If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discovery)   Evidence of Jesus' existence found   (dsc.discovery.com) divider line 567
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

142 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Oct 2002 at 2:50 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



567 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-10-22 01:20:06 AM  
This has been one of the most tolerant fark discussions I've ever read (save the passing troll)...refreshing...anyway, I have to get going to bed...
my two cents...there's evidence that points toward the theistic viewpoint and there's evidence (or lack of it) that points to the atheistic viewpoint. Either way, you make a choice based on faith. You can find support of your viewpoint if you look hard enough. People have debated it for centuries. I'm a Christian, and I believe God is good and all loving. People twist about passages to fit the predisposition. I try to live my life by one simple rule - "Don't be jerk." I recognize that for many people there is inadequate evidence to convince them of God's existence, and that much of human nature conduces to the assumption that belief in Him is based on superstitious grounds -- but from personal experience and intelligent analysis of the historical evidence, I am firmly convinced that He does exist and loves human beings. Good night all.
 
2002-10-22 01:20:37 AM  
...I was also about to invoke the Faust story...but let me flip through the Book I have, and see if anything leaps to the eye.
 
2002-10-22 01:21:37 AM  
*whew* I just got that in there in time :)

Dante's Inferno is a political commentary for where he lived. Italy I think, something with a T. Good book, but not based on anything real.
 
2002-10-22 01:21:56 AM  
the predisposition=their predisposition... good night :)
 
2002-10-22 01:25:18 AM  
Hey - we need a Jesus photoshop contest on here!
 
2002-10-22 01:28:24 AM  
Cleoric,

So the big bang, and it's associated evolution is unexplainable phenomena... Just like God. So really, when you say such things as you get frustrated over such a simple matter, you know you are in the same shoes as us. You have just as little to base your ideas on as we do?

Okay, it is obvious now that I'll have to dumb this down a bit. Note the quotes around my use of unexplainable. I also remember pointing out that you would likely not feel stupid at all. Am I making myself clear?

You can't assign an attribute to infinity, yet it's all over our very scientific theories, etc.

Cheeseburger,

Voodoospork No.

"The universe is big."

Please pick that statement apart.


Considering that big is a subjective term, along with the fact that I am spatially insignificant in comparison to the universe. I really don't see a reason to disagree. You don't really think that statement is analagous do you? The adjective big gives an idea of relative size. That being said, because of the subjective nature of the word, I can say an ant is big. This would be true depending on what I was comparing it to. The only difference between my big and your big is a difference of degree. Omnipotence is not merely human power magnified to a great degree, it has to be an altogether different kind of power. This is the part we can't understand, since we are really only familiar with power in a natural context.

Trom,

there's evidence that points toward the theistic viewpoint and there's evidence (or lack of it) that points to the atheistic viewpoint. Either way, you make a choice based on faith.

I've never seen any evidence that points towards theism.
 
2002-10-22 01:29:20 AM  
Again, I feel as though I should declare my ignorance. Only this year, have I read pieces of the bible. I do so in an attempt to learn the strength of the text and its relevance to such a big part of the culture in which we live. Sadly, with each passing day I find fewer and fewer of the associated stories in any context. No talk of archangels, no Lucifer, and now no hell, that I can find. I wouldn't say the book is a disappointment, but its interpreters are anew. Probable cause for the root of discontent that's spanned a millenium now.
 
2002-10-22 01:31:33 AM  
Cleoric,

You can't assign an attribute to infinity, yet it's all over our very scientific theories, etc.

I don't believe in infinity. Infinity is just a useful general concept for use when dealing with something so large that a specific number wouldn't give us any better idea of what we are dealing with.
 
2002-10-22 01:35:36 AM  
paganritual: sorry i was little vague in what i said, i suppose it was oyur last line that really got me,a bout ppl sitl believing in "shiat like this". I just get upset when ppl refer to my beliefs in that manner, typically, it belies a lack of respect, and as often as not, the oerson saying it expcects respect for their own ideas, but will give none to others, however, in this case, i clenarly misjudged you, sorry about that. You are clearly more reasonable that i gave you credit for, probably me getting caught up in a moment of frutration, I apologise for that. I really shouldnt post when angry, you'd tihnk i'd learn after it burning me about a thousand times a day.
 
