The Evidence For Jesus' Existence Is Nothing But Hearsay

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+15 more 
posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
In my research into the existence of Jesus, I was startled that most of the evidence of his existence that theists point me to, more often than not is nothing more than hearsay. How can we come to a clear conclusion when you have nothing but hearsay supporting your claims??? I found a link that went into great detail about this, and I will post quotations from the author.

www.nobeliefs.com...


No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.



Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.



If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.



Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.



Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them. Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..."



Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.



Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.



Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.



As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [Schonfield]



NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.



Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.



As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.


[edit on 3-9-2008 by AlexG141989]




posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
So I could logically assertain that you think that the evidence for the existence of all historical figures over 100 years ago is just hearsay.

Thats deep.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
An excellent post


I would like to find a point where I may contradict you, or point out an error, unfortunately at this point I'm unable to.

Perhaps "True Christians" can help me out here, perhaps someone else is able to show evidence to contradict this post.

Please don't insult me by doing the "All a matter of faith" bit my soul is very important to me, and I do not wish to squander it without by not getting all the facts.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

So I could logically assertain that you think that the evidence for the existence of all historical figures over 100 years ago is just hearsay.

Thats deep.


Nice try but... ehhh, some people don't read. Well, I will answer your post with another quote from that link


Many Christian apologists attempt to extricate themselves from their lack of evidence by claiming that if we cannot rely on the post chronicle exegesis of Jesus, then we cannot establish a historical foundation for other figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Napoleon, etc. However, there sits a vast difference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs either artifacts, writings, or eyewitness accounts for historical people, whereas, for Jesus we have nothing.


again, the author of that essay goes into great detail debunking that argument you made. What I posted was just one quote.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
OT, try to make sence next time you post ok???



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what people later wrote about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989
OT, try to make sence next time you post ok???



OK, slow down and re-read my post and try that again, ok? I'm with you here...give me something to respond to, ok?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989
OT, try to make sence next time you post ok???


You meant 'sense' right?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Hey guys, hope all is well! OT is prayin' for you!!!!

= = = =

Here's a bit to chew on, while you while you think up a clever response, ok?...

= = = =

Source below from Western Mich prof: www.4truth.net...

Did Jesus Really Exist?

By Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University

"No, he didn't!" some skeptics claim, thinking that this is a quick, powerful lever with which to pry people away from "the fable of Christianity." But the lever crumbles at its very first use. In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by "the village atheist," bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

The Internal Evidence

Aside from the many Messianic predictions in the Old Testament, not one of the four Gospels or the 23 other documents in the New Testament would make an ounce of sense if Jesus had never lived. Did the whole cavalcade of well-known historical personalities in the first century A.D. who interacted with Jesus deal with a vacuum? Did Herod the Great try to terminate an infant ghost? Did the Jewish high priests Annas and Caiaphas interview a spirit? Did the Roman governor Pontius Pilate judge a phantom on Good Friday, or Paul and so many apostles give their lives for a myth?

No one doubts that the above names are well known from both sacred and secular sources, as well as archaeological evidence, and are therefore historical. The same is clearly true of Jesus of Nazareth. But why, then, is Jesus not permitted the "luxury" of actually having lived as did the rest of these? Why the double standard here?

From the internal, biblical evidence alone, therefore, Jesus' existence is simply categorical. And yet there is an abundance of additional extrabiblical information on this question.

The External Evidence: Christian

Another long paragraph could be devoted to writings of the early church fathers, some of whom had close contact with New Testament personalities. Jesus' disciple John, for example, later became bishop of the church at Ephesus. One of his students was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and a student of his, in turn, was Irenaeus of Lyons. The centerpiece in all of their writings was Jesus the Christ ("Messiah").

Apart from such living personal links to Jesus, both geographical and temporal tangencies appear in Justin Martyr. Born of pagan parents around A.D. 100 in Nablus (between Judea and Galilee), Justin tried and abandoned various philosophical schools until he found in Christianity the one true teaching. As a native of the Holy Land, Justin mentions sites associated with Jesus, such as the Bethlehem grotto in which he was born, and even such details as Jesus working as an apprentice carpenter in the shop of his foster father Joseph, where they specialized in producing such agricultural implements as yokes for oxen and plows.

