Discussions about Carico's God

[Carico]

Jesus is God Incarnate

Man doesn't think he knows better than your god. Your god isn't demonstrated to actually exist. Moreover, the mythology of the bible doesn't reveal anything of substance that wasn't already observable by the humans who created the mythology in the first place.

Indeed, the world doesn't work "exactly as the bible says it does." Your bible states that a man brought down "the walls of Jericho" with trumpets and marching. This is neither scientifically demonstrable or probable on many levels. There are no evidence of "trumpets" in the loudest of marching bands that can "bring down walls;" and the archaeological evidence shows that walls didn't exist to be brought down in the first place at Jericho.

The bible says the sun was made to stop and give a full 24 hours of light so a battle could be won. This isn't scientifically probable or possible since the sun doesn't actually revolve around the Earth. However, if we accept that your god was simply stupid and didn't realize that he made it the other way around, and that it was the Earth that simply stopped rotating, we can still say it is scientifically improbable and impossible for the planet to simply stop, then start again 24 hours later at the same rotation.

Your bible says that Jesus was born of a virgin. This is a scientific improbability since creating a blastosis requires mitosis that is a result of the fertilization of an egg by a sperm. Either your god was lying, he was a rapist, or he doesn't exist.

There are hundreds of things in your bible that demonstrates that the world simply does not work the way it describes. In short, your bible is bunk.

Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate. So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was, then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God. So you are in error because God has shown himself to people, not only in the form of Jesus Christ, but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation.

 

[SkinWalker]

Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate.

What's the evidence for this? How do you know it?

So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was, then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God.

What history, specifically, have I made up? How can I deny a god in more or less than the other thousands upon thousands of gods humanity has created?

So you are in error because God has shown himself to people,

Where is the evidence of this sighting? Is it something we can put to the test? If not, why should it be held in any higher regard than the evidence that Quetzacoatl, Mythras, or Zeus -all gods who were "shown" to the people.

not only in the form of Jesus Christ, but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation.

I don't deny creation at all. There's no miracle and I'm not one to let my ignorance create gods to explain that which I don't know, but I'm happy I was created. I thank my mom and dad for it at least once a year.

 

[Carico]

What's the evidence for this? How do you know it?

Read the bible to see how you can know it too. Then go to Israel and do your research and you'll find that all the evidence points towards Christ's existence and none points away from it. Or again, are you going to make up your own history of what happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ?

What history, specifically, have I made up? How can I deny a god in more or less than the other thousands upon thousands of gods humanity has created?

Since you claim to know that the authors of the bible are lying about Jesus, then you must know what really happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ. Or are you simply in the habit of discussing things about which you know nothing? If so, then please explain why people should listen to you.

I don't deny creation at all. There's no miracle and I'm not one to let my ignorance create gods to explain that which I don't know, but I'm happy I was created. I thank my mom and dad for it at least once a year.

This statement is a contradiction. It's like saying; "I don't deny that I'm an alcholic. I'm simply not an alcoholic." So try again.

 

[Pete]

What's the evidence for this? How do you know it?

Carico just knows, apparently. He is blessed with all the answers, and looks down on those who explore for knowledge.

 

[swarm]

Carico: do your research and you'll find that all the evidence points towards Christ's existence

Actually the more research I do, the more JC fades into the myths of his day and there seems to be a total lack of any real person involved. In particular there are even serious flaws in the gospels, which seem to be the only source which discusses him.

Of course you aren't interested in hearing that.

 

[SkinWalker]

Read the bible to see how you can know it too. Then go to Israel and do your research and you'll find that all the evidence points towards Christ's existence and none points away from it.

Okay, been there done that. Read your bible and examined Syrio-Palestinian archaeology. Which, among these, constitutes evidence?

It looks like you're talking shit here.

Or again, are you going to make up your own history of what happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ?

Why do I need to "make up" anything to doubt it is anything more than mythology? Should I make up new histories regarding Greece since I consider Zeus and Aphrodite to be mythical? Should I make up new histories of Mesopotamia because I regard Marduk and Tiamat as mythical? Should I make up new histories of Mesoamerica because I consider Quetzacoatl to be a mythical god? Your making a fallacious argument here.

Since you claim to know that the authors of the bible are lying about Jesus, then you must know what really happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ.

This, again, is a logical fallacy. Another false dichotomy as well as a strawman. I don't recall stating that I "know" the authors of the bible are lying. I do, however, state that I think the text written in the bible is probably myth, which is a set of tales (believed in part or whole) that usually begin as oral traditions before they are ever written down. The authors of the bible were probably writing down what they already heard, embellishing and enhancing the stories as they saw fit and probably believed. Though I'm wouldn't be surprised if much of the text in the bible was an outright lie since we have documented evidence that humanity is certainly capable of lying in order to create written propaganda that suits their agendas and goals.

