Greetings, I read the actual ancient documents and presented evidence based on the actual facts. Did you? No. Did you address the ancient evidence I quoted? No. You just attacked and insulted and preached. Anyway, haven't Christians also just "read something that someone wrote." ? Yes or no? Yet you stole your conclusion from someone else. Hypocrite. Iasion
Hmmmm So all I know is that you can read and come to a conclusion. And what you posted is your opinion.....you know what they say about opinions. My point about 9/11 etc. is that anyone can say anything they want and say that it is the truth but you can't say for a fact 100% that you are right. I never defended the scriptures. So im not sure where you got that one from. Did you read the Dilbert Principle? Makes much more sense and is fun to read. Also you said you did the research etc. Well good for you. Where is your book? I want a book with all of your sources quoted etc. Where is your proof? The internet and these forums have created a glut of psudo experts that claim to know it all. Errr don't tell me where to post or what to say. As far as I remember freedom of speech still applies here. Did I waste my time reading the ancient doucments. No I did not. So you believe everything that you read? I stole my own conculsion? hmm that sounds like an oxymoron....so I stole my conclusion from myself? Yes I am a hypocrite. Most people are. Did I piss you off? Then my purpose in life has thus be served. Get off your computer and go do something useful like clean your bathroom. Have a good holiday Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I couldn't care less about this whole arguement but..........if someone sees a bank robery or a car accident and you have 10 witnesses you get 10 different stories of what happened. This is true for the most part that the more witnessess of the event the more stories you will have. There is nothing amazing about that. Look at the media today. Nothing gets by them right? But how often do they get the story wrong. They can have a camera right there and still not get it right.
Child abuse? How is that child abuse and what do you know about what child abuse is> ? There are four forms of child abuse. Sexual, physical, neglect and yes there is mental. I doubt you could convict anyone that teaching a child about religion or what your belief system is abusive. It is neglectful not to teach your children not only what your belief system is. You start with that then you build on others. As they get older they build their own beliefs and then decide what they want to believe. Hell children know Ronald MacDonald better than they know who santa claus and probably jesus. It is probably more abusive to feed your child MacDonald food than it is to teach them about religion. What would you suggest we teach children? I might consider what you teach or preach to a child abusive. There are laws about child abuse so unless your'e an expert on the law don't you dare try to say what is abusive or not to a child. That is your opinion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Regarding your post, that is your belief and your preaching it and putting it on others. That is your fantasty and your entitled to it.
Greetings, What nonsense. I didn't say I was 100% right. I presented my claims, and backed them up with evidence. You ignored the evidence, and preached your own disjointed opinions, without any evidence. And is there some reason you can't use the quote function so we know what you are responding to? I quoted my EVIDENCE. You ignored it. I linked to my writings where I explain in more detail. You ignored it. Here are my writings, not a book yet, maybe one day : http://qdj.50megs.com/ I expect you will ignore them, again. Like you, for instance? I didn't. Ah, so now we see the truth : * you DON'T KNOW the facts * you have NO INTENTION of learning the facts. In other words, you are here to preach your personal opinions, avoiding any actual EVIDENCE. What the? My whole argument is that the NT is NOT RELIABLE. I do NOT believe the NT. And you think I believe everything I read? Please try and read for comprehension. My whole argument is that I DO NOT believe everything I read. Instead I consider all the facts and try to draw a conclusion. Please DO try and grasp what my arguments are. Instead of just rudely preaching your opinions. Iasion
Greetings, Then why are you making so many posts here? When the 10 stories are totally different in crucial details, you know some of them are WRONG. The birth stories in the Gospels are completely different. The resurrection stories are completely different. Because they were not part of the original G.Mark. So when A.Luke and A.Matthew copied from G.Mark, they made these parts up. Whereas in the middle of the story they copy G.Mark, often word for word. Modern NT scholars agree that the Gospels were NOT written by anyone who mey any historical Jesus. Indeed NOT ONE of the books of the NT was written by anyone who met any historical Jesus. In fact, there is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE for Jesus at all, anywhere, in any form. None. Iasion
Lol Ok I will stop messing with you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I will read your article Iasion when I get a chance, I promise. I don't think I was preaching. What I was trying to say is that there is a lot of bunk out there (including my own) and I see people making quotes and statements so passionately and I just kinda have to shake my head. You gonna read the book I suggested? Scott Adams "The Dilbert Principle" Prob take you like 30 min to read it.
