Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have been on hours-long livestreams discussing philosophical evidence for god with actual philosophers who are theists.No, you are wrong.
An agnostic analyzes the evidence presented.
Theres nothing Id call evidence thats been presented and withstood rational scrutiny ~
God is Spirit (i.e., not physical). Evidence, which is physical, cannot be required (or acquired) in the Spirit realm. This relegates God to Philosophical studies, not scientific studies. A true agnostic studies and analyzes the philosophy and logic for God. He would no more expect science to tell him whether a non-physical being/realm exists than he would expect a philosophy to discover a new species of frogs.
I have been on hours-long livestreams discussing philosophical evidence for god with actual philosophers who are theists.
Im not looking in just one place ~ but nowhere have I seen any of the evidence withstand scrutiny and so again, agnosticism is the honest position from my viewpoint.
Literally everything presented as evidence can be explained, thus far. I like to talk about it though....its fun
Some questions about the tale of Jesus' crucifixion...
Did he know that he was God? Or...the son of.....
If so....did he die on the cross "for" our sins....?...or like, a metaphorical example, as he knows its not his "end"
Did he die....... at all??
How was this in any way sacrificial....if he was god, the son of god, or had any intimate knowledge of heaven whatsoever????
If heaven as described is real.....seems being a human for a handful of years of eternity is the sacrifice.....not the death of his human body, thats silly
Yeah, I guess that could be true, but could be false ..... but if a spiritual realm exists I'm not certain why science wouldn't come into play in an attempt to study it.I have been on hours-long livestreams discussing philosophical evidence for god with actual philosophers who are theists.
Im not looking in just one place ~ but nowhere have I seen any of the evidence withstand scrutiny and so again, agnosticism is the honest position from my viewpoint.
Literally everything presented as evidence can be explained, thus far. I like to talk about it though....its fun
Yes, and I absolutely agree that agnosticism is an honest position. I am merely pointing out that scientific evidence of God cannot and never will be found as science measures the physical realm and God is not physical. When it comes to God, we are examining philosophy, not science. Everyone understands science (which requires physical substances) cannot study God.
Grin. I just decided to get pedantic and mention that it is philosophy, not science, that is the better study of God and whether one is a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist.
What was the great price...?Some questions about the tale of Jesus' crucifixion...
Did he know that he was God? Or...the son of.....
If so....did he die on the cross "for" our sins....?...or like, a metaphorical example, as he knows its not his "end"
Did he die....... at all??
How was this in any way sacrificial....if he was god, the son of god, or had any intimate knowledge of heaven whatsoever????
If heaven as described is real.....seems being a human for a handful of years of eternity is the sacrifice.....not the death of his human body, thats silly
A Testament is a Covenant. Today we say Old Testament and New Testament, but it might be better understood as Old Covenant and New Covenant. A sacrifice does not require blood. Ratifying a Covenant comes with a blood requirement.
Jesus' message was, "Your sins are forgiven/Repentance (turning away from sin) for the forgiveness of sins." He was met with resistance. Who was he to declare the forgiveness of sins? People of the time were upset with this message because in those days people were to offer sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Temple revenue and the priesthood subsisted on this belief. Rightfully, religious leaders of the day challenged him. Who did Jesus think he was, and by whose authority did he make these statements? Temple authorities of that time warned him to cease and desist or suffer the consequences.
Jesus, on the other hand, insisted his message came from God, and he only spoke what God had commanded him to speak. His blood would be the blood that would ratify this New Covenant, and his resurrection was the sign he truly had the authority to speak for God.
Today, we take forgiveness of sins as matter of fact--and often for granted. We see it as a given. But this was not always so. Jesus paid a great price to bring this message/covenant with God to the world.
Joseph Smith didnt sound that far off of a David Koresh type.Joseph Smith also existed. (Shecky the religious clown now does a soft-shoe off the stage right).
And what of Zeus, Mithrah, the god of the woods, the god of the corn, Mars, and the great Ju-Ju of the Sea.
Joseph Smith didnt sound that far off of a David Koresh type.Joseph Smith also existed. (Shecky the religious clown now does a soft-shoe off the stage right).
And what of Zeus, Mithrah, the god of the woods, the god of the corn, Mars, and the great Ju-Ju of the Sea.
Joseph Smith didnt sound that far off of a David Koresh type.Joseph Smith also existed. (Shecky the religious clown now does a soft-shoe off the stage right).
And what of Zeus, Mithrah, the god of the woods, the god of the corn, Mars, and the great Ju-Ju of the Sea.
