While people can wax a lot of lyrical and say plenty of stuff about the "historic" nature of Jesus, I have yet to see them produce any plausible theories on what really happened, they all still seem pretty wild to me.U want to know wat had really happened ?
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.The problem is not wat this passage is written. Is whether tis passage is altered
I don't understand why people like to use this pink unicorn argument to evaluate the faith as a whole. Sure, a comparison between God and the pink unicorn is fun to discuss about, in a purely philosophical discussion. But now, if you're to evaluate a faith system, it is how well the worldview can explain reality that matters. The christian worldview has pretty good explanation on issues like suffering, problem of evil, purpose and other human conditions. May I know how does your worldview with the Invisible Pink Unicorn explain such issues?U see, there is NO proof to show tat God or Jesus existed. One can believe tat life is created by God, as in christian sense, and another people can have easily believe in Nu Wa, chinese folkstory of a Deity making man. If there is no further proof, and all else being equal, people can have a 50-50 chance of believing in either. How does the people diiferentiate which is right or wrong ? There r tons of other religions too tat do not prove their existence. Why do u believe in the religion in the first place ? why ? Unless there is a solid reason for your believing, why do u have faith in something tat cannot be seen and cannot be proved ?
Personal point of view, it is still so very relevant especially in the circle of politics. It is still very much used by political parties (e.g. Al Qaeda) to move people's heart. Science in it's natural form won't be able to do that in that same effectiveness.Heard of political science ?
Originally posted by stupidissmart:but even big countries uses religion to win votes..
Heard of political science ?
Tat just proves the problem of irrationality of believing in a religion. Surely a man being voted or following democratic procedure is more worthy to lead than a religious leader. Wat is the difference between monarchy and religious control ? The only difference is people r more loyal to religious than to monarchy.
For the extremist religious, it is worse than being "irrelevant", it should be "eradicated". I emphasise the word [b]EXTREMIST[/b]
I echo this sentiment.Originally posted by jzzy011561s:I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution, but only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution- variation within a type of organism
Macro-evolution-Large scale change of one type of organism into another
Macro-evolution has been disproven by by many non-christian scientist like Michael Denton using only scientific data. Read his book "A Theory in Crisis".
SO if evolution can't tell us the origins of life, what can?
That's where God comes in, I believe he created life. Until science explains the origins of life, I'll stick with Him.
'Theory of Everything' is just a hypothesis to date?Originally posted by panja_v:The "Theory of Everything" is a scientific theory to reconcile Gravity, The Strong and Weak forces in the atom, to come up with a unified theory, called "The Theory of Everything"
So far, for a mathematical model that might even begin to unify the forces, the Scientists have to assume that the universe has 10 dimensions.
So all those who say that science knows it all, how come I don't see ten dimensions one? Where are the other dimensions?
Oh geez thanks .... but I think u can keep tat for your close ones.There is either NO jesus christ or there is such person but he is a swindler. Believe in something like Jesus is suppose to be "pretty wild"
Gotcha! [/quote]
Why I mean by "swindler" (i do not know wat other terms should be used) I mean he has never performed any miracles. At most wat he performed is illusion like David Copperfield etc. Thus This "Jesus" is not the one u christian know.
Micro evolution
AT least there is an improvement. In the past people just threw evolution off the window even when there r substantial proofs against it.
So u say micro evolution can occur. Lets look at dogs. There r many species of dogs around. We have the chihuahua, pitbull, bulldog and even some gigantic dogs only found in japan... U know how different they look, how different their body had function ? In fact, wolves and fox seems to assemble more to some dogs than to some of their own relatives. Look at the fish around. How many different species of fishes r there ? Millions of them, and they look, breed and function totally differently. The tons of plant around us are very different too. Look at banana. The banana we have now depends on human to continue breeding. If evolution exists, whether micro or macro, it will have the likelihood of them evolving from a single source.but even big countries uses religion to win votes..Politics relying on religion r one of the worst politics system presently. So the presence of religion in politics becomes a pain in the neck and thus should be stop. Tis is one of the problem religion brought to the world isn't it ?
