but it sure is funny!
Jesus has been walking for days preaching to the masses, and he is tired. He walks into an inn and hands the innkeeper three nails and says, "Can you put me up for the night?"
Why doesn't Jesus play hockey?
He's afraid he'll get nailed to the boards!!!
They're just jokes, people, not signs that the world is destined for damnation.
To bad he doesn't exists .
shareeven if you don't believe jesus was the son of god, he definately existed as a historical figure.
"When you do things right people won't be sure you've done anything at all."share
no historical evidence. josephus documents were forgeries.
"By creating a legacy, by living a life worth remembering, you become immortal." -Saw II
DVDysthymia83 is either ignorant or he is lying.
There obviously is historical evidence.
His comments on the Josephus documents are incorrect. It is currently a matter of debate in academic circles.
Believe some geek with a SawII quote who was born in 83 if you'd like to.
Check out Lee Strobel's Case for Christ. You'd be surprised how much evidence there is out there that supports Jesus as a historical figure.
shareor read "the jesus myth" for a more compelling argument he didn't. or the documentary 'the god who wasn't there" (which had crappy production values but was otherwise interesting).
and i'm proud to be a geek. one who's not a slave to a god that doesn't exist.
"By creating a legacy, by living a life worth remembering, you become immortal." -Saw II
I am not a slave to belief in a God you do not believe exists. In this world faith, ethics and moral purpose is mocked and discouraged.
I have the ultimate freedom to rebel against society and choose to be a Christian.
Maybe in 20 years there will be a movie that will have "Rock me sexy Martin Luther King Jr" song.
I don't mind making some jokes but movies like these are more to shock people then to make good comedy.
SAVE INVASION http://www.petitiononline.com/33030/petition.html
ethics and faith are not mocked (by most at least), but rather the faith, which by definition does not have support. if you have a reason for believing, it is not faith, and without reason or evidence, people find your beliefs silly. Religion does not create moral or ethical thought.
----------------------------
Stop Waiting for Heaven, Make Here a Better Place Instead
[deleted]
Good != Ethics and Morality
When a man dumps his daughter out in the street for getting pregnant out of marriage, that is moral. When a woman dies of childbirth complications because doctors refuse to perform an abortion despite knowing the risks, that is moral. When a kid dies of a treatable disease because her parents belong to a religion that believes that prayer is all that is necessary, that is moral. When a terrorist murders an innocent man because they belong to a different faith, that is moral. When young women were burned at the stakes for witchcraft, that was moral.
Morality are simply a set of laws which are believed by some people to result in good, no matter the context. Problem is, like everything that views things in black and white, it is seldom true. In fact, a great deal if not most of evil were committed in the name of "morality".
Funny thing about it is, Jesus never liked morality either. He rebelled against the restrictive "laws" of the Pharisees which ascribed salvation to strictly following a set of rituals. He taught the gospel of the good Samaritan. He consorted with prostitutes and sinners. None of those things, at his period, were considered "moral". Christians today would probably be the first to nail him on the cross.
These are both non-technical fluff books.
To say "The Jesus Myth" has a more compelling argument is laughable.
Compelling if you already had full intention of mindlessly nodding in agreement.
"and i'm proud to be a geek. one who's not a slave to a god that doesn't exist."
No, you're a slave to genetic inheritance and selective filtering. At least in my worldview I'm able to account for free will and personal choices. You're not able to. All of your actions/behaviors simply have (from your worldview) a selective advantage. There's no more truth to your beliefs than to my beliefs. Both are the product of natural selection. You don't have the ability to choose, because you have no mind that is independent of your brain. For you, the mind is simply what the brain does. There is no actual ability to discern abstract concepts.... certainly no ability on your part to say that "I agree with this argument because it is more compelling, with respects to the existence of God".
So yes, you are very much a slave.
That was an exceptional evaluation and explanation. Bravo, I could not have stated it any better. These types of individuals are the worst, I try and avoid them at all costs like poopy diapers.
shareThat was an incredible post, I'd never actually gone that far in the chain of logic, but it's air tight. Wow.
"It's that kind of idiocy that I empathize with." ~David Bowie
I'm just a little curious but why are you going out of your way to not believe in God? Or are the "Don't believe in God" books just your idea of a fun quick read?
shareCouldn't you at least be original in stating that you don't believe in god instead of biting song lyrics?
I have no religious beliefs at all but please... be original.
And for the sake of e-atheists, check out the work of numerous secular historians and see if their views are more in accord with the claims being made by IMDB-atheists, with respects to the existence of a man named Jesus.
Deny the existence of Jesus, and you have no historical rational for accepting the existence of any figure from antiquity.