You know I was just realizing something, everyone here has always claimed that the person making the claim is the one that has to provide the proof. Now Theists, quite arguably, are not making the claim. Not one of them has originated the idea that a higher power exists. That has been a truth that has been handed down from one generation to the next. Not a single culture on this planet refuted this truth. in fact they embraced the opposite. Be it one God or many each and evey culture has worshiped a higher power. Now here comes Atheist attempting to tell the theists that they have to have concrete prrof. This tiny minority seeks to impose tests and conditions on a higher power. They seek to subjugate the higher power to silly whims. They reason that a higher power must have some form insecuirity, a need to prove itself. Then when their ridiculous test experiment fails they cry "See? We told you so. There is no God." It is sad really. They use this so called "Lack of Evidence." as proof, when all it really does is proove that no High Power took part of the test. Much like if you were testing which candy bar kids like better and all of the kids are allergic to the chocolate in both. Just my thought Wait untill you have some evidence, instead of just a lack of evidence.
Greetings, Nonsense. It's a superstitious belief that is very old, that's all. It IS a claim. Do you claim God exists? Yes or no? Nonsense. Many modern cultures do NOT worship God. Including several industrialized democratic western nations such as Australia, NZ, Sweden, Norway and more. What atheist? I am no atheist. Your argument is no more than childish name-calling. We ask proof now for any claim. That's the modern way. Sticking to the ancient superstitious ways to support the old superstitious beliefs proves nothing. What tiny majority? In many modern countries atheists are the majority - but so what? What higher power? Yours? Or the Hindus? Or the Muslims? Or the Gnostics? Or the Satanists? Which? And how there be imposition on something which is completely INTANGIBLE - soemthign that cannot be seen or touched or heard in any way. How EXACTLY are the "atheists" you rail on about imposing on a supremely all powerful being? Please explain that. Childish rant. Can't be bothered. Iasion
1) JESUS = Isa = the great prophet sent by ALLAH before the last prophet MUHAMMAD peace be up on them both . 2) here is the answer from ALLAH [Preaching Deleted]: please read it : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. [1] Praise be to Allah, Who hath sent to His Servant the Book, and hath allowed therein no Crookedness: [2] (He hath made it) Straight (and Clear) in order that He may warn (the godless) of a terrible Punishment from Him, and that He may give Glad Tidings to the Believers who work righteous deeds, that they shall have a goodly Reward, [3] Wherein they shall remain forever: [4] Further, that He may warn those (also) who say, "Allah hath begotten a son": [5] No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouths as a saying: What they say is nothing but falsehood! [5] No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouths as a saying: What they say is nothing but falsehood! [6] Thou wouldst only, perchance fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message. [7] That which is on earth We have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that We may test them, as to which of them are best in conduct. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- thank you , good luck Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And how is quoting a book of mythology relevant to the thread topic of whether or not Jesus existed? Could you please expand upon why your book of mythology is any more valid than the other? And, in the future, please don't quote large quantities of religious mythology without thorough comparing and contrasting. It comes across as "Preaching" which is against forum rules.
