Please bring GOD back into our lives!!!!

pandora

That's a really odd threesome choice

JonnyPistachio

pandora wrote:

That's a really odd threesome choice

Actually I thought it was a great choice...Mitt seems a little homophobic, so I think he'd bail out pretty quick, leaving you alone with Angelina!

pandora

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

That's a really odd threesome choice

Actually I thought it was a great choice...Mitt seems a little homophobic, so I think he'd bail out pretty quick, leaving you alone with Angelina!

wouldn't 2 ladies be the choice :? I don't pretend to know anything about threesomes

JonnyPistachio

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

That's a really odd threesome choice

Actually I thought it was a great choice...Mitt seems a little homophobic, so I think he'd bail out pretty quick, leaving you alone with Angelina!

wouldn't 2 ladies be the choice :? I don't pretend to know anything about threesomes

haha, well now I feel silly :oops: ...yes of course!
I'm obviously no threesomeologist myself.

pandora

It is true there is no evidence at the moment that comes from Jesus' lifetime
that he existed at all.
But this was also true for John the Baptist until just recently
and other poor preachers at that time. Why should there be?

I don't know a lot about religious history but feel this is probably not unusual.
Not to be disrespectful, but during his lifetime Jesus was not someone
who they would write about. His time was short though he touched many with
his new beliefs. These beliefs, a new hope for the down trodden, one God and a heaven
to reward those who have suffered awaits us all.
His life stories were passed down through the generations and chronicled
a century and a half later. For me that is proof enough he existed.

A cave was found that some suspect was John the Baptist
place of worship but of course some are disputing. This 8 years ago or so.

There will always be disputing and this is where people find their faith or not.

I have not found that faith as of yet in my life but perhaps one day.

I feel a very real kinship to Jesus though and after watching a recent documentary
feel he was an amazing man. He stays with me.

Whether he was just a man or whether he was sent here
by God to teach and was given miracles ...and I do believe in miracles!
I don't know
but I know God and God's love just as Jesus did and as he taught.

markin ball

pandora wrote:

It is true there is no evidence at the moment that comes from Jesus' lifetime
that he existed at all.
But this was also true for John the Baptist until just recently
and other poor preachers at that time. Why should there be?

I don't know a lot about religious history but feel this is probably not unusual.
Not to be disrespectful, but during his lifetime Jesus was not someone
who they would write about. His time was short though he touched many with
his new beliefs. These beliefs, a new hope for the down trodden, one God and a heaven
to reward those who have suffered awaits us all.
His life stories were passed down through the generations and chronicled
a century and a half later. For me that is proof enough he existed.

A cave was found that some suspect was John the Baptist
place of worship but of course some are disputing. This 8 years ago or so.

There will always be disputing and this is where people find their faith or not.

I have not found that faith as of yet in my life but perhaps one day.

I feel a very real kinship to Jesus though and after watching a recent documentary
feel he was an amazing man. He stays with me.

Whether he was just a man or whether he was sent here
by God to teach and was given miracles ...and I do believe in miracles!
I don't know
but I know God and God's love just as Jesus did and as he taught.

Why do you believe in miracles?

Byrnzie

pandora wrote:

I feel a very real kinship to Jesus though and after watching a recent documentary
feel he was an amazing man.

Cool. I didn't realize they had video camera's in the first century A.D. Did he have blue eyes and blond hair like in all the paintings of him?

arq

Byrnzie wrote:

pandora wrote:

I feel a very real kinship to Jesus though and after watching a recent documentary
feel he was an amazing man.

Cool. I didn't realize they had video camera's in the first century A.D. Did he have blue eyes and blond hair like in all the paintings of him?

Stardog3..