I've not read the entire book but what I've seen of it is a mass of rationalization and assumption.
Perhaps you should read The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus by Earl Doherty.
For the most part, the claims by theists for evidence of an historical Jesus are just wishful dreaming.
Okay, I haven't seen the movie yet and I was just reading the posts to see what everybody thought of it so far, but I feel like I need to say something on principle here.
I'm three years younger than that guy and enjoy pointless horror movies simply for the entertainment value (haven't seen the Saw movies, I'll admit), but I am four months away from obtaining a history degree, and a year away from starting grad school in the same field, and I am perfectly well aware that the debate over Jesus' existence is raging in the academic circles.
So don't make judgments based on age and goddamned movie quotes, prick.
You sir, are an ignorant piece of garbage. You reduce an argument to childish name calling within a single post. Who are you to belittle what someone says based entirely on their signature?
Aside from one arguably false document, what real evidence of Jesus' existence is there?
I'm not attacking your beliefs, only asking you to support your argument.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
i believe in easter bunny and santa claus.
shareNo, actually Josephus never met Jesus, nor does he say he met Jesus. Further, Josephus never met anyone who knew Jesus personally. He speaks of Christians (believers) and what they believe, which doesn't say that an historical Jesus exists, but that Josephus knew people who believed in Jesus.
The Josephus quote most often offered by Christians is even considered at best a statement about what Christians believed of Jesus and at worst, an interpolation into copies of Josephus' work by early Christians, depending on the biblical scholar you talk to.
Josephus himself was a lifelong Jew and never accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
In fact, there are no first century historians who mention a historical Jesus. There are first century historians who mention Christians. That's as close as you can get in a search for an historical Jesus.
No records in Rome. No records from Herod or from Pilate that mention Jesus. The documents of the gospels themselves are basic proof that no such man existed. The first document found was Mark, with Matthew coming along soon after looking so much like Mark that it was assumed that one copied from another or used the other for a basis. Then the gospel of Luke was found, still looking like it was based upon the same document used for Matthew. The book of John came along long afterwards and doesn't harmonize or agree with the previous "synoptic gospels" and in fact contradicts them in places. The four accounts of the Resurrection Morning contradict each other. The stories were obviously not written by eyewitnesses, as claimed by biblical literalists, but by storytellers.
Here's the debate:
Scientists: Those documents are forgeries. We have proof.
Creationists/Christian scientists: No they are not.
That's about the extent of it.
-
I was like an egg rolling through time until I was 21. Then the egg cracked and I popped out.
ashthepanzerwalrus on Sat Jan 17 2009 09:55:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the debate:
Scientists: Those documents are forgeries. We have proof.
Creationists/Christian scientists: No they are not.
That's about the extent of it.
----
lol, very good.
Altho id like to lengthen the creationist reply to
'no they are not, have faith!
....or be denied entry to heaven'
:P
"I'm Brian and so's my wife!"
You should totally look up Apollonius of Tyana.
share
Not definitely....
If you research the stories of Jesus, and the historical records of the "Holy Land" at the time Jesus is said to have been there none that are used as proof hold up to scrutiny.
No meaning to diminish anyone's faith on purpose, it's just that it has not been proven at all. Lovely stories and messages but there is no REAL historical base other than stories written at least 100 of so years after Jesus' deathdate
E
People can tell me Jesus never existed all they want, but all the conjecture doesn't change the fact that the Bible is the best-selling book of ALL TIME and has been translated into MORE languages than ANY OTHER book ever.
Maybe he existed, maybe he didn't.
Are you going to say there's something wrong with loving yourself, loving people, and ultimately trying to make our f'ed up world a little bit better to live in, no matter what denomination?
I see no problem with just making the world a bit less hungry, less hateful, less jealous, etc...
American Idol is the most watched show on television, that doesn't make it quality programming. Most does not equal best, or even correct. Remember that at one time, most people believed the world was flat and that the Sun circled the Earth.
Since when does one have to follow the bible in order to be a good person, love yourself and respect others? Yes there are stories in the bible which enforce these values, but they are not required for living a good life.
The bible has also historically been used as a tool of oppression. Granted this is not what it was intended for, but just as much harm as good has come from various people throughout history using the contents of the bible towards their own ends.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Depends on where you are. The best selling, most read book in the UK for example is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy. I suspect our Puritan roots and upbringing in the States has more to do with the bible as best selling book. However, the number of people who buy the book or believe the book still isn't evidence that the events of the book are true. Gone with the Wind was one heck of a best-selling book but there was no Scarlett O'Hara. It's a story, using real places and real times as a backdrop.
