DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP continues incestuous relationship with itself

Giant Beasts the size of buildings roamed the Earth eating ferns the size of houses!

Yea, does sound silly.

Just cuz you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't so.

There's direct evidence to suggest that this very thing occurred.



I'm not arguing the notion that people burn for an eternity in a lake of fire presided over by a beast is insane because I don't believe it.

I'm arguing that it's insane because it's fantastical nonsense that is completely unrooted from logic and reason, without a single shred of evidence to defend the notion.

I heard it once described as being like the head of a match stick. When struck, the head of the match burns until it no longer can, it's eternity.

Now I don't believe that any more than your definition but it sounds more plausible. The beast part could simply be ex-wives.

You accept those giant bones once had flesh like lizards while others believe they had feathers. You have never seen a dinosaur but have FAITH they looked like they tell you they looked.

You have FAITH that George Washington defeated the British but you have never seen him do it.

There is direct evidence in the existence of God and Jesus and what we of FAITH say they are. You just reject the evidence. You have no FAITH in it.

No, actually I have no idea what they looked like.



There is long and varied historical evidence detailing a war between Britain and the U.S.

It can be proven without the need for faith.



What direct evidence is there to suggest that a Middle Eastern carpenter was the son of an omnipotent invisible wizard?

But it is thru FAITH that you believe the historical evidence is written in truth and its witnesses were not trying to deceive you. Your FAITH is strong.

The leaders of the Jewish Religion sent scribes and others out to follow Jesus and document what he said and what he did. They were under orders to document who was there and what locations were used. The reporters of the day (scribes) reported everything back to the Sandedren (Jewish heads of Religion and Government under Rome).

They reported the speeches, miracles, crowd sizes etc.

-You reject the Jewish Reporters.

There were thousands and thousands of witnesses at each of these events.

-You reject their eyewitness testimony.

We however do believe the evidence and accept their eyewitness testimony on those events. We have FAITH that these things happened as reported just as you have FAITH George defeated the Brits as reported.

There is certainly evidence to suggest that he was more than a simple rabbi, and the son of a carpenter.

Even the name of the Governor of Judea was hard to find with regard to any physical evidence. In fact, his existence was so hard to prove that some used it as evidence that the Bible was wrong ... until they, themselves, were proved wrong with physical evidence proving that Pilate did, indeed, live, and that he was, indeed, the governor of Judea.

Then they found evidence that Pilate was, in fact, Governor of Judea at the time of Jesus.

Jesus is mentioned, not only in the Bible, but also by no less than 2 or 3 Roman historians. If He was just a rabbi, the son of a carpenter, then why would he merit such attention in the writings of historians of the time? Crucifixion wasn't some rarity at the time. It is estimated that upwards of 3000 people were tortured and killed on crosses outside of Judea. The Romans had a dedicated troop of soldiers who specialized in torture, and actually prolonging the lives of those they crucified, that is how prevalent this form of capital punishment was. How many of those other 3000 people crucified by Rome do we know today? How many were recorded in secular history?

The Book of Luke is a historical compilation of evidence collected by him. He interviewed witnesses to the life of Christ, to His death, and to His resurrection, much as a forensic detective would do today. He pieced together the account based on eyewitness testimony. Luke was a doctor, a well respected profession. He is one who would be expected to be believed, rather than making things up. There are also 3 other eyewitness accounts, all of which can be placed back to that time. This is in a time of widely varying hatred of the young Christian religion. In some times, the Christians were left alone. In others, they were hunted down, and the authorities tried to completely stamp out the new religion. Paul, who wrote most of the letters of the New Testament, was a Pharisee, a hugely respected holy man in the Jewish faith. He hunted Christians before his roadside conversion. For him to go from insider, wealthy, well cared for, powerful and respected, to a prophet of Jesus Christ, is incredible. It would be like Bill Gates turning away from Windows, giving away every penny he ever earned from that enterprise, and embracing Linux. It is actually even more astonishing, because Paul's life was put in repeated jeopardy as a result of his decision to follow Christ. He ultimately died because of that decision. (as Jesus told him would happen, yet Paul decided to follow Christ anyway)

Further, the Bible does not make the disciples of Christ into heroes. They are men, flawed, and even cowardly on occasion. If the disciples were writing just a story that they hoped would last for all time, don't you think that they would "clean up" their own roles? Bear in mind that there are manuscripts going back to the 1st century. This isn't a case of things being rewritten to make them fit together. The roles of the disciples were not always complimentary. Often they were fearful and other times they were violent and ungodly. Theirs was not a story of the best of mankind, but rather it showed their flaws clearly and plainly. Why would they allow that to happen if they thought that they were going to be remembered in that way for all time? Further, the disciples were defeated after the death of Jesus. Their Lord had been killed, many had run away from Him, and they wondered what happened next. They had no idea how they could ever continue to preach the message of eternal life based on a dead Messiah. They were defeated, and ready to give up.

