# Prove to you There's a God?



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

Ahh stfu, your an atheist. Gtfo.
Quit mentioning God, your not looking for rep.
Lame ass athiests with nothing better to do then bother people with hope.

EDIT:I gotta say that not believing is one thing, and purposely starting a topic to make fun of someone else for believing and trying to convince them to stop believing is the wrose.


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Aug 20, 2011)




----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

Now fucking smoke a cigarette and get over it. Don't bug me with any of your anti christ shit, and don't try to convince me that your really looking for some sort of spirituality to tell me that Gods dead or some shit.

Saying hes dead is admitting to him once being alive, and if hes God then he obviously doesn't die. So your a dumbass to tell me "God's dead."


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Aug 20, 2011)

Jesus loves you


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 20, 2011)

Doesn't he had to have existed in the first place for any of this to be relevant.


----------



## TogTokes (Aug 20, 2011)

If you need a God to give you Hope? you're messed up... I have tons of hope for our planet, and know better than to believe in Santa Claus.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

Well, if you wanna get that Jesus rep; just admit to Jesus coming in the flesh of man on earth to die because of sin. Like I can.

If it God's existance doesn't make sense, then you diddn't read the whole bible.
If you diddn't read the whole bible it makes sense that your athiest, your beliefs are based upon something you know nothing about.

Like the dumb ass statements athiests make "if gods so powerful why is the devil still alive." 
Because the devil serves the Lord, and the devil has a short time to live, and eventualy he dies and thats what makes satan so pissed. Now since Gods so bad ass, hes watching the devil suffer in his rage against all the living.

Second most common statement i've heard, "if gods so powerful why doesn't he end suffering."
Most ignorant statement i've heard. For humans to be orginal from any other race(for sure are angels out there) they needed to be consumed by sin, and the "holy ones" break through that sin and prove themselves in a world of suffering.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 20, 2011)

I thought the more you read the more it did not make sense.  Which Bible do you speak of.?.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

The devils gonna fucking die! Why the fuck would I wanna go anywhere near him?

Gods the most powerful living thing in EVERYTHING. Why the fuck would I deny him?

Anyways, smoke a cigarette while you live in "the lot of the land." Fucking stupidest shit I've heard about why someone doesn't believe in God.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> I thought the more you read the more it did not make sense.  Which Bible do you speak of.?.


The holy bible.
Well, its not too hard to explain why it doesn't make sense to you. The old testament doesn't have Jesus's words in it, and the new testament does and it also says that anything without Jesus in it is completely false and is ment to deceive you because it is of the anti christs.

Making EVERYTHING in the old testament false, even if it had good morals in it. It is still there to deceive you(idk about the songs, some of them are fucked up too(Worst songs i've heard are singing for god to change things, knowing damn well God tells us if we listen to what he said while he was on earth we will be saved) (were waiting for sinners to change their ways, hence repent for heaven on earth is at stake)).


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 20, 2011)

Which Bible, their are many different versions. King James ?? if so lets skip to the part you tell me about the tower of bable


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

Any religion out there is of the anti christ, Except for Christianity of the new testament. 
The word "religion," was ment to deceive you. Its Christian(believer of christ) or anti christ(deceiver). All the other names were ment to cover up anti-christ.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Which Bible, their are many different versions. King James ?? if so lets skip to the part you tell me about the tower of bable


Thats in the old testament, it is ment to deceive.

Haven't read more then 4 different bible versions, the new testament is almost word for word even in different versions, give or take a few synonyms.


----------



## TogTokes (Aug 20, 2011)

Deny who exactly? Ok ok fine if god can exist why can't Santa? Seriously man, go blow that jesus BS smoke up someone elses ass haha.. Or prove to me he's sitting here with me in my plants.. He isn't this is all me and my carefull willingness to respect nature bro.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

TogTokes said:


> Deny who exactly? Ok ok fine if god can exist why can't Santa? Seriously man, go blow that jesus BS smoke up someone elses ass haha.. Or prove to me he's sitting here with me in my plants.. He isn't this is all me and my carefull willingness to respect nature bro.


Its says not to greet your false doctrine, if you deny Jesus. So your point is invalid.
No point in playing games bro, you tell me you don't believe and I know your just dening him and trying to be a buzz kill.
Imho by the time science proves God exists he'll be kicking every deceivers ass into dust. And science won't do shit against God because God owns you, science, the scientists, this world, and the devil.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 20, 2011)

I would love to see you and Sen C. go at it, He says the King James Bible is the one True Bible of God and all others are False. How do you feel about that.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Well, if you wanna get that Jesus rep; just admit to Jesus coming in the flesh of man on earth to die because of sin. Like I can.
> 
> If it God's existance doesn't make sense, then you diddn't read the whole bible.
> If you diddn't read the whole bible it makes sense that your athiest, your beliefs are based upon something you know nothing about.
> ...


Are you responding to someone particular? I haven't heard any atheist here makes these statements. These sound like statements of people who disbelieve in god and can't explain why, which puts their beliefs on the same level as theists.

In your statements alone you have suggested that god enjoys suffering so much he uses it as a test, that sounds a reasonable thing to question to me. You have also discounted the vast number of people who have read the bible, and still are unconvinced of god, and the even bigger number of people who believe in god but have not read a word of the bible. It sounds like you are responding to people who are simply trying to cause you grief for your beliefs, and that describes 0 atheists that I know here on RIU.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> I would love to see you and Sen C. go at it, He says the King James Bible is the one True Bible of God and all others are False. How do you feel about that.


His way of starving his mind from the truth, Jesus's stories and words are all documented. The new testament is the truth.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Are you responding to someone particular? I haven't heard any atheist here makes these statements. These sound like statements of people who disbelieve in god and can't explain why, which puts their beliefs on the same level as theists.
> 
> In your statements alone you have suggested that god enjoys suffering so much he uses it as a test, that sounds a reasonable thing to question to me. You have also discounted the vast number of people who have read the bible, and still are unconvinced of god, and the even bigger number of people who believe in god but have not read a word of the bible. It sounds like you are responding to people who are simply trying to cause you grief for your beliefs, and that describes 0 atheists that I know here on RIU.


No one in particular. Im sure that you would enjoy tourmenting the one who tourments your creations and leads them astray from your word.

Believing in God is nothing close to believing in Jesus.
If you deny that Jesus was ever on earth in the flesh of man to die for our sins, then your a disgrace to God(not to you directly either).
After Jesus died on earth for humans to get into heaven, and if you deny him, how do you think he would see you? Why do you think people go to hell for not believing in Jesus?


----------



## tip top toker (Aug 20, 2011)

HAhaha, got your panties in a bunch today have we? 

Personally, i see people who need some imaginary friend in order to get through daily life, well i find it pathetic 

If god owns the devil then god is responsible for the devils actions which means god is to blame for evil in this world  Heh


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

tip top toker said:


> HAhaha, got your panties in a bunch today have we?
> 
> Personally, i see people who need some imaginary friend in order to get through daily life, well i find it pathetic


I find it pathetic to deny someone who died for you to get into heaven.


----------



## tip top toker (Aug 20, 2011)

I am quite capable of getting into my own heaven thanks  I don't need someone to do it for me


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

tip top toker said:


> I am quite capable of getting into my own heaven thanks  I don't need someone to do it for me


You don't expect Jesus to force you to accept him do you? That would make his kingdom full of trash.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

Now, im not saying that anti-christs can't be nice. But the majority of them are pretty much trash, which is why the bible says their of the devil.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

It all makes sense if you read the bible. Anti-christs pretty much work for satan. Whether its directly or indirectly because sin is of the devil. If your not spreading Jesus rep around then you're deceiving people. Whether you steal, or give, your still deceiving. So even if your a good person(while a deceiver) you'll go to hell.


----------



## cacamal (Aug 20, 2011)

what about the adam and steve story where god told them to not partake in the tree of info...god said you will die if you partake in this tree/bush but satan said go ahead you wont die youll just get some knowledge so adam and steve took on the tree and got knowledge (that they are mortal) and god got upset and claimed them now closer to being godlike and t if they get to the tree of life they will be immortal (not the band) "like him" and sent down some angels to deflect adam and steve....and they were kicked out of paradise (who's paradise?...not the seed company im sure) and blah blah...dude its in the bible so god lied by telling them they will die upon taking of the tree of knowledge but it was satan who told the truth (all paraphrased via cacamal) so who should we follow a god who lies to stop adam and steve or some antiangel satan who spoke up? dont get me started on the language used by god in the bible that refers to many gods so is he a demigod or minigod or david koresh god....(cacamal not being one of them)


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

cacamal said:


> what about the adam and steve story where god told them to not partake in the tree of info...god said you will die if you partake in this tree/bush but satan said go ahead you wont die youll just get some knowledge so adam and steve took on the tree and got knowledge (that they are mortal) and god got upset and claimed them now closer to being godlike and t if they get to the tree of life they will be immortal (not the band) "like him" and sent down some angels to deflect adam and steve....and they were kicked out of paradise (who's paradise?...not the seed company im sure) and blah blah...dude its in the bible so god lied by telling them they will die upon taking of the tree of knowledge but it was satan who told the truth (all paraphrased via cacamal) so who should we follow a god who lies to stop adam and steve or some antiangel satan who spoke up? dont get me started on the language used by god in the bible that refers to many gods so is he a demigod or minigod or david koresh god....(cacamal not being one of them)


The adam and Eve story was in the old testement.


----------



## cacamal (Aug 20, 2011)

so you dont defend the old testament story? they are in the bible? or is your sect of christ worship only in the new?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The adam and Eve story was in the old testement.


Bunch of bullshit, people thinking we became sinners because of a fruit. Now thats BULLSHIT. If we were sin free Eve would of never even talked to satan knowing damn well that her creater knew best for her, WITHOUT QUESTION.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

cacamal said:


> so you dont defend the old testament story? they are in the bible? or is your sect of christ worship only in the new?


The new testament says that any doctrine without Jesus Christ in it is false.
And since every book in the old testement doesn't have a word of Jesus in it, I see it as false.


----------



## cacamal (Aug 20, 2011)

you gotta give david koresh props as a christ worshiper...took it to the limit even when convicted by the us feds??


----------



## cacamal (Aug 20, 2011)

so you pick and choose what stories of the bible work for you////props i guess. there was never a mention of fruit...sides the kj's version lest we read into translations. respect to what works for you but careful before you bash lames for their readings cause its all the same english anglican version


----------



## cacamal (Aug 20, 2011)

the creator must be questioned!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> You don't expect Jesus to force you to accept him do you? That would make his kingdom full of trash.


By trash I mean someone who wants to take you to hell with them.
Anyone could confess in Christ and be seen before God, which is all God wants for you to get into heaven.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 20, 2011)

According to the christian bible, aren't you supposed to love your enemy?

Here is a quote from the bible itself:



> You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:43-45). The Pharisees taught the people to hate the enemies of Israel. The implication was that this hatred was Gods means of judging their enemies. Jesus taught the people just the opposite. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.


You are an enemy of your own beliefs.

Smoke a bowl and chill out dude.



Marlboro47 said:


> Ahh stfu, your an atheist. Gtfo.
> Quit mentioning God, your not looking for rep.
> Lame ass athiests with nothing better to do then bother people with hope.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The new testament says that any doctrine without Jesus Christ in it is false.
> And since every book in the old testement doesn't have a word of Jesus in it, I see it as false.


Why then does Jesus continually quote and paraphrase passages in the OT? Why was he a practicing Jew? Without the OT, how do you evaluate Jesus' claim of divinity because wasn't it the OT prophecies that he supposedly fulfilled that convince many people? Without the OT, the already weak case of Jesus being the messiah is even weaker as it is the OT that defines what qualifies as messiah.


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Aug 21, 2011)

i think religion inflicts a mental disorder on its followers. brainwashing.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Ahh stfu, your an atheist. Gtfo.
> Quit mentioning God, your not looking for rep.
> Lame ass athiests with nothing better to do then bother people with hope.



CLICK HERE  ====> https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/456292-my-one-man-crusade.html


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> According to the christian bible, aren't you supposed to love your enemy?
> 
> Here is a quote from the bible itself:
> 
> ...


Yeah, I love my enemys. Thats why if one asked me for help and I could help him I would.
I said "stfu," because all I see in these prove god exists threads is a couple of douchebags saying god doesn't exist. No matter what you tell him or how you tell him. So whats the point of him even starting the thread? Its to cause a ruckuss and to piss off the believers. Because obviojusly his minds set and everyone knows God is too powerful to showhimself to us humans until the afterlife.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 21, 2011)

Because obviojusly his minds set and everyone knows God is too powerful to showhimself to us humans until the afterlife. 

So then everyone can't prove it. Unless everyone has been to the afterlife I suppose. Back to faith. Why should believers get pissed off at people who believe different? Wouldn't a person be in perpetual pissed off mode forever because there is always beliefs different than our own no matter what belief.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Why then does Jesus continually quote and paraphrase passages in the OT? Why was he a practicing Jew? Without the OT, how do you evaluate Jesus' claim of divinity because wasn't it the OT prophecies that he supposedly fulfilled that convince many people? Without the OT, the already weak case of Jesus being the messiah is even weaker as it is the OT that defines what qualifies as messiah.


 Jesus said he came not to destroy old laws but to teach. I don't see how he was a practicing Jew if he himself called himself the messiah.
He quoted and paraphrased the OT because the people living at the time thought that they would have eternal life from reading it, but Jesus said "Believe in me, and you will have eternal life, with me and my father in the kingdom of heaven."

The OT has a bunch of contradictions, if you study the bible you will learn more. Thats why I don't believe that the old testement is legit and has eternal life. 
The NT, has eternal life because Jesus says he and his words have eternal life.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 21, 2011)

quiet in here... guess everyone is at church.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Because obviojusly his minds set and everyone knows God is too powerful to showhimself to us humans until the afterlife.
> 
> So then everyone can't prove it. Unless everyone has been to the afterlife I suppose. Back to faith. Why should believers get pissed off at people who believe different? Wouldn't a person be in perpetual pissed off mode forever because there is always beliefs different than our own no matter what belief.


 Everyone can prove it, Jesus came and died for our sins in the flesh of man on earth. <Its proven. Its in the bible, its recorded, and there are TONS of scripts that diddn't make it into the new testament.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Everyone can prove it, Jesus came and died for our sins in the flesh of man on earth. <Its proven. Its in the bible, its recorded, and there are TONS of scripts that diddn't make it into the new testament.


 Why do you think I made the OP?

What else is there to prove?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> quiet in here... guess everyone is at church.


 See what I mean? If he is proven to exist already, why even start a topic called Prove to me god exists Does god exists, what evidence do you have that god exists?

All the OP poster is doing is trying to make fun of the believer or even trying to shatter his hopes, and to that I made this topic.


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 21, 2011)

Why didn't those TONS of scripts make it into the NT? Did someone Not believe them to be true?


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The devils gonna fucking die! Why the fuck would I wanna go anywhere near him?
> 
> Gods the most powerful living thing in EVERYTHING. Why the fuck would I deny him?
> 
> Anyways, smoke a cigarette while you live in "the lot of the land." Fucking stupidest shit I've heard about why someone doesn't believe in God.


First if god exists why would it want its children to forever worship it? If you are in god's image why dont you force your children to worship you? If god exists it would want these things from you, that you strive for knowledge of the world, you strive to better yourself, physically and mentally and that you strive to better the world. 

by arguing with people on blogging site are you really doing any of those things? or are you helping spread hate?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Why didn't those TONS of scripts make it into the NT? Did someone Not believe them to be true?


Damage scripts, untranslatable scripts, and some scriptures were just Jesus's journeys and conversations. Next time you go to a library look for the Jesus section and you'll find tons of books with scriptures that diddn't make it.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> First if god exists why would it want its children to forever worship it? If you are in god's image why dont you force your children to worship you? If god exists it would want these things from you, that you strive for knowledge of the world, you strive to better yourself, physically and mentally and that you strive to better the world.
> 
> by arguing with people on blogging site are you really doing any of those things? or are you helping spread hate?


Your asking me stuff that I can be answering with anything, it would probably be manipulation because my thoughts are completely different to your beliefs. 
I could tell you that God's fighting demons aliens and huge wars against other powerful creatures, and when we praise him he feels better about being alive. But then thats my opinion, maybe hes so great and glorious that when we praise him, we actually become happier then we ever could of without praising him.

Jesus wants me to confess that he died on earth in the flesh of man for our sins. So spreading the word is just an other step to helping someone else become a better happier person.
I'd say im helping, spreading the love, you know?


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

personally i think, you cant really debate gods existance.

met the dude in a dream. was it just a dream or god? dont know, just saw the dude and up popped in my head (well dream head) "thats god"

if it was god, can i prove it? 

lol

dont be ridiculous.

debating the existance of god is so far bit pointless

debating the obviously flawed religions and how to fix them or let them go in favor of something new.

thats entirely different.

god does not have an effect on our life (directly visible anyway )

religion does.



..on god btw,, well its a thought.

evolution..

somewhere in the depths of time, something decided to live (or just did or always did, who knows)

then it decided to move (and in that act, created what it needed to do so.)

then it figured out that there was something to see and made eyes (creating them out of nothing after having figured out how it all works)

and then it made arms and legs and a mouth (probably the mouth first and possibly the genitals next lol,)

all this it created and made and figured out how to do that.



well..

and so on..

and

you know.. i cant do shit like that.


can you?


of course it happened over a great long time, but still, i dont see any random mutations going around, testing out for the next great thing to have.

doesnt seem to be an automatic system.

sure. evolve to fit an existing system, thats possible, the beak grows longer

and so on..

the animal adjusts


but actually creating a beak from nothing and that just happens??

and eyes and shit?

that just happens?

and there are no random configurations?

what decides what works and what not? survival?

but where are the superfreaky freaks that dont work?

and the medium freaks? and big jumps?

where is the new stuff?

it happens that slow?

what spurs it? 

our collective consciousness?

individual desire?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> personally i think, you cant really debate gods existance.
> 
> met the dude in a dream. was it just a dream or god? dont know, just saw the dude and up popped in my head (well dream head) "thats god"
> 
> ...


Jesus is God bro. Theres no proving that Jesus existed because its a fact, he existed.
Direct influence on our daily lives today.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Your asking me stuff that I can be answering with anything, it would probably be manipulation because my thoughts are completely different to your beliefs.
> I could tell you that God's fighting demons aliens and huge wars against other powerful creatures, and when we praise him he feels better about being alive. But then thats my opinion, maybe hes so great and glorious that when we praise him, we actually become happier then we ever could of without praising him.
> 
> Jesus wants me to confess that he died on earth in the flesh of man for our sins. So spreading the word is just an other step to helping someone else become a better happier person.
> I'd say im helping, spreading the love, you know?


Im just saying god wants you reading a book about quantum physics, or going for a jog, not arguing with people online, so why are you so concerned with what other people think or are doing? just do your own thing thats gods message, and that means let others do their thing.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

god knows all thats the point of omniscience, no if your saying that everyone has to accept jesus christ as their lord and savior then your preaching satanism.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Matthew Chapter 10: 32-33
Confess Christ before men
32: "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will confess before My Father who is in heaven.
33: "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven."


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> if your saying that everyone has to accept jesus christ as their lord and savior then your preaching satanism.


Your misleading others reading this article, you are classified as a deceiver. I will not greet your false doctrine into what I know about Jesus.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

This is the reason why Jesus doesn't force you to accept him. Because many people have negative intetions and if they were forced to accept Jesus, it would be a lost cause. So Jesus decided just to throw those who don't believe into the molton lava fire pits of hell.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 21, 2011)

aint it funny how these people twist your words and use them against you





Marlboro47 said:


> Your misleading others reading this article, you are classified as a deceiver. I will not greet your false doctrine into what I know about Jesus.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> aint it funny how these people twist your words and use them against you


Check this out.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is an antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledge the Son has the Father also.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

2 John 1:7-1:11
7:For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as comming the in flesh. This is a decevier and an anti-christ.
8:Look to yourselves, that we do not lose the things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
9:Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
10:If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
11: for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> According to the christian bible, aren't you supposed to love your enemy?
> 
> Here is a quote from the bible itself:
> 
> ...


 



Marlboro47 said:


> 2 John 1:7-1:11
> 7:For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as comming the in flesh. This is a decevier and an anti-christ.
> 8:Look to yourselves, that we do not lose the things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
> 9:Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
> ...


With those two, tell me where Christians should stand? We should love our enemies, but if they do not bring doctrine of Christ then we shall not greet them.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> aint it funny how these people twist your words and use them against you


Its even funnier how they think they have to control the lives of others in order to "save" them, When in actuality by judging other's and attempting to control their lives they are in fact condemning themselves.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> With those two, tell me where Christians should stand? We should love our enemies, but if they do not bring doctrine of Christ then we shall not greet them.


You are spreading hatred and satanism. nothing more


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

How are we showing our enemies love if we do not greet them?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> Its even funnier how they think they have to control the lives of others in order to "save" them, When in actuality by judging other's and attempting to control their lives they are in fact condemning themselves.


 How am I attempting to control you? I am not forcing you to post in this thread, or even reading it. Im not even telling you to change your ways.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> You are spreading hatred and satanism. nothing more


Define satanism, because the love of Jesus Christ is not satanism.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> How are we showing our enemies love if we do not greet them?


because the only love its talking about is the love of knowing whats best for you, even if that means smothering the life out of you to put you to peace


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Define satanism, because the love of Jesus Christ is not satanism.


you are preaching control and judgement of others, how is that not satanism


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> How am I attempting to control you? I am not forcing you to post in this thread, or even reading it. Im not even telling you to change your ways.


your telling people that if they dont do this they get none of that, i am saying that you shouldnt telling anyone what to do or how to believe or how to live because god says that you are not supposed to do that.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> because the only love its talking about is the love of knowing whats best for you, even if that means smothering the life out of you to put you to peace


I can somewhat understand you, you might think I am spreading hate because of my original post.
You will notice how a majority of athiests feel about religion; that its bullshit, lies, just stories, ect. They keep asking for us to prove that God exists, but none of them lsiten.
Which is why I started by saying stfu and gtfo. 
Hey, I never said I was perfect. Just that Jesus is real.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

the jesus christ my grandma believes in is the one that doesnt want her to tell her granchildren to pray or read the bible, because grandma knows jesus will come to all her children in his own time and in his own way. that is christian, not what your preaching


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I can somewhat understand you, you might think I am spreading hate because of my original post.
> You will notice how a majority of athiests feel about religion; that its bullshit, lies, just stories, ect. They keep asking for us to prove that God exists, but none of them lsiten.
> Which is why I started by saying stfu and gtfo.
> Hey, I never said I was perfect. Just that Jesus is real.


all of your posts are hateful, and the fact that you would even start this thread shows that you do not have the spirit of christ in your heart, so why dont you go do somehting that christ wants you to do and read a book about science or go for a jog.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> the jesus christ my grandma believes in is the one that doesnt want her to tell her granchildren to pray or read the bible, because grandma knows jesus will come to all her children in his own time and in his own way. that is christian, not what your preaching


It says to get a rod and beat the law of God into your children. Being passive about your religion is the same as not spreading the word of Christ.
In the bible it says that you will be judged and rewarded according to your works.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> all of your posts are hateful, and the fact that you would even start this thread shows that you do not have the spirit of christ in your heart, so why dont you go do somehting that christ wants you to do and read a book about science or go for a jog.


Jesus wants us to preach, not to study science to greet more anti christs.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

There is no hatred in my posts, just anger to the antichrists that continue to deceive.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> all of your posts are hateful, and the fact that you would even start this thread shows that you do not have the spirit of christ in your heart, so why dont you go do somehting that christ wants you to do and read a book about science or go for a jog.


Can you confess to Jesus Christ coming in the flesh of man on earth?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. 

If you gotta test the spirits then you have to Judge.
In the bible it says judge not or you will be judged in the same measure.
So if your seeing if someone has Jesus in them, they will see if you have Jesus in you. That is not being evil or part of any cult of antichrists.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

you are the deceiver and you are trying to steal souls for satan. silence yourself beezelbub for you have been called by name and have no power here.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

fuck jesus!!!

i don't want or NEED him.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> you are the deceiver and you are trying to steal souls for satan. silence yourself beezelbub for you have been called by name and have no power here.


 Now your just trolling.
I can confess to christ coming in the flesh on man on earth, can you?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> fuck jesus!!!
> 
> i don't want or NEED him.


 So then you do hate yourself


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Now your just trolling.
> I can confess to christ coming in the flesh on man on earth, can you?


as well as santa claus.

i saw santa when i was 6. he's real. i confess to that.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Ahh stfu, your an atheist. Gtfo.
> Quit mentioning God, your not looking for rep.
> Lame ass athiests with nothing better to do then bother people with hope.
> 
> EDIT:I gotta say that not believing is one thing, and purposely starting a topic to make fun of someone else for believing and trying to convince them to stop believing is the wrose.


O.P. ftw ^


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

still showing a lack of christ in your walk.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> still showing a lack of christ in your walk.


Your right, if I wanted to be a hardcore christian I wouldn't be on RIU, or using the internet. Or watching TV, and I'd be preaching.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

[video=youtube;7xICGJ5yQjE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xICGJ5yQjE&feature=related[/video]
Is what I would be doing if I wanted to be a little more Christian about my ways.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Your right, if I wanted to be a hardcore christian I wouldn't be on RIU, or using the internet. Or watching TV, and I'd be preaching.


how hard is it to learn the correct usage of "you're" and "your"?

any point you make is INVALID when you can't grasp basic spelling.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> how hard is it to learn the correct usage of "you're" and "your"?
> 
> any point you make is INVALID when you can't grasp basic spelling.


 Its sad to see someone correcting my spelling when were talking about religion. Got nothing better to do? Stay out.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

to post a youtube link, ... simply click the "filmstrip icon" in the tool bar of the reply box. copy and paste YOUR link into the popup box.


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Your right, if I wanted to be a hardcore christian I wouldn't be on RIU, or using the internet. Or watching TV, and I'd be preaching.


*i think your in NEED of stronger "medication"... mary jane might not be able to save you... sorry 

--cheers tho


...lol, btw.. God said your crazy... and just a heads-up.. stop being a deuche bag, the Crusades' ended 666 years ago..


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

actually you are preaching and im just saying god doesnt want you on a pulpit, he wants you carrying your granny's groceries, or doing something productive, cause spreading christ has nothing to do with telling people this or that it has to do with showing people what being a good person is, by being a good a person, and if they happen to ask you why you are such a good person, then you can say "because i have god in my heart", otherwise you do not have god in your heart and are instead knealing at the alter of self worship and calling others to do the same. so go rad a chemistry book and next time educate people by preaching about how atoms work, and maybe god will forgive you.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

[video=youtube;ygYgvd3yLFY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygYgvd3yLFY[/video]

This is productive, carrying grannies groceries when shes an antichrist is stupid.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

[video=youtube;T3mb08VwzFU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3mb08VwzFU&feature=channel_video_title[/video]
That is what being christian is about. Not carrying grannies groceries.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

[video=youtube;-22E7kDjpEE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22E7kDjpEE&feature=channel_video_title[/video]
Thats the kidna stuff that gets you rep with Jesus.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

its interesting that you quote john, a man that actually never met jesus (or if its the other john, lol i forget, but whether or not im confusing john´s, either person im talking about, never really understood jesus)

but hey.

curious, so all you gotta do is believe in jesus and god?


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> [video=youtube;-22E7kDjpEE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22E7kDjpEE&feature=channel_video_title[/video]
> Thats the kidna stuff that gets you rep with Jesus.


Yeah that looked really effective. Plus rep for that!


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> its interesting that you quote john, a man that actually never met jesus (or if its the other john, lol i forget, but whether or not im confusing john´s, either person im talking about, never really understood jesus)
> 
> but hey.
> 
> curious, so all you gotta do is believe in jesus and god?


Funny how this guy thinks you that passing judgement on and acting in a hateful manner towards others is what hod would want


----------



## BudDub (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Jesus is God bro. Theres no proving that Jesus existed because its a fact, he existed.
> Direct influence on our daily lives today.


I don't understand how proving jesus existed proves that he was the son of god. He was a man, nothing more...


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> [video=youtube;ygYgvd3yLFY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygYgvd3yLFY[/video]
> 
> This is productive, carrying grannies groceries when shes an antichrist is stupid.


BIGOTRY in action


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> its interesting that you quote john, a man that actually never met jesus (or if its the other john, lol i forget, but whether or not im confusing john´s, either person im talking about, never really understood jesus)
> 
> but hey.
> 
> curious, so all you gotta do is believe in jesus and god?


Well, you gotta admit to believing in Jesus Christ and even try to help non believers become born again christians.
Also its about becoming sin free so you will be seen as a saint. Since everyone sins, Jesus forgives old past sins.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

BudDub said:


> I don't understand how proving jesus existed proves that he was the son of god. He was a man, nothing more...


Believing that Jesus is in the flesh of man and died is the first step. Now to fully understand him you'd have to read the new testament yourself. He does Godly things that no regular man could of done. Healing the blind, bring the dead back to life, heaing thos with elileptics, and paralytics, a leper, Jesus fed 5000(something only a God can do(matthew 14:13-14:21)).

After you realize that he was in fact a god, you will know he did in fact die for our sins.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

well, by calling the religulous idiotic im kinda judging them myself 

but im not passing a sentence though.. lol. and i dont think they are going to burn forever in hell for being stupid.

but gandhi comes to mind "im digging on your christ but i dont like them christians"

so thats why i asked, if all he thinks he needs to do (to get to heaven, presumably) is believe in jesus and his pops?

cause, if so?

then what do you think changes about you, after death?

and other people?

is it always heaven being around people? is it always heaven being around you?

you think when you die, someone´s gonna press a button and make everyone that believes a really nice person?

a forgiving, gentle, loving person?

someone thats actually a joy to be around?

just because they believed?..

..interestingly, they also have to keep on being happy, despite knowing of all the billions burning forever and forever alive..

cause, cant really imagine a heaven filled with depressed people.

gotta be everyone always happy in heaven, cant picture it othervise.. lol

so what made them so happy? 

just because they believed? or because all the bad people are gone?

and what makes people bad?

anger, hate, judging, along with some other things..

but i certainly never saw belief anywhere on that list. 

yeah, he was a great guy, but, he just never believed in old jeebus and gohoood.

so thats why he´s burning alive forever (or just till he believes (yup torture folks til they are your worshippers (great guy god eh? not a friend, not a father, no apparantly god is tyrant and slaveowner, (we are property, apparantly lol)

want another beer?
++++++


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Believing that Jesus is in the flesh of man and died is the first step. Now to fully understand him you'd have to read the new testament yourself. He does Godly things that no regular man could of done. Healing the blind, bring the dead back to life, heaing thos with elileptics, and paralytics, a leper, Jesus fed 5000(something only a God can do(matthew 14:13-14:21)).
> 
> After you realize that he was in fact a god, you will know he did in fact die for our sins.



didnt he say, something along the lines of " what i have done, you will do and more"

"ye are gods" 

hmm?

and couldnt the line "i am the son of man" mean just that? i sso, am also the son of man. (my dad was a man )

and btw, how could you say he died FOR our sins?

is god some bloodmaniac that needs blood spilled to clean sins? that sounds kinda disgusting and insane..

but its obvious , he died BECAUSE of our sins, he talked about love and forgiveness, ok, no one cares, but then he said things like I AM (only god said that, but interestingly, once you get rid of enough ego, thats all you can say about your self, you are so varied, I AM ) 

and by sorta claiming to be god, he insulted their faith and so they got really sinful and killed him.

andother line " the father and i are one"

if god is everything, then everything and everyone is god.

(you´d have to study some other religions and old texts to understand that philosophy though (usually gained through heavy meditation)

then i and the father are one too.

...

btw...

its obvious in the bible that VERY FEW understand jesus at the time. and he said that.

by quoting guys that did not understand him, you kinda are admitting to not understanding jesus yourself..

and still you preach about him lol..

but, anyways, im all for cleaning up for sins, good deal

greediness and anger and hate and all that crap should be out the door right now.

it not only hurts others, but yourself.


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 21, 2011)

[youtube]EPG3-1gogXU&feature[/youtube]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> well, by calling the religulous idiotic im kinda judging them myself
> 
> but im not passing a sentence though.. lol. and i dont think they are going to burn forever in hell for being stupid.
> 
> ...


God has things to do bro, hes busy doing stuff.
It is said that if you believe in Jesus you will overcome the second death, and if you don't you will burn in hell for eternity.

When we die, we do not automatically become a nice person. Obviously thats what being Christian is about. So were nice before we die.
Heaven is superior to earth, and if we don't die in heaven then obviosuly its gonna be alot better then earth, unlimited knowledge, unlimited everything. And since God is in heaven, we will be tought by everyone up there who has learned something. I can't describe heaven to you, but I know the standards to get there are pretty high. No everyone who believes in Jesus goes to heaven, you gotta do your own research to see where you stand with God.
There are unforgivable sins, blasphemy of the Holy spirit is unforgivable in this generation and in the generation that is to come.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Its sad to see someone correcting my spelling when were talking about religion. Got nothing better to do? Stay out.


what's worse is someone who thinks they understand religion yet can't even understand the correct usage of "your" and "you're".


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> So then you do hate yourself


what a stupid question.

i LOVE myself. read my sig.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> didnt he say, something along the lines of " what i have done, you will do and more"
> 
> "ye are gods"
> 
> ...


Oh man, you gotta do the research yourself bro. Leaning on my understanding will only confuse you more. I quoted so you would know exactly where to look to research into that topic. If im going around telling you what I think the quotes say, that would be worse then not speaking of Jesus to begin with.

Jesus died for our sins with death. Now what that death represented to the universe as a whole is beyond me. He was the son of man because he wasn't in the flesh of God(which is why he died).
It was said that to believe in Jesus you are a God yourself, because there are greater things to be done with carrying grannies groceries. After death believers will find out what else there is to do. Obviously humans aren't the center of the universe if God exists(I can't tell you too much of what I think or you will be distorted by my thoughts and the bible).


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> what a stupid question.
> 
> i LOVE myself. read my sig.


Your statement is invalid. I did not ask a question.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Your statement is invalid. I did not ask a question.


and your opinion is a "little off". 

i am who i am and i am that person without the NEED of god in my life. i'm happy. seems you aren't until everyone feels the same as you. i'm happy for you, and have no issues with you or your god, i simply chose to live differently.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Well, you gotta admit to believing in Jesus Christ and even try to help non believers become born again christians.
> Also its about becoming sin free so you will be seen as a saint. Since everyone sins, Jesus forgives old past sins.


then why do you need to be seen as a saint? wouldnt that be purely for selfish reasons which would make your entire mission selfish and therefore sinful,


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> and your opinion is a "little off".
> 
> i am who i am and i am that person without the NEED of god in my life. i'm happy. seems you aren't until everyone feels the same as you. i'm happy for you, and have no issues with you or your god, i simply chose to live differently.


Can you grasp the def of opinion mr grammer patrol? I think we need a definition patrol around here too.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> then why do you need to be seen as a saint? wouldnt that be purely for selfish reasons which would make your entire mission selfish and therefore sinful,


 Being selfish is the stupidest way of viewing it. Being Godly and staying away from the path that leads to death is an other way. And it is not selfish to save others from the path of death and eternal suffering.


----------



## woodsusa (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> and your opinion is a "little off".
> 
> i am who i am and i am that person without the NEED of god in my life. i'm happy. seems you aren't until everyone feels the same as you. i'm happy for you, and have no issues with you or your god, i simply chose to live differently.


Not to worry, God understands.


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

God's PR department called and they really want you just stop sharing your opinion. Its hurting their Cause.


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 21, 2011)

[youtube]DAuFJKQh83Y[/youtube]


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Being selfish is the stupidest way of viewing it. Being Godly and staying away from the path that leads to death is an other way. And it is not selfish to save others from the path of death and eternal suffering.


Well, you gotta admit to believing in Jesus Christ and even try to help non believers become born again christians.
Also its about becoming sin free so you will be seen as a saint. Since everyone sins, Jesus forgives old past sins.

then why do you need to be seen as a saint? wouldnt that be purely for selfish reasons which would make your entire mission selfish and therefore sinful,

YOU JUST SAID JESUS FORGIVES OLD SINS, IF JESUS FORGIVES OLD SINS, WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO BE SEEN AS A "SAINT" IF NOT FOR SELFISH REASONS, IF YOU STRIVE TO BE SEEN AS A SAINT THEN YOU ARE ACTING AS A DEVIL, IF YOUR ACTIONS JUST HAPPEN TO LEAD YOU TO BE KNOWN AS A SAINT THEN YOU ARE IN FACT A SAINT. MOTHER TERESA WOULD SLAP THE WORDS OF CHRIST RIGHT OUT OF YOUR FACE! GOD PREACHES ACCEPTANCE OF ALL AND JUDGEMENT OF NONE. ANY OTEHRR TEACHING IS SPREADING WORSHIP OF A FALSE IDOL AND THEREFORE WORSHIP OF SATAN.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> God has things to do bro, hes busy doing stuff. *thought he was omnipotent*
> It is said that if you believe in Jesus you will overcome the second death, and if you don't you will burn in hell for eternity.
> *so...you die again and burn forever or live forever? so death is burning? and hell? bit odd philosophy but whatever floats your boat.*
> When we die, we do not automatically become a nice person. Obviously thats what being Christian is about. So were nice before we die.
> ...



*yeah, interesting that it never explains just exactly what the holy spirit is and how you offend it.. (lol)

well, get to heaven.

old jay said, be like a child to get into heaven.

well, brats wont get there, so what is the characteristic of children, well, they play.

learn and explore.

so, start having fun and play games, computer or reallife, its all good (did you know that shootem up 1st person games are massively good for developing your brain?)

according to jesus 

btw


you understood that marlboro was using you´re , many people use your, i do too. its convenient and people understand it.
its not like im writing a paper for college or that my income depends upon it. writing your is quicker and easier and ive got better things to do with my time than spending the extra time to do "perfect grammar"













*


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Can you grasp the def of opinion mr grammer patrol? I think we need a definition patrol around here too.


yes, i fully understand YOUR opinion. and it's wrong. 

shouldn't you be AT church??


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

you're or nothing. Do not make FDD come & Pwn us.


^ Seems like I am 1 min too late.


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 21, 2011)

cheers


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Being selfish is the stupidest way of viewing it. Being Godly and staying away from the path that leads to death is an other way. And it is not selfish to save others from the path of death and eternal suffering.


well, I'M still alive.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Oh man, you gotta do the research yourself bro. Leaning on my understanding will only confuse you more.*you are kinda funny now..* I quoted so you would know exactly where to look to research into that topic. If im going around telling you what I think the quotes say, that would be worse then not speaking of Jesus to begin with.
> *interesting how you assume scant knowledge on the subject
> 
> *
> ...


*interesting again how low opinion you have of me, distorted by YOUR thoughts and the bible indeed. lool

but hey obviously this makes you, sorta, happy, and as long as you arent going around torturing or killing nonbelievers,i dont care. 

and i really see no further point to this conversation. our levels of understanding do not coincide enough to make it feasible.
*


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> *yeah, interesting that it never explains just exactly what the holy spirit is and how you offend it.. (lol)
> 
> well, get to heaven.
> 
> ...



how much time does it take to type a comma and an extra "e"?

weakest EXCUSE ever. 

keep DEFENDING IGNORANCE. 

personally, I know the difference.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

wel nt al ov us r so smrt FDD.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Fdd lkes thns prfect, sumtms e as ard time dunder standing.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

Did I just set a.. Trend?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> then why do you need to be seen as a saint? wouldnt that be purely for selfish reasons which would make your entire mission selfish and therefore sinful,


 Being a saint rids you of sin. Not sinning means you are getting spiritualy healed; cleansing your thoughts and motives.
If you become a saint it is to preach(hense saving others). Working for rewards isn't selfish, its called being free from slavery(hence your a slave to sin).
Being a slave is getting nothing for your work. Thats why sinners don't get rewarded for sins.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

using the effort being put forth to defend ignorance, you all COULD be making yourselves "smarter". 


still trying to understand why someone would willing chose the path of "stupid". 

oh, wait a minute ... we _are _talking religion.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Being a saint rids you of sin. Not sinning means you are getting spiritualy healed. Cleansing your thoughts and motives.
> If you become a saint it is to preach(hense saving others). Working for rewards isn't selfish, its called being free from sin(hence* your *a slave to sin).
> Being a slave is getting nothing for your work. Thats why sinners don't get rewarded for sins.



it's "you're". as in "you are". 

try saying it in YOUR head.


----------



## cruzer101 (Aug 21, 2011)

LOL, why is it every thread I see FDD in there is controversy?
Makes me laugh.

