Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

#226
#226
rjd970 said:
JMO, but I disagree. Do you go around pretending to not be sure any of the God's of Olympus exist? To me, if you are unsure, then every God throughout history, no matter how ridiculous, is on equal footing.

I could probably find many Zeus atheists that are God agnostics. That doesn't make sense since the evidence for either is equally lacking.
Click to expand...

you can't have degrees of uncertainty? it all has to be the same?
 
#227
#227
droski said:
not a whole lot of evidence that jesus didn't actually exist. not much evidence he was the son of god though.
Click to expand...

Are there any historical documents written during his supposed lifetime that testify to his existence?
 
#231
#231
droski said:
probably because i grew up in a christian household.
Click to expand...

So you disagree that every God throughout history is not on equal footing, because you happen to grow up in a Christian household? It's not evidence, but experience that makes certain Gods more plausible to believe in?

If so, I still disagree that agnosticism is a "far more resonable belief than 0% chance god exists or 100% chance god does not".
 
#232
#232
rjd970 said:
So you disagree that every God throughout history is not on equal footing, because you happen to grow up in a Christian household? It's not evidence, but experience that makes certain Gods more plausible to believe in?

If so, I still disagree that agnosticism is a "far more resonable belief than 0% chance god exists or 100% chance god does not".
Click to expand...

no i'm saying that since i grew up in a christian household a monotheistic religion seems more "plausable," but if i didn't that it might not. i agree in principle there isn't a difference.

sorry but i seriously can't understand how one could have zero doubt at all about something they have zero proof of. i understand that is what "faith" is about, but you don't have ANY doubt?
 
#233
#233
droski said:
no i'm saying that since i grew up in a christian household a monotheistic religion seems more "plausable," but if i didn't that it might not. i agree in principle there isn't a difference.

sorry but i seriously can't understand how one could have zero doubt at all about something they have zero proof of. i understand that is what "faith" is about, but you don't have ANY doubt?
Click to expand...

We are opening pandora box again here. But why do I need proof something doesn't exist?

The doubt I have is the unknown. I have zero doubt that unknown is explained through any God, monotheistic or otherwise.
 
#235
#235
therealUT said:
Are there any historical documents written during his supposed lifetime that testify to his existence?
Click to expand...

Why would there be? There were many rabbis and other socio-political leaders during this time that drew large crowds. Throw in the fact the Romans didn't really care and the Jewish leaders hated him and there would have been no reason to write.

There is enough history to really silence any educated doubt as to whether Jesus the man existed. The rest of up to the indiviudal, but a very small fringe of the historical world truly believes there wasn't a Jesus.
 
#236
#236
rjd970 said:
So you disagree that every God throughout history is not on equal footing, because you happen to grow up in a Christian household? It's not evidence, but experience that makes certain Gods more plausible to believe in?

If so, I still disagree that agnosticism is a "far more resonable belief than 0% chance god exists or 100% chance god does not".
Click to expand...

If they are on equal footing I'll just choose the one that died for me.
 
#237
#237
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I went back and read the thread that the conversation was in, but it was someone else. Sorry bro.
Click to expand...

Don't sweat it, Eric. Honest mistake. No harm, no foul.

In fact, I often mistake IPO for Rex, JT5, Freak, UTG and BPV, as their posts are virtually indistinguishable from one another, IMO.
 
#238
#238
gsvol said:
9tplc5.jpg


How can one kid be so very wrong so very often??

Hitler was never considered a Christian
by anyone, especially himself. (he did
belong to some homosexual groups.)

As a matter of fact he used some very
derogatory terms to describe Christianity.
I posted several of his quotes in the naacp
thread.

However he praised islam extensively.

All the fascist leaders were in league
with various moslem forces, Moussolini
took the title; 'defender of islam.'

The Pope never raised any troops for the
nazis, the islamic mufti of Jerusalem did
raise three divisions of SS troops that
served the nazis.

They were so avidly brutal and sadistic
that some of Hitler's generals complained
to him but he told them that was a good
thing and not to bring it up again.

The following is an example:


"During our journey toward the hill
of Javor, near Srebrenica and Ozren, all
the Serbian villages which we came across
were wholly massacred. In the villages
between Vlasenica and Kladanj we discovered
children who had been impaled upon stakes,
their small limbs still distorted by pain,
resembling insects stuck through by pins."

The above quote is from:
"Assassins au nom de Dieu"
Author: Herve Lauriere
Paris, 1951, page 58
Click to expand...

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

-Adolf Hitler, My New Order
From a speech on April 12, 1922

I don't deny that the Muslims sided with the Nazis, but Hitler himself proclaimed he was a Christian. Anti-Semitism, at the time of Hitler's rise, was very popular and united some Christians and Muslims.
 
#240
#240
tigervol9802 said:
Why would there be? There were many rabbis and other socio-political leaders during this time that drew large crowds. Throw in the fact the Romans didn't really care and the Jewish leaders hated him and there would have been no reason to write.

There is enough history to really silence any educated doubt as to whether Jesus the man existed. The rest of up to the indiviudal, but a very small fringe of the historical world truly believes there wasn't a Jesus.
Click to expand...

Again, in what texts, other than the Gospels, the Epistles, and Josephus do we find any mention of Jesus during the first century, even? What texts after that rely on anything other than those texts to make their claims?