of course science has it's place.. but religion is still here to stay.. if it's irrelevant, there'll be no more buddhism, hinduism, judaism, christianity, toaism, etc.. if all these religions cease to exist, i'll believe it's irrelevantBut you have just acknowledged the possibility of such a swindler existingI don't kwno whether u want to act cute or something but u totally miss my earlier point. U want to hear the hard way ? Okie, Jesus did not exist. Happy ?Your Nu Wa religion, what's the official name for that? Let's not anyhow pick a deity and compare. Let's evaluate the faith as a whole system, shall we?Now, faith also includes being such as santa claus and tooth fairies isn't it ? Your believe in God, to me seems similar to children beliving in santa claus. Wat is the difference between the 2 ? Both party could not prove tat their belief exists, but it promises them something good in return. Wat is the difference ?I asked you in the last post and you've not replied. Is faith necessarily irrational since all kinds of faith cannot be seen and proved? Now, think before you answer.If your definition of faith is reliigon, then I can tell u, IMO
Yes, it is irrational since u all made a sacrifice in terms of monetary and time into something tat may turn out to be totally wrong.May I know how does your Invisible Pink Unicorn explain the above issues? Cannot answer right? Good, one less religion to contend withOne can believe tat life is created by God, as in christian sense, and another people can have easily believe in Nu Wa, chinese folkstory of a Deity making man.If there is no further proof, and all else being equal, people can have a 50-50 chance of believing in either. How does the people diiferentiate which is right or wrong ?
please take the whole para as a whole. If u want u can change Nu Wa to pink dophin or blue cool fizzStrawman!! Man was created perfect with no sin. But he had free will, that's whyAhhh... God is suppose to be perfect. If u r perfect, then why aren't u God ? If u r perfect, u should have perfect wisdom to know including wat is right or wrong in the first place, if u r perfect then u should have the perfect power to create another world. Wat is your definition of perfect then, strawman ? Don't say I didn't warn u, watever u say about "flaws" in the perfect will apply to God too.I don't know what you mean. Surely christians are not automatons under God? I don't understand what you mean by control. What kind of control is this? Surely there's no stopping a christian from exercising her free will, though the extent of it can be debated?Okie, some people believe tat when they pray, God can hear them and help them. God have tis control isn't it ? If God want your mother to die, no one can stop tat isn't it ? Isn't tat wat he had control too ? If God want to end the world now, aren't u inside his control ?Religion is relevant because it is the one thing that drives people into frenzy. Never seen a war fought because of differing opinions in science. Points out to a dimension within humans that we need to fill that God-shaped void. What is the actual shape is another matter.Tat is another problem of religion. People lose their sense of control and logic when religion come into play. IMO... sometimes it is better tat everyone will not take religious thingy too seriouslyonce again you evaded all the facts that i proposed with 1 - liners. saying the authors are too young. these are famous philosophers and historian if you haven't realised. their credentials speak for themslves.Hehehe... okie, they r BORN after 100 AD. Wat does tat mean ?It means tat when Jesus end his human life, their grandfather and grandmother haven't even born yet.
How can u use their accounts to verify Jesus is around ? Wat they say about Jesus is only heard from hearsay. Can they means anything ?Besides this, you are not really being objective in your comments. bear in mind.. i purposedly listed out sources from non-christians.. but the way in which you reject them without 2nd thought is naive. did you check their authenticity then? seems to have more historical evidence pointing to the favour of Christ.The same goes to u too, have u study greek or watever old language and verify if wat those writers had written r true ? Did u check its authenticity ?In short you are basing your knowledge on 2 or 3 anti-christians? how does that make their sources fair then? and againn.. dun you realise.. the extent to which you would believe them .. without studying or reading up more.. it something like blind faith. you see and hear what you want to.But then again, u too r basing on a few writers too. Does tat make your sources fair ? U r following blind faith too isn't it ?
If I didn't read enough, will my arguments last so long ? Is my arguments without a shred of truth in it ?
[quote]
anyway.. i am not hoping to convert you... its impossible to convert someone through debates. only prayer works
Not really actually, one needs to take into mind the culture of the people back then and other things to see why such an event, while amazing for those who see it themselves, it's effects would hardly be sensational (of course, one need to note that those who were brought back to life still had to die in the end, abbet later).Originally posted by stupidissmart:Last point before I end today.
