Justice
-
Posts
2487 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Justice
-
-
So I guess the absolute worst driver in the entire world would talk like this:
"Yee-haw! Let's burn rubber an' git our backsides on over ta Big Jim's sushi bar! It's ladies' night an' boy, do Ah loves me some wasabi! Say... y'all wouldn't be starin' at my tits now, would ya?"
Hey, aren't those the voters that Howard Dean wants to represent
:lol: ? -
*sits back*
I love history and historical debates......they just get so interesting. Plus it is very hard to prove something from history.....because records can be tampered with...none of us were actually there.
But........continue.......this is interesting........
Yeah, truly. We should get a history board. I'd absolutely love it.
-
There's no proof that he didn't exist
You can't prove that someone or something never existed. That's nonsensical. You can only prove that we have ZERO records of Jesus or anyone like him ever having existed.
Well, my beef was more with the argument that the ideas behind his teachings were invalid because he "didn't exist", which I find to be straight BS. Ideas are ideas no matter how you look at them. Okay, so let's go with the theory that Jesus didn't exist. Does that mean that his teachings are suddenly wrong? No. The ideas there are still a fantastic moral base for mankind, whether created by a group of Christians or the man himself. I find that foolish and childish. If a brilliant quote or tenet is put forth but its creator remains anonymous, does that immediately make what he said wrong? No, because the idea is still there and it still has power.
Also, for everyone saying that it's the philosophy, not the man which is really important (and I agree), I trust you are all aware that your opinion is completely contrary to Christian doctrine? It's straight out of Jesus Christ Superstar, and we all know how much the Church loved that."You've begun to matter more than the things you say!"
- Judas, Heaven On Their Minds
I believe in Jesus, but I believe in the ideas he set forth more. It's wrong to carry out stuff in his name that directly contradicts what he says (Much of the Catholic Priesthood crisis of simply hiding the problem rather than addressing it). Like the Constitution, the words and the meaning behind those words far more valuable in life than those who spoke or wrote them. So I believe in him, but I believe I'll please him far more by living out what he asked rather than just praising him for being who he is. It's not all the philosophy for me, but it plays a greater part in my life than he does.
-
I have to say that's pretty badass to be a Knight Templar today, and that letter is just golden. Beautiful.
-
Well, consistently asking if we believe in other historical figures is kind of a weak argument, as well. I don't recall any religions popping up based around riding Elephants through the mountains. But we're supposed to have this blind following for this man who apparently was the son of God, despite no evidence to back up that he existed? Sure, there's shady info surrounding Alexander the Great. But Alexander the Great doesn't have an entire book based around his life and teachings, does he? Are there millions worldwide that follow the teachings of Alexander the Great? It all boils down to that there's no proof that he existed, therefore there is no validation in anything that he supposedly said. Let's say that he never existed. Would you still have faith in what he said, despite the fact that he wasn't around to say it? It would be a huge work of fiction, similar to someone believing in the philosophy of Fight Club.
Bullshit. We are only questioning whether the man himself existed, that he was a historical figure. That's the whole flaw: You believe that it being part of religion somehow seperates it from history, but we are talking the historical "Not the son of God" Jesus, which is completely possible. I do like, however, that despite the doubts with the others, you completely accept them as historical figures.
What does it matter that he has a whole book based around him? How does that have any bearing on whether he existed any more than Socrates or Alexander when the same doubts exists with these figures as well? What if everyone believed that Alexander was the Son of God instead of Jesus. Would you say the same thing? Your whole argument hinges on the fact that there's a religion based around one and not the other, which has absolutely NO BEARING on whether he existed or not.
There's no proof that he didn't exist. You have nothing that can say that right now definitively. I have nothing definitively that can say he does. It's a stalemate: Neither of us have the evidence to prove our stances beyond a reasonable doubt without putting a massive amount of faith into it.
-
Zsasz, you are very correct. I've saw stuff about that a while ago.
Honestly, this is just dumb. Do you believe Socrates existed? There are serious doubts to that. Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? There are major doubts that he did as well. Hell, aren't there doubts on Hannibal himself existing? Seriously, if you accept those, what should Jesus matter? Just because some people believe he's the son of God means nothing to the argument since both the Jews and Muslims acknowledge his existence but they don't recognize him as their savior. He could just as well been a normal man, so that argument lacks point outside of the circular argument "Do you believe he is God?". It's pathetic to think that evidence could support one side more than the other when there isn't enough to even point in a direction.
-
You can't prove that anyone not even Santa Claus doesn't exist. We can't prove that a spaceship wasn't hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet.
What I'm asking is what would make you put faith in that particular story?
First off, wasn't Santa Claus based off a Scandinavian Saint?
Why shouldn't I? Does it make a difference to you if I believe that there's a higher power or not?
-
Personally, I don't see the point in this argument besides people trying to push each others' opinions on one another (And yes, I'm guilty of this as well). For something 2000 years old, we'll never likely never to have definitive proof to whether he existed or not; it's like trying to guess the picture behind a 2,000 piece puzzle with only a few dozen pieces. Kahran is right: the only real deciding fact is what we believe to be true.
What I'm getting at is why believe it? If you're going to believe something at least believe Mythra. It's the same story, but he was around first.
