Do you know.......

33659_1503979714295_1078291389_31225248_2769765_n.jpg
 
Things are only offensive to someone if you care and let it get to you...

Why waste any energy on this? :laugh:

Sorry, just wondering when the ultra PC of America will finally peter out and everyone just stops finding stuff to be offended over...

I offend myself sometimes...imagine that? :laugh:

:moon:

couldnt have said it better myself....
 
:rofl:Really? So people just made up some guy named Jesus? He is as real to history as Washington, Napolean, King Tut, and anyone and everyone else you care to research. You can't deny Jesus existed, the question is only that many people belive he was just a man. Where as countless others including myself know him as GOD. The choice is personal, and I'm not argueing, or trying to impose my belifes on anyone. The fact that you or anyone question his very exhistance is funny:laugh:

Yeah, because religions never invented people that were believed in by the masses...

The entire greek/roman pantheon for instance...

I mean after all, the entire known world for a period of time believed that they were real...


Or are you suggesting there really was a guy named zeus who tossed lightening bolts... because thats a whole different issue...
 
Yeah, because religions never invented people that were believed in by the masses...

The entire greek/roman pantheon for instance...

I mean after all, the entire known world for a period of time believed that they were real...


Or are you suggesting there really was a guy named zeus who tossed lightening bolts... because thats a whole different issue...

You can't change my mind, nor was I trying to change your's. Let's just agree to disagree.
 
You can't change my mind, nor was I trying to change your's. Let's just agree to disagree.

Ironicly, i believe he was likely some dude walking around preaching...He may have even had a few good ideas, love your brother and all that...


I don't believe anything else however... I go far beyond Atheism, to more of "Antagotheism" (made up word).. i hate organised religions in general...


i was merely pointing out the falicy of an argument that because everyone believed he was real, there for he must be real...

Until there is undeniable physical proof, (a corpse, his tomb, etc) his life and existence will be relegated to nothing more than a tale in a book... The search for the physical jesus has made so many missteps and wrong turns, its turning into a sad joke in the national enquirer...


Its entirely faith based anyhow, trying to prove your faith in science, seems almost counter intuitive...

In something centered so heavily in the supernatural, looking for something in the natural world to verify it seems pointless and undesireable...

What happens if the physical jesus is ever found, only that science can start trying harder to tear away the foundations of the religion...

IMHO, christians should hope and pray his tomb/corpse/etc. is never ever found...

Half the mystery is in the unknowing... The faith part would suffer a blow, if the mystery was ever revealed..
 
Last edited:
I appologise SIXPACK577 ,, I just threw the question out there for some of the Cristians that 'might not' have a clue about it,,NOT to start a religious debate,,I don't feel the need to defend my Lord and Saviour against the masses,,I feel He is quite capable of that Himself,, :please:
 
Ironicly, i believe he was likely some dude walking around preaching...He may have even had a few good ideas, love your brother and all that...


I don't believe anything else however... I go far beyond Atheism, to more of "Antagotheism" (made up word).. i hate organised religions in general...


i was merely pointing out the falicy of an argument that because everyone believed he was real, there for he must be real...

Until there is undeniable physical proof, (a corpse, his tomb, etc) his life and existence will be relegated to nothing more than a tale in a book... The search for the physical jesus has made so many missteps and wrong turns, its turning into a sad joke in the national enquirer...


Its entirely faith based anyhow, trying to prove your faith in science, seems almost counter intuitive...

In something centered so heavily in the supernatural, looking for something in the natural world to verify it seems pointless and undesireable...

What happens if the physical jesus is ever found, only that science can start trying harder to tear away the foundations of the religion...

IMHO, christians should hope and pray his tomb/corpse/etc. is never ever found...

Half the mystery is in the unknowing... The faith part would suffer a blow, if the mystery was ever revealed..

As distasteful as this reads for some people, you are right. where bolded
 
Ironicly, i believe he was likely some dude walking around preaching...He may have even had a few good ideas, love your brother and all that...


I don't believe anything else however... I go far beyond Atheism, to more of "Antagotheism" (made up word).. i hate organised religions in general...


i was merely pointing out the falicy of an argument that because everyone believed he was real, there for he must be real...

Until there is undeniable physical proof, (a corpse, his tomb, etc) his life and existence will be relegated to nothing more than a tale in a book... The search for the physical jesus has made so many missteps and wrong turns, its turning into a sad joke in the national enquirer...


Its entirely faith based anyhow, trying to prove your faith in science, seems almost counter intuitive...

In something centered so heavily in the supernatural, looking for something in the natural world to verify it seems pointless and undesireable...

What happens if the physical jesus is ever found, only that science can start trying harder to tear away the foundations of the religion...

IMHO, christians should hope and pray his tomb/corpse/etc. is never ever found...

Half the mystery is in the unknowing... The faith part would suffer a blow, if the mystery was ever revealed..

:bowdown:

Sixpack, I am not trying to argue religion with you. I think we can agree that is pointless. However, there is no historical proof of Jesus.

As for made up religious characters - see above posting :lol:

I don't like fallacies being thrown around as facts. That is all :beerchug:
 
Just for the sake of argument, who says science got it correct?

