Dr. Greenhorn
Well-Known Member
Not I......
i disagree, seeing as how the old disintegrating scripts and scrolls, now idc WHO you are, have an atheist scientist test em, i guarantee they arent faked, but i know that doesnt PROVE religion. and im sorry dude but i tend to not believe you read the entire bible and koran. of the manny ppl i know veryy few have read the entire bible. not sayin you havent, i just have a disbelief you have.I tend to agree. I'd like to think that we as a species have evolved sufficiently to no longer require the crutch that is religion.
It's time o move on...evolve if you like...past this and on to a higher plane of consciousness that will allow us to better the world we live in today. Not desperately cling on to the belief that a "higher power" is at work while we watch millions die in the name of religion in order to serve it's own agenda. An agenda I might add that has become unfathomably warped through time from it's original incarnation.
And yes, I've read the Bible and I like to believe that I understood the majority. I'm not a Christian but I'm open-minded enough to checkout something which has so many others convinced. I've also read the Koran for the same reasons.
For me personally, I base my beliefs on quantifiable facts, not the grandiose interpretation of what, at best, can only be described as a traditional story passed down through the generations. The fact that the Bible was not written for hundreds of years after the supposed time of Jesus would imply that a degree of "chinese whisper"-like loss of content and context is most likely to have taken place.
I for one cannot blindly follow the Bible's teachings....."just because".
Hey look...that's fair. Look we're all strangers here brought together by our interest in growing. I don't expect people here to "know" me, my ethics, views, morals etc. based on a couple of posts. So no offense taken.. and im sorry dude but i tend to not believe you read the entire bible and koran. of the manny ppl i know veryy few have read the entire bible. not sayin you havent, i just have a disbelief you have.
especially if you bait them a little bit
i disagree, seeing as how the old disintegrating scripts and scrolls, now idc WHO you are, have an atheist scientist test em, i guarantee they arent faked, but i know that doesnt PROVE religion. and im sorry dude but i tend to not believe you read the entire bible and koran. of the manny ppl i know veryy few have read the entire bible. not sayin you havent, i just have a disbelief you have.
"Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals, xv. 44 Christus (Christ)...was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontious Pilate.Actually as i said, there IS historical documentation of it, check out cornelius tacitus's annals.
these men were professional historians. They researched their work before publishing it. They also documented Christ's crucifixion.
Glad someone decided to ask that, was kinda waitin for it, this is where i say i do not know, because our "GOD" could just be another race, species, or somethin of a population we just have no conception of, that could mean just as we are on the brink of understanding genetics to the point of creating other people, the script created in his likeness" could be cloned, sounds gay i know, but think of it, if we could why couldnt anyone else.
actually no, im not sayin we should remain ignorant, just that man is very much corruptable, and too much knowledge in the average persons hand, will result in them using that knowledge to gain better for themselves. so in THAT respect, yea knowledge will lead to danger innevitably but its somethin that cant be helped nor stopped.
I disagree.Not everyone is motivated by the same desires.Knowledge can also be used to better mankind.Even the knowledge of something terrible that has happened,like the holocaust.Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
no one said everyone was motivated by the same selfish desires, (although im willin to bet you along with everyone else on this site, is selfish to a point, whether it be money on the street or manipulation, if situation was dire enough, you'd do what you can to save your own ass, or obtain money if necessary) i agree with the fact it can better mankind, there is a difference between knowledge and historical recognition, and i dont see why you are applying it here. My point was connected to historical recognance. im talking about knowledge in fision, or anything that CAN be used harmfully, i know it'll never stop, because wether or not EVERY body is selfish, but more how EVERYBODY is corruptable, just appeal to whats most important to them, "your mothers sick dying? we'll get her the best medical care if ...." deny if you wish, but if we are as you say a piece of evolution at most, then we all have the same basic instincts.
And as for historical documentation, or credibility. wikipedia (and i dont want to hear the argument that its an unstable source since anyone can create one, thats null and void seeing as how since around 06-07 they have been scrutinous to people being byast and partial in notations and started to verify citations) cites "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus
as far as looking into history of even just A man named jesus being crucified, ctrl+f hist.
tI've been pretty low.Never hurt anyone else to get by.Not everyone is corruptable.Because not everyone is motivated by the same things.