Then Jesus returned.

You can disbelieve if you like, and that is your right. However, there is more evidence, both historical and circumstantial, to support the fact that Jesus lived, and died on the cross. He was a hugely important person, teacher, and was thought to be the Messiah and Savior by many people of the time, to the extent that they were willing to die, not to fight for Christ, not to win glory for themselves, but rather just to spread His Word. He was important enough to be mentioned in historical texts of people outside those of his own supporters.

I realize that you do not believe, and that's your right, but to dismiss the Bible as some unsupported story, and that Jesus never existed is not being intellectually honest. The evidence stacks up to support the idea that Jesus was a hugely important figure of the time, and the fact that his supporters came back from abject defeat to become absolutely zealous in their desire to spread the Word of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and His message of forgiveness, redemption, and eternal life with God.

Name me one other comparable man in the history of that time about whom the same can be said. Name me one other "ordinary" man from that time and place, about whom so much is known, whether from the Bible, or other sources.

Faith, in the religious sense, generally means to believe something without proof or evidence.

If someone said 'George Washington was fictional', one could refute that claim with mountains and mountains of not only direct evidence, but proof. Flat out undeniable proof.

If one were to say 'there's an omnipotent invisible wizard that created everything'...there is no proof or direct evidence to suggest this is true. You have to ignore all logic and reason to believe it.

All this blathering, and you couldnt bother to list a single instance of direct evidence that shows Jesus was the son of an omnipotent invisible wizard?

[quote]I realize that you do not believe, and that's your right, but to dismiss the Bible as some unsupported story, and that Jesus never existed is not being intellectually honest[quote]

I never said he didn't exist.

I said he wasn't the son of an omnipitent invisible wizard.

He wasn't born to a virgin. He didn't turn water into wine. He didn't rise from the dead.

You're trying to equate the existence of a carpenter who preached socialism with that socialist carpenter being the son of a wizard.

I think you're just trying to move the goal posts, as you know the answer to the question is 'no, there is no direct evidence to suggest that Jesus was the son of a powerful wizard.

So you reject the truth of 2000 years ago, documented and attested to by non believers at that time but accept more recent documents and testimonials.

In 2000 years, a man like you will find a News Paper from our times and he will snort and chuckle at the reports of people flying across the country and around the world as the works of a magical wizard. He will then return to the lizard he found for dinner while he survives his nuclear wasteland existence.

What truth? Where is the evidence you're talking of?

Show me one piece of direct evidence to suggest the existence of an omnipotent invisible wizard.

An ancient book of fables written by men who didnt know what gravity was is not 'direct evidence'.

It's not even circumstantial evidence.



If in 2,000 years, someone read Harry Potter and thought that wizard children used to fly on a broom and perform magic, then yes, I see your point.

Jc


See? Look at these comments. This is why religion shouldn't have a place in government.

Nobody wants to force churches to marry gays. Hell I wouldn't support that. But marriage in a courthouse, and all the benefits that come with marriage should be rewarded to TAX PAYERS, as they havd every right as Yall bible thumpers do.

Don't want gays to marry? The. They shouldn't pay any taxes. Since they aren't be afforded life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A gay couple getting married doesn't make your marriage null and void. Some gay couple getting married doesn't make me question if I'm gay or not.

Your religion is a relationship with God, not anybody else.

So stay out of people's personal lives, like you conservatives CLAIM you're for( less government) or make it so they don't pay taxes.

BAH! Religion is already in Government! Read what I posted about the Ten Commandments and American Law.

I didn't read the rest since you started with Balony!

There are a couple of points I think you need to consider. There isn't one resurrection, but three. I believe if you delve into what each of the three is for, it may help you in some of the answers you're looking for.

Acts 2:29,34 tells us, “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. For David is not ascended into the heavens.”

Here is a link that I believe covers this with several examples you may wish to look at.

http://www.pacinst.com/efh/chapter4/death.html

There are three resurrections which deal with three sets of individuals. It's not a one size fits all in one single resurrection.

Now as far as spreading the word? I believe each person is required to seek the word of Christ. In so much as one seeks it, I'll gladly share how it has helped me in my life and offer them witness. You can't recruit people. There has to be something in their heart that causes the desire.