2002-10-22 01:38:30 AM  
now to make myself look like a stupid noob, is there a way to send someone private messages around here, cause my last post would have been better suited to that, and all i did wa take up space.
 
2002-10-22 01:38:44 AM  
"I've never seen any evidence that points towards theism."

You obviously haven't looked. I have about 30 videos that you could borrow that have quite a few(Note: Understatement) pieces of evidence that points towards theism.

You seem to not have any notion of someone else having a conflicting viewpoint that is more correct than yours. So I'll just let you be from now on.

NorthVentricle, there is a Lucifer, Satans name before being thrown out of Heaven. He was an archangel(*). Head of the choirs of Heaven I believe? I don't know if the Bible uses the word archangel though, perhaps some interpretations do use it though.

The *word* Hell is used in the Bible I think, just not in the context of a place where human souls are sent to be tortured for eternity. Hell is scorched Earth basically, after fire and brimstone fall from the Earth to cleanse it of sin.

I'm no theologian though. I'm sure lots of people here that AREN'T Christian probably know more than me.
 
2002-10-22 01:38:56 AM  
NorthVentricle,

The question itself may be valid, but the style in which it is asked is combattive. Not argumentative, but designed to put a person of faith on the defensive. I guess you could call me a spiritual democrat. Every side in my opinion has the duty to defend their viewpoint, with the benefit of not having to answer loaded questions. Reasonable questions, complex questions, certainly.

The question is loaded only because the only answer is a contradiction, not due to the way it is asked. The problem with your view is that noone will ever have to answer difficult questions about contradictions in what they believe.

I thought of my own question in this manner, but with a far wider decisive bent. It goes like this:
(1) Is Hell a real place, not just a boogeyman story? (a little rhetoric, I apologise)
(2) Is God omni-present, that is, is He in all places at all times? (anyone who would purport the god of their faith to be all knowing and all powerful would have to be all being as well, "Q.E.D." to quote Douglas Adams)
(3) Does God exist in Hell?


All of these questions presuppose the existence of God. This probably isn't the best place to start a serious spiritual journey. I recommend Buddhism if you really need mysticism.
 
2002-10-22 01:41:58 AM  
Cleoric,

You obviously haven't looked. I have about 30 videos that you could borrow that have quite a few(Note: Understatement) pieces of evidence that points towards theism.

Actually, I have looked. I've spent many years investigating the subject, and at one point I actually took theists seriously. I know of the "proofs" and there are severe logical flaws in every single one of them. They are popular arguments that bank upon the ignorance of the audience and the odds against them educating themselves.
 
2002-10-22 01:47:40 AM  
Voodoospork: well, anyone claiming to have proof of God, is a little torubled, i'm a christian, and i certainly agree with you there, the logical flaws are inevitale, they ome hand in hand with trying to do impossible proofs. It's nice to see ppl with well developed logical skills, i myself, have none, but it's nice to see in others.
 
2002-10-22 01:49:38 AM  
Ffenliv, unfortunately, it's just as hard to prove that God doesn't exist.
 
2002-10-22 01:54:48 AM  
one of us is misunderstanding the other, probably me, i'm not trying to disprove his existence. I BELIEVE!!, sorry, couldnt resist being an idiot. I'm a christian, its just nice to see someone who isnt trying to prove his existence, christian or not, ppl who do, make us look bad, like none of know what logic is. :P
 
2002-10-22 01:55:10 AM  
Hence, James's words:
"I believe, them bones are me.
Some say we're born into the grave."


Jesus lived and died. If he knew about this flamewar, he'd spin in his grave.
 
2002-10-22 01:55:48 AM  
Ffenliv,

I can understand your position. I think faith has value in moderation. The only people I have a problem with are those who pass their personal beliefs off as fact.

Cleoric,

Ffenliv, unfortunately, it's just as hard to prove that God doesn't exist.

Actually it's hard to prove that anything
doesn't exist. That's because it's logically impossible to do so. I really don't see how this would support rational theism any more than it would support belief in invisible faeries who turn the leaves brown each fall. There is equal evidence for both.
 
2002-10-22 02:01:52 AM  
voodoospork: i could never attempt to pass off my beliefs as "fact" what i experience could have been some random neuron firing in my mind, could have been god, wither way, its no fact, i cant test it, i can't repeat the results, and i appreciate the fact that you have some respect for the beliefs, whether you choose them for yourself or not.
 
