Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

[Ophiolite]

I just wanted to take a moment to thank Sarkus for the thoughtful, concise, measured post. Sarkus, your responses are consistently of high quality, easy to read, make their points effectively, contain little or no ambiguity, and are a joy to read.

If everyone else posted to the same standard I wouldn't wander around threads cursing and swearing, berating poor logic, condemning sloppy thinking, chastisting the prejudiced, and generally being a pain in the butt.

A sincere thanks.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Sorry Sarkus, thought you would recognise the response was to MW, will do better next time,

 

[SnakeLord]

The Angel of the Lord has appeared, it looks like a big Pillar of Fire.
Thousands times thousands has seen It. It's appeared visibly.

I remember that, it was on CNN.. :bugeye:

 

[Godless]

Look at this nation; look at this people; what signs and wonders has happened right here, proved to be of God.

Yes look at this nation/ Mostly Conservative Christians who elected a madman, who thinks god told him to attack Irag, a war started by deceit, and lies, to exploit their wealth of oil.

Yes look at this nation/ misguided fools MTV generation "dood were's my car" type of idiots, our youth has the lowest grade levels of all industrialized nations.

Yes Look at this nation, We have a brain drain in the US people are leaving in droves, from what they believe is a nation gone bonkers and mad, creating a "1984" type of perpetual war that will last decades.

And all this stupidity from a "faith based nation"

It's time to really look at our nation, and start taking back those freedoms were are slowly but surely loosing!

Freedom from Relgion

An ignorant, ill-willed and intimidating resolution endorsing Christianity as a state religion, recently approved by the Missouri House Rules Committee, shows the willingness of some American religious extremists to embrace theocracy.

click

Wake Up America

Godless

 

[Medicine*Woman]

MW says:

Well, actually a dictionary is biased toward the definition of a word. Also, it's not just a dictionary -- it's the history of the word's development. I give you the choice of any dictionary -- show me where the word "sodomy" agrees with your view.

Ok, I get it -- everybody else is wrong and you are right. Gotta like that time machine you're using. You're a better tale spinner than Grandfather Clock on Captain Kangaroo. I can't knock the girl for tryin! You were there when it happened -- right MW? LOL

*************
M*W: As a matter of fact, I was there when TV first came on the American scene, and I'm old enough to remember Captain Kangaroo, Mr. Green Jeans, Clarabell the Clown, and Grandfather Clock. I also remember Howdy Doody and J. Fred Muggs. So, I know they "existed." And your point would be?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Because of the depth of your anger. You ingore any thing that dose not agree with your theisis, or is incovient to your arguement, wich mean you argue from passion and not logic, and the way you attack anyone who you deam ingnorent and question their intellegence. This means you are not secure in your own self so you have to prove every one else is less intellegent than you?
ps: yes I have read these, and much more.

*************
M*W: What makes you think I'm angry? Just because I don't happen to agree with you (or any christian, for that matter), you say I'm "angry!" Anger has nothing to do with my beliefs or opinions. No one is forcing you to read what I write. "If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen." I really don't give a rat's ass if anyone agrees with me or not. I base what I write on what I've learned for myself and not on what I've been told by others who blindly believe on faith!

Intelligence is another thing. How can intelligent people believe in supernatural beings that have power and control over them or know beforehand their every move?

You said that I ignore anything that does not agree with my beliefs. If I "ignored" what is opposed to my beliefs, I wouldn't be here now. I wouldn't have been here going on four years. I would not have shared what I've learned about christianity. I would just keep it to myself. So, you are way, way off base saying I "ignore" my opposition. I thrive on that opposition! It shows me YOU are reading what I write! It shows me that I've hit a nerve on YOU! It shows me that I've made YOU angry! It shows me that YOU have become defensive! It shows me that YOU are the one who is insecure.

Have I really proven everyone else to be less intelligent? Certainly, I don't think so, because I came here to learn. But since YOU brought it up, is English your first language or are you just illiterate?

 

[Ophiolite]

But since YOU brought it up, is English your first language or are you just illiterate?

That should actually be:

But since YOU brought it up, is English not your first language, or are you just illiterate?

I find it best to be meticulous in grammar and spelling when correcting others, don't you?


And I think the reason BuffaloSpringfield thought you were angry is simple: you sure as heck sounded angry. (Not to mention marginally psychopathic.) Perhaps that just passes for laid back in your parts.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

That should actually be:

But since YOU brought it up, is English not your first language, or are you just illiterate?

I find it best to be meticulous in grammar and spelling when correcting others, don't you?

And I think the reason BuffaloSpringfield thought you were angry is simple: you sure as heck sounded angry. (Not to mention marginally psychopathic.) Perhaps that just passes for laid back in your parts.

*************
M*W: I stand corrected.

 

[Woody]

M*W:

As a matter of fact, I was there when TV first came on the American scene, and I'm old enough to remember Captain Kangaroo, Mr. Green Jeans, Clarabell the Clown, and Grandfather Clock. I also remember Howdy Doody and J. Fred Muggs. So, I know they "existed." And your point would be?