Oh and the god thing, my belief is people made up everything (and revised it several times) just to give man something to fear and curb his greed.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Thats where your choice comes in to play, do you want rewards or punishment? if you see getting rewards and following Christ's word as selfish, you truely need some more education.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> how much time does it take to type a comma and an extra "e"?
> 
> weakest EXCUSE ever.
> 
> ...



thats good for you.

personally, i just dont want to bother with typing you´re , instead of your. its fractionally of a second quicker.

and wordnazis like yourself (a minority) do not stir me or induce me to absolve this laziness.

nor do i need to feel better than you, by writing perfect grammar (not that ive ever bothered to learn it, lol, despite having ample time, ive spoke with enough people to know , for a fact, i dont need to waste my time thusly


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thats where your choice comes in to play, do you want rewards or punishment? if you see getting rewards and following Christ's word as selfish, you truely need some more education.


would you like to see some of my godless "rewards"? 

could have sworn you saw my boat thread.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> thats good for you.
> 
> personally, i just dont want to bother with typing you´re , instead of your. its fractionally of a second quicker.
> 
> ...



my grammar is far from perfect. but at least i have the self respect to try to change it. 

for the LOVE OF GOD, please learn how to use "you're" and "your".


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

now, if i was writing a book or something, i might spend the time to use perfect grammar, but maybe not, depending on the audience i wished to establish contact with.


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> it's "you're". as in "you are".
> 
> try saying it in YOUR head.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

selfrespect eh?

interesting. 

bet you also think people should try to make something of themselves yeah? 

..

i kinda think that if my selfrespect depended on grammar, well,, lol..

humm, yeah, i think my part in this conversation is over, go have fun with the dictionary and spellchecker


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> would you like to see some of my godless "rewards"?
> 
> could have sworn you saw my boat thread.


No I haven't seen your boat thread.
It says not to save up gold and silver on earth because rust and moths will destroy it, but rather save up your rewards in heaven where they will be preserved for eternity.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> thats good for you.
> 
> personally, i just dont want to bother with typing you´re , instead of your. its fractionally of a second quicker.
> 
> ...





sso said:


> now, if i was writing a book or something, i might spend the time to use perfect grammar, but maybe not, depending on the audience i wished to establish contact with.



how much time did it take to type out these two posts?

yet you defend YOUR errors on the basis of "saving time". 

taking the time it took to type out these past two post, you could have typed out HUNDREDS of commas and "e's". 


you all know i'm right and you feel guilty. some time with GOD may help.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

FDD would be your publisher & be very upset with you.


sso said:


> now, if i was writing a book or something, i might spend the time to use perfect grammar, but maybe not, depending on the audience i wished to establish contact with.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

You're to be taking pride in your work.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> selfrespect eh?
> 
> interesting.
> 
> ...


if your self respect doesn't even include your grammar, ... 


all i'm asking is for the correct use of "you're" and "your". nothing more.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> it's "you're". as in "you are".
> 
> try saying it in YOUR head.


Since your the grammer police here the link to my threads.
https://www.rollitup.org/search.php?searchid=15637425
If your correcting me now, you might as well correct all of my grammer and puncuation mistakes, and you might as well expand my vocabulary by giving me college synonyms for the highschool words Im using.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> No I haven't seen your boat thread.
> It says not to save up gold and silver on earth because rust and moths will destroy it, but rather save up your rewards in heaven where they will be preserved for eternity.


i would rather just enjoy today.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thats where your choice comes in to play, do you want rewards or punishment? if you see getting rewards and following Christ's word as selfish, you truely need some more education.


oh i cant resist trying to teach you bit 

see, thats the whole trouble with it. rewards and following christs word.

what happens when christ leaves?

and never came back?

being good because of heaven, or because of jesus or god, is the worst form of good there is.

especially when you include threat of hell in it. cause then you are only good at the threat of a stick.

same as the idea of laws keeping people good (people behave because i hit them if they arent)

so thats saying that people are inherently evil 



so what the fugg would an allgood being want with inherently evil (and massively stupid (there´s hope, but not alot))

beings?

that only follow him because of this stick he carries (which btw, totally erases him from my allgood list..)

makes me think..

why do you cling so hard to this religion?

whats wrong? what do you fear?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> i would rather just enjoy today.


 Im enjoying today, and Ill be enjoying eternity knowing Im not burning in hell.
But I guess its different if you have the spirit of an antichrist, Satan usually blocks out your common sense since you have no idea what enternity means.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> if your self respect doesn't even include your grammar, ...
> 
> 
> all i'm asking is for the correct use of "you're" and "your". nothing more.



then YOU do use it, and by your shining example of perfectness,show me the way of how to be.

a bitchy crabby son of a teacher (or a young one)

doesnt really impress me into wanting to imitate him


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Since your the grammer police here the link to my threads.
> https://www.rollitup.org/search.php?searchid=15637425
> If your correcting me now, you might as well correct all of my grammer and puncuation mistakes, and you might as well expand my vocabulary by giving me college synonyms for the highschool words Im using.


once again, i am ONLY interested in "you're" and "your".

if you stay focused you could learn it right now.

*"if you can't replace it with "you are" then it is spelled "your".*

it's really _that easy_.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im enjoying today, and Ill be enjoying eternity knowing Im not burning in hell.
> But I guess its different if you have the spirit of an antichrist, Satan usually blocks out your common sense since you have no idea what enternity means.


maybe i wish to be a child of satan.

i do have that choice, don't i?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Once again, this is why Deceivers aren't allowed into heaven. And their deception is why they are being burned in hell instead of being left dead.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> then YOU do use it, and by your shining example of perfectness,show me the way of how to be.
> 
> a bitchy crabby son of a teacher (or a young one)
> 
> doesnt really impress me into wanting to imitate him


so you are being ignorant out of spite?


----------



## woodsusa (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> maybe i wish to be a child of satan.
> 
> i do have that choice, don't i?


Yes, you do have that choice. However I'd take a look at how that choice worked out for Satan.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> so you are being ignorant out of spite?


its not ignorance, is it, if i know it?

spite? why? 

i didnt explain myself well enough, i simply find it uncomfortable, writing that ´re, (different language keyboard)
most people use your or are fine with it.

i find myself rather bored with this particular conversation, most people dont care about this..
so why would i do it out of spite ? lol


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> its not ignorance, is it, if i know it?
> 
> spite? why?
> 
> ...



still pounding away at those keys. 


LOL


it's an apostrophe, not a comma.  funny no one caught me making that mistake. 

told ya i wasn't perfect. but now i know what to call it. figured that one out myself. 



so ... you continue to pound away at the keys defending the fact that you don't want to waste time pounding at the keys. 

this is FUN. 

you spite YOUR father. or so YOUR post implied.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

I
Too 
Think
I Shall
Type In
Descending Order.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> I
> Too
> Think
> I Shall
> ...


put some spaces between each line.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Remember me the Christians who tried to save you when your in hell!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

I hope you become born again Christian so we can laugh at everyone whos in hell. Maybe God will have a super high definition TV with all the athiests screaming in pain, while we enjoy a high uncomparable to smoking weed on earth.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Maybe even a fieldtrip to hell to spit on the antichrists who still deny Christ!


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

woodsusa said:


> Yes, you do have that choice. However I'd take a look at how that choice worked out for Satan.



funnily, the bible never describes the devil as a bad man. just didnt want to love man the same as god (serve him same (if you love someone, you love doing shit for them, make them happy)


fallen angel, denied by god for saying no (can you force yourself to love someone?)

though zarathustra the religion from which many aspect of judaism and later christianity were copied from, there god and the devil were equally old and neither created.

fear (hate and so on) and love (compassion, kindness and so on)

both simply aspects of the great void, whom some call the mother, the all and nothing, the playground of both gods and men.

what we all came from, yet does not exist, and yet exists. what some call god. (neither good nor evil.though could be more said to be good, since its the wellspring of all life, a giver, while its simply its childrens decisions out of fear that create evil)

thats according to some other religion i forget the name of anyway,

lol

oh the nordic religion goes somewhat into the ideas of the void and also hindu religion. among others.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> funnily, the bible never describes the devil as a bad man. just didnt want to love man the same as god (serve him same (if you love someone, you love doing shit for them, make them happy)
> 
> 
> fallen angel, denied by god for saying no (can you force yourself to love someone?)
> ...


 Jesus Christ hates satan because he is an evil demon. Why else would Christ hate satan? Why do you think satans can't live for eternity?


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> still pounding away at those keys.
> 
> 
> LOL
> ...


well, i forgot to mention im really bored 

well, you do love saying spite, thats for for sure


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

God requires you have @ least an iQ of 50. 47 is not cutting it.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> God requires you have @ least an iQ of 50. 47 is not cutting it.


 High Iq's are required, fools get left out of heaven if you read the bible.
An iq of 100 is still pretty low.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Remember me the Christians who tried to save you when your in hell!




thanks, i will. 

and it's "you're". as in, "when YOU ARE in hell".


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I hope you become born again Christian so we can laugh at everyone whos in hell. Maybe God will have a super high definition TV with all the athiests screaming in pain, while we enjoy a high uncomparable to smoking weed on earth.



hmm, finding pleasure in another's agony. sounds like a place i want to hang out for forever.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> well, i forgot to mention im really bored
> 
> well, you do love saying spite, thats for for sure


you were unclear on what i was referring to. i only said it twice for YOUR clarification.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

Aha religion thread owned by FDD. No Pada, Heisen or MP required.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Aha religion thread owned by FDD. No Pada, Heisen or MP required.



the day i can discuss religion with an educated person is the day i may finally listen.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Jesus Christ hates satan because he is an evil demon. Why else would Christ hate satan? Why do you think satans can't live for eternity?


well, i dont really hate bad men, i feel sorry for them.

bad people have no true love, family or friends.

they are allready in hell.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

If god was so powerful, why keep satan around. Seems like a Love-Hate Relationship going on.. .


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> you were unclear on what i was referring to. i only said it twice for YOUR clarification.


talking with spite to you and spite to my father?

hows that for clarification, cause i aint clarified.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> If god was so powerful, why keep satan around. Seems like a Love-Hate Relationship going on.. .


because god needs someone to make fun of.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> then YOU do use it, and by your shining example of perfectness,show me the way of how to be.
> 
> a bitchy crabby son of a teacher (or a young one)
> 
> doesnt really impress me into *wanting to imitate him*


the comment highlighted in red "sounded spiteful". that is all. 


hope this clears EVERYTHING up for you.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> the comment highlighted in red "sounded spiteful". that is all.
> 
> 
> hope this clears EVERYTHING up for you.



wasnt talking about my father (though he is a exteacher ) 

was talking about you, since its usually only teachers or their sons that crab about this  (for the most part)

but hey..


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> the day i can discuss religion with an educated person is the day i may finally listen.


Acting like you still won't deny Christ if God told you himself that Jesus was his son.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> wasnt talking about my father (though he is a exteacher )
> 
> was talking about you, since its usually only teachers or their sons that crab about this  (for the most part)
> 
> but hey..


my misunderstanding.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)




----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Acting like your opinions count in this world, lmao. Not even other athiests care what you think.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

dunno met god in a dream once (sorta just knew it was god)

it was in a shabby old shop and he seemed like a bit older fellow, but it was a dream and bit vague.

he just asked me what was the reason for evil in the world

i promptly answered "money" (possibly because at the time i didnt have any, now i wonder if its fear thats the source)

and he said "right" (and i wonder if he meant right as in i was right, or right as in aha right..lol)

but certainly money (no sharing of the cake, 10 people eating the cake meant for 100, while 90 people look on)

is the cause of shitload of trouble.

but what has bothered me most in the world, was , bullying and intolerance (police attacking you for having weed is bullying)

people that say, live my way or die! (or suffer alot anyway (jail is suffering, so is being broke and having no food, hunger can be torture)

thats why i never speak about religion on forums dedicated to religion, cause they just doing their hobby,

someone openly stating on a weed forum that atheists are idiots cause they dont believe in god and will all burn in hell..

well thats a different story..


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Acting like your opinions count in this world, lmao. Not even other athiests care what you think.


kinda sounds like you are sore at other christians thinking you are a fanatic idiot and are trying to find a scapegoat cause you cant face it.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> kinda sounds like you are sore at other christians thinking you are a fanatic idiot and are trying to find a scapegoat cause you cant face it.


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Anyways
Heaven>Hell
Christians>Antichrists

Wars just begun, im laughing at all the antichrists trying to make me believe in science over god lmao. How long do you think it would take to invent something to detect Gods presence? 

All aboard retarded express, after finding out that gods real they just sit home and cry all day because all they did was talk shit to anyone who wanted to try to save them and their one and only God. Gods gonna pwn you so bad and Im gonna be able to lmao once again!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Maybe even a fieldtrip to hell to spit on the antichrists who still deny Christ!


Quote ftw, lmao nubs trying to make me feel bad because im christian. Talk about idiots!


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

You're saying you would believe God over scientific evidence? If it somehow conflicted with your Gods word?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> You're saying you would believe God over scientific evidence? If it somehow conflicted with your Gods word?


Yes I would in fact believe in God over scientific evidence, because science takes 60,000+ years to prove hemp oil cures cancer. And it still isn't "proven". So fuck science.
Conflicting with God word? I don't see how science would conflict with Gods word.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Yes I would in fact believe in God over scientific evidence, because science takes 60,000+ years to prove hemp oil cures cancer. And it still isn't "proven". So fuck science.


 By the time God is proved to exist 100,000,000 years go by and all the people that lived and died at that time are in hell, and science isn't going to save them.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> What the hell are you talking about?


you just lost.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

still, you do know that, same as in science, people wrote the bible (along with the koran and the hindu texts and the buddhist texts, and the zarathustra texts and countless, countless others and countless other forgotten ones..)

so you are believing the word of people, whats what.

not god. not angels.

you are believing the word of one set of people over another set of people.

you are taking the word of jack´s over billie´s   

and you are taking the word of a jack that lived over 1800 years ago over the word of billy today.

and we do evolve you know


----------



## TogTokes (Aug 21, 2011)

Being christian is nothing special.. So you actually BELIEVE ONE MAN MADE THIS ALL? Like physically with Magic made space, earth, us, all the animals? 

if so sounds like you need to be locked up lmao. I mean really c'mon when was the last time you seen any type of god first hand on earth.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> you just lost.


Only if a christian posts about me being a fanatic idiot.
So far its only been athiests trying to get me to stop believing.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

So your saying that the scientific method & the evidence it reveals is equal to the bible in terms of proof and and facts that can be tested/studied over and over. 


sso said:


> still, you do know that, same as in science, people wrote the bible (along with the koran and the hindu texts and the buddhist texts, and the zarathustra texts and countless, countless others and countless other forgotten ones..)
> 
> so you are believing the word of people, whats what.
> 
> ...


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

TogTokes said:


> Being christian is nothing special.. So you actually BELIEVE ONE MAN MADE THIS ALL? Like physically with Magic made space, earth, us, all the animals?
> 
> if so sounds like you need to be locked up lmao. I mean really c'mon when was the last time you seen any type of god first hand on earth.


i wonder if he has a "wand".


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

..i heard for years about how they could levitate in india, fakirs and whatnot.

then i saw on the internet how they do it.

yeah, its a chair hidden by those robes of theirs, with the single leg holding it up (its buried bit deep) disguised as a cane (sorta im floating in the air with my special powers but im cool so i gotta have this special cane here(it probably has secret powers too)


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Christ is the one who said he was God because he had the father in him, and he in the father.
Christ said he was God before he did his Godly works, it was propesized that he would be born in the year that he did.
And he did in fact do some things that it would take science forever to prove.
How the hell is science going to prove how God brought someone back to life without using herbs, electricity, and other scientific tools?

You really think they would call the scriptures holy if some random dude named jack convinced a bunch of dudes to write about Jesus?
Do you think the bible would of survived as Jesus's words of eternal life over thousands of years without someone saying, btw its just a story?

Come on, don't be retarded. It would be a mythical fairy tale like the greek gods.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> So your saying that the scientific method & the evidence it reveals is equal to the bible in terms of proof and and facts that can be tested/studied over and over.


im saying nothing of the sort.

im saying that the bible is full of bullshit and you cant live your life by it, not literally, there is some good shit in there, true, worth a thought and sometimes a change in your life.

but its not the book to end all books. not in my opinion. 

plus, the bible is just the abbreviated version of a much greater volume of texts.. (and then you are forgetting a serious shitload of other religious and spiritual literature)

all of these texts can be seriously helpful in your life, but not if you take it too seriously.

and if you limit yourself to just the hebrew texts , then you are missing out.

lots of good stuff and mindbenders and keys for higher consciousness..

but, you are misunderstanding science.

science is basically just a bunch of dudes going about trying to prove whats wrong and whats not (added with sometimes inventing shit)

and we´ve only been at it 200 years or so.. (discounting lol all the science of the millennia before (greeks, chinese, all had pretty advanced "science")

science can mean so many things, it can mean your tv (couldnt be made without "science")

or it can just mean some guys in whitelabcoats trying to figure out why algae is green 

but cant take it all too seriously

finding out the what and how and why behind it all.

is a seriously long task, a task for many many generations of people.

so we might as well relax, smoke a bud, drink a beer, go have a nice fuck, dance, whatever.

even have a discussion on religion 

personally i prefer to relax (for the most part, i like to vent sometimes or be manic hyper : )

and take it easy

chill bill

take a pill if ya have too


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

How long do you think it will take to find out if we have a soul?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> How long do you think it will take to find out if we have a soul?


as long as it takes to die, and then it's too late.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> as long as it takes to die, and then it's too late.


With science, not personal experiences.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Christ is the one who said he was God because he had the father in him, and he in the father.
> Christ said he was God before he did his Godly works, it was propesized that he would be born in the year that he did.
> And he did in fact do some things that it would take science forever to prove.
> How the hell is science going to prove how God brought someone back to life without using herbs, electricity, and other scientific tools?
> ...


hercules did many wondrous things of great strength ( some show to be ridiculously impossible like lifting the earth)

why do you disbelieve that over the story of jesus (which seems to be true in some respects but not necessarily in all respects)


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

personally i just experimented with out of body experiences (astral travel)

it was pretty illuminating on the nature of the soul and the afterlife (As well as of my own nature)

why trust the word of dead dudes (and living dudes you find bit ignorant and closeminded to say the least..)

over my own experience?

all doors are open to those that seek, thats the word on enlightenmentstreet.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> hercules did many wondrous things of great strength ( some show to be ridiculously impossible like lifting the earth)
> 
> why do you disbelieve that over the story of jesus (which seems to be true in some respects but not necessarily in all respects)


Because that hercules shits stupid?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> personally i just experimented with out of body experiences (astral travel)
> 
> it was pretty illuminating on the nature of the soul and the afterlife (As well as of my own nature)
> 
> ...


Dead dudes? The dude who found out cigarettes cause cancer is dead, why should I believe him?
Dead dudes everywhere saying we killing native americans to become the US.
Why believe them? because its written down and no one called bullshit.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I hope you become born again Christian so we can laugh at everyone whos in hell. Maybe God will have a super high definition TV with all the athiests screaming in pain, while we enjoy a high uncomparable to smoking weed on earth.


That sounds like pride to me.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

People tend to listen when someone calls bullshit on an important matter. Heaven and hell for eternity is as important as it gets, and in all seriousness that why I believe it. Because if Jesus wasn't alive the documents stating what he did and said would of been called a myth as soon as the book was written.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> That sounds like pride to me.


Thats not pride, thats just me trying to give you guys something to look forward to.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

so whats the number one reason that you believe? how did you come to religion?


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Why believe them? because its written down and no one called bullshit.

*but plenty of people have called bullshit on religion and christianity as well.*


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> so whats the number one reason that you believe? how did you come to religion?


To be accepted by my creater after all the bs that I've done.
I came to religion after being locked up in juvenile hall with nothing to do.
I read the bible with all of my spare time and it started making sense. Then I found out the old testament is bullshit which made the bible make even more sense. Then after meeting athiests and other people with different religions it became clear that their intention was to manipulate me as anti-christs.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> Why believe them? because its written down and no one called bullshit.
> 
> *but plenty of people have called bullshit on religion and christianity as well.*


Not at the time it was written. Anyone who calls bullshit now is an anti christ. Its too late to correct things if it was false(which its not).


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

I now know that anyone who isn't christian isn't trustworthy. Not even family members are trustworthy because they don't have the son in them.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

If you can't trust your friends(who are athiest) with your girlfriend then maybe you shouldn't be friends with an athiest.
If your girlfriends athiest, then your fucked.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> If you can't trust your friends(who are athiest) with your girlfriend then maybe you shouldn't be friends with an athiest.
> If your girlfriends athiest, then your fucked.


Which an other good reason why I stay christian, and try to spread the christianity. To have a happier life on earth, and then hopefully be accepted into heaven.


----------



## Captain X (Aug 21, 2011)

22 pages in 2 days? dont the 40 other threads with the same title cover this subject with the same 10 people giving the same lame responses....grow some dope and get over yourself...and your religion or lack there of.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> If you can't trust your best friend(who is athiest) with your girlfriend then he isn't worth your time.
> If your girlfriends athiest, then your fucked.


can't trust your son with a priest, but who's judging?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> People tend to listen when someone calls bullshit on an important matter. Heaven and hell for eternity is as important as it gets, and in all seriousness that why I believe it. Because if Jesus wasn't alive the documents stating what he did and said would of been called a myth as soon as the book was written.


 Yet it was the supposed fulfillment of OT prophecies that convinced many followers. You want to throw out the OT completely and then you are left with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims written in a book. There is no record of Jesus by the Romans who were meticulous recorders of histor. There was no record of Jesus by anyone else outside the bible either. Herod died in 4 BCE which is horribly inconsistent with the Massacre of the Innocents as well as the timing of the birth of Jesus. Luke says that he was born during the first census which didn't occur until 10 years after Herod's death. 
If the OT is null and void, why did the gospel writers go to such lengths to show where Jesus fulfilled prophecies from the OT? Clearly the OT was highly valued by the authors of the NT, something that is in clear contradiction to your personal claims. 
The Lord of the Rings has more internal consistency than the NT. I guess Mordor and Gandalf were real.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Not at the time it was written. Anyone who calls bullshit now is an anti christ. Its too late to correct things if it was false(which its not).


Of course people called bullshit immediately otherwise there would be no more Judaism. There were plenty of other religions that didn't accept the teachings, including Roman paganism which lasted for a few centuries.  You don't even seem to know the history of your own religion which you regard as truth.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

yes, i would concur the same..lots of people called bullshit at the time of all the religions.


marlboro, though, i am curious, you say you cant trust anyone thats not christian.

have you ever met anyone christian, that you can fully trust? and has that trust been tested?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> yes, i would concur the same..lots of people called bullshit at the time of all the religions.
> 
> 
> marlboro, though, i am curious, you say you cant trust anyone thats not christian.
> ...



better yet, ... has he ever met a christian who broke his trust?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Of course people called bullshit immediately otherwise there would be no more Judaism. There were plenty of other religions that didn't accept the teachings, including Roman paganism which lasted for a few centuries. You don't even seem to know the history of your own religion which you regard as truth.


 Jews diddn't accept Jesus because they had certain requirements for him to be their messiah.
He had to of been all of the following:
Be an observant Jewish man descended from the house of King David
Be an ordinary human being (as opposed to the Son of God)
Bring peace to the world
Gather all Jews back into Israel
Rebuild the ancient Temple in Jerusalem
Unite humanity in the worship of the Jewish God and Torah observance


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

and how many christians does he know and how close is he with them? and how often does he have to trust them with anything and 

has he ever been down and out and broke and destitude?

how many christians stuck around?

betcha about as many as the heathens. (good people are hard to find)


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Jews diddn't accept Jesus because they had certain requirements for him to be their messiah.
> He had to of been all of the following:
> Be an observant Jewish man descended from the house of King David
> Be an ordinary human being (as opposed to the Son of God)
> ...


And other religions chose to deny him because they rather believe in reincarnation and other dumb shit.
Romans did not document him because Jesus did not make an appearance in Rome( he was born in Isreal). Jesus came to save the people who were waiting for him(the jews), and since he died for our sins they didn't believe him as the messiah.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Jews diddn't accept Jesus because they had certain requirements for him to be their messiah.
> He had to of been all of the following:
> Be an observant Jewish man descended from the house of King David
> Be an ordinary human being (as opposed to the Son of God)
> ...


What does the reasons people called bullshit right away have to do with the fact that you were wrong?


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Jews diddn't accept Jesus because they had certain requirements for him to be their messiah.
> He had to of been all of the following:
> Be an observant Jewish man descended from the house of King David
> Be an ordinary human being (as opposed to the Son of God)
> ...


do you know what messiah means?

seriously?


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 21, 2011)

dude just keeps quoting and replying to himself.

or am i crazy?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> And other religions chose to deny him because they rather believe in reincarnation and other dumb shit.
> Romans did not document him because Jesus did not make an appearance in Rome. Jesus came to save the people who were waiting for him(the jews), and since he died for our sins they didn't believe him as the messiah.


 You do realize there were plenty of records of the Roman occupation in Judea yet none of these records mentioned Jesus, even though they did mention other Jewish leaders that were becoming a threat to Rome. Strange that they left out someone like Jesus considering the story.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> do you know what messiah means?
> 
> seriously?


Messiah in Jewish terms means savior of the Jews(which they diddn't call Jesus their messiah because he diddn't fill the requirments).
Messiah in Christian is refering to Jesus.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You do realize there were plenty of records by the Romans of Pilate's rule and the Roman occupation in Judea yet none of these records mentioned Jesus, even though they did mention other Jewish leaders that were becoming a threat to Rome. Strange that they left out someone like Jesus considering the story.


 The romans were against the messiah in the first place, they were the ones who hunted him down and killed him. You really think they would be legit about the records?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> do you know what messiah means?
> 
> seriously?





Marlboro47 said:


> Messiah in Jewish terms means savior of the Jews(which they diddn't call Jesus their messiah because he diddn't fill the requirments).
> Messiah in Christian is refering to Jesus.


 Obviously he doesn't.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> And other religions chose to deny him because they rather believe in reincarnation and other dumb shit.
> Romans did not document him because Jesus did not make an appearance in Rome( he was born in Isreal). Jesus came to save the people who were waiting for him(the jews), and since he died for our sins they didn't believe him as the messiah.


jews (And therefore you)

believe that everyone falls to sleep, then at last day (actually according to one seer, i believe there were at least 2 last days..)

everyone gets woken up and judged.

so one shot at it. no matter what circumstance you get born into, no matter whether you ever heard of the gospel or were stillborn ina barn.

one, thats it, and you burn forever if you fail..


(though, as said before, one seer claimed you get two tries and still other later dudes said that stillborns go to limbo )

but still, all this , all this mess and we get two tries or burn forever?

so..

you support this god..

why?

and this is more clever than reincarnation (endless tries at becoming perfect (god) forever))

how?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

King Herod was the one killing everyone's baby because he was so afriad of the messiah coming. Which makes sense why they diddn't record anything.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The romans were against the messiah in the first place, they were the ones who hunted him down and killed him. You really think they would be legit about the records?


You seriously think the Romans would be ashamed of squelching a rebellion or crucifying anyone? They had no problems recording the other Jewish uprisings.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Obviously he doesn't.


quite.

for your clarification marlboro

messiah means the anointed one.

it was a basic term for kings, but they were anointed with oil 

( they poured some oil with some herbs in it, over the dude when he was made into a king)

((though actually some think that the ritual was originally sexual in nature (before jewish homosexuals got into it (mostly closet homo´s that hated sexuality cause they couldnt express theirs)

sexual in that, the king was selected by the queen and then he fucked her and got anointed in her holy juices..

not really queen though, more sore of the earthy representation of the holy mother, the earthmother..

kinda funny stuff.. really)

yeah, so basically jesus was supposed to be the anointed one, the king.

and only of the jews (as he stated he only came for the jews (fuck the rest apparently))

not of the world, or other men.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> jews (And therefore you)
> 
> believe that everyone falls to sleep, then at last day (actually according to one seer, i believe there were at least 2 last days..)
> 
> ...


 I don't believe in whatever the hell you just said. And im not jewish.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You seriously think the Romans would be ashamed of squelching a rebellion or crucifying anyone? They had no problems recording the other Jewish uprisings.


i also doubt they would have been that worried about an ancient hebrew prophecy, that no one btw, saw coming except possibly three wise men and mary and joseph (and close friends possibly lol)

so, doesnt really make sense.

though i read somewhere , that there are actually 2 roman writings about jesus.

but nothing mentioned about miracles.

just a preacher that got some attention and then got killed.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> King Herod was the one killing everyone's baby because he was so afriad of the messiah coming. Which makes sense why they diddn't record anything.


I just told you how Herod could not have been alive when Jesus was born. If he was alive, then Luke was wrong about the Census of Quirinius which was 10 years after Herod's death. Matthew and Luke cannot both be right. The book you rely so heavily on is terribly flawed with contradictions.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> yeah, so basically jesus was supposed to be the anointed one, the king.
> 
> and only of the jews (as he stated he only came for the jews (fuck the rest apparently))
> 
> not of the world, or other men.


Thats my beef with Jesus, he said fuck everyone else because they don't wanna change. Now im wondering about the future generations, if we could actually be saved, or maybe it was just those who saw Jesus at that time who can be saved.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I don't believe in whatever the hell you just said. And im not jewish.


no, but thats the jewish belief.



can you give me a quote on where jesus talked of the afterlife?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> i also doubt they would have been that worried about an ancient hebrew prophecy, that no one btw, saw coming except possibly three wise men and mary and joseph (and close friends possibly lol)
> 
> so, doesnt really make sense.
> 
> ...


 A person named Jesus was mentioned by Josephus but one of the quotes appears to have been added later, a forgery.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thats my beef with Jesus, he said fuck everyone else because they don't wanna change. Now im wondering about the future generations, if we could actually be saved, or maybe it was just those who saw Jesus at that time who can be saved.


its kinda funny also, because it was mostly jews that didnt listen, no one is a prophet in their own country perhaps...

dunno about saved, i feel quite safe.

and i feel that way because of my own explorations.

not because of some book.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I just told you how Herod could not have been alive when Jesus was born. If he was alive, then Luke was wrong about the Census of Quirinius which was 10 years after Herod's death. Matthew and Luke cannot both be right. The book you rely so heavily on is terribly flawed with contradictions.


Herod died shortly after Jesus's birth.


----------



## metaltooths (Aug 21, 2011)

Perhaps the bible is just a moral guideline.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Herod died shortly after Jesus's birth.


 Herod died in 4 BCE. When do you think Jesus was born? If he was born when Herod was alive, then the Census of Quirinius that took place in 6-7 CE demonstrates Luke was wrong.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> A person named Jesus was mentioned by Josephus but one of the quotes appears to have been added later, a forgery.


ah ok, i didnt really research into that, wasnt that interested by then 

i rather believe jesus might have existed, some of the quotes indicate that (talk of love and forgiveness)

but then again it couldave been copied from the buddhist religion or jesus been a convert of that, changed to be used as a weapon of the roman empire..

but i dont know, doesnt matter, some good philosophical truth in there and some spiritual, but not alot, and there is far richer mines elsewhere.

though actual jewish mysticism and cabbala and stuff like that is quite interesting and on par with much elsewhere.

but its the same with buddha,

he probably existed and was a thinker and a talker.

and people listened, but i doubt he ever grew roses out of his footsteps. not literally...

same with jesus.

there is some good shit there, indicative of some good thinking and spiritual exploring, but there is also indication of much tampering with these texts.

all written long after the fact, by humans that tend to exaggerate at best or simply lie to gain something.

so hey.

stuff best not taken too seriously.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

metaltooths said:


> Perhaps the bible is just a moral guideline.


depends..

new testament talks of love and forgiveness, but also tearing out your eyes if they "offend thee" and stuff like that..

old testament, talks of "thou shalt not kill" but talks of stoning to death your eldest son if he backtalks you (and that you should do it in front of everyone and get them to help  )

so, yeah, depends on what page you are on and what sorta morality we are talking about


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> no, but thats the jewish belief.
> 
> 
> 
> can you give me a quote on where jesus talked of the afterlife?


 I can't give you a quote, but there are multiple things he says happens after death.

Theres one saying that when you die you will wait until you hear Jesus calling, and if you believe you will have the strength to wake up and go to him(which is judgement).
Also, He says that after everyone dies we all get burned in hell to cleanse us of sin. And if we believe in Christ we will be able to die in hell and be born again in heaven.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Herod died in 4 BCE. When do you think Jesus was born? If he was born when Herod was alive, then the Census of Quirinius that took place in 6-7 CE demonstrates Luke was wrong.


Some history teachers sad BC was before christ and AD was after death. But then others say it had nothing to do with Christ's birth and death. So I wouldn't know the exact dates unfortaunately.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

metaltooths said:


> Perhaps the bible is just a moral guideline.


There is nothing of morality that is original with Jesus and the OT is a horrendously immoral book.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Some history teachers sad BC was before christ and AD was after death. But then others say it had nothing to do with Christ's birth and death. So I wouldn't know the exact dates unfortaunately.


 That's not the point I'm making. If you place Jesus' birth before Herod's death like Matthew says, that would be about 5 BCE. Jesus would then have been 10-11 around the time of the Census of Quirinius which was taking place when Jesus was just born according to Luke. Tell me how they both can be correct.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> That's not the point I'm making. If you place Jesus' birth before Herod's death like Matthew says, that would be about 5 BCE. Jesus would then have been 10-11 around the time of the Census of Quirinius which was taking place when Jesus was just born according to Luke. Tell me how they both can be correct.


 I know that they wrote the books in different times(40-50years apart give or take ), and that people have the ability to change words in the bible. So I would choose to believe Matthew over Luke. Matthew has more Jesus quotes so it would be harder to change. Can you tell me which chapter in Luke it talks about the birth of Jesus and death of herod?


----------



## Captain X (Aug 21, 2011)

all questions can now be answered..i found jesus...he is locked in my trunk...let me see what he says..............well it turns out he isnt the real jesus...jesus is his name but he washes dishes at olive garden....so never mind....carry on


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

marlboro..

its great you take comfort in this and personally i think you can believe whatever fairytale you want, if it makes you feel better. just dont push it too much lol..

but..

this is kinda one of those deals

"hey dude! im now a christian!"

"whats that?"

"oh i believe in jesus and get saved from my sins"

"what sins and who is jesus?"

"he´s the son of god that died for our sins so we could go to heaven and dont have to burn in hell forever"

"what sins and god who? and whats heaven? we die to go there? why do we have to die to go there? and who told you this?

burn in hell forever? 

....did he ask for money?"


"oh only a tenth of everything i own and produce  but i get to go to heaven for sure"

*and thats the deal.

the only guys peddling this faith, for hundreds of years.

were also the guys that sold salvation, literally, for cash.

and told people that the pope was the equal of god on earth.

among other things

the ONLY guys on the PLANET

that were peddling this (before a sect broke off into lutheranism and so on..)

so, you expect anyone with a half a brain to buy this?*


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Captain X said:


> all questions can now be answered..i found jesus...he is locked in my trunk...let me see what he says..............well it turns out he isnt the real jesus...jesus is his name but he washes dishes at olive garden....so never mind....carry on


i thought jesus was last seen in the ass of that dog?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I know that they wrote the books in different times(40-50years apart give or take ), and that people have the ability to change words in the bible. So I would choose to believe Matthew over Luke. Matthew has more Jesus quotes so it would be harder to change. Can you tell me which chapter in Luke it talks about the birth of Jesus and death of herod?


 Surely, the slaughter of every male child in Bethlehem, Ramah, and the surrounding area would have got mentioned in many places, such as Josephus' detailed accounts of the times yet it is only mentioned in Matthew. Luke doesn't mention Herod as I already pointed out, he mentions the Census:

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child​
This account places the birth of Jesus a full 10 years after the death of Herod. What exactly are you unclear about. I have explained this 3 times. 

Matthew appears to be a copy of Mark as it includes about 90% of Mark. He then goes on and corrects some of Mark's errors but adds his own embellishment such as the Roman pagan myths of great heroes being born to virgins, riding on TWO donkeys (a misreading of Zechariah 9:9) and events such as darkness and earthquakes occurring at the time of the crucifixion that surely would have been noticed by other writers in that region or any other region for that matter.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I know that they wrote the books in different times(40-50years apart give or take ), and that people have the ability to change words in the bible. So I would choose to believe Matthew over Luke. Matthew has more Jesus quotes so it would be harder to change. Can you tell me which chapter in Luke it talks about the birth of Jesus and death of herod?


You admit that man could have change the bible yet you still accept it as truth?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You admit that man could have change the bible yet you still accept it as truth?


 They could of easily changed little things. But the Idea that Jesus is our savior can't be changed.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

plus, do you even know who started the church?

(and the only church that was around for millennia (thousand years))

the roman empire

this emperor, well, he was losing this war and his soldier were all demoralized.

many of these soldiers were christian or enough so inclined.

so he had a dream, where he dream they would win the war (Actual war over territory, nothin sacred about it, just a fat guy wanting more)

if they fought under a banner with a cross on it.

and they did and won. (thou shalt not kill, dont be greedy, and so on..lol)

and thats the start of the holy roman empire. (well the latest chapters anyway.)

its not exactly a church started by jesus and all written down by him.

its more akin to the devil having started that church.  (wasnt it the romans that killed jesus, at the behest of some jews?)

so how can you believe anything in the bible?

well, i think the reason you can believe in the bible, is because you know nothing of it


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> They could of easily changed little things. But the Idea that Jesus is our savior can't be changed.


how exactly is he your savior?

and how do you know they didnt change whatever they wanted and made it all up to suit them?

they burned all books they didnt agree with (The church, same as the nazis later on)

and the only folks that were allowed to even read the bible were priests (heavily indoctrinated men that told what they were told to say, so they wouldnt lose their luxuries (though in some cases, their life or if they were really brainwashed, life after death kept them on a leash)

they hoarded all knowledge for a thousand years.

and tried to limit mans education (similar to pol pot )

so, you cant really trust anything thats in the bible.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

sso said:


> how exactly is he your savior?
> 
> and how do you know they didnt change whatever they wanted and made it all up to suit them?
> 
> ...


He died purposley for humans to get into heaven.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

did he ever say that?


does it say that in the bible? i dont remember that..

i dont remember him saying that anyway.

there is a lot of stuff that priest said and say (and now people) thats not in the bible.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Im sure that there is tons about Jesus that I don't know. But not knowing everything isn't going to stop me from believing in the only way to get into heaven.

It is very simple to believe in Jesus, and to confess that he died for our sins in the flesh of man. To spread the word and the love is all Jesus asks of.
Now, I stil believe in the bible because if something was changed(who knows if it was or not) it was to confuse believers. Im not going to let some douchebag shake my belief because he changed a few things.


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im sure that there is tons about the bible that I don't know.


 
...exactly, that's why you "believe."


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im sure that there is tons about the bible that I don't know. But not knowing everything isn't going to stop me from believing in the only way to get into heaven.





> If it God's existance doesn't make sense, then you diddn't read the whole bible.
> If you diddn't read the whole bible it makes sense that your athiest, *your beliefs are based upon something you know nothing about.*


Irony, inconsistency, hypocritical judgment, narrow view... It seems you fail the very same standards you assign to atheists.


----------



## Captain X (Aug 21, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Irony, inconsistency, hypocritical judgment, narrow view... It seems you fail the very same standards you assign to atheists.


damnnnnnnnn....OP just got berg-rolled.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

I warned him early on.. .


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Irony, inconsistency, hypocritical judgment, narrow view... It seems you fail the very same standards you assign to atheists.


 let me correct the first quote, to: "Im sure there is tons of stuff I don't know about Jesus, but thinking that someone else changed the bible isn't going to shake my beliefs."


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Maybe even a fieldtrip to hell to spit on the antichrists who still deny Christ!


*as long as you sign my pink/yellow/green waiver form and pack some lunchables. im game


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

cannawizard said:


> *as long as you sign my pink/yellow/green waiver form and pack some lunchables. im game


What the hell are you driving? The LSD/Shroom train for the visuals and godly feeling, then maybe some ecstacy and alcohol for the heat flashes? Lmao who would you end up spitting on thinking your in hell?


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 21, 2011)

[video=youtube;3MLp7YNTznE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MLp7YNTznE[/video]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

cannawizard said:


> [video=youtube;3MLp7YNTznE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MLp7YNTznE[/video]


Fuck yeah, thats what im talking about


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 21, 2011)

*sorry for busting your balls, im just here for the Plant  keep it green~

--cheers

[video=youtube;J0N1yY937qg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0N1yY937qg[/video]

..


