>>7002 A question I've wrestled with. Most historians agree that a man fitting the description existed in the area, and that he could have indeed preached and traveled, like many prophets of the time. However, the earliest non-religious (and therefore unbiased) recordings of him were not until nearly 100 years after his death. Therefore I'm personally skeptical.
Here's a better question. If he existed but didn't do anything that we associate with Jesus, was he really Jesus at all? Is there any point in saying he existed just because there was someone with his name, but shared nothing else? Isn't what we call Jesus more of a character than a person?
>>7093 Well, it's certainly the consensus that there was a character who Jesus were based on, but nobody knows shit about him basically, except what's said in the bible, and that isn't really a good source.
>>8054 Saul/Paul is pretty clearly the founder of Christianity. He either 1) made up a character named Jesus, or 2) took the story of a real life person and embellished it and spun it to suit his needs. I know that doesn't directly answer your question, but it sheds light on the notion of a fictionalized character
>>7002 I've watched a few debates about this topic. The answer I think is that we don't know. There's not much contemporary evidence for him outside the Gospels. The authentic Pauline epistles are fairly quiet about Jesus as a historical figure. They're the earliest writings in the New Testament, and even they were written by someone who never met him.
IMHO, it's hard to know for certain either way whether he existed or didn't exist, although most scholars think he probably did. If there was a historical Jesus, we know very little about his life, and the Gospels are certainly in great part fictional.
>>8492 I don't know exactly who it was based off of, but white Jesus was created during the forced spread of Christianity throughout Europe. It was easier to worship a god that looks like you than the traditional, short, dark complexion figure that would have existed in the middle east
>>8054 Who's Jesus? its very likely that many, but not all of the quotes of him in Mark are based on stuff "Jesus" actually said, the miracles are probably embellishments, but they are only central to his message if you accept he was the Son of God or the Messiah
>>8054 You're getting into a philosophical debate about the referents of proper names. But the question isn't whether there was somebody named "Jesus": "Yeshua" was a common name among Jews at the time. Rather, the question is whether there was a historical figure who inspired early Christianity and whose life shared some broad outlines with the familiar Gospel narrative (like being a wandering preacher). Assuming (as you say) that there was such a person, but that his life was much unlike the story in the Gospels, then it's a simple matter to resolve confusion by referring to them by different names: the "historical Jesus" and the "mythical Jesus". That's why the term "historical Jesus" is commonly used in discussions like this.
>>9008 Not really. The earliest known secular reference to Yeshua was from Annals, written by Tacitus in 116 AD. Since Jesus is estimated to have died around 30 AD, that's nearly 100 years after him. Not really a credible or reliable reference for empirical proof, as it all would have been second and third hand knowledge.
Reason he's depicted white is because white's generally associated with purity, a fact (the association) that is true for most cultures, including those from India to the pacific islands and the well known example of Japan.
So that's really not an issue people should fret about so much, it's a thing similar to depicting a saint with a halo to denote his holiness.
It's irrelevant whether he 'existed' or not, religious faith never needed concrete and physical reassurance (not a bad thing per se); in the end faith is all about the believer mediation with itself and his community through love.
>>9441 You're not getting it anywhere, and that's the point. It's a moot issue, we'll never know, and therefore there's really no point in arguing historical existence. What can be debated is any divinity, or lack thereof
>>9074 People tend to depict Jesus as looking like someone from their own culture. In these depictions, he looks pretty Asian. http://blog.daum.net/_blog/BlogTypeView.do?blogid=0Ddl5&articleno=7116787#ajax_history_home Even within the white Jesus category we have differences that line up with geography (for example, Byzantine Jesus having dark hair)
>>9667 Oh and an atheist child said she was visited by Jesus and then began drawing paintings of him, then the father showed his son (kid from 'heaven is real') the paintings and then the son confirmed it.
>>10479 Not at all. If science can prove the existence of the universe without an intelligent design (and it can), then it logically follows that there is no intelligent deity. Religion fhrouthrough the ages can be proven as a man made construct in humanity's search for answers during a time of underdeveloped science. As science improves, answers are found, diminishing any reason for a deity to exist.