Grandfather Clock was my favorite. Any event that ever happened in history -- he was always there so he could set the record straight. He told us how he fought along side Davy Crockett at the Alamo, etc. etc. -- he never missed a tick.

When Green Jeans called his bluff, Grandfather clock called him a "young whippersnapper." They didn't get along, you know, and Captain K would have to intervene and filter out all the noise. It kind of put him in the referee spot. Rather entertaining.

Oh, BTW, the point being, I always knew Grandfather clock was stretching the truth to make a good story, but that was ok as long as Green Jeans was getting duped. So who's getting duped by your story about sodom and gomorrah? you?

I'm still waiting for you to find that dictionary definition that says "sodomy is not sodomy."

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W:

Grandfather Clock was my favorite. Any event that ever happened in history -- he was always there so he could set the record straight. He told us how he fought along side Davy Crockett at the Alamo, etc. etc. -- he never missed a tick.

When Green Jeans called his bluff, Grandfather clock called him a "young whippersnapper." They didn't get along, you know, and Captain K would have to intervene and filter out all the noise. It kind of put him in the referee spot. Rather entertaining.

Oh, BTW, the point being, I always knew Grandfather clock was stretching the truth to make a good story, but that was ok as long as Green Jeans was getting duped. So who's getting duped by your story about sodom and gomorrah? you?

I'm still waiting for you to find that dictionary definition that says "sodomy is not sodomy."

*************
M*W: You're older than I thought!

About the dictionary... I never said nor implied that the dictionary was incorrect about the word "sodomy." In fact, I said the dictionary gives the "most common usage" of the word, whatever that word may be. I don't have an argument with the dictionary's usage of "sodomy." The argument I have is that just because a dictionary gives the most common definition of a word, does not make it an accurate accounting of the history of the word, nor does it make it a literal translation. Without even looking "sodomy" up in a dictionary, I feel certain that the definition most any modern dictionary would give is something close to "male homosexuality by anal intercourse."

The problem I have is what Sodom and Gomorrah, in this case Sodom, really meant in Lot's day. The history and research on the town of Sodom literally means "sodium," not male homosexuality, as religionists have been told forever. Did you somehow miss the connection that Lot's wife allegedly turned into a pillar of salt and not a statue of two guys butt-fucking?

Didn't mean to be so crude, although what the hell, yes I did. I could write the appropriate reference out, but it's four pages of very fine print. The story of Lot, his salty wife, and his two incestuous daughters, is just a story centering around a literal mountain peak near the Dead Sea resembling that of a woman (i.e. Lot's "wife"). The story went on to tell about Lot's daughters plying him with wine and raping him while he was in a drunken stupor. Their intent was to replenish the Earth with little inbreeds, and according to the story, they were successful.

I highly doubt this story was anything more than allegorical. All I can say is that was one dysfunctional family! The original moral of the story (yes, there was one), is that it was an ungodly sin to be inhospitable to one's fellow man. After all, Lot offered his visitors, and the entire crowd outside his, door the sexual services of his daughters. I would say that is being very generous to one's fellow man. The focus, therefore, is on 'hospitality' and not 'homosexuality' (although that may have occurred, too).

BTW, wasn't there some kind of scandal about Captain Kangaroo? Didn't he molest some children and get caught? Or was that just a rumor?

 

[usp8riot]

So MW, you were a witness to of the Lord and didn't even think he existed? I know, it's hard to find answers in modern Christians unfortunately since a lot of them do the same thing, but may not have the curiosity a lot of us have in the forum to question and just take things as true without testing.

Anyhow, I believe he existed but can't back it up since I'm no historian but I do believe in the Bible whether others believe it's history or not. But it shouldn't matter whether he existed or not, do you still not believe his words to be great or true? Is his words a lie to you? Was his system of interaction with fellow humans cruel or unjust? He lived to spread the word of God and teach forgiveness. Are his not words to live by whether he existed or not? Even fictional characters are often quoted to justify rightful actions and most may see those actions as the right thing to do. Regardless if he existed or not, should we slander him and promote hate against him for what he has done? Is he that much worse than hitler? Seems like some people now speak unkindly of Jesus more than even the tyrants of modern times. Lord have mercy on those who speak unkindly of those that do good.

 

[stretched]

Patsy:
"Regardless if he existed or not, should we slander him and promote hate against him for what he has done?"

* Love your flow of logic dude.

 

[Woody]

*************
M*W: You're older than I thought!

About the dictionary... I never said nor implied that the dictionary was incorrect about the word "sodomy." In fact, I said the dictionary gives the "most common usage" of the word, whatever that word may be. I don't have an argument with the dictionary's usage of "sodomy." The argument I have is that just because a dictionary gives the most common definition of a word, does not make it an accurate accounting of the history of the word, nor does it make it a literal translation. Without even looking "sodomy" up in a dictionary, I feel certain that the definition most any modern dictionary would give is something close to "male homosexuality by anal intercourse."

The problem I have is what Sodom and Gomorrah, in this case Sodom, really meant in Lot's day. The history and research on the town of Sodom literally means "sodium," not male homosexuality, as religionists have been told forever. Did you somehow miss the connection that Lot's wife allegedly turned into a pillar of salt and not a statue of two guys butt-fucking?