External Evidence: Jewish

The Jewish rabbinical traditions not only mention Jesus, but they are also the only sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri—Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. Some of the references to Jesus in the Talmud are garbled—probably due to the vagaries of oral tradition—but one is especially accurate, since it seems based on written sources and comes from the Mishna—the earliest collection of writings in the Talmud. This is no less than the arrest notice for Jesus, which runs as follows:

He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and lured Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. Anyone who knows where he is, let him declare it to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Four items in this statement strongly support its authenticity as a notice composed before Jesus' arrest: 1) The future tense is used; 2) Stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not involved; 3) There is no reference whatever to crucifixion; and 4) That Jesus was performing "sorcery"— the extraordinary or miraculous with a negative spin—is quite remarkable. This not only invokes what historians call the "criterion of embarrassment," which proves what is conceded, but accords perfectly with how Jesus' opponents explained away his miraculous healings: performing them with the help of Beelzebul (Luke 11:18).

Moreover, the first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, twice mentions "Jesus who is called the Christ" in his Jewish Antiquities. In the second of these, he tells of the death of Jesus' half-brother James the Just of Jerusalem (20:200). And two books earlier, in the longest first-century non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of events in Pontius Pilate's administration:

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day. (18:63)

This is the recent, uninterpolated text that replaces the traditional version which, unfortunately, had suffered early interpolation. For a more detailed evaluation of Josephus and his references to Jesus, please see my separate article on Josephus in this series.

External Evidence: Secular

Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable source historians of first-century Rome, wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars. Among the highlights that he reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus" (15:44). He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution.

Tacitus, it should be emphasized, was not some Christian historian who was trying to prove that Jesus Christ really lived, but a pagan who despised Christians as a "disease," a term he uses later in the passage. Had Jesus never even existed, he would have been the first to expose that pathetic phantom on whom such cultists placed their trust. Were no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity. Skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage—but to no avail. Manuscript analysis and computer studies have never found any reason to call this sentence into question, nor its context.


Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars. He, too, regarded the Christians as a sect "professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Nero 16) and doubtless cited "Christus" as well, spelling his name "Chrestus" (Claudius 25). That the vowels "e" and "i" were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for "Christian" to this day: chretien.

Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of Bithynia—today, the northwestern corner of Turkey—and about the year 110 he wrote the emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.), asking what to do about the Christians, a "wretched cult" whom he mentions eight times in his letter. Christ himself is cited three times, the most famous instance referring to Christians "...who met on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ, as if to a god..." (Letter No. 96). Trajan's response, interestingly enough, suggests that Christians not be hunted out. (Ibid., No. 97). But again, if Christ were only a mythical character, these hostile sources would have been the first to emblazon that fact in derision.

Other ancient secular sources, such as Theudas and Mara bar Serapion also bear witness to the historicity of Jesus. But any further evidence clearly comes under the "beating a dead horse" category so far as this article is concerned. Nothing more is necessary in view of the overpowering evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was no myth, but a totally historical figure who truly lived. Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus was more than a man. That, at least, could evoke a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Not sure about anybody else around here, but if many different manuscripts from over 1500 years ago all made mention of the same person surrounded by the same events, I would have logically conclude that that person existed. The details of that existence might be up for debate, but you quite nicely shown solid eveidence of why it is more rational to believe a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
OldThinker, it is painfully, PAINFULLY obvious that you did not even bother to read my opening post. You named people such as Pliny, and Tacitus as reliable sources when the quotes in my OP debunk their "reliable" status. You need to read before you respond ok???



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989
OldThinker, it is painfully, PAINFULLY obvious that you did not even bother to read my opening post. You named people such as Pliny, and Tacitus as reliable sources when the quotes in my OP debunk their "reliable" status. You need to read before you respond ok???


They did not debunk them, the author offered his opinion of a possibility as to why they wrote about Jesus.