>>10568 It has been proven that matter can spontaneously pop into existence with no need for a pre-existing causation. Quantum mechanics and string theory has mathematical formulas that follow this observed phenomenon that show how the entire universe could pop into existence from nothing and be sustainable indefinitely.
It has been proven that matter can spontaneously pop into existence with no need for a pre-existing causation... Thats a logical fallacy, I cant accept this premise because every movement or fenomenon needs an external cause.
>>10868 Then therein lies your problem. A lack of proper understanding in science. I can't have a decent discussion with someone who refuses to educate themselves, and rather simply assumes based on their more limited understanding
>>10980 The universe is not causal, but that doesn't make science irrelevant. While indeed not causal, science can still be beneficial in gaining an understanding of how it came to be. For instance, science can help explain how larger particles form from quarks and whatnot. It puts the puzzle pieces together.
>>10635 >A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (2+2=4), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).
>>11207 I can't take someone serious who 1) can't spell, and 2) has zero knowledge of the relevant science I'm discussing and therefore can't reasonably refute. No offense intended friend, but spend a year doing some research then come back and debate.
>>11447 The universe is not causal in the sense that no prior intelligence, driving force, what have you was needed. The universe is able to exist with no driving or pre-existing factor needed to start it. But just because nothing preceeded the universe doesn't mean it doesn't follow certain laws of physics, which is where science comes into play.
>>11553 Hey I'm not trying to be a dick about any of this. I just have a decent understanding of proven science, which perfectly explains the existence of the universe without the need for intelligent design
>>7049 I actually think there's a possibility he did. Why would they draw him like that? Jesus is completely different from what their ideal of a "man" is. Maybe they tried to reflect his personality when drawing it (which seems unlikely to me, but I can't say for sure), and no one wanted to change it afterwards because that's how he actually could have been, but I guess that's not how some people wanted him to be, and I guess they might have been the majority actually, so, if his appearance is made up, why didn't they give him short hair? Of course, if he was like that, they can't adapt him to their >le alpha mael model easily, so they accept it and ignore that if it was anyone else other than God they would hate him. In fact, if Jesus came back now, wouldn't he be hated and accused to be a liar, just like in the gospels?
>>9511 christians believe that jesus healed the sick. and walked on water. and came back from the dead. muslims believe muhammad split the moon in two. it is, of course, relevant to christians whether jesus existed and was the son of god. your post is retarded.
>>11654 >perfectly Lets not get carried away now. There are still plenty of things that we don't understand but on the other side of that it doesn't mean that we can make up random shit and just believe it without any evidence or logic behind it. So the idea of god is already a terrible theory because it lies outside of the range of testable theories. That is that it can't be proven except by god himself. Therefore saying that its true with anything short of god coming down from heaven to announce it is stupid as hell. Even assuming it is true we wouldn't know anyway so the best thing to do is study the universe to the best of our ability and just admit that we don't know something when we hit a wall and NOT just make up whatever feels good.
>>12001 OK, so maybe not perfectly. But we can very easily trace a logical, testable pattern that explains the existence of the universe without a god, and one that has very few holes. Therefore it is is reasonable to lean on this evidence rather than reach for something with no evidence at all, such as a deity.
>>9526 >What can be debated is any divinity, or lack thereof It is not open to debate whether Jesus was divine. That's just silly. Many people believe he was, but many people also believe in homeopathy and astrology and that the Earth is 6000 years old, and none of these things are up for serious debate. The question is closed.
As real as the first Buddha, Joseph Smith and Mohammed, i'm sure.
I don't think there's been a case in history where a religion or an offshoot started without a central figure, and if christianity did, there would be too much conflicting and contradictionary information about what he did in the bible as everyone would model him after their own ideals rather than a unified agreed upon ideal he symbolizes etc.
>>12260 Thanks, I wanted to know if there was something like that. Well, that doesn't mean that what I said couldn't have happened, but I wonder why they started to draw him with long hair later on then?
>>12311 Because I'm not your babysitter and you're perfectly capable of doing the same research I have done. But I'll help out anyway. Give me a minute. In the meantime here's a quote from Hawking-
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
>>12291 >there would be too much conflicting and contradictionary information about what he did in the bible The Bible is a compilation of gospels, by a Christian bishop, not all were included so your post is stupid.
