate a lot of your posts Xev!

</body></html><html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body>Xev, I must say that you've really outdone yourself this time.

Pete-- you have the logic + reasoning capabilities of a really, really, really high amœba.

How can jesus be some kind of scamming genius/madman when he came back from the dead!?? Over 500 people saw him walking around the streets after he had been killed.

Please tell me how exactly, without TV and newspaper photos, hundreds of people were able to recognise him? Are Elvis sightings also true? (Just a thought).


Also, other people were tortured and killed withought refuting what they had seen! Why would they die for a lie!??

Perhaps because other people lied? Like the witches in the middle ages, and the Salem witch hunts of the 1690s, they died because someone had an agenda for power and wanted them to die, regardless. And how do you know they didn't refute that they'd seen.

On the other hand, we could follow your thinking and say, Guess they really were witches, because they died, huh? huh?

odin:

Aww! You like me! You really like me!

Pete-- you have the logic + reasoning capabilities of a really, really, really high amœba.

Good one, GB!

You know, I would die to defend the truth of Great Cthulhu. Does that mean He exists?

p_ete2001 wrote:

i would love to know if uve ever looked at the bible. BTW. How old are u??
The answers are "yes" and "57 next month" respectively.

Your remaining comments/questions were a bit incoherent.

Truth Seeker would have said that truth the exists

where is he, damn:(


oh, and I didn't even mention the possibility that the rising wrom the dead was a fake, because they won't believe in it also.

and this is another likable possibility


*I just love Pete's grammar
he must be a new born teen american christian

1. im not american
2.im not a teen
3.i was writing fast.dont care if my grammArs BAD. u must have understood it anyway

I dont think that jesus just fainted :-s he was stabbed in the side with a spear AFTER all of the other stuff (crucifixion etc)
i cant beleive ur all even argueing over whether jesus even existed!! I think christianity is based on a little emore than harry potter :confused:
You know, I would die to defend the truth of Great Cthulhu. Does that mean He exists?

I would bet all the money in the world that u wouldnt!!!!!!!

cant be bothered replying to the rest. (all talking cr*p anyway)

So u all think that it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for jesus to come back from the dead!!?? I suppose if id have told u all that a massive universe could actually exist that was so big, u couldnt even imagine its size and all of the things in it. Noones knows where it came from, what we are doing here. We live on a tiny planet in the middle of nowhere. It circles a big ball of fire and so do many other 'big rocks'. Our planet has its own little moon that circles it. God knows what else is out there and u refuse to beleieve that it is possible, for someone to come back from the dead!!?? Esp. Somene who died for his beleif in god.

Let me just say this. Either view, atheism/religion is based on faith. Neither can prove that a god does/doesnt exist. But!!!!.........how can so many people from different continents who never even knew the other existed, record similar beliefs i.e. that a supreme being exists. There are loads of different religions. Are they all making it up!!??

..how can so many people from different continents who never even knew the other existed, record similar beliefs i.e. that a supreme being exists. There are loads of different religions. Are they all making it up!!??
yes- they all are made up.

it is to our nature to explain natural phenomena
if we can't explain, we think of an explanation- it has always been like that- from the most primitive tribes (many spirits for each - lightning, sea, water, storm), to more advanced civilizations (greeks- only some dozen of gods), to our time - not so many religions (4big) and small amount of gods, which over time explain even less and less.

There will always be a place for god, but that's not the question or answer.

the thing is that- through time gods/supernatural beings explain less and less, they become not needed and so many stop to believe in them. It's been a movement to this dirrection since the first sacriface

there really are no gods- there is only our will to explain things which we can't explain with our current level of technology/science


as for the nowaday believers

"After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave--a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown.--And we--we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

--Friedrich Nietzsche
(thanx Xev)


btw- from where are you from then

pete:

1. im not american
2.im not a teen

Hey, did I ask a/s/l ? No.

I dont think that jesus just fainted :-s he was stabbed in the side with a spear AFTER all of the other stuff (crucifixion etc)
i cant beleive ur all even argueing over whether jesus even existed!! I think christianity is based on a little emore than harry potter

Well, Harry Potter is explicitly fiction. Perhaps the disclaimer page to the Bible got lost over the years. :p

I would bet all the money in the world that u wouldnt!!!!!!!

