If it wasn’t for Jesus, you would cease to exist! Really…

reply to post by OldThinker

Here's my thinking...for a world religion to recognize JC as a good guy, must get that info from the bible...that same bible says he said he was God`(at least strongly inferred), said he said he was the son of God, other said he said it, pharisees killed him for saying it...extra biblical sources said he said it....

Whoa whoa, one piece of bunk at a time.

Every single little thing that "did" or "said" or "prayed" is alleged. Because it's alleged, you can't honestly and objectively say that it is fact- that would be intellectual dishonesty. I believe the bible commands you not to be dishonest.

No extra biblical evidence exists that isn't hearsay, written decades or centuries after the alleged events. The same is also true for the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

But what about the other gospels? You know the ones that weren't put in the bible. They are just as 'contemporary' as any other gospel out there but you ignore them. You ignore the very different picture of Jesus they paint. You pick and choose.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by OldThinker
Like you said to me last month...

Stop messin up the thread!

OT

hey credit where due at least my jokes are on topic .. or at least following comment of the thread

Originally posted by PriamsPride
Fortunately for theists, there are versions of theism that are both pragmatic and rational, so it is probably safe to maintain theism for aesthetic reasons, despite the atheist's introduction of Occam's razor.

ummm...OT are you a ecret Atheist? you were the first person i aw introduce occam's razor into the thread .. or is it on of the replies ive skipped over?

or do you mean occam him self? ..a franciscan monk

reply to post by Welfhard



Alright...no bunk comments please, opinions are honored on OT's thread ok?

Now, remember my post was in response to a fellow's questioning of my point that JC sits atop ALL religions Hall of Fame...AS A PROPHET...

SO...yes your point of hearsay is true..but non really pertinent to the specific question of hand here...specifically where JC sits on other reiligions halls of fame...certainly it is a relevant topic and we can debate it...in a bit...but relating to this particular questioning....that same bible (hearsay and all) is what other religions use as the PRIMARY source of info about him...those same religions just list him as a prophet...which goes against the grain of what (the hearsay) says he said, others said he said, enemies said he said, external folks said he said...etc....


I wasn't trying to point out his divinity there or the inspiration of the scriptures there...of which I agree to both....I was simply stating its illogical to call him just a prophet, using the bible as a source...when that same bible says he's God/Son of God/pre-existent etc.


Whew......hope that clears it up a bit and is not bunk

OT

[edit on 28-2-2009 by OldThinker]

reply to post by noobfun


Morning!

NOW WHAT RU SAYING?

reply to post by noobfun


Maybe he didn't read the WHOLE thing...

I think I was the first to mention it...


It's even in the ole' guys avartar..see it up to the left?

I've got that razor in my hand....


God is simple....the other theories are complicated

OT

Edit: your 'S' key is broke

[edit on 28-2-2009 by OldThinker]

Fair enough regarding the prophet thing.

Here's another thing to to consider. What about the idea that Jesus didn't die on a 'cross' but a crux, which in the end is just a pike. Matrixprophet has talked about this before. Then the typical christian cross shape appearing in the body is meaningless. It'd be comparable to finding some ancient text that randomly spells out J-E-S-U-S-C-H-R-I-S-T and then remembering that his name would have been Christus Yashua or something. Or someone seeing Jesus' image in the clouds when in actuality they are seeing the typical artsie renaissance Jesus which the intelligent man knows would be incredibly inaccurate. Meaningless.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by OldThinker


and so is my c and my a is a bit dicey ....keyboards age is showing ..

lol OT

while saying 'god did it' is i grant a simplistic answer

the supposition of what god is and is capable of isnt simple and usually isnt an explenation more a white wash, and its not somthing thats been observed to have happened and no real evidence that it once happened

so it not really the simplest answer when working answers are sought, it presupposes everything

told ya if its got 2 blades and looks like scissors your holding Yahweh's sheep shears

the ideas to slice away whats unnecesary not trim it down a bit so it look nice

reply to post by Welfhard



Yeah, I will not argue with that logic...


Now, if I may, please explain to me your beliefs...

OT (I'm drinking coffee waiting on my daughter...I've got some time if you do?)

reply to post by noobfun



OK...I see ya 'point' no pun intended



OT

Yeah ...He died for us so we can become slaves....