He has never stopped existing. Perhaps the question needs to be redefined. Let me help you, " Have we all always existed and perhaps forgotten being so caught up in distractions otherwise and other trivia???? So much said in terms of proof because of so much doubt in the mind(s) of many who have forsaken or forgotten of the most powerful intelligence of the universe, the energetic heart, or in more ancient terms, the soul. To address this from a dicotomous position leaves out the heart of of it so therefore is invalid. For without a heart life as we know it cannot exist. And with that and if I ever return to this website again, from my heart of hearts , a most merry christmas and more intelligent and prosperous new year from the true source of all for those who have the wherewithall to FEEL and remember it. The new frontier is that of heart intelligence and thus completing a most incomplete picture that only depicted the brain as the be all and end all. What a sorry state for those so distracted by such and only a fragment of what where the Source truly is and leads brains and minds intelligent enough to know this. Jesus was so completely himself in the moment. That is his message. Be yourself whoever and whatever that is in any given moment. It is as valid to all as he was/is , he knew it , do you know this about yourself? My very last post here, thanks for all the fish.
No, it IS abusive if the child is not given the chance to decide for themselves. A prime example : many christian and muslim people I have met who were brought up in enviroments were they were told this religion is the only path to god...disobey and be punished by god,disobey and face being an outcast to the family. Or in some parts of the world...death!
indoctrination 1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view. 2. to teach or inculcate. 3. to imbue with learning. Watch the bold part. (Dictionary.com -> Random House Unabridged Dictionary) Albeit, one could always argue that there are perhaps some born into a religion-complacent family and then find themselves interested in spirituality, but they aren't a majority by any means.
This is how they see the discussion. To so firmly believe in something in spite of all common sense can only be accomplished with this mindset. And the above statement shows why it is fruitless to try to convince a Theist of anything.
But you don't know the women. They're a couple of girls he met in the pub last night - one Tracy, the other Jane. Apparently they go to college in the region somewhere. The more you start asking your friend for evidence, the more you should hopefully begin to understand the only real issue with a large portion of atheists. You make a claim, you need to support it. Of course in general day to day life it doesn't happen, (as the example I posted attempted to show). As humans we do tend to embellish, to make up, to exaggerate, and to bold faced lie. As humans others tend to modify and change stories that they have heard until it no longer even remotely resembles the original version, (it's generally known by the name 'Chinese whispers'). You can see clear examples of it in the bible - from the Noah story, (taken from Utnapishtim) all the way to Jesus supposed miracles that actually increase accordingly as understood time frame of writing progresses, (I actually had a diagram somewhere that showed this but I lost it with the explosion of my last computer. I shall try and find it again so the point is better understood). I am generally of the opinion that short sentences that make bold statements but do not support those statements do not really belong in discussions or debates. They belong in fights with your wife/siblings and when you're under police caution but not here. I would ask that if you're going to respond to a post you actually make the effort to explain yourself. My response is fully in reference to your 'supposed' point, and is far from irrational. Let us clear up and look at the statement that you made - and how it is connected, ok? You said: "Why would they write anything if they know it is a myth? Therefore, Jesus must have existed" Now.. What you're saying is that these people would not have written anything unless Jesus was real. By that very same reasoning vampires must exist or Anne Rice would never have written about them. To rephrase your own statement: "Why would Anne Rice write anything if she knows it's a myth? Therefore vampires must exist". Perhaps you didn't mean to say what you did. Perhaps you meant to say that.. well, I can't even think of what it might be you actually meant to say, but the way it currently is you have no case and no argument. "Please be clear" says the man that hasn't got the decency to supply anything other than short unsupported statements and think that's good enough. To answer your question, (because seemingly unlike you I am capable of it): man has progressed in many ways - technologically, morally, medically and so on. The list is a long one. We have more knowledge of the world and the universe - and therefore, (the point of what I was saying), is that modern day man is far more likely to question what is and what isn't. We know for instance that a headache is not caused by a demon sitting in your skull. We have science, we have knowledge. These people had little choice but to explain things the way they saw them - with little to no technology or science. How would a jungle dwelling shaman explain the sun? How would he