Oh I would. I am high priestess of the Terrible Old One, and my life means very little to me anyways. I think this would be a very funny way to die.

So u all think that it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for jesus to come back from the dead!!??

No, only extrordinarily unlikely. Cthulhu could exist, Harry Potter could exist, hell, even God might exist. But there's utterly no evidence.

I suppose if id have told u all that a massive universe could actually exist that was so big, u couldnt even imagine its size and all of the things in it. Noones knows where it came from, what we are doing here. We live on a tiny planet in the middle of nowhere. It circles a big ball of fire and so do many other 'big rocks'. Our planet has its own little moon that circles it.

There is evidence for these things. There is no evidence that God exists or that Jesus rose from the dead.

God knows what else is out there and u refuse to beleieve that it is possible, for someone to come back from the dead!!?? Esp. Somene who died for his beleif in god.

Think of it this way - humans have existed for half a million years. We have been recording history for 6000 years. In those 6000 years, there are only a few accounts of people or Gods rising from the dead.

You can draw the conclusion...

Let me just say this. Either view, atheism/religion is based on faith. Neither can prove that a god does/doesnt exist.

Very few athiests claim that God absolutely does not exist. In any case, it is more logical to not actively believe in God.

But!!!!.........how can so many people from different continents who never even knew the other existed, record similar beliefs i.e. that a supreme being exists. There are loads of different religions. Are they all making it up!!??

All humans have fathers and mothers, do they not? As Freud noted, God is the ultimate paternal symbol.

Furthermore, religions are very diverse. Are Yahwah and Aphrodite really that simular? So simular that you can say they are descriptions of the same thing?

I think not.

No, only extrordinarily unlikely. Cthulhu could exist, Harry Potter could exist, hell, even God might exist. But there's utterly no evidence. NO! that is why it is a question of faith.There is evidence for these things. There is no evidence that God exists or that Jesus rose from the dead. Show me proof, evidence that u love the people closest to u!Think of it this way - humans have existed for half a million years. We have been recording history for 6000 years. In those 6000 years, there are only a few accounts of people or Gods rising from the dead. and out of everyone that has existed, how many believed so much that they were prepared to die for him!?? 1 or 2!! the thing is that- through time gods/supernatural beings explain less and less, they become not needed and so many stop to believe in them. It's been a movement to this dirrection since the first sacriface and since people have started to follow god less and less, wouldnt u say that the world had become a more morally corrupt one!!?btw- from where are you from then im from england. u?

Teg ^^^^^^^^^ idiot! :p As Freud noted, God is the ultimate paternal symbol. who cares what frued thinks. he was a loon :p

Pete:
NO! that is why it is a question of faith.

Exactly. Which is illogical.

Show me proof, evidence that u love the people closest to u!

Who says I "love" anyone? Do you even know what love is?

This is off topic. In any case, I've never claimed to love anyone- at least not to you, and certianly not on these boards.

But Christianity does claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

They've made a claim, now the burden of proof is on them.

and out of everyone that has existed, how many believed so much that they were prepared to die for him!?? 1 or 2!!

Somewhere between 750,000 to 1,250,000 humans died in the American Civil war in order to defend their "right" to enslave other humans.

I do not believe in slavery, pete. I think it is an evil thing - and I rarely use the word evil. I apply negative value judgements to the word even less often.

The fact that people died for Christianity does not make it true. How many people were martyred rather than be forcibly converted to Christianity? How many lie "raped, crushed, broken...Neath the Christian war machine"

Do you want me to find the exact number of humans who were slaughtered in the name of your God?

According to some estimates, 1 million Nordic/Pagans died at the hands of the early Christians. This is likely inflated, but do you want me to find how many people were murdered in the name of your God?

I do hope you realize that this does not disprove your God, either. Whether people are willing to die for something has nothing to do with whether it is true.

and since people have started to follow god less and less, wouldnt u say that the world had become a more morally corrupt one!!?

Morality is subjective, thus this statement is moot. Even if morality was absolute, you've shown no evidence that the world is less moral.