2002-10-22 02:14:39 AM  
LogicsFist: You repeat creationist misconceptions as arguments against evolution. Visit Talk Origins and learn about evolution from people without a creationist agenda. Science is not religion. Empirical evidence does not include items you take on faith from your holy book. Also, the author of your creationist book is a lawyer, not a biologist or even a scientist, so appeal to authority will not work in this case.

Bevets: To answer your question: Yes, atheists reject the bible because they do not believe in god(s). A holy book which claims to be divine is only so to those who first jump to the conclusion that there is a deity in the first place. In order to accept your holy book as evidence of anything, one would first have to accept your religion as true. In other words, only believers will accept a holy book as evidence. So by quoting the bible as "evidence" you are only preaching to the choir, and those you direct your quotes at, the non-believers, will never be convinced, because you do not answer their questions with independently verifiable evidence that does not require a priori belief, which is what they are asking you for. That is why everyone accuses you of using circular logic. With your method, you will succeed in convincing only the already-convinced.

Cleoric: First, "atheism" is too often used as a bad word, or to mean 'evil.' "If we allow this as part of the definition of 'atheism,' we'd have to include 'sanctimonious and close-minded' as part of the definition of the word 'Christian.'" Atheism simply means a philosophy of not believing in religion. I assume you think so because you think only god believers can be moral, but I assure you that you are mistaken. I am a very moral and responsible person, and so are many other atheists that I know. Religionists do not have a monopoly on ethical behavior, to say the least.

Cleoric: Second, evolution should be taught as a fact because it is. I'm sure you and all the fundamentalists on this board will get upset, but only small details of evolutionary theory (that's the scientific meaning of "theory," not the common one) are being debated. Only your insistance on interpreting every word of your holy book literally is preventing you from understanding this, and that is not a scientific objection but a religious one. Only in the US (and in Islamic countries), where religious fundamentalists have disproportionate political power, is the factuality of evolution questioned on religious grounds, and only those countries have a problem with teaching evolution in science class. It's a very local problem; the rest of the world does not get upset about it. Evolution is a very solid scientific fact. I refer you to the link above. Teaching creation myths in science class does a lot of bad for science education, and the more it is done the more the United States will have to depend on immigrants to do scientific research. Creationism is a dead end, and is certainly not science. If you have trouble with that statement, please do some research on the philosophy and methodology of science.

Peace and respect to all.
 
2002-10-22 02:26:31 AM  
"Cleoric: First, "atheism" is too often used as a bad word, or to mean 'evil.'

Yes, I'm sorry, I do apologize for that. You are right of course, non-religious people can do good, and many do. I sorted all of that out in my mind and didn't put it here.

On your second point, I still don't agree(I'm sure you are surprised about that). Though I can agree that micro-evolution, within-species changes can occur, I still haven't seen any proof of one species becoming an entirely different species. Though I don't want to go out and grab a book/video, and refresh my knowledge on all of this for purposes of this discussion, most, if not all of the "facts" for evolution have counterpoints to them showing how they promote creation.

Now you can say that means creationists contort the facts to get from them what they want and no doubt you may have just been thinking of saying that, but realize that I see it from the other side. I can see how evolutionists contort the facts to see it the way THEY want it to be.

*cut short by something*
 
2002-10-22 02:29:40 AM  
Seder430
To add another post, I personally don't understand why Christians aren't Jewish. Jesus was Jewish right? Aren't we supposed to try and be like him? Confused.


Little FYI here. The Jews obeyed the Old Covenant, which included the Ten Commandments and all the other little laws like no pork, etc. The New Covenant was not instituted until the minute Christ died. So while He was a man, before he died, the Old Covenant was still in effect. In fact, at the moment of His death, the curtain that closed off the holiest of holy places ripped in half.

Jewish people today more or less go by the Old Testament, while Christians are supposed to go by the New. Christianity is an upgrade from Judaism so to speak.
 
2002-10-22 02:37:09 AM  
Ffenliv: dont apologise for having an opinion. everyone deserves an opinion, but you cannot demand respect for that opinion. its something along the whole 'not agreeing with what you say but defending your right to say it' line ... flame wars/ discussions need for everyone to be able to state and then defend their opinion.
 