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im sure that there is tons about Jesus that I don't know. But not knowing everything isn't going to stop me from believing in the only way to get into heaven.
> 
> It is very simple to believe in Jesus, and to confess that he died for our sins in the flesh of man. To spread the word and the love is all Jesus asks of.
> Now, I stil believe in the bible because if something was changed(who knows if it was or not) it was to confuse believers. Im not going to let some douchebag shake my belief because he changed a few things.



well, i prefer to create my own heaven

and the afterlife? well, that can wait till i get there.

maybe ill create my own heaven there or visit a previously established heaven, or maybe ill just take a nap


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 21, 2011)

[video=youtube;MTRRUs9R2oU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRRUs9R2oU[/video]


----------



## DrFever (Aug 21, 2011)

lol marlboro if you read the bible isnt there a war in your called heavens?? where actually the devil will take his place if so it is true your god is soon to be over thrown he did his time and did fck all
but make that cheese what was it cream cheese ) hahaha
what i am only saying is dam if you were not god wouldnt you of made a presence already since how old is earth and the universe billions of years old and still no god to you kinda remind me of the movie independance day where all the people were on the roof partying before the aliens blew the hell out of them


----------



## Captain X (Aug 21, 2011)

DrFever said:


> lol marlboro if you read the bible isnt there a war in your called heavens?? where actually the devil will take his place if so it is true your god is soon to be over thrown he did his time and did fck all
> but make that cheese what was it cream cheese ) hahaha
> what i am only saying is dam if you were not god wouldnt you of made a presence already since how old is earth and the universe billions of years old and still no god to you kinda remind me of the movie independance day where all the people were on the roof partying before the aliens blew the hell out of them


going by this chart...the devil might seem like a better deal


----------



## DrFever (Aug 21, 2011)

also i might add you say god created the universe huh well being the earth is 4.5 billion years old how come humans havnt bin on earth that long hahaha science my friend a some old thumper book you put your faith in 

Archeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years. 

Archeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years. 


Humans are a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae. You, me and everyone on Earth is a homo sapiens. This is Latin for the term, &#8220;wise human&#8221;. As humans, we have a highly developed brain, a bipedal gait, and opposable thumbs. 
It&#8217;s believed that humans originated about 200,000 years ago in the Middle Paleolithic period in southern Africa.
so you can throw that theory god created the universe and humans

Middle Paleolithic period in southern Africa. so god must be black


----------



## VanishingToaster (Aug 21, 2011)

maybe i'm one of the youngest hippies ever or a socialist in the making but i dont see why people have this urge to make others see what they see, be it people knocking on your door, people bothering you in the street, or people creating threads (all over, not just here) to prove points. why can't we accept what people believe, leave them to it. if they have something in their life thats fulfilling and makes them feel good helps them to process and lets them live their life in a way they otherwise wouldn't be able to, then isn't that a good thing? if u find that in rational logic good for you

i'm all up for a discussion on why people believe what they do and what they get out of it, but it never seems to last online and often descends into aggressive point scoring, often using precedence to back up an argument. like something being acceptable anywhere at anytime makes it ok in the here and now...

through all our discussion on these kinda subjects it only really shows up that one human element, almost the human races own motto

if your not in our club we wont accept you

religion, racism, schoolyard bullies, politics, immigration.

as a species we are inclined to all be unique, but for fuck sake dont be different


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

DrFever said:


> also i might add you say god created the universe huh well being the earth is 4.5 billion years old how come humans havnt bin on earth that long hahaha science my friend a some old thumper book you put your faith in
> 
> Archeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years.
> 
> ...


Maybe the OT isn't bs as I believe. Noahs arc? Noah was a black dude.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

I heard they even found blueprints in stone of noahs arc, yet they say it is too small to hold two of each animals. So then they started talking about noahs arc being a DNA bank. Then they started saying that there was better technology back a while ago then there is today. I would believe it too if the universe is 4.5 billion years old.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

Jesus & God are Black Too. You're going to be pissed.


----------



## Captain X (Aug 21, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Jesus & God are Black Too. You're going to be pissed.


i thought jesus was a camel jockey


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Jesus & God are Black Too. You're going to be pissed.


 I really don't care if Gods black or not, Id respect him either way.
Hes not gonna skimp me, so hes the only black dude I trust.


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I really don't care if Gods black or not, Id respect him either way.
> Hes not gonna skimp me, so hes the only black dude I trust.


...hahahahahahahahahahaahaha....I got to give it to ya, that was funny.


----------



## sso (Aug 21, 2011)

VanishingToaster said:


> maybe i'm one of the youngest hippies ever or a socialist in the making but i dont see why people have this urge to make others see what they see, be it people knocking on your door, people bothering you in the street, or people creating threads (all over, not just here) to prove points. why can't we accept what people believe, leave them to it. if they have something in their life thats fulfilling and makes them feel good helps them to process and lets them live their life in a way they otherwise wouldn't be able to, then isn't that a good thing? if u find that in rational logic good for you
> 
> i'm all up for a discussion on why people believe what they do and what they get out of it, but it never seems to last online and often descends into aggressive point scoring, often using precedence to back up an argument. like something being acceptable anywhere at anytime makes it ok in the here and now...
> 
> ...


well, this is a thread specifically created to debate this


----------



## ChadButler (Aug 21, 2011)

Yawn. God's real. I can prove it...


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 21, 2011)

Captain X said:


> going by this chart...the devil might seem like a better deal
> View attachment 1746572


* lmfao.. irony


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> They could of easily changed little things. But the Idea that Jesus is our savior can't be changed.


Funny how you ignore the whole inconsistency of the NT which you believe nothing major has changed when it seems obvious that Matthew added things like the Virgin conception, a pagan Roman idea and other things that make him into a god rather then merely a man. He made things which added to the mythological status including prophetic fulfillment.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

Captain X said:


> going by this chart...the devil might seem like a better deal
> View attachment 1746572


Who would those lucky 10 people be? To be killed by the dragon himself?


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 21, 2011)

They were probably the only 10 true christians who ever existed.


Marlboro47 said:


> Who would those lucky 10 people be? To be killed by the dragon himself?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Funny how you ignore the whole inconsistency of the NT which you believe nothing major has changed when it seems obvious that Matthew added things like the Virgin conception, a pagan Roman idea and other things that make him into a god rather then merely a man. He made things which added to the mythological status including prophetic fulfillment.


I've heard too much fucked up shit to warp my belief, the history channel said that mary was tooken prisoner by the romans and was raped and thats how Jesus became, but theres too many trolls and anti christs for me to actually discuss this kinda stuff without someone lying about what they heard. I guess ill just let this thread die.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 21, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> They were probably the only 10 true christians who ever existed.


If they were the only ture christians then at least they're in heaven.

If satan did kill anyone, im sure he killed way more then 10, I still hope their in heaven though cause that would suck balls getting killed by the bitch ass dragon.


----------



## tip top toker (Aug 21, 2011)

It's this kind of mindless fanaticism that has caused wars and fucked up this world. Good work!


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 21, 2011)

Dragons? 

This isn't lord of the rings......



Marlboro47 said:


> If they were the only ture christians then at least they're in heaven.
> 
> If satan did kill anyone, im sure he killed way more then 10, I still hope their in heaven though cause that would suck balls getting killed by the bitch ass dragon.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

Yes let's all argue about crap that doesn't help anyone while talking shit about how the other side is useless and only causes negativity.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> If they were the only ture christians then at least they're in heaven.
> 
> If satan did kill anyone, im sure he killed way more then 10, I still hope their in heaven though cause that would suck balls getting killed by the bitch ass dragon.



dragons rock!!!

maybe god _is_ real.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 22, 2011)

[video=youtube;MeSSwKffj9o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o[/video]


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 22, 2011)

sync0s said:


> [video=youtube;MeSSwKffj9o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o[/video]


*RIP George Carlin


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> He died purposley for humans to get into heaven.


 So he basically committed suicide to save us? Stop spouting your crazy rabble man, you've quoted and answered yourself like 15 times already. 

All the rest of us should stop feeding this idiot, Born Again Christians are cult members...simple as. They've been brainwashed to disbelieve anything the "top B.A.C. brass" say they should. 

He claims to love Jesus, yet forgets the most famous of his quotes... "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". 

So Jesus died to erase the sins of all mankind...but only erased the sins of SOME of us and only for a little while, ahh, I see how your bullshit doctrine makes sense now.

If you truely believe you need to be saintlike to get into heaven, then Jesus better come down and die again just for you right now...because the hatred and intolerance you've been preaching since you've started this thread is a sin in itself. 

So what is it? Does Jesus need to die to forgive your sins, or can you absolve yourself? Why did he need to die the first time?

I know you cant answer already, just read all those pages and wanted to take a swipe at the dunce too 

EDIT: Much respect for the people who have religious beliefs they dont try force down others throats with threats of hell and other equal measures of punishment, believe what you want, but at least think about it rationally and dont just be a mong.

And ffs, if you do follow a religion, dont completly miss the point of their every teaching like good old Marly47 seems to... peace!


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Aug 22, 2011)

More so, if you do believe in a religion, please don't allow your convictions to brainwash you into believing that what you believe in is worth dying for. I am sorry, no god or religion is worth dying for nor is it worth killing for  Cheers! Now go get your proverbs on!!


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

hey marlboro this is for you 
Our modern technology has proved the Bible wrong. That means that if there is a God, he didn't write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can't be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can't be the word of God.

The difference between evolution and Creationism is that evolution is real and Creationism is not real. Creationism is based on the Bible that says that God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Clearly the world was not created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago, so therefore the Bible is just plain wrong. If the world were merely 10,000 years old then how do you explain the dinosaurs that are millions of years old? We've discovered life fossils that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve.

If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star was further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding


----------



## VanishingToaster (Aug 22, 2011)

sso said:


> well, this is a thread specifically created to debate this


very little debating actually going on tho.


----------



## loophole68 (Aug 22, 2011)

Chill Chill guys,
the plant itlself is more than enough to prove God exists, just sit close and see how everythings is stored inside a wee seed.
Think people, not that hard to think is it?? 
Just whats in my mind, 


off to light a


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> . I guess ill just let this thread die.



now thats the best part of youre entire thread.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

So then this thread has turned into a thread where most atheist keep calling god a liar and calling religious people crazy and religious people keep thinking atheist are very ignorant. So this thread just has a bunch of negativity, who votes it gets deleted?
I do.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

i under stand your getting nervious there hep
science is science and as years go on and were understanding or i mean getting to the real truth about evolution more n more people will realize that is there really a god


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

would you like somemore evidence heres your god 
that created life 

NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.

"People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space." Callahan is lead author of a paper on the discovery appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.


*NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life. (Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center)
&#8250; Download this and related videos from NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio *
The discovery adds to a growing body of evidence that the chemistry inside asteroids and comets is capable of making building blocks of essential biological molecules. For example, previously, these scientists at the Goddard Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory have found amino acids in samples of comet Wild 2 from NASA&#8217;s Stardust mission, and in various carbon-rich meteorites. Amino acids are used to make proteins, the workhorse molecules of life, used in everything from structures like hair to enzymes, the catalysts that speed up or regulate chemical reactions.

In the new work, the Goddard team ground up samples of twelve carbon-rich meteorites, nine of which were recovered from Antarctica. They extracted each sample with a solution of formic acid and ran them through a liquid chromatograph, an instrument that separates a mixture of compounds. They further analyzed the samples with a mass spectrometer, which helps determine the chemical structure of compounds.

* Meteorites contain a large variety of nucleobases, an essential building block of DNA. (Artist concept credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Chris Smith)
&#8250; Larger image (JPG)
&#8250; Larger image (TIF) *

The team found adenine and guanine, which are components of DNA called nucleobases, as well as hypoxanthine and xanthine. DNA resembles a spiral ladder; adenine and guanine connect with two other nucleobases to form the rungs of the ladder. They are part of the code that tells the cellular machinery which proteins to make. Hypoxanthine and xanthine are not found in DNA, but are used in other biological processes.

Also, in two of the meteorites, the team discovered for the first time trace amounts of three molecules related to nucleobases: purine, 2,6-diaminopurine, and 6,8-diaminopurine; the latter two almost never used in biology. These compounds have the same core molecule as nucleobases but with a structure added or removed.

It's these nucleobase-related molecules, called nucleobase analogs, which provide the first piece of evidence that the compounds in the meteorites came from space and not terrestrial contamination. "You would not expect to see these nucleobase analogs if contamination from terrestrial life was the source, because they're not used in biology, aside from one report of 2,6-diaminopurine occurring in a virus (cyanophage S-2L)," said Callahan. "However, if asteroids are behaving like chemical 'factories' cranking out prebiotic material, you would expect them to produce many variants of nucleobases, not just the biological ones, due to the wide variety of ingredients and conditions in each asteroid."

The second piece of evidence involved research to further rule out the possibility of terrestrial contamination as a source of these molecules. The team also analyzed an eight-kilogram (17.64-pound) sample of ice from Antarctica, where most of the meteorites in the study were found, with the same methods used on the meteorites. The amounts of the two nucleobases, plus hypoxanthine and xanthine, found in the ice were much lower -- parts per trillion -- than in the meteorites, where they were generally present at several parts per billion. More significantly, none of the nucleobase analogs were detected in the ice sample. One of the meteorites with nucleobase analog molecules fell in Australia, and the team also analyzed a soil sample collected near the fall site. As with the ice sample, the soil sample had none of the nucleobase analog molecules present in the meteorite.

Thirdly, the team found these nucleobases -- both the biological and non-biological ones -- were produced in a completely non-biological reaction. "In the lab, an identical suite of nucleobases and nucleobase analogs were generated in non-biological chemical reactions containing hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and water. This provides a plausible mechanism for their synthesis in the asteroid parent bodies, and supports the notion that they are extraterrestrial," says Callahan.

"In fact, there seems to be a 'goldilocks' class of meteorite, the so-called CM2 meteorites, where conditions are just right to make more of these molecules," adds Callahan.

The team includes Callahan and Drs. Jennifer C. Stern, Daniel P. Glavin, and Jason P. Dworkin of NASA Goddard's Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory; Ms. Karen E. Smith and Dr. Christopher H. House of Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.; Dr. H. James Cleaves II of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC; and Dr. Josef Ruzicka of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Somerset, N.J. The research was funded by the NASA Astrobiology Institute, the Goddard Center for Astrobiology, the NASA Astrobiology: Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology Program, and the NASA Postdoctoral Program.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> i under stand your getting nervious there hep
> science is science and as years go on and were understanding or i mean getting to the real truth about evolution more n more people will realize that is there really a god


 If were gonna quote each other I just want to say now no hard feelings ok dude we just have different beliefs that's it.

Now then do you think I'm rely gonna get nervous over some thread or science proving anything? The fact is that science can never disprove the possibility of a god. And why would I get nervous even if they prove to me there isn't a god I would be standing in the same position as you. I believe that I'm not even going to heaven (I'm too much trouble) so I'm planning on going to a grave and he's going to end my existence. Which means wether I believe in him or not I still believe my existence will be ended.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> would you like somemore evidence heres your god
> that created life
> 
> NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.
> ...


Not to sound like a crazy nutjob but that still doesn't prove god isn't real. Besides it's just another theory to say that DNA was created in space.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

All of the evidence for Jesus the alleged founder of the Christian Church can be invalidated. At best there is no evidence, at worst the evidence indicates that Jesus never existed. From my other books which you can access through the homepage you will see that the Jesus story was unknown in the early Church, you will see that the Jesus who the apostles knew was just a post resurrection apparition and you will see New Testament traditions that Jesus didnt live in the first century but in times long forgotten.

*Introduction* 

Jesus Christ did not exist. If he did there is no acceptable evidence for it. And if there is acceptable evidence then it is too flimsy to justify taking Jesus seriously as a god or wizard. To the world, I offer Was There a Jesus? The truth can be known and should be. Unfortunately, defending the existence of Jesus and accepting him as a man and not a myth is where the money is and where the power lies. That is the real secret of the strength of the popular belief that he was a real person. Moses was invented and was similar to Jesus and had more supporters so why couldnt Jesus have been invented as well? Hopefully when the philosophy contained in my The Gospel According to Atheism grows popular Jesus will be as little known as Henry James Prince, the nineteenth century Messiah in England.

The sources we have are the gospels and the rest of the New Testament writings which are regarded as scriptures or Gods word by the Christians. We have a few short writings from the first post-apostolic generation and a few quotes from secular writings. We will test them all to see if they really assist the case for belief in Jesus as a historical Jesus. Thankfully the body of writings is a small one which makes the task not too difficult. We will see that if Jesus did not exist then it was a case of definitely not existing or a case of having no evidence one way or the other which would mean we dont know if he existed or not. Either is fatal to the Christian faith. 

Top of the Document

A CATHOLIC BOOKLET


A Catholic Truth Society booklet called, _Did Jesus Exist?_ gives many dubious arguments insisting that he did exist.

It insists that the gospels were written in the first century (4) against the evidence and ignores the possibility that they were confidential if they did exist that early. It says that Mark must be genuine for if it were not it would be ascribed to Peter (5) as if the authority that first made the ascription would necessarily have thought of Peter! There is no evidence for the Marcan ascription before late in the second century. 

Who was believed to have written it has nothing to do with its being authentic. What if everybody knew that Peter was against books and we dont know? The forger would have decided then to pretend to be Peters associate. Pages 8 and 9 respond to Wells (author of _Did Jesus Exist?_ a book that says he did not) who wrote that if we believe in Lenin and no or hardly any evidence for him exists and nobody mentioned him we would have a strong argument from silence that he never existed. They tell us that this would show that Jesus did exist for we do have documents about him and nobody could invent a non-existent revolutionary who was spearheading the 1917 Revolution in Russia and get away with it. You can get away with it under certain circumstances and if you create a need to believe in the person. 

Jewish tradition is held to back up the existence of Jesus on page 12 but this Jesus might not have been our Jesus but just somebody who he was based on. A fictitious character can be based on a real one and the character is still fictitious even if both characters bear the same name. If the Christians invented Jesus those who were embarrassed by this might have lied saying: Oh Jesus was that guy that was hanged on the Eve of the Passover some decades ago. That was him you know. 

A forged letter of St Pauls, 1 Thessalonians 2:15 calls the Jews the people who put Jesus to death. Wells has expunged it as an insertion and is criticised for that (page 15). The statement of the booklet that he has no right to do that is slander. The passage accuses the Jews of killing Jesus and the prophets and of being foes to the whole world. This is simply anti-Semitic hysteria and incitement to hatred  the author might have lied to provoke hatred against the Jews. The next line says that the Jews sought to stop the apostles speaking to the Gentiles to convert them which is impossible to believe and it gloats that Gods wrath has visited them. Judaism was a racist religion and didnt care what the Gentiles believed. Perhaps the text was revised by a rabid hate-monger for later it preaches love to enemies (5:15). There is no doubt that we cannot trust what the letter says about the Jews killing Jesus.

Now, the letter also says that the Jews killed the prophets. The Jews were accused of killing prophets by Jesus before he founded the Church. Jews in the context can mean the whole Jewish race past and present. That means the letter does not contradict the view that the Jews killed Jesus centuries before. 

Jesus accused the Jews of killing the prophets meaning the Jews as a whole taking the Jews who had killed them in the past long before his generation into consideration. Maybe the Jews are being said to have killed Jesus in the same sense here. The mention of the prophets would indicate that for the prophets mean the writers of the Old Testament and the author would have been specific if his own brand of prophets had been meant. 

Think again. Jesus is mentioned first and the prophets after, implying that Jesus might have died before these prophets. And why would the letter writer abuse the Jews here when it would have been enough and better to say it was an evil few? There were Jews in Thessalonica and he would have desired to convert them and not alienate them. The writer abused the Jews because they killed Jesus ages before and not in the first century for if Pilate had killed him he could have said so. It had to be ages for only centuries before could there have been a possibility that all the Jews had killed Jesus. He must have meant that the Jews killed him directly for we have no evidence that he could have meant indirectly through Pilate. Jesus might have been stoned and then crucified as a display by Jewish dissidents who did not mind that crucifixion was considered an unlawful method of execution for Jews for the writer never said that Jesus died on the cross. Or perhaps they nailed Jesus up as some kind of display knowing he was about to die anyway. It is important to realise that though the writer says only once that Jesus died on the cross (Philippians 2: and he says he bears the crucifixion marks of Jesus on his own body he does not say that Jesus was nailed to the cross. If Jesus was tied there would still have been marks. Perhaps he was tied to the cross and stoned and these are the marks Paul means for Paul was certainly stoned a few times. These interpretations are probably right and they totally demolish the gospel account of the death of Jesus. 

The Jews did not kill Jesus personally if he was crucified unless the Thessalonians author is supporting the Jewish Talmud which says that Jesus was hanged up for stoning on the Eve of the Passover. 

The wrath the letter says was visited upon the Jews is probably the disaster of 70 AD which means the letter is a forgery for Paul was dead then. There is no other disaster that could have affected all the Jews at the time and the letter has it in for them all. So even if the letter did say Jesus was slain by Jews in recent times it would still not count as evidence for Jesus for it came from a liars quill.

Page 16 says that Paul said that a wife must stay with her husband and this is not from Paul but the Lord (1 Cor. 7) and this may be from oral tradition so Jesus must have existed. It says that this is the most simple and straightforward interpretation. That is a lie for Paul never hinted that he used it though he did expect others to use the verified tradition he started himself. Paul had a lot of visions so that is where it came from. The vision is the simplest explanation considering he had lots of them. He never asked the people to hold fast to the traditions about Jesus or even mentioned them but he did ask them to hold fast to the apostolic tradition embodied in himself.

The author of the booklet would have said if it had occurred to him that Wells was wrong to say that the persons who fleshed out Jesus the myth plotted him in the time of Pilate for that was a time of great suffering. He would say it would be silly to pick Pilate and then exonerate him and not to put Jesus in the time of Herod the Great which saw worse suffering. But the gospellers had to pick a time in which there was not so much excessive suffering but excessive crucifixions. And why not pick Pilate and then make excuses for what he did to please Roman readers? Also, the prophecy of Daniel concerning the seventy weeks seemed to the Church to have required that the Messiah die about the time of Pilate. 

The author would be glad to know that Wells has come to believe not that Jesus existed but that he was based on some first century people on account of the Book of Q. Q is the alleged forerunner of Marks gospel which was allegedly used to help create the gospel and the other synoptic ones too. Q might only prove that there was some character that the Jesus character was modelled on but since it is so based on teaching that may be an overstatement. No two scholars agree on exactly what material in Mark constituted Q. A growing number hold that Q exists only in the imagination of the scholars for Mark could have invented and plagiarised from Pharisee teachers all the things he says Jesus said in his gospel without using any specific sources  people inventing stuff tend to subconsciously reproduce what they have heard or seen and that is all they need. The book of Q can be explained without a historical Jesus and it never says the son of God will be crucified on earth or gives any concrete statement that he was a real person and every single thing Mark, the first gospel, says happened during the execution of Jesus can be traced back to an Old Testament verse and anything that isnt is just an elaboration of what was found in the Old Testament suggesting that the whole story was made up from the Jewish Bible (_The Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth_, http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/partthre.htm). Christians complain that literary dependence of the gospellers on Q needs proof and then they say then that the commonality between the synoptics can be explained by there having been a historical Jesus! (_What About the Discovery of Q? _by Brad Bromling D.Min). The similarity suggests the contrary, that there was no Jesus and myths and legends or lies had to be used to make up his story because there is too much similarity. Eyewitness reports would have been very difficult to make tally especially in the wording of what Jesus said. The Christians will grasp at any straw no matter how silly it is to get people to agree with them.

Top of the Document

FOUNDATIONAL ERRORS IMPLY THERE WAS NO JESUS

There are four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They purport to inform us about the life of Jesus Christ. Have we any evidence that these men were more interested in what they wanted us to believe than in what the evidence said?

If the idols and alleged mentors of the four evangelists, the apostles were deranged with credulity or incapable of religious honesty then so were they.

A foundational error is an indication in the story that undermines a large part of the story. If the foundation is faulty the whole structure built on it falls as well. For example, if we find a clue in the gospels that the trial of Jesus never happened that is a foundational error and means that a large part of the gospels is make-believe. If we find a clue that the apostles did not go about with Jesus that means that the gospels are entirely false for the gospels supposedly comprise their testimony. 

We find foundational errors for everything in the gospels.

One indication of the value of foundational errors is to be seen in the following example. We read in the gospels that Jesus condemned divorce. Now what is supposed to have started Jesus saying divorce was always adultery and wrong was the Pharisees coming up to test him asking, Does the law allow a man to divorce his wife? That makes it very very likely that if they did not do this and that somebody made up the diatribe against divorce. If the thing that started Jesus off never happened and this can be shown then we can safely dismiss the rest of the story as fiction. The start is the foundation of the story and no story that lies on a bad foundation should be accepted. We might be wrong yes but if we keep the rule about foundational errors rejecting the whole account is all we can do. It keeps things simple and we must always go after the simplest suggestion which is to reject the whole story when a foundational error is the rock the story is built on.

Some will object that maybe the account of what Jesus said was true but the gospel erred in assuming that the Pharisees started the discussion off. That is possible. It might be right. But we cannot accept it. The rules of evidence require that we focus on what the records say and leave speculation out. What is written and what is seen matters more than what we think. We have no evidence that the objectors are right. So it is undeniable, if the gospel says the Pharisees started the ball rolling and is wrong then we have to hold that the discourse Jesus made against divorce was never uttered. 

Incidentally, the Pharisees would not have come up to Jesus and asked him that for they knew that he knew the law well enough to know that it did allow divorce and they knew he claimed he did not contradict the law and was careful with his words. The gospel says they were trying to test him to see if he would reiterate the teaching of the law which is simply not plausible.

If the gospels commit foundational errors then their idol may have not existed. As a rule, the more foundational errors we find the less likely it is that their Jesus was a historical entity. We will see that hardly anything in the gospels is free from such error. The gospels are fairy-tales. Their realistic look is a fabrication, an illusion. Jesus did not exist. 

The Gospels say that the Jews and the Romans were desperate to kill Jesus but then say that they let him go about. 

This is a foundational error for they wouldnt have tolerated him five minutes never mind three years. If they are wrong about Jesus freedom then everything they say about him is untrue. He could not have worked and preached if he would have been dragged away to the dungeon the moment he opened his mouth.

Another foundational error is the assertion that the Jews had to scheme to arrest and dispose of Jesus quietly for there would be a revolt while it is also said that the public knew what happened to him. If Jesus was destroyed quietly then the story of the passion is fictitious for nobody would have known what happened and he would have been taken without the apostles being about.

The gospels say that Jesus was popular with the people and it was hoped and suspected by most that he would be the Christ, an illegal claim that guaranteed the death penalty from the ruthless Roman rulers. If he had been he would have been crucified a lot lot sooner 

Another foundational error is that Jesus was allowed into Jerusalem on a donkey acting like a messianic king. John says the apostles never realised that this fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy until after Jesus had risen (12:16). But they would have found out from the crowd many of whom would have known what Jesus was trying to get across by his behaviour. The apostles had to have known that the Messiah was to do what Jesus did for there was tremendous stress on the Messiah in those days. The gospel is just trying to rationalise why the entry into Jerusalem was not mentioned at the start. The real reason was that it never happened.

Another foundational error is the claim of the gospels that the apostles were the foundation of faith in Jesus and his witnesses even though they had abandoned him. It would take a lot of credulity to forsake a miracle-working prophet who knew the future and who could raise the dead like the gospels say. They were not reliable so how could they be the foundation? The Church believes the apostles when they allegedly accepted the testimony of the women and their friends when they said they saw the risen Jesus  we have no evidence but a gospel assertion that they did say that  but it does not believe the apostles were right the time they did not believe these people (Mark 16:14).

Matthew 15:29-39 has Jesus going up a hill to avoid the crowds presumably. But anyway they find him indicating that far from being the Son of God he was below average intelligence and so dense that he could not make away though he knew they were coming. They brought their sick a long way and up the hill over him. This story cannot be true for if Jesus had been a healer he would not have caused them all this bother. Christians say he probably came down the hill to save the sick from the burden of being carried up but the story does not say that and in fact says he sat down up the hill when the crowds came along. Jesus worrying about what others would think if he did not pay the tax (Matthew 17:27) is too unbelievable to be true. He was the last person that could be accused of being like that.

Another foundational error is the fact that the Gospels claim to have been constructed out of a huge body of data about Jesus. But where is this data? Nobody has tried to preserve it which is extraordinary considering that the Church was persecuted and needed to write down all it could. Why did Paul not care? Was it because there was no data? It had to be. The Gnostics alone cared about the traditions that were not in the gospels but the Church scorned them as heretical humbug. And it was certainly right to do so for the traditions were often nonsensical. But when the Gnostics were able to keep traditions however bad they were why could the orthodox not have done the same? The whole thing suggests that the gospels were made up.

Another foundational error is the assertion that the Jews and Romans were obsessed with destroying Jesus work and let the apostles preach in public and let his brothers by blood live though they carried royal blood in their veins. 

The gospel story that false witnesses spoke against Jesus at his trial (eg. Mark 14) shows that the gospellers were untrustworthy when it came to giving little mundane details meaning that they cannot be relied upon in more serious matters. There were no false witnesses for none were needed, Jesus had committed the sacrilege of claiming to be the man closest to God while preaching what was considered to be heresy. The High Priest tore his robes when Jesus made the claim before him though Jesus had made it before. The purpose of the trial was to set Jesus up and if the false witnesses did not exist the trial didnt happen so there was no trial and no crucifixion for the trial prepared the way for the cross. Get it? No crucifixion, no Jesus.

Johns author mentioned that he wrote the gospel so that we might believe. If he expects us to believe on the strength of his word alone then his standards for what is to be considered credible is low, much too low. He made his Jesus say that he did not accept human testimony such as the Baptists. This is a hint that his book was tongue-in-cheek for it was just a human testimony. It shares a very small number of things with the other gospels so it is saying that they are religious novels too.

The _Final Response_ page on the Internet by Steven Carr shows how much of the life of Jesus was stolen from the Old Testament. The Christians regarded the Old Testament as a prophecy of Jesus and so they felt justified in doing things like making out that when Elisha multiplied food to feed a crowd that Jesus must have done the same though they never heard of it. We also see that it is odd that Jairus, the man whose daughter Jesus raised from the dead, has a name meaning he awakens. This suggests that somebody made up the story first and the name of the man later because the story was about a resurrection.

The gospel books claimed to be for backing up the faith and yet one gospel has one woman seeing the risen Jesus and another one has more. You need to mention all the witnesses you can if you want to be credible.

Had the synoptic gospellers been interested in verification they would not have used the same stories so much. Many of the accounts are nearly word for word identical. They would have found different ones if they did any investigating. If they wanted to say that the other stories were true all they had to do was to outline them and say so. You never tell what is already reputed or known about an important person unless there is nothing else to tell or to add which would mean that the person is a myth.

The gospels claim they are for instructing the world. Therefore, they thought that Jesus errors were not errors. And his errors are as prominent as sore thumbs. For example, he said that when God said that he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob it proved that there is a resurrection! They closed their minds to believe lies. The lies must have been made up pretty late and were not doing the rounds as tradition first for they would have been corrected and improved. They are further evidence for Jesus possibly being non-historical. We have no reason to believe that he was a real man when liars wrote his gospels for him.

We know that Mark was inventing his gospel for he never said there were guards watching the tomb of Jesus which Christians would have had to say even if it were not true for their resurrection story had no credibility without that claim. Matthew was the inventor of the guards story. What else did he invent?


The resurrection narratives are completely lacking even in basic routine scientific verification. For example, no effort was said to have been made to ensure that it was really Jesus who died on the cross  we are not told if anybody who knew Jesus had a good view of his face which was disfigured anyway. We read of a testimony that Jesus was pierced in the side on the cross but no proof is given that in his highly strung state at the cross that the alleged witness only thought he saw that. Maybe Jesus was just hit with a bloody lance and it looked like he was wounded in the side. Jesus would have been sweaty so that explains the blood and the water the witness saw.

The lack of verification indicates that the stories were made up by the gospellers for if something had really happened all objections would have been carefully refuted and they would have invented stories to remove all doubts. There is no evidence that the very early Church let the public read the gospels and plenty of indications that they did not. Another problem is the fact that Luke and Matthew report different things regarding the birth of Jesus and thereabouts. All four gospels differ on the events surrounding the resurrection. Yet they and Jesus believed that before anything could be accepted as reliable there had to be at least two level-headed and honest witnesses as the God of the Law of Moses commanded. The gospels then defied the law and showed themselves to be capable of religious fraud. Luke reported that Jesus once said that having the Law of Moses and the Prophets was more important than listening to anybody who managed to return from the dead which shows that those gospel-mongers who stressed the importance of Jesus himself were frauds. The supposedly most reliable account of Jesus life is his passion and crucifixion. But these stories are full of things that should have been said to silence critics but which were not showing that the stories were invented. Stories should get more convincing as critics are responded to.

The authors of the gospels were perfectly capable of believing or claiming that Jesus existed, worked miracles or rose, against the facts.

When all the big things in the Jesus story are fiction it follows that the lesser stories cannot be trusted at all either. 

The gospels give us no reason to believe in the existence of Jesus. Even if they did we could safely ignore them for we have proof that even the apostles taught that they never knew of a man called Jesus when he was alive before his crucifixion.

Top of the Document

THE BAPTISTS SILENT TESTIMONY

The Bible and the Church honour John the Baptist and have made him a saint. They say he was the forerunner or precursor of Christ and the greatest prophet of all who was to put everything right (Mark 9:12). Isaiah was interpreted as saying that John would fill in valleys and flatten mountains. It seems that Johns arrival would have a devastating physical effect on the sinful world and prepare it for Jesus. Jesus said John was Elijah, one of the greatest prophets, who the Old Testament said would return to prepare the world for judgement.

All that makes John the chief witness to the non-existence of Jesus for he did not believe that Jesus lived and was granted such a high rank in the evidence scale.

John was a bizarre supreme prophet and precursor if all he did was to give Jesus a dip in the Jordan and speak a few sentences to recommend him to the people. He did too little. The gospels say he could not do miracles. The Old Testament says that Elijah was able to manage them so how could John have been the new Elijah. All that makes one suspect that John never testified to Jesus at all. He knew nothing about him or despised him. But if John hated Jesus the Gospellers would not have mentioned and praised John too much for that might draw attention to John and his revealing statements. But they were hoping to present John as an apostle of Jesus who dwelt relatively in the quiet if anybody said that John never knew Jesus. So John never heard of Jesus. 

The writings of the first century Jewish historian, Josephus never linked John with Jesus which he would have done for he was such a good and thorough historian and which he would have done had there been a Jesus. Josephus was unlikely to mention Johns works and not mention his chief role if he was really a precursor. Somebody then put in a bit about Josephus saying that Jesus was a wise miracle-working man and perhaps not a man at all who was crucified by Pilate to please the Jews and who was reported alive after he was executed and that he was the Messiah which was an obvious forgery for an anti-Messiah like Josephus. The whole thing about Jesus could be a forgery which is why we cannot rely on Josephus as evidence for the existence of Jesus.

The gospels report that John approved of Jesus. John might have done so if the gospels were true for he may not have had any reason to frown upon Jesus at the early stage of the ministry. So if John would have approved then John hinted that there was no Jesus by not becoming his disciple and by staying out of Jesus entourage.

The Gospellers felt that Jesus could not stand on his own two feet and felt they needed a new prophet who was loved by the Jews to testify to Jesus to deal with the vacuum. They sensed that the apostles had no credibility and that the Old Testament prophecies were not enough. They felt that God would send a new prophet to say when the man who would fulfil them would come. So they invented Jesus association with John the Baptist and Luke even transmuted him into Jesus cousin. This would probably have been done when few people remembered John so that they could pull it off which suggests a late date for the writing or the publication of the gospels. 

The Baptist was totally well known and very popular (Matthew 3:5). Jesus was not as popular and John was not interested in propagating faith in Jesus. He would have been as popular as John and probably more had John ministered just to pave the way for him. 

So, when the gospels tell us John did not know that Jesus did miracles to show he was the promised Messiah, it shows John did not believe in his miracles and had little interest in what Jesus was doing meaning he was not his forerunner. John then would have disagreed with the gospel miracle accounts and the account of the baptism of Jesus. 

John sent his men to ask Jesus if he was the Messiah after having told Jesus and prophesied that Jesus was the Messiah at his baptism. The gospels say that. There can be no question about it, John did not believe Jesus was the Messiah at all. The gospels lie. Johns question is tantamount to a denial that Jesus was a real miracle worker, a real prophet and a good man. A prophet of God would know what Jesus was and wouldnt need to ask. John then was contradicting most of what the gospels say. He was denying their Jesus existed.

So, when the people thought Jesus was the risen John it shows that the gospels are lying when they said that Jesus was as much a superstar as John before John died. The gospels are more likely to be truthful about John for he was not their idol than about Jesus. If Jesus did not exist before John died then he probably did not exist after it either!

Josephus said that John baptised to purify the body when the soul had already repented. His baptism was not an expression of repentance leading to forgiveness like the gospels say. Also, John, according to Josephus, taught that they must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behaviour (page 37, _He Walked Among Us_). This challenges Jesus and Pauls negative attitude to human ability to do good. They thought nobody could stay out of sin. And it is hard to believe that John who was chiefly a baptiser could be a precursor for a religion and a man like Jesus? It shows the gospels are lying when they say that the Jews didnt know what to say when Jesus asked them if Johns baptism was divine or human? It was just a religious symbolic rite so they could have said what they liked.

Josephus recorded that Herod had John thrown in Machaerus and then murdered in case he would lead a revolution for he had so many disciples  which shows that Jesus could not have gotten away with having a big fan-club either. A precursor prepares the people for somebodys coming so Jesus would have got all Johns following and more if John was his precursor. This contradicts the gospels which say Herod killed John to please the daughter of Herodias because he promised her whatever she wanted in front of the guests and could not go back on it. It is hard to believe that John would have been killed if he were considered to be so dangerous for exile would have been a better and safer solution. Why was he not arrested and killed or incarcerated before he got so many disciples? Probably John was able to escape too well so they couldnt get him and when they got him they thought it was best to kill him.

The gospels account makes no sense whatsoever. They contradict each other for if John was so popular, Herod would not have killed him just to keep a promise especially when we are told he was terrified of harming John in case he would get bad luck. Herod told the girl she could have half of his kingdom which is more embarrassing than breaking a promise to kill. He was not shamed at the thought of breaking it. And it is impossible to believe that the girl would not have taken the half of the kingdom and Machaerus and had John disposed of herself! Why go to all that trouble and reject so much over a man in jail who couldnt do Herodias any harm any more? Herod would have been drunk when he promised half of his kingdom and so could have got her executed instead of John despite Herodias. Or he could have excused his oath on the grounds that he was intoxicated so he had no need to keep it even to save face for everybody could see he was drunk anyway and he had already embarrassed himself. Or he could have blackmailed the girl to say the oath was just made in jest.

_He Walked Among Us_ page 38 surmises that Herod wanted to kill John but only got the guts to do it when the girl manipulated him and removed his softness which does not conflict with Josephus who only says John was incarcerated and executed to avoid insurrection. This is worthless speculation and how could John be put to death for that when he could do no harm in Machaerus? It was an invincible stronghold and if Herod feared a rescue attempt he would have been discreet about where John was. Therefore, Josephus is saying that John was not imprisoned in Machaerus but was taken there for execution. Josephus never said that John was imprisoned there. The gospels lied about Johns imprisonment.

What Josephus wrote is more probably true than what we read in the gospels. If John really testified to and worked for Jesus then we would be reading that Jesus was the next to be dispatched to Machaerus for without John, Johns disciples would turn to him. But Josephus mentions Johns execution and his editor says at this time Jesus appeared. Jesus did not appear until after John had died which contradicts the gospels but may explain why many thought that Jesus was John back to life. Christians say at this time means Johns time in general and not the time of his execution. That is improbable. The forger of the data about Jesus in Josephus would not have written at this time if he meant the time John died for it would have been better to mean the latter. The forger said that the gospel version of Jesus never existed at least until John was out of the way. 

When the gospellers tell such lies about John what else were they lying about? They made up the miracles surrounding the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and said that John knew Jesus then as in knew who he was, the Christ and the Son of God. The Gospels say that what Jesus did and said before John died and it is all lies because Jesus was not known before that time. Do you see the implications of this, Mark 1-8, nearly half of the oldest gospel is untrue. Matthew 1-13 is lies for in chapter 14 the people start thinking that Jesus is the late Baptist resurrected. And there are only twenty-eight chapters in Matthew. Need I go on? There are too many lies for Jesus to have existed.

When people who knew the Baptist well were saying that Jesus was John back from the dead and that was why he had miraculous powers (Mark 6:14) that shows how incredibly gullible the gospellers knew they were especially when John never did any miracles. So he was credited with miracle powers after his death. And the gospellers depended on these to get their data if the traditional view that they acted like historians has any truth in it at all. 

John the Baptist virtually shouts at us that he never heard of a Jesus and that nobody did. 

Top of the Document

THE OBSCURE CHRIST

The gospels go on as if Jesus was as well known and as popular as tea bags are today (Matthew 4:23-25; Matthew 21; John 6:10; John 12:19). His parable of the mustard seed which he thought was the smallest seed in the world shows how little an impact he was claiming to be making and he said the seed would later grow to make a huge tree.