SIN = Thinking Like a King, But Truely a Slave.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by nibirusight]

Originally posted by nibirusight
Yeah ...He died for us so we can become slaves

Wow, think you could extend that lazy-drive-by post?

OT

So it is the Annaki huh? Did you know they are in Genesis nibirusight?

reply to post by OldThinker


I'm atheist in so far that I haven't seen or heard, read about or generally have any knowledge of anything that to me suggests some deity exists and cares about us individually. I grew up christian but left because of the dogma, the dehumanising nature of life by scripture and the hypocrisy of everyone in that group.

I believe that the story of Jesus may have actually have been inspired by an actual guy, not before being distorted by Chinese whispers since all the accounts are distinctly different or even contradicting. If he did exist, I think he'd just have been one of the many many leaders of small cults.

reply to post by Welfhard


OK, thank you for that...I was just over on another site and found four interesting points from a whole lot of um...

Let me post...

OT

Sounds like maybe you were exposed to some legalistic groups...?

Intelligent Design - Machines

Intelligent Design - Machines
Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer. Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise naturally by random chance. Evolutionists admit the inconsistency. George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).

Link: www.allaboutscience.org...

Point 2...

Intelligent Design - Life

Intelligent Design - Life
Ignoring the obvious Intelligent Design that permeates life, scientists have developed the theory of evolution in an effort to explain the origin of life via spontaneous generation. This "scientific" theory is very distinctive. Commonly, scientists observe data, interpret the data, and then formulate conclusions based upon that data. Yet, evolutionists have formulated their "scientific" conclusion without resorting to any data at all. In fact, evolutionists have steadfastly maintained their conclusion despite data to the contrary.

point 3

Intelligent Design - Education
Intelligent Design - Education
Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming. Since the reemergence of evolutionary thought in the last two hundred years (popularized by Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859), evolutionists have zealously sought evidence to validate their theory. Nothing has yet to stand up under the close scrutiny of an in depth scientific evaluation. And yet, curiously, evolutionary thought prevails in the mainstream. Thus, evolutionary "scientists" have disposed of true science, and replaced it with philosophy and imagination. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." (H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg.138). Since the beginning of the modern evolutionary movement, quite a few fraudulent evidences in favor of evolution have been submitted and remain in the textbooks, despite their exposure as blatant deceptions. Ernst Haeckel's work is an appropriate example. Haeckel, a German embryologist, altered drawings of various animal and human embryos, making them nearly identical. He presented his altered pictures as evidence for evolution between species, and used them as a platform to successfully promote evolution. In 1874, Haeckel's drawings were exposed as frauds by renowned embryologist Wilhelm His. Shortly thereafter, Haeckel was convicted of fraud by his own university. Yet his fallacious drawings of nearly identical embryos are still in science textbooks over 100 years later as evidence for evolution! Those drawings are being taught to kids in school today as evidence for evolution. Why? Why not present real evidence? Because there is none! David M. Raup, an evolutionist, freely admits, "In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." ("Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, July 1981, pg. 289). It seems that "pure fantasy" is the politically correct term for "calculated lies."

and lastly...

Intelligent Design - DNA

Intelligent Design - DNA
An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule. Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.

Investigate More Now!

Noob, that autta get you typing with those bad keys

reply to post by OldThinker


yes I do know, but it was perverted to think MAN was our god, not the annunaki....

reply to post by nibirusight



If you are busy, I can understand your quick answers if not please explain to me the truth then...

OT curious, really...

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker

 

I'm atheist in so far that I haven't seen or heard, read about or generally have any knowledge of anything that to me suggests some deity exists and cares about us individually. .....

Have you ever heard of Josh McDowell? Ravi Zacharius, Hank Hannagraf?

OT

Here's one source of a ton of evidence.... www.amazon.com...

There is no Truth, only half lies.....

reply to post by OldThinker

I was just over on another site and found four interesting points from a whole lot of um...

...idiot creationists maybe?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sounds like maybe you were exposed to some legalistic groups...?

And by legalistic groups you mean? They were Presbyterian and Baptists mainly and they weren't extreme or fundamental, they were deists.

Here's one source of a ton of evidence

That's not evidence, it's a faith boosting book to help christians continue to repress their doubt.

It's called faith for a reason. Faith is just an other word for ignorance, a special type that people seem to take pride in for some silly reason.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Welfhard]