WOW! Atheists and the World's Religious Leaders agree on Jesus! Are they wrong?, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 09:53 PM by OldThinker

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by OldThinker

I fear it is because most have not mastered the art of debate. One does not need to use a sledgehammer to convey one's point (in fact, your position will be given more consideration if you don't use such tactics), but alas, so many feel compelled to use such tactics. To me, it shows weakness in the stated position of the debater. It's akin to denying that art exists while standing in the Louvre while tightly closing one's eyes. I am also leary of people who live in absolutes, especially in regards to spiritual matters, as only the Divine knows the absolute truth. It not only shows ignorance, but arrogance as well.

I enjoy both debating with you and reading your posts, because it is very apparent that you take the time to ponder the positions of others. You do not come here to preach, but to learn and it's very apparent in you posts! It is the same for me. I am always open to new possibilities and to learn a thing or two in the process.

JR, where have I been? Sorry....

I am listening to... too big SHAC press conference in CLE....

Wow, what a smart big guy....

Folks call OT a big guy.....

They have not met SHAC!

I'm a 3/4's of him.....

OT

PS: yeah, to subject, why are those guys such bad DEBATERS?????

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 10:01 PM by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by OldThinker

I think some of it lies in the weakness of the proposed position. Some of it lies in ignorance on the topic being debated. Some of it lies in the fragile ego. Some of it lies... well, read the thread linked to in my signature.

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 10:05 PM by OldThinker

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by OldThinker

I think some of it lies in the weakness of the proposed position. Some of it lies in ignorance on the topic being debated. Some of it lies in the fragile ego. Some of it lies... well, read the thread linked to in my signature.

Alright...

Yes,

POSITION....

IGNORANCE....

EGO ISSUES....

And yes, I'll check out the sig link: Great stuff, I'm sure....

I'll get back with you tomorrow on specifics ok?

OT

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 10:12 PM by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by OldThinker

No prob. My eyes are also getting blurry! Oh, wait! I should throw a fit and insist that you answer me right now!! [/sarcasm]

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 10:17 PM by OldThinker

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by OldThinker

No prob. My eyes are also getting blurry! Oh, wait! I should throw a fit and insist that you answer me right now!! [/sarcasm]

Good night...

CU tomorrow.....

OT

Skeptics, you out there???

Mod's, has the ole' guy been to Hard on um??

reply posted on 2-7-2009 @ 11:25 PM by open_eyeballs

But this is ignorant and completely ILLOGICAL

This pretty much made me laugh. Please, no offence intended. Just a little chuckle.

Its just that you highlighted 10 different opinions about the man that you gathered and then the very next sentence you call it ILLOGICAL and ignorant.

And to reiterate you just called each major religions leaders ignorant. Does this ring with you at all as somewhat arrogant? I'm just saying. I know you work really hard trying to provide evidence for Jesus Christs divinity. I know this is your thing, I ve read multiple replies and threads you have created on this topic. And I am not trying to degrade your view and opinion, but sometimes I have to call it the way I see it.

Feel free to come back with your well thought our witty reply, but just keep in mind Im not looking to "dance with the wolves." I just wanted to highlight that point.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:05 AM by OldThinker

Originally posted by open_eyeballs

But this is ignorant and completely ILLOGICAL

This pretty much made me laugh. Please, no offence intended. Just a little chuckle.

Its just that you highlighted 10 different opinions about the man that you gathered and then the very next sentence you call it ILLOGICAL and ignorant.

And to reiterate you just called each major religions leaders ignorant. Does this ring with you at all as somewhat arrogant? I'm just saying. I know you work really hard trying to provide evidence for Jesus Christs divinity. I know this is your thing, I ve read multiple replies and threads you have created on this topic. And I am not trying to degrade your view and opinion, but sometimes I have to call it the way I see it.

Feel free to come back with your well thought our witty reply, but just keep in mind Im not looking to "dance with the wolves." I just wanted to highlight that point.

Laugh...that's OK...

Yeah, I did gather the comments... and yeah....I DISAGREE...your point?

Yeah, I did call those that have the opinion JC is JUST a good guy, but not GOD ignorant...can you refute?