As I said earlier, I have had people ask me why I seem so happy and content. At that point, I gladly address that with them. Often times I've found preaching "at someone" tends to drive them further from the truth and turns them away. They simply don't want to hear or are not ready to hear it. So no, at that juncture I find it very counter productive.

You said:



Which, as usual, is factually inaccurate and reads as if it were written by a twelve year old.

Shame, and we were doing so well today. Bye.

C'mon, man, you were referring a poster back to a previous incorrect statement made with ridiculously poor grammar, all while decrying other people's 'balony'.

That's a softball.

You mean the conversation I was having with swish? He never needed a spokesman before.

Relax, no hard feelings, Whiskey does that to me some times too.

I'm not speaking on behalf of Swish, I'm speaking on behalf of truth and logic.

The Ten Commandments are not American law.

Oh I see now, its a comprehension problem you have.

I never said the Ten Commandments are American Law, I said American Law borrowed from the Ten Commandments when creating American Law. The Ten Commandments were an important influence on the Founding Fathers.



-You shall not Murder.
-You shall not Commit adultery.
-You shall not steal.
-You shall not bear false witness through Perjury.

See, there are 4 of the Commandments right there and they are also American law. Commandments came first in case you didn't know.

They are biblical laws.

They are also laws any atheist would follow as well because thats just being a decent person.

There has to be some middle ground. You can't force every single religious law down peoples throat, or we become no better than the middle east. think about that.

I have addressed this more formally before.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/889594/1/I_hope_this_is_a_sign_of_thing




on #7, perjury was also brought up as being a direct usage of that commandment as law and a good one.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

Ben Franklin

Yes swish they are Biblical laws and we adopted them for our laws. Yes they are good laws that any Atheist would follow cuz they were given to us by God. He loves and helps His puny humans when we are wise enough to listen.

"our civil rights have no dependency on religion"

Thomas Jefferson

Your Point?

"Question with boldness even the existence of god, for if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason then that of blindfolded fear."

Thomas Jefferson

Adultery isn't really a prosecuted law in the U.S. It's on the books in 21 sgates, but is rarely ever charged, and convictions are almost nonexistent. It only comes up anymore in crafty divorce proceedings.

It's like pointing out that it's illegal to eat corn flakes on Sunday in Ohio. Semantically, it's true, but in reality, it's a silly law that no one bothers to prosecute.

So 3 for 10. Which was pointed out to you before, and which makes the statement 'These are from the Ten Commandments many thousands of years ago and have become the law in these United States of America' incorrect, or 30% correct if one wanted to be charitable.

OH! OH! I can't read such childish spelling of words! OH OH!
HaaaaaaTTTTTTeeeee!!!

Man on nickel say religion no guide law of country.

adultery is prosecuted in civil courts constantly in divorce proceedings. even in "no fault" states, it can still come up and is often put into pre-nuptial contracts.

However, the words on the nickel say otherwise

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Jefferson-Nickel-Unc-Obv.jpg


Jefferson's main problem was that he knew that flawed men would use religion/church as a way of oppressing people and/or making their own power grabs.

The part of a relationship between man & God was something he openly acknowledged as a good thing.

"To aurgue with one who has renounced the use of reason, is like administrating medicine to the dead"

Thomas Paine The American Crisis V 1776

stop bro. you haven't learned yet. when these guys mention the founding fathers, its only the ones they agree with.

I don't mock your apparent literacy issues because you occasionally misspell a word or speak in a fragment. For all I know, there could be serious underlying issues there, so I want to take the time to clarify that I'm not simply mocking an inability to express yourself coherently.

The joke comes into play when you go around shouting that others need to listen to grown ups, and deal in facts, when almost every statement you make is untrue, and is written with the grammar skills of a grade schooler.

LOL when I'm done they won't agree with any.

They're more or less used as avatars for what anyone wishes them to be anymore.

To be fair, a great deal of them talked out of both sides of their mouth, which can often be the result of voluminous correspondence and writing.

Some of you guys are just silly. So full of your own greatness that when facts are laid before you, you will not learn.

The Ten Commandments influenced American Law from the beginning, I and others have proved it.

We all know the Founding Fathers wanted separation of church and state.
We all know that having religion running our Nation is a bad thing.

So stop with the foolishness and just admit you were wrong and admit that Religion did have an influence on the Founding Fathers and our laws in the beginning. We all know you hate it, but facts are facts.

There were laws before the ten commandments that stated the same things. Don't steal, don't kill, don't lie are all common themes that can be found through even the most primitive of societies. These aren't Earth shaking ideas in the slightest and taking credit for them is a joke.