Jesus was a heretic according to the standards adhered to by the Jews and the Law enforced the murder of heretics (Deuteronomy 13, 1. The Jews Jesus moralised at were more than keen to comply (Luke 4:28-30; John 11:48; Acts 7:54-60). Jesus showed he thought himself to be Christ from his baptism (John 1) and the Bible says he never lied so he had to admit he was the Messiah if that is what he was. Moreover, false messiahs could drive Rome to destroy the nation (John 11:4. The Jews could not afford to let Jesus live. If there had been a Jesus he would have been assassinated by a lone assassin. That way the Jews would not have needed to resort to the scandal of getting Jesus crucified or getting the blame.

Rome could not let Jesus live or go about freely even if he were only a spiritual king for that could be a cover for subversive activity for once he had the crowd under his spell he could display another side to his character and start off a rebellion. Since 6 AD there had been so much turbulence that there was no way the Romans could have been expected to even think about tolerating Jesus and all the prefects in Palestine and especially Pilate were well known for their appalling barbarity and extreme intolerance (page 368, _The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief_). And a spiritual king can be more dangerous than a political king for the former claims to be inspired by God. Also the Romans had abolished the Jewish monarchy and to claim to be the Messiah was to claim the Israelite throne (_The Myth-Maker_, page 37, 1986 Edition, Wiedenfield and Nicholson, London). That of course makes claiming to be the Messiah ten times worse. Why did he not drop or change the title and call himself King of Hearts or something? He couldnt because he was not that kind of a king but a political Messiah. The Gospels are lying about Jesus being free. This is proof that nearly everything about Jesus in the gospels had to have been made up. Jesus popularity shows that he gave no teaching that left the people spellbound and did no miracles. This again eliminates nearly everything written about him. A man who has so much legend about him is not likely to have ever existed.

Jesus said that he had nowhere to lay his head meaning that he had nowhere comfortable to have a sleep (Luke 9). That shows how unpopular he was and that nobody gave a toss about him. He also said that a prophet has no honour among his own country and that he was no exception (John 4:44).

The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem to be welcomed by all its citizens is untrue for days later they were begging for his execution. And Jesus was never anointed as king so how could the people welcome him as king? They would not have hailed him as king for that would guarantee that Rome would destroy their idol and get them into trouble too for welcoming him to Jerusalem. And what about the real king, Herod? Jesus could not be king unless he vanquished him first.

In Luke, we read that King Herod was anxious to meet Jesus. If that is true then Jesus was not well known and hard to pin down. Whoever the king wants to see the king sees  but only if he or she exists. Pilate was as keen and never met him until the trial either. That must have been because there never was a Jesus for them to meet.

If Pilate wanted to save Jesus like the New Testament says then why didnt he get some witnesses to defend him? Jesus must have been reclusive or a myth when there were none. Why didnt the Sanhedrin find some pro-Jesus witnesses at least to keep up appearances and have them taken apart by their coached false witnesses?

John 16:3 and Acts 3:17 speak of the leaders not knowing Jesus by spiritual experience meaning who he is so it cannot be said that the gospels purposely contradict themselves on his popularity. The Bible uses know in the ordinary way and know in the sense that God inspires you to know who Jesus is.

The New Testament describes the apostles as very timid men and then it contradicts this by attributing the courage to risk their lives by being at Jesus heels all the time to them. The stories of Jesus and his entourage are make-believe.

If Jesus had been so popular then why did Mark, the first gospeller write so little about him? And why did he waste time and ink recording silly parables with morals in them that we all know anyway? Did his imagination go dull on him when he was inventing his saviour? It must have.

If the gospels lied so much about Jesus then he could just as easily have been invented. When you make up a God you have a better chance of promoting him by saying he was once well known. The lies mean nothing in the gospels should be taken as evidence for Jesus. When a person lies a lot it does not mean that all they say is a lie but that all that might not be a lie should be neither believed or disbelieved.

_He Walked Among Us_ (pages 29, 30) claims that there was not much attention paid to Jesus for in those days the secular press ignored miracle stories just like it does today. This is nonsense for the Jews were very religious and such stories would have been enthusiastically demanded as signs that God was going to remove the Romans from Palestine. They were gullible times. People dont have much interest in religion these days and still there is a high demand for miracle stories but stuff like healing and astrology do get a very prominent place in papers. Anything to do with mental or physical health will always be popular and is destined for the papers if there enough people interested in it. The book claims that the Romans ignored Jesus for he did not attract huge crowds and that gave them no concern. If he did miracles he had to attract them. The book is in conflict with the gospels here which brag about the crowd. The book says that anywhere the people wanted to make a king of Jesus he slipped away. That would have been enough to get him the attention of the Romans. The book will contradict the gospels before it would admit that Jesus miracles were shown to be fake by the lack of interest in them. 

The silence or near-silence of non-biblical writers about Jesus refutes his alleged flavour of the century status. Jesus if he existed was an obscure ordinary man.

Top of the Document

EVANGELICAL EVIDENCES

Is the Christian view that the gospels are justification for Christendoms beliefs about Christ and its assumption that he existed right?

The online book, _The New Testament is not Inspired_ proves that the gospels are unreliable. It exposes the gullibility of the people and the New Testament writers. It exposes their duplicity. My online book, _They Hid the Four Gospels_, proves that the gospels were hidden which would have boosted the Christian hoax if it were a hoax.

We now know that the Jewish Scriptures reached their final form a long time after Christians would make you believe they were written. The gospels present Jesus as teaching love your neighbour as yourself and treat others as you would like them to treat you as summaries of the Law and the Prophets despite the fact that these works are full of Gods hatred for unbelievers and his thirst for blood. This might suggest that a legend about a man having lived centuries before when the Law and Prophets were taking shape and were not so violent and nasty and was worked into the gospels.

The Romans did not tolerate anybody who was suspected of being the Messiah like Jesus was full stop, therefore the story of the ministry was entirely made up. It is no use pointing out things that are allegedly marks of authenticity because they match other records or because they seem to have been too shameful to have been invented for an invented history of your grandfather would have the same elements even if it was unintended. 

Jesus told lies and made no prophecies of the future that were provably made before the event and the gospels still said he was a true reliable prophet of God. The Jews were falsely accused by Jesus of blasphemy for saying that Satan could be doing exorcisms though Jesus for a mysterious evil purpose. It was false for it was possible.

Nine-tenths of Jesus life is omitted from the gospels. Perhaps Jesus did nothing interesting up to his ministry or never talked about it? But he must have ministered to people before his big ministry. So, that is not it. The gospels tend to be quite potty in the information they have selected so is that why they tell us so little? Yes to a large extent though it seems potty books would give some details of his pre-ministry life if it were potty to do so but then when it is potty you never know. We can think that the gospellers always reasoned that it was best to say little about Jesus for he never existed and the less lies told the less chance you have of being caught out. Christians object that they would have described loads of private miracles and portrayed Jesus as not being a public figure if they did but if that had already been done by some with some measure of success which is how inventing fake historical characters starts they would have been able to go a step further and be more daring. It is obvious that they used the reasoning to a large extent too from the material they chose.

It is most likely that the explanation for Jesus hidden life is that he never had a life at all. We are not told what Jesus qualifications were for his schooling and training are mysteries to us. We would be if Jesus was the supreme revelation from God. If there had been a Jesus we would be for it would not have been overlooked. 

It is argued that if Jesus were an invention he would have been given more impressive credentials. He would have been declared a priest of the line of Aaron, etc. etc. (page 142, _Jesus Hypotheses_). But most lies are believable anyway. But at the same time, what better or more lofty credentials could one have than to be declared Son of God and king of the Jews and priest and Messiah and supreme prophet allegedly by God himself? It is simply not true that the gospels were restrained in their opinion of Jesus.

It is argued that Nazareth, an unimportant place, is prominent in the gospel story inferring that Jesus must have existed for why single out this place and make it so important that it had to be the base for a Messiah? They will even say that Matthew invented (true) a prophecy to explain this anomaly (false). But obscure or non-existent prophets have to be plotted in out-of-the-way places. You wouldnt like to say that Jesus was based in Bethlehem or Jerusalem if he never lived. Matthew could have invented the prophecy for hundreds of reasons or perhaps he thought it was in the Bible though it was not. If Nazareth did not exist in those days and might have been an embryonic settlement of Nazarenes, consecrated secretive and loner men, then it was natural to plot Jesus there. There is something wrong when Jesus never visited the neighbouring town of Sepphoris when it was so close and so big and busy and the capital of Galilee. Perhaps there was a mysterious and religious Jesus there and the inventor of Christ just made it out that it was this man he meant though it was not if anybody contradicted his account. 

The evangelists might have been afraid to attribute big fancy miracles to Jesus  like turning all the flowers of the Mount of Olives into peacocks  because people would be asking them where his miracle powers are now. Jesus miracles may not have included making a new mountain rise out of the ground in a second but they are just as absurd as that in their own way. For example, would God magically wither a fig tree just because Jesus looked for figs on it and found none?

There are few statements in the New Testament which conflict with history or archaeology. When you want your book to be the best chance at becoming irrefutable you will keep it in harmony with history and geography. Even many novelists use real names and real geographical places in their works of fiction to make them more believable and to give the readers a better feel. 

The Gospellers were afraid of God. Since God works against lies and errors you have to make what you say as believable as possible and that is what they would have done. 

The John Gospel does not have a great structure or planning or selection of data for to be written by one who knew all about Jesus. Yet the very last verse in it says that the information was extremely plentiful. Then why is there so much in the passion narrative that is a duplicate of material in the other gospels? Why does Jesus tend to go on a bit and ramble and be boring, repetitious and vague? Why cannot he have better and more stories about Jesus than he does? The answer is that the Jesus stories were scarce and the gospel had to be padded out with silly or invented ones. And when a famous person has no story that many people can vouch for then that person is a myth. It is no use pointing to characters who are accepted as historical on the testimony of one writer or whatever. That does not prove that there was a Jesus. Believing in a mans reality is only as good as what evidence exists for or against it. A single witness is believable but not very believable if he or she testifies to somebody existing when the subject is a believable one. 

The Jews were prejudiced against the notion of God becoming man. Christians say that the gospel story that God did this must mean that it is true because Jesus witnesses were Jews. This is rubbish. Every religion has its heretics. Jesus fought to root out prejudice. The Old Testament never said that God would never become a man. Real Jews stick to what the scriptures say. And besides Jesus never claimed to be almighty God.

The absurd notion that it is easier to believe in a miracle resurrection than to believe that Jesus was accidentally buried alive and escaped from the tomb despite the stone and the soldiers is one of the many rationalisations for the veracity of the gospels that Christians come up with. So if your wallet disappears and you are sure that nobody that was in the house that day to your knowledge did it that means it is a miracle. It is easier to believe it was a miracle than that somebody got into the house without being seen. This is not rational thinking. It is brainwashed thinking. The natural explanation no matter how complicated should be considered true as long as it avoids belief in a miracle. Christians are exposed to conditioning.

Top of the Document

THE EMBARRASSMENT ARGUMENT

It is supposed that since the gospels say things about Jesus that were embarrassing for them that he must have existed. They could have left them out even if they were true so they would be mistakes and you can make mistakes whether or not it is a real person you are writing about. Hello, they had to be mistakes. They are an indicator of fallibility and that there couldnt have been much good to tell about Jesus when they had to settle for unflattering stuff  the supposedly embarrassing material makes us think there was no Jesus when stories about him were hard to come by. Then again, Hinduism has lots of shocking stories about its favourite god, Krishna, so there was a strong religious tradition for attributing evil or bizarre antics for gods though you wanted people to start devotion to them. The idea was that gods could do things people were not allowed to do and still be considered good. In a sick way, people like Gods they say are perfect but who still exhibit flaws. Its human nature. That is why Gods doing malicious things while claiming to be paragons of holiness got more popular not less. Good in the religious sense is boring. 

The embarrassment argument is totally worthless regarding attempts to prove the Jesus tale and indicates that it is questionable.

Perhaps the shaming bits and pieces about Jesus were not shaming to the early Church when it put them in the gospels. It didnt have to include them. People might not have realised that they should have been ashamed. The moral sense in those days was very dull. The Church had long enough to see that Jesus could have his popularity despite some of the unsavoury stories about him so it would have ceased to have even noticed that the stories were shocking and would not have desired to hide them. This is what has happened throughout most of Christian history. People have heard about the terrible things God and Jesus did and yet they did not register these actions as evil and distasteful. They would have felt uncomfortable but as they were desensitised by Church conditioning to overlook and applaud what they seen, rightly or wrongly, as evil in the scriptures they took little heed.


Jesus racist spitefulness towards the distraught Canaanite lady (Matthew 15), his saying that he came only to save Israel, his agony in the garden, his triumphant ride into Jerusalem which implies that he was claiming to be a political Messiah, his crucifixion, his having a sign above his head calling him the King of the Jews  allegedly implying the same - on the cross and his shouting that God had abandoned him on the cross and his tomb being left unguarded between the supposed resurrection and his appearances are listed as proof that he was a real person. The bizarre thing is that the reasoning that the embarrassing things are most probably true is usually promoted by people who scoff at Jesus miracles. What could be more embarrassing than saying a person did miracles if they did not do it? If you can make up miracles you can make up anything  end of story. We know on many grounds, for example, from the fact that it would be beneath Gods dignity to do miracles, that the wonders did not take place.

One major embarrassment was Jesus choosing an apostle, Judas, who betrayed him which led to Jesus death by crucifixion. But it could be that Judas never meant Jesus to die and was only after the money. The Gospels hint as much. Judas could have believed that God would take care of Jesus. And Jesus said that the apostles were to witness to him on earth and Judas did that in his own way. He did not see the risen Jesus but he made the resurrection happen and the gospels would have us believe that he knew Jesus could and would rise and that is enough for him to be the giver of evidence. 

John baptising sinners and Jesus getting baptised seems embarrassing but the Church would have said that it was done for some reason other than to be cleansed of sin. Perhaps Jesus was showing he was renouncing ordinary life and beginning a new career as a wandering prophet. The Church said he got baptised on our behalf to show he planned to atone for our sin though he was innocent.

The gospels themselves give accidental clues that Jesus never existed especially when they say embarrassing things about Jesus that scholars think they would not have made up. But they did make everything up. Here is one instance. To believe that Jesus was able to cause trouble in the temple and put animals out and stop people coming in means he had a huge army with him to help him for the temple was a very big area is too much. He would have been apprehended as soon as he threw over the first stall if not as soon as he walked in the gate. In fact he would not have got in for the Temple was protected against rioters who knew how to spot suspicious gatherings. 

If Jesus was violent in the Temple he would have been arrested there and then which means that the stories of the last supper and his later arrest and crucifixion and resurrection are untrue for he was in jail. 

It is held that the crucifixion must have really happened because there was no way the Church would have made it up for it was so shameful and nobody was likely to recognise a crucified criminal as the Son of God. People do unlikely things and we are told the crucifixion did nothing to stop converts running to the Church after the supposed resurrection. The Bible itself then rejects the argument.

The Church answered the critics by arguing that the Old Testament predicted that the crucifixion would befall the Son of God. So the Church had nothing to worry about - it was nothing that it couldnt handle. To admit that the Son of God died at all in any way would have been embarrassing but the Church solved that embarrassment by inventing the idea of Jesus having to undergo the shame of the cross for our sins. 

There was nothing to stop the Church from inventing the crucifixion simply because it wanted to teach that the blood of Jesus saves us from all sin. And perhaps the apostles were first told of the crucifixion of the saviour in visions and they didnt invent it. 

Anyway, any harm done by the shame would have been excelled by the advantage of making people feel that Jesus took on all that pain to atone for their sins. The embryonic Church promoted the crucifixion of Jesus without much evidence to help it demonstrate that it did not prove that he was a liar when he said he was the Son of God. When that happened the crucifixion yarn could not be seen as a major problem. 

What is embarrassing is how the gospels say that Jesus wanted to be crucified. He did not protect himself with his miracles or threaten those who would crucify him. He did not walk away when he had the chance before his arrest though he knew what was coming. He was deliberately provocative during his trial. He told Peter that he was a Satan when Peter said he hoped Jesus would not be crucified. A Jesus who deliberately courts death on a cross is a fatal blunder and Paul would have denied that Jesus did this. Paul stated that Jesus was a victim who was killed by demons which refutes the view that Jesus pulled his crucifixion on himself. 

I am perturbed by people who say the cross story proves that Jesus lived for they would not make that up for it was too shameful and these people have no problem believing the miracles were made up or that Jesus claim to be God or the Son of God was made up. It is embarrassing to have to make up things like that so why not the cross as well?

The bit about Joseph and Mary leaving the boy Jesus in Jerusalem by mistake is said to be true for it was too embarrassing on all three to have been made up (page 150, _Jesus Hypotheses_). But maybe the gospeller did not care how he made Jesus parents look but wanted to show that Jesus was too wise to listen to everything they said.

It is also said that if the birth of Jesus had been invented a secret birth in Bethlehem would have been created (page 164, _Jesus Hypotheses_). Such arguments are simplistic. Lots of fictitious stories say that many people had witnessed the events.

Jesus asked God why he forsook him on the cross. This was a quote from a psalm. A Jew who habitually prayed the blasphemous psalms might not have realised what he was saying when he asked God why he had forsaken him and could easily have made the mistake of putting this insult in the mouth of a non-existent Messiah. Catholics pray, Lead us not into temptation, which accuses God of wanting us to sin which is against the Bible and even say that Jesus made this prayer. 

All of the unpleasant tales can be reconciled with an interpretation satisfactory to the Christian though not often to the objective person who looks hard enough but they were not written for geniuses but simple people. The early Church might have written away and just prayed for guidance to solve the apparent problems of the New Testament. There would have been much confusion for they would not have got far in theological development and so the problems are unlikely to have bothered them. Cardinal Newman said that a thousand difficulties did not make one doubt and had his own problems with Catholic theology. The embarrassment argument is completely irrelevant. The blusher bits dont make it probable that the gospels have truth or a ring of truth. For example, in the story of the Canaanite woman Jesus might have told her that he meant no offence by saying that she was a dog before he said it. A Christian would argue this way but it is really changing the story.

The sign, The king of the Jews, that Pilate reportedly put over Jesus on the cross is continuously put forward as evidence that the gospels were being truthful at least with this for it is supposedly embarrassing. It implies Jesus was a political king while the Christians saw him as a spiritual king. But the truth is the Christians believe Jesus is a political king by right and will be in actuality when he returns to earth. The fact that the gospels like Pilate proves they are saying he erected the sign because he believed Jesus really was a king by right. They said Jesus claimed to be the anointed one or Christ which means political king so why should they have a problem with the sign? Why would they be embarrassed about the sign if say Pilate put it up in mockery or faith? 

The gospels present Jesus as a non-political king so they had nothing to be ashamed of in the King of the Jews title and entry into Jerusalem bit. They were writing for pillocks anyway. As for his brutality words the woman and others the Jews were used to having a nasty vindictive racist god. The embarrassing bits were not in the least embarrassing at all.

The embarrassment of the contraception ban in the Catholic Church does not mean that what the Catholic Church teaches about contraception is right or sincere. Jesus said that the meek shall inherit the earth  so if you react to an enemy by being positive and kindly instead of with bitterness and hatred you shall inherit the earth. That is a clear mark of insanity for the enemy will laugh at the meek and destroy him or her. Equally insane is Jesus teaching that if you wont look after the property of another you wouldnt look after your own either and neither God or man would trust you with it (Luke 16:12). We are accustomed to stupidity in the gospels so it is foolish to use that shameful stupidity as evidence that Jesus must have lived. And yet Jesus said that if his doctrine is false his resurrection could not really happen for it depends on the teaching being right for a sign that sinners are being saved cannot be valid if the message of salvation is doubtful.

Some of Jesus disciples had names suggesting that they were his lieutenants and that he was involved in stirring up a revolt against the Romans. The realistic parts of the gospel can be explained without a real Jesus. A fictitious character can be invented by stealing the details and events from some real persons life and the myth might even bear a similar name to the model.

Top of the Document

THE SOBRIETY ARGUMENT FOR JESUS EXISTENCE

It is argued by Christian scholars that since the gospels are not characterised by absurd plots and claims that they must be history. There is nothing in them for example, about Jesus becoming the Emperor of Rome or turning the Mediterranean Sea into blood or battling vampires and chatting with dragons.

This argument sounds rational but is quite bizarre. It says stories evolve and get better over time. So it all happens one step at a time. But that means there will be miracle stories that are sober. It means that for a time the miracle stories though made up will be pretty tame. It means that the gospels could have been put down on paper at a time when the stories were tame. The argument is a flop for it assumes too much. It assumes needlessly that the gospels would not have been written down until the stories about Jesus evolved to an outrageous stage. We must remember too that most of the miracle stories of the Bible are pretty tame too so the Christians would have preferred these types of stories for they would have been more used to them. Tame miracle stories only mean you like tame miracle stories not that you are being truthful.

The New Testament writers lied about Jesus life and miracles. They lied also about little historical details. They claimed that Jesus cured ten lepers  the number is a small detail. If they concocted small details they cannot be trusted with details of import for perhaps they left out some detail that throws the miracles or resurrection into a different light. Jesus himself said that anybody that lies in small things cannot be trusted in more important things  he was suggesting that lies always destroy trust so he forbids lies even when you feel forced by the circumstances to tell them for that is still harming trust. Jesus refuted the popular Christian belief that there are minor errors or lies in the Bible and yet it is still the word of God.

The early Christians had plenty of time to learn what to say and what not to say. The gospellers would have heard people who attributed lots of miracles to Jesus being greeted with, If Jesus healed so much when he was on earth why cannot he do it as much now? This taught them to avoid drawing out the response that people would make if they presented a Jesus who feverishly cast magic spells around him like his life depended on it. They knew that the more restraint the better it would be for intellectuals would be convinced easier. But they knew some silly stories were necessary but they had to be restrained. 

There are piles of books on the market without absurd plots. The gospellers knew, as all mature people do, that it is better not to make a story too far-fetched.

Nevertheless, the gospel miracles are silly to some degree however small. They could not have happened for there is no God crazy enough to do them. The devil would rather promise everlasting happiness for doing as much evil as you can and do miracles for that purpose so its not him. So there is nothing to do them unless you want to blame psychic powers.

All miracles are useless for they help one when all of us should be helped when we dont have free will.

If useless miracles have happened then we must believe every outlandish miracle report. The same applies to miracles that look useless to us so there is no use in pretending that if they are done for a reason we cannot figure out that it is different. 

This makes all the New Testament miracles and signs bizarre and unbelievable. And why are they ridiculous? Because when you believe in a miracle you believe in it because of the witnesses so it is the witnesses and not the miracle you are believing because the miracle gives you no reason to believe but they do. God would want you to put belief in him and not in human testimony first so if he does miracles you would see ones yourself. If Jesus did miracles he would prove it to you today. It does not matter if he forces you to believe because he cannot force you do to good and love him or so he says. Religion proclaims miracles to get people to join up. Miracles are about deceitful organisations looking for control over your thinking. They are about men not God. 

The Church says the resurrection of Jesus was the greatest miracle ever and it could not be a hoax from men or Satan. If that is true then the gospellers thought it was a better miracle than turning Mount Everest into bread and so the sobriety argument does not support them but refutes them. Jesus battled demons. Is this really any worse than battling vampires? Is feeding 5000 men with a few baskets of food more sensible than believing that Lord Krishna in India was able to duplicate himself so that there was a huge number of Krishnas on earth?

The argument that a strange story is likely to be true when it is sober and could be a lot stranger doesnt apply in the case of miracles because strange events are natural and miracles require a supernatural source. The former are more likely than the latter.

The gospels taught foolish doctrines which stand as evidence that they are not as sober as Christians boast. They approved of Jesus wacky exegesis which said that Gods title, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob proved the resurrection of the body. The John gospel deceptively said that Jesus saying that he was one witness for himself and God another fulfilled the legal demand for two witnesses before a testimony could be accepted. 

If the gospellers made up the miracles and other deeds of Jesus then why do Matthew and Luke and Mark have many stories in common? Why did they not dream up new stories? The answer is because they were telling the truth. 

There could have been any number of reasons for that. Perhaps they just served up some of the same old lies to make it look like that it wasnt just their opinion that Jesus did and said such and such. If I write an irrefutable fake gospel that has overlaps with some other gospel does that really make it likely to be genuine? If Christians wouldnt accept it then they have no right accepting their own. Sobriety is of little importance when lies can be demonstrated to have been told.

The use of similar stories, the material common to the gospels, suggests that the life-story is a pack of lies when it is about a person they could have got different stories about. 

Read my book, _New Testament is not Inspired_, to see how the New Testament while claiming to reverence reason actually reverences credulity.

The New Testament tells serious lies which make all the sobriety in the world no help to it. 

The sobriety argument for the existence of Jesus is a failure. When you attempt to apply it to the gospels it makes you more certain that there was no Jesus. 

Top of the Document

ISSA 

There is evidence that Jesus was worshipped before he was allegedly born. This Jesus was a god and like most gods was probably an invention. 

In the book, _Who Was Jesus? A Conspiracy in Jerusalem_, page 144) we read that an ancient god called Issa, or Jesus, was worshipped in Arabia at one time. This worship predated the worship of the Christian godhead by many centuries (ibid, page 144).

In John, Jesus meets a woman at Sychar which happens to be in Arabia and not in the Holy Land. John has constructed the story from an ancient myth about the Jesus god. There is evidence that the New Testament authors mistook places where the Arabian Jesus worked for places in the Holy Land. 

Now we move on to new evidence for the existence of Christ that is in the book, _Jesus Lived in India_ by Holger Kersten. 

Volume 19 of the Purana was written between the third and the seventh centuries.

It says that a king in Kashmir, King Shalavahana, met a handsome man sitting on the mountains. The man was white and robed in white. The man said he was virgin-born. The man called himself Isha-Masiha, which means the Lord, the Messiah. He called himself Isha-putra which means the Son of God. He said that in another land an evil goddesses persecuted him and he became the Messiah. He destroyed the goddess by prayer and by disciplining his body.

Now, the reign of the king was in 49AD or in 78 AD. Was Jesus alive and in India then as Kersten believes? The interpretations of what the white man really meant is a matter of dispute.

The king might just have had a vision. There are some reasons why the man he saw could not have been Jesus.

Jesus was a Jew and he was not white.

Jesus would not wear white robes when he was a wandering preacher even according to the gospels. They dirty too easily and give a bad impression. He might have worn them once on the Mount of Transfiguration but that is okay.

Messiah means King of the Jews. Jesus would not have used the title outside of a Jewish context. A Messiah is supposed to work for political power and Jesus if he was an ordinary man as these accounts say could not have used the title for he could hardly come back in the second coming to rule could he?

Why did Jesus not say he disciplined his body by getting crucified and that he survived it?

How could Jesus have been handsome when he had come through so much and been out in the sun which would have wrinkled his face a lot? Matthew says he was born before 4BC. The Christians believed that Jesus was ugly because they said that Isaiah 53 was about him and it said he was far from handsome.

The story may be true but it is certainly confused if it is about Jesus which would be natural when it was recorded so long after the event. Anyway the story is too late and might have been devised by a mythmaker under the influence of Christianity. If it were credible we still could not rely on it but would have to be undecided. But the earliest evidence indicates that Jesus never existed so it has the pre-eminence. 

If this man is Jesus then he denies the gospels. The Gospels are proven wrong when they say Jesus believed in one God and died on the cross and rose again and was nearly forty if not forty when he was killed. Their Jesus would be pure invention. But at the same time, the earlier documents, the gospels, have more authority terrible as they are.

But when there is evidence that Jesus was believed to have lived before the time given by the gospels it is possible that Shalivahana was not the king who met Jesus  it was an earlier one. Evidence for this could be the fact that Jesus says that the people he first lived among, the Jews saw the terrible goddess in all her frightening glory. He called the Jews barbarians which fits his attitude to them as recorded in the gospels (Matthew 23). The Jews did not have a vision of the goddess in the first century so it must have been long before in an age when records were badly kept for there is no real evidence that such an event happened. And plainly, there is no evidence for Jesus either if that is the case.

It seems that a testimony that Jesus, who was called Jesus the prophet of Israel and Yuz Asaf (the leader of the healed people), started to prophesy in 54 AD was engraved on an ancient Temple, in Srinagar India in 78 AD. But they could have been put on later.

There is no good evidence that Yuz Asaf was Jesus Christ. The evidence is late and flimsy. It is overridden by the gospels which say that Jesus left this world after his resurrection. So there is no evidence in the final analysis. Yuz Asafs tomb at Srinagar is asserted to be the tomb of Jesus. There are feet on the tomb with crescent shaped marks on them. Kersten thinks they are the crucified feet of Yuz Asaf who was Jesus Christ. But the marks do not resemble nail holes and there are no New Testament grounds for holding that Jesus was nailed through the feet. If a man was believed to have supernatural powers one might think of showing the crescent of the moon on his feet as a sign that he walked in the ways of magic. The moon is a magical emblem.

An Iranian historian who died in 962 AD, called Sheikh Al-Said-us-Sadiq identified Jesus with Yuz Asaf and said that Yuz Asaf preached the parable of the sower in India. But this testimony is too late. The historians work could have been affected by confusion and was certainly influenced by the gospels for the parable he recorded is almost exactly as they have it.

A man called Notovitch who was born in 1858, who has never been discredited, claimed that he read information about a Jewish prophet, Issa, who he believed was Jesus, in the documents of a Tibetan monastery. He published a book on it all. But if these writings which have never been found exist then we dont know when they were really written or if they were lies made up from the New Testament and other materials and imagination. And it is odd and suspicious that the monastery will not let the world see the writings. There are photocopiers in Tibet today. But Notovitch suffered greatly over his story which adds credence to his honesty or perhaps he was dishonest and thought suffering would win him the honour and respect he craved eventually. But did he report what he seen or what he thought he seen? And there were people after him who said they saw the writings. These writings say that Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion by yogic techniques. The writings are hidden because they are late fantasies.

There is no evidence that Jesus lived.

Top of the Document

PROPHETIC EVIDENCE


Surprisingly, the evidence from bible prophecy indicates not necessarily that Jesus never existed but that lots of things were made up about him because of them and that he may never have existed. Prophecies that were not concerned with Jesus were used to make the Jesus story which shows that the story is untrue.

Jesus had a lot of harsh things to say about Jewish tradition. Yet this tradition was to blame for much of the unjustified messianic interpretation of Old Testament texts. Jesus himself according to the gospels interpreted prophecies according to tradition even though he scorned that tradition left, right and centre and eventually ended up on the cross over it.

Christians pored over the Old Testament and weaved its plots into the Jesus story.

The annunciation was invented from the story of the angel appearing to the barren wife of Manoah to inform her of the miracle birth of Samson (Judges 13). The angel tells her that she will have a baby and what he will be and that he will save his people from the Philistines. The angel told Mary the same things but said that Jesus would save his people from sin.

Marys Magnificat was plagiarised from that of Hanna (1 Samuel 2). Both women had miracle births.

Jesus allegedly cured a man with a withered hand. The man had one withered hand and he was cured in a house of worship. In 1 Kings 13, Jeroboam is in the Temple and his hand is miraculously restored.

Moses face was transfigured and Jesus was transfigured on the Mount of Olives. 

The story of Elisha multiplying twenty barley loaves to feed one hundred men and Elisha telling somebody else to distribute the food and some being left over after they had eaten must have suggested the New Testament story of Jesus multiplying bread and fish for thousands and getting the apostles to give it out and some being left over.

Jesus calming the storm comes from Psalm 107 which describes men in a boat being caught in a storm and crying to the Lord who calms the storm. This Psalm is just recounting the experience of many and is not to be understood as a prediction for you cant see predictions everywhere.

God is everywhere and on the sea so the book of Job poetically says that God walks on the sea (Job 9:. He is not predicting anything about Jesus for the context intended that these descriptions of divine power were to show how powerful God is. Jesus could not have shown that before he physically walked on water. The fact that Mark says that Jesus did not intend to be seen but planned to walk by the boat on the water that night proves the story was an invention for a real miracle worker only uses his powers as signs of love and not just for short-cuts. Job then inspired the tale of Jesus walking on the water.

Elisha raised a dead boy and so did Jesus. The spirit of God came upon Samson and upon Jesus. 

The entry into Jerusalem on a donkey was taken right out of Zechariah which says a king will do this. But if Jesus was really welcomed as a king then why didnt he become one and be made one? Anybody could ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and say they are a king and not take over like Jesus. He would have had to have been enthroned to be a real king. 

Even the Psalm where the author complains that his friend who ate bread with him at table has been called a prophecy of Judas betraying Jesus after the last supper!

The events surrounding the death of Jesus were inspired by Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. 

Jesus might not have existed when his life story was constructed from ancient texts. If he did exist we have lost the historical Jesus. 

But what if Jesus purposely fulfilled the prophecies? Maybe he did but it is easier for a person to write his story in line with them than it is for him to fulfil them even if they are easy. We dont have the independent and unbiased testimony necessary to claim that Jesus did the fulfilling himself. You have to have very serious reasons for saying a person miraculously fulfilled prophecy for it is so unnatural and abnormal and there is something badly wrong when it easy. If Jesus miraculously fulfilled prophecies easy to fulfil then miracles are a sign that miracles are no good for being signs for anything else.

The prophecy of Daniel about the 70 weeks is supposed to give the year in which the Messiah would die. This could have led to somebody thinking that the Messiah despite the absence of evidence lived some years before and died in that year. He would have then depended on supposed divine visions and revelations to get details about this obscure Christ and used the prophecy to prove that Jesus existed on the assumption that scripture cannot err. He would have worked out that the Messiah must have been raised from the dead when he failed to fulfil the prophecies about the glorious power of the Messiah over the world so he would come again to do that. Maybe Daniels prophecy was the reason the Jesus story started off.

A man whose life story contains a lot of alleged happenings that mirror happenings that mirror happenings in books written years before could have been made up. Or at least much of his story could have been made up. Some would say in Jesus case that this need not call the reports into question for the Old Testament prefigured him or that Jesus life was mapped out by God to copy some OT events. But the Old Testament and Jesus never said it did that. Jesus said it prophesied about him but that is different and implies he just happened to fulfil them and did not do it on purpose. Jesus life matching the Old Testament history is more likely to mean the gospellers and their predecessors had to invent a history for him and scoured the Old Testament to get ideas. We know that in the Book of Mormon, that a character called Alma whose life story is uncannily almost identical to Pauls though he was born before Jesus and Paul and in America has to be fictional for it is just too close to be true. And Christians bigotedly say this of Alma though their Jesus tale was as bad. We know the Jesus story was written by somebody that had the Old Testament though it claims to have been written before Christ. Alma and Jesus have their fictitiousness in common.

It is startling but true that novels from the time of Jesus have stories of lovers which are parted by death and the dead female is buried and stolen from the tomb by grave robbers upon discovering that she is alive and the grave clothes are left behind and people think he or she has risen from the dead and when he thinks she may have survived he goes and searches for her and when he finds her he is totally unable to believe that she is not a ghost (WWW, Robert M Price, _Christ a fiction_). Christians will claim the Jesus story inspired this but the Jesus story could just as easily have been inspired by it. Love stories are always going to be better known than Jesus stories so Jesus story did come from the love story. 

Christians used to say the Devil made fake dinosaur bones to fool the world into rejecting the book of Genesis  and if Christians could say that then how do you know that those who said Jesus existed, died and rose were not as stubborn? They were unreliable if they were. How do we know that the apostles who may have had a say in the formation of the New Testament were not just as bad? Maybe they would just have been as biased. Perhaps they said that the Devil destroyed the evidence for Jesus existence. Perhaps they claimed that when the body of Jesus turned up that it was a satanic hoax geared to discredit the resurrection? It is absolutely true that the gospellers did not use eyewitness testimony as much as they used the Old Testament prophecies to figure out what Jesus must have done and what happened in his life. Matthew went to the Wisdom of Solomon and Zechariah to create the details about Jesus and his passion that were lacking in Mark.

Top of the Document

JESUS TEACHING MADE UP


Strong evidence that Jesus was made up comes from the fact that his teaching was stolen from other teachers and authorities. 

A critic of GA Wells, James Patrick Holding stated that Jesus must have existed though GA Wells thinks he didnt because there couldnt be a Church that gets its ethical teaching from a non-existent teacher (_Wells_ _Without_ _Water_). But this is a distortion of logic because it is possible to hallucinate that a man risen from the dead has appeared to you and made you a prophet. The Mormon Church was full of prophets in the early days and look at it now. Joseph Smith was only one of many prophets in that faith. When Joseph Smith could get ethical teachings from a fictitious God who used to be a man and who is totally different from the Christian God why couldnt this happen in the more credulous first century? 

The parable of the Prodigal Son appeared in the Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:24, a commentary on the Law.

Hillel taught that we must treat others as we like them to treat us which fullness the Law and the Prophets (Shabbath 31a) which is almost identical to what Jesus allegedly said years later.

As Karen Armstrong noted in her book, _The First Christian_, The more we read of the rabbis, the more we see that Jesus teaching is for the most part well within the rabbinic traditions and not strikingly original. Like the Pharisees, he is insistent that Charity and deeds of loving kindness are equal to all the mitzvot in the Torah (Tosefta Peah 4:19) (page 30). 

It is hard to see how the crowds could have been as spellbound by Jesus as the gospel says when he only served up what was on the menu for the previous hundred years. 

It was childs play to put teachings into Jesus mouth that he never gave.

It was no bother to the Gospellers to invent the sermons that Jesus allegedly preached and the teachings he uttered. They did not give dates for when Jesus said this or that. Memories are short and minds wander during lectures. Not everybody would catch all that was said. Do you remember exactly what the priest preached at Mass two weeks ago? But Jesus teachings were recorded long after they were allegedly given which does not vouch for accuracy. And the Gospellers did not care when they did not say anybody was taking notes at the sermons and that they used those notes. Luke says he consulted records but gave no proof that the records were authenticated. The fact that the teaching was not verified though Jesus said his teaching was one of the proofs that he was the Son of God proves that Jesus was a fake. Jesus implied that even if his doctrine was not hitting the bulls-eye then his miracles had to be fake. He proclaimed that miracles proved nothing if they came from a man whose doctrine was mistaken. To believe in Jesus is to trust Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and not Jesus at all. They are the gods of Christendom. They have the audacity to claim to be servants of the Son of God.

Jesus talks too much. He is too obscure and repetitive at times. This garrulousness is a device to avoid saying too much about what he is supposed to have got up to. The less said about a mans actions the better if he does not exist. His discourses could not have been constructed from memory so they must have been made up. If they were, then there is no reason why the stories of Jesus deeds could not also have been made up. It is evidence that they probably were. Dont say the information came from notebooks for there is no evidence that Jesus had anything recorded. There is evidence that he did not expect the people to depend on memory (Matthew 10:27). He did not have his apostles taking notes or memorising for he said the Holy Spirit would come and remind them of what he had been saying (John 14:26). Never is any hint given that notes were kept though Christian books lie that the apostles did keep notebooks. We are told that the word was to be shouted from the rooftops (Matthew 10:27) when he should have said be read from the rooftops but didnt. We are told that he would send the Holy Spirit to remind the apostles what he said indicating that no books would be kept or needed to be. When the points in Jesus parables could all have been expressed in one paragraph and many of the parables are repetitive it is a sign of inauthenticity and artificial gospel-mongering.

Jesus told the apostles that he spoke in parables to prevent understanding among the outsiders. If that is true then the stories about crowds coming to hear him are fiction for you dont come to listen to a man who cant speak plainly to you. 

Top of the Document

*THE ELLEGARD BOOK*



The book by Professor Alvar Ellegard, _Jesus - One Hundred Years before Christ_, is a study of how the Jesus story could have been put together if Jesus was a myth. The theory is that Ignatius of Antioch, in the second century, was the first person to turn Jesus into a historical person and the gospels hobbled along later to give him more solidity. Let us put it under the microscope.

The letters of Paul never speak of Jesus coming again or returning (page 26) which is open to the possibility that Jesus never lived on earth meaning this future coming would be his first coming. James is called the brother of Jesus in Pauls letters (Galatians 1:19). There is too much evidence in Paul that this was not meant literally for his Jesus was an obscure person who nobody knew about and who had started appearing to people(see my _Josephus Denier of the Existence of Jesus)_. Jesus may have adopted James as a brother in a vision.