Didn't mean to be so crude, although what the hell, yes I did. I could write the appropriate reference out, but it's four pages of very fine print. The story of Lot, his salty wife, and his two incestuous daughters, is just a story centering around a literal mountain peak near the Dead Sea resembling that of a woman (i.e. Lot's "wife"). The story went on to tell about Lot's daughters plying him with wine and raping him while he was in a drunken stupor. Their intent was to replenish the Earth with little inbreeds, and according to the story, they were successful.

I highly doubt this story was anything more than allegorical. All I can say is that was one dysfunctional family! The original moral of the story (yes, there was one), is that it was an ungodly sin to be inhospitable to one's fellow man. After all, Lot offered his visitors, and the entire crowd outside his, door the sexual services of his daughters. I would say that is being very generous to one's fellow man. The focus, therefore, is on 'hospitality' and not 'homosexuality' (although that may have occurred, too).

BTW, wasn't there some kind of scandal about Captain Kangaroo? Didn't he molest some children and get caught? Or was that just a rumor?

You need a hint:

Men of the city:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them

Lot:

And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing;

And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city.

Do you need a little sex education? The daughters were both virgins -- you got that part right. Their hubbies (the son in laws) never had sex with them even once -- instead of being in bed with their wives they are out wandering the streets with the other men of the city. Since you have been married before, and even have a son -- don't you find this rather odd that the sons-in-law never consumated the marriages? So where were they going for sex? Nobody was interested in Lot's daughters for sex including the husbands that stood with the men of the city and asked for the supposed men that were in Lot's house. Go figure -- :bugeye:

The same Hebrew text is here today for translation. It has always translated the same.

 

[The Devil Inside]

The same Hebrew text is here today for translation. It has always translated the same.

i dont see a text for me to translate.
and no, it has NOT always been translated the same. ever hear of the septuagint? its where your christian old testament comes from.
jewish scribes translated a false text for the greek kings, as they did not see greek people as worthy of knowing what the sacred scriptures said.

the ideas contained within were the same, but the exact texts were NOT the same.

allow me to explain: jews believe that the torah is kind of a "user's manual to the universe", and they didnt want the greeks to have their hands on what they saw as a potentially destructive tool.

learn your history, or at least your religion's history...sheesh.
why am i telling a christian the unbiased history of their own belief system?
ask a pastor or something, and stop talking about things you have no idea of.

 

[SnakeLord]

But it shouldn't matter whether he existed or not, do you still not believe his words to be great or true?

That's entirely dependant upon specific things said, and those that are not "great" are ignored entirely by the religious masses. That whole "I permit no woman to have authority over men" speech clearly is not "great", or given how it's turned out "true" either - and yet you will ignore that because it argues against your own point.

Is he that much worse than hitler?

Hitler wasn't bad, he only killed a few million jews. jesus' daddy killed all of them.

 

[LeeDa]

Don't seek revenge. Gee this is hard. Jesus can't be credited with the sayings of the bible if he didnt exist. If one computer has a rating of 500mhz and another has a rating of 1000mhz they always both arrive at the same answer the 500mhz computer just takes longer. Dunno what this has to do with anything but make something up.

 

[Godless]

Don't seek revenge. Gee this is hard. Jesus can't be credited with the sayings of the bible if he didnt exist. If one computer has a rating of 500mhz and another has a rating of 1000mhz they always both arrive at the same answer the 500mhz computer just takes longer.

And logic has just left the building

 

[Medicine*Woman]

You need a hint:

Do you need a little sex education? The daughters were both virgins -- you got that part right. Their hubbies (the son in laws) never had sex with them even once -- instead of being in bed with their wives they are out wandering the streets with the other men of the city. Since you have been married before, and even have a son -- don't you find this rather odd that the sons-in-law never consumated the marriages? So where were they going for sex? Nobody was interested in Lot's daughters for sex including the husbands that stood with the men of the city and asked for the supposed men that were in Lot's house. Go figure -- :bugeye:

The same Hebrew text is here today for translation. It has always translated the same.

*************
M*W: Again, Woody, the term "virgin" means "young woman," and not woman with an "intact hymen." A young woman in those days could be a virgin with lack of sexual experience, or a young woman who has been sexually active.

Also, "sons-in-law" can also mean nephews, cousins, stepsons, or any male relative usually younger than the main male relative. "Sons-in-law" could also mean "grandsons."

Bible stories have been translated in many different ways in many different cultures. None of them are the same. The bible cannot be correctly translated on our value system today. That would always bring conflicted meanings.

It's really moot to split hairs on this, since it's an allegory. An allegory could be interpreted any which way is convenient or understood by the reader. Check this out:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=645708

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Does it mean any thing to the discussion that the New Testament, has nothing to do with the Old Testament, other then overturning Torah Law, I keep seeing a lot of people mixing the theology of the two to make judgement on Christanity, they may be related, but they are totaly different in doctrine. Blood Law vs. Forgiveness, Salvation.

 

[The Devil Inside]

deuteronomy 14 says all it needs to say about pauline doctrine.
old is not superceded by new, just on the merit of being new.