All of the former texts are riddled with historical inaccuracies, conflicting accounts, and are of dubious origin. These do not in any way silence "educated doubt"; they certainly silence uneducated doubt, though.
 
#242
#242
therealUT said:
Again, in what texts, other than the Gospels, the Epistles, and Josephus do we find any mention of Jesus during the first century, even? What texts after that rely on anything other than those texts to make their claims?

All of the former texts are riddled with historical inaccuracies, conflicting accounts, and are of dubious origin. These do not in any way silence "educated doubt"; they certainly silence uneducated doubt, though.
Click to expand...

I've never heard Josephus mentioned as unreliable. And correct me if I am wrong, but Luke's accounts of rulers and places in Luke and Acts have been proven more and more true as historians have discovered more over time.

I'm also trying to recall if this is accurate or not, but somewhere in the back of my brain I'm wanting to say Jewish culture of the time (and in orthadox Jews, even today) relied very heavily on oral tradition being passed down, not written. That could to some extent also explain the lack fo writings of the time.

Educated doubt was probably the wrong term to use. But the evidence definitely weighs in the favor of existance versus non-existance from the documentation we have at the time.
 
#243
#243
rjd970 said:
We are opening pandora box again here. But why do I need proof something doesn't exist?

The doubt I have is the unknown. I have zero doubt that unknown is explained through any God, monotheistic or otherwise.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying you need proof to have your faith, i'm saying i dont' understanding having 100% zero doubt without proof. i don't begrudge others for that belief, but i don't understand it.
 
#244
#244
droski said:
i'm not saying you need proof to have your faith, i'm saying i dont' understanding having 100% zero doubt without proof. i don't begrudge others for that belief, but i don't understand it.
Click to expand...

It's one in the same. I am atheist. My position is there is no proof God exists. You seem to be saying you don't understand how I can be that way without 100% proof he doesn't exist.

Either way, agnosticism is the middle ground that makes the least sense to me. Either God exists, or he doesn't. It's that simple.
 
#245
#245
JZVOL said:
Interesting, if not predictable where this thread went. The usual suspects telling people that they are essentially stupid for believing in Jesus and he's a fairytale character yet they always end up spending a lot of time talking about something they have no use for.

For me, if I typically believe something is not true, stupid or made up I ignore it and don't waste my time on it.

I do believe Jesus is who he claimed to be. If people don't like it, they can get over it.

I'm a pretty simple guy, wouldn't consider myself "smart" and if you want to debate topics that happened hundreds of years ago and what people did that was so horrible have at it; I can only control my belief and my actions. At the end of the day, I believe we will be judged, individually, based on our actions, motives and give an account for the way we lived our lives.

People who committed terrible acts in the name of Jesus, well good luck to you. They will have to give an account for that.

I had nothing to do with any of that. I've seen my youth pastor cheat on his wife, my pastor cheat on his wife and people in my church do some pretty sh*tty things that made me want beat the crap out of them.

None of that has changed my belief in Christ, and why should it? I won't be swayed by others actions because the fact is when a youth minister for example cheats on his wife, that's why we believe in Christ's forgiveness, because we aren't perfect and we need his grace to cover our sins.

I'm not looking to call anyone silly or whatever for not believing in Christ, I'm not claiming to have all the answers, it doesn't really bother me that I don't have all the answers, I just believe Jesus covered my sin with his blood and is the way to Heaven.
Click to expand...

I very much appreciated your response. The discussion would be exponentially more productive if others - from either direction - followed your exampled lead.

But, in more direct response to your post - isn't there room for those who seek, but have yet to find the means to fully believe, or at least without also foregoing or sacrificing their own intellectual integrity in that process? I would argue that the search - if both earnest and honest - would necessarily require the raising of any and all objections which served to prevent their belief, whatsoever.

Or, more simply - if your god is God, then no amount of questions, doubts, inconsistencies or allegations should be cause for concern, but welcomed, instead.
 
#246
#246
therealUT said:
Again, in what texts, other than the Gospels, the Epistles, and Josephus do we find any mention of Jesus during the first century, even? What texts after that rely on anything other than those texts to make their claims?

All of the former texts are riddled with historical inaccuracies, conflicting accounts, and are of dubious origin. These do not in any way silence "educated doubt"; they certainly silence uneducated doubt, though.
Click to expand...

Antiquities of the Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

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, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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 at this day.
Click to expand...

You can buy it on Amazon.

Amazon.com: Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Book 20 (Loeb Classical Library No. 456) (Bk.XX v. 13) (9780674995024): Josephus, Louis H. Feldman: Books
 
#247
#247
rjd970 said:
It's one in the same. I am atheist. My position is there is no proof God exists. You seem to be saying you don't understand how I can be that way without 100% proof he doesn't exist.

Either way, agnosticism is the middle ground that makes the least sense to me. Either God exists, or he doesn't. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

This is how I view it. The only way I can label someone agnostic is if they don't believe one way or another nor do they really care.

However, I think Droski misunderstood and thought you were a theist that didn't need proof of existence, or that's how I understood it.
 
#248
#248
rjd970 said:
It's one in the same. I am atheist. My position is there is no proof God exists. You seem to be saying you don't understand how I can be that way without 100% proof he doesn't exist.

Either way, agnosticism is the middle ground that makes the least sense to me. Either God exists, or he doesn't. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

RJD -
Are you saying that your personal belief is that there is a 0% (read: NONE) chance that the God described in the Judeo-Christian faith, exists?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top