In all fairness, the only thing the Bible can be used for is to use in evidence that Jesus walked the Earth. However, The Bible isn't even complete. I've had 8 years filled with courses and research of religion. Two things to think about: the Roman government assembled the Bible and picked Christianity as the religion of the people and there have been other books of the Bible not included that show very different view points. At the time of Jesus, there were also 4 other men that were thought of to be the equivalent of Jesus, as we have many rabbis or ministers present day. It was an accessible religion: it was new and Christians were the only ones to not accept the Emperor as a "godlike figure". They then needed to have some sort of governing body, so they made a set of rules that incorporated whatever they wanted the followers and citizens to follow. It's still the basic governing rules Christians follow today. Word spread quickly because there were now roads and things that made travel easier. Three more parts of the Bible have been discovered and dated to the times Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written. Over 100 years or more after Jesus' death. No first hand accounts. Peter, Mary Magdalene, and Judas all have gospels that have been found. Mary Magdalene was recognized as a prostitute until recently. Her gospel is the most intriguing. You can sense its written from a woman's perspective and shows Jesus performing no miracles (not saying he didn't ) but rather chronicled her personal relationship with him. From her explanations, they both had more of an agnostic point of view on things. Judas was very similar. To say the be all end all is the Bible is not a very valid argument. The stories are not meant to be taken literally. There was a huge uproar in a theology class of mine when our professor explained this to us because people couldn't grasp the fact and understand that the stories were meant to be teaching tools. I've always pondered the question- if Jesus was a Jew, then why wouldn't his followers be?

And yes, Jesus was crucified. But look at people today claiming to be the "son of God" or a prophet. They are laughed at, thought of as crazy, put in jail- whatever the case may be. During that time, it was a similar situation. Here's this crazy man with followers claiming to be the son of God.

Interesting stuff none the less. Not saying anybody is wrong or right of course and definitely not throwing my beliefs into the ring because I have no fucking clue what they are. I'm just enjoying the open discussion (without superiority or name calling ), the journey, and living the best life that I can.

Byrnzie

Suave.27 wrote:

In all fairness, the only thing the Bible can be used for is to use in evidence that Jesus walked the Earth.

That's not evidence. The Bible was written approx 50-100 years after the supposed date of Jesus's existence, and none of the dozens of contemporary histories of the period make any mention of him.

There is zero historical evidence that Jesus ever lived.

If people think the Bible can be used as an historical document then they must also believe that Moses parted the red sea, and that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Byrnzie wrote:

Suave.27 wrote:

In all fairness, the only thing the Bible can be used for is to use in evidence that Jesus walked the Earth.

That's not evidence. The Bible was written approx 50-100 years after the supposed date of Jesus's existence, and none of the dozens of contemporary histories of the period make any mention of him.

There is zero historical evidence that Jesus ever lived.

If people think the Bible can be used as an historical document then they must also believe that Moses parted the red sea, and that the Earth is 6000 years old.

I have watched several docs's on the subject, and I thought that it was general consensus in the historial science community that he did actually exist as a human being, no?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but I have always felt that, among other things, religion served as a means to control the masses. As organized religion began to establish its roots and in medieval times, the message for the commoner was to dig away in the soil, pay the church, and you'll have a great 'next life'. In the meantime, orgies, decadence and corruption was often afoot with many high and low ranking church officials reaping the benefit of a system designed to support them. Perhaps oblivious to the occurings, peasants still bought into the 'dream'- clinging to the allure of the idea without much questioning given the alternative (a fiery Hell). As the idea became entrenched, it took root in our collective conscience and has been very hard to dismiss. People today snub their noses at Science and choose to believe in a higher power that resides 'somewhere'- monitoring our behaviours.

Western religions differ quite a bit from eastern religions. Who's to say which is better? Even further, Math and common sense tells us that there's a planet somewhere out there that has life. Is God the supreme power for it too? Or, would some suggest that there is no life outside of Earth and we are really all there is- the center of the universe?

Trust me when I say I love the idea of God and religion, but I find it really hard to accept such given what I am able to see and the state of the planet. I cling to an agnostic personality, but need much more convincing before I jump in with any conviction.