As for using the bible to "love yourself, love people and make our f'ed up world a little better to live in," sorry but the bible has been used and continues to be used at the basis for hate, prejudice, even murder of thousands upon thousands of people.
I wish belief in the bible made people nicer. Historically, it just doesn't seem to work that way.
actually there's no scientific evidence that jesus ever existed. According to the time period and area in which he supposedly lived, jesus would have most definitely been black, so what's with the anglican depictions? Sorry, I don't believe things just because people tell me to.
Mind if i do a J? - The Dude
Despite whether Jesus was actually a real person or not, He has arguably touched more people's lives than any other historical figure who "actually" existed. To take a line from South Park, maybe it's that fact that makes Jesus more real than anyone.
For the record, I'm a Christian and I believe that He is real. If you're going to go down the road that there isn't enough evidence that He existed on this spiritual plane, that same argument can be made for many figures throughout history. It is very possible that Homer, author of the Illiad and the Odessey, was not an acutal person but a name given to personify a group of writers.
Well, the area you are referring to is the Middle East, so I think that would have made Jesus Middle Eastern, or more specifically Jewish. Pretty sure that means not black, but it definitely means not white too.
shareObviously, you said that because you just want to piss people off. I don't care what you believe, just go away and stop being a nuisance.
shareHow do you know he existed? Because people say he did? That's proof, lol.
share"How do you know he existed? Because people say he did? That's proof, lol."
It's called inference. Based on the evidence at hand, Jesus existed. To say he didn't would be foolish. Was he the son of God? I don't think so.
Foolish? No - this is just your opinion. Inferring someone or something existed is not proof. Try using that in a court of law.
Faith and belief is why people say Jesus existed. Not every will or has to agree. It is a personal choice.
Last Movie: Death Race
Fav. Movies this year: The Dark Knight
No you idiot.
No respected historical scholar denies that he actually existed.
It's only on-line atheist half-wits that actually believe this.
You know what the kicker... it doesnt matter if he existed or not. What matters is how you live your life. Just be good people. Dont do wrong. And dont do things in his name that you KNOW he would disapprove of. Aethist (like me) or Christian. Dont blindly follow a religion cause you think you will go to heaven if you are GOOD. Be a good person JUST BECAUSE, there is no excuse to not be a good person and thats all it boils down to. Whether Jesus or God or Satan really dont or do exist, just be good person. That in itself will make your life in the here and now a "Heaven" if you will.
Why doesnt GOD heal amputees? And is your religion the only God-approved religion?share
Hell, I'm an atheist and I'm fairly sure Jesus existed as a historical figure. That said, I'm in full agreement with the above poster. Do your best to be a good person. Not for fear of punishment or expectation of reward. It's better for all if we make the most of the one life we have.
shareOh he exists. Too bad you won't discover this until the day of judgment.
share"To bad he doesn't exists"
Score another one for intelligent, original thought.
;) nice
shareThe innkeeper joke was in The Crow, so I've known that one forever.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I was really relieved when I saw the title of your post wasn't serious. You know the bible thumpers are gonna be all over this one.
"Too bad he doesn't exist"
You know, when I run into imbeciles such as yourself, I can't help but smile at the fact that no matter how bad my day goes, I can take solace in the fact that I will never be as retarded as you.
Disputing Jesus' divinity is one thing. To say "Jesus never existed" is the mark of an idiot. You sir, are an idiot. Have fun knowing nothing about history and making yourself look like a fool your 7th time through the 6th grade.
Guess were all find out one day . Maybe one day i will say i told u so in another life.
shareJust because you dont believe he was the Son of God doesnt mean he didnt exist. there is historical proof that he did.
sharethere may be proof that he existed
but there is absolutely no proof that he is the song of god
and no proof that there is a god in the first place
show me SOLID(as in real *beep* not something that is explained scientifically) proof that there is a god, and then ill be convinced
NO ONE SAID He was the *beep* son of god in this thread.
People say Christians are dicks, but you're living proof that Atheists can be dicks too. And *beep* retards.
That other guy didn't say anything about Jesus being the son of god. He said he existed. Which you just said.
There are TONS of people who would be willing to argue with you over this, so why the hell are you trying to argue with someone who agrees with you?
