Queue on 13/12/2013 at 16:46
It'd be like me writing down the history of my neighbor Fred. Then 300-hundred-years later, someone comes up with a religion saying that Fred was the son of God. Then two-thousand-years later my writings prove Fred existed.
Yakoob on 13/12/2013 at 17:57
Don't you even SAY shit about Fred, or I'm reporting your ass to the mods :mad::mad:
Queue on 14/12/2013 at 15:44
Follow-up:
Quote:
After Kelly sparked outraged on the Internet and became fodder late-night comics, she responded to the controversy on Friday.
“I offered a tongue-in-cheek message for any kids watching,” she explained. “Humor is a part of what we try to bring to this show, but sometimes that is lost on the humorless.”
I wonder if she understands how humor works.
Inline Image:
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg(All hail Fred!)
Emanuele on 16/12/2013 at 11:50
Quote Posted by Queue
Please, name one bit of evidence that you are personally aware of. Just one.
Well for example the time of the epoch is given. This man lived under the prefecture of Pontius Pilatus under the king Herod.
Another piece of evidence are the Gospels which have been written about 20 or 30 years after his death.
Then there is the common sense which tells you.... how could thousands of people believe in someone that never existed.
Even the Muslims acknoledge Jesus, but consider him a prophet, so the Koran is another piece of evidence.
We know of people who lived in even earlier times, like Julius Cesaer, king Hammurabi, Egyptians pharaos, so I don't understand why all this evidence should be ignored.
Further more miracles have happened throughout the ages including to our present day, to give evidence, confort and faith to those who lost it or to those whose faith saved them.
Lastly my family traces back to the Dark ages and if in those hard and difficult times, my family supported such ideas, they must have had some serious reasons.
Now you asked for some evidence. well here it is. I expect you to dismiss everything with some other things. If people do not want to understand they will never be able to hear or see because they just think that since they are right, what other people say is not to be believed.
Merry Christmas:angel:
DDL on 16/12/2013 at 12:15
Quote Posted by Emanuele
We know of people who lived in even earlier times, like Julius Cesaer
Who was leader of a gigantic nation.
Quote Posted by Emanuele
king Hammurabi
Who was leader of a gigantic nation.
Quote Posted by Emanuele
Egyptians pharaos
Who were leaders of a gigantic nation with
enormous emphasis on insanely long-term preservation of bodies and earthly belongings. I'm not sure they're better analogies for "Jesus" than Queue's neighbour Fred (at least you could have a beer with Fred).
SubJeff on 16/12/2013 at 12:57
Religious texts aren't evidence unless they are supported. Just like everything else.
Common sense?
I almost laughed.
Chimpy Chompy on 16/12/2013 at 13:42
It's quite plausible there was a wandering Jewish teacher called Jesus who got into trouble with the authorities. That doesn't mean we have to believe the supernatural bits of the story, of course.
Tony_Tarantula on 17/12/2013 at 04:38
Quote Posted by NuEffect
Religious texts aren't evidence unless they are supported. Just like everything else.
Common sense?
I almost laughed.
To suggest that the old Religious texts are merely superstition and made up fairy tales(or that religion is the domain of those who deny science) is less of a reflection on the stupidity of believers than it is on that person's poor comprehension of ancient allegorical and rhetorical techniques. If that person were as enlightened as they claim they would realize that religion (even ancient ones.....note the similarities between ancient "sun gods" and modern mono-theism) is science in and of itself.
No doubt someone here is going to get worked into a smugly self-aggrandizing, self-righteous rage over my comments but I would suggest that you know exactly where to stuff it. Find a copy of Oedipus Judaicus(which may be difficult, as it was published for private release in 1814 and hasn't had any large print runs since then). Read it, read some of the masonic texts, and then get back to me. Until you've done that or similar you don't have the necessary knowledge to make informed commentary.
Nicker on 17/12/2013 at 05:53
While there may be lost wisdom and knowledge buried in ancient religious texts and practices, religion is not "science in and of itself". It is at best proto-science.
We have the real thing now, or at least a better version.
Religion can make great art but its ability to accurately describe shared reality has been eclipsed for several centuries now.
Nicker on 17/12/2013 at 06:08
Quote Posted by Emanuele
Then there is the common sense which tells you.... how could thousands of people believe in someone that never existed.
Then same way that millions of people today can believe in things which are demonstrably incorrect. Lazy and wishful thinking.
Quote Posted by Emanuele
Further more miracles have happened throughout the ages including to our present day, to give evidence, confort and faith to those who lost it or to those whose faith saved them.
I am not aware of any credible reports of genuine miracles, that is to say, breaches of the fundamental laws of nature.
Quote Posted by Emanuele
Lastly my family traces back to the Dark ages and if in those hard and difficult times, my family supported such ideas, they must have had some serious reasons.
My family traces back to the first eukaryotic cells. They have been hearing the same self proclaimed certainties issuing from the mouths of the faithful since humans learned to tell stories. My intellectual ancestors often died for their ideals too. Guess that makes us even.
Quote Posted by Emanuele
Now you asked for some evidence. well here it is. I expect you to dismiss everything with some other things. If people do not want to understand they will never be able to hear or see because they just think that since they are right, what other people say is not to be believed.
I find what you say hard to believe because you have provided little to no credible evidence and your conclusions do not follow from your premises.