If anything, it is more moral now that people are not killing quite as much in the name of your God. :rolleyes:

Thank you very much. There is actually a site dedicated to this:

http://www.atheists.org/church/contradictions.html

Pete needs a reality check:

I dont think that jesus just fainted :-s he was stabbed in the side with a spear AFTER all of the other stuff (crucifixion etc)
i cant beleive ur all even argueing over whether jesus even existed!! I think christianity is based on a little emore than harry potter
You base all of this on a single written text. Nothing verifiable, only one side of the story, recognizable embelishments and all, you buy this load of garbage...that is a sad thought.
So u all think that it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for jesus to come back from the dead!!??
As others have said it is possible, just not likely. And not for any phenomenal period as it was stated in the bible.
I suppose if id have told u all that a massive universe could actually exist that was so big, u couldnt even imagine its size and all of the things in it. Noones knows where it came from, what we are doing here.
It didn't come from anywhere, it has always occupied this, itself. Sure it might have been something else, such as planes of multiphased dimensionality. We have some idea of the composition from the light we get from distant stars.
We live on a tiny planet in the middle of nowhere
Actually we don't live in the middle of nowhere, because this is somewhere.
It circles a big ball of fire and so do many other 'big rocks'.
You are of course referring to our sun. Actually it doesn't circle but rather orbit in an elliptical pattern.
God knows what else is out there and u refuse to beleieve that it is possible, for someone to come back from the dead!!??
Those objects all follow the laws of physics. We are not immune to these laws. People, however, can be tricked. What about all those in Mexico who have visions of Mary in a wall, a tree, or any other inanimate object you can think of?
Either view, atheism/religion is based on faith
Atheism is a neutral assertion. It is the acceptance of that which can be proved. If God had proof this would change and atheism would instead require faith. No faith is needed to believe in that which is known.
Neither can prove that a god does/doesnt exist
That's not our burden. Any positive assertion requires proof. The negative assertion is held until that proof is found.
how can so many people from different continents who never even knew the other existed, record similar beliefs i.e. that a supreme being exists. There are loads of different religions. Are they all making it up!!??
The roots of almost all of these can be traced to Sumeria. Also we extrapolate a deity from many different cultures who believe in what is closer to voodoo. The deity is not so much a universal concept as much a universally copied method of control. It is the most efficient means to convince the poor to remain so. Do kind acts and you will be rewarded in the next life- nevermind that all of the have are amoral beasts.

If anything, it is more moral now that people are not killing quite as much in the name of your God. firsty, it is not my god. am not actually a christian. i do belive however that the whole of the bible should be studied before a decision is made. U would never look at a piece of food and say 'it tastes like sh*t' without even trying it would u!? Have u read all of the bible? or are u too scared that u would actually begin to believe? I do hope you realize that this does not disprove your God, either. Whether people are willing to die for something has nothing to do with whether it is true If someone is willing willing to die for their children, out of love, that doesnt prove that love exists??! Im not saying that willing to die for god mean thst he does exist. im just saying that someone must be so sure of it. U would call this madness right? Morality is subjective, thus this statement is moot. Even if morality was absolute, you've shown no evidence that the world is less moral i agree.But we do all have a similar knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. We all know that killing is wrong right! So there is some grounding in morality. I cannot prove that the world is less moral no. Maybe it is just communication and awareness that has gone up. But let me say this. I think it is safe quite safe to say that if there isnt a god, then the universe etc came from chance, coincidence. The theory that states this is called the chaos theory. Does the universe look like its in chaos to u!? The orbits of the planets, night and day. Everything works harmoniously. maybe it has taken lots of time to fall into this pattern and therefore allow life to flourish but i think that the fact that life even exists, shows that chaos is not really an acceptable theory (to me anyway lol). While it may be argued that chaos theory explains the creation of the universe and not the present one, chaos is destructive in nature. It does not create! Something must have come out of nothing.
I have more arguements for ur other points (well half ones anyway lol) but im tired so im going to bed. i will try to reply tomorrow.

It didn't come from anywhere, it has always occupied this, itself. Sure it might have been something else, such as planes of multiphased dimensionality crap! if it has always occupied itself then why is it quite confidently known that the universe is expanding?Actually we don't live in the middle of nowhere, because this is somewhere.You are of course referring to our sun. Actually it doesn't circle but rather orbit in an elliptical pattern Ok smart arse. (the sun is still a ball of fire :p What about all those in Mexico who have visions of Mary in a wall, a tree, or any other inanimate object you can think of? these people are also loons :D

Will continue tomorrow (today lol) My brain hurts. :(

Pete:
firsty, it is not my god. am not actually a christian. i do belive however that the whole of the bible should be studied before a decision is made. U would never look at a piece of food and say 'it tastes like sh*t' without even trying it would u!? Have u read all of the bible? or are u too scared that u would actually begin to believe?

