More Christians are conservative meanwhile Christ was liberal...

[PostmodernProph]

---
Until you can prove otherwise, Jesus of Nazareth is DEAD; he supposedly died on the cross 2,000 years ago.

Regardless, I am a libertarian and serve no one beyond my family.

IF he indeed ever existed.

So much Roman documentation on Paul - but not a single word about Jesus - it's all a bit odd.

Paul appealed his case to Ceasar, Jesus did not. Paul traveled to Rome and preached there, Jesus did not. Naturally, Romans would have more documentation on him.

---
Paul did not know Jesus and never met him in reality. His initial reaction to the newly formed Christian movement was to zealously persecute its early followers and to violently attempt to destroy the movement.

And them he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus.
His con game was effective, and he proceeded to write much of the NT crap or his name was used in the holy book publications by other con men.

And now you know the rest of the amazing story!

At least the parts that you made up because you don't like the original.

---
Which part(s) i mentioned were "made up"?

this part obviously.....
"And them he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus."......

 

[PostmodernProph]

so you responded to the threat by following Jesus.....oh, wait.....but.....????.....

Is there a point you're trying to make? Or was that a surrender?

you came, you chose, you lost......

What kind of imbecile douchebaggy god goes around threatening people with eternal fire if they don't obey it? Got any proof of such a god? Anything at all?

lol......you want proof?......if you had proof it wouldn't be a choice.......

So you have no proof? Got it. So basically, it's all fantasy.

I have exactly as much proof of what I believe as you have of yours?.......does that make your beliefs fantasies as well?......

 

[koshergrl]

So what's your proof that I'll burn forever if I don't follow some invisible dude? Got anything?

I don't have any proof. I choose to believe it. You choose not to. What's the problem?

Do you believe in the tooth fairy and easter bunny? In ghosts and little green men? Do you believe the planet is only 5000 yrs old and angels mated with human women? We all know trolls exist and some people can be real ogres, but what of turning lead into gold? We know how to turn ash into diamond because of science.

Where does your reality end and fantasy begin?

if someone chooses to believe A, are you arguing they are required to believe B and C as well?......

Hopefully not, since an educated intellectual person would never present such a ridiculously obvious logical fallacy as an argument.

yet that is the argument you have raised when you asked if KG believes in the tooth fairy and easter bunny......at least we agree your argument is a fallacy....

No I wrote that, about him lolol

 

[Taz]

Is there a point you're trying to make? Or was that a surrender?

you came, you chose, you lost......

What kind of imbecile douchebaggy god goes around threatening people with eternal fire if they don't obey it? Got any proof of such a god? Anything at all?

lol......you want proof?......if you had proof it wouldn't be a choice.......

So you have no proof? Got it. So basically, it's all fantasy.

I have exactly as much proof of what I believe as you have of yours?.......does that make your beliefs fantasies as well?......

I'm agnostic, I see no solid proof for or against the possibility or not of a god. The only rational position to have. You better stick to fantasy, it's easier and won't make you think too hard.

 

[PK1]

IF he indeed ever existed.

So much Roman documentation on Paul - but not a single word about Jesus - it's all a bit odd.

Paul appealed his case to Ceasar, Jesus did not. Paul traveled to Rome and preached there, Jesus did not. Naturally, Romans would have more documentation on him.

---
Paul did not know Jesus and never met him in reality. His initial reaction to the newly formed Christian movement was to zealously persecute its early followers and to violently attempt to destroy the movement.

And them he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus.
His con game was effective, and he proceeded to write much of the NT crap or his name was used in the holy book publications by other con men.

And now you know the rest of the amazing story!

At least the parts that you made up because you don't like the original.

---
Which part(s) i mentioned were "made up"?

this part obviously.....
"And then he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus."......

---
That statement is an interpretation of recorded events which themselves are interpretations.
The Bible is full of stories and their interpretations, no?
Or, do you believe Eve was created from Adam's rib instead of from scratch?

 

[aris2chat]

Paul appealed his case to Ceasar, Jesus did not. Paul traveled to Rome and preached there, Jesus did not. Naturally, Romans would have more documentation on him.

---
Paul did not know Jesus and never met him in reality. His initial reaction to the newly formed Christian movement was to zealously persecute its early followers and to violently attempt to destroy the movement.

And them he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus.
His con game was effective, and he proceeded to write much of the NT crap or his name was used in the holy book publications by other con men.

And now you know the rest of the amazing story!

At least the parts that you made up because you don't like the original.

---
Which part(s) i mentioned were "made up"?

this part obviously.....
"And then he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus."......