2002-10-22 02:37:33 AM  
Voodoospork: If you can define it, you can assign it. Yes, omnipotent is also subjective. You define it as an altogether different type of power. I trust you understand what you're trying to convey with that definition. To say that something is beyond human understanding is descriptive of that something, however vague the description.

If you respond, I'll have to post an answer tomorrow.
 
2002-10-22 02:46:38 AM  
Cleoric, this is to answer your question about "one species becoming an entirely different species."

Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ

29 Evidences for Macroevolution

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

The short answer is: "What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution."
 
2002-10-22 02:51:31 AM  
And, Cleoric, those creationist misconceptions you referto are addressed in the FAQs and on the web page I posted.

Talk Origins FAQ

Respectful word of advice: As you would learn about religion from a priest, not a scientist, learn science from a scientist, not a priest.
 
2002-10-22 02:53:28 AM  
PaganRitual: perhaps respect isnt the word i was looking for, tolerance maybe, i can't seem to come up with the word i'm searching for. I'm justnot sure how to express what i'm saying. I wasnt trying to "demand respect", sorry it came off that way, it was unintended. It think i just got angry over your "shiat like this" comment. Referring to my beliefs in such a manner is simply something i don't think i should have to put up with, but thats' just me, i'm not trying to cut you up or anything like that. Anywho, i cant seem to expres what i want to say, so clearly i don't even understand whati'm trying to say, took too many painkillers, tonight....must...sleep.
 
2002-10-22 02:53:40 AM  
Cheeseburger,

Voodoospork: If you can define it, you can assign it. Yes, omnipotent is also subjective. You define it as an altogether different type of power. I trust you understand what you're trying to convey with that definition.

When we say omnipotence is altogether different, we say it it something other than what we know. When we say God has power other than what we know, we really aren't being very descriptive. If you look, you will discover that most (if not all) of the adjectives associated with God are negative. He is not material, he is wise without limits, he is good without limit, he is powerful without limit. Here we are only describing God by saying what he is not. I don't think any reasonable person would accept this as a reasonable method of definition.

To say that something is beyond human understanding is descriptive of that something, however vague the description.

This is true to an extent, but Christianity is based upon assigning specific attributes to God. This argument helps Deists, Chaotes, and Muslims just as much as Christians. We also run into the problem of worshipping something that we cannot understand in any way. If God is entirely alien to us, we can't very well expect him to make good on any promises he has supposedly made or believe in anything supposedly inspired by him.
 
2002-10-22 03:03:21 AM  
Cheeseburger,

Yes, omnipotent is also subjective.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that a subjective God does little for the case of rational theism.
 
2002-10-22 03:03:57 AM  
"Respectful word of advice: As you would learn about religion from a priest, not a scientist, learn science from a scientist, not a priest."

All that I know, I know from a scientist, thank you.

About all the rest: I'll read it later It's midnight and I haven't studied for the midterm I have tomorrow. I bite my tongue to say more, but I am hoping/guessing that some of those links have some answers to my uncertainties (exact defining points for new species, etc)
 
2002-10-22 03:09:47 AM  
I know this may be contrary to what I've written, or off topic to the subject being discussed now, I'd like to point out this.

Let us assume that macroevolution IS a fact, and does happen.

Can we make this the basis for how all of the earths creatures came to be?

and more importantly, where did ANY of it come from? Where did matter come from? Where did space come from? Where did NOTHING come from? How did any of the entire universe come into being?

I'm probably sidestepping or backstepping here, and I apologize for that, I'm no scholar, but evolution still does not disprove God.
 
2002-10-22 03:22:35 AM  
Cleoric,

and more importantly, where did ANY of it come from? Where did matter come from? Where did space come from? Where did NOTHING come from? How did any of the entire universe come into being?

We already covered this one, slick. We do not definitively know the processes involved in these phenomena, but explaining them with the unknowable is lunacy. Not only is this behavior insane, it also makes you look like an ass when we do explain these phenomena. We aren't primitive men trying to explain thunder. We have the capacity to learn about the natural world and explain it within a logical framework. The smart money is on the bet that we will eventually figure these things out. Human knowledge will continue to expand and places for God to hide will continue to dwindle.
 
2002-10-22 03:41:09 AM  
And, if I may be allowed to add to Voodoospork's excellent rebuttal, the purpose of evolutionary theory is not to disprove (or prove) god. Only defensive fundamentalists who cannot accept that evolution and Genesis do not match imagine it to be that way.