I've read the whole Bible, and have studied many aspects of it in depth. I'd advise you to peruse the Lucifer thread, the "Rape in the Bible" thread, and my own "Suicide and the Bible" thread if you want confirmation of the depth of my knowledge.

It's rather silly to accuse a humanities nerd of not having read and studied the Bible, don't you think?

If someone is willing willing to die for their children, out of love, that doesnt prove that love exists??! Im not saying that willing to die for god mean thst he does exist. im just saying that someone must be so sure of it.

And what does it prove that someone is sure of God? It proves not a thing.

U would call this madness right?

Not really. Someone is willing to die for an ideal. I think it is beautiful.

I would die for any one of my ideals. If I am mad - well, the difference between me and a madman is that I am sane. ;)

i agree.But we do all have a similar knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. We all know that killing is wrong right!

I do not know this. I would regard many forms of killing (vigilanteism, for instance) as commendable, in certain instances.

So there is some grounding in morality. I cannot prove that the world is less moral no. Maybe it is just communication and awareness that has gone up.

*Smiles*

I'm glad you see this now.

But let me say this. I think it is safe quite safe to say that if there isnt a god, then the universe etc came from chance, coincidence. The theory that states this is called the chaos theory. Does the universe look like its in chaos to u!?

Pardon? I think you are confusing chaos theory, emergence, the second law of thermodynamics and the big bang theory.

The orbits of the planets, night and day.

Are less stable than you think. How much astrophysics do you know?

Everything works harmoniously. maybe it has taken lots of time to fall into this pattern and therefore allow life to flourish but i think that the fact that life even exists, shows that chaos is not really an acceptable theory (to me anyway lol). While it may be argued that chaos theory explains the creation of the universe and not the present one, chaos is destructive in nature. It does not create! Something must have come out of nothing.

You are confusing chaos and entropy. In any case, chaos is not "destructive in nature".

I have more arguements for ur other points (well half ones anyway lol) but im tired so im going to bed. i will try to reply tomorrow.

Sleep well.

Pete, hon,
Not everybody thinks killing is wrong. I certainly don't. If you don't believe in absolute morals, you don't believe killing is wrong.

By my PERSONAL morals it is wrong, however I have heard of many a real society that didn't believe it was wrong. IE human sacrifices, cannibalism, all of which people thought was a-ok. Many Christians even thought (some still do think but not nearly as many) that it's alright to kill in the name of religion, as long as you're killing people who don't believe (killing Pagans is better than killing Atheists, killing Atheists is better than killing Monotheists with different beliefs)

It is not human nature to believe that killing is wrong. Given the two following scenarios:
------------------------------
100 babies packed into a ship are shipwrecked on an island. There is barely enough food to keep half of them alive, only half. There are 2 apes there that will raise them, a male and a female adult that are hardly ever present. After 5 years, 5~20 of the youngsters may be dead not from hunger but from HOMICIDE by others who realized that if these people aren't alive, they don't need food, and therefore there is more food for those that are alive. At 10 years, 40% of the original human population has been MURDERED. Everybody, however, is still skin-and-bones and barely surviving. At 15 years, 60~75% of the original population has been MURDERED. At this point, the food supply decreases so that it is enough to supply only 10% of the original population, as a minimum. Before age 20, 95% of the original population has been murdered, leaving 2 MALES and the females they have kept alive for MATES. (3 women to 2 men is better than the other way, as it will produce more children) These people eat a normal amount of food so that they can maintain a normal weight and maintain it forever. Before the women give birth, the food decreases more, but instead of killing each other, the men and women kill half of the babies (INFANTOCIDE) out of nessecity. This repeats for generations upon generations and is a way of keeping population in control.

Oh, did I mention that all those killed were eaten by everybody else? A large feast to put some meat on those bones...

Blood can be used to quench thirst, it is a good source of water. Of course after a few deaths from sickness it is realized that blood should be boiled over a fire before being drunken. It is drinken with flesh at feasts.