I do not agree with the reason the book gives for a Christ faction in the Greek Church in Pauls time which he says is that a pre-Christian Essene form of Jesus worship was in existence (page 23). The faction must have believed in direct communication with Christ because anything else would involve accepting a man like the way it was with Peter or Paul or Apollos as the emissary of Christ so you wouldnt say any of them were a Christ faction. The Christ faction were Gnostic in inclination for they believed that they could not sin so they lived immorally and had supernatural abilities and knowledge. Paul never attacks their rejection of the Jesus story  Gnostics were so radical that they believed that everybody rejecting the Jesus story and inventing their own story was a sign of spiritual insight for truth differed from person to person an attitude that the vast majority of Gnostics have and always have had - so he had no Jesus story. He did not say they must stop telling lies about Jesus on the basis that the evidence says it is lies because he could not.

When answering Marcions followers who contended that Paul was the sole witness to Jesus having been resurrected, Irenaeus replied that Paul said that the same God was inspiring him and Peter. Irenaeus should have used the text, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, which says that Peter and some others saw the Jesus of the resurrection besides Paul. Irenaeus would have used it if it had been in his text of Paul for he needed to back up what he said for his opinion would not have washed with the Marcionites. Page 19 says it is weak to argue that Irenaeus would have used the text for it gave him better support. But when you see what I have argued in _Secrets of Calvary _about the inauthenticity of the text the argument gains better support.

Because there is no evidence of the buildings called synagogues in Palestine in the first century and since they are mentioned a lot in the gospels and Acts and not in the first century texts it makes it likely that the gospels and Acts were either written or altered in the second century when there were such places. Sometimes the word was used to refer to gatherings before the second century but that is different (page 33).

He disagrees with Thiedes claim that fragments of Mark were found at Qumran dating Mark to 50 AD because the fragments are too small and unclear to be sure that they are from Mark (page 185). Moreover, the Cave 7 where they were found may not have had the same history as the rest and could have been used by Christians for hiding texts in (page 186). I would add that it is possible that somebody put the fragments there in order for them to be discovered for the evidence for the lateness of the Gospels is conclusive. It was the location they were found in that led to them being dated so early. Plenty of ancient material for planting is available on the black market and even at some legitimate markets in the East.

It is possible that the parallels between the Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospels mean that the Shepherd was used to create the gospels (page 46). Or it could be that they have the same source. The wording is not the same. Strong evidence that Hermas helped originate the gospels comes from the fact that it avoids seeing the Son of God as a historical figure who people met and touched and laughed and cried with. The author dates Hermas to the sixties of the first century. 

All that is wrong with this is that he does not look to see if Hermas would have used the gospels or the source that the gospels used. Also, when a simple verse gets more complicated wording in a parallel text it is most likely that the harder one is the later version. Things tend to get fancier the longer time goes on and Hermas is the least fancy version of the Christian gospel.

However, Ellegard notes that a gospel parable of Jesus inspired by Isaiah 5 is more complicated than the Hermas version which is closer to Isaiah meaning that Hermas inspired the Gospel version (page 4. When Hermas ignored Paul and his writings (page 4 it is astonishing if he would have plagiarised the gospels or used the source of the gospels. This may be only an indication that the gospels were edited and elements from other books were implanted in the second century.

The book claims that Jesus was transmuted into a historical person by the lies of St Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop of the early second century. 

The textual parallels between Ignatiuss writings and the sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels are distinguished by the fact that Ignatius never attributes them to Jesus while the gospels do (page 204). I have argued elsewhere that these parallels could have arisen by chance and tradition and are very few.

Ignatius wrote that the Spirit of God knows where it comes from and goes to. In John this becomes the wind representing the spirit blowing where it goes and nobody knows where it comes from. It gets more complicated and poetic in John so Ignatius seems to have been reworked to create what is in John.

Ignatius said that we must receive the bishop as the one who sent him and regard him as the Lord. This corresponds with Jesus saying that whoever receives the person he sends receives him (John 13:20). Ignatius version is simpler than Jesus because he commands accepting the bishop as the Lord instead of everybody Jesus sends.

The author is right to argue that since Ignatius said that the Jewish prophets preached the gospel (Philippians 5:2) his reference to the need for gospels does not mean the books of the gospels we have (page 206). Philippians 8:2 has him protesting against people who said they would not believe in the gospels if what the gospels said was not in the ancient prophets. This does not mean books for few would have got the books and since they were so expensive and delicate they were only available to a few. He then said that the records were the cross, death and resurrection proving that he did not mean books. He said that Jesus drank after the resurrection which is not in the gospels (page 210) and shows he did not have them. If he had he would have regurgitated the account of Jesus eating fish in the gospel of Luke which was far more impressive and persuasive. If there had been gospels then the fish story being better known would naturally have been selected.

Some of the parallels in the book can be traced back to coincidence. A doctrine like, The Son does all the Father wants, could be mistaken as a parallel text to, Whatever the Father does the Son does. Times wording will be similar for the doctrine cannot be stated just in any old words but in much the same wording.

The evidence for the whole structure of Ellegards argument is not terribly convincing but it is convincing enough. There are coincidences that give it strength.

Top of the Document

*THE JESUS MYSTERIES  A STUDY*

The wonderful book, _The Jesus Mysteries_, by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy is essential reading for the informed Atheist. The book is an effort to demonstrate that Jesus never existed but was made up out of myths about pagan gods.

Like Jesus, Osiris-Dionysus had a virgin mother  her name was Semele and she was made pregnant by Zeus when he flashed lightning on her  and was born in a cave or shed and offered a baptism and transmuted water into wine at a wedding and rode on a donkey into a city that welcomed him and died for sinners at Eastertide and returned to life and went to Heaven (page 5). So both gods did much the same things. Both gods were considered to be the Son of God (page 2. In the mystery religions the myths were re-enacted in the hope of bringing spiritual enlightenment to the initiates. There was a legend that Zeus fathered a child by Io simply by using a magic breath. Though seed comes into the equation a few lines later (page 63, _The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus_) there is still enough here to suggest the idea of conception by breath or magic alone. We must remember that seed is never excluded from the gospel legends of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Justin Martyr admitted that pagans believed that the sons of the god Zeus were born without sex just like he believed about Jesus (page 29). The Church says that he was wrong but though many pagans believed in divine-human sexual union not all did. As the book of Ecclesiastes says there is nothing new under the sun.

Pythagoras allegedly calmed a stormy sea like Jesus (page 39) and Asclepius cured the sick and raised the dead like Jesus. Apollonius of Tyana who was another first century miracle man claimed that he saw the miraculous multiplication of food. This could have suggested the legend that Jesus fed the five thousand with a few bits of food (page 41). The idea of putting evil into pigs to destroy it in the Eleusian Mysteries could be the root of the story about Jesus putting demons into pigs and the pigs killing themselves (page 41). Jesus was in a purple robe wearing a crown of thorns. His earlier pagan counterpart Dionysus wore the same except that the crown was ivy. There are pagan idols of Dionysus hanging on a cross. Arnobius was horrified about the worshippers of Dionysus using a cross in worship (page 52). Arnobius lived in the third century.

Tertullian claimed that the Devil mimicked the religion of Jesus when he inspired the Mithra religion to practice baptism that forgives sins and offered bread as communion and have a resurrected god (page 2. Blaming the Devil for the Christians mimicking paganism was in vogue from the time of Justin Martyr (page 2. Was this mimicking happening before Christianity took shape? Yes. Justin and Tertullian had to say that the communion rite was introduced into Mithraism by demons for only demons could know about the rite before Jesus instituted it. They couldnt have thought anything else. There was no need to blame demons if Mithraism was doing the same rite after Jesus time. This shows the rites were exactly the same in symbolism and sacramental purpose.

_The Case for Christ_ would object that the Mithraic baptism was done with the blood of a sacrifice which could not have inspired the Christian view of baptism (page 162) but that was enough to suggest the ideas of washing away sin and gaining benefit from Jesus blood sacrifice through the waters of baptism and the initiation this rite brings. The Christians did not practice sacrifice outside the boundaries of the law of Moses at least so it was natural to use water instead of blood. 

The pagan religions had dying and rising gods as nature symbolism. Christians answer that Christianity did not mean nature symbolism by proclaiming that Jesus died and rose. But they still believed that a real personal divine being that was in nature and which nature was made of died and rose again so it was only a small step to have the likes of Jesus dying and rising again. Every man was believed to be the God who dies and is reborn in their pantheistic theology so in actual fact the Christians made such theology simpler by limiting the superior beings death and return to Jesus. 

It is said that unlike the pagan gods who never died for others or voluntarily only Jesus died for sin (page 187, _He Walked Among Us_). But the gods dying was enough to suggest that Jesus would die and the idea of him dying for sins came from the Jewish sacrificial ritual and the pagan rites of sacrifice in which animals were killed to appease the anger of the gods. Some of the pagan gods died for others. 

Tacitus mentioned Christ who he never calls Jesus being executed under Pilate. This was based not on records for he made the error of calling Pilate procurator and not prefect of Judea for Pilate never used the procurator title but on hearsay (page 135). An inscription that was uncovered in 1961 says that Pilate was prefect (page 290). Calling him procurator could have been down to a Christian legend. 

Firmacus Maternus claimed that the Devil tried to get the true faith ridiculed by inspiring the doctrine that Dionysus rose from the dead (page 261). I would just like to add that this must have been belief in a literal as opposed to a mythical resurrection of Dionysus (one that symbolised spiritual stuff and the daily resurrection of the sun) for belief in a myth would have nothing to do with belief in a historical resurrection or bring scorn on it. Maternus wrote in the fourth century and sarcastically snarled that the Devil has his own Christians. We know this god was worshipped long before Jesus Christ and this man knew that though some believed the resurrection of the god was a solar myth not all did.

The pagans were into having the twelve signs of the Zodiac representing twelve disciples of the god. Jesus had twelve disciples (page 42). Christians will respond that Jesus had twelve because of the twelve tribes of Israel but then why did he choose Judas the apostate who had been false all along meaning that Jesus only really had eleven apostles? What use was twelve apostles for the twelve tribes of Israel when Israel became apostate at the time of the mission of Christ and would not accept him and when we know nothing about most of these men? To say there were twelve for the twelve tribes is to call Jesus a failure. Why does the Talmud say he did not have twelve? The Christians got the number from paganism. It was trying to make Jesus have twelve when he didnt to please the pagans.

The pagan god Mithras said that the person who will not eat his body and drink his blood so that they will be one will not know salvation (page 49). This was found on an inscription and is so similar to Jesus lecture on eating his body and drinking his blood in John 6 that John must have developed his sixth chapter from Mithraism even though there is no reason to think John 6 is about communion. If it were not for the pagan context, the Christians would be blazoning it as a quote from John! Let this be a warning to the snippets of texts that allegedly show that the gospels had an early origin. Mithraism was too hostile to Christianity to take inspiration from it.

All of Jesus teaching was spoken to the world before by pagan gods and philosophers. 

Clement of Alexandria and Origen admitted that the Church had secret doctrines that were not suitable for everybody (page 97). These are lost now.

The earliest Gnostic Christians like pagans were not literalists. They believed that the Jesus story was symbolism. That was why they did what Tertullian and Irenaeus say they did: invented new stories about Jesus and altered any stories they got from tradition (page 111). Origen denied that the New Testament Jesus story was literally true (page 114). Christians often interpret Origen as denying that Jesus lived physically on earth (page 65, _Lets Weigh the Evidence_). Origen believed that Jesus was primarily the word of God and a mystical being who was spoken about in fable and allegory in the gospels. He did not accept the gospels as literally true and regarded the literal sense as immaterial with the consequence that if they were ever right historically that was an accident and so the records in them do not matter in the least (page 108, _The Early Church_).

The New Testament was written in Greek so the inventors of Jesus could have given him his name because in gematria the name adds up to 888 which is a sacred number in the occult numerology system of Pythagoras (_The Jesus Mysteries, _page 116). It is a magical name and would signify that Jesus was a magician or that those who invented him were occultists. 

It does not seem necessary to hold that the Jesus story was wholly directly borrowed or plagiarised from pagan myths. All that matters is that the story could have been inspired by the imaginations of those who had been influenced by the legends.

Docetists did not believe that Jesus was a phantom that pretended to die on the cross but meant it symbolically (page 119). I would change this to say that not all believed that Jesus was a phantom. But I would say most of the Docetists believed Jesus was a symbol for the idea of a phantom pretending to be a man is bizarre and the believers would be unable to trust this phantoms gospel for he would be deceptive. The Fathers said that Docetism was literal but the way Gnostics used symbols and believed the truth could only be grasped by pictures and parables because it was so abstract and abstruse argues against them. Thus, some of the Docetists could have denied that there was such a person as Jesus Christ and regarded him as a mental vehicle like the guides imagined and evoked in Silva Mind Control. When they did not care for his history and yet placed him at the centre of their spirituality it is probable that they did not believe that such a man ever lived and died on earth. It stands to reason that some would have believed that Jesus was on earth but was an apparition while the other Docetists would have gone further. The Christians would say that what they have done is not to deny that Jesus lived on earth but that he was a real human being which would mean that since they are wrong that there really was a man called Jesus. But they would have been saying that Jesus was known not to be a man for he was invisible at times and could walk through walls and acted like a vision. In fact the Docetic Nag Hammadi scrolls say just that. Some of their writings speak of Jesus doing an illusion to make it look like he ate and drank. They used so much symbolism that this might mean that Jesus didnt need food and drink. I suppose there is no reason to think that any Docetists believed Jesus was just an apparition. Their stories were meant to guide them and were not considered final or gospel truth. They improved their myths all the time. They might all have thought he was a symbol. 

The book says that the Romans were professional record keepers and especially in relation to legal matters and the fact that no plausible record concerning the trial and crucifixion of Jesus was mentioned or kept in the early Church shows that Jesus could not have existed (page 133). I would add that it never existed for Josephus would have used it if it had and if there had been a Jesus. 

The Crestus mentioned by Suetonius is not Christ for that was a popular name (page 134). It is not likely that it is a corruption of Christ though the Christians dont think that. McDowell quotes him as saying that Christians were dying for their faith. But this is blatant dishonesty because all Suetonius said was that Nero was punishing Christians for their mischievous superstition. McDowell lies to be able to say that these people died for their belief in Jesus meaning that there must have been a Jesus all right. But he doesnt even know why they were punished or if they could have done anything to escape the punishment.

The material about Jesus in Josephus is noted to differ in style from that of Josephus. I would add that it looks like a creed. Josephus would not write a creed and him not a Christian. And if you take it out you dont miss it for it is stuck in the middle of an argument. So it is a forgers insertion (page 137). Josephus mentioned ten Jesuses and yet Christians translate the name as their Jesus when they think he means their Jesus and dont follow suit with the other ones (page 13 though when Judea was full of miracle-men according to Josephus who had their followers acting like spirits were controlling them and then used to convince them that God would free them in the desert and they took the name Joshua in memory of the Joshua who conquered the promised land (page 201). If Josephus called Jesus the so-called Christ and did not make any effort to show that he did not mean him when he criticised these lunatics it says a lot. 

The book says that Luke said that there were six months between the conceptions of Jesus and John and this was in Herods time according to Matthew. But then it says Jesus was still not born ten years later at the time of the census! The authors wondered if this was a miraculous decade long pregnancy! (page 141). 

It could be a mistake to accuse Jesus of contradicting himself on forgiveness as page 143 does. He said that forgiveness should be granted 77 times a day despite saying that anybody who wont repent a sin should be ostracised. But the former case is in the context of people repenting while the second is procedure for handling people who are not sorry and Christians add that it has to be a serious sin to merit that treatment. But it could be responded that when you sin and repent that much a day you should not be forgiven for you are not really sorry so there is a contradiction and especially when Jesus never said that ostracising was necessary for serious sin but just sin therefore any sin. 

In Mark, Jesus depends on mistranslations of the Jewish Bible that he erroneously thinks bolster his case (page 144). Fallible wasnt he? That shows that the he and his gospellers were dishonest for anybody knows that the original is best but they would not use it. (Acts made the same mistake in Peters Pentecost address, page 150). That shows that the gospels were not composed by Israelites and so have nothing to do with the apostles who were Israelites because the Jews would have chewed Jesus up and spat him out while splitting their sides with laughter at his silliness and he would have had no credibility had he used mistranslations. The apostles were the foundation of faith so the Jesus scriptures should have come from their pen alone. It is not as good for others to do these things for them. When Jesus made them apostles he was saying they will be the foundation but history prevented that happening. He was a fake prophet.

Acts is telling a lie when it claims that Paul preached to everybody in Asia in two years (page 149). History proves it. Luke had no reason to say all if he did not mean all for the context does not give us any reason not to take the fullest sense.

It says a lot when Bishop Melito of Sardis travelled to Judea in 160 and encountered only Gnostic heretics who used scriptures that denied the New Testament (page 172). A bishop would have met true believers if there had been any. We see that there was no evidence at that time for anything the Catholic Church says Jesus did for there was no force in Palestine to preserve the truth about him and to back up what the New Testament would say.

The fourth century historian, Eusebius, had to depend on one writer on the earliest Church, for the evidence relating to early Christianity was so meagre (page 184). Inventing Jesus was so easy! Also, Eusebius is all we have got apart from the New Testament about the primitive history of Christianity (page 317). The thing the Christians hope you never find out about him is that he wrote a book called _Preparation of the Gospel_ in which he wrote that it was recommended to tell a lie to convince people that the faith would benefit them for their own good. He also advised in the same book that it was a holy duty to tell lies to young people to get them to live good lives. The Church did not burn his books as heretical though it could not let any other heretics book alone which says it was just as incapable of honesty as he was.

_The Jesus Mysteries_ agrees with me that none of the four gospels were published in the time of St Justin Martyr (page 224). The Shepherd of Hermas does not clearly quote the New Testament (page 331) indicating that the New Testament was largely hidden.

In 250 AD, only two per cent of the population of the Roman Empire were Christian. There is no reason to doubt the unreliable Eusebius when he says that only three villages were Christian in the Holy Land! He would have hated to admit that so it must have been true. It makes the faith look bad and unconvincing. It shows that there was no persuasive evidence despite Acts boasting about the miraculous rise of Christianity in Palestine from the start. The Christians were secretive and were pacifists so the near-liquidation of the Jews cant be the reason for the small number. 

When Helena the mother of Constantine went to find the cross in the Holy Land she could not find anybody there to tell her about Jesus except one old man who took her to the alleged cross of Christ. This was even three hundred years after Jesus died. She found that nobody had heard of Jesus which tells against his existence. 

There is evidence that Paul was a Gnostic for he uses Gnostic terms. Paul might not have believed in an earthly Jesus or in a Jesus for whom there was non-mystical evidence at all.

Christianity says that Gnosticism did not produce it for it preceded Christianity. But that proves nothing and makes no sense. Christian Gnosticism was distinct from the Gnosticism that preceded it. The original Christianity could have been Gnostic. 

Top of the Document

WAS SIMON MAGUS THE FOUNDATION OF THE JESUS MYTH?

Irenaeus of Lyons stated that Simon Magus claimed to have suffered in Judea (page 290, _The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics_)which seems to hint that Simons followers believed that Simon was really Jesus. Irenaeus wrote: This individual claimed that he appeared before the Jewish people as the Son but came down from Heaven in Samaria as the Father and visits other nations as the Holy Spirit. Perhaps Simon pretended to be the risen Jesus after having the body nicked for all we know. That things like this could have been said shows that the evidence for Jesus was non-existent or weak enough for Simon to do these things and pull it off. 

According to _The Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul_ Simon Magus used magic to turn a ram into his own image and this metamorphosed creature was beheaded under the Emperor Nero so that everybody believed Simon had died. But three days later Simon was back claiming to have risen from the dead. It is agreed that some tales in the book go back to the second century. What is even more shocking is that starting with Justin Martyr in the second century all agreed that Simon did have miraculous powers which they attributed to Satan.

Justin recorded that Simon went to Rome and did miracles there and ended up with a statue being erected in his honour. The statue of a pagan Sabine god with the inscription SEMONI SANCO DEI was found making many believe Justin was misread the inscription but Justin could have been informed that Simon was regarded as an incarnation of that god. But anyway the description in the inscription of Simon as a holy person shows that Simon was regarded as holy role-model and not the libertine of Christian tradition. 

Justin stated that the miracles Simon did in Rome in the time of Claudius were stupendous and nearly all the Samaritans and many Gentiles adore him as a God. When the real Simon would not have been able to do miracles it is clear that they were adoring a Simon who did not exist so the climate was right in those days for the creation of a totally non-existent Jesus. The book of Acts probably from round the same time says that Simon was considered to be the power of God, meaning a man filled by the power of the Lord, by the Samaritans and who like Jesus had captured all their hearts and had them spellbound with his great powers meaning that he taught a reasonably orthodox theology for the Samaritans were similar to the Jews. He was accused of trying to buy the power to give the Holy Spirit from Peter who cursed him for it but that is just gossip. Anyway, was the story of Jesus plagiarised from that of Simon? The Mandaeans have ancient traditions that Jesus was a magician and Simon Magus was his true identity (page 61, _Jesus the Magician_). The traditions are old when they match what St Irenaeus was saying in France while this sect was based in Iraq. 

Strange how nobody denying the miracles of Jesus is evidence among Christians that he did miracles while they deny the miracles of Simon whose miracles were not contested and who unlike Jesus was unmistakably believed to do obviously supernatural things. See my _Non-Miraculous Witnesses _and _Jesus the Conjurer_ that Jesus did nothing very impressive in the miracles department.

Top of the Document



THE JEWS ON THE ORIGIN OF JESUS


The Talmud speaks of a Yeshu but likes to avoid saying his name a lot of the time. We are not certain if the person who seems to be Jesus in it is our Jesus. 

The Talmud contains information that dates back to the time of Jesus and the Mishnah part of it was finished and written at the start of the third century AD. The Babylonian Talmud and the Palestine one were completed later. The Rabbis were very strict about learning their material off by heart and any teacher who forgot his material had to relearn it from his students. Forgetting even a single word of the Mishnah was regarded as bad as losing ones soul (page 164, 165, _He Walked Among Us_). 

The Christians say that it seems that the Jews grew gradually reluctant to condemn Jesus by name in case their books would be burned by the growing Christian Church. We read that they did not do this suddenly but over time they were less inclined to name Jesus (page 45, _The Jesus Event and Our Response_). If they were afraid of Christians then why did they name Jesus sometimes? Why did they not remove all the references to Jesus? Why not call him (if it is him) such and such a one which they did at times all the time? Why did they leave references to Jesus in? They knew what the Christians were like and knew that if they called Jesus such and such they would still be in bother. The Christians did not have the resources to persecute Jews in every land. That is why the Jews behaviour is so bizarre. It looks as if they had figures in their books that they thought might be Jesus but didnt want to name them Jesus in case Jesus never existed. They didnt want to give the Jesus myth any historical basis.

A part of the Talmud called the Barita says that Jesus sneered at the wisdom of Israel and transgressed against it and also quotes him as saying that he said good things about Israel (page 45, _The Jesus Event and Our Response_). These statements need not be contradictory. 

The Talmud speaks of a lot of Jesuses and the Bible Jesus may have been a fictional person based on one of these characters. When the gospels say Jesus taught in the Temple and the Temple Guards did not know him at his arrest and gives lots of clues that Jesus was not well-known, it indicates that there was no such man and that the Talmud might have mistaken the man Jesus was based on for Jesus. The Gospels show then that the Talmud, if it confuses Jesus with other people then it was not because of sloppiness. 

The Talmud says that Jesus was a bastard and his father was Pantera, who seems to have been a Roman soldier. Pantera is alleged to have had an adulterous relationship with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Why invent a father for Jesus when branding Mary as a self-confessed adulteress would do? Jesus mother was a hairdresser who left her husband, Pappas Ben Judah (Joseph never existed), and Jesus learned spells and magic tricks in Egypt and tattoos on his skin (page 47, _Jesus the Magician_).

The Gospels claim that Christ was accused of being illegitimate and there are also many hints and statements in the gospels that Jesus was considered by some not to have been a real Jew, a half-breed. For example, the Jewish leaders call him a bastard in Johns gospel. Jesus could have been a Gentile pretending to be a Jew for all we know.

Christians say that Pantera comes from the word virgin. They say that since Christians called Jesus the son of parthenos which is virgin in Greek that a mistake in the naming led to many thinking that Pantera was Jesus father! But Jesus was not called the son of the virgin until the fourth century (_Josh McDowells Evidence for Jesus: Is it reliable_?). 

If Jesus were accused of illegitimacy because of the virgin birth this origin would not have been broadcast in his mothers lifetime to protect her and his own reputation. But if he did not look like a proper Jew the rumour would have been inevitable that his father was a Gentile. That would be the most likely explanation for the rumour. 

Jesus died on the cross according to Philippians 2:8. Was he hanged on a cross first and then nailed to it as a warning to rebels? The Talmud denies the nailing for it goes unmentioned and had it been true it would have spoken about it with glee but the Christian scriptures lend credibility to the Talmud in regard to hanging. And why would Jesus have been nailed when he could hang from the rope? John 5:46 has Jesus saying Moses wrote about him so the Jews should believe in him which may support the identification of Jesus with Balaam for Moses certainly never clearly wrote about Jesus but he did write about Balaam according to tradition. Christians will point out that Moses said a prophet like him will come but that could have been anybody and would not entitle Jesus to say Moses wrote about him and Jesus proved it was not this he meant when he told the Jews they dont believe in Moses when they deny what he wrote. Perhaps, the writer of John did not realise the import of what he reported. Worse the writing of Moses Jesus had in mind said that the prophesied person would come from their midst so he could have been Joshua as well. The context says that the Hebrews must not listen to fortune-tellers like the other nations for they will have a prophet like Moses so it had to be the person who succeeds Moses as prophet and who is as convincing as Moses which Jesus was not. Did Jesus do miracles that all the people saw like Moses when God came down to talk to Moses on Sinai? 

Rabbi Eliezar some time before 100 AD said it was illegal to tattoo yourself on the Sabbath day even though Jesus had had done it. Eliezar was converted to Jesus by a Galilean who called Jesus, son of Pantera (page 43, _Jesus the Magician_). When an educated man goes to somebody that says that Jesus was born out of wedlock by a man Pantera it shows that what is now called Christianity was not believed then. There is name called Pantera so Christians are saying that it was a corruption of the Greek parthenos for virgin is unlikely and just typical of the unfair and stupid speculation Christians use against intellectual critics. The rabbis used Hebrew not Greek. The fatherless birth was not invented until the second century and is not in the New Testament. Jesus was not given the title, Son of the Virgin, in the first two centuries (page 47, _Jesus the Magician_) so there was no such corruption. 

So when the Christian and the Christian Rabbi believed Jesus was Panteras offspring it shows that this came from the Church of the time. If Jesus existed he must have looked like a cross between a Roman and a Jewess if not a non-Jew. 

Nobody would have made up these things for spite. Being illegitimate would not have stopped Jesus being a prophet of God. Illegitimates were barred from priestly duty but Jesus never claimed to be a Levitical priest. David was a prophet despite the terrible things he did. God thought that people married to adulteresses were dirtier than normal and yet he encouraged the prophet Hosea to wed one. It is surmised that when Mary said Jesus was not her husbands son that it started the rumour of his illegitimacy. But the rumour would be more likely to start if it were true. It would have been easier to blame her husband. And the Jews could not accuse Mary of adultery without stoning her. Pantera must have been a famous person when his name comes up so much as if he were well known. They believed they were telling the truth when they said that he was Jesus daddy when he was well-known. 

Mary was said to have descended from kings and princes (b. Sanh., 106 A). If so then the Jews did believe that Jesus was royalty even though the gospels say they did not and even said they had no heir to the throne but Caesar! The gospels hint that they did not have genealogical proof that Jesus was royal. The Talmud would not say she was royal unless it believed they had. If Mary could prove it she would not have been poor for there would have been so many who would have been pleased to finance her for she could give Israel its king or even Christ king. The Talmud is denying the gospel picture of a poor Mary who had to ride about on a donkey and give birth in a stable because there was no room at the inn. 

There is a story of the impudent one from Jewish tradition that was reported by R. Akikba who died in 135 AD. _He Walked Among Us_ (page 63) repeats the tradition that there was some important and unnamed man whose mother confessed that a man, the groomsman, fathered on her wedding night making him a son of uncleanness. Akikba found her sitting in the market selling peas and broke his promise to be discreet about her confession. It seems that this baby was believed to be Jesus. Jesus was called the impudent one or the son of impurity. That Akikba had this interview with his mother suggests that there might have been more Jesuses, Sons of God than one thinks. That must have been confusing! The book says the passage has been interfered with but when it is not clear on Jesus Christ the interference cant be serious. Why would anybody want to corrupt it to blacken somebody that was not clearly mentioned? Perhaps something happened the record and it had to be pieced together again. The story makes no sense apart from being a reference to a Jesus of some description even though McDowell likes to quote a version of the bit where Jesus is apparently quoted by Akikba as saying that if from a hire of a harlot they have come to the same they shall go that is rejected by scholars and which harks back to some dubious nineteenth century book (_Josh McDowells Evidence for Jesus: Is it reliable?_)

Top of the Document

THE JEWS AND BALAAM


Jewish tradition completely ignores the gospels and gives information that tallies with them only a little. Were the Jews scared of drawing attention to the gospels? Some of this tradition was created before the gospels went public. And to mention Jesus at all was enough to draw some to study the gospels so the answer is no. And Christianity was weak at that time anyway, which gave the Jews the advantage if they wanted an onslaught on the gospels. When the Talmud ignored the gospels it showed that they were considered to be too ridiculous to be worth refuting. The Talmud implies that the gospels are not evidence for Jesus or anything about him.

Here is a quote from _The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief_, Volume 1, Gordon Stein, Editor Prometheus Books, New York, 1985, page 367). Jewish traditions on which the Talmud drew persistently place Jesus among these ancient victims [of crucifixion] by dating him somewhere in the 2nd century B.C..

The Talmud calls Jesus Balaam. Balaam was true prophet of God according to the Bible who was asked to curse Israel but didnt. Numbers 24:1 says he stopped looking for signs in nature about what Gods will was. But omens are only superstition when God does not speak through them for God could speak through signs of nature. So, why does the Talmud praise Jesus by calling him Balaam? Some think it was because Balaam went off on a donkey on a mission forbidden by God and that Jesus committed the same sin when he entered Jerusalem on a donkey. This is improbable for it would not be a clear enough comparison and would be too unimportant to emphasise by name-calling and it is supposed to be meant to be a terrible sarcastic insult. The Talmud sometimes makes a distinction between Jesus and Balaam. The only possible or probably solution is that Jesus claimed to be Balaam reincarnated or that the Jesus story was based on Balaam, that is that Balaam was Jesus.

Ahmed Osman noticed that the Talmud says that Moses wrote the Book of Numbers and the bit about Balaam meaning Jesus (page 35, _The House of the Messiah_). This states that Balaam was Jesus. It need not mean that Jesus lived in Moses day except that Jesus was the same person as Balaam but was Balaams future life.

The Talmud treats Balaam as somebody important to know about when it says that Moses wrote a book with information on Balaam in it (b.B. Bathr. 14b). The Talmud is then saying that Balaam is a very very important person when such an important man as Moses wrote a book about him. It also indicates that the Talmud saw Balaam as very important and you are only important if you are well known or if a book can make you important. So the Talmud is indicating that Jesus is Balaam because Jesus was important and Balaam was not important if he was not Jesus. So Balaam has to be Jesus. The Talmud does not emphasise Balaam except when he is called Jesus so Balaam must be Jesus (page 35, _The House_ _of_ _the_ _Messiah_). The Talmud says that Pinhas, a priest, killed Jesus-Balaam. Pinhas lived in Moses time according to the Torah. 

The Talmud is saying that Jesus lived in the time of Moses and was Balaam.

_He Walked Among Us_ argues that it is not (page 61). It gives a quote that simply says that Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel and Gehazi were commoners and the kings, Jereboam, Ahab and Manasseh will have no part in the salvation to come. Then another one says that the disciples of Balaam the wicked shall inherit the destruction of Gehenna for God says that liars who kill will not see half their lives. 

The book maintains that there was no reason to hide the identity of Jesus under the name of Balaam. This shows the duplicity of the book because the Talmud and its Mishna did not mean to hide Jesus. Either they were just inferring that Jesus name was too evil to be mentioned much or that they didnt want to give much evidence that he existed. When Jesus was clearly mentioned a few times when it was not really necessary it cannot be true that they didnt want to mention his evil name. The book then contradicts its first objection by saying that the rabbis called Jesus such and such to avoid naming him. Then what did they call him Balaam for? Then it says that Balaam could not have been a nickname for Jesus for Balaam was not an Israelite! Ugh! What kind of logic is this? Anyway, the Law allowed racial mixing so there would have been a few Israelites of mixed origin about. Balaam could have been a half-Israelite down the line somewhere. If it was a nickname it had nothing to do with race but what their morals were like. 

The book says that the Balaam name could be a cover for some others. It could but when the Talmud hates mentioning Jesus by name he is the number one person being covered and there is no point in writing about somebody who want to blacken and hiding them too much unless the readers will know who you mean in which case there is no hiding intended. Then it is said that some of the passages about Balaam are late and have no historical reliability if they mean Jesus. Then despite this assertion the book then quotes a late passage that has the two existing side by side so it is willing to use this as proof though it says late ones cant be. 

The passage says that Balaam prophesied that a man would deceive the world by claiming to be God and that nobody should listen to that man. This here is worth quoting, He will deceive and say that he departed and cometh again at the end. He saith and he shall not perform (page 62). This appears to refer to the ascension and second coming of Christ. The passage said that the man was not God because God cannot lie and it sought to prove that Jesus did lie and this was its proof. So departed must refer to departing this world in death and coming again at the end must refer to the resurrection. Why? Obviously, the second coming at the end of the world or the resurrection of Jesus taking place at the end of the world and not happening will prove nothing to us now for we dont know yet if Jesus was a liar. We need to have tangible proof for the prophecy to mean anything to us. When Jesus died and will not come back from the dead until the general resurrection he must have been a liar for God would come back from the dead sooner. That is what the passage is driving at. Jesus did not rise and so was a liar when he said he was God for God would rise. 

The passage says that Balaam spoke this message to the whole world. It could be that Balaam was Jesus and that the fake God-man he warned against was the Antichrist who would depart and promise to return at the end of the world his departure having taken place at that time as well. Perhaps the Antichrist was the gospel Jesus who came pretending to be Jesus-Balaam the true prophet of God and who perhaps looked like him and managed to take over his life by stealing his identity. Maybe this Jesus was an evil spirit who tricked people to think there was a historical Jesus. Paul said the antichrist would be an impostor and a false Christ and Revelation says the Antichrist will be dealt a mortal blow and then seem to come back to life. Jesus did speak to the world and warn against false messiahs which supports this interpretation. There is no evidence that the biblical Balaam spoke to the world. And why would the Jews want to believe that Balaam, an unimportant figure, made such a prophecy instead of Moses or Isaiah or somebody? So, the passage must contain early material that has evidential strength and it must mean to be honest. The Jews had traditions that Balaam was Jesus and Jesus Balaam lived many centuries before Christianity surfaced in the first century.

To recap, Balaam refuted the gospel Jesus as a false portrait and Balaam himself was the real Jesus according to traditions. 

Balaams prophecy states that the man will be born of woman. This is to stress that the man was born the normal way for it wants to show that this man will have no right to claim to be God because of that. If the man were virgin born it would be more likely for him to be God. The Talmud says that the other Jesus was an enemy of the Jewish religion and nobody could call him up for his advice. It also suggests that this Jesus did not rise again bodily when Titus was called first and then Balaam and Jesus last. If Jesus had risen from the dead in any form or irrefutably thought to have risen he would have been called first. Klausner dates this passage earlier than the above one which was written before 260 AD when the Rabbi who was behind it died (page 62). This either suggests that Jesus never rose or nobody who might have known said he did or that this was another Jesus and possibly the one the secular historians, like Josephus, meant. The passage did not mean to hint the things that are so detrimental to Christianity for it would be more up-front if it did which bolsters their importance. It does not prove that the Christian Jesus was not Balaam. 

An older passage from the Babylonian Talmud says that a man called Onkelos used spells to call up Titus, Balaam and Jesus for he sought to know if he should become a convert to Judaism. Jesus told him that Israel was the most important thing in the world and anybody who hurt it would boil in filth and that to hurt it was to hurt God. This is supposed to prove that Balaam was not Jesus. But the passage merely reports these visions and does not say if they were true or false. But still, it is surprising that Jesus got such a positive treatment. This suggests that this Jesus was not the Jesus of the Christian gospels but another healer and prophet. 

The problem with the Babylonian Talmud is the fact that it is hard to date what is in it and anything plausible it says is weak in value because of that. But weak or not the story is very believable and should still be used as evidence against Christ particularly when it makes attacks against Christ that were so subtle that nobody knew them. The sly Josh McDowell takes the assertion of the Amoraim in the Babylonian Talmud as evidence for Jesus but does not give any hint that it is reliable enough.

The fact that Balaam Jesus was thought to have lived very very long ago means that the Jews had nobody in the first century that they could pin down as being Jesus Christ. Jesus did not live in the first century. The gospels which say he did are false.

Top of the Document

THE TALMUD ON THE DEATH OF YESHU


Talmud says that Yeshu was hanged on the Eve of the Passover. For forty days before that a messenger went in front of him to let the public know that he would be put to death by stoning. So he must have been strung up and then stoned. The Talmud denies the crucifixion for nobody says hanged when they mean hanged on a cross for that is too vague. Hanged seems to mean that Jesus was tied up on a tree or something so that the people could stone him better. 

The Talmud contradicts the gospel claim that Jesus had to be taken secretly for execution and that Judas was hired to arrange a discreet capture. It implies then that nobody minded if Jesus was going to be stoned because if they cared they had long enough to rescue him. He had too few disciples for them to be of any use. It says that he had five disciples whose names are very different from the gospels. The Talmud also says that the Jews give Yeshu a good chance to clear himself for the purpose of the notice was so that anybody who could defend him would have a good chance to. I reject the statement that the five are leading believers in Jesus who were not disciples of Jesus on the personal level (_Josh McDowells Evidence for Jesus, Is It Reliable?_). There is no evidence in support of this and why would second generation Christians be remembered? They were direct personal disciples of Jesus. 

Why would the Jews make any of this up? They would have liked to say that Jesus was betrayed by one of his own and why would they make it up about the notice to hint that Jesus was not popular for they could have just said it out straight? And why would they have been so ashamed to say that, if most of the people had been led astray by Jesus? Why would they say that Jesus mother was royal and then destroy a bloodline by planning to kill her son and not make it clear that though the mother was royal Jesus had no rights for he was the son of Pantera?

Sometimes the New Testament says Jesus was hanged. It is important that Acts 10:39 says that Jesus was slain and then hanged on a tree. This gives the Talmud more weight and so it cannot be as easily dismissed as the Christians like to think.

The Talmud gives laws that would prove that the trial of Jesus as recounted in the New Testament never happened if they existed at that time. Christians claim that the Talmud made up the laws to discredit the story, which is ridiculous. As if they had nothing to do but battle Christianity which was a predominately gentile religion and the Jews didnt want gentiles. Why would they go out of their way to prove that the trial never happened? There were many things that would have disturbed them far more that they would have liked to make up lies about to discredit but they left them alone.

The fact that the information given by the Talmud is simpler than the gospels suggests that it is more primitive than the gospels though it may not have been written down until after the gospels were composed. The earlier evidence is given to refute something, the better. The Talmud material is obviously more primitive than the gospels. Stories get more complex as time goes on. If it is invented stuff knowing that the Christian version of events was the right one then why is it so sober? Why is it much more sensible? The saner a story is the more likely it is to be true. Yet Christian frauds use this argument for the gospels being true knowing that it would do a better job of authenticating the Talmud. The Talmud never looks at the gospels which is strange and indicates that its Jesus material preceded the gospels.

The only problem with the Yeshu material is that if there was a Jesus or if the Christians had taken advantage of gaps in the Jewish history to invent one it was most probably about him for there was no way the Talmud would pass over him completely. Instead of attacking Jesus the Talmud could have reported what others said about him and feign disapproval which was one way of getting the criticisms past the censors. If Christians could have been so wrong about Jesus then he easily might not have existed. And also, if the figure is not Jesus or is somebody that was just confused with Jesus then Jesus probably never existed.

Top of the Document 
FATHERS TESTIMONY VALUELESS

What documents would be next in importance to the New Testament? Obviously, the next oldest related writings. These are the apostolic Fathers, that is, the fathers of the Church who supposedly learned from the apostles. Christians say that Jesus is likely to have existed when the Apostolic Fathers say he did exist.

The Fathers tell us so little about him that he could easily have been an invention. It is not enough for them to say they believe or know that Jesus was a real person and not a fake.

Clement say that Jesus died a bloody death and rose again. He was sent by God and sent the apostles to preach his message after their doubts had been cured by his return from the dead. He quotes Jesus saying that it is better to be murdered than to lead a person into sin.