>>12548 Peter was a character in the Bible. Paul was the major proponent driving Christianity. Most letters in the new testament are from him, and he was a major player in the initial push and organization of the religion
>>12311 >>12576 This can help. The rest is up to you. No one held my hand in my quest for knowledge, so if you need more, I trust you know how to work the Google. https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.b5uof0mmo
>>8457 Eh, I really don''t think Jesus was made up. While it's difficult to find, there is some evidence that early Christians accepted martrydom. If it was fiction, they wouldn't accept it. They truly believed.
>>12548 In Catholicism, Peter is considered the first Pope. Because of this verse: >Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church
>>12650 This is also why forensic science is bullshit. All they do is make predictions after seeing some bullet chasings. There's no proof that those chasings were used in murder until these dipshits tells you they are based on assumption.
>>12697 I think he is disagreeing when you say the gospels are not an accurate depiction of his life and works.
It is. Jesus Christ was a real man. He walked the earth. He performed the miracles described. He came back from the dead. He is the son of God. He is the savior of mankind.
Do not be lukewarm. What do you profit if you trade favor in the eyes of God for favor in the eyes of men?
Mark 8:38 >Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
>>12408 Archaeologist/art historian Paul Zanker says it's based on a combination of the philosopher beard and basically wizard hair >The type of the bearded Christ, on the other hand, has always been recognized as inspired by philosopher iconography. A different avenue of interpretation, which seeks to establish a link to the Classical iconography of the Greek gods, whether Zeus or, as more recently suggested, Asklepios, has rightly found little favor. Nevertheless, I believe it is one particular tradition of philosopher iconography with which we are dealing. His shoulder-length hair clearly separates the bearded Christ from the philosopher portraits of Classical and Hellenistic art and places him instead in another tradition, one that we first encountered in the description of Euphrates (cf. p. 257). As I have tried to demonstrate, this type of portrait, or, rather, the self-image that lies behind it, was meant to translate into visual terms a special aura of dignity, as well as magical and spiritual powers to which these "holy men" lay claim. Of all the guises in which intellectuals of the past had appeared, this one radiated the ultimate authority. Although it has proved impossible to arrive at a clearly defined prototype, both because literary descriptions are vague and contradictory and because the visual evidence from the second century is still rather spotty, I nevertheless remain convinced that the image of the bearded Christ with shoulder-length hair is closely associated with that of the theios aner . The comparison of Christ with the pagan miracle workers, who likewise possessed divine powers and, in their own way, also promised a kind of "salvation," was self-evident and became a favorite topos in the debate between pagans and Christians. It is in the portraiture of the later Charismatic philosophers, who were believed even more "holy" and "divine," that we shall once again encounter the type with shoulder-length hair. field too long
>>10635 >science can prove the existence of the universe without an intelligent design But it does have an intelligent design. Everything works as it should, and that's inevitable since the rules of the universe themselves are what makes it work
>>13022 Except that 1) the math supports this theory as plausible, and 2) as stated, spontaneous existence has been observed. If it is observed as true and math can be used to support the theory, it logically follows that this is a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe
Do you not know you are a sinner? Can you say truly your soul is clean? Only through the grace of Christ can we achieve salvation. God is at no expense of a miracle to end your life now. You dangle above hell by the hand of God, by his soveriegn decision and hope.
While i'm not religious myself, i cannot fathom how so many people vehemently refuse to entetain the notion that Jesus existed as a mudane person espousing a new branch of religion, much like the many christian charlatans, sect leaders, "messiahs" and so on has.
I mean, when L. Ron Hubbard could create the Church of Scientology and gain traction as late as 1950, why couldn't someone named Jesus do the same two thousand years ago?
>>13375 It is scientifically impossible for space lizards to exist. It is also scientifically impossible for Jesus to rise from the dead and perform the other mentioned miracles. If we allow for a divine exception for one, we can allow it for the other. The only real argument for Jesus within historical context is his human existence, which I do indeed allow. I just don't accept impossible miracles.
Dueteronomy says men and women should not dress as eachother and Jesus says to call no man father.
Catholic priest dress like mama and wanna be called papa.
In Acts, it is said that belief is a prerequisite to baptism. Yet catholics babtise babies.