Bones are ground into powder in the day by the women on stones, collected in stone nearly-flat bowls, and mixed with some of the blood so that nothing goes to waste. Eyes, hearts, brain, lungs, etc are eaten with the rest of the body.

XEV: my hotmail account has alerted me that you have just replied, I'd appreciate it if you could touch on this post too :)

PS
it was believed by some medieval Carribean societies that if one ate the flesh of another, he acquired the knowledge and capabilities of the person he ate.

GB:
Blood can be used to quench thirst, it is a good source of water. Of course after a few deaths from sickness it is realized that blood should be boiled over a fire before being drunken. It is drinken with flesh at feasts.

Bones are ground into powder in the day by the women on stones, collected in stone nearly-flat bowls, and mixed with some of the blood so that nothing goes to waste. Eyes, hearts, brain, lungs, etc are eaten with the rest of the body.

Thanks a whole lot for ruining my diet by making me hungry! :p

That's a good example, though. Killing is not always wrong, even by the most objective standards of morality that people have tried to create (Objectivism, Utilitarianism, etc).

It is most logical to say that morality is subjective. I have a feeling that Pete will respond with something like "Yeah well, Xev, how would you like it if you were murdered!"

The answer is that it doesn't matter what I want. All that really matters here is whether I have the power to protect myself and others weaker than myself from those, truely weak people, who threaten us.

This isn't nice or pretty - but it does not matter what is nice and pretty. All that matters is what is.

Avatar
"it is to our nature to explain natural phenomena"
explain big bang without String/multiple Universes theory

Xev
"Well, Harry Potter is explicitly fiction. Perhaps the disclaimer page to the Bible got lost over the years"
no historian laughs at their documents [whether they contain reliable information or not]

Xev
"There is no evidence that God exists or that Jesus rose from the dead"
i am very sorry but that is not the case (referring to Jesus ressurection not existance of God). but just because there is evidence doesn't mean it happened

Xev
"God is the ultimate paternal symbol"
this may be true but stick to the topic

Xev
"Morality is subjective"
then why don't we murder everyone who threatens our line's existance?

Teg
"You base all of this on a single written text"
I am sorry the new testament is not a single written text

Teg
"Actually it doesn't circle but rather orbit in an elliptical pattern"
i question your motive for bringing this up

GB-GIL Trans-global
"Many Christians even thought... that it's alright to kill in the name of religion"
Matthew recounts Jesus saying this: 5:21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[1] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment ... anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell"
a christian is a follower of 'Christ'. were they christians?

"killing is wrong"
this is not mentioned in any of the 66 books contained in the bible [murder is]

"When you have multiple accounts of a story 100 years after the fact there are bound to be some discrephencies"
the question was not discrephencies, the question was "what fundemental contradictions are you talking about which relate remotly to their motivation for writing their stories down?"
[NB i am not sure where u get 70->100 years later... the first letters written about Jesus occur 15 years after his death (by a dude called Paul who had been stoning christians for the last 15 years)]

we should not put down each otherbut rather comment other each other's opinions if they are relevant to the story of 'Jesus'

peace uall

Dude:
no historian laughs at their documents [whether they contain reliable information or not]

I never claimed to be a historian, did I?

I'm 18. I have no qualifications in anything, little formal education and no future.

I'm an enthusiast, not a historian.

i am very sorry but that is not the case (referring to Jesus ressurection not existance of God). but just because there is evidence doesn't mean it happened

Actually, it is the case. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. There are some nice fairy tales that no sober historian would credit as "evidence", but that's about it.

this may be true but stick to the topic

Mind your place and don't try to give orders to your superiors, newb.

then why don't we murder everyone who threatens our line's existance?

Honey, the only "lines" here are whatever you have been snorting.

In any case, why don't we murder anyone we please? For the higher man, because he does not feel like it. For the small man, because he'd go to jail.

i question your motive for bringing this up

I was questioning your intelligence, but halfway through your post I realized it did not exist for me to question.

5:21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[1] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment ... anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell"
a christian is a follower of 'Christ'. were they christians?