Or are you simply in the habit of discussing things about which you know nothing? If so, then please explain why people should listen to you.

No one should listen to me. They should doubt every word I write. Indeed, they should question what I say, how I say it, and why I say it. And, if they find that my statements rise to a logical and reasoned level of veracity with a demonstrated level of knowledge then, and only then, should they take me seriously.

They should, by the way, take every thing you say and write in the same manner. Particularly since you write with such ignorance and lack of education. I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, but, rather, in an academically critical one. You criticize others who dare question your superstitions and myths as not being "knowledgeable" about them, yet you are utterly ignorant of the rest of the academic discourse that necessarily accompanies your claims.

That discourse includes scientific understandings as well as comparative religious studies -you're clearly ignorant of the very origins of your own religious myths, no doubt self-shielded from them in order to preserve and justify your cult doctrine and dogma.

This statement is a contradiction. It's like saying; "I don't deny that I'm an alcholic. I'm simply not an alcoholic." So try again.

Allow me to clarify for the ignorant: I was created by my parents. They fucked and here I am. It isn't a miracle. It has happened at least 6.5 billion times in the last 50 or so years.

 

[Carico]

No one should listen to me. They should doubt every word I write. Indeed, they should question what I say, how I say it, and why I say it. And, if they find that my statements rise to a logical and reasoned level of veracity with a demonstrated level of knowledge then, and only then, should they take me seriously.

So why do you never question scientists and instead, blindly believe everything they say? If you did question them, you would see how unscientific their methods are. But you don't. You defend them even when their methods have been shown to be nothing more than speculation. So you contradict yourself, my friend. But if you doubt your own words, then you're not going to convince anyone else either that you're right.

They should, by the way, take every thing you say and write in the same manner. Particularly since you write with such ignorance and lack of education.

Oh really? Have you ever been to Israel and gone to the cities described in the bible? I have. Have you ever researched other ancient cultures who interacted with the ancient Jews? i have. Do you know why animals can't produce humans as descendants? I do.

So sorry, but the lack of education is on your part which is why you make claims about the life of Christ when you have ZERO evidence for them nor can you back them up by any source. Unbelievable. So you need to first get educated about history and do your research so you can speak from knowledge rather than ignorance. That goes for biology too.

 

[SkinWalker]

So why do you never question scientists and instead, blindly believe everything they say?

What evidence do you have of this? In fact, I've sat in many conferences where I've questioned the science behind archaeological and anthropological methods. I consistently question scientists -though I can hardly blame you for being ignorant of this. I can, however, blame you for making an illogical and unreasoned assumption.

If you did question them, you would see how unscientific their methods are.
But you don't.

See my above statement.

You defend them even when their methods have been shown to be nothing more than speculation.

Please, show us your analysis of any scientific study that demonstrates how it is speculative and nothing more. I'm interested.

So far, all you've done is make rhetorical statements that haven't any substance or demonstrable premises. Things aren't "speculative and nothing more" merely because they run your own indoctrinated beliefs into the ground. Just because you wallow in ignorance and a lack of education doesn't imply that those who have bothered to seek knowledge and understanding of their universe are merely speculating. Give use words of substance -otherwise you're simply talking out of your ass.

So you contradict yourself, my friend. But if you doubt your own words, then you're not going to convince anyone else either that you're right.

Again, your own ignorance and lack of critical thought processes are being applied. I've never stated that I doubt my own words. Please quote the passage where I did. I said you shouldn't accept what I say prima facie. You should question and apply critical thought. You haven't and you aren't, obviously.

Oh really? Have you ever been to Israel and gone to the cities described in the bible?

Yes.

Have you ever researched other ancient cultures who interacted with the ancient Jews?

Yes

Do you know why animals can't produce humans as descendants?

Yes.

So sorry, but the lack of education is on your part which is why you make claims about the life of Christ when you have ZERO evidence for them nor can you back them up by any source.

We both have "zero evidence" that indicates a person who fully lives up to the myth of Jesus Christ as variously described by anonymous authors of Christian texts actually existed. You have a belief that he did and I simply question the notion. Maybe he existed. Maybe he didn't. I have not a shred of testable evidence one way or the other (and really could give two shits since he was just another cult leader and would have lived over 2kya).

So you need to first get educated about history and do your research so you can speak from knowledge rather than ignorance. That goes for biology too.

You have yet to demonstrate yourself to be either my better in this or qualified to evaluate my education. Please feel free to start a thread in this forum on which "biblical city" you feel most effectively "proves" your cult doctrine, keeping in mind that the mere existence of such a city would not be enough. You'll need to show why that city is significant and why it demonstrates the supernatural nature of your mythology to be legitimate.

I look forward to this.