I'm curious, Cleoric, who is this scientist you learned creationism from, and what are his credentials?
 
2002-10-22 03:53:00 AM  
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html#wveith
 
2002-10-22 03:54:53 AM  
I'm sorry, excellent rebuttal? Saying that because he thinks he's right, they'll eventually prove it to be so? Very logical "slick"
 
2002-10-22 04:25:46 AM  
Cleoric,

I'm sorry, excellent rebuttal? Saying that because he thinks he's right, they'll eventually prove it to be so? Very logical "slick"

Apparently you ignore the majority of the post and make what you like of the rest. I'm not just guessing that these things will be eventually understood. I'm saying that based on the evidence (several hundred years of fruitful scientific inquiry) our knowledge will eventually grow to encompass these things. This isn't a guess, this is reality. We learn more about the universe every single day. To say that these things are unknowable puts you in the same boat as the bushman who believes it thunders because the gods are angry. Even were these things to remain unexplained for the rest of my life (and many of them likely will be) God is not an acceptable answer. Maybe this point hasn't sunken in yet, but I'll try one last time. God cannot be used as an explanatory device. Aside from being entirely unreasonable, it does nothing to further human knowledge. We cannot make predictions based upon God, we cannot investigate and understand God, we cannot measure God. He does not meet even the minimum criteria for a theory. Any defense of theism is by definition irrational. I hope I've made this clear enough for you, because I am going to bed.

Armandeus,

I really do appreciate the compliment and the addition, thank you.

Good night.
 
2002-10-22 05:59:29 AM  
According to this article, I can only come to one conclusion.
Jesus was a gimp. Or at least, his brother was.
 
2002-10-22 07:13:02 AM  
Anagrammer

Is God able and willing to stop evil?

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malvolent.
Is he willing, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he willing and able? Then we wouldn't have evil.
Is he unwilling and unable? Then there's no reason to call him god.


http://bevets.com/pain.htm

PaganRitual

im waaay late on the scene, but curious as to those people that have said that it is 'assumed' that jesus existed and that the tag is wrong because there are known mentions on jesus in literature of the time ...

Actually there are some fairly lengthy passages by a greek physician, and several Jews.

Cleoric

Well, if'n you'd point me in the direction of a text that refers to Hell as a place where human souls are tortured for eternity, I'd be happy to take that into consideration.

Mark 9.48 where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

Armandeus

Only in the US (and in Islamic countries), where religious fundamentalists have disproportionate political power, is the factuality of evolution questioned on religious grounds, and only those countries have a problem with teaching evolution in science class. It's a very local problem; the rest of the world does not get upset about it.

In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin. Chinese paleontologist The Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999
 
2002-10-22 07:32:56 AM  
Bevets, you delight in quoting that: when you stop believing is still reality thingy.

I am sure that is supposed to be an anti christian argument.
 
2002-10-22 09:00:38 AM  
just wanted to weigh-in: for the record, I believe Jesus lived. I believe he is the Son of God. I believe there is a God. I believe he died and was resurrected. I also believe in modern prophets. (yes, I'm a mormon)
flame on! if you want, but I will not change my beliefs. just as I expect those of you who have weighed-in will not change yours. But, just for kicks and reingnition, I accept ALL things as proof there is a God. The worlds in their regular rotation, plants, animals, the sciences, people. The fact that life exists is no "accident", it is a guided, thought-out process. Why shouldn't there be a God, who lets us choose to do as we wish with or lives? It may not seem fair, to have the crooks and liars and cheaters seem to win; yet we choose to follow, or prosecute. Hitler could have been stopped before he became a power, just as Saddam and Osama could have been stopped, yet some chose to support them. Wasn't God's fault we chose poorly. Take responsibility for your choices! Nothing raises my ire faster than some weasel who does some inhumane thing, then claims no responsibility due to parental failure in his youth. You choose. God or no God, you get to choose. Let somebody else choose, too.
Thank you, thank you very much.
 
2002-10-22 09:01:51 AM  
RexJolley

Well than, could he create a stone so large that even he could not lift it?

Here is an answer worthy of your question: Yes, and He could lift it too.

Armandeus

Respectful word of advice: As you would learn about religion from a priest, not a scientist, learn science from a scientist, not a priest.