Byrnzie

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I have watched several docs's on the subject, and I thought that it was general consensus in the historial science community that he did actually exist as a human being, no?

Well, no evidence that he lived exists, so I can't see how there can be a general consensus that he did. But maybe there is a general consensus that he lived. But there's still zero evidence to support that view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicit ... cal_person
'The existence of Jesus as a historical figure has been questioned by some biblical scholars; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies though Volney felt that confused memories of an obscure historical figure might have integrated into this already existing solar mythology.[38][39]

In the first half of the 20th century, the views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works, like those of Philo for example, to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.

More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by Guy Fau, Prosper Alfaric, W. B. Smith, John M. Allegro, George Albert Wells,[41] Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries) and Robert M. Price and the idea has been popularized in the early 21st century by some of the writers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, representing the New Atheism movement.'


http://new.exchristian.net/2011/08/hist ... jesus.html
'It is peculiar that one of the central figures of the Christian and Islamic traditions is an allegedly 1st century Jewish preacher for whom there is no contemporary evidence. Not only is there is no evidence that any of the claims contained in the contradictory gospels compiled decades after the events they claim to describe, and indeed after the Christian tradition had already been established by the likes of Paul of Tarsus, are even remotely true, but there is no evidence for a historical Jesus figure. Of course, in the mind of the religious believer this should and does not matter, afterall faith is belief without and often in spite of the evidence and as such the revelation that the entire tale is a myth would only matter if one cared sincerely about matters of evidence and reason. From the point of view of the objective observer however, it is a fact of history that there is no objective contemporary evidence that the person of Jesus ever existed. The only conclusion that can therefore reasonably be drawn is that the entire tale was a fabrication at the end of the 1st century CE to justify a religious tradition which was already in existence and to add royalty and divine merit to what was the concocted cult of a few deluded patriachs.


Let us be clear, there is not a single piece of physical evidence that a biblical Jesus ever existed, there are no artefacts, works of carpentry or any works allegedly written by the man-god himself. All that the religious tradition has to justify its claims is the very same religious tradition, it’s a house of cards no different to claiming the tale of Little Red Riding Hood is true because the tale of Little Red Riding Hood says so. We now know that the claims about the town of Nazareth are false, that the miracle birth and childhood of the Jesus figure was a later addition to the gospels and does not appear in the oldest Gospel of Mark, that all the tales were written by unknown but non-contemporary authors who lived decades after the alleged events they were describing, that there is no historical record to justify the miraculous events of guiding stars, ripping curtains, the darkened earth, of the resurrection of Saints in the streets of Jerusalem, the alleged census or any other of the concrete claims made in the Gospels which can be tested.

Every single claim made about Jesus whether in the bible or in the spurious non-contemporary accounts in the decades and centuries that followed are hearsay accounts, compiled after the alleged presence on earth of this man-god and without any source of objective authority or reference. Every single letter in every single book of the new testament was compiled over thousands of different manuscripts and books (many of which have not been included in the Roman Catholic Cannon) centuries later and therefore do not constitute a reliable source of information on which the existence of a historical let alone a biblical Jesus can be alleged. Indeed, this evidence would not survive inquiry in a court of law or a simple act of reasoning, why then it continues to convinces millions of fervent believers is a matter of some intrigue. Indeed, it is structurally no different to belief in Wotan, fairies or Unicorns yet continues to command the ear of countless grown up humans who insist that not only is it true, but that it is divinely true by the power of its own authority.

None of the New Testament epistle writers describe Jesus as a teacher or a miracle worker, or mention Nazareth. Indeed, despite these epistles being the earliest productions of the Christian tradition which predate the Gospels, there is not a single quote, parable or teaching of Jesus to be found. There is no mention of the disciples and the notion of Jesus is presented as a spiritual eternal god. As Earl Doherty writes in his book “The Jesus Puzzle”, “Christian documents outside the Gospels, even at the end of the first century and beyond, show no evidence that any tradition about an earthly life and ministry of Jesus were in circulation”.