 

[spidergoat]

There is only secondhand evidence for Jesus even existing, much less being a "God".

 

[UncleChrist]

Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate

So lets get this straight ..........

God had to crusify himself
to change his own mind regarding humanity


yep makes perfect sense
:crazy:

 

[Balerion]

Sorry, but I'm a Skinwalker fan from back in the day, and I just gotta say...

WOW! Skin kicked his ass! Carico even tried the "I bet you've never been to Israel" thing...whoops!

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Did Jesus ever actually say he was the son of God? I know a lot of people called him that, but did he ever actually say it? I think Jesus did exist, but I think he might have just been a man with new ideas that everyone agreed with and people formed a cult around him calling him a god and deifying him, when he was really just a normal guy. I mean his followers turned on him pretty fast when he was going thru his trial.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

There is only secondhand evidence for Jesus even existing, much less being a "God".

*************
M*W: I would think that there is secondhand "hearsay" or "rumors" of Jesus existing.

 

[nova900]

Did Jesus ever actually say he was the son of God? I know a lot of people called him that, but did he ever actually say it? I think Jesus did exist, but I think he might have just been a man with new ideas that everyone agreed with and people formed a cult around him calling him a god and deifying him, when he was really just a normal guy. I mean his followers turned on him pretty fast when he was going thru his trial.

Well,not everyone agreed with him.If Jesus did exist I personally believe he was an ordinary man,although very enlightened, who was way ahead of his time and preached two basic ideas..to be selfless...to practice unconditional love.If this was the case he no doubt got on the nerves of the orthodox Jewish religous leaders and was presented to the Romans as a threat to the peace they wanted to maintain with them. What good is a man who just preaches universal brother/sisterhood,love and selflessness to leaders who want a set of idiotic dogma to control their people?

You are right as far as I know ..Jesus never claimed to be "God in the flesh".
The whole concept of God incarnating into human form to act as a sacrifice back to himself so he can accept our presence in the afterlife is to me highly illogical and it also seems to go against the way Jesus is depicted in the NT..as someone who on many occasions seemed impatient with the apostles and people in general to grasp the basic ideas of what he was teaching and to get them to take responsibility for their own actions.To do the dirty work of providing a easy way to salvation seems to be a big contradiction.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Did Jesus ever actually say he was the son of God?

*************
M*W: No, because he didn't exist.

I know a lot of people called him that, but did he ever actually say it?

*************
M*W: How do you know the people of Jesus's alleged day called him that?

I think Jesus did exist, but I think he might have just been a man with new ideas that everyone agreed with and people formed a cult around him calling him a god and deifying him, when he was really just a normal guy.

*************
M*W: God is a metaphor for the sun. Jesus is a metaphor for the sun, too, as well as for the planet Venus which "rises up" and sits at the right hand of the Sun.

I mean his followers turned on him pretty fast when he was going thru his trial.

*************
M*W: That's what the myth says, but his "followers" were sun worshippers (i.e. Sol Invictus and company).

His "trial" is a metaphor for the sun's "death" and being placed in the "tomb." The "tomb" is a dark place and represents the dying sun. Then, of course, there is the resurrection of the sun when it rises again. A new moon rises with the sun as does Venus, and that is the metaphor for the resurrection. The NT is just a glorified version of an astrological calendar.

 

[Balerion]

Actually, they didn't call him the son of God back then. They called him Christos (Christ), which means "Chosen One", but that did not imply he was the son of God.

 

[Balerion]

His "trial" is a metaphor for the sun's "death" and being placed in the "tomb." The "tomb" is a dark place and represents the dying sun. Then, of course, there is the resurrection of the sun when it rises again. A new moon rises with the sun as does Venus, and that is the metaphor for the resurrection. The NT is just a glorified version of an astrological calendar.

Finally, someone else here gets it. It's astrological allegory.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

entertaining. Let's break out the scientific method and apply it to black holes now. At least that is possible. Reason does not equal belief, belief does not equal acceptance. Carico, these are some die hard atheists. It's silly to give pearls to pigs, they'll treat them with disregard.

 

[Carico]

It won't do any good to ask what the bible says on this forum because quoting the bible is considered preaching. So all this forum proves is that scientists aren't interested in looking at all sides of an issue, only one side. Of course that's not scientific because it's biased. So you guys have proven me correct that science is not about being objective, but about trying to prove God wrong. That's not hard to do if you try to eliminate any reference to God in the bible or in history. But the only problem is, you can't change history any more than you can take away the words in the bible. So all you're doing is trying to re-make reality (which is actually called psychosis) by pretending they don't exist and making up your own history. That of course proves nothing except fear and bias. So you've proven that the methods of scientists are unscientific. So thanks.

 

[spidergoat]

Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Science is not inherently opposed to the idea of the supernatural.