---
That statement is an interpretation on recorded events which themselves are interpretations.
The Bible is full of stories and their interpretations, no?
Or, do you believe Eve was created from Adam's rib instead of from scratch?

except that our genetic eve was a few hundred thousand years older than our genetic adam

 

[PostmodernProph]

you came, you chose, you lost......

What kind of imbecile douchebaggy god goes around threatening people with eternal fire if they don't obey it? Got any proof of such a god? Anything at all?

lol......you want proof?......if you had proof it wouldn't be a choice.......

So you have no proof? Got it. So basically, it's all fantasy.

I have exactly as much proof of what I believe as you have of yours?.......does that make your beliefs fantasies as well?......

I'm agnostic, I see no solid proof for or against the possibility or not of a god. The only rational position to have. You better stick to fantasy, it's easier and won't make you think too hard.

no....you are antagonistic.......an agnostic would not state that a belief in God is a fantasy.......sorry, but apparently you are so confused you don't even know what you believe......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Paul appealed his case to Ceasar, Jesus did not. Paul traveled to Rome and preached there, Jesus did not. Naturally, Romans would have more documentation on him.

---
Paul did not know Jesus and never met him in reality. His initial reaction to the newly formed Christian movement was to zealously persecute its early followers and to violently attempt to destroy the movement.

And them he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus.
His con game was effective, and he proceeded to write much of the NT crap or his name was used in the holy book publications by other con men.

And now you know the rest of the amazing story!

At least the parts that you made up because you don't like the original.

---
Which part(s) i mentioned were "made up"?

this part obviously.....
"And then he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus."......

---
That statement is an interpretation of recorded events which themselves are interpretations.

no.....the statement is shit you made up......

 

[PostmodernProph]

---
Paul did not know Jesus and never met him in reality. His initial reaction to the newly formed Christian movement was to zealously persecute its early followers and to violently attempt to destroy the movement.

And them he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus.
His con game was effective, and he proceeded to write much of the NT crap or his name was used in the holy book publications by other con men.

And now you know the rest of the amazing story!

At least the parts that you made up because you don't like the original.

---
Which part(s) i mentioned were "made up"?

this part obviously.....
"And then he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus."......

---
That statement is an interpretation on recorded events which themselves are interpretations.
The Bible is full of stories and their interpretations, no?
Or, do you believe Eve was created from Adam's rib instead of from scratch?

except that our genetic eve was a few hundred thousand years older than our genetic adam

so you figure men evolved first, hung around for a couple of hundred thousand years and then women evolved?........

 

[aris2chat]

At least the parts that you made up because you don't like the original.

---
Which part(s) i mentioned were "made up"?

this part obviously.....
"And then he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus."......

---
That statement is an interpretation on recorded events which themselves are interpretations.
The Bible is full of stories and their interpretations, no?
Or, do you believe Eve was created from Adam's rib instead of from scratch?

except that our genetic eve was a few hundred thousand years older than our genetic adam

so you figure men evolved first, hung around for a couple of hundred thousand years and then women evolved?........

bible said man was first, had a wife who wanted to be his equal, didn't work out well

I don't think man was first.

genetically the female gene is much older that the single male source.

ancient societies were matriarchal. eve might have had several adams along the evolution, but to trace backward to a genetic origin of modern man, adam came much later.

 

[aris2chat]

---
Which part(s) i mentioned were "made up"?

this part obviously.....
"And then he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus."......

---
That statement is an interpretation on recorded events which themselves are interpretations.
The Bible is full of stories and their interpretations, no?
Or, do you believe Eve was created from Adam's rib instead of from scratch?

except that our genetic eve was a few hundred thousand years older than our genetic adam

so you figure men evolved first, hung around for a couple of hundred thousand years and then women evolved?........

bible said man was first, had a wife who wanted to be his equal, didn't work out well

I don't think man was first.

genetically the female gene is much older that the single male source.

ancient societies were matriarchal. eve might have had several adams along the evolution, but to trace backward to a genetic origin of modern man, adam came much later.

Genetic Adam and Eve Uncovered

 

[Taz]

What kind of imbecile douchebaggy god goes around threatening people with eternal fire if they don't obey it? Got any proof of such a god? Anything at all?

lol......you want proof?......if you had proof it wouldn't be a choice.......

So you have no proof? Got it. So basically, it's all fantasy.

I have exactly as much proof of what I believe as you have of yours?.......does that make your beliefs fantasies as well?......

I'm agnostic, I see no solid proof for or against the possibility or not of a god. The only rational position to have. You better stick to fantasy, it's easier and won't make you think too hard.

no....you are antagonistic.......an agnostic would not state that a belief in God is a fantasy.......sorry, but apparently you are so confused you don't even know what you believe......