He doesnt say if the apostles saw the resurrected Lord or even when Jesus lived. His Jesus could have been a being who was crucified by demons in the distant past and rose sometime since then and who appeared to somebody in a dream who converted the apostles later for all we know. His Jesus could have been a dream.

Ignatius said that Jesus was born of Mary (Ephesians 7), baptised (1, sinless (Magnesians 7) and was God.

He says that he wants you to be unshakably convinced of the Birth, the Passion, and the Resurrection which were the true and indisputable experiences of Jesus Christ, our Hope, in the days of Pontius Pilates governorship (Magnesians 11). This is very important for it is the testimony of a Christian who was likely to have known the apostle John that Jesus Christ was born of Mary and died and rose when Pilate was Procurator. This period is from 26-36 AD! Was Jesus only ten years old when he was killed? This would prove the gospels to be sheer fantasy. If one takes the unwarranted view that Ignatius structured the sentence badly and meant that Jesus suffered and rose and was not born in Pilates time then one can just as easily say that he meant that Jesus rose and was not born and did not suffer in Pilates day. 

The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (1) says that Christ was born of the virgin and was baptised by John and then in the days of Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch was crucified. This seems to give the impression that Jesus was born and baptised before their taking office. But Jesus according to the gospels must have been baptised when Pilate was Procurator (Luke 3:1). He gives a quote from Jesus saying touch me for I am not a spirit that seems to have been plucked from Luke 24:39. But Luke says more than that. There Jesus says touch me and see that I am not a spirit for a spirit does not have flesh and bones like I have. Had Ignatius known Luke he would have quoted it completely for it was believed that spirits could be touched after they materialise themselves so the author of Luke had to go and say they felt flesh and bones to make it seem more real. His logic was that it was better to feel flesh and bone and not just flesh alone. The apostles thought that Jesus was a ghost and ghosts can give the illusion of being touched. Luke looks like an improvement on Ignatius assertion meaning that Luke was written by a follower of Ignatius. The absurdity of Jesus declaration that being touchable meant he could not be a ghost shows that the risen Jesus could not be trusted. 

Smyraeans (3) tells us that Jesus was resurrected and was still like any natural man. This can agree with Jesus being a child when he died for man meant women and children as well as men. The Catholic creed says: for us men and for our salvation he came down from Heaven.

The first century Epistle to Diognetus simply says that Jesus was the sinless Saviour who taught his apostles the Gospel in the plainest language (11). This contradicts the gospel of John where the apostles complain about Jesus not speaking plainly. There is a lot of vague talk even in the synoptics. And Jesus even said once that he hid his teaching in parables to keep their meaning from the people. Diognetus is proving that Johns gospel is a hoax and the same about the other gospels. It also denies that the Jewish regulations in the Torah were literal though Jesus observed them and took them literally which shows it knows nothing of the Jesus of the gospels and which makes his existence improbable. It even undermines the visions of the risen Jesus to the apostles which supported the Law which may mean that it is accusing the apostles of not reporting what the risen Jesus said accurately. And it is older than the gospels so its word comes first.

Barnabas from the first century mentions the miracle power, death and resurrection of but goes into no detail. Judging by the silliness of his letter it is obvious that his standard of what a miraculous wonder would be would be rather low just like many of those who write into the appalling St. Martins Magazine to say what miracles he did for them have.

The apostolic Fathers provide no convincing evidence for Jesus being a historical reality. They often contradict the Gospels which shows that either they knew nothing about them or did not recognise them as having any authority.

*Top of the Document*

APOSTOLIC FATHERS DISCREDITED 


The writings of the Apostolic Fathers hail from the late first to early second century. They seem to add weight to the evidence for Christianity therefore it is important they we discredit them and do a good job of it. 

To achieve that we have to show that they were gullible and careless and dishonest in matters of religious belief. 

Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, the author of the Epistles to Diognetus, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas and the author of the Didache (and maybe the demented composer of the Shepherd of Hermas) are the Apostolic Fathers.

These were gullible silly men. They have given clear evidence that the gospels were not known when they were written. Christians will say I use them to prove this then I run them down and discredit them when they attest to the resurrection and to the existence of Jesus. But the more gullible they were the more likely they would have been to hug and kiss and distribute the gospels perhaps purged of any bits they did not like. They were not reliable in relation to evidence for the supernatural and to the existence of Jesus. Also, they make positive declarations in favour of Christianity while the sayings of Christ are dealt with in passing. They are being fanatical with faith and merely reporting the sayings so if they are being fanatical then it does not affect the sayings for they are not what they are being fanatical about. Emmanuel Swedenborg was a fanatic and delusional but still his books can show us that he had the Old and New Testaments. 

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/wasthereajesus/chapter8.htm#_top#_top 
Top of the Document

*Clement*



Clement of Rome thought that when Rahab was saved by hanging a scarlet cord from her house that it was a prophecy of salvation by the red blood of Jesus (12) which shows that he saw miracles where there need have been none and was too credulous to be relied on. When a man writes such nonsense on small things why trust him in greater? Jesus himself said as much.

Clement was conscious that some is not all. He did not let that stop him from claiming that the seeming dying and rising of things in nature means that all people are going to rise (24). 

He even accepted the far-fetched superstitions about the Phoenix, the bird of legend from whose ashes a new bird grows. Concerning this matter he wrote, Look at that strange portent that occurs in the East as if it were proven! He declared that the creator made use of this bird to show that there is a resurrection. This proves his slackness when the legend as he gives it doesnt even allude to a resurrection but the making of a new bird from what is left of the old. He was desperate for evidence for the resurrection and when that was the best he could do then plainly when there was no evidence for the resurrection of Christ and therefore none for his existence for the resurrection was his chief achievement.

Clement wrote that lying is the only thing that God cannot do (27). Yet he would have agreed with God deceiving us in other ways. God made the natural laws that make people be deceived by dreams  even forgotten ones that can serve no purpose. Clement was a hypocrite.

*Top of the Document*

*Ignatius and Polycarp*



St Ignatius of Antioch was undoubtedly crazy. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his intention to refuse to escape from the Romans to save himself from a horrid death in the arena. He vowed to incite the lions in it to tear him to bits if they were not interested in eating him. I am truly in earnest about dying for God  if only you yourselves put no obstacles in the way. I must implore you to do me no such untimely kindness. St Polycarp was as bad. In the _Martyrdom of Polycarp _(7) we are told that when he was arrested to be murdered he could have escaped but didnt.

They knew that the apostles did not deliberately set out to get martyred for if they had they would have succeeded long before. They waited until they were nearly dead anyway if they did. The fathers claimed to be preserving their tradition and yet they set bad example and preached fanatical lies. It is an insult to the apostles to take them to be reliable sources of apostolic tradition. Also Ignatius did not know the teaching of Matthews gospel that if you are in danger of death in one town flee to another.

Ignatius did not bother condemning Christians for having slaves in his Epistle to Polycarp. Slavery is absurd for it teaches that some people are inferior because of the circumstances under which they were born. Criminally, he told his slave-owners not to be overbearing. He accused slaves who bought their freedom with the money of the Church of being selfish  a ridiculous accusation for some Churches must have been wealthy.

Ignatius had to contend with heretics who held that Jesus was a spirit or symbol not a man. They denied that Jesus human life and his death were real. Ignatius argued that if this is so then everything else must be an illusion as well! (Smyrnaeans 4). Such an argument is simply dreadful. It shows that he was not very bright and careless in matters of religious dispute.

He advised his people not to speak to heretics and to simply say a prayer for them although he later disclosed that he didnt even want to remember that they existed! The hypocrite!

Ignatius knew that the foundational Christian virtue was humility. Yet in his open letter to the Church of Philadelphia, he was quite a braggart, I am thankful to say that, where you are concerned, my conscience is clear. Nobody can be bold enough to claim that I have ever been oppressive to a single one of you in any matter, great or small. 

The gospels were not published even in the early second century for Ignatius of Antioch could do no better against the Docetists who believed that Jesus was a ghost not a man than to illogically say if Jesus was an illusion so is everything else. He would have told them to listen to the historical records and why they should but there were none. There was no evidence for the existence of Christ.


Top of the Document

*Barnabas*



The Epistle of Barnabas was supposed to have been written by Barnabas who was the companion of Paul.

This ridiculous letter maintains that the Old Testament is an allegory.

This passage speaks volumes about the madness of its author: The scripture tells us that out of his own household Abraham circumcised eighteen and three hundred Now, in writing eighteen, the ten is expressed by the letter I and the eight by E; and there, you see, you have IE (sus) [Iesus is Jesus]. And then, since grace was to come by a cross, of which T is the shape, it adds and three hundred. Thus it indicates Jesus with two of the letters, and the Cross with the third. This is complete fantasy. Anybody can see that this is crap.

In chapter 10, it is declared that the Jewish food laws of the Old Testament were never meant to be taken literally! In other words, dont eat pigs means dont associate with people who are pigs! This is incredible. Barnabas knew fine well that using that method of interpretation one could make the Old Testament mean anything. 

He wrote, Do not speak sharply when you are giving orders to servants, whether men or women, if their trust is in the same God as yours; else they may lose their fear of him who is over you both (19). This is hypocrisy because the apostles were cutting and abusive just like their Jesus. His logic is warped. Your unpleasantness does not mean that people will start fearing you more than God. Barnabas would deny that the gospels are inspired or even important for they record the abusive talk of Jesus.

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/wasthereajesus/chapter8.htm#_top#_topTop of the Document

*Didache*



The Didache is the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Its silences speak louder than its words for major Christian teachings are absent. It is less than seminal. Nobody would write a basic account of apostolic teaching and leave out such foundational Christian dogmas such as salvation by faith and by grace, the saving death and resurrection of Christ. Sharp chastising is forbidden in it which proves that it is not the teaching of the apostles at all who were cross men like Jesus.

Hypocritically, the Didache says that we must give food and money to prophets for they have earned it and then it says that any prophet who looks for money is to be called a charlatan. According to the stupid author, it is bad to ask for payment but not to accept it. Accepting it is asking for more!

The Didache (6) contradicts Paul, the first Christian author, when it says that Christians must not eat meat sacrificed to idols and calls it false worship. Paul said that there was no harm in it except when it might be an occasion of bad example for other people who see you doing it (1 Corinthians 10) and that it was not worshipping false gods. Commonsense agrees. Anybody can see that eating such communion sacrifices is not worship. Some may object that the Didache does not forbid eating meat bought at the market just because it has been sacrificed but only when eating it is part of a religious ritual of worship and symbolic union. They are wrong. The text says, Be careful to refuse this food. This is not the language of one who has Christians going to sacrifices in mind. If they couldnt eat the meat they wouldnt go. And what would they be doing there anyway? Most of the pagans didnt bother with the temple.


Top of the Document

*To Diognetus with Love*



The Epistle to Diognetus accuses pagans of wilfully adoring stones or whatever in their idolatrous worship. The pagans were not that crazy. They adored the spirit they believed inhabited the idol or meant the honour given to the idol to pass on to the being represented like the kiss given to Johns photo is meant in honour of John not the photo. 

Diognetus criticises such worship for the idols cannot take care of themselves. This is sheer dishonesty and malice for when he believed that when his own God did not take care of his own affairs that it was for a mysterious purpose. The bigot knew that the gods that indwelt idols might let them be stolen and desecrated for a mysterious purpose.


Conclusion


It is the vice of imprudence to heed the writings of the Fathers for they were all daft and addicted to nonsense.

Top of the Document

DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO


About 150 AD, Justin wrote his _Dialogue with Trypho the Jew_. Some think that Trypho never existed but he did for on one occasion when he and Justin were discussing the interpretation of prophecies about Jesus, Justin wandered from the subject to discuss the alleged removal of supporting material from the Old Testament. The dialogue then was created from an actual conversation.

Trypho said that nobody from Jesus time knew Jesus and that Jesus was invented. Trypho was an informed and worthy opponent when Justin had to write a book to challenge him. Justin, like Irenaeus much later, believed that Jesus lived to be an old man (page 40, _St Peter and Rome_) which conflicts with the gospels which we know Justin never knew completely for much of the historical part if not all of it was top secret. But there is reason to believe that Justin knew nothing but the bare skeleton of the Jesus story. Justin himself then inadvertently gives support to Trypho for Justin himself clearly knew nothing about Jesus and could not demonstrate that he must have lived. Thus we have a valuable witness to Jesus being a legend. In the Dialogue, Justin was extremely nasty to the Jew. He accused all Jews of being idolaters, spiritually ruined and depraved and incapable of honesty or fair play and said that they were the wickedest people on earth and that they fornicated like harlots (page 161, _The Light Shining in Darkness_). How could we trust anything  that was not bad  that Justin said about Jesus when he was so keen to win the argument with the Jews even at the cost of heaping vile slander on them? His apologetic was not about real love for Jesus but winning an argument and since the Jews were blamed for Jesus death Jesus was a good weapon to use against them to incite hatred. Justin cannot be trusted. That the Church preserved his hate-filled writings does not speak well for the Church either.

The Jew, Trypho, stated that there was no evidence for Jesus for nobody who would have known had heard of him as a real person in Palestine and so he never existed. This was about or soon after 150 AD. I quote, if the Messiah has been born and exists somewhere, he is incognito and does not even recognise himself. He will have no power until Elijah will come and anoint him and tell all who he is. You [Christians] have listened to an unfounded rumour and have invented some kind of a Christ for yourselves (Chapter VIII, _Dialogue With Trypho_). The whole point in his making this statement was to refute the rejection of circumcision and the feasts and the Sabbath among the Christians. 

It is interesting that Trypho voices the unbiblical Jewish belief as fact that the Messiah will not know who he is until Elijah the precursor anoints him and reveals him. 

He suggests that the New Testament authors created the story of Jesus baptism and anointing by the Spirit with the Baptiser John, Elijah, in the Jordan from Jewish legends. And as well that there is no evidence for the gospel tales that Jesus had an origin surrounded by miracles and which convinced many that the baby was the Messiah for Jesus would have known if he was the Messiah before his Elijah came. 

It is one thing for Jesus to fulfil Gods prophecies but there is something amiss if he manages to fulfil prophecies that God never made! The Old Testament never says that Elijah will come to prepare the way for Jesus though Jesus and his Church imagined it did!

Trypho was asserting that even if the Jesus of the Christians existed that nobody claiming to be Elijah declared him to be a Messiah to open his eyes that he was the Messiah so he rejects the gospels saying that John did tell Jesus in the waters of the Jordan that he was the Messiah. Justin did not try to defend the story on historical grounds because he couldnt. John never claimed to be Elijah in any sense  Jesus and his entourage made that claim for him which smacks of dishonesty. To fulfil the alleged prophecy it would be necessary to have independent evidence that John claimed to be Elijah. Christians say John claimed to be Elijah when he claimed to be the precursor of the Messiah as prophesied by Isaiah but there is no evidence that the passage predicts an Elijah. Trypho was rejecting the Jesus story as authentic and Justin never tried to set him straight because the man was right. Any psychologist reading the _Dialogue_ _with_ _Trypho_ would see that Justin was being canny and evasive and knew fine well that his idol, Jesus, was a fiction. 

We are told that the Christ of the Christians did not fit the criterion for being a real Christ but was an invention. However, Trypho does not concentrate on the existence of Jesus. His purpose was to show that the Messiah of the Christians could not have been a real Messiah and that the Christian view of the Messiah was not supported by the Old Testament. The reason he did that was because the Christians believed in the existence of Jesus on the basis of the prophecies.

Justin replies in Chapter 9 that he forgives Trypho for saying those things for Trypho has been misled by false scripture teachers and he promises to prove to Trypho that the stories are not fables. He means by proving the Old Testament prophesied Jesus. Now Justin never ever tries to prove that Jesus did x, y and z according to the scriptures but looks at Jesus through the scriptures. This tells us that Justin could not prove the existence of Jesus for what you have to do is to prove that Jesus did this and that and then that this was foreseen in the Old Testament criteria for a true Messiah.

Chapter XVII brings us Justin accusing the Jews of sending missionaries all over the world just to make trouble for Christians and slander them. This is impossible to believe for the Jews did not care what non-Jews thought. Why did the Jews pick on Christians and not Christ? The passage gives no hint that they went about slandering Jesus and saying the resurrection was a hoax which indicates that the Jews knew Jesus never existed. Justin wants to forget the Jews believed that. He says the Jews still persecute Christ but Christians hold that to persecute Christians is to persecute Christ.

When Justin claimed that the Old Testament had been altered, he lost any right to say that the Bible had no contradictions (Chapter LXV) and that it proved Christ was born and was the saviour. Trypho would certainly have pointed that out to him but Justin left that point out. He would also have objected that had Jesus been the Christ Jesus would have restored the Bible. Justin quoted some allegedly missing scriptures (Chapter LXXII). One from Esdras merely says that there is a saviour and if the people turn away from him they shall be laughed at. Another from Jeremiah says that somebody is like a lamb for the slaughter and the Jews will say they should kill him. Another says the Lord came down to raise his people from the dead. A line about God reigning from the wood has supposedly been cut out of a psalm. Not one of these lost scriptures necessarily proves that God became man or anything about Jesus.

Chapter XXIX says that anybody baptised in the Holy Spirit does not need the other baptism of circumcision. Jesus would always have had the Holy Spirit and was still circumcised. Justin is contradicting the gospels that Jesus was circumcised. 

Chapter XXXIV denies that a Psalm is about Solomon and says it is about Christ for it is about somebody who is adored by all kings and who rules the world. Quoting this Psalm would have been useless for Trypho would say it proved nothing for Christ did not achieve these things yet. So Justin is saying that all kings adored the man Christ some time in the past and that Christ was emperor of the world meaning that Jesus lived long long before the time period the gospels give. This is a clear contradiction of the New Testament and proves it was censored or not regarded as infallible at the time. Trypho never replied to this for it was so silly and impossible to disprove.

In Chapter XXXIX we read, Trypho said, prove to us that the man who according to you was crucified and rose into Heaven is the Messiah of God. For you have proved by the scriptures you have recited before that the scriptures say the Christ must suffer and return to rule all nations. Show us that your Christ is the Christ. Justin replies, It has been proved sirs. It has been proven to those who hear and who have heard what you have heard and accepted by you. But I return to what I was discussing and will give the other proof later to you in case you say I cannot prove. 

Trypho says that the Christians are SAYING Jesus was nailed to the cross indicating that there was no evidence for it but their word. Justin, in reply, tells the Jews that the prophecies are proof enough. In other words, the prophecies must have been fulfilled so even if there is no evidence for Christ we know from the prophecies that the Christ story is true and can work out the details of the story. In other words, the prophecies are the only real record of Christ. In other words, if the interpretation is wrong then Jesus Christ never existed. 

Later in Chapter XLVIII Trypho challenges Justin to prove Christ as he promises and he complained that it was all very paradoxical and no proof is possible. It is when you say that this Messiah existed as God before the origin of time and then that he agreed to be born and become a man and yet that is not just a man this is more than paradoxical but foolish  that is how I see it. If you analyse this you see that the traditional claim of the Church that Trypho was disputing the idea of a God waiting for a long time to become man is false for Trypho as a Jew would have known that the same complaint could be made about God being so slow in sending the Messiah be he God or not. There is no absurdity in God waiting for the right time. As a scholar, Trypho would have known that the similar thought that it is too silly to believe that God would have waited so long before making the world was flawed. He is rejecting the idea that the Messiah was born as a man and could be a divine being for a God made man would only be a God pretending to be a vulnerable man. He is implicitly denying that Jesus could do miracles and rise from the dead. Justin replies, I am unable to prove that he existed before his birth as a son of the creator of all things and that he was God and born man of a virgin. But I have proved that he is the Christ. Justin means only the Old Testament proves Christ to have been the Messiah and Justin is denying that there are any books or proofs that Jesus was a God and existed before he was born which is a challenge to the traditional interpretation of the gospel of John which appears at first glance to support the traditional theology that there are three persons in God and the second person the Word or Son became man. Justin even says that Christ is the Christ whoever he is. He does not know Jesus at all or anything about him. He has to learn about the mysterious Jesus from Old Testament prophecy. 

Justin cannot use the resurrection to prove that Jesus is God even on the basis that if Jesus said he was God and God would prove it by raising him then Jesus was proven to be God by the resurrection. Justin did not have the uncensored gospels. And even without them he should still have been able to formulate an argument for the resurrection by arguing on the basis of history and the integrity of the alleged witnesses to the resurrection. 

And Justin was not thinking about proving that Christ was born of a virgin but that Christ was born for born is the whole point of what he said. Its the main point. He meant, I cannot prove that he was born  it just happened to be from a virgin. Trypho's request for proof that Jesus really fulfilled the prophecies is not given and in chapter XLIX Justin goes back to proving from prophecy that Elijah in John anointed Jesus but never uses history to prove the event really happened as prophesied. Trypho answers that the prophecy used to prove this is ambiguous and Justin argues that there was nobody else but John and Jesus to fulfil the prophecy. He does not use facts to prove Jesus fulfilled prophecy but uses prophecy to work out the alleged facts. The fact that he indicates that John and Jesus were the only candidates implies that his view was that the baptism in the Jordan was more than just a dip in the water and John hearing a voice and seeing a dove light on Jesus. It seems to imply that there was a coronation and something that nobody else could imitate. It was some kind of grand public event and was unique for anybody could go for a dip and say the man who baptised them was Elijah and that the Holy Spirit came down. Justin rejected and did not know or accept the story of what happened at the Jordan that we have in the gospels.

Chapter LXIX says that the Devil created the legend of Hercules with his divine origin from Jove and his world travels and magic strength, ascension into Heaven to create a counterfeit of the life of Christ so that Hercules seems to imitate Christ. But Jesus did not travel the world or have great physical strength according to the Gospels so Justin is eliminating the gospels whether he knew them or not as reliable records of the life of Jesus. This would be strong evidence that Jesus may not have existed for the gospels are the only things that stand between belief in Jesus as a person and denial of his reality. The reason Justin brings all these parallels between Jesus and the gods up is because he wants to convince Trypho that the Devil and his religions know the prophecies of the Old Testament mean what Justin says they mean.

The outrageously ridiculous thesis in Chapter LXX that the mystery religion of Mithras was based on the true interpretation of Daniel and Isaiah but distorted is a sure sign that Justin was extremely embarrassed by the similarity between Christ and Mithras. He wanted to deflect Trypho from going into the charge that Christians used pagan myths when inventing their Jesus. And it worked. Trypho did not use this line of argument. Trypho would have known to a certain extent that Christianity was a copy of paganism but would have found it difficult to answer Justins hint that it was independent. The pagans did not esteem Daniel and Isaiah that much and their legends all came from nature myths - for example, the sun setting and rising suggested dying and rising gods.

Justin devoted Chapters CVI and CVII to proving that the end of Psalm 22 and the story of Jonah showed that Jesus would rise again. Neither prove any such thing. Justin wrote in Chapter CVIII that though Jesus had told the Jews that he would perform the sign of Jonah meaning the resurrection they would not believe the resurrection report and maintained that the body had been stolen and the apostles were lying. Justin made no effort to prove that the resurrection happened. His logic was if the Old Testament said the Messiah would rise then Jesus must have risen and it is on this logic that he tries to persuade Trypho. That is why Trypho does not bother answering the objection. The objection could only be answered on the basis that the gospel stories were verifiable and convincing and this was not done so both Justin and Trypho did not regard the gospels as wholly important if they existed. It seems more probable that they did not know the historical parts of the gospels at all. Justin denied the gospel evidence when he said that prophecy proves the resurrection when what he should have been doing was proving the resurrection and then that it was prophesised. 

Justin claims to prove that the Old Testament predicted that the Gentiles would be more open to the gospel than the Jews who would mostly turn away. There is something very dodgy going on when the people who would have known Jesus best were so dead set against him. The Jews were a lot less addicted to material pleasures than the Gentiles and had a rigid moralistic religion so psychology tells us that they should have been easier to convert. But the case may be that they knew too much about Jesus to be converted.

Justin showed he did not have the Book of Acts when he told Trypho that you could not be a Jew and a Christian at the one time. It wasnt likely then that he had Lukes gospel either for one goes with the other and the end of Luke says the apostles never left the Temple for they were so busy worshipping after Jesus departed from them into Heaven. 

In Chapter CXLII, Trypho tells Justin that it was not the intention of his or his companions to discuss what they discussed. Trypho says he is pleased with the conversation and that more discussions like that would be of service in understanding the Old Testament scriptures. Before they left Justin told them he hoped they would come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah of God. So he had failed to convince them. Evidently, Trypho was impressed only by the ingenuity but not the conclusions of Justins Old Testament exegesis. 

Justin says the apostles wrote memoirs of the life of Jesus but he never tells us what was in them or if he used them in his research into the life of Jesus. Justin was dishonest because he said that when God said that he gives nobody his glory but keeps it for himself for he is the only God that when he gave Christ his glory the solution to the contradiction is a mystery (Chapter LXV). When he sees or thinks he sees a contradiction he pretends it is not there. Justin seriously contradicted the gospels when he said this for had Christ been God there would have been no contradiction. But Justin believed that Christ was not God but was another God. This is plain. His attitude shows that the early Church had no scriptures but the Old Testament and anything else was just a book, useful, but just a book that could be right or wrong and had no binding authority on the Church. This shows that early Christianity was not based on evidence but on Old Testament interpretation and opinion.

Justin backed up Tryphos unbelief in the reality of Christ without meaning to. Justin was the Christians first real apologist. This individual is eulogised by Christians and his eccentricities and fanaticism are conveniently papered over. 

Top of the Document

*GOSPEL STORIES INSERTED INTO TRYPHO*


Justin gives some details from the life of Christ that are similar to the Gospel of Matthew in the Dialogue with Trypho. His version of the visit of the magi says Jesus was born in a cave and that the magi came from Arabia and learned from the elders of the Jews that the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem and he says that Joseph was told to keep Mary as his wife for her unexpected pregnancy was down to God. And he speaks of the flight of the Joseph and Mary and baby Jesus to Egypt. He says like Matthew that the massacre of the Innocents by King Herod who wanted to find and kill the Christ child was prophesied by Jeremiah. The differences suggest that he was not using Matthew at all. It could well be that this book was a source for Matthews gospel. 

It is important that Justin is only close to the gospel story in its most dubious claims, the nativity, the entry into Jerusalem and the baptism in the Jordan. Even if he really wrote about these things he showed credulity and anyway he was writing too long after the events to be used as backup for the Christian story. 

Justin did not know of the extremely basic apostolic and New Testament doctrine originated by Jesus that there was no salvation without explicit faith in Christ for he thought that Socrates and Heraclitus, pagan Greek philosophers, were redeemed in the blood of Christ and were in Heaven. Anything he says then is to be taken with a pinch of blessed salt unless it was something he would not have liked to admit.

In chapter 49, of his Dialogue, Justin gets Trypho to agree that the Old Testament says that Elijah will precede the Messiah. But the Old Testament says no such thing which is why the report of Tryphos agreement is dubious. This means that Justins discourse that heavily borrows from the gospel about John being Elijah and Jesus saying so is an insertion because why try to get Trypho to believe things about John being Elijah when Trypho would not have believed Elijah had to proclaim Jesus? Was somebody trying to make it look like the gospels were known before they actually were? Evidence for this is Tryphos rejection of the doctrine that Isaiah saying one would come crying in the wilderness referred to the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus.

The discourse is followed by a report that Trypho learned from it that John is being said to have come with the same Holy Spirit as Elijah and he finds that silly. That is a lie and Justin knows it because the Jews had no problem with God invisibility indwelling more than one prophet at the one time never mind when there was centuries between them. Justin then quoted texts from the Old Testament to show that it was possible. Why did Trypho not ask Justin where he got his information that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies from? Why is he presented as taking for granted what Justin reports to him is right? Why does he listen to Justin saying about what happened to John the Baptist and that it fulfilled a prophecy and then change the subject to object that John and Elijah having the same Holy Spirit is silly? Trypho would have questioned the story he was being told. The bits that seem to have come from the gospels look so much like insertions made long after Justin died. A forger seems to have been at work.

If Justin had the Matthew or Luke gospel then why did he depend on Isaiah to prove that Jesus was virgin-born in chapter 66 when both he and Trypho knew that it was not good enough as Trypho stated?

The chapter that gives the details about Jesus birth and the massacre of the innocents as Matthew has it is dubious for it is offered as proof that Jesus fulfilled prophecy and we are given the impression that Trypho accepted it for that is the end of the dispute. Trypho would not have been that easily convinced. Then it jumps to the declaration by Trypho that Justins scripture interpretations are contrivances. His silence about the books that allegedly verify that they are not contrivances shows that somebody has been inserting the Matthew material into the passage. 

The early Christians would have thought that kings from the east came to worship Jesus and that Jesus had been baptised by John who was Elijah without the gospels because they created the life story of Jesus out of the Bible prophecies and John was a popular prophet. A lot of the material in Justin can be explained that way. 

A scribe probably inserted the material that is close to the gospels. It was material that could have been left out and it is impossible to see what Justin wanted it for. And why didnt he use the story of the entry into Jerusalem when Trypho said nobody knew of this Jesus? Justin would have proven the gospels to be authentic historical documents before proving that Jesus was predicted in the Old Testament. That is the logical order and the order Trypho would have demanded for Trypho complained that the Christians were copying from pagan and Jewish religious ideas. He thought a lot of the Jesus stuff was stolen from the story of Perseus.

Top of the Document

*OTHER SNIPPETS ABOUT JUSTIN*


We have some fragments from Justins _Work on the Resurrection_. This book was written to answer those who rejected the idea that anybody could come back from the dead. 

In the first chapter of that work he said that truth is free and is its own authority and should be believed both for its own status as truth and for the sake of trusting the God of truth who sends it. He said that the truth of Christianity is sent with authority and it is not right to ask for proof for it for the proof is greater than the proven and since God is truth nothing not even proof can be better than God. 

In other words, you believe in Christianity because God says it is true and not because there is any evidence. So there cannot be any evidence when he has that attitude. When Justin answers objections to the resurrection he never does it by trying to verify that the apostles and the gospels were truthful so he never had any gospels and did not regard the apostles testimony as evidence. Rather than depend on evidence the Christian sees if the gospel might be true and then gets a revelation from God that it is true. 

It is certain that Justin did not have the gospels.

Top of the Document

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/wasthereajesus/chapter9.htm#_top*THE GOSPEL OF PHILIP*

Found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt, the Gospel of Philip, tells us that Jesus was an apparition and rose from the dead before he died. Jesus lived way back in the Stone Age. Philip says things that have since his time found to have been correct  for example, that Jesus never lived in the first century so he has to be taken seriously.

The research material for this work was just thrown together. It shows the marks of the Gnostic system of Valentinus. This means the author had access to the outstanding scholarship of the Valentinians and should be taken seriously.

Because the book is like the format of the catechisms of the second century to the fourth it is dated in the late second century (_Nag Hammadi Library_, page 141). But the way it is disorganised hints that most of the material in it must go back a lot further. The quotations from the gospels are hurried insertions  whoever put them in had no intention of tampering much. If the gospel in its original form had been all late second century we would expect to see criticisms of the Christian writings in it for it opposes anything that makes people fail to see that the spiritual Jesus saves and there is no physical Jesus. So in its original form and because of its primitive teaching it goes back to the first century or the early part of the second before the gospels appeared. It is sacramentalist and it would use the gospel of John which has been a major source of sacramental thinking more if it does not. It quotes John once and calls it the word of God. Yet it contradicts it! The author could only get pieces of Johns gospel for he couldnt get his piece of it right so he wrote before John was made public in the middle of the second century. Despite himself he was proving that John was a liar. This perhaps accidental attack on Johns veracity carries more weight than all the early testaments favouring the apostolic doctrine put together. The Church will say it was just a mistake. But you have to take historical material as it is for if you start assuming that anything you dont like is a mistake you are on the path to danger. A historical portrait has to stand by what the written sources say for there is no alternative but worthless speculation.

The book is not merely a collection of Gnostic myth that the author believed you could dissent from. The sacramentalism and the emphasis on knowing magical names of Jesus and the catechism format suggest that it was a dogmatic book for a sect. What was in it was in it because it was believed to be as much fact as the rising of the sun every morning. 

The quote from John says that whoever does not eat the flesh and drink the blood has no life in him. But the flesh is interpreted as the word of God and the blood as the holy spirit of God. This would be a denial that the gospel version of Jesus existed as a flesh and blood being so he could have been a vision or an illusion or a symbol from Heaven. 

It says that Jesus Christ lived before men knew how to make bread, Before Christ came there was no bread in the world, just as Paradise, the place where Adam was, had many trees to nourish the animals but no wheat to sustain man. Man used to feed like the animals, but then Christ came, the perfect man, he brought bread from heaven in order that might be nourished with the food of man. This bread could be literal bread so it is literal bread. The first century Jesus of the gospels is denied. 

Philip says that Mary did not conceive by the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is female. It says that the apostles hated her which shows that its author did not have the New Testament which says that Mary was chummy with the early Church.

The gospel says that Jesus appeared differently to different people suggesting that he was an apparition perhaps one that people induced to appear themselves by hypnotic rites.

It says Christ came to the whole place meaning he had been all over the world. The gospel comes to the brink of stating that Jesus was just a vision. It went on to say that Jesus burdened nobody while on earth which contradicts the gospels that he depended on charity to live and expected the apostles to die for him instead of sending them to safe places to preach. And then he forbade causing distress to anybody though Jesus abused the Pharisees and caused a lot of misery. The author is disputing the gospel account. And yet he appeals to some word of God or scripture that supports his teaching meaning there was a book that would not be compatible with the gospels. 

The gospel is reckoned by Barbara Thiering and her ilk to state that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a romantic relationship. It says that he loved her more than the disciples and kissed her often on the mouth to their disgust. They complained and he said that he loved them like her. So if he loved her most and did not love her the most then love must be in two different senses. The first sense is sexual and the second is platonic.

The gospel says that kissing is a sacrament that gives wisdom, We also kiss one another. We receive conception from the grace which is in one another. Kissing is causing you to be conceived as a child of God and passes on grace. So is there no romance in Jesus and Marys kisses? There must be some for he kissed her a lot and could have got others who could give the sacrament to do it. The early Christians kissed one another according to the New Testament. This was stopped to scotch unkind rumours. So the sacrament of the kiss points to the earliness of the gospel.

The author thought that Adam was nailed to the cross and that Adam and Jesus were one and the same. When Eve was still in Adam death did not exist. When she was separated from him death came into being. If he enters again and attains his former self, death will be no more. My God, My God, why O lord, have you forsaken me? (Mk 15:34 and parallels). It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place. The place was probably the Garden of Eden for Adam was expelled from it by God. Philip calls Jesus the perfect man so grammatically and otherwise he must have meant Adam. He wrote before the gospels became public for they contradict the context he puts the quote in. Jesus was a vision after his death which took place in prehistoric times. 

The gospel says that there is the son of man which was Jesus title and then there was the son of the son of man who is he who creates through the son of man and who can beget. The son of the son is every man so the son of man is Adam. Jesus and Adam were the same person or Adam was the first person to be possessed by the Christ Jesus force which became a part of him so that when he died you could say it died too. 

Philip said that Adam came from two virgins which were the spirit and the earth and that therefore Jesus was born of a virgin to put the fall right. Adams mothers were not women so Jesus wasnt either. Jesus mother was the spirit. Gnostics saw creation as a fall from God so it is not the fall of Genesis where Adam and Eve were disinherited for disobedience that is meant. Adam was bad for he was earth and spirit and Jesus was good for he was pure spirit. Adam became Jesus when he got rid of what his mother earth had put into him. The therefore shows that Jesus was Adam for he fixed the fall that Adam had. Nobody else was involved. Nobody would argue that a person called Adam was virgin born so another person Jesus had to be for that makes no sense. That is not what the gospel is saying. 

The gospel says that Adam became an animal by eating the fruit and that Christ was redeemed himself (page 152) and became sinless.

A story is attributed to the apostle Philip that Joseph the father of Jesus planted a garden of trees and made the cross of Jesus from them. But the gospel interprets this as an allegory for it starts about the tree of life in the middle of the garden and that it is from an olive tree there that we get the chrism and the chrism grants us a resurrection from spiritual death to life in this world. Joseph means increase in Hebrew and could be a symbol for the power that made Jesus or Adam. The cross could be the tree of life in the Garden of Eden that Adam was symbolically nailed to meaning he could not avail of its fruit. The olives represent the salvation he won for us. This interpretation requires that Jesus be Adam and in the Garden of Eden. Adam could be the fallen animal man and Jesus the redeemed spiritual man. Though the two are different persons in many ways they are the same person in essence which is why they can be spoken of as if they were separate persons at times. If Joseph made Jesus cross and Jesus was crucified in Josephs garden then we could have a staged mock crucifixion. It was necessary to fake a resurrection which God used to give mystical knowledge to the world. The author of Philip might be denying the gospels that Joseph was dead during Jesus ministry. 

Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. This completely repudiates and contradicts the gospels which are not wrapped up in symbols. So, Jesus must be a symbolic picture which does not rule out him being a true apparition that unveils truth to us. The gospel would not be teaching if Philip meant teaching. Jesus claimed to be the truth and this gospel is taking him literally.

The gospel condemned names because they cloak what is unreal. It said that words like Father, Son and Holy Spirit and resurrection blind one to the truth. It means you put your interpretation on them and they become idols. Words describe facts so the facts about the Son if you take him as somebody that lived on earth are as dangerous. Obviously, the gospel advocates truth so it forbids dependence on this alleged Jesus. He would not have come to earth to block our progress so he was not on earth at all and just speaks from Heaven to those who are in mystical communion with him - and though people differ in the details he gives them the truth that gives them personal transformation in the way that is best for them. 

The gospel says that God dyes. But this is symbolism for the fact that God changes a person in water baptism which the text says. 

The line, God is a man-eater. For this reason men are [sacrificed] to him. The author may only be reiterating the Old Testament demand for killing people who commit certain sins. 

We are told that Jesus came to crucify the world. So perhaps this is just another way of expressing what Jesus asked us to do when he told us to sacrifice ourselves and follow him by bearing our crosses.

It is argued that this gospel is worthless on the grounds that it is crazy. But you dont throw out the baby with the bath water. It is not really crazy.

Philip proves that Jesus was made up. It proves there were early Christians who denied that the gospels had the real Jesus which is the same as saying there is little or no evidence for the existence of Jesus.

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/wasthereajesus/chapter10.htm#_top*Top of the Document*

VALENTINUS AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

The Gnostic heretic of the Second Century, Valentinus, held that the Pastoral Letters of St Paul were forged (page 5, _The Gnostic Paul_). Interestingly, modern experts have come to the same conclusion so Valentinus knew something we did not. Valentinus rejected these letters not for doctrinal reasons for the other epistles of Paul were far more rabidly anti-gnostic but for historical reasons. Valentinus then eliminated the epistle which says that Jesus spoke before Pilate which made it clear that Paul had no historical evidence for his Jesus. 

Valentinus subscribed to the language of a historical Jesus and to the whole Christian system but the only difference was that he felt that there were two equally valid understandings of this faith. The seemingly literal talk masked esoteric symbolism. For example, they said that the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus was foolishness and quoted Paul in their defence (page 82, 84). The resurrection of Jesus signifies enlightenment and the achievement of gnosis which resurrects the soul from death to life (page 81). 

The Gospel of Philip which has Valentinian influence says that the flesh of Jesus is the logos or word of God and his blood is the Holy Spirit and argues that Jesus said this himself when he stated that anybody who does not eat his body and drink his blood will be lost in death (page 99). That is a challenge to the view that Jesus was a historical personage. They did believe that he existed but only on the spiritual plane. For us, it is enough that they denied his physical sojourn on earth. 

The Valentinians were able to live like fully orthodox Christians (page 157, _The Gnostic Paul_). They held that they should teach traditional Christianity to their followers and reserve the secret teaching for a few suitable people among them. The Valentinians held that Paul gave secret tradition to Theudas who gave it to Valentinus (page 5, _The Gnostic Paul_). Paul indicated that he was keeping teachings back from the Church that only some very trusted people could be allowed to hear (1 Corinthians 3:1-3).

*Top of the Document*

AN ANCIENT TESTIMONY


In the book of Wisdom and in Proverbs, Wisdom is talked about like she was a person. Paul called Heaven, Jerusalem our mother. So personification is a popular device in the Bible which firmly imbeds it in Jewish and Christian tradition.

At Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, the ancient gospel of Thomas was found. It is a collection of sayings which allegedly came from Jesus. Fragments of this gospel written before 200 AD were uncovered before that. The sayings of the gospel look more primitive and therefore older than the related ones in the canonical gospels. We can tell for they are simpler and seem to show little knowledge of the context of the sayings that resemble the gospels. The original draft of the gospel is possibly first century (page 125, _Nag Hammadi Library_). 

This gospel says that Jesus was not a real person but a symbolic teacher of wisdom. The living Jesus was a symbol just like the Devil is a symbol of wisdom for the Church of Satan in San Francisco.