The Catholic church held all the bibles and tried to stop the spread of scripture. The read it only in dead languages and forbid translations. They are hypocrites, like the pharasiees. Seeing themselves superior by birthright. They were here first, they are most holy. Wanna know what Christ said?
Luke 14:11 >For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
>>13375 I'm not the person you are replying but you're painfully biased. I just came to this board and expected to find these kind of posts everywhere,I was not wrong,humanities are disgusting and this board was a huge mistake.
>>9160 If you apply this same rigor to Alexander the Great, then his case for existence would be even more dire as our main sources come from writers several centuries after his death. Also, I think Josephus and Pliny the Younger reference Jesus, or at least Christians with Pliny, before Tacitus; admittedly, there is some controversy regarding the former as part of the Jesus passage is thought to be an interpolation. Also, it should be noted that the Bible is not a singular book; rather, it is several joined together, much later, into a whole. Therefore, it is unfair to say only the Bible provides testimony of Jesus; instead, it would be more fair to the author of John, the author of Luke, Paul, etc give witness to his existence. Of course, with the Gospels it gets a bit tricky as they themselves are composed with other now lost sources in mind, but this is the scenario that Arrian or Plutarch would have been in while writing on Alexander.
>>13593 Young's Literal Translation is my preference
Genesis 1 11 And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so. 12 And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good; 13 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third. 14 And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so. 16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night; 17 and God giveth them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over day and over night, and to make a separation between the light and the darkness; and God seeth that [it is] good; 19 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day fourth.
Genesis 7 17 And the deluge is forty days on the earth, and the waters multiply, and lift up the ark, and it is raised up from off the earth; 18 and the waters are mighty, and multiply exceedingly upon the earth; and the ark goeth on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which [are] under the whole heavens; 20 fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;
Mathew 13:13-15 >That is why I use these parables,
>For they look, but they don’t really see. >They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand.
>This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah that says,
>‘When you hear what I say, >you will not understand. >When you see what I do, >you will not comprehend.
>For the hearts of these people are hardened, >and their ears cannot hear, >and they have closed their eyes— >so their eyes cannot see, >and their ears cannot hear, >and their hearts cannot understand, >and they cannot turn to me >and let me heal them.’
2. Mountains is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word harîm meaning hills in this context. The King James Version of Genesis 7:19 translates hills correctly. There is no mention of draft or deep or depth in the Hebrew text of Genesis 7:20. A literal translation from Hebrew is "Five ten cubits upward rose the waters and they covered the hills."
>>13927 >>has not provide any educational content You're right, let me fix that. This should be stickied in the front page http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/ Every poster here should play it multiple times a day.
>>13993 1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, 3 and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is. 4 And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness, 5 and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.
It says that God created light on day one and the Sun on day 5. I hear young-earth creationists explain it as a sort of general illumination that he later stuffed into the sun.
This is the KJV 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
>>14124 I'd love an example of what you don't agree with. I've posted scientific links and attempted to only argue using proven, testable issues. I've tried to keep any subjectivity out of my posts. Meanwhile I have received nothing but biblical quotes and denial of my submissions with zero hard data to support such rebuttal.
>>14142 So....in those first five verses, you don''t think how a dude writing it could be talking about the sun? Nope? Not at all? Especially when he says that this light is called DAY...and when it goes away..its called NIGHT. No?
>>14308 Will do. In all honesty my passion is raw theology. I can read all the physics in the world, and am highly interested in quantum mechanics and string theory, but it's beyond my ability to fully understand.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
Luke 13:28 >There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
Hell is infinite. Your pain will be more than you can bear and He will not hear your cries for mercy. When you have been there day after day, month after month, year after year, century after century, eon after eon, you will know that all that was is but a speck to that what will be. Why do you long to dive head first in to this eternal lake of fire?
>>14427 This has already been discussed. Annals by Tacitus was written in 116 AD, roughly 80 years post Jesus, and therefore third hand knowledge. Although to clarify, I don't refute Jesus's existence.
>>14544 >Although to clarify, I don't refute Jesus's existence. I was simply presenting the counter argument and displaying that there is no firsthand secular, textual reference to Jesus, and therefore all text is arguably hearsay
>>14608 The issue isis that there is strong evidence that explains an existence of a universe without the need for god. It therefore logically follows that it makes more sense to disbelieve in a god than it is to ignore the evidence and allow for a deity that has no supporting evidence outside of the Bible, which is not a valid source.