Right now your God is a fantasy until you can prove otherwise. Pretty simple really.

 

[hadit]

---
Until you can prove otherwise, Jesus of Nazareth is DEAD; he supposedly died on the cross 2,000 years ago.

Regardless, I am a libertarian and serve no one beyond my family.

IF he indeed ever existed.

So much Roman documentation on Paul - but not a single word about Jesus - it's all a bit odd.

Paul appealed his case to Ceasar, Jesus did not. Paul traveled to Rome and preached there, Jesus did not. Naturally, Romans would have more documentation on him.

---
Paul did not know Jesus and never met him in reality. His initial reaction to the newly formed Christian movement was to zealously persecute its early followers and to violently attempt to destroy the movement.

And them he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus.
His con game was effective, and he proceeded to write much of the NT crap or his name was used in the holy book publications by other con men.

And now you know the rest of the amazing story!

At least the parts that you made up because you don't like the original.

---
Which part(s) i mentioned were "made up"?

Let's see, there's the part about "create a Jesus myth". That was made up. Then there's the part about a "con game". That also was made up.

Let's put your feeble hypothesis to the test. Saul was a high ranking, well respected, powerful Jewish Pharisee and a Roman citizen. He was about as well off as you could get in Israel at that time. Now, you want to say that he had the bright idea one day to just chuck all of that in the trash can and become a despised member of a movement that didn't accept him for over a decade, get the snot beat out of him multiple times, be stoned and left for dead, be ship wrecked, arrested and chained to a Roman guard for years, and ultimately executed in Rome.

Wow, that's an idiotic idea, to say the least.

 

[hadit]

lol......you want proof?......if you had proof it wouldn't be a choice.......

So you have no proof? Got it. So basically, it's all fantasy.

I have exactly as much proof of what I believe as you have of yours?.......does that make your beliefs fantasies as well?......

I'm agnostic, I see no solid proof for or against the possibility or not of a god. The only rational position to have. You better stick to fantasy, it's easier and won't make you think too hard.

no....you are antagonistic.......an agnostic would not state that a belief in God is a fantasy.......sorry, but apparently you are so confused you don't even know what you believe......

Right now your God is a fantasy until you can prove otherwise. Pretty simple really.

We don't have to prove anything. He'll do that on His own. Let's also establish some things.

1. What's your level of proof? Some people set ridiculous standards, then move the goal posts when those standards are met. Basically, they're not going to believe, no matter what.
2. What difference would it make to you if you were forced to acknowledge God's existence?

 

[Taz]

So you have no proof? Got it. So basically, it's all fantasy.

I have exactly as much proof of what I believe as you have of yours?.......does that make your beliefs fantasies as well?......

I'm agnostic, I see no solid proof for or against the possibility or not of a god. The only rational position to have. You better stick to fantasy, it's easier and won't make you think too hard.

no....you are antagonistic.......an agnostic would not state that a belief in God is a fantasy.......sorry, but apparently you are so confused you don't even know what you believe......

Right now your God is a fantasy until you can prove otherwise. Pretty simple really.

We don't have to prove anything. He'll do that on His own. Let's also establish some things.

1. What's your level of proof? Some people set ridiculous standards, then move the goal posts when those standards are met. Basically, they're not going to believe, no matter what.
2. What difference would it make to you if you were forced to acknowledge God's existence?

1. I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of a god. I'd need solid, TANGIBLE proof. Irrefutable proof proven by science.
2. The only way I'd be forced to accept god is with what I wrote for proof that I'd need. In that case, I'd have no problem acknowledging that god exists. In front of irrefutable scientific proof, I'd have no problem at all.

 

[hadit]

---
Which part(s) i mentioned were "made up"?

this part obviously.....
"And then he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus."......

---
That statement is an interpretation on recorded events which themselves are interpretations.
The Bible is full of stories and their interpretations, no?
Or, do you believe Eve was created from Adam's rib instead of from scratch?

except that our genetic eve was a few hundred thousand years older than our genetic adam

so you figure men evolved first, hung around for a couple of hundred thousand years and then women evolved?........

bible said man was first, had a wife who wanted to be his equal, didn't work out well

I don't think man was first.

genetically the female gene is much older that the single male source.

ancient societies were matriarchal. eve might have had several adams along the evolution, but to trace backward to a genetic origin of modern man, adam came much later.

That's not what the Bible says

 

[hadit]

I have exactly as much proof of what I believe as you have of yours?.......does that make your beliefs fantasies as well?......