Science was and still is created and defined by man. Technically because there is not a single all knowing being on this planet you therefore have to define science as a collection of "best guesses". Because after all that's what science is ... best guess.

Who says someone didn't "guess" wrong along the way but because there was no way to prove them incorrect, their "guess" was taken as fact. You therefore are working in the same philosophy as you stated before about someones religious beliefs.

So one could make the argument because you "believe" the scientist before who accumulated such "knowledge" you are putting your faith into them. Therefore creating somewhat of a paradox with your statements.

I'm a Christian, through and through, but because I have always been intrigued with science such ideas have always popped in my head about both arguments.

EDIT: Just wanted to state this was ONLY for the sake of argument, people should believe what they want to believe. But i had to ask ;-)
 
Last edited:
Just for the sake of argument, who says science got it correct?

Science was and still is created and defined by man. Technically because there is not a single all knowing being on this planet you therefore have to define science as a collection of "best guesses". Because after all that's what science is ... best guess.

Who says someone didn't "guess" wrong along the way but because there was no way to prove them incorrect, their "guess" was taken as fact. You therefore are working in the same philosophy as you stated before about someones religious beliefs.

So one could make the argument because you "believe" the scientist before who accumulated such "knowledge" you are putting your faith into them. Therefore creating somewhat of a paradox with your statements.

I'm a Christian, through and through, but because I have always been intrigued with science such ideas have always popped in my head about both arguments.

Science is not CREATED, science is formed through observation of the natural world.. It is measureable, countable, and definable...

Science begins with hypothesis... Moves through the scientific method, and derives conclusions... However, those conclusions can either support and counter your hypothesis..


Science absolutly accepts the fact that it can be wrong..

It uses math, and observations of repeatable experiments, and measured data...

Proving something in science is perhaps one of the hardest of all tasks, and they constantly put themselves under ultimate levels of scruitny and peer review..

Even that which is commonly accepted, is constantly challenged as ideas change..


Science puts itself up to extreme rigor when it comes to its claims... It requires observable facts... Repeatability in experiements, etc.

Lastly, one important notion...


Science can survive the scruitny of religion, as its based on observations and measurements of the natural world...


Something religion never does... Nor could it survive that level of rigor.. It has no way to substantiate its claims, no evidence or proof...

It has Faith... period...

that is perhaps the interesting, amazing, sad, or what ever you feel part about religion..

Belief despite lack of fact, support, or otherwise in something that seems impossible....

It works for some...
 
I used to have a great bumper sticker.

"Jesus,please protect me from your followers".

:laugh:RSD.
 
:clap::santa:
Science is not CREATED, science is formed through observation of the natural world.. It is measureable, countable, and definable...

Science begins with hypothesis... Moves through the scientific method, and derives conclusions... However, those conclusions can either support and counter your hypothesis..


Science absolutly accepts the fact that it can be wrong..

It uses math, and observations of repeatable experiments, and measured data...

Proving something in science is perhaps one of the hardest of all tasks, and they constantly put themselves under ultimate levels of scruitny and peer review..

Even that which is commonly accepted, is constantly challenged as ideas change..


Science puts itself up to extreme rigor when it comes to its claims... It requires observable facts... Repeatability in experiements, etc.

Lastly, one important notion...


Science can survive the scruitny of religion, as its based on observations and measurements of the natural world...


Something religion never does... Nor could it survive that level of rigor.. It has no way to substantiate its claims, no evidence or proof...

It has Faith... period...

that is perhaps the interesting, amazing, sad, or what ever you feel part about religion..

Belief despite lack of fact, support, or otherwise in something that seems impossible....

It works for some...
 
Science is not CREATED, science is formed through observation of the natural world.. It is measureable, countable, and definable...

This is where I always come to a brick wall in my head, how can one define something one has no absolute knowledge of? Therefore it was "created" when one scientist said his theory was correct, or his peers of the same science confirmed as correct.

You state your case fair and straight with the same facts as any other person in this day and age who argues the same points.

But my biggest question is this, you still base your experiments, math and measured data off something someone before has said is "right". You are comparing data from other peoples "best guesses" with answers you derive from your "best guess".

Who says it was right?

Again, please don't take this as a personal attack I am only trying to say there is holes in both sides of the stories. But its what you believe that should count for YOU ... and only you :)
 
Last edited:
This is where I always come to a brick wall in my head, how can one define something one has no absolute knowledge of?

You state your case fair and straight with the same facts as any other person in this day and age who argues the same points.

But my biggest question is this, you still base your experiments, math and measured data off something someone before has said is "right". You are comparing data from other peoples "best guesses" with answers you derive from your "best guess".

Who says it was right?

Same reason why I believe in God creating us and not us evolving from monkeys. If we all evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys???
 
Food for though if you like to read. I don't feel like typing as much as you guys are. Lazzy here. :laugh::laugh:
 

Attachments

  • Joske MeaningOfLife2.pdf
    550.8 KB · Views: 140
  • NagelMeaningOfLife.pdf
    327.2 KB · Views: 110
  • TolstoyMyConfession.pdf
    536.9 KB · Views: 120
Last edited:
Back
Top