Yeah, you are not trying to degrade, good....thx!

Yeah, no witty COMEBACK from OT...glad you have seen my "content"....good...in time, will you come around?

OT

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:09 AM by OldThinker

reply to post by open_eyeballs

open_eyeballs, hi...

To call OT arrogant........is a nice way to IGNORE the OP's point....you wouldn't do that huh?

OT curious? looking forward to your direct rersponse to that OP.....

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:51 AM by open_eyeballs

reply to post by OldThinker

Whats up OT? I was hoping you were not going to take offense to my comment. Maybe I should have been more selective in my choice of words. I was chuckling to myself because you called the information you had gathered ignorant and illogical. Just seems like an odd thing to do.

Sometimes I laugh at the wrong things. An f'ed up sense of humor I guess. So, again my apologies for being an idiot.

But I understand your point.

As for a response, I will need to go back and take a closer look at your suggestions. But I will say this: I consider myself agnostic, and do not believe in an anthropomorphised God. I believe some version of Jesus Christ existed, and have heard arguments insisting the man was indeed divine and I have heard arguments against it. I find it more of a non-importance.

I look at the whole subject a few different ways. 1. Over 4 billion people do not believe he was. 2. I think the commonly accepted interpretation of the Bible is more incorrect than correct. To believe Jesus Christ is the son of God, then you have to believe in the Father (and I do understand the trinity) version. And unfortunately, there is zero evidence of God the father. God of the jews, that is. I believe that the commonly accepted version of God (of the jews) is actually an interpretation of the astrological sign Taurus, and the Talmud was a form of resistance of the new age/ God (sign) Pisces.

3) I don't believe the human race needs a savior. I believe it is up to each person to make their own decisions. It is their responsibility to ensure they are acting in a reasonable and positive way towards their fellow human. This should be done whether or not you believe in a man up above, and should have no influence on your decision making process. That is just to get started...

If I am wrong, then off to hell I go...its cool though, cuz Ill have this guy
------>

with me....

edit to add #3.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by open_eyeballs]

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:54 AM by drwizardphd

Originally posted by OldThinker
.

could you tell me what you thought/think... of the historical person of Jesus (if you believed he existed)....was he a good man? a positive figure?

and if so, can you reconcile the OP presentation?

I think Jesus was a brilliant person, and based on his teachings of tolerance and acceptance, probably the epitome of what a good person is/should be.

Is it possible that he was a supernatural figure? Maybe. Will we ever know the answer? Probably not (at least in our lifetimes).

As I said earlier, I believe there is more to life than what we see. To coldly assume that contemporary science has answered all of life's questions is just as foolish as assuming religious texts have answered all of life's questions. I believe a healthy balance, combined with the understanding that we know so little of what there is to know, is the key to wisdom.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:59 AM by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by drwizardphd
we know so little of what there is to know...

Star for you! I've been known to say "What we know compared to all that is knowable is like comparing a drop of water to the Pacific ocean"! The humble man has nothing but questions, whereas the arrogant man has all the answers!

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 11:41 AM by Blue_Jay33

reply to post by OldThinker

Some very good points on how all the cultures acknowledge Jesus Christ

Your choices leave out one very important option that millions believe

You said you can only pick these three.

1)Liar
2)Lunatic
3)Lord & God

I will submit the forth which I believe to be the correct answer

4) The created son of the Almighty God.
A separate entity from God, created before the universe came into existence. He was asked by God to save humanity which he agreed to do by coming to earth for a short time. Currently he resides in heaven as an immortal being, he is the Prince of the universe, his father is the King.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 11:56 AM by OldThinker

reply to post by open_eyeballs

HEY!

Don't worry about it...

Thanks for sharing there!

OT

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 11:58 AM by OldThinker

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Is it possible that he was a supernatural figure? Maybe. Will we ever know the answer? Probably not (at least in our lifetimes).

As I said earlier, I believe there is more to life than what we see. To coldly assume that contemporary science has answered all of life's questions is just as foolish as assuming religious texts have answered all of life's questions. I believe a healthy balance, combined with the understanding that we know so little of what there is to know, is the key to wisdom.