The Gospels are dated between 70 CE and 90 CE and contain an inconsistent and often contradictory account of the life of Jesus. The fact that the four gospels on which the substantive notion of Jesus is based post-date the epistles of Paul of Tarsus adds to the intrigue of how the earlier Christian traditions came into existence and how these changed over time. With the adoption by the Roman Catholic Church, these fictitious accounts were elevated to the position of infallible godly inspiration and unquestionable history. Yet, they are not authored by the disciples, whose historicity cannot be evidenced, but were written based on the claims of various Church fathers and Christian leaders of the 1st and 2nd century CE, whilst their divine significance postdates their authorship by several centuries. We literally have no idea who wrote these texts and therefore no idea where they sourced their information, we do know that none of the authors even claim to have met the earthly Jesus and that what remains of their writings are the copies of copies of manuscripts that survived long enough for the Roman Catholic Church to incorporate them into Christian scripture.

There has of late been a apologetic attempt by some Christians to attempt to argue the historicity of Jesus based on extra-biblical sources, however, to make this claim is to either fundamentally misconstrue what is meant with contemporary or confirmatory evidence, or to deliberately misrepresent as evidence for that which it is not. For the avoidance of doubt, there is at present no evidence whatsoever of either the figure of Jesus or the claims made about him. All that exists is historical evidence confirming the presence of Christians in the first and second century CE and confirming some of the fundamental claims of the Christian tradition that had already been formulated at that time. One will note of course that the authorities cited are always the same, indeed, it is significant that after 2000 years of ardent searching this is the best by way of confirmatory evidence that the entire Christian tradition is able to muster. The most often cited examples can be commented on as follows:

1.Josephus Flavius: He was a Jewish historian and the first non-Christian to mention the Christian tradition or the figure of Christ. Most scholars now agree that Josephus' account of Jesus in his work "Antiquities" was a forgery by the Church Father, Eusebius, however, one can deny Josephus as a contemporary witness by simply noting that he was only born in 37 C.E. and he only wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E.

2.Pliny the Younger: His work references information about Christian believers and their beliefs, the existence of which is not denied. He makes no mention of the Jesus figure as independent from the claims of Christians and in any event he was born many decades after Jesus is alleged to have lived.

3.Tacitus: This Roman historian was born in 64 C.E. and therefore not a contemporary witness. His Annals, written in the early 2nd century CE makes an alleged and probably forged reference to a Christ figure, but there is no evidence justifying this reference and again he was not a contemporary of this Christ figure. His references to the presence of Christians in the Roman Empire is merely confirming what we already know and which no serious historian would deny, that there were Christians in the first and second century CE. Again, Tacitus is not a contemporary witness and in his account of Christ is entirely reliant on hearsay evidence.

4.Suetonius: Another Roman Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. makes an obscure mention of a "Chrestus,". Even if it were the case that this was a reference to Jesus, which is disputable, we would merely be dealing with another non-contemporary witness relying on hearsay evidence.

5.The Jewish Talmud: The attempt by apologists to rely on the Talmud to justify the figure of Jessu is rather bizarre, given that the Jewish tradition distinctly rejects the idea that a saviour man-god came to earth as the messiah. In any event, most Jewish scholars agree that the reference to Yeshu is in fact a reference to Yeshu ben Pandera, who lived in the 2nd centuy CE. In any event, it would be bizarre to claim that the Palestinian Talmud, which came into existence in the 3rd to 5th century C.E., or the Babylonian Talmud, which was written between the 3rd to 6th century C.E can be cited as authority for events in the 1st century CE. Again, to make this claim suggests that one either grossly misunderstands the concept of evidence or that one is deliberately misrepresenting non-Christian accounts for the Jesus figure.