I think that is a spot on comparison as Joseph Smith was a literal con-man that was chased out of town after town for swindling people. Then he finds some 'magical golden plates' that say Jesus lived in ancient America.
The earliest version we have is from the 11th Century and was first referenced in the 14th century.Regarding Tacitus,Richard Carrier has many videos and books arguing against Jesus ever existing. Here is one
What are you going to post next some retarded videos that man never stepped on the moon?
Jesus was a person.. now to say he was the son of God?
I believe it
And you have your beliefs ...
Well I certainly didn't post the video so you could look at it with a thoughtful and critical approach. I posted it so you could dismiss it without conviction. Hang on to your world. Don't let anyone break it down.
Tacitus had no axe to grind, could care less about whether Jesus was the son of God, and was living a mere twenty years after Jesus died. He had access to people who were in the area when Jesus walked the Earth, and was primarily concerned with the Christians because they were colossal pains in the ass. Carrier on the other hand, is according to his wiki page, "is an American historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker and blogger."
So he suffers from what is known as confirmation bias. Like I said before, who to give more credence too, someone who had nothing to gain by writing about the man, or someone who has a philosophical, and monetary reason to question his existence, who ignores clear, non biblical historical reference from multiple sources and removed by a few years from the actual events.
Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation
- It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
- Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
- Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
- Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
- The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
- It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
- At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.
- As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.
- Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
- It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
- The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
- In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
- Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
- At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.
The Christ : a critical review and analysis of the evidences of His existence : Remsburg, John E. (John Eleazer), 1846-1919 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Most of what Tacitus wrote has been lost, that we have any of it is a miracle.
I just showed you why that is not true. Old books have always been tampered with over the centuries.That he wrote of the early Christians is not in question. He DID. That he referred to Christ is likewise not in doubt.
No, it is attempt to accurately research and present history.All the complainants are doing is trying to denigrate the Annals to try and eliminate a non biblical reference to Christ. It is a despicable attempt to revise history.
What makes you think he is miserable?Richard Carrier has many videos and books arguing against Jesus ever existing. Here is one
What are you going to post next some retarded videos that man never stepped on the moon?
Jesus was a person.. now to say he was the son of God?
I believe it
And you have your beliefs ...
Well I certainly didn't post the video so you could look at it with a thoughtful and critical approach. I posted it so you could dismiss it without conviction. Hang on to your world. Don't let anyone break it down.
Tacitus had no axe to grind, could care less about whether Jesus was the son of God, and was living a mere twenty years after Jesus died. He had access to people who were in the area when Jesus walked the Earth, and was primarily concerned with the Christians because they were colossal pains in the ass. Carrier on the other hand, is according to his wiki page, "is an American historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker and blogger."
So he suffers from what is known as confirmation bias. Like I said before, who to give more credence too, someone who had nothing to gain by writing about the man, or someone who has a philosophical, and monetary reason to question his existence, who ignores clear, non biblical historical reference from multiple sources and removed by a few years from the actual events.
is an American historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker and blogger."
Translation~ another one of these
Who say god doesn't exist but thinks about god 24/7
What's the point with people like this?
They are miserable in their life's so they want other people to be miserable with them?
I don't get it..
Gnostic is to have knowledge. Therefore agnostic is to lack in knowledge. So spiritual agnostic means a soul without knowledge.I generally believe that there was a great named Jesus. Was he the Son of God? Well, I guess in the same sense that we're all children of God.
Very well put together case that should make anyone residing in the fact and logic-based world question his existence to one extent or another.
Which is why I'm a spiritual agnostic. It is always best to question.
Gnostic is to have knowledge. Therefore agnostic is to lack in knowledge. So spiritual agnostic means a soul without knowledge.
To be spiritual means you have the knowledge that we have some connection with the universe.Gnostic is to have knowledge. Therefore agnostic is to lack in knowledge. So spiritual agnostic means a soul without knowledge.
Hmmm - fun with words?
Definition of agnostic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
What was the great price...?
Yeah, I guess that could be true, but could be false ..... but if a spiritual realm exists I'm not certain why science wouldn't come into play in an attempt to study it.
To be spiritual means you have the knowledge that we have some connection with the universe.
Spirits are immeasurable? Is that an absolute, or an unknown....Yeah, I guess that could be true, but could be false ..... but if a spiritual realm exists I'm not certain why science wouldn't come into play in an attempt to study it.
By definition, science requires a physical aspect--something to measure, and something that can be measured again to obtain the same results. The best science can do is study what comes from the spiritual world or from spirituality. It can record personal, therefore anecdotal accounts and compare them, but it cannot study or reproduce the story as it occurred.