[deleted]
Actually, it's getting more and more difficult for any of us to prove we exist. Just try moving to New Jersey and getting a driver's license.
sharePeople should start using the word evidence instead of "proof." There may be evidence that Jesus existed but most likely there is no "proof" he existed.
shareThat's not good enough! I want "proof". With the millions of Christians in the world today, you'd think they could find some.
share[deleted]
Calm down. There are, in fact, no proof that Jesus existed. It IS believed that he did, though. Most people agree that he most probably existed. There are a lot of evidence, but you can't say there are proof, because that is not true. I strongly believe he existed, but I sure don't believe he was divine in any way since I'm not religious. But I cannot KNOW he existed for a fact. A lot points to the fact that he most likely did, though. This is how historians work. They puzzle things together and draw conclusions. Few things are really set in stone, though. Historians don't even know for sure whether Homer (who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey) existed, or if it is a name or pseudonym invented later.
We weren't there. It's hard to know exactly what happened, who did what and who actually existed. To claim otherwise would be the real idiocy here.
this is *beep* retarded, this thread is basically like trying prove to retards that Gandhi existed.
sharethis is *beep* retarded, this thread is basically like trying prove to retards that Gandhi existed
dude if you're not retarded you'll realize that they didn't have cameras back then. And if photos are the only proof to you guys that jesus existed, then apparently no one existed back then. The Gandhi thing was just a metaphor by the way.
shareTake it easy, flylice. Your "metaphor" was no good, that was the former poster's whole point, that Jesus lived so long ago that no one can verify his existence through photographs, official documents or remains (as we can with Ghandi as he lived in modern times). Are you sure you didn't mean to compare Jesus with Buddha? That would have been a slightly better comparison, or "metaphor" as you wrongly call it.
It is still more than likely that Jesus existed, though, along with a lot of other people who lived at the same time as Jesus and also claimed to be the messiah. Apollonius, for example, was one who had many followers, and had things gone his way, there could have been people worshipping Apollinius Christ these days.
I agree with herrkilman on some points. A lot of people on here talk about "proof" and, there own certainties, but, uncertainty is a fundamental of nature. None us, (myself included), really know $h!t about what supposedly happened 2000 years ago, and to say otherwise is ignorant. Now, you can "look it up" or "do some research" all you want, but we all know just because you read something, somewhere online,(or any where else for that matter) doesn't make it true.
A mind full of lies is a lairs mind.
Tarantino Rules
if your going to say that the man Jesus didn't exist, you may as well say Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great didn't either, since there is more "proof" for Jesus then those two.
for one we have four seperate books detailing his life. so thats four biographies that we can also prove haven't been changed, that alone should be enough evidence, but apparently not, although just one biography for any other ancient figure would be considered enough to prove they existed. hypocrisy? plus we have 23 letters by eye witnesses in the New Testament as well, by at least 4 different authors.
heck we don't even need that to prove Jesus existed, we can just use the hostile witnesses, that is people that didn't like Jesus.
Tacitus (1st C) - "Nero inflicted... tortues on Christians. Christus, from whom
the name had its origin, suffered.. at the hands of Pontius
Pilate."
Thallus (AD 52) - describing events at the crucifixion wrote "A most fearful
darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake."
Pliny (AD 112) - "they sang a hymn to Christ, as to a god..."
Suetonius (AD 117-138) - "Jews were making... disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus, he (Emperor) expelled them from Rome."
Emperor Trajan (AD 112) - "denies himself to be a Christian... pardoned."
Talmud (AD 70- 200) - time of crucifixion is corroborated, & intention to kill
Jesus
Lucian (2nd C) - "the Christians worship a man... crucified... they are all
brothers... live after his laws... despise worldy goods."
Mara Bar-Serapion (2nd C) - "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing
their wise King?"
Gospel of Truth (2nd C) - "instructing them about the Father.. he came by means
of fleshly appearance..his death is life for many..."
Justyn Martyr (AD 150?) - "the nails of the cross were fixed to his hands and
feet... after he was crucified they cast lots."
and thats just some of the secular sources for Jesus!
i mean lets look at these writings that are never disputed
Herodotus - the earliest copy we have of his work is 1 300 years after initially
written
Thucydides- earliest copy 1 300 years after initially written
Plato - 1300 years
Aristotle - 1400 years
Caesar - 1000 years
Pliny - 750 years
Suetonius - 800 years
Tacitus - 1000 years
and now lets look at the Gospels
we have copies and fragments of them that are possibly coexistent with the originals and the entire Bible only 275-300 years after being written. oh yes much hypocrisy, i mean how come none of those secular manuscripts are ever questioned? i'm just asking for these "scholars" to quit being so biased. heck we don't even need all that evidence for the New Testament because we have the entire New Testament in the quotations from the church fathers, minus 11 verses that are unimportant. Plus if your going to dispute that Jesus existed, your going to have to give pretty good reasons for why people(especially the apostles) would live a life of poverty, persecution, and even martyrdom, over a man they knew didn't exist!
so please don't tell me Jesus didn't exist, it insults my intelligence. i mean all the evidence is for Jesus, and i just listed a smidgeon of it. We don't have that much historical proof for any other person in the ancient world, yet no one else is disputed, whats with that?