The first saying says, Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death. So they all have spiritual meaning and if you think hard enough you can break the code. We have broken the code. The author must have been totally sure that Jesus never existed for he takes it for granted that we should be able to see that he is saying that so he shows that he believes that any open-minded and knowledgable person out there will agree with him. He presupposes that there are many disbelievers in the existence of Jesus out there. He knows of plenty. He knows of evidence but he does not see the need to draw attention to it. 

The gospel can be interpreted as monistic, that all things are just the one God, but we need not go that far and remember the valid interpretation is the simplest. We need not think it envisages an undivided God without parts which is the creation so nobody can say that the reason it has an impersonal Jesus is because it follows a monistic impersonal God. The god of monism or pantheism is impersonal for he is stones as well as people so he cannot be a person.

Jesus is the leader of the disciples and their spiritual director. He could be a mental image like the god Hermes was to his fans that God used to give people visions and revelations inside their heads in their imagination. 

Jesus said that the person who will drink from his mouth will become Jesus himself. If Jesus is a symbol for spiritual insight then the person who achieves spiritual insight makes it a part of him and kind of becomes it when he follows it. It may seem that to drink from his mouth means hear the word of God and absorb it. What it really means is to drink spiritual power or a life-force out of Jesus so that you become Jesus. Jesus then is a force not a person. He is not a man. The human Jesus never lived.

Jesus says he is all things and if you break a stone you find him inside (77). This assertion came after he said that that kingdom of God is like a precious pearl and since the kingdom is enlightenment he shows he is on about gaining wisdom. Then after the assertion he said that those who come to him look for truth. So when he said that we can break a stone to find him he meant that he was nature and we hear his word through nature and not through a man. There is spiritual insight in all things or all things are the power of wisdom. So Jesus is a metaphor for nature and not a man. Obviously, Jesus could not be all things if he were a real person. I cant become a stone as well as a person if I am conscious only of being a person.

Jesus told his followers to make James the Righteous the true leader if he leaves. Jesus admits that he is the boss. But shortly afterwards, he tells Thomas that he is not his master and that he only thinks he is his master because he had not seen the light and is drunk in his ignorance. So if Jesus is not his real master and yet a master then Jesus does not exist and he only a symbol for the mental force from God that leads to psychological insight or the mystical illumination of gnosis. James was named as the brother of the Lord so the gospel is telling us he was the brother only in the sense that he was close to the Lord for the Lord is not a real man. Brother of the Lord is a honorary title. There is much evidence in _Josephus Denier of the Existence of Jesus _that the gospel is telling the truth and has inside knowledge of early Christianity.

The author evinces his great regard for Jesus when he says that Jesus wants us to follow James the Righteous after Jesus is gone. He is saying that Jesus ought to be listened to. Jesus is a force that will speak through the person of James in the future. Following James is following Jesus because James will become the incarnation of Jesus. This implies that Jesus is a spiritual force from God that is to communicate with man through the imagination. Jesus is saying that ongoing revelation is necessary and he only gives that revelation through a person. 

Jesus criticises the apostles for referring to dead prophets instead of the living one in front of them which is himself (52). Does this tell us that the living Jesus is a man of flesh and blood? If the dead men were prophets then a real live Jesus would have regarded them as voices like his own, he would not have chastised the apostles. But if Jesus were only a personification in the imagination through which God speaks it would be preferable for people to go directly to him instead of to other people. The verse really refutes the notion of a literal Jesus. A Jesus who speaks last week would be in the same boat as a dead prophet for his word is in the past. But a non-literal Jesus would speak and remind and be with you all the time so his word would come first. The living one just means the force that reveals life and salvation for Jesus made it clear that it was mystical communion with God who is nature that saves so stones and men are not important but the divinity in them. So when he said he meant himself as the road to salvation he was not talking about his human self but the divinity inside. He was not referring to being human at all. If Jesus was a divine force speaking through a medium like say James like a spirit would then how does that square with the message of the gospel that each person has to get knowledge about Jesus on his own? Jesus speaks through James but you cannot learn from it unless you experience mystically what Jesus is saying. So to the person who does have the magical experience it is just hearing words but not the import of the words. 

Jesus proclaimed that it was for James that Heaven and earth were created. This would have to be truer of Jesus than James if Jesus is a real person. So Jesus is not real and James is real. James will be the symbolic Jesus main mouthpiece after Jesus ceases to talk to the apostles. Think about this. What if Heaven and earth were made for James because he would be the only spiritual medium through which Jesus would speak? When Jesus leaves James, James will be boss. This has to be the correct understanding.

Since Heaven and earth were made for James it suggests that James alone will give the pure word of God. This also is a hint that there was no historical Jesus. It is definitely a hint of great age for the saying about James is so strange and unnecessary there is no other explanation but that the saying was created when James was alive.

When it is James alone, Jesus is denying the gospel portrait of a saviour who came for all and who speaks to all by the power of the Holy Spirit and who had loads of followers. This is another indication of a pre-gospel origin because it ties in with the earliest strata that express the fact that the predecessors of the gospels did not have Jesus as a Palestinian superstar. A fact that was too well covered up to have been thought up later. And it was a fact for it was commonsense that nobody like Jesus would have been tolerated for five minutes by the authorities. 

Salome asked Jesus who he was when he came up on her couch and ate from her table (61). Jesus told her that he was the one who exists from the undivided. God is the undivided and God is all therefore he who exists outside God is not a real person but a myth, a symbol.

Now it may be objected that a real Jesus could be used as a symbol and image and this means that the gospel is not challenging his real existence.

This is incorrect. It is not likely that a person will do that without making it clear that he does not intend his symbol to represent the true Jesus.

Why would anybody pick out sayings of a real Jesus that had no relevance for him and put them in this book in the mouth of a symbolic Jesus? There is no reason and no way it could happen! Jesus was a symbol that was taken too seriously by some that they turned him into a man.

Jesus said that Adam was not worthy of the apostles which was why he died (85). This hints that Jesus himself never died. When Jesus told the apostles that when they see a man who was not born of woman they will know that he is their father and they must worship this man (15). He means God and himself as the manifestation of God. He is saying he is not born of woman meaning he is not a real man or a real person. Since they have to know God in a mystical experience they have to know that same way that the man did not have a human origin. Since salvation is partly delivery from human ways of thinking and takes you to the abstract the man is not a man at all for a man is a block to salvation. Jesus means personified force by man not man the material being. He demands worship so he is saying he is a personified force as well.

Jesus says that only the solitary will be saved (75) indicating that depending on Jesus if he was a man or on apostles is wrong. You only use them to learn that you must do it on your own or as examples. This is a denial that the death or resurrection of Jesus saves us.

Saying 30 claims that Jesus will be with the gods who seem to be enlightened human beings. He says that where there are three gods there are gods but where there is less he will be with them. This implies that very few can be saved by Jesus. Jesus is saying that he can get nobody to rest in. That is, there is nobody who fully accepts his principles. 

In saying 86, Jesus says that foxes and birds have to rest but he has nowhere to rest. Since the gospel claims to have an oblique interpretation Jesus must mean he has nobody to rest in. This Jesus who kept his ministry quiet fits the evidence from the first century that Christianity was not founded by a popular well-known person.

So we have found a first century witness that Jesus was not a real person but a myth in the sense of a meaningful symbol - a vehicle of expression. 

*Top of the Document*

THOSE WHO DENIED THE EXISTENCE 

Justin protested against the Roman opinion that Christians were really atheists because they worshiped an invisible God and not one of the human gods who lived in some inaccessible place like they had. 

Justin says that Christians worship the Son and makes no effort to show that Christians also worship a human God. This proves that the Romans believed that Christ did not exist and that they felt that the Christian worship of Jesus was a pretence to cover up atheism for they could not seriously worship a man who never lived. Most people then did deny Jesus existence in those days. It also proves they were right for although Justin says he believes Jesus lived 150 years before he had no evidence for this contention. Those who would have known best, the educated and the rulers, denied Jesus existence. Most of the Christians had nothing historical to say about Jesus even by then. Their leaders were as bad. That got them into trouble for the pagans gave their gods elaborate life-stories.

Justin declared that Sunday was the day God made the world though Genesis says it was Saturday. He is denying that Jesus was a Jew for, being a Jew, Jesus would not have believed that. When believing people could not even get Jesus religion right it shows that he must have been invented.

Justins grave departures from the apostolic teaching do not inspire confidence in him as a worthy foundation for arguments for Jesus existence and we can only rely on him when he lets slip what he does not want us to know.

Justin made Jesus a god below God contradicting Jesus strict monotheism.

In Pompeii which was destroyed in 79 AD by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius two inscriptions were uncovered that ran as follows.

ROTAS 
OPERA 
TENET 
AREPO 
SATOR. 

These words make sense, Arepo the sower holds the wheels with care. This says that Arepo is the sower who governs the wheels of existence and time carefully. Arepo is a god. He sows life and fortune in the universe. But the words make up PATERNOSTER Latin for Our Father twice with the letters for Alpha and Omega twice as well. So Arepo made the Our Father and the Alpha and Omega should be taken to mean that God is the beginning and the end. It is nonsense to say that the hidden meaning identifies Christ as the alpha and omega. The word TENET also makes a cross in the inscription. When Arepo holds the cross it shows that the cross represents not the death instrument of Jesus Christ but Arepos ability to hold all things in being like TENET holds the anagram together. Arepo is important for he holds the Greek letters, alpha and omega at the start and end of his name. A secondary meaning could be that Arepo holds the cross for he never rose from the dead. 

The fact that the anagram could have read, 

SATOR 
AREPO 
TENET 
OPERA 
ROTAS 

proves that the SATOR was not Jesus for it would have been natural to begin with this word for Jesus used the parable of the sower to signify that Jesus is sowing the word of God. The anagram would have been intended for this missionary purpose had it been Christian. Also, the cross made by the word TENET is too obvious. If it had been a Christian symbol it could not have been employed for that reason UNLESS it honoured God but did not honour Jesus but Arepo instead.

Celsus was a Roman historian and writer and he declared that Jesus virgin birth and death and resurrection were fables as were the stories Christians told about Jesus when they were doing magic spells (page 53,54, Celsus, _On the True Doctrine_). This was in the sixties or seventies of the second century. If Jesus crucifixion and death were fables so was Jesus. The Romans had no need to deny the crucifixion. Indeed they considered it a proof that Jesus was a fake. Their denial is very significant.

The Testament of Levi says that the Son of God will receive great honour in the world until he ascends. This denies that the killers if any could have been men for the whole world worshipped him. It puts Jesus outside the time span spelled out in the gospels for he must have lived in a long forgotten time when that happened.
(See www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-07.htm#P378_53868). 

The Church was bothered by converts who began saying that Jesus was not a person but an apparition or symbol seen by natural eyes or by the imagination from the very start. 

The Christians say that you could write a book disproving the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte. Perhaps you could. But the book would be exalting small evidence over biggest and in contravention of the golden rule: take the simplest interpretation. It would be ignoring the sanity and consistency of the thousands of people who met Napoleon and the paintings of him and the books about him and the body he has left behind. But with Jesus there were no reliable witnesses and only one book about him was allegedly written by an eyewitness  a contention which rest on appallingly slender evidence - and which refuted itself by saying two independent witnesses were needed while nearly all its own information came from or was collated by one person who could not prove he was a witness. Reports about witnesses are not good enough. That is just the same as depending on gossip or hearsay  they need to be cross-examined and we need the reports. And all the earliest writings had serious disagreements with the gospels and there is no evidence that they knew the historical portions well at all. You only hide fictitious mens biographies until the coast is clear. It is dishonest to put refuting Jesus on a par with refuting Napoleon. We can answer every piece of evidence offered for Jesus and we can show that the strongest evidence denies his existence.

A mock book was written by Archbishop Whately to disprove Napoleon when Napoleon was alive in 1819 called _Historic Doubts relating to Napoleon Bonaparte_. There is no way that the evidence against him can compare with that against Jesus or its weakness as is seen from the fact that nobody would want to invent a Napoleon but you can see why they would want to invent a Jesus and imagine that he existed. Christians like to tell you about this book disproving the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte to show how the methods used to disprove Jesus fail. But there were a lot less testimonies about Jesus and a lot more liars around him and speaking for him and no physical evidence that he lived. Napoleon was totally different. If you inflate the evidence for Jesus  for example, if you take the gospels word for it that everybody knew him and ignore the indications within and without the gospels that he was not that well-known  you can make him seem more convincing. That is the trick used by such books. But the fact remains that Jesus existence is not and cannot ever be as convincing as the existence of Napoleon. Rather than depending on four books that Napoleon was well-known we are depending on thousands published and unpublished by those who lived in his time. We have his letters and his death mask. If Jesus had really been anybody special his existence would be more provable than that of the likes of Napoleon. The existence of Jesus would not be forcing faith on us for Christianity is not based on faith in the existence of Jesus by itself but in faith in Jesus being God and redeemer. Jesus is important in the Church not just because he existed for that would not be enough to make him God but because of who he was supposed to be. 

*Top of the Document*

SILENCE IS GOLDEN


In many pro-Christian books we read that Jesus must have existed when not one of the many bitter and barbaric enemies the early Church had, queried his existence. If Jesus had not existed it is thought, this would have been the ultimate weapon for the antichrists to use against Christianity to destroy it.

But there are many world religions and only one or none of them of them can be true. The intelligent must be able to use the truth to destroy the false ones and yet they still exist. It follows that people would still say their god was a real person even if he was conceived only in a twisted mind and get away with it.

The early Christians were blackened and slandered and butchered by their enemies. The New Testament says that their enemies preferred to kill and slander Christianity instead of trying to debunk it. Pliny declared in the second decade of the second century that the Christians were thought to be guilty of killing their children and eating them and revelling in debauchery at which incest was practiced. The enemies of the Christians would have felt that religion could not be eradicated by facts for many religions thrived despite being nonsense. So, they believed they had to use the strategy of persecution to vanquish the Church. Life is hard for Christians today with so many temptations and with our permissive society and that has contributed to the decline of the Church and poor reason has not been as successful in making it slump. 

There was a plague that killed many in the Holy Land area in 54 AD and there was the all-out disaster in 70 AD meaning the people who would have known Jesus or if he existed or not were probably dead or exiled and had more important things to think about than him. We know for a fact that the Jewish survivors in 70 AD were enslaved or executed and Rome changed the name of the country to Palestine after the Philistines who had once lived there to express the extinction of the Jewish nation and any Jews round about were only interested in rebellion (page 9, _Introduction to the New Testament_, Fr R McKenzie, S.J., Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1965) and not in debunking a Jesus who was nearly entirely a Gentile concern at that time. It is a fact that at the time the gospels might have been first thrown open to the public in the second century that Rome vowed that the Jews would never be of any importance in Palestine ever again after the bloodshed of the Bar Kochba revolt.

Sanders and Davies agreed that much of Galilee, Jesus main haunt, and all of Jerusalem and the temple was laid waste and that many thousands of people were either killed or kidnapped and sold into slavery and that the records would have been incinerated so finding out what happened to Jesus would have been extremely difficult for the evangelists. I would add that they would have had to make do with revelations from Heaven to fill in the gaps. 

The Church suppressed anything that was antithetical to its dogma. There should be tons and tons of material condemning Christianity but there is not. The Church would have and must have destroyed it.

Even if Jesus did exist some would have tried to make it out that he never did exist. If the evidence for his existence was pathetic and the gospels were full of stuff that they could not accept the temptation would have been far too great. So where are these writings? Their non-availability means they have been stored and have yet to surface or they have been destroyed in which case then the Church was terrified of them. And if those who know they are right do not fear the errors of others. 

But the great silence about the non-existence of Jesus does not really exist.

There was a silence all right but not a complete one.

In the early Church, there were many people who believed that Jesus Christ was not a man but a vision. They believed that the Jesus who we read of in the gospels was not a man. These people were mystics and were not far from being psychologists. Their Jesus only existed in the mind like modern witches use imaginary people to lead them to spiritual awareness. They were called antichrists who denied the coming of Jesus in the flesh in Johns time. In Pauls day, they denied that Jesus had risen from the dead. We know their Jesus was a mental force and not a vision of a separate entity because the New Testament just condemns them and never tries to prove to them that Jesus was real as we would expect if they were saying there was a Jesus but he was only a ghost.

*Top of the Document*

THE TRUTH DESTROYED


What if debunkers had recorded the facts about Jesus that contradicted the gospels? What if they had written about what an evil man he was or that he never rose from the dead or never even existed?

The Christians would have burned their books vanquishing the truth. And they certainly did that when they admit they reduced books to ashes just for disagreeing with the orthodox position. They would have gone after deadlier books faster.

The Christian would say, But they would also have come up with answers to their charges  at least the ones they could answer. The Christians had no need or desire wipe away all evidence that they had their critics. The New Testament mentions some lies told about Jesus and Christianity. It is likely that we would have evidence for the inflammatory books if they existed. 

Christians were troubled by dissent and heresy in the first centuries of the Church to an amazing extent. The Arian heresy was once the dominant religion in Christendom. The Church detested heresy and losing control over people so much that it removed anything that could lead to it. As long as anti-Christian books existed they posed a risk to the Church for they could become the ground in which a new heresy could take root.

In 303 AD Diocletian believing that Christians being near places of sacrifice provoked the displeasure of the gods and thereby endangered the Empire for it needed divine protection ordered that Christian Churches must be destroyed and their books handed over to the Empire for destruction (page 49, _A Concise History of the Catholic Church_). Because of the Romans, many important documents from the early centuries of the Church have been lost. This made the Churchs plot to foist its absurd faith on the world more easy.

In the _Encyclopaedia_ _of_ _Heresies_ _and_ _Heretics_ are the following statements:

The Arians taught that Jesus Christ was an angel and was not God. Constantine made a law commanding that if anyone shall be caught concealing a book by Arius, and does not instantly bring it out and burn it, the penalty shall be death (page 33).

The staunch opposition of Catholic Christianity to the Manicheans following Augustines conversion led to their demise in Europe during the following centuries, as well as to the destruction of their literature (page 200). 

In border regions like Armenia, Marcions teachings were reverently preserved for several centuries. But the triumphant Catholic Church destroyed all of Marcions writings. All that is left are fragments of his work, preserved in quotations that were included in the surviving books of his orthodox opponents (page 201).

We read in_ Jesus the Magician _(page 1) that in 326 AD Constantine, the Roman Emperor, had the books of heretical Christians destroyed. In 333 AD he gave an edict against Arian writings and mentioned that pagan ones were being destroyed too specifically the works of an anti-religionist, Porphyry.

We must also recall that much valuable information about Jesus was lost when the Emperor Diocletian in about 303 AD ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures and literature (page 124, _Those Incredible Christians_). The Christian Emperors, Theodosius and Valentinian were as bad. 

*Top of the Document*

*NON-BIBLICAL WITNESSES TO THE WEAK EVIDENCE*

Here are non-biblical witnesses that Jesus lived before the first century and was a man of perfect mystery and therefore that there was nothing but flimsy evidence for him if any.

The Talmud says that Pinhas, the priest and grandson of Aaron who was the brother of Moses killed the man we know to be Jesus. We know that this Pinhas must be that person for the Talmud would not record a forgotten and unimportant person without clarification especially when there was a Pinhas in the Old Testament. It speaks of him as if he were somebody we can find out about so this must be the biblical Pinhas. This puts Jesus existence at fourteen centuries before the time given by the New Testament. The Koran says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a sister of Moses because it calls her the sister of Aaron (Sura 19:2. Sura 3:5 says that Mary and Aaron had the same father. The gospel Mary had nothing in common with Aaron for she was not even a member of the priestly line. The Koran would say if it did not mean a literal sister so literal sister it is. The book never places Jesus in the time designated in the New Testament. The Koran though late is evidence for a tradition against the Christian one that said Jesus lived in the first century. It preserves a tradition that merely slips out of the Talmud. Muhammad would not have had the intelligence to discover that slip so the information came from another source.

The heretical Teachings of Silvanus says that Christ became man and attacked the tyrants and died for sin. These tyrants are not angels of evil but human rulers for Silvanus never speaks of evil angels ruling the world. So Jesus died at a time when the rulers of the world were dethroned. Jesus must have lived a long time ago  perhaps at the time of the tower of Babel or the flood when rulers were brought down. The Bible says that Jesus went to the underworld after he died but the Teachings say it was before (page 389, The Nag Hammadi Library in English). It says Jesus went to the underworld and released the children of death and then he broke the chains in that world causing its powers to flee so that he was able to die as a ransom for our sins. The demons were stopping him from dying for sinners which means he perished and rose again in the underworld for sinners. The underworld does not mean this world but the world Jesus went to which is called the Abyss meaning something like Hell. Silvanus denies that Jesus lived and suffered and rose on earth like the gospels say. Silvanus is from the late first century at the very earliest. It shows that many Christians did not believe Jesus lived in Palestine in the first century. Silvanus had no reason at all to say Jesus was put to death for sinners in Hell for he could have still done that on earth. That is why he should be believed that there is no evidence. He stressed reason which makes him a damn sight more reliable than anybody else in the first century. 

There is a scripture called Melchizidek which was found at Nag Hammadi in 1945. It claims to record revelations given to this priest of Abrahams time and it claims that Melchizidek was Jesus Christ. Their alleged author was killed by crucifixion and rose from the dead. The hostile angelic powers did this to him according to what a group of people said to him after he came back from the dead and was addressed as Melchizidek. Nobody knows when this book was written but when it predicts the coming of the heretics who will deny that Christ had real human body it may date to the first century. It lists Old Testament figures and puts Melchizidek right after Noah therefore it says that Jesus Christ lived at the time of Abraham  long before the birth of Moses.

Tatian who composed a harmony of the four gospels in the middle of the second century argued with the Greeks that God becoming a man was not ridiculous because their own Gods became man. But these Gods were mythical and the Greeks he contended with didnt mean any of it literally so unless Tatian believed that the gospels were only true as myths not as history only then can what he said make sense (_The Silent Jesus_). Tatian told his pagan critics that they should believe in his Christian religion because it makes up stories about Jesus its god just like they do (_The Second Century Apologists, _http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/century.htm). 

Theophilus of Antioch who may have been the Theophilus for whom the Gospel of Luke was written was unable to give Autolycus an example of a man who rose from the dead (_The Silent Jesus_). Certainly he believed that Jesus rose but believed that there was no earthly evidence for it but only the testimony of faith inspired by God. What he was looking for was something to persuade this man that it was not only a truth revealed by God but a historical one but he had nothing. He rejected the gospels as having apologetic value for those who wanted proof of miracles and prophecy and men coming back from the dead. He rejected the most important evidence for the existence of Jesus and that makes him as good as a person who denied the existence of Jesus outright.

Minucius Felix, a Christian defender of the faith in about 150 AD wrote _Octavius_. Its a record a debate in which a Christian called Octavius was engaged in against a pagan called Caecilius which the former stated that the charge of praying to a crucified criminal made against Christians was a calumny (_The Second Century Apologists, _http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/century2.htm). This amounts to a denial that Jesus died on the cross and disposes of the most important evidence for his existence: his crucifixion. Octavius even says that the pagans are fools for adoring their vulnerable dying Gods. He denied the crucifixion for if Jesus was physically nailed to the cross and died the same would be true of him and so Octavius would not have used this argument. But it is certain that in doing so he was rejecting the physical crucifixion but would have talked as if he believed in a crucified and dead saviour who rose. Gnostic Christianity, the original faith, would have taught that the crucifixion and death and resurrection of Jesus was a metaphor that nobody could understand the meaning of without having a mystical experience that transcended the senses and reason. Octavius was influenced by it.

If Jesus was mythically crucified and mythically a criminal worshipping him would not be a problem for the story is only a way to convey mystical truth. It is being accused of adoring a real Jesus who was really physically crucified that is the problem. Christians say it was a calumny that Jesus was a criminal and that was what he meant. No for Jesus did break the law so he was a criminal though that does not make him a bad man. He sneered too at people praying to gods who had been slain. Christians say he would have believed Jesus was divine so his case was different but no hint that Jesus was divine is given. His whole point is that beings that die cannot be divine. Octavius manages to convert his pagan philosopher opponent to Christianity which means he converted to a form that did not depend on a flesh and blood Jesus at all. The educated philosopher then knew that Jesus was a myth and his concern was the mystical Jesus in Heaven.

Felix said it was a disgrace Christians had to defend themselves against people who said they adored a crucified criminal and his cross (page 40, _Jesus and the Goddess_). He regarded it then as an inexcusable error. He was unable to answer an opponent who asked him if anybody ever really physically came back from the dead. He retaliated by accusing his opponent of slander instead of trying to answer the question  this was evasion. He was saying, Though I am an apologist of the Christian faith and a scholar I know of no evidence for the death of Jesus and I dont want to talk about it. For Felix to say that means only that there was no evidence. 

*Top of the Document*

MARCION STATED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS FLIMSY

Marcion, the first Christian to set forth a canon of scripture, was excommunicated by Rome in 144 AD for heresy. He denied that Jesus existed before he appeared straight out of Heaven in the synagogue of Capernaum which is the event that occurs in Luke 4:31. This means that Marcion denied the existence of Jesus mother Mary, the existence of St Joseph the massacre of the innocents and the birth in the manger, the baptism by John the Baptist  in short everything before Jesus began his ministry. He asserted that the twelve apostles failed to understand the gospel and polluted it which was why Paul was chosen to save and preserve the good news. He did this when he could have said the apostles just kept the secret tradition of the true gospel and preached another theology to the public. When the apostles could be so wrong why could they not be wrong about Jesus existence?

Marcion came very close to saying that there was no historical Jesus. It is obvious that if Jesus really did descend as a divine super-powered apparition from Heaven as Marcions theology stated that Jesus had to be a myth. Marcion as good as said that the evidence for Jesus was flimsy and that until later in the gospel story it was non-existent for he appeared out of nowhere. In its reply to him, the Church just used gospel materials and was unable to provide objective evidence for the events surrounding Jesus that Marcion denied. For example, they did not provide evidence for the link with the Baptist nor did they provide evidence that the massacre of the innocents over Jesus really took place. Thanks to Marcion the gap in Christianitys evidences was shown up. If everybody believed then that Jesus existed it would make no difference to the case against Jesus simply because they could not have believed for the right reasons. The argument that Jesus must have existed for nobody denied his existence simply has no hope of being right.

The things that Marcion did but did not need to do tell us more than anything else ever could.

He was accused of editing and dropping portions out of the gospel of Luke. This gospel may not have been Luke but the forerunner of Luke and it could be Marcion was right that the gospel was tampered with and needed amending. Marcion accepted the crucifixion and the resurrection. He certainly had no need to deny most of what was in the Lucan infancy narratives. The Church says he had for he regarded Jesus as an apparition and not a real man. But Marcion knew that when Jesus seemed to die on the cross he could seem to have been born. It would have made Marcions gospel more acceptable had he kept the stuff about Mary and Jesus birth and so easier for his Church. So he must have been very sure that these things never happened or were late inventions before he could omit them. We know he studied his case thoroughly and was very cautious (page 104, _The Call to Heresy_). We must remember that being closer to the time of Jesus and living before the Church had the chance to wipe out any documents it did not like that Marcion knew things we never will for he had access to many lost documents. The claim that nobody knew of the God of Jesus until Jesus appeared is very strange and can only be explained as if Marcion learned this from some source he trusted. He could have had Jesus appearing occasionally before which would look better and stop people from scoffing at his theology on the basis that Jesus took a long time before he came to teach the world and reveal the true God of love. But he was sure he couldnt and he was sure he could shut them up.

Marcion founded a very successful and very early Church that was able to get all its members to be celibate and many were martyred. They committed a huge sacrifice to deny that the human Jesus of the gospels existed for they even denied that he was a Jew by religion and excised all references to his Jewish faith from their scriptures. Their Jesus was an opponent of the Old Testament. Marcion was not unjustly biased towards heresy for he had nothing to gain but scorn and also he could not get much power when he forbade his followers to have sex and therefore babies. Marcion was a damn sight lot more credible than the gospellers who wrote anonymously meaning we cant eliminate unjust bias, made a hero of a heretic and then lied that he was not a heretic and whose works were hidden from critics who wouldnt have been that interested in them had they come out. Marcion had the kind-heartedness to reject the brutality of the Old Testament so he was a better man with his faults than any gospeller ever was.

Marcionism called Jesus not Christus which means Messiah but Chrestus which means The Good. Marcion denied that Jesus was the Christ or Messiah because he rejected anything Jewish and the Messiah was the Jewish title for the king of the world that God would send but he rejected their God and so he rejected this title. When Marcion was able to create a successful Church that denied that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah it shows that the evidence for something that was as important as the resurrection could be denied convincingly in those days. It shows that many held that the Jesus story was riddled with legend.

Top of the Document 

Conclusion

The most convincing evidence shows that Jesus never existed. The evidence that he did is useless and is largely make-believe. The evidence that he didnt is authenticated by the fact that it is more like accidental slips which makes it totally convincing. This is the biggest secret the world has ever had, the most important man to supposedly walk on this world in fact never lived.


----------



## sync0s (Aug 22, 2011)

And the award for the worlds longest post goes to.....


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> hey marlboro this is for you
> Our modern technology has proved the Bible wrong. That means that if there is a God, he didn't write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can't be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can't be the word of God.
> 
> The difference between evolution and Creationism is that evolution is real and Creationism is not real. Creationism is based on the Bible that says that God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Clearly the world was not created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago, so therefore the Bible is just plain wrong. If the world were merely 10,000 years old then how do you explain the dinosaurs that are millions of years old? We've discovered life fossils that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve.
> ...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

Maybe my style is a bit different, I quoted myself to add to what I was saying whether what I said made sense to you or not; I wasn't answering myself.
Half of you are trolls, quarter of you are just quoting me and saying Im stupid for believing in God, and the other quarter of you are posting stupid pictures and graphs and shit.

There is probably only one or two of you that actually have something decent to say that isn't distorted to deceive anyone.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> hey marlboro this is for you
> *Our modern technology has proved the Bible wrong*. That means that if there is a God, he didn't write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can't be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can't be the word of God.


Where its bolded I stopped reading, this article is complete bs.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> The difference between evolution and Creationism is that evolution is real and Creationism is not real. Creationism is based on the Bible that says that God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Clearly the world was not created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago, so therefore the Bible is just plain wrong. If the world were merely 10,000 years old then how do you explain the dinosaurs that are millions of years old? We've discovered life fossils that date back billions of years. *Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve.
> *


See where it is bolded? When did Adam and Eve exist?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> *If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars*, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star was further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding


Wtf is that shit?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> *So he basically committed suicide to save us?* Stop spouting your crazy rabble man, you've quoted and answered yourself like 15 times already.
> 
> All the rest of us should stop feeding this idiot, Born Again Christians are cult members...simple as. They've been brainwashed to disbelieve anything the "top B.A.C. brass" say they should.
> 
> ...


 I stopped reading after the bold, the rest is bs. He diddn't kill himself, he obeyed the laws. And since he was accussed of blasphemy by saying that he was God he was put to death.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> Dragons?
> 
> This isn't lord of the rings......


Satan is a dragon read revelations. (only book in the bible that says if you change the words you will be put in the book of death).


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Funny how you ignore the whole inconsistency of the NT which you believe nothing major has changed when *it seems obvious* that Matthew added things like the Virgin conception, a pagan Roman idea and other things that make him into a god rather then merely a man. He made things which added to the mythological status including prophetic fulfillment.


Thats not evidence for all of you idiots who think that it is.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> *lol marlboro if you read the bible isnt there a war in your called heavens??* where actually the devil will take his place if so it is true your god is soon to be over thrown he did his time and did fck all
> but make that cheese what was it cream cheese ) hahaha
> what i am only saying is dam if you were not god wouldnt you of made a presence already since how old is earth and the universe billions of years old and still no god to you kinda remind me of the movie independance day where all the people were on the roof partying before the aliens blew the hell out of them


Bold is again where I stopped reading. Article of bs.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> would you like somemore evidence heres your god
> that created life
> 
> NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.
> ...


Life in outter space? Make a bit of sense seeing how there is a God to create.

It still doesn't prove God doesn't exists, they think that something is using rocks to create life.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> All of the evidence for Jesus the alleged founder of the Christian Church can be invalidated. At best there is no evidence, at worst the evidence indicates that Jesus never existed. From my other books which you can access through the homepage you will see that the Jesus story was unknown in the early Church, you will see that the Jesus who the apostles knew was just a post resurrection apparition and you will see New Testament traditions that Jesus didnt live in the first century but in times long forgotten.
> 
> *Introduction*
> 
> ...


 Obviously its an article of bullshit. The person who started it is convincing you that he did not exist. He is obviously going to leave out anything that will support that Jesus did exist.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thats not evidence for all of you idiots who think that it is.


I didn't present the evidence you dolt! However, the evidence is there that supports my premise if you actually care to examine it.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Obviously its an article of bullshit. The person who started it is convincing you that he did not exist. He is obviously going to leave out anything that will support that Jesus did exist.


Such as? Go ahead, list extra-biblical sources that support the existence of Jesus. 


How about next time you want to quote someone's 20,000 word post just to add a single line, that you edit out the majority of the quote? DrFever should have posted that as a link, but you compounded the problem by quoting the whole thing over again.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I didn't present the evidence you dolt! However, the evidence is there that supports my premise if you actually care to examine it.


OT: Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."
NT: Matthew 1:18 "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

Nothing was added, that phophecy was completed.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Such as? Go ahead, list extra-biblical sources that support the existence of Jesus.
> 
> 
> How about next time you want to quote someone's 20,000 word post just to add a single line, that you edit out the majority of the quote? DrFever should have posted that as a link, but you compounded the problem by quoting the whole thing over again.


Im not spending my time quoting the bullshit in that article, especially if he just copied and pasted.


----------



## Captain X (Aug 22, 2011)

once again...quoting the bible like its facts...id say its a vicious circle...but its more a semi-retarded loop of confusion.


----------



## Captain X (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im not spending my time quoting the bullshit in that article, especially if he just copied and pasted.


this coming from the person who copy and pasted his proof that jesus existed.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im not spending my time quoting the bullshit in that article, especially if he just copied and pasted.


What? Your delete key not working? You DID quote the whole article. I suggested that you DON'T and delete the majority of it. 
Here's an example:




> A CATHOLIC BOOKLET
> 
> 
> A Catholic Truth Society booklet called, Did Jesus Exist? gives many dubious arguments insisting that he did exist.
> ...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> What? Your delete key not working? You DID quote the whole article. I suggested that you DON'T and delete the majority of it.
> Here's an example:


First sentence bullshit, second sentence some type of supportive words used with bullshit to make you believe in whatever its taking about. Its all bullshit still.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

Im gonna smoke a bowl, im done posting.

Anyone peace and love. If I called you an idiot/douchebag/full of shit/dumbass don't take it too hard, I'd still smoke a bowl with you if you if you wanted to match.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> OT: Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."
> NT: Matthew 1:18 "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
> 
> Nothing was added, that phophecy was completed.


Matthew incorrectly inserted the Greek term "parthenos" for "virgin" when the original Hebrew used "almah" which means maiden. If Isaiah wanted to say virgin, he would have used the Hebrew "betulah." Moreover, the prophecy was to give a sign to King Ahaz because he refused to accept Isaiah's insistence that he would not be disposed. If the sign of a woman giving birth to a child named Immanuel was meant as a prophecy for Jesus, King Ahaz would have been dead for over 700 years sort of negating the need for a sign. 

Other problems with Matthew's claim that this was a messianic prophecy foretelling Jesus:
Why is Jesus, who was sinless from birth in the traditional Christian understanding, described as having to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good?
What does the "butter and honey" refer to?
Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned?
Why is Jesus named Jesus and not Immanuel? 
The word "parthenos" is employed in the Septuagint in Genesis 34:3, where Dinah is called "parthenos" (or "parthenon") even after she has been raped. Therefore, it is not necessary that the word "parthenos" from Matthew 1:23 be translated as "virgin"​
BTW, didn't you claim, "Making EVERYTHING in the old testament false..."
How can you use the words of Isaiah from the OT to support your belief that Jesus fulfilled an OT prophecy?


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> First sentence bullshit, second sentence some type of supportive words used with bullshit to make you believe in whatever its taking about. Its all bullshit still.


 I don't think you even know what you are talking about anymore.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Matthew incorrectly inserted the Greek term "parthenos" for "virgin" when the original Hebrew used "almah" which means maiden. If Isaiah wanted to say virgin, he would have used the Hebrew "betulah." Moreover, the prophecy was to give a sign to King Ahaz because he refused to accept Isaiah's insistence that he would not be disposed. If the sign of a woman giving birth to a child named Immanuel was meant as a prophecy for Jesus, King Ahaz would have been dead for over 700 years sort of negating the need for a sign.
> 
> Other problems with Matthew's claim that this was a messianic prophecy foretelling Jesus:
> Why is Jesus, who was sinless from birth in the traditional Christian understanding, described as having to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good?
> ...


 I said I diddn't believe in it because it diddn't have Jesus's words. Doesn't mean I know if its true or false. Besides the OT is what made the Jews believe that he was not the savior of the jews, so big help the OT was.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I don't think you even know what you are talking about anymore.


A catholic booklet? Lmao, yeah thats totally legit.


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im gonna smoke a bowl, im done posting.
> 
> Anyone peace and love. If I called you an idiot/douchebag/full of shit/dumbass don't take it too hard, I'd still smoke a bowl with you if you if you wanted to match.


*see thats cannabis <3 right there


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

Whoo go peace.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 22, 2011)

My God = Right && Your God = Wrong. are we done now.?.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> A catholic booklet? Lmao, yeah thats totally legit.


What the fuck are you talking about? You responded to my post about editing out the majority of the huge post by DrFever because reposting it is unnecessary, a waste of space and only drains resources of RIU. You respond with an accusation of bullshit. Maybe English is your second language and you don't understand that my suggestion had nothing to do with the article itself yet you now are talking about Catholic booklets?  

You might want to wait until your medication wears off a bit before posting here again.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im gonna smoke a bowl, *im done posting.*
> 
> Anyone peace and love. If I called you an idiot/douchebag/full of shit/dumbass don't take it too hard, I'd still smoke a bowl with you if you if you wanted to match.





Marlboro47 said:


> I said I diddn't believe in it because it diddn't have Jesus's words. Doesn't mean I know if its true or false. Besides the OT is what made the Jews believe that he was not the savior of the jews, so big help the OT was.





Marlboro47 said:


> A catholic booklet? Lmao, yeah thats totally legit.



6 mins, then 2 mins later.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

hey Fdd prob was some of his popcorn nuggets or another lie guess christianity is full of lies ya think 

Here are some of the trubbles I see in Christianity:
1. I see no evidence for a young earth.
2. It seems there is not a lot of evidence of Jesus outside the Bible. And all the supposed evidence appears to have been fabricated.
3. The messianic prophesies seem to have been taking out of context.
4. It seems quite obvious that the Old Testament was written much later then the church claims.
5. There is is no evidence that the Apostle Paul was a true apostle other than the claims about himself. It even seems that the early church was against him. The scary part of that is he wrote most of the new testament and shaped the way Christians think.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

marlboro ran off line lol hey marlboro can you please tell us what edition of the bible you got ) and could you please advise when next edition will be released dam wish i would of started from first edition the fairytale story


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> 6 mins, then 2 mins later.


 I diddn't leave yet, obviously thats why I posted.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> What the fuck are you talking about? You responded to my post about editing out the majority of the huge post by DrFever because reposting it is unnecessary, a waste of space and only drains resources of RIU. You respond with an accusation of bullshit. Maybe English is your second language and you don't understand that my suggestion had nothing to do with the article itself yet you now are talking about Catholic booklets?
> 
> You might want to wait until your medication wears off a bit before posting here again.


Actually english is my second language. I know chinese, spanish, english and Im learning a bit of french next semester. 
I don't see what the point you are making? I quoted a long as post that I see as bullshit, you told me to minimize it and I said sarcastically that what you posted was legit. Im not gonna shorten it when I see the whole article as bullshit.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

Oh well, you don't beleive God exists and I do.
If you examine the first post I said stfu and stop talking about god if you don't beleive in him. Get over it, thats why I said stfu and gtfo to begin with.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I diddn't leave yet, obviously thats why I posted.


oBviously. 


[video=youtube;MnncR02aRWE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnncR02aRWE[/video]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> Here's some español for you.
> 
> Es necesario buscar la ayuda de un hospital para enfermos mentales.


 And you need your greencard.

Lmao, a mod just made your deleted your post, then reposted after mine.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 22, 2011)

Here some español for you.

Es necesario que usted busque ayuda de un hospital para enfermos mentales.