explain progeria or pfisteria? Can you explain progeria or pfisteria? It's 2007 and what do you know of these two out of a gazillion examples? What do you honestly think these people knew about pretty much anything? So, how do you answer something that you cannot answer? How would you explain the things around you without technology, without science to guide you? I suggest for this we go and ask the jungle shaman. When he points at the sun and claims it a powerful god we will not dispute it. When his enemies write about the tribe and their powerful sun god we will stand up united and shout "Logically that sun god must exist or else nobody would have said anything". I'm sorry, you're talking utter foolishness. Another detailed and worthwhile response. *end sarcasm*. I mean c'mon, you cannot honestly sit there and think a man of science, a man who considers the pursuit of knowledge as one of, (if not the), most important thing mankind can ever get involved in is "just content not to know" what is and what isn't. Your problem is that you for some insane reason think you can justify the existence of something merely on the basis that somebody wrote about it. If you actually have something of substance to say then get on with it and say it. Give up the pointless one-line unsupported statements and put some effort in. You have claimed: "There is plenty". So, point out that plenty. What exactly to what I said are you disagreeing with? This is the problem with vague one-line statements. One of the reasons I am probably so confused here is because I never, not once in my statement stated what is or isn't important. As for what is or isn't the issue.. Once again I must quote my last statement in the hopes that it sinks in: "For some reason you keep assuming that if something is fictional nobody would ever write about it. I keep pointing this out as being fallacious, and you seemingly enjoy ignoring it." With regards to whether people would write about fictional beings or not, "building a belief" is irrelevant. You're right, I'm stupid - we're all stupid, you're the master. *end sarcasm* Right, I went to google like you told me to. I hate to have to say it but I found no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of Santa Claus. None at all, not a bean. I found lots of information pertaining to St Nick, but nothing whatsoever to support the existence of a jolly old fat man with a snowy white beard that gives presents to all good kids while riding in a sleigh dragged by flying reindeer. Therein is the point. People support and promote fiction. They embellish and exaggerate - and bold faced lie. Never ever ever has Santa Claus existed and he never will. Now, for the sake of this specific debate I am willing to entertain the idea that there once existed a man with the name used in the bible, (jesus or yeshua or whatever other name you guys can come up with). But how can you possibly entertain the idea that Santa is real because some dude named Nicholas existed? Did Nicholas ride a sleigh with flying reindeer? It's highly improbable. By that same token - you have absolutely diddly-squat to support that a man was born from a virgin that got impregnated by a god who then walked on water, did miracles, got killed, came back to life, and will come back to rule mankind eventually.. Oh, and for some reason he was also white. Do me a lemon. And your entire argument to support that "jesus" exists? Because nobody would write about him if he didn't. What utter hogwash. Let's not be silly. You will find that all my posts go into great depth. You on the other hand are hard pressed to offer more than a one-line statement questioning my level of knowledge. Now, obviously it needs to be said, but I have not "denied everything you have written". What I am denying, and you continually fail to even acknowledge is that by no means can you support your claim that: "Why would they write anything if they know it is a myth? Therefore, Jesus must have existed" It's generally acknowledged that when someone starts questioning anothers level of knowledge and making claims to "complete" (all) denial - which is simply fallacious - that it's because the person making the statements has no debate within him. I can understand by now that you must have noticed that your statement has no value, no weight - and yet it is seemingly always borderline impossible to get someone to acknowledge the mistakes they make. Now, if you have something of value to offer then I am here - willingly waiting. If on the other hand you would like to compare intelligence, or penis size or anything else then just let me know and we can drag this entire forum down the shitter for the sake of your ego. I didn't actually say that you were. I never implied the religion that your parents are or are not. However the simple fact remains that religion, (of which depending on location), christianity is a fore-runner, is washed all over the majority of children from birth - not specifically from parents but from everything - be it schools, friends, tv, radio etc. In cartoons we see the dead ones with little wings and halos ascending into the sky, at christmas we hear "..little lord jesus lay down his sweet head" coming from the radio and so on and so forth. I have always tried to keep my daughter free from such nonsense until she is old enough to understand it and make up her own mind based upon her own study and understanding and I must confess I find it impossible to keep up. It's