You make bold claims. There isn't more "proof" for Jesus than for Alexander the great and Caesar. That's simply not true, since the Bible itself cannot be considered hard proof, since it's considered "fictional" in large parts, especially the Old Testament (by that I mean that a lot of the bible stories are metaphorical and that it often probably shouldn't be read literal since then the stories make no sense). I know that some people read the bible literally, word by word, but most people don't.
There are a lot of evidence in the very changes Alexander the great and Caesar brought upon the world around them, and this is hard to dispute. Jesus mainly changed things with his words. It's his words that people still remember. His actions can be disputed (the "miracles" and such) but his words still ring true to christians and many non-christians alike. The problem is, however that his words differ slightly between the gospels. Jesus' dying words, for example come in three different versions depending on the gospel. This COULD be interpreted as Jesus not being one man, but a compilation of many different people, since there where so many people around that time claiming to be the son of God.
I don't believe that, though. I think he existed, and that some of the authors simply might have taken a few liberties when writing about them.
You point is still valid, although I think you overstate it by saying that there are more proof of Jesus than of Alexander, which is simply not true. Your points about Plato and such people ring more true to me, since we can't be sure who said what and who might have been invented afterwards (as with Homer, who according to some historians might not even have existed). But yes, saying you are sure that Jesus didn't exist is the same as saying you are sure Aristotle, Homer or any other such figure didn't exist. How could anyone possibly know that? And since there are more evidence pointing to the fact that most of these people, including Jesus, existed, it is more logical to assume that he did. So to me, this is not a huge debate. I'm just annoyed by the fact that some people are so sure he DID exist they argue as stupidly as those who say for a fact he didn't. You, on the other hand, argue like a sane person, and for that I'm grateful.
I am rather exhausted of that viewpoint. Because no one currently alive was present 2000 years ago does NOT mean we don't know anything about what happened during that time period. People just say philosophical sounding crap because it seems intelligent; it's annoying. We do have some hazy outlines We might not know what Caesar ate for breakfast on the Ides of March, but he CERTAINLY existed and he was murdered by the Senate. We don't need to be hugging his rotted corpse to know that, and he was around before Jesus. He created a physical empire whose remnants still remain; Jesus created a religious one.
And the documents of Jesus' life found in the gospel weren't written a hundred years after his death. Try twenty. Mark was written by Mark, obviously, but it was Peter's testimony related through a young scribe (Mark). Peter would have known what he was talking about. Luke's acoount, likewise, was actually the scribed version of Paul's. Matthew and John, two of the Twelve disciples, wrote their own experiences and therefore their gospels are a primary source, since they are the one who saw the things they describe. The Gospels are historically accurate when they talk about leaders and events of certain regions; they have no faults in the hard facts the represent. Although they all describe the same man and include key points like the Crucifixion, they are not so similar as to make researchers suspect that writers plaguarized each other's work. There were still eyewitnesses around when they were circulated in the early Church, and these eyewitnesses would certainly have spoken up if the Gospels were falisified. Anyway, if the Gospels had been made up, they would have been made more socially acceptable and not included a high value of women, foreigners, and the poor. In fact, historians are so sure of the Bible's authenticity that they cross check other historical records with it to prove other documents' validity. Finally, eleven of the twelve disciples were martyred. This is in many historic records outside of the Bible. Why would eleven men die for a fabrication? And a Roman death, at that? These evidences alone would be more than enough to support the existence of any other man EXCEPT Jesus. It's ridiculous how far people are willing to go to try and shove him out of history. It is your choice to either worship him as Savior or denounce him as a lunatic, but saying he never existed is ignorant. You could make that case for anyone from Cleopatra to Shakespeare; just trying to escape the idea of God by pushing out solid evidence of Jesus' person is disturbing and poor logic.
Mannn i can't believe i have to explain this... the Gandhi thing itself isn't a metaphor, it's a metaphor trying to compare you people with retards. I never tried to compare the existence of Gandhi to Jesus, i merely said the idea of saying Jesus didn't exist is like saying Gandhi didn't exist (as a joke). If i was trying to make it realistically comparable i would've said something like Genghis khan or Confucius.
It's a "Joke" Get it??? apparently not.