You read and interept things shaped around your opinions, not the facts.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Not sure about anybody else around here, but if many different manuscripts from over 1500 years ago all made mention of the same person surrounded by the same events, I would have logically conclude that that person existed. The details of that existence might be up for debate, but you quite nicely shown solid eveidence of why it is more rational to believe a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago.


lol, funny how none of them were around the time of his supposed existence huh??? It wasn't until many years after Jesus Christ's supposed death that anything was written about him. Again, the link goes into great detail about that. In fact, I suggest you read that link, because I am sure whatever argument you try to use has already been refuted in that link



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989

Not sure about anybody else around here, but if many different manuscripts from over 1500 years ago all made mention of the same person surrounded by the same events, I would have logically conclude that that person existed. The details of that existence might be up for debate, but you quite nicely shown solid eveidence of why it is more rational to believe a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago.


lol, funny how none of them were around the time of his supposed existence huh??? It wasn't until many years after Jesus Christ's supposed death that anything was written about him. Again, the link goes into great detail about that. In fact, I suggest you read that link, because I am sure whatever argument you try to use has already been refuted in that link


You believe "nobeliefs" .com is the end all? Because they said and you believe, well then it must be fact, lol



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by AlexG141989
OldThinker, it is painfully, PAINFULLY obvious that you did not even bother to read my opening post. You named people such as Pliny, and Tacitus as reliable sources when the quotes in my OP debunk their "reliable" status. You need to read before you respond ok???


They did not debunk them, the author offered his opinion of a possibility as to why they wrote about Jesus.

You read and interept things shaped around your opinions, not the facts.


Oh yes he/she did debunk them. A possibility??? Not the facts huh??? Well I'm pretty sure it was fact that most of them were not alive during the time of Jesus, so anything they say is not reliable, because it is nothing but hearsay. And again, why was nothing written about Jesus during his lifetime??? There is absolutely nothing. You would think someone of his stature would have some influence, and compel people to write about him. After all, hordes of people would surround Jesus, so he was certainly popular, and on top of that he could turn water in wine, he could walk on water, he could heal the sick. If this was today, Jesus would be the most popular person on the planet. Movies, and books would be written about him while in the flesh. Now why was there absolutely no writings of him during his life??? There was no record of his death, yeah... despite what you think you know, there was no record of Jesus' death.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Old thinker dude , how the hell are you ?

i just been commenting here -www.abovetopsecret.com...'

in relation to a Phelps god hates gays character


Here's a brain stormer for you, i just been yaking with my mate who is a christian, and I ( as opposed to we , as he had his satan radar on)was discussing the quantum world.

Do you think that when jesus describes prayer "ask knowing you shall receive" and such

Could he not have been describing the particle existing in 2 places at once and and such and the influence of the observer on it ?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

You believe "nobeliefs" .com is the end all? Because they said and you believe, well then it must be fact, lol


At least that essay is composed of much evidence, which the author came to conclude after he clearly spent many hours looking up the claims that theists make concerning Jesus' existence, and categorically explaining why each one is false. After all, he's wrong isn't he??? So now why don't you explain to me why he is wrong???



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


AlexG141989,

Woosaaa!!!!

Let's all slow down...I did read your post...and I understand your are passionate....BUT....WHY?

Help OT out, please....what is the motivation to DEBUNK us Christians? Have one of us pissed you off...really...OT wants to know...

Really, please let down the guard...and share with me...or U2U me, ok?

I can understand ZEAL from us Christians...we see this debate as eternal damnation for those who reject....but what are you 'protecting me from? Since we all become fertilizer at the end...and live in survival-of-the-fitest-during life????

Give OT some insight, ok?


[edit on 3-9-2008 by OldThinker]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


AlexG141989,

Woosaaa!!!!

Let's all slow down...I did read your post...and I understand your are passionate....BUT....WHY?

Help OT out, please....what is the motivation to DEBUNK us Christians? Have one of us pissed you off...really...OT wants to know...

Really, please let down the guard...and share with me...or U2U me, ok?

I can understand ZEAL from us Christians...we see this debate as eternal damnation for those who reject....but what are you 'protecting me from? Since we all become fertilizer at the end...and live in survival-of-the-fitest-during life????

Give OT some insight, ok?


[edit on 3-9-2008 by OldThinker]


Don't go off topic, like the mods say, discuss the topic, not the member.





new topics
top topics
 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join