>>14071 "Out of nothing didst Thou create heaven and earth – a great thing and a small — because Thou are Almighty and Good, to make all things good, even the great heaven and the small earth. Thou wast, and there was nought else from which Thou didst create heaven and earth." Confessions, St Augustine
>>14491 Well it says in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. And then he made light. And then 3 days later he made dry land and plants. And then the day after that he made the sun.
I mean even the valid KJV says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"
>>14508 No, all I said was that Everest was covered. You'd need, like a lot of water to do that, man. And then it'd have to go somewhere. And plus there's no geological evidence for a flood of that magnitude. You would find a layer of sediments and high salinity in ice core samples around the world, and the ice caps would have lifted and broken, but you don't and they didn't.
>>14863 I guess you're new? Haven't read the thread? Spontaneous creation of matter from nothing has been proven and documented. Mathematics further supports this observed phenomenon to explain how a universe could spontaneously generate and be sustained indefinitely.
>>15084 Yes. As stated. This has been observed. I know it's difficult to understand, but it's been proven. Not up for debate. I encourage you to go back up the thread and find my links, then continue down the Google rabbit hole. You'll find dozens of scholarly articles explaining this in much more detail.
>>14950 >All ideas concerning the very early universe are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period.
>>15203 I forget the exact number, but scientists have definitively traced back the universe in a proven development to 0.000001 seconds post big bang. Prior to that, yes is speculation, but there exist theories backed by the observed evidence we do have and worked out math that explain such prior events in a reasonable, plausible manner
>>15255 Nope, and I don't have undeniable proof that Jesus rose from the dead. I also have no undeniable proof that Russells teapot doesn't exist. I was simply trying to show a theist that his decree that the Bible is absolute truth must be met with equal decree that the vedas are the absolute truth.
>>15491 Theories such as spontaneous generation (observed in micro-form). Which have much more evidence supporting it than an intelligent being, whose only evidence is a book of dubious origins written by self-perpetuating authors who obviously will only write a story supporting itself. Is Harry Potter real too just because the Harry Potter books say so?
Probably. Josephus mentioned him, Tacitus mentioned him, and usually when a religion claims to be founded by a living figure in the recent historical past (and Christian writings start popping up a mere generation after Jesus) it was a real person.
The book of Mormon isn't the word of god, but Joseph Smith was still real.
>Jesus is born, raised in a temple >He turns out to be a big loudmouth with big opinions (it's even on the bible that the argued with priests) >Eventually he wisens up and starts to get a lot of listeners. >We don't know if it was him or his apostles but he starts to get known as the messiah meant to make Israel independent (he did say "to Rome what's onto Rome" or some shit like that, meaning no revolution) >He preaches a shittons of reforms to Judaism, but compared to the other contemporary sects his following was a small minority and few jews paid him attention, and only because of the Messiah deal >Eventually the king of Judea gets worried about all this messiah talk and asks the romans to do something >Romans do what Romans do and crucify his ass >The Jews more or less stop paying attention to him because being the messiah - his main selling point - meant he couldn't die >The apostles spread to the four winds deciding to proselytize as much as they can >They get told to GTFO basically everywhere but East Africa, Southern Arabia and Rome >Paul was so assblasted by Jesus' death he began to claim he was God himself sacrificing his own son for the sins of humanity >Paul also happened to be one of the main Christianity pushers on Rome and practically bullied half the apostles into following his dogma >Decades later Romans and Anatolians keep embellishing the fuck out of Jesus' life story until you get the bible
>>15275 You mean about mountain being a mistranslation? So the KJV isn't actually all the valid anymore?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis Yeah, that's not global at all. See pic.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth Geological evidence, anon. >A world-wide deluge, such as described in Genesis, is incompatible with modern understanding of the natural history and especially geology and paleontology. Do you even read the articles you post?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz >The last major shift in drainage occurred around 8,200 years ago. The melting of remaining Hudson Bay ice caused Lake Agassiz to drain nearly completely. This final drainage of Lake Agassiz is associated with an estimated 0.8 to 2.8 m (2.6 to 9.2 ft) rise in global sea levels. Those are really small hills, anon. I don't think you can wipe out all life with something that small, especially when the average elevation of land is 840m above sea level. Again, do you read your own articles?