Jesus has performed many resurrection. Why there isn't anyone account of these death to living people ? Aren't these stories totally sensational ? They can afirm the idea of heaven or hell and finally answer wat man always fear most. Tat will be more sensational than Pythagoras theorem or watever isn't it ? Even the emperors or kings will pay much attention to them isn't it ? However after their brief mention tat they r resurrected, they is no or little news about wat happened to them after. Isn't tat odd ?
Wah, how come you can lift a whole passage without even acknowledging the source? http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/rationalview.htmlOriginally posted by stupidissmart:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
The fact that there is no valid reason to believe that a god exists justifies weak atheism (lack of belief in gods), but not strong atheism (belief that there are no gods)....
Eh, are you agreeing in micro evolution? 'cause I've no problem with that. True there are many species of dogs, still they are dogs right? Hell, dogs and wolfs can interbreed. However, no one has seen a dog give birth to a fish or vice versa right? And what do you mean by single source? The first dog and fish? Yeah I can accept that too. However I cannot accept that dogs and fish come from the same source. What source is that? And where's the transitional specie?Originally posted by stupidissmart:AT least there is an improvement. In the past people just threw evolution off the window even when there r substantial proofs against it.
So u say micro evolution can occur. Lets look at dogs. There r many species of dogs around. We have the chihuahua, pitbull, bulldog and even some gigantic dogs only found in japan... U know how different they look, how different their body had function ? In fact, wolves and fox seems to assemble more to some dogs than to some of their own relatives. Look at the fish around. How many different species of fishes r there ? Millions of them, and they look, breed and function totally differently. The tons of plant around us are very different too. Look at banana. The banana we have now depends on human to continue breeding. If evolution exists, whether micro or macro, it will have the likelihood of them evolving from a single source.
Not really actually, one needs to take into mind the culture of the people back then and other things to see why such an event, while amazing for those who see it themselves, it's effects would hardly be sensationalNothing sensational ?!? Isn't tat the dream of wat everybody want in history of Mankind ? Which age doesn't show people wanting to explain wat happened after death ? Which emperor or kings do not want to find a way to gain immortality, or at least know wat will happened after tat ? The culture for knowing wat happened after death is always here. Man always want to know wat happened after they die. Now u r telling me actually people in the past don't really give a damn about it I think tat is a wrong fact and a lousy reason
Jesus himself avoided sensationalism when He could, and certainly didn't produce miracles for the sake of it, or do so that people would believe in Him. Often, He only produced miracles only after people showed faith in Him.Tat is crap. If he avoided sensationalism, then he will just keep quiet and live a normal life. To fulfil his objectives of coming over, he need to be sensational.
Anyway, miracles are by defination supernatural, they are beyond natural laws (such as Pythagoras Theorem) and hence cannot be manipulated by man, they happen for a purpose and reasonI am not asking people to learn the art of resurrection, I am just asking them wat had happeend after they die. If they really die and come back, surely they can give an account of wat death is like, whether they go to heaven or hell etc. Their account can be powerful and can convince people tat when Men die they go to heaven etc, thus pursuading more people to believe in Jesus. However there is virtually no news of them after they r resurrected.
And apparently Jesus' purpose for doing such things was hardly to spread fame for Himself, if I recall, He was killed for entirely different reasons, such as claims of Kingship that offended the Jews and was considered fatal under Roman lawAgain I am talking about the people resurected, not Jesus. Refer to above
Kings and emperors did pay some attention to Jesus, however, when He was about to be born, a paranoid ruler ordered the massacre of any baby boy under two in his domain as he considered the prophecy a threat to his reignWhy don't they pay attention when they hear he can heal leprosy and make the death resurrected ? Isn't tat fishy ? They will give a king ransom for any clue about life after death etc.
You also totally miss some of our earlier points. I paste it here for your convenience.Well, me stand is he never existed, or at least never perform any miracles. Wat is wrong with my answer ? Must my answer according to u be "Jesus must be around" or wat ? Wat kind of answer u want ?!?! Give an example lah !
SingaporeTyrannosaur : No, Jesus almost certainly existed, the real question is not if He walked this earth, but if He was really who He said He was.
Icemoon: You are right. I have no problem with him existing. The real mystery is whether he is God as the New Testament seems to claim and later christians affirm.
Now, tell me, who is the one who misses it? Heh.
I challenged him to evaluate the worldview presented by a belief in such beings, but where is his reply?Again I do not understand wat u want. Give me an example wat u expect me to reply.