The fact of the matter is that not a single historian, follower or scribe during the time when Jesus was alleged to have lived, performing miracles and generally upsetting the powers that be with the authority of God, makes any mention of him whatsoever. Given that he is alleged to have attracted great multitudes, argued and debated with the religious and political leaders of his time and healed the sick in great numbers it is utterly staggering that not a single reference can be found of this allegedly divine prophet who not only acted with the authority of God but was alleged to be God. This in circumstances where countless historians who did live during the time of Jesus make not a single mention of the fact that he even existed, I recommend in this regard the work of JE Remsberg “The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences for His Existence”.

In summary, the claims about Jesus are as reliable as the claims about Prometheus, Hercules or Wotan and the entire tale is the evidentiary equivalent of Humpty Dumpty and Grandfather Smurf. Of course, if the believers wishes to maintain that an eccentric Jewish preacher existed during the early 1st century CE and that he constitutes their best chance at a fulfilled life, then by all means let them cling to this bizarre insistence. However, let us desist from the false claim that faith can be justified, that half truths and misrepresentations are a basis to maintain the cult of the Nazareen. After all, if there were evidence for a particularly tradition religious tradition, “faith” would become obsolete.

Unfortunately, those who believe without evidence or reason cannot be challenged in their beliefs with evidence and reason, and one can only be liberated from this primitive indoctrination by the personal choice to consider all matters of existence based on reason and evidence, not to justify one’s preconceptions and wish-thinking but in an earnest quest for what is true. For as Carl Sagan noted, "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."

Byrnzie

Stardog3..

Byrnzie wrote:

Suave.27 wrote:

In all fairness, the only thing the Bible can be used for is to use in evidence that Jesus walked the Earth.

That's not evidence. The Bible was written approx 50-100 years after the supposed date of Jesus's existence, and none of the dozens of contemporary histories of the period make any mention of him.

There is zero historical evidence that Jesus ever lived.

If people think the Bible can be used as an historical document then they must also believe that Moses parted the red sea, and that the Earth is 6000 years old.

I also, as somebody said, believed the general consensus was that he did in fact walk the Earth, and that they did use the Bible as reliable evidence since the majority of it was dated within 200 yrs. AD, so I spoke from that view point. Not saying I agree...or disagree for that matter.

iamica

I just wanted to throw something in: the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army in 70 CE, and thousands of people were killed in a brutal siege. It could be possible that there might have been other documents relating to the life and existence of Jesus that were destroyed when Jerusalem was. It's speculation, but it's possible.

Also - given that literacy rates were low and that Jesus mostly associated with illiterate peasants, this could serve as one explanation for why there are no discovered written accounts of him before Paul's letters (which are roughly dated from the late 40s-60s CE, within 30 years of Jesus' death).

They found the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, which contained documents dated 1,000 years earlier than the oldest copies of the Old Testament that we had up to that time...I think it's entirely possible that there could be many other undiscovered documents out there. But since the Gospels and Paul's letters were written within 70 years of Jesus' death, I don't think they should necessarily be dismissed.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Byrnzie wrote:

LikeAnOcean

God is too busy winning football games.

satansbed

interesting article on tebow http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/what_if ... singleton/

catefrances

Suave.27 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Suave.27 wrote:

In all fairness, the only thing the Bible can be used for is to use in evidence that Jesus walked the Earth.

That's not evidence. The Bible was written approx 50-100 years after the supposed date of Jesus's existence, and none of the dozens of contemporary histories of the period make any mention of him.

There is zero historical evidence that Jesus ever lived.

If people think the Bible can be used as an historical document then they must also believe that Moses parted the red sea, and that the Earth is 6000 years old.

I also, as somebody said, believed the general consensus was that he did in fact walk the Earth, and that they did use the Bible as reliable evidence since the majority of it was dated within 200 yrs. AD, so I spoke from that view point. Not saying I agree...or disagree for that matter.

when youre trying to sell a religion based on the fact that a particular someone walked the earth, you better make damn sure you can convince the majority that that particular someone 'in fact' did.