Marlboro47 said:


> Actually english is my second language. I know chinese, spanish, english and Im learning a bit of french next semester.
> I don't see what the point you are making? I quoted a long as post that I see as bullshit, you told me to minimize it and I said sarcastically that what you posted was legit. Im not gonna shorten it when I see the whole article as bullshit.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 22, 2011)

& Here is some ebonics fo yo ass.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

marl you seem to be attackin out are you upset that scientific proof is being used to prove theres no god


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 22, 2011)

What for? Are you saying I'm illegal? Judging me are you? See you in hell dude. Maybe we'll be roomies! 

I've been a citizen in the US before you were even born. 

You better knock it off, I'll start dating your mom and make your bedtime 2 hours earlier. 



Marlboro47 said:


> And you need your greencard.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 22, 2011)




----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> marl you seem to be attackin out are you upset that scientific proof is being used to prove theres no god


You ain't proving shit or I would see your evidence as legit and I'd know the messiah hasn't come yet. So quit saying you've shown me proof Jesus isn't real. Actually show me and fuck off with your opinions about him.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> What for? Are you saying I'm illegal? Judging me are you? See you in hell dude. Maybe we'll be roomies!
> 
> I've been a citizen in the US before you were even born.
> 
> You better knock it off, I'll start dating your mom and make your bedtime 2 hours earlier.


Its worse to condemn someone then to Judge. It says Judge not or you'll be judged yourself, God wants us to judge eachother and test the spirits. So thats pretty dumb to think you'd go to hell for judging.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

Ahh I thought this thread was gonna become peaceful.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Ahh I thought this thread was gonna become peaceful.


it is peaceful, im not threatening anyone


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 22, 2011)

Their shall never be peace as long as God is in the picture.!!. Re-Bel.!.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 22, 2011)

i guess "i'm done" really means "i'm just getting started".


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

God knows men argue, fight and rucse at eachother, its about forgiving eachother after its all done.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

marl if there was a god and you so love him as much obviously why could you love someone that killed so many ppl 

How many people did God kill in the Bible? 

It's impossible to say for sure, but plenty. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? There's just no way to count them all. 
But sometimes the Bible tells us exactly how many were killed by God. So what happens if you total all of these killings? What number do you get? 
Well, here's what I came up with: *2,476,633* 
Note that this number is a gross underestimate of the total number. It doesn't include, in many cases, women and children, and it completely leaves out some of God's more impressive kills. (Like the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn Egyptian children, etc.) 
So what happens if you use estimates when the Bible provides only numbers for adult male victims or no numbers at all? 
Here's my estimate: *25 million* 
And here is a complete list of all of God's killings in the Bible. 
Much more information about God's killings, with a chapter on each of the 135 killing events, can be found int the book: 
_Drunk With Blood: God's killings in the Bible_


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

DrFever said:


> marl if there was a god and you so love him as much obviously why could you love someone that killed so many ppl
> 
> How many people did God kill in the Bible?
> 
> ...


 Who the hell are you supporting? You just said God isn't real. Thats why I think everyone posting is just a babbling idiot!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

Gods gonna kill way more then 2,476,633 when he comes down lmao. 
And for all those who think "well if I were god I would want humans to know Im god," bunch of idiots lmao. When god comes down your not even gonna know what fucking hit you, hes gonna pwn the shit out of 95-99% of the world.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Their shall never be peace as long as God is in the picture.!!. Re-Bel.!.


God isn't the problem. Asshole people are the problem. (that statement was aimed at the worlds population not towards anyone on RIU)


----------



## Captain X (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> You ain't proving shit or I would see your evidence as legit and I'd know the messiah hasn't come yet. So quit saying you've shown me proof Jesus isn't real. Actually show me and fuck off with your opinions about him.


no matter what proof you are given you will never stray from your beliefs...they have you so scared already that nothing will change that..and of course you're going to say its not fear...but deep down you nkow it is...or why waste the time trying to get into heaven if you wasnt afraid of going to hell.so no matter how much or how valid proof you are given...you will not let go...and you can also say its not fear...its the feeling that god is there looking out for you...well some people say they "feel" love...which it has been proven that the same chemical processes that are happening in the brain that causes the feeling of love can be found in testing can also be found from eating large amounts of chocolate...maybe...just maybe this "feeling" you have that god is there and in your heart you can feel this...is a chemical imbalance in your brain? maybe this is why after years of trying to "find god" and feel his presense...i never could. just something to think about....does not hurt to look into every option.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 22, 2011)

It's even worse to pick fights with others based on their beliefs because they're different than yours. Yours of which you don't even understand completely. 

You wont go to hell. Wanna know why? IT ISN'T REAL! You will live a long stressful life though on a blank mission trying to change the world into some Lord of the Rings dragonland fairytail YOU think is true.

Put down the harry potter books, and come to reality. 



Marlboro47 said:


> Its worse to condemn someone then to Judge. It says Judge not or you'll be judged yourself, God wants us to judge eachother and test the spirits. So thats pretty dumb to think you'd go to hell for judging.


----------



## Captain X (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Gods gonna kill way more then 2,476,633 when he comes down lmao.
> And for all those who think "well if I were god I would want humans to know Im god," bunch of idiots lmao. When god comes down your not even gonna know what fucking hit you, hes gonna pwn the shit out of 95-99% of the world.


and this is the being you worship...the one who will kill off almost all of his creation...after giving them free will...and saying he loves us...*sniff sniff* something smells funny


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

Captain X said:


> no matter what proof you are given you will never stray from your beliefs...they have you so scared already that nothing will change that..and of course you're going to say its not fear...but deep down you nkow it is...or why waste the time trying to get into heaven if you wasnt afraid of going to hell.so no matter how much or how valid proof you are given...you will not let go...and you can also say its not fear...its the feeling that god is there looking out for you...well some people say they "feel" love...which it has been proven that the same chemical processes that are happening in the brain that causes the feeling of love can be found in testing can also be found from eating large amounts of chocolate...maybe...just maybe this "feeling" you have that god is there and in your heart you can feel this...is a chemical imbalance in your brain? maybe this is why after years of trying to "find god" and feel his presense...i never could. just something to think about....does not hurt to look into every option.


I want you to prove God is fake, lmao but until you do I am going to believe in him. Im scared of God, and if hes not real then wtf do I have to be afriad of?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 22, 2011)

Come on mods delete this thread.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 22, 2011)

Why are you so worried about it? Just unsubscribe, and don't return. Pretty simple.



Hepheastus420 said:


> Come on mods delete this thread.


----------



## Captain X (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I want you to prove God is fake, lmao but until you do I am going to believe in him. Im scared of God, and if hes not real then wtf do I have to be afriad of?


why should i bother proving anything...you and i both know that your religion was constructed and tweaked over many many years to keep people from proving him fake...but more and more evidence in our current modern society has many many things showing that god isnt real...and question...why are you so willing to follow something that scares you...dont you see the irony in all of it. even if he is real ill deal with what i get to keep from feeding his massive ego...besides if there is a hell..thats where the good music and drugs will be...i see heaven filled with some uptight boring ass people anyways...all 12 of them


----------



## ChadButler (Aug 22, 2011)

Can't we all be agnostic? Chill out people, be content. Religion IS just a form of segregation. IMHO, though, humans will never comprehend true intelligence. 

One.


----------



## Captain X (Aug 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Come on mods delete this thread.


the chistian way....oh shit...its not going our way...get rid of it...hurry...make it go away...woo..hands clean again.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Aug 22, 2011)

Ehh I got better things to do today. Gotta get some more bud then try to remember that athiests have feelings too


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 22, 2011)

Whoa whoa whoa... You started this mess, and now you're bailing out on us? Or are you fake leaving again only to post again in a few minutes?

Before you "go", let me ask you this: You didn't by any chance get your version of the bible from a place called Spencer Gifts, did you?



Marlboro47 said:


> Ehh I got better things to do today. Gotta get some more bud then try to remember that athiests have feelings too


----------



## Captain X (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Ehh I got better things to do today. Gotta get some more bud then try to remember that athiests have feelings too


----------



## mexiblunt (Aug 22, 2011)

fdd2blk said:


> oBviously.
> 
> 
> [video=youtube;MnncR02aRWE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnncR02aRWE[/video]


Been spinning alot of records lately including this one, damn it's been too long!!! ohh how I forgot the quality of Vinyl. Anyone here still listen to vinyl? I'm guessing most never have ever.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 22, 2011)

hey even congress passed this as to not teach children the christian way stick to facts [video=youtube;KOnSTdExcuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOnSTdExcuo&feature=related[/video]


----------



## ChadButler (Aug 22, 2011)

Anyone who thinks they know the truth is a fool. Fools. I'm comfortable searching for truth til I die. I'm comfortable never knowing. Wanna fight about it? 8-2 MMA record.


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 22, 2011)

View attachment 1747784

can we? lol


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 22, 2011)

cannawizard said:


> View attachment 1747784
> 
> can we? lol


...it'll never happen  ------>[youtube]n16PpvdpMXo&feature[/youtube] [youtube]ZFDtS4F8ZdE[/youtube]


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 22, 2011)




----------



## ChadButler (Aug 22, 2011)

Atheists today are much more complex and diverse than that poster makes them out to be. I never understood the atheist/christian feud, though, so explain.
I've spent time studying Hindu in Indonesia. Let me say it is a VERY refreshing religion/culture. The idea of thousands of gods im assuming hasnt crossed anyones mind. In America, the atheists I know were all raised christian. They also went from being christian, jumping directly to atheism.
When they were old enough to think for themselves, they thought of the bible as a storybook. As in, just another lie they were told as kids..... Now, whenever I encounter an "atheist", they tend to get upset quickly when speaking about Christians. I ALWAYS ask why they seem upset, and I ALWAYS get a similar response. Eventually, the person will start talking down to me as if I were a child, or of little importance. Christians are so stupid, right?
It's until I mention other religions when the tone of voice becomes normal again, and the person is suddenly showing signs of intrigue. My question then is, whats to be mad about? Many atheists these days seem to be mad at God! If not Hi
, than they must be mad at the generations of their families who were christian. No?

If you aren't mad, simple, you aren't atheist. However, I'd love to meet an atheist (in person) who is content enough with their beliefs, NOT to push them upon christians. (Won't happen). Not to sound biased...My atheist relative in his sixties thinks that Im wasting time talking to muslims and buddhists, but he's a lonely old fuck. A speck of shit on this planet. The people I've met here in Asia are much more satisfied with life, especially at old age than ANY American of any religion. In my eyes, these people are proof of Gods existence. Really, all I needed was a little insight. 


Learning about culture and human lifestyle is huge for me. I'm interested in knowing why Atheists are so concerned with Christianity. That particular God may not exist to you, but instead of ending all possibility, maybe you should travel a little. Get to know the world you live in, maybe get to know yourself. Bring some weed.

Civil responses welcomed.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Ehh I got better things to do today. Gotta get some more bud then try to remember that athiests have feelings too


are you done ...





... again?


----------



## Harrekin (Aug 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> You ain't proving shit or I would see your evidence as legit and I'd know the messiah hasn't come yet. So quit saying you've shown me proof Jesus isn't real. Actually show me and fuck off with your opinions about him.


You realise if Jesus was real,he wouldn't associate with a bigoted,narrow-minded and generally unpleasant person like you? You are the exact opposite to the person you worship and what he preaches...bet you feel fucking stupid now.

If Jesus arrived on this Earth now he'd tell you to stfu cos youre embarrassing him. 

Btw,I love how the onus of proof gets passed to the people not spouting fairy stories and religious bile and how Mr BAC can just use the Bible as proof of itself. 

*facepalm*


----------



## sync0s (Aug 23, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Wtf is that shit?


Incredibly valid point he makes, you should really try to understand it.


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 23, 2011)

[youtube]qZO2u-jDNpQ&feature[/youtube]

[youtube]7f01IBDoZGg&feature[/youtube]

[youtube]ReYfDlIa-Z8&feature[/youtube]


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 23, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Been spinning alot of records lately including this one, damn it's been too long!!! ohh how I forgot the quality of Vinyl. Anyone here still listen to vinyl? I'm guessing most never have ever.


i love that album. highly overlooked.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 23, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The holy bible.
> Well, its not too hard to explain why it doesn't make sense to you. The old testament doesn't have Jesus's words in it, and the new testament does and it also says that anything without Jesus in it is completely false and is ment to deceive you because it is of the anti christs.


a lot of people say they are the son of god, or god, nowadays. what makes them any different than jesus? because people believed it we should just take it as fact?


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 23, 2011)

ChadButler said:


> Atheists today are much more complex and diverse than that poster makes them out to be. I never understood the atheist/christian feud, though, so explain.
> I've spent time studying Hindu in Indonesia. Let me say it is a VERY refreshing religion/culture. The idea of thousands of gods im assuming hasnt crossed anyones mind. In America, the atheists I know were all raised christian. They also went from being christian, jumping directly to atheism.
> When they were old enough to think for themselves, they thought of the bible as a storybook. As in, just another lie they were told as kids..... Now, whenever I encounter an "atheist", they tend to get upset quickly when speaking about Christians. I ALWAYS ask why they seem upset, and I ALWAYS get a similar response. Eventually, the person will start talking down to me as if I were a child, or of little importance. Christians are so stupid, right?
> It's until I mention other religions when the tone of voice becomes normal again, and the person is suddenly showing signs of intrigue. My question then is, whats to be mad about? Many atheists these days seem to be mad at God! If not Hi
> ...


i dont like christianity because that is the religion that affects my life the most.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 23, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> You ain't proving shit or I would see your evidence as legit and I'd know the messiah hasn't come yet. So quit saying you've shown me proof Jesus isn't real. Actually show me and fuck off with your opinions about him.


even if evidence is legit, that does not mean you would automatically see it as truth. if you hold another truth(as you see it) closer to your heart, you will tend to side with the previously held belief as opposed to the new one.

sorry if i didnt see it, but where is your proof that he existed? if its already been said, a post number will do just fine.
the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those stating a claim. if it cannot be proved, it cannot be used as proof, or evidence to support your ideas.
otherwise i could say i believe there is a big blue whale that flies around in the sky. you cant see him or feel him, and he doesnt interact with our reality in any way. but i know he is there because this book that this guy wrote told me. there is no reason for you to believe me, but should you just accept it as truth because i believe it?


----------



## tardis (Aug 23, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Ahh stfu, your an atheist. Gtfo.
> Quit mentioning God, your not looking for rep.
> Lame ass athiests with nothing better to do then bother people with hope.
> 
> EDIT:I gotta say that not believing is one thing, and purposely starting a topic to make fun of someone else for believing and trying to convince them to stop believing is the wrose.


I agree. Everybody wanted to make fun of me because I believe that CookieMonster is invisibly running the world and he shows up on seasame street where he forced them to invent puppets that wouldn't make him look so strange. They have no right to make fun of you and I for our equally valid beliefs. 

Cookies and milk

Tardis


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 23, 2011)

Hey all believers why don't we stop replying? Let them win, we believe they are ignorant becausethey don't believe god and majority of atheists are just gonna make fun of us so no more replies and then the arguments and name calling will stop.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 23, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey all believers why don't we stop replying? Let them win, we believe they are ignorant becausethey don't believe god and majority of atheists are just gonna make fun of us so no more replies and then the arguments and name calling will stop.


why would you say we are ignorant because we dont believe in god? the religious are the ones that use the bible as evidence lol


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 23, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey all believers why don't we stop replying? Let them win, we believe they are ignorant becausethey don't believe god and majority of atheists are just gonna make fun of us so no more replies and then the arguments and name calling will stop.


 Yep, that's the way to get to the truth, ignore anyone that is critical or tries to get you to examine your own beliefs and eliminate cognitive biases.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 23, 2011)

Why don't you stop replying. The op called out atheists. Here I am.

Atheists believe in what we can see and touch. Christians believe in talking snakes, and bearded men in the sky, and fantasies of angels and afterlives in heaven. Who's ignorant? 









Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey all believers why don't we stop replying? Let them win, we believe they are ignorant becausethey don't believe god and majority of atheists are just gonna make fun of us so no more replies and then the arguments and name calling will stop.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Aug 23, 2011)

Die thread Die!....For Gods sake!


----------



## tardis (Aug 23, 2011)

Die thread Die!....For Science Sake!


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 23, 2011)

If god was so almighty, and he wanted it shut down for his sake, wouldn't he just close it himself?



Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> Die thread Die!....For Gods sake!


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 23, 2011)

tardis said:


> Die thread Die!....For Science Sake!


oh my science!


----------



## sen.c (Aug 23, 2011)

This video sums up trying to talk to these haters
http://youtu.be/Y_YuOj-Y_ik

And this goes out to all ya'll haters.


http://youtu.be/-MbF0bc7iEs

LOL............................................... ...............


----------



## DrFever (Aug 23, 2011)

jesuschrist already did i use his name in vain its already bin said jesus is Fake ffs god you lil prick show me your power and i will beat you with one hand tied behind my back like the peasant you are


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 23, 2011)

sen.c said:


> This video sums up trying to talk to these haters
> 
> 
> And this goes out to all ya'll haters.
> ...


what video?


----------



## sen.c (Aug 23, 2011)

It wouldn't post so I had to just put the link.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 23, 2011)

were haters how about you open your eyes and really see the truth science has proved theres no god if your so called god made the universe 6000 yrs ago and humans evolved over 200,00 years ago doesnt it make you think thats what the bible is saying is BS 
why do all christians hate the real truth rather then stick with the bible if your god is so mighty and good how many good people did he actually kill ??? 
sitting here thinking may-be HITLER was sent by god ya think didnt jesus have issues with jews ??

Has god ways given you the right direction in life i bet your so far in debt your heads spinning and probably divorced you love thy neibiour prob not cause his dog shits all over your lawn huh


----------



## sen.c (Aug 23, 2011)

Dude you are impossible you have to know what you are talking about first. We have already been here in the last thread, you wouldn't know what real truth was if it hit you upside your head.

Now I am just gonna sit back and watch you guys just use the same old dead arguments like last time and laugh rather than post.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 23, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Dude you are impossible you have to know what you are talking about first. We have already been here in the last thread, you wouldn't know what real truth was if it hit you upside your head.
> 
> Now I am just gonna sit back and watch you guys just use the same old dead arguments like last time and laugh rather than post.


care to explain how you explain the fossil/geological record? if you do believe the earth was made roughly 6000 years ago that is...


----------



## DrFever (Aug 23, 2011)

hey luger they cant face the real fact there is no way in hell its true i guess the saying is true you cant teach a old dog new tricks 
finally congress back in 2002 steped in saying christianity is not allowed to preach there BS in schools that only teaching will be actual truth and for some that dont know this even president stepped in and said thats the way it got to be so when a president of USA doesnt even believe in god makes you wonder huh


----------



## DrFever (Aug 23, 2011)

and for all the clowns that believe in god wake up already amaazes me when every sunday i turn on the TV and see some BS priests asking for some kind of money why dfoes god need money ???? hahahaha dumb tarts

and to believe some folk fairy tale well heres another lockness monster sasquatch hahahahah all fairy tales


----------



## tardis (Aug 23, 2011)

Why does the story of Jesus match the earlier story of Horus?
Why is Noah's character in a book older than the bible called Gilgamesh where he is immortal and never ages or dies? 
According to the bible the 7th day is the holy day, that day called Saturday.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 23, 2011)

if he never ages and dies then where the fck is he lol prob in the pen for being a pedophile


----------



## sen.c (Aug 23, 2011)

> care to explain how you explain the fossil/geological record? if you do believe the earth was made roughly 6000 years ago that is...


No, not really. Already been there and done that, there is no sense in trying to break through to get them to even consider the possibility they are wrong. You give them proven evidence from an a professional in the field of science and because he does not agree with the way they or their piers see it than it is stupid and doesn't count and they are quacks. The whole basis of science is to ask why and dig for answers, that is as long as the answers meet their approval.

"Freedom of speech, just watch what you say."


​


----------



## DrFever (Aug 23, 2011)

sen.c said:


> No, not really. Already been there and done that, there is no sense in trying to break through to get them to even consider the possibility they are wrong. You give them proven evidence from an a professional in the field of science and because he does not agree with the way they or their piers see it than it is stupid and doesn't count and they are quacks. The whole basis of science is to ask why and dig for answers, that is as long as the answers meet their approval.
> 
> "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say."
> 
> as typical as most priests wouldnt answer it lmaoooooooooooooooooo cause they know good answer sen better to keep mouth shut then to dig more if a hole for the truth about God )


 
as typical as most priests wouldnt answer it lmaoooooooooooooooooo cause they know good answer sen better to keep mouth shut then to dig more if a hole for the truth about God ) would you like to see a vid that shows a high priests changing the subject wen asked about that lol you did the same hahahaha


----------



## sen.c (Aug 23, 2011)

You got schooled on the last thread for having nothing to add to either side so what is your point. Do you find it makes you feel good to take jabs at people for their beliefs? I bet it makes you feel good dosen't it?
What's with you and the "Priest" stuff? So what is your assumption,is it that everyone is Catholic? I don't get it, do you really think you have something intellectual to add to this thread or is it just to jump in and bash
so you can feel like you have a friend among like minded believers? To me you are like the little wormy kid who would run his mouth and start trouble only to run back and hide behind your friends.


----------



## ChadButler (Aug 23, 2011)

.....so stupid..... All of you. You so-called "atheists" are so quick to believe what these "scientists" are saying, you look like much bigger idiots than these hypocrite christians.

Also, what in your mind gives these people such huge credibility? Do you really believe there are people intelligent enough to understand how life was created? If so, why hasnt that person (scientists) done something with his almighty knowledge. I mean, if you've figured out creation, economics shouldnt be that tough, right? I'm just sayin, both sides of this argument have no validity. Period.

Ask stephen hawking how lifes going, he wont say much. But the much younger theoretical physicist beside him knows it all now, huh. What happens when another theory pops up? Cant wait, can ya? Ask my two year old where life comes from, he'll tell ya somethin good for sure.

A main argument for atheism is the lack of free will a person has when following a god, but tht argument is crap now because all i see are people slurpin science jizz.

Last thing, looking at the bible as a fable is not a bad thing. It's the oldest known book on the planet, therefore it has many lessons in it which all people should know. One good one being, control your emotions. Buncha bitches.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 24, 2011)

ChadButler said:


> .....so stupid..... All of you. You so-called "atheists" are so quick to believe what these "scientists" are saying, you look like much bigger idiots than these hypocrite christians.


Why do you put atheists and scientists in quotes? Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, it has nothing to do with science at all. You can be an atheist and believe all kinds of pseudoscience or fantasy. It appears that you are the one looking stupid since you are not able to make that distinction.

Additionally, no one says they are quick to believe what scientists say, however, the answers that science has come up with have a historical trail that anyone that wants to can examine for themselves. I think most people agree that blindly following scientists is just as wrong as blindly following a pastor. Unfortunately for your argument, some of us are actually educated and are scientists ourselves. Some of us actually understand the scientific method and are not merely following an authority as you seem to think. 




> Also, what in your mind gives these people such huge credibility? Do you really believe there are people intelligent enough to understand how life was created? If so, why hasnt that person (scientists) done something with his almighty knowledge. I mean, if you've figured out creation, economics shouldnt be that tough, right? I'm just sayin, both sides of this argument have no validity. Period.


Science has credibility. It has been shown to be correct many times over. Technology produced from the results of science actually works. This is self-confirmation. If the science was wrong, the technology wouldn't work. 
No one said we know how life was created. You just created a straw man to attack all science. YOUR argument has no validity because you don't appear to understand logic and fallacious reasoning, let alone science. 

How can you compare economics to study of the natural world? No one has ever claimed that economies, that are created by people, follow similar laws to nature. You are making very little sense and it is quite obvious you have little knowledge of the subjects that you are criticizing. 


> Ask stephen hawking how lifes going, he wont say much. But the much younger theoretical physicist beside him knows it all now, huh. What happens when another theory pops up? Cant wait, can ya? Ask my two year old where life comes from, he'll tell ya somethin good for sure.


WTF are you talking about now? 


> A main argument for atheism is the lack of free will a person has when following a god, but tht argument is crap now because all i see are people slurpin science jizz.


I have never heard that as an argument for atheism. Would you care to link to someone that makes this argument? It sounds like you are just pulling claims out of your ass now. 


> Last thing, looking at the bible as a fable is not a bad thing. *It's the oldest known book on the planet,* therefore it has many lessons in it which all people should know. One good one being, control your emotions. Buncha bitches.


Really? http://www.onlinedegree.net/the-10-oldest-books-known-to-man/

Instructions of Shuruppak -- Dating back to circa 3000 BCE 

Epic of Etana -- Legendary king of Kish Etana is the subject of an epic dating back to around 2600 BCE

Pyramid Texts -- Considered by most historians, archaeologists, and theologians to be amongst the oldest religious documents in the world, the Pyramid Texts compile together inscriptions found on ancient Egyptian tombs for 10 members of the royal family. The writings accompanying these kings and queens span nearly 250 years, with the earliest discovered in the pyramid of Fifth Dynasty ruler Unas (also referred to as Unis) and dating to somewhere between 2400 and 2300 BCE.

Code of Urukagina -- Widely thought of as the very first political treatise ever committed to writing, what makes the Code of Urukagina unique to the other texts on this list is the fact that nobody has yet to actually unearth it. However, that it exists (or existed at one point) is undisputed. Clay tablets discovered during Urukaginas reign over Legash between 2380 and 2360 BCE make a number of references to the work.

Palermo Stone - Dating back to the 25th Century BCE

The Wisdom of Ptah-Hotep -- The actual date of the papyrus scrolls that comprise The Wisdom of Ptah-Hotep (occasionally referred to as The Maxims of Ptah-Hotep or The Instructions of Ptah-Hotep) is disputed, with some claiming 2400 BCE and others around 2600 BCE  if not older.

En-hedu-anas Hymns -- Frequently considered the very first explicitly named author in recorded history, Sumerian En-hedu-ana (also known as Enheduana or Enheduanna) worked as a high priestess in the service of Nanna, the moon god. The high priestess lived from 2285 to 2250 BCE 

The Epic of Gilgamesh -- As with other ancient texts, historians and literary critics cannot pinpoint the exact date when The Epic of Gilgamesh was written, though it was likely around 2000 BCE. Many of the stories  most especially the one involving a massive divine flood intending to eliminate all life on Earth as a means of renewal  likely inspired those found in the Bible and later texts.

The Code of Ur-Nammu -- Written and between 2100 and 2050 BCE, The Code of Ur-Nammu discusses the legal philosophies of the titular Sumerian king. 

Coffin Texts -- As with the ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, the Coffin Texts involve a series of spells and incantations found on sarcophagi throughout the country. Dating back to the Middle Kingdom  which spanned between 2200 and 1800 BCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas
The Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts. The Samhitas date to roughly 15001000 BCE, and the "circum-Vedic" texts, as well as the redaction of the Samhitas, date to c. 1000-500 BCE, resulting in a Vedic period, spanning the mid 2nd to mid 1st millennium BCE, or the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age


The bible the oldest book on the planet? Not by a longshot!


----------



## tardis (Aug 24, 2011)

In the name of all thats evolved, in the name of all thats a mutation of a previous phenotype, Die thread Die!


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 24, 2011)

sen.c said:


> http://youtu.be/-MbF0bc7iEs


[youtube]Xd2PGkDecT8[/youtube]


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 24, 2011)

@ SEN C .................bet you trust and respect scientists work when it comes to medicine or medical care for yourself and your familly .


----------



## DrFever (Aug 24, 2011)

yup science doesnt work at all huh


----------



## DrFever (Aug 24, 2011)

yup science doesnt work they split the atom an made a 50 megaton nuke better yet how bout this god must of done this [video=youtube;sxwj-IH5KoI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxwj-IH5KoI[/video]


----------



## DrFever (Aug 24, 2011)

or better yet how bout this 

Researchers say they have genetically altered wheat for the first time, an achievement that could help lead to improved yields around the world.
Scientists at the University of Florida and the Monsanto Company said Tuesday that the foreign gene they had introduced into wheat had produced an enzyme that had rendered many powerful herbicides harmless to the wheat. The work is to be reported in the June issue of the journal Bio/Technology.
An author of the report, Dr. Indra K. Vasil of the university's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, said that a field of wheat with the newly introduced trait could be treated with modern herbicides, like those made by Monsanto, to control weeds without harming the wheat. The wheat would then thrive without competition for water or nutrients. Doubling World's Food
"In the next 30 to 50 years, we must produce double the amount of food to feed the world," Dr. Vasil said. "At the moment, we lose an enormous amount of food to insects, pests and drought. By adding genes we can protect the total amount of food that's produced, and that will take us a long way toward solving the food problem


----------



## DrFever (Aug 24, 2011)

what i find funny is without scientists we would never bin able to actually make gas or oil sure the fck wasnt in the bible how to make things for life 
most people seem to forget with out oil and or gas we would still be living in the caveman age hey chad even the shirt your wearing was made with oil from the ground your power if we were still in the bible you be sitting by a fire 
so dont get stupid and think tht if it wasn't for scientists Not God you would have fck all even the food you eat has bin engineered by scientists pest control sprays steroids fish are now being cloned for open market as the abundance in the ocean are dwindling wtf has your god done since huh wtf in the bible has it given anything other then lies an BS hey who created the internet GOD whats the average life span for humans now huh to give you a idea we are living longer then our pears were and its not from your so called god its from science what about doctors they learn there shit from god huh if anyones god its goin to be the one ssaving your life when your on operating tble sure the fck not god

PS: chad next time you got a headache get on your knees and pray to your god to get rid of it lol and stop useing tylenol that was made with science


----------



## sen.c (Aug 24, 2011)

> @ SEN C .................bet you trust and respect scientists work when it comes to medicine or medical care for yourself and your familly


Why wouldn't I trust them, no one said science didn't work. Here you go crying already as if someone is attacking you and nothing of the sort has happened to this point.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 24, 2011)

have given up on your King James Bible Sen C. <3


----------



## sen.c (Aug 24, 2011)

DrFever, 

First off I have no idea where you are coming from, no one is arguing that science hasn't been useful and a big part of many of today's modern advancements. On the other hand there are many things out there that have came about simply by using common sense and rational thinking in a manor to simplify complex tasks. By the way they did have basic oils in biblical times and way before your Refinerys if you do a little research. Here is a thought, suppose maybe God designed the brain they way it is so that man in fact can be capable of critical thinking and solving complex problems in his world around him. Would that be so far fetched? Do you have any idea how many normal people had an idea and through deductive reasoning, critical thinking, testing their ideas and refining on them came up with life changing ideas that surround us daily? Science has it place and it is a valuble skill set but the world would not end if they disappeared tomorrow. I can only imagine where our society would be if people put a little more faith in their own ability to solve problems and think for themselves instead of letting others dictate how it is to be done and doing it for them.


----------



## ChadButler (Aug 24, 2011)

I spent 20 minutes writing a response to you mindphuk, but it got deleted after hitting reply without being signed in.   Expect a response tomorrow around this time! =)

Anyways, Drfever, I use Bayer. Acetaminophen makes me dizzy! I'm also not a Christian. Jesus doesn't fit in with my lifestyle, I'm afraid. Next time you see your vagina, get on your hands and knees and ask God to fist it for you.


----------



## tardis (Aug 24, 2011)

All people should want to strive to be christlike, even if all of us are on a one way ticket to hell anyway.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 24, 2011)

If anything we should all strive to be Buddhist over being christian-like.. Buddhism is way more peace oriented. By Far & it applies to "life" much better than the stories in the bible. just letting you know.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 24, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> If anything we should all strive to be Buddhist over being christian-like.. Buddhism is way more peace oriented. By Far & it applies to "life" much better than the stories in the bible. just letting you know.


i agree with this statement


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 25, 2011)

tardis said:


> All people should want to strive to be christlike, even if all of us are on a one way ticket to hell anyway.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 25, 2011)

[video=youtube;nRB8Jor8tPs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRB8Jor8tPs[/video]


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 25, 2011)

tardis said:


> All people should want to strive to be christlike, even if all of us are on a one way ticket to hell anyway.


"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" - Mohandas Gandhi


----------



## tardis (Aug 25, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" - Mohandas Gandhi


Great quote. Yeah I believe that the universe is a lot more complicated then mere christians or atheists can comprehend. I think every level of the universe operates on its own level from atomic to galactic. The ideas behind the bible are good for the most part, the loving stuff not the hate (they hate gays, women with short hair, unbelievers, people who eat shrimp, etc). All people should try to be good helpful and kind. Forget morality as in do this don't do that, jesus never checked the rules before he acted did he? He just did things with a good heart. Now was he God? Sure, all of us are. Was he the only son of God? Nope, neither is Mohomed or Moses.

My personal philosophy?

Be a good kind generous person whenever you can, and an evil vindictive bastard whenever you have to.


----------



## sen.c (Aug 25, 2011)

Tardis,



> (they hate gays, women with short hair, unbelievers, people who eat shrimp, etc)


Man you got it all wrong, I don't hate gays, I just believe that as the bible says "a man should not lay with another man as with a woman" He simply states that beccause he had created man and woman to be companions. The short hair thing was actually a sign in those times of a woman that was basically an "open" woman or as reffered to in our times as a hooker basically and that was a way of identifying them. As far as the eating thing that was more the Old Testament traditions before the son of man came as the sacrifice and at that point he told the people to eat saying "The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") As far as unbelievers go the bible teaches us to love them as you love thyself and to share the word with them.



> Forget morality as in do this don't do that, jesus never checked the rules before he acted did he? He just did things with a good heart. Now was he God? Sure, all of us are. Was he the only son of God? Nope, neither is Mohomed or Moses.


Jesus never checked the rules because he was the epitimy of the law. He came as a man to live amoung men and show that he was free of sin and proved it in his daily life, keep in mind that he was exposed to the same things that we are today but never faltered and walked sinless amongst these worldly pitfalls we all fall for as an example for us. Also the things he did were not because he had a good heart it was to show people that he was the son of God. Yes he was God, we are not. Was he the only son of God? Yes, Mohamed and Moses were just men born of the fallen image of Adam not the image of God. None of us are created in the image of God, if you read in the bible after the fall of man in the Garden it ssays that Seth ( Adams Son ) was born in the fallen image of Adam not in the image of God. Anyway just a little info, when the Lord dwells in your heart you find yourself wanting the things God wants and making decisions based of of God's morals as he has changed your heart.

IMHO


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 25, 2011)

Shun the non-believers.. .Shhuunnnnn... .


----------



## cary schellie (Aug 25, 2011)

two dicks and no chics don't mix, but I do enjoy two women kissing. There is some sort of higher power or meaning, just hope you find out after you die. Everyone should just be honest, helpful and caring and the world would be a great place to live


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 25, 2011)

if god is all powerful can he create a boulder so heavy that even he cannot lift it?


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 25, 2011)

god is a fallacy, because even a creator must have a creator, religion is nothing more than some wise guy trying to explain shit to a bunch of dumbass tribesmen who dont quite get it. hence you wind up with stupid religions that dont really make logical sense.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 26, 2011)

I'm throwing my 2 cents into this thread.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Aug 26, 2011)

ill raise you 1 nickel.


----------



## dbgrow (Aug 26, 2011)

I am real. I exist, and if you don't shut your mouths and stop being idiots, I am going to step on you all, then smoke you in my pipe. Bong.

-God


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 26, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Jesus never checked the rules because he was the epitimy of the law. He came as a man to live amoung men and show that he was free of sin and proved it in his daily life, keep in mind that he was exposed to the same things that we are today but never faltered and walked sinless amongst these worldly pitfalls we all fall for as an example for us. Also the things he did were not because he had a good heart it was to show people that he was the son of God. Yes he was God, we are not. Was he the only son of God? Yes, Mohamed and Moses were just men born of the fallen image of Adam not the image of God. None of us are created in the image of God, if you read in the bible after the fall of man in the Garden it ssays that Seth ( Adams Son ) was born in the fallen image of Adam not in the image of God. Anyway just a little info, when the Lord dwells in your heart you find yourself wanting the things God wants and making decisions based of of God's morals as he has changed your heart.
> 
> IMHO


it blows my mind that people really believe stuff like this lol


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 26, 2011)

define "sin".


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 26, 2011)

sen c, where did you find your evidence of adam and eve? is it just because it says in the bible that you believe they existed and they were the first humans? im curious if there is other evidence for this, since ive never seen any. just trying to find out where you got your facts


----------



## ChadButler (Aug 26, 2011)

Main Entry: 1sin 
Pronunciation: \&#712;sin\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is  more at is
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God


Your turn. Explain the pyramids. Not a religious matter, but it certainly baffles science.


----------



## fdd2blk (Aug 26, 2011)

ChadButler said:


> Main Entry: 1sin
> Pronunciation: \&#712;sin\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is &#8212; more at is
> ...



i'm not done yet, hang on.


"who determines what is a sin?"


if you throw away rotten bananas, is that a sin?


----------



## sen.c (Aug 26, 2011)

So you think I am an idiot for believeing what I believe, and I think you are for what you believe. I guess that pretty much sums it up. We will only find out in death what the answers are I just happen to believe what I believe and you believe what you do. I have told you about my beliefs and shared info with you all and you have chosen to laugh it off and I have done the same with your info. If I am right you have a lot to lose and if your right I have nothing to lose so that pretty much is where we are, no need to go any further really.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 26, 2011)

sen.c said:


> So you think I am an idiot for believeing what I believe, and I think you are for what you believe. I guess that pretty much sums it up. We will only find out in death what the answers are I just happen to believe what I believe and you believe what you do. I have told you about my beliefs and shared info with you all and you have chosen to laugh it off and I have done the same with your info. If I am right you have a lot to lose and if your right I have nothing to lose so that pretty much is where we are, no need to go any further really.


you have everything to lose , if i was you id practice all religions , at least then if religion turns out to be true <smirks> you will have done everything you can do to please each and every one of the thousands of gods the human mind has created .
if yout gonna waste your life worshipping a god then id edge my bets and worship all gods ,
you are lowering your odds hugely if you only pick one of them to follow and obey .


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 26, 2011)

sen.c said:


> So you think I am an idiot for believeing what I believe, and I think you are for what you believe. I guess that pretty much sums it up. We will only find out in death what the answers are I just happen to believe what I believe and you believe what you do. I have told you about my beliefs and shared info with you all and you have chosen to laugh it off and I have done the same with your info. If I am right you have a lot to lose and if your right I have nothing to lose so that pretty much is where we are, no need to go any further really.


 Exactly. So then everyone let's leave messages on this thread asking to delete it and maybe the mods will see it and then we can get back to having peace.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" - Mohandas Gandhi


That quote actually made me lose respect for Gandhi, how can he just group every Christian together and say they are the same? Not all Christians are hypocrites some actually do try there hardest to be like christ. Ehh ghandi sucks.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 26, 2011)

sen.c said:


> So you think I am an idiot for believeing what I believe, and I think you are for what you believe. I guess that pretty much sums it up. We will only find out in death what the answers are I just happen to believe what I believe and you believe what you do. I have told you about my beliefs and shared info with you all and you have chosen to laugh it off and I have done the same with your info. If I am right you have a lot to lose and if your right I have nothing to lose so that pretty much is where we are, no need to go any further really.


the old pascals wager. huh? nice...

yes i think its dumb to whole heartedly believe something you have no evidence for. you see it as fact when you have no reason to. to say i cant poke and prod at your beliefs is laughable. i have every right to do that because you spread lies as if they are fact. religion should be questioned. that is what i am doing.

ive seen you in other threads yelling about how they didnt have enough evidence for this or that to claim X. one was about an old fish that i believe started with an A. dont remember what it was. 
how come science requires evidence but religion doesnt? should we just believe these holy books simply because they exist? thats CRAZY

so... where is this evidence for adam and eve?


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 26, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Exactly. So then everyone let's leave messages on this thread asking to delete it and maybe the mods will see it and then we can get back to having peace.


id like to ask you too. does science require evidence but not religion? do they both require evidence? if not, why? what makes these holy books impossible to touch with science? 
if you really believe it happened, shouldnt you be wanting people studying it and finding the evidence to prove you are right? not wanting them to study it sure looks like you dont really believe and want them to stay away so they dont prove you wrong. if thats not why, what is the reason?


----------



## hillam (Aug 26, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> Why don't you stop replying. The op called out atheists. Here I am.
> 
> Atheists believe in what we can see and touch. Christians believe in talking snakes, and bearded men in the sky, and fantasies of angels and afterlives in heaven. Who's ignorant?


hands down the best picture ever


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 26, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> id like to ask you too. does science require evidence but not religion? do they both require evidence? if not, why? what makes these holy books impossible to touch with science?
> if you really believe it happened, shouldnt you be wanting people studying it and finding the evidence to prove you are right? not wanting them to study it sure looks like you dont really believe and want them to stay away so they dont prove you wrong. if thats not why, what is the reason?


 Hey I don't want no trouble, Jk. Nah I don't believe science requires evidence as long as it teaches you something it's all good.
And I have stated before that I don't care how much science proves they really can't prove god wrong. But I do respect science I would probably be dead of some disease if