I'm sorry that source is not reliable..and I'm not talking about wiki,I'm talking tacitus.But it's the same argument over and over with Christian types, it feels like an endless loop to me.NONE of these sources were contemporaries of jesus.There is NOBODY from his lifetime that speaks of him.It all comes after.That's not proof to me, sorry.But in my last post I gave two very good links which explain why The testimonium flavium is suspect.And even your own wiki article explains that they are disputed.Here's an excerpt from the article...it's numbered 11, right next to the "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history" which cites tacitus and josephus as a reference TO this "fact",even though both are disputed, and once again, NOT contemporaries of Jesus.(^ Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0060616628. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.")
t
the fact its disputed doesnt mean that its been discredited, much less proven otherwise some ppl tend to lean towards thinkin it has based on thier personal belief, "christian types" lean towards a positive while atheist types lean towards negatives, the fact that archeoligists have uncovered crusified bodies in the same fashion as christ, and a big debate of the actual crucifixtion was that nobody's body could withstand the stakes nailed where they were, and the body weight, but finding another in the fashion closely similar to that of the bibles description is a step.
and another thing, are we saying that christ never existed, or christ was no messiah nor son of god?
One more point to make: This is a big glaring example of why religion is dying.Anyone who believes in this stuff should NOT breed.
[youtube]IiSta--f_Lc[/youtube]
ur right... the gospels were writen at least a hundred years after jesus lived. according to my recent religion class.. it was 2-3 centuries afterwards. it's just amazing to me that the main historians that actually lived during "jesus's" time didn't write anything about him. i mean.. if the son of god walked the earth while you were alive, i would probably mention it in my notes... but thats just me. never existed n my bookthat is a completely low blow to the christian religion, seeing as how only a a small percentage of christians believe in "speaking in tongues" in modern day. you know i read your post and as they are composed in a civil manner you cut quite a bit, which im sorry is bull shit, and im not gettin worked up, nor angry, but its not necessary, logic should tell you what it tells most all christians, gifts cannot be taught, but way to take a stab.
just as there are ppl who can pick apart christianity that are respected, there are so in the opposite, both discredit each other, and both lead by personal opinion, as it will be for quite sometime, however there are some non believers who still research to find an un biased truth, i mean i could sit here and google for my argument, but i choose to go based off of what i've gathered and learned. and to be quite honest, yea i was a self proclaimed christian for quite sometime in my life, however the past year or so, ive been more so inquisitive of god, and have my own personal theory of life, one without a particular god, but i still believe there was a man named jesus and spoke of good morals, check out a book called "the real jesus" because there are discoveries that are brushed aside, by media, and colleges. discoveries that could say there was a possible true person, a man named jesus. and your comments that the bible was written 100 yrs after "supposed" christ lived, well is just as common of an argument from "atheist" types. and its untrue, think about how long it would take to write the bible, ok? i mean really that large of a book, in that time, would have taken quite some time? no? i mean, first you have to have materials to write with, and i mean its not like they had ink pens or pencils and sharpeners on hand, but yet people are notably quoting the new testament as early as 100 a.d., do the math involved with that. 1198 pages on a larger binded book with average sized font, so that would take some considerable time to write. and to already to have been quoted and being read, doesnt add up, its one of the most common comments that atheists use. and in its way discredited as well.
ur right... the gospels were writen at least a hundred years after jesus lived. according to my recent religion class.. it was 2-3 centuries afterwards. it's just amazing to me that the main historians that actually lived during "jesus's" time didn't write anything about him. i mean.. if the son of god walked the earth while you were alive, i would probably mention it in my notes... but thats just me. never existed n my book
this is how you put it in...well in any way since i cant post MY video, here is the link at least.
if you have a rebuttal to my post with this in it, i wont even read it nor acknowledge your post less you watched what you're arguing.
(this is to anyone, and no one in particular)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC_ofs5jC7U
we do if they kill someone "in the name of god". and i'm sure we have a lot of written material on people who have thought they are god. i'm sure i could google and get a long long list. if jesus did indeed arose from the dead... that would convince a lot of people.. he would be thought of a magician similar to david blain to say the least. he would definitely be written about.no that wasnt my point what so ever greenhorn, nor what i said, and if you watch that vid i posted, if i can get it to work, then you'll see what im talkin about, the fact is, jesus was crucified and "he arose from the dead" i know thats in question, but the fact is there was no need in their mind to write of his account because to them he was a crazy, a liar, which was somewhat common in those days, why write of him, do we write and make a big deal out of every person who calls themselves god? no, why? no need. we assume they're nutty. im not sayin this video will make anyone believe, but it will argue what stoney and most religion classes have to say about it.