I think we can know...hopefully to me atleast....

He did say if you seek me with ALL YOUR HEART, you find me

Love you last paragraph about balance

OT

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 12:04 PM by OldThinker

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Thanks for the post....

I like this one on Jesus..

Col 1:16, 17

"For by Jesus all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together"

especially the "in him all things hold together" Maybe's he the missing element at the quauntum level?

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:07 PM by badmedia

Originally posted by OldThinker
especially the "in him all things hold together" Maybe's he the missing element at the quauntum level?

If you really want to go there I can. And this is a 2nd line because this response is really a 1 liner, but if I took the time on that topic it would be many many lines, but only the first line would end up being read by most.

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:12 PM by OldThinker

reply to post by badmedia

Hey! How are you?

Sorry I didn't reply on the other one...

What are your thoughts on this verse?

OT

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:16 PM by OldThinker

reply to post by badmedia

Hey remember this one last year? www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think we both got a bunch of stars/flags

Excerpt:

6) What’s missing in Quantum Physics? Mathematically, why doesn’t it all break apart? The more we learn about subatomic particles called ‘gluons’, the more the universe seems to be made of nothing at all? Scientist says that all the electrons and subatomic particles of an atom are held together in their precise position and orbit by an invisible force, by which without it, everything would fall apart and reality as we know it, would cease to exist in an instant.
Quotes from Discovery Magazine in 2000, “The weirdness comes from the gluons. Quantum chromodynamics, the force that holds protons together, is modeled closely on quantum electrodynamics, the force that holds atoms together—but the gluons change screening to antiscreening, intuitive to bizarre.” And, “The closer you look, the more you find the proton is dissolving into lots of particles, each of which is carrying very, very little energy," says Wilczek. "And the elements of reality that triggered the whole thing, the quarks, are these tiny little things in the middle of the cloud. In fact, if you follow the evolution to infinitely short distances, the triggering charge goes to zero. If you really study the equations, it gets almost mystical." More info here: discovermagazine.com...

Another question? Saw this on ‘Genius Forum’ Is there substance that holds all things together? According to the ‘Bundle Theory’ there isn't. It says all things are just bundles or sums of their properties. The objection to this view comes from the substrate theory which asks: If there is no substance what is it that holds these properties together? There must be some substance that has these properties is what they say.

We never reach the substance because whenever we talk about something we talk about its properties. The definition of substance makes it impossible. Substance would be something that has no properties, which is unthinkable.

At the fundamental level all things are made out of subatomic particles, if I'm not mistaken. Namely, electrons, protons and neutrons. The number of protons in a nucleus determines an atom's chemical element, and chemical elements and their various combinations are what everything is made of (excluding dark energy and dark matter).

However there is an even more fundamental level. Leptons, quarks (particles that make up protons and neutrons) and gauge bosons (which are the carriers of fundamental forces) are regarded as fundamental particles because they have no substructure that we know of. If this is true then they are the particles from which everything else is made of, which makes them the closest we get to substance.”

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:17 PM by OldThinker

Got to board a flight now...I'll check back later

OT

reply posted on 3-7-2009 @ 01:31 PM by badmedia

reply to post by OldThinker

I'll assume you mean this verse:

"For by Jesus all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together"

Well, I think Paul doesn't understand the father/son relationship honestly. And the father/son relationship is an important part of understanding how that can be true.

As the father is creator, son is that which experiences it. Back to the movie film and movie experience of the quantum physics thread. 1 and the same in the end, but in the realm of perspective the father is much greater than the son.

The son keeps the reality going and is the "glue" in that his limited perception allows the reality to happen. Often times you may hear of people talk of experiences, but there is this 1 point they can not go beyond. Been there myself, and you can't go beyond that point because the limited perception in order to keep this limited reality going will be lost. You can not have a "future" if you already know and have experienced it.

I'd say the number of ways to express these things more numerous than their are stars. Especially when you figure out that each and every individual person is a son in themselves, and thus their own unique expression/experience of that, and that in the end there is only 1 true father, 1 true observer of all things, that same spirit that filled creation in order to bring it to life. The observer of quantum physics is god.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^