I'm agnostic, I see no solid proof for or against the possibility or not of a god. The only rational position to have. You better stick to fantasy, it's easier and won't make you think too hard.

no....you are antagonistic.......an agnostic would not state that a belief in God is a fantasy.......sorry, but apparently you are so confused you don't even know what you believe......

Right now your God is a fantasy until you can prove otherwise. Pretty simple really.

We don't have to prove anything. He'll do that on His own. Let's also establish some things.

1. What's your level of proof? Some people set ridiculous standards, then move the goal posts when those standards are met. Basically, they're not going to believe, no matter what.
2. What difference would it make to you if you were forced to acknowledge God's existence?

1. I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of a god. I'd need solid, TANGIBLE proof. Irrefutable proof proven by science.
2. The only way I'd be forced to accept god is with what I wrote for proof that I'd need. In that case, I'd have no problem acknowledging that god exists. In front of irrefutable scientific proof, I'd have no problem at all.

What do you mean by scientific proof? IOW, would you accept something that you alone know to be true, or would you require that others verify it for you?

 

[Taz]

this part obviously.....
"And then he got the idea to create a Jesus myth to sell his "authority" and convert suckers, pretending he was a convert himself after "seeing" a resurrected Jesus."......

---
That statement is an interpretation on recorded events which themselves are interpretations.
The Bible is full of stories and their interpretations, no?
Or, do you believe Eve was created from Adam's rib instead of from scratch?

except that our genetic eve was a few hundred thousand years older than our genetic adam

so you figure men evolved first, hung around for a couple of hundred thousand years and then women evolved?........

bible said man was first, had a wife who wanted to be his equal, didn't work out well

I don't think man was first.

genetically the female gene is much older that the single male source.

ancient societies were matriarchal. eve might have had several adams along the evolution, but to trace backward to a genetic origin of modern man, adam came much later.

That's not what the Bible says

Bible says that the woman was made from a man's rib. Now seriously, how likely is that to have happened?

 

[Taz]

I'm agnostic, I see no solid proof for or against the possibility or not of a god. The only rational position to have. You better stick to fantasy, it's easier and won't make you think too hard.

no....you are antagonistic.......an agnostic would not state that a belief in God is a fantasy.......sorry, but apparently you are so confused you don't even know what you believe......

Right now your God is a fantasy until you can prove otherwise. Pretty simple really.

We don't have to prove anything. He'll do that on His own. Let's also establish some things.

1. What's your level of proof? Some people set ridiculous standards, then move the goal posts when those standards are met. Basically, they're not going to believe, no matter what.
2. What difference would it make to you if you were forced to acknowledge God's existence?

1. I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of a god. I'd need solid, TANGIBLE proof. Irrefutable proof proven by science.
2. The only way I'd be forced to accept god is with what I wrote for proof that I'd need. In that case, I'd have no problem acknowledging that god exists. In front of irrefutable scientific proof, I'd have no problem at all.

What do you mean by scientific proof?

That science can prove. Right now, science can't prove that an invisible being that made the universe in 6 days and then needed a day off even exists.

 

[hadit]

no....you are antagonistic.......an agnostic would not state that a belief in God is a fantasy.......sorry, but apparently you are so confused you don't even know what you believe......

Right now your God is a fantasy until you can prove otherwise. Pretty simple really.

We don't have to prove anything. He'll do that on His own. Let's also establish some things.

1. What's your level of proof? Some people set ridiculous standards, then move the goal posts when those standards are met. Basically, they're not going to believe, no matter what.
2. What difference would it make to you if you were forced to acknowledge God's existence?

1. I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against the possibility of a god. I'd need solid, TANGIBLE proof. Irrefutable proof proven by science.
2. The only way I'd be forced to accept god is with what I wrote for proof that I'd need. In that case, I'd have no problem acknowledging that god exists. In front of irrefutable scientific proof, I'd have no problem at all.

What do you mean by scientific proof?

That science can prove. Right now, science can't prove that an invisible being that made the universe in 6 days and then needed a day off even exists.

Is that God's fault or science's limitation? IOW, why would you expect science to attempt to prove God's existence when it appears that most scientists would much rather prove the opposite? And, why do you think a being so superior to human science would allow Himself to be so limited that science could prove HIs existence? Science requires replicability. A given set of inputs generates a given set of outputs. Why would God limit Himself like that? He shows up at the Super Bowl half time show, does irrefutable miracles. Thousands believe, millions believe they're seeing special effects. 20 years later, science writes the whole thing off as a hoax, because it can't replicate anything that happened. See how that works? "Do a trick" is not a good way for God to demonstrate Himself, because there would be a never ending demand for more tricks to convince more unbelievers.