It's one thing to wonder about if he was telling the truth, its another to think he might've not even have existed at all.
Indeed. It's all choice. But to act as though there's no logic behind it when even you can't prove that he didn't exist is subsituting one leap of faith for another. Again, it's all faith and one's personal choice to believe or not. You can't claim to be right or wrong here.
-
Almost every fable, aspect and story of the Judeo-Christian mythos have been usurped or derived from other mythologies. This is nothing new and certainly not exclusive to this religion. Every single religion has taken it's ideas from others and changed them to their own.
However, the Romans were a largely military and secular society, they gave little more than lip services to their gods; also they kept meticulous census records.
There are records of Jesus of Nazareth's life, and before anyone repeats the 'How do you know he existed at all? He supposedly lived over 2000 years ago!" I'll just point to the ancient Egyptians. Ramses II lived many millenia before Christ, yet no one doubts he existed.....or do you?
Then again, we lack any definitive proof of the existance of Alexander the Great, yet he's accepted into historical fact.
And, well, Ramses was a Pharaoh. Jesus was a carpenter for most of his life. See the diff?
The point is there's nothing to make you think he existed.Except for 3 major religions telling me he did. The argument is pointless because there's no way you can prove one way or another he did or didn't. No one can be proven in the right unless we were actually able to go back then and look.
-
Personally, I don't see the point in this argument besides people trying to push each others' opinions on one another (And yes, I'm guilty of this as well). For something 2000 years old, we'll never likely never to have definitive proof to whether he existed or not; it's like trying to guess the picture behind a 2,000 piece puzzle with only a few dozen pieces. Kahran is right: the only real deciding fact is what we believe to be true.
-
... That doesn't really mean anything, man. It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter. That's a real superficial way of looking at it.
It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not.
Yes, they worship him for what he represents: That particular philosophy. You really can't seperate the man from his teachings.
You don't worship a guy because of his philosophy. You worship him because you think he's the son of God.
You can't even prove that he didn't exist, so how can you prove he wasn't the son of God?
-
... That doesn't really mean anything, man. It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter. That's a real superficial way of looking at it.
It's fine if all you take it as is a good philosophy book, but there's plenty of people that worship the guy, believe it or not.
Yes, they worship him for what he represents: That particular philosophy. You really can't seperate the man from his teachings.
-
Exactly what's wrong with this situation. There is absolutely NO way to be sure of the validity of the life and times of Jesus. I mean, he goes into the Temple and is teaching the elders, and then he disappears for upwards of thirty years. For all we know, it's an entirely different Jesus.
So what if we aren't sure? That doesn't mean he's automatically invalidated along with all his teachings. This is a real piss-poor argument to somehow invalidate what the man supposedly preached.
-
It just seems a little strange to me that we have this supposed "record" of the events of that day, yet we have no concrete proof of it. Had Jesus actually been a man who walked among us, there should be at least SOME record of it. But then again...if he didn't exist, those that wrote the Bible, a collection of stories from his followers, would have been writing pure fiction.
Then again, we are talking about a difference of 2000 years. Records lost, changed, erased, no eyewitnesses that can be called upon. Weren't the stories of Alexander the Great written something like 200 years after his death?
-
And if you can't be sure he even existed, how can anyone seriously take anything he might've said with more than a grain of salt?
... That doesn't really mean anything, man. It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter. That's a real superficial way of looking at it.
-
In one scene, the character of Reagan says of AIDS (news - web sites) patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." There is no evidence that Reagan actually ever said such a thing.
What the FUCK? I don't think this seems all too unbiased anymore...
-
No, not trolling. Just doubting the existence of Christ, that's all.
Oh, I understand that, though you come off as prickish and inciteful rather than insightful. Just a tip there.
-
.....SPOOKY LANGUAGE!
And an idiotic poster.
Not a big George Carlin fan, are we?
Well, you look like you are trolling at the moment. It'd didn't click until now, though :\.
-
.....SPOOKY LANGUAGE!
And an idiotic poster.
-
Interesting site, but in all honesty, it doesn't really convince me much that he didn't exist. I dunno why, but maybe how the Christians were suppressed could his name have possibly been purged or erased from records after a while? I suppose for him not to exist and then suddenly spring up out of nowhere just rings odd to me.
-
Under what last name?
Barjoseph? That doesn't really help, now does it?
They've actually found his name in Roman records, but there's a legitimate question on whether or not they were modified by someone at a later date. The way the data was shown to me (In a post a while back, I can't quite remember where) I was convinced that it had been falsified. Personally, I could care less if Jesus were real or fiction: His tenants should really matter more than him.
-
Hey, chuckles, it's still early. Bush still has plenty of time to piss more people off.
Aww, weren't you and Tyler talking about how close Bush was to losing the election a year in advance? You know, maybe we should all stop posting useless polls stuff until we are within a month or so of the real election because it doesn't matter right now, m'kay?
-
You... bastard...
You shut your hole! Look at MY match! And only 4,000 fricken words! AHHHHHHHHHH!
-
OMGODREAS HAPPY BIRTHDAY!&@*(#)&!@$*()!&@3
Was Jesus married?
in Current Events
Posted
justsoyouknow, or so I thought.