"There was only one true Christian, and he died on the Cross"

A Christian is somebody who has accepted Jesus as the Christ, the Redeemer, and claims to follow Him.

this is not mentioned in any of the 66 books contained in the bible [murder is]

Nice job quoting GB-Gil out of context. :rolleyes:

Idiot.

rephrasing Xev

I never claimed to be a astrophysicist, did I?

I'm 18. I have no qualifications in anything, little formal education.

I'm an enthusiast, not a physicist.

dude182 wrote:

Xev
"There is no evidence that God exists or that Jesus rose from the dead"

i am very sorry but that is not the case (referring to Jesus ressurection not existance of God).
And I am very sorry but, in fact, there is no evidence of a resurrection, simply stories with zero probative value. The textual 'evidence' would be laughed out of court.

Xev
"Mind your place and don't try to give orders to your superiors, newb." i found this page using google. and i thought this was a discussion where there were no superiors. in regards to
"God is the ultimate paternal symbol". i thought threads were topic based, and since this topic is rather broad already it would be more helpful if we stuck to it rather than brininging in our opinions on other broad issues such as the character of God. i am sorry if i was out of place.

"There was only one true Christian, and he died on the Cross"
Jesus was not a christian. [he happened to be a jew but that is irrelevant]. i am not sure what you mean by 'True'? a christian is a follower of Christ.
[follow implies an attitude. we are not perfect and we cannot follow anybody's instructions perfectly regardless of who they are. but we can still have an attitude to want to follow them. did they? God knows. i asked the question not so that we can judge them but we can examine the situation without necessarily calling every shiad terrrorist a muslim].

"I was questioning your intelligence, but halfway through your post I realized it did not exist for me to question"
your motive for saying this happens to be the exact same motive i was questioning.

"Idiot"
out of context yes. but it is an important point non the less since the only reference to "do not kill" i have found is from a single donomination's hand book. where did you guys see it published?

Avatar i am 19 and am not a historian or astrophysitits either. but i think it is profitable we respect everyones profession. i think if an issue such as the 'real jesus' is still being discussed by historians we should respect them for it. i like your enthusiasm keep at it champ.

ReasonableDoubt,
"The textual 'evidence' would be laughed out of court". can i give you some 'evidence' and can you tell me if this is an example of the laughable textual evidence you are talking about? thanks

A quote from a letter written by a jewish dude called Paul to some people in Corinth [Greece]. Written ~ 55 AD [Jesus died ~ 30 AD]
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep"

peace uall

dude182 wrote:

ReasonableDoubt,

... can i give you some 'evidence' and can you tell me if this is an example of the laughable textual evidence you are talking about? thanks

A quote from a letter written by a jewish dude called Paul to some people in Corinth [Greece]. Written ~ 55 AD [Jesus died ~ 30 AD] ...

[then quotes 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 - RD]

Yes, absolutely laughable. See, for example, Arguments for the Legal Evidence for Christianity (http://home.teleport.com/~packham/montgmry.htm).

By the way, since this was pre-Matthias, "the twelve" presumable includes Judas after the suicide. Also ...

1 Corinthians 15:5
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven ...

yeah they all say he was seen by some dudes, and then some more dudes. it doesnt imply he wasnt seen by any dudes.

assuming a resurrection, the resurrected didnt choose to reveal himself to any authority. why? i have only a subjective theological reason involving equal revelation to all authorities; God not forcing truth on us but letting us take it if we want it.

assuming a resurection, it is never claimed anyone followed the ressurected around places [for the subjective reason above?], which would have made it impossible to work out who was the first actual male to see him.. . [they dont have watches then].

i am gona have a read of that article over the weekend. thanks mate.

dude182 wrote:

yeah they all say he was seen by some dudes, and then some more dudes. it doesnt imply he wasnt seen by any dudes. [emphasis added - RD]
Sorry, 'dude', but that's simply inaccurate. First of all, Paul was not a witness to anything beyond his own confused visions.

So, what about the rest of this "all" you talk about. Well, as one scholar noted: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Syriacus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bobiensis do not contain the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark

This is a notable omission: it is these verses only which contain the description of Jesus' resurrection appearance. Since Mark's account seems to be not only the earliest but also that on which Matthew and Luke based their accounts, a question arises: What is the basis for the accounts of Jesus' bodily resurrection according to Matthew, Luke and John?

- James H. Charlesworth (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary)
Note that the codices referred to by Dr. Charlesworth are the earliest know gospels.