But it's not like that. This was my whole point. The comparison doesn't work, hence the "joke" doesn't work. It's not even remotely the same. And I'm not disputing your belief in the existence of Jesus. I believe that he existed, I'm just disputing your agressive standpoint that it is beyond every doubt, and proven, that he existed. You are obviously just angry because there are people questioning something you personally have strong beliefs about. But why even care? People who definitely say that Jesus didn't exist doesn't know what they're talking about. But neither do you, apparently, since you never reply senisibly to anything.
shareYou obviously don't get it! if the metaphor was "remotely" the same it wouldn't be a joke, i'd be a boring metaphor. A joke is supposed to have a punch line therefore making it ridiculous, that's why it's a joke. How are you not understanding this??? I understand that the comparison doesn't work, it's not supposed to! Everyone knows that Gandhi existed!
Now back to the jesus thing. Do you know how many documents they have proving jesus's existence? No matter what proof we can show, people are still going to doubt it. Now i'm not trying to say Jesus was divine or anything. I'm saying that he's a human being that lived during those times. They have numerous documents on his crucifixion. And if historians says he existed, and even Jews say he existed, then what is there to doubt?
The more i discuss this the more i think the gandhi thing would've work as a real metaphor. I could simply say that the photos of gandhi weren't really him, it was a picture of a random guy. A group of people in india wanted to create a heroic figure so everyone would fight for their independence. As a result they forged up documents stating he's real and everything gandhi did was actually the actions of this group, they wrote numerous books so there would be more evidence proving gandhi's false existence. There you have it Gandhi never really existed.
........ see how ridiculous that sounds? that's what i'm hearing from you guys when trying to argue jesus didn't exist.
I'm NOT saying he didn't exist. I agree with you that he did. I'm annyoed by your reasoning and your half-insane ranting on the subject. You joke still wasn't funny and it still didn't work but I guess it's nothing to argue about. You just need to read what people write instead of just attacking them. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, as you imply. I'm only arguing about semantics, the difference between proof and evidence. Still, I think there can be little doubt that a man namned Jesus existed, and that he was executed.
shareSupply SOME kind of evidence then. Anything which you believe is absolute proof that he existed.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
And how reasonable is it to demand the use of a technology invented only just over a century ago to prove or disprove the existence of someone two millennia ago?
Let slip the Determined Kitten of Doom!share
How about archeological evidence? Forget photos.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Prove you exist. Then we have a baseline for what might constitute 'proof' and possibly even one for what might constitute 'existence'.
Let slip the Determined Kitten of Doom!share
Drop the existentialist claptrap.
I obviously exist otherwise this conversation couldn't take place. Even though I'm not a historical figure, there are reems of documents with my name. Government records, cards with my name on them. My room is also filled with what will one day be archilogical evidence of my existence.
If any of this exists in Jesus case, please by all means, provide us with some source of information which shows this to be true.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Of course this conversation could take place. You could be a Turing Test.
Let slip the Determined Kitten of Doom!share
I said to drop the claptrap. Let's have an actual conversation about this, rather than talk about philosophical nonsense.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Mm, knew I'd forgotten something. Guess those philosophy classes are sucking up all available brainspace. So really, convince me that you exist and then we'll have a shared baseline for 'proof of existence.' And it'll save me having to work out my Descartes homework.
Let slip the Determined Kitten of Doom!share
There are, in fact, no proof that Jesus existed
but you can't say there are proof
It's just a question of semantics. Jesus existed. I'm pretty sure of it, but I can't provide hard proof of it. Only evidence that, beyond reasonable doubt, points to this fact. I'm just arguing semantics, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps this kind of evidence could be called proof. To me it sounds strange, but perhaps it could. Nevertheless, what I've been discussing is the use of language, NOT really the existence of Jesus.
And I'm not so sure about your comparison to Washington. George Washington wrote things, and he was the first president of a very young country, a fact that affected the world in very obvious ways that can be easily traced through history. This is not the same as a person who lived 2000 years ago and never wrote a word himself. All we know about Jesus comes from secondary sources. But still, I think that those who claim that Jesus never existed is way, way off. It's pretty clear that he did. Who he really was, and what he actually did, however, is quite another question.
And I'm not a native english speaker so I do mistakes constantly when writing quickly on the internet.
Sorry bud but there is empirical evidence that a man named Jesus was born and preached at that time in history. There is physical and historical evidence.
Now, whether or not anyone wants to believe he's the son of God, that's another thing. It's up to them.
I completely believe in God, His son and the Trinity.