>>15563 The existence of God does not need the Bible to prove itself, that is pure naiveness. When you say that spontaneous generation was observed in micro-form, thats no proof, because not even the cientists are sure about what they saw.
>>8457 How can anyone with half a brain even believe this? >all apostles exist before him >he was persecuting Christians for Jerusalem before conversion >gained absolutely nothing from his ministry, died as a result of it >so did all the apostles
>>15624 Thinking your rituals and traditions are above the word of God.
Catholics actively violate the teachings of Moses, Elijah and Christ. I can point out the verses for you. Do not be as the Pharaisees, thinking yourself holy because you are in a church called holy by men.
>>15868 Both are unproven. But no deity has a greater deal of plausibility with objective explanations for precisely how it would happen (again, founded in previous knowledge gained from proven science) than deity
>>15909 Because that's what the Bible says. It's kinda the point of the story. God says he'll kill everything on earth and start over. You know, that's why he has Noah build the Ark in the first place. So that there's something left to repopulate. And it says the waters rose over the mountains and the highest hills, and it killed everything on land and air. You know, that's kinda hard to do if it was confined to one area. Everything would have survived outside of it.
>>13231 No, the Vedic scriptures tout the universe as being billions of years old and describe accurately all of the warring tribes in Northwest India at the time. There are no armed lizards flying through space. The Bible, on the other hand, is about a zombie on a stick born to a virgin through God, who created the universe 6,000 years ago (even though some of the texts in the Vedas talk about history that occurred before this timeframe). The Bible describes Moses, who L I T E R A L L Y parted the sea to allow the Jewish people to cross. Your religion has no credibility, unlike Hinduism.
>>16572 Faith in gods with the exact same amount of evidence as your god. Each is supporting nigh on exclusively by its own book claiming authenticity. Any credibility you give to the Bible can also just as easily be given to the Vedas. Therefore you can neither support nor refute one without doing the same (objectively) with the other.
>>16764 >faith Believing one thing with zero credibility while simultaneously screaming that every other claim for other religions have no credibility. And you wonder why intelligent individuals don't take religion seriously.
>>16976 I think of it as sort of a less orthopraxic manifestation of the same philosophies behind Hinduism. I like the approach to mokśa in Hinduism better than the approach to nirvana in Buddhism though. Mainstream Hinduism, from what I understand, does not condone asceticism to the same extent as Buddhism — it's less "withdraw from the world" and more "follow your dharma within the world". I like the idea of becoming enlightened better than the idea of becoming detached from the world.
>>16840 >And you wonder why intelligent individuals don't take religion seriously. They aren't any better, they pretentiously discard various possibilities about something they have no way to know about. The only thing we can say for sure is that we don't know.
>>17081 Interesting take. I consider myself an atheist, but believe Buddhism is more philosophy than religion. I consider myself loosely buddhist by philosophy and am always interested in other people's take on it.
>>17141 So that makes you agnostic. Which is even worse. Pick a side. Preferably the scientific one, which can actually back up its claims. If we're talking about hypothetical possibility then I raise you one "Russells teapot"
>>17249 >So that makes you agnostic. Not necessarily. As long as you're not pretentious it's fine. Is it actually possible not to have any doubts at all? Even if you feel you don't? Apparently, according to Christianity, believing is kind of hard, isn't it? >If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.
>Which is even worse. How is it worse?
>If we're talking about hypothetical possibility then I raise you one "Russells teapot" Okay I guess? I don't think there would be much to talk about that though.
>Preferably the scientific one, which can actually back up its claims. It's kind of useless if what we're talking about something that science has no access to and can't study, I guess.
>Preferably my one Further proving my point.
Anyway, is blindly believing the correct approach you should have with religion? What does being a Christian mean? From a Christian point of view, what should be more important? Following Jesus' thoughts and teachings and thinking about them, or hoping that when you die you go to heaven?
Thread replies: 286 Thread images: 24
Thread DB ID: 68757
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.