There is no "all", only the accretion of myth with the resulting text (poorly) ammended, revised, and otherwise harmonized in an effort to create a coherent story. Once again, 'dude', the evidence is laughable - "all" of it.

dude182 wrote:

Avatar i am 19 and am not a historian or astrophysitits either.
The Rutgers University Synoptic Gospels Primer (http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/) states just below its index: "Faith is no excuse for ignorance! Adherence to any tradition in disregard for textual evidence is sheer superstition."That you are young and "not a historian" is obvious. It is not, however, a failure unless and until you choose to use those facts to excuse a commitment to ignorance broadcast in childish prose. But that's simply my opinion, 'dude'. ;)

dude:
"God is the ultimate paternal symbol". i thought threads were topic based, and since this topic is rather broad already it would be more helpful if we stuck to it rather than brininging in our opinions on other broad issues such as the character of God. i am sorry if i was out of place.

It would be even more helpful if you were to mind your manners from now on.

Apology accepted.

"There was only one true Christian, and he died on the Cross"
Jesus was not a christian. [he happened to be a jew but that is irrelevant]. i am not sure what you mean by 'True'? a christian is a follower of Christ.

Ask Nietzsche. The comment, like most of his aphorisms, was not meant to be taken literally.

[follow implies an attitude. we are not perfect and we cannot follow anybody's instructions perfectly regardless of who they are. but we can still have an attitude to want to follow them. did they? God knows. i asked the question not so that we can judge them but we can examine the situation without necessarily calling every shiad terrrorist a muslim].

Shiad? Do you mean Shi'ite? And what the hell do terrorists (Shiia is a Muslim sect, thus a Shi'ite is by definition a Muslim :rolleyes: ) have to do with this?

out of context yes. but it is an important point non the less since the only reference to "do not kill" i have found is from a single donomination's hand book. where did you guys see it published?

Are you just stupid or are you trolling?

In either case, lay off the straw men.

A quote from a letter written by a jewish dude called Paul to some people in Corinth [Greece]. Written ~ 55 AD [Jesus died ~ 30 AD]
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep"

Fifty year old hearsay evidence of something that is ridiculously improbable?

C'mon hon, that would be laughed out of any court.

Xev
{
"Fifty year old hearsay evidence of something that is ridiculously improbable?"
fifteen. but yeah ridiculously improbable

"It would be even more helpful if you were to mind your manners from now on"
i repented

"shiad" as in the word [however it is pronounced and spelled] which means declaring a holy war in the name of Allah.
just because you declare one of these doesnt necessarily mean your a muslim. same goes with christians. just because you
go around killing people in the name of 'Christ' doesnt necessarily mean your a christian.

"Are you just stupid or are you trolling?"
ah... yeah... so where did you see it published man?
}

RD
{
"a question arises: What is the basis for the accounts of Jesus' bodily resurrection according to Matthew, Luke and John?"
because they were eye witness accounts? i assume they inclueded it cause they saw it happen. [referring to matthew luke john].
yeah some of them used the source ['Q'?] but im not sure how that is relevant [you are still responsible for what you write].
this is neutral question but it would help me, were they not written by matthew, mark luke and john?

"That you are young and "not a historian" is obvious. It is not, however, a failure unless and until you choose to use those facts to excuse a commitment to ignorance broadcast in childish prose. But that's simply my opinion, 'dude'."
thanks mate ill take that into account. reading this now >> http://home.teleport.com/~packham/montgmry.htm
}

read the article. good stuff it is.

dude182 wrote:

this is neutral question but it would help me, were they not written by matthew, mark luke and john?
See: Paul and the writers of all four canonical Gospels described the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, as they understood it had happened. There is a near consensus among Christian theologians who are not Evangelical Christians that: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Jesus' disciples but by person or persons whose names are unknown. Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers had been an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry or death. The Gospels record the beliefs and memories of various Christian groups as they had evolved at the time they were written. -- see Beliefs of Christian Groups in the 1st and 2nd Centuries CE (http://www.religioustolerance.org/resurrec3.htm)
In my opinion, the best readily available source for resolving such questions is Kirby's Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/)
The text I own (based on numerous recommendations) is Udo Schnelle's, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=1RYOTA3EGT&isbn=0800629523).