Really? And what sort of physical evidence is there of his existence? Prove your point, don't just make unsubstantiated claims and think it's over.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
No many historians dont say he existed, there is some evidence but no straight out proof
shareI do agree that Athiests owe it to themselves to actually research what they're talking about. There's two type of athiests: smart ones who formally say, "I do not believe that there is a god," and calmly give reasons why. That's fine. Then there's morons who make the smart ones look bad by saying, "LOLZ! JEZUS DIDNT EKSIST DEY FAKED IT!!! LOLOLZ! SATIIINNN!!!" Yes, there's a chance he didn't; but if you're an athiest, at least admit that he was probably a historical figure.
shareI'll admit that he was possibly a historical figure. But the fact remains, there is no absolute proof that he did. Which is the basic premise of this conversation.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Prove that YOU exist. From where I'm sitting, you're just a figment of my imagination.
Let slip the Determined Kitten of Doom!share
[deleted]
Why are you so mad at Jesus? He didn't do anything to you? And there's no actual "proof" that any of us even exist. So. Yeah. There you go.
share"NO ONE SAID He was the *beep* son of god in this thread.
People say Christians are dicks, but you're living proof that Atheists can be dicks too. And *beep* retards.
That other guy didn't say anything about Jesus being the son of god. He said he existed. Which you just said. "
actually my friend, i looked, and at least 2 people before me said or referenced jesus as divine or the son of god.
boom. i win
How would it be real proof if it wasn't scientific? What other choice is there... You can't prove something people take on faith, moron; that's the definition of the word "faith." You need scientific proof. Hard evidence, of which there will probably never be any.
That said, I agree that it's much better not to live your life doing "good" only because the guy in the pulpit tells you to behave or go to hell. If you're doing it for the reward, then it's not really doing good at all, it's being selfish, trying to better yourself by "helping" others. I don't think that, if there is a God, He or She'd look as highly on someone who was trying to be a good person just to be able to get into heaven, or to avoid eternal torment, but rather someone who was trying to be a good person... because they want to be a good person.
And now... I am off to see the movie. :) Thank you to whoever started this thread, I've very much enjoyed reading it.
That's not the purpose of what God wants for all mankind. If we knew for absolutely sure that there was a God and if we believed in Him, we would go to Heaven and be saved from eternal pain and suffering in Hell, who wouldn't choose God??? Is this free will?
God wants you to choose to love Him, not because you are scared of what Satan will do to you, but because God loved you first. Even though you say you are a good person (speaking generally here), you have still sinned. God's justice will not allow any Sin into Heaven. If you have lied even once or have been envious even once, or looked at someone in lust, or had your heart filled with hatred for someone, then you have sinned. This WILL separate you from God. You can't just say, well, I didn't murder anyone. In God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin. Here on Earth, the consequences are definitely different if you lie or if you murder. All it takes from you is to believe and have faith that God sent His son Jesus to be a sacrifice for your sins, and you will surely be saved from eternal damnation. Its all about faith.
Would you rather force someone to love you, or let them decide to love you?
I know many people have done many bad things in the name of God and Christianity, but no human person is perfect. So don't look at humans to show you what true Christianity is, look at God's Word and ask God to show you.
Its up to you and only you whether you believe or not and nobody else is to blame if you end up away from God.
Allow me to point out that reincarnation is not a part of christian belief. So there will be no other life to point that out in.
Let slip the Determined Kitten of Doom!share
damn...you cut to the core!!! lol!!!
Green Day = "hates" American media.
American media = owns Green Day.
I love how some people insinuate that a poster is a young child, and then go on to belittle them further. Assume you're correct and they are in the sixth grade. Would it make you feel good to pick on a sixth grader? If so, you're incredibly pathetic.
Honestly, there is no reason that a debate such as this has to be conducted in such a childish manner. Both sides should be equally able to discuss their points of view without needing to resort to personal insults and character assassination.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
it may not be a sign that the world is destined for damnation, but the joke about Jesus being nailed to the cross in that movie is very offensive to Christians. why is it so easy to make fun of Christians?
if there was a joke about killing Jews or Muslims in the trailer for this movie, people would be up in arms.
and i am not a "bible thumper" but i find that joke in the trailer very offensive.
I have to partially agree with you, drlopez. Why is it when other races or religions make fun of whites and Christians it's ok, it's just a joke. But when whites or Christians make fun of others it's racist? I just don't get that.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
you can make fun of Jesus and Christians and all that because followers of Jesus are pretty much the only people on earth you can make fun of and make fun of their God without them rioting and killing people
shareUm buddhist, hindus, and atheist are three examples i can think of off the top of my head. Jesus is dead! Get over it!
shareWhy is the joke that he was nailed to the cross offensive to Christians? Isn't that the basis of their religion? I love when Christians get angry at Jews for killing Christ or get offended when people make a Christ getting nailed to the cross joke. The idea was that he had to die for our sins, at least according to the bible. Since he had to die, there is nothing offensive about joking about him getting killed and there is nothing wrong with the Jews of that day killing him because it had to happen. God meant for Jesus to die so if you're going to get upset about it you have to be pissed off at God.
shareWhy is it so easy? Because they take everything so personally. If you didn't get so upset, there would be no reason to make jokes about how uptight you are.