Like thes guys?

http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html

Or did you mean we can only learn science from agnostics and atheists?

Voodoospork

I'm not just guessing that these things will be eventually understood. I'm saying that based on the evidence (several hundred years of fruitful scientific inquiry) our knowledge will eventually grow to encompass these things.

So you have faith in Science of the Gaps -- Science will explain everything we don't understand now.

God cannot be used as an explanatory device. Aside from being entirely unreasonable, it does nothing to further human knowledge. We cannot make predictions based upon God, we cannot investigate and understand God, we cannot measure God.

Here is a prediction you can count on:

Hebrews 9.27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment
 
2002-10-22 09:32:01 AM  
Meh. He never existed. Just like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and Peter Pan. He's pretend.
 
2002-10-22 10:12:42 AM  
Bevets,

So you have faith in Science of the Gaps -- Science will explain everything we don't understand now.

Bevets, my man, we've already been over the faith in science schtick like 3 times now. I don't have faith that science will fill in the gaps. It doesn't require any sort of faith to believe this. I don't need faith to say that "if this horse came in first in the last twenty races, it may be a good idea to bet on this horse." It's a prediction based on facts. I know it's a strange concept.

Here is a prediction you can count on:

Hebrews 9.27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment


This is a perfect example of what we cannot make predictions based upon. I wouldn't take anything this guy says at face value anymore than I would take the words of Jim Jones or David Korresh as gospel and plan my life around those.

"There's a sucker born every minute."
-David Hannum
 
2002-10-22 10:50:52 AM  
10-21-02 11:12:35 PM TheDingoBroughtMyBabyBack
in't no atheists in the foxholes.

That's the finest argument for atheism anybody could make.
 
2002-10-22 10:59:04 AM  
10-21-02 11:31:42 PM Livewire
Bevets:

What makes YOUR infinite and loving God any different than the Jewish infinite and loving God or Islams infinite and loving God? What about MY infinite and loving God? He isn't the same as yours, since mine isn't based on the Bible. Does that make him wrong? Other than the Bible saying so, MY book of teachings says your God is wrong. Whos right?


The answer is obvious-whoever has the best weapons.
 
2002-10-22 11:38:25 AM  
Ok. But, I don't see what this proves.
 
2002-10-22 11:40:38 AM  
Voodoospork

I'm not just guessing that these things will be eventually understood. I'm saying that based on the evidence (several hundred years of fruitful scientific inquiry) our knowledge will eventually grow to encompass these things.

So you have faith in Science of the Gaps -- Science will explain everything we don't understand now.

Bevets, my man, we've already been over the faith in science schtick like 3 times now. I don't have faith that science will fill in the gaps. It doesn't require any sort of faith to believe this. I don't need faith to say that "if this horse came in first in the last twenty races, it may be a good idea to bet on this horse." It's a prediction based on facts. I know it's a strange concept.


Unfortunately science has a track record of miscalcuations (the horse has not always come in first) and continues to uphold beliefs that are likely to be disproven. This contrasts with a flawless track record for the Bible. You are suggesting that you dont know what the answer is, but one day some one will find the answer. This is an article of unprovable faith. You assume human progress will one day cross a finish line, but you don't know what that finish line is, what it looks like, or even where to look for it.
 
2002-10-22 11:43:23 AM  
Axisted
Ok. But, I don't see what this proves.
It proves that sombody carved "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" on a box.
 
2002-10-22 11:51:01 AM  
10-22-02 01:38:44 AM Cleoric
"I've never seen any evidence that points towards theism."

You obviously haven't looked. I have about 30 videos that you could borrow that have quite a few(Note: Understatement) pieces of evidence that points towards theism.


I spent 20+ years praying and asking for guidance and never got an answer, much less an answered prayer.
And what videos are these?

NorthVentricle, there is a Lucifer, Satans name before being thrown out of Heaven. He was an archangel(*). Head of the choirs of Heaven I believe? I don't know if the Bible uses the word archangel though, perhaps some interpretations do use it though.

Lucifer rebelled, suggesting things up in Heaven aren't going to be much better than they are here, and God didn't just fark up here. Seems like the omnipotent diety can't get anything right.
 
2002-10-22 12:07:26 PM  
I've always been under the impression Protestants believed James was Jesus's bro, with Catholics believe he was his cousin.
 
Displayed 50 of 567 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report