either lock her in a room with nothing or accept the fact that my daughter will be subject to it - and just hope that my daughter has the intelligence to not fall for such idiocy. That's now what.. the third time I have had to sit here and watch your only argument be that my level of knowledge is clearly not as good as yours. Would it help if I said I had a 12" penis? However, your petty little idiocies aside, your "guess" would be wrong. Where is that text now exactly? Everytime someone even dares mention it in front of a christian they dismiss it out of hand because it "goes against the grain". Judas surfaced in the 1970's which simply illustrates my point - if that text was with the grain as opposed to against it, you would have known about it long before the 70's. An empty statement. Try to give it some effort. Are you using some pay-per-type keyboard? It's like 30 cents a letter or something? Obviously it needs to be said, but I wasn't "ranting" anything, I was discussing with a person who has made a ridiculous statement. Discussions, (other than yours), usually contain more than one sentence, and so.. to those that are not used to it might appear like "rants". I can assure you they're not. Perhaps it's time for me to tell you you're "uninformed"? Now, if we are to be "rational", (a word used far too much by those that have no place to use it), we would have to conclude that your statement is bunk. The simple fact of the matter is that many fictional characters are written about by those that are aware they are fictional. I myself am guilty - having written about Santa Claus when I would consider myself an enemy to christianity and indeed christmas. Personally I hate the waste of trees the most, but then why as an enemy would I delude my own child at christmas time? Well clearly Santa does exist. Please, don't be silly. When I mentioned embellish, exaggerate, Chinese whispers and bold faced lie I didn't realise you would provide one such example for me. Earlier I mentioned how Jesus miracles increased as time went by. The earlier writings have very few miracles, the latter have many. In saying that I find your most recent statement the most amusing. What started off as me being uninformed has now progressed into being uninformed and ranting. In short I have progressed from a knowledgeless idiot to a complaining knowledgeless idiot. I'm unsure whether that's something to be proud of or not. Now, while we're on the subject of counter arguments.. Anything other than calling me a complaining knowledgeless idiot to offer or is this the best you can muster? I'm sorry, thousands of years of human learning and this is the best offer you can make to a debate? This is what humanity in 2007 comes down to? As to your very short statement "That was already done with “The Satanic Verses.”", I knew you were going to say this exact thing, (I just wasn't expecting the various insults). The point is actually shown by mentioning the satanic verses. Where is Rushdie now? Hiding in a hole through fear of death. "On February 14, 1989, the Ayatollah broadcast the following message on Iranian radio: "I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur'an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death."" He lives in quite a lucky time.. A time when people can get from one country to another in a few hours, can hide and change names, can actually get far away from those that would kill him - and the book will survive even if all "legit" copies were destroyed. Although I am highly uninformed, there was something about a book very recently that had all copies destroyed. That is not quite the end of that book - purely because of the time we live in. If this was 2000 years ago things would have been slightly different. Well, at least you didn't call me uninformed this time. As for "baseless assumptions", don't... I have serious issue with utter hypocrites. Clearly you intend for this to turn into a slagging match, but let it be said that whining like a sissy girl does not in any way help your original fallacious statement. If you want to support that statement then you need to put some effort into it. I'm sorry, I know that hurts but that's the way it is. You can say "ranting" and "uninformed" all you like, all week long but it is not an argument to anything. I am going to ask you once and that's it: Justify your claim that people would not have written about jesus, (this is a white guy that did miracles, was born from a virgin, died and ressurrected etc), unless he existed. Show some evidence, any evidence that this is the case. Provide more than one line and ten insults to support your claims. Show how and why anyone should ever entertain the idea that by the simple fact that someone has written about a guy that can do miracles and is god in human form, (or whatever), means that that person exists/existed. A gazillion dollars says you can't - and that is where the issue lies. Now, willing to attempt to get that gazillion dollars or you want to concentrate this argument on my level of knowledge or lack thereof?
Greetings, So, you claim Jesus = Moses? Interesting. Then you quote something, possibly al-Qur'an, which says : Further, that He may warn those (also) who say, "Allah hath begotten a son": No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouths as a saying: What they say is nothing but falsehood! Which simply seems to argue that Allah did NOT have a son. A totally different thing. Please explain. Iasion