Did you miss all the jokes about Cricket being married to a Jew and how bad it evidently is? They're jokes. If you take it seriously you're a fool.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
That is really not funny at all.
This town deserves a better class of criminal... and I'm gonna give it to them.
Such a meeting of the great secular minds and the cowardly closet Christians.
The greatest textual critic of all time, C.S. Lewis, had something to say about mythology and actual historical events and personages. You 'intellectual' atheists ought to take him on regarding the difference between what is real and what is myth - especially much of Greek history where only a fragment of a page of an anonymous writer is all that exists concerning battles and life in general, and yet we are willing to believe that history and those peoples.
The synoptic Gospels are the most textually examined books of all time. Try as he might, Lewis could not find the'myth' in them as to whom, namely Christ, could exist as 'pretend.' For years, he subjected the claims and evidence of Christianity versus much of what is taught as truth concerning ancient - namely Greek history - amd it wasn't Christ that came up short.
Never mind that another analog- via the explosion of Christians and Christianity following the Resurrection that has altered world history- has ever existed in recorded history.
rock me sexy Jesus!
shareA note to all the Catholics defending Jesus: God has a sense of humor, just look at the platypus.
We may say whatever about Jesus ,but in the end Jesus will have the say who goes to either heaven or hell.
shareGod performs the father, the son and the holy spirit at the same time. God reincarnated himself and came as the promised messiah. Jesus is emmanuel. Meaning god among us. God has only one book and it is the bible that tells the truth about him and his chosen prophets and their testamonies. God can do anything. Jesus proved it with both his words and actions everytime. Cause he's the only one that can. He is the greatest man that ever lived. Jesus lived the perfect life. The prophecy happened 2000 years ago and it is written in the bible in the part of the new testament. Jesus picked his disciples and they are his eye witnesses. They saw all of what he said and did ,and it is written in the bible as proof. In revelations in the NewTestament Jesus will reappear again some day ,and will put an end to Satan's curse. Those that don't believe and are unrepentant along with Satan will be judged by Jesus.
shareIF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.... DON'T F'ING WATCH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LIGHTEN UP.... GET A SENSE OF HUMOR AND STOP TAKING THINGS SO SERIOUSLY... THAT IS NO WAY TO GO THROUGH LIFE.
LEARN TO LAUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS MOVIE WAS AMAZING.
ROCK ME SEXY JESUS.....
ALLLLL NIGHT LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[deleted]
seriously.. why are you even on these boards??? go away!!!
shareJesus does exist, and one day all will believe. You all especially will not be able to plead a case of ignorance, because the proof is around you, it is within you, it is everywhere, you just choose to ignore it.
shareSo, if Jesus died for our sins and we will get in heaven if we believe in him, what happens to all the billions of souls who were born before Jesus? They have no chance at redemption? Oh, that's right the world is only 2,000 years old. It was Adam,Eve and their son Jesus.
shareThey just hang out in the nice part of Hell.
Divine Comedy, anyone?
PISSTIANITY SUCKS!
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
[deleted]
Wow....what a bunch of sad f&%ks you are.
Enjoy hell
They're just jokes, people, not signs that the world is destined for damnation.
You can not prove something exists to someone that does not want to believe it.
I mean if I didn't believe dolphins were real you could show me a sea world show and I could say, thats not a dolphin, its just a big fish. It sounds foolish I know, but its what people do.
My cousin saw half a dozen Massai tribesmen healed of blindness and other illnesses right before his eyes on a missions trip in Africa as a teenager and is now an atheist. The Israelites in the bible went through the red sea, saw the 10 plagues, and received manna from heaven and when moses went on the mountain to receive the commandments they built a golden calf and worshiped it. The fact is you are the only species with a conscience. Man is the only species that has a desire to worship something greater than himself (most men I should say) whether it be Buddha, Alla, or Mount Kilimanjaro, the fact remains that we are all set apart for a reason.
Its not my job to convince you that he exists because if he showed himself what faith would there be in that? you would obviously believe. God only did this in the old testament and Jesus did it on Earth. Now we are educated enough to know the truth we just choose to despise it and deny accountability for anything.
(sorry about all the spelling errors, I hope you can understand what I am trying to say without a full post edit.)
"For the message of Jesus Christ and the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the Power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent, I will frustrate." 1 Corinthians 1:18-19
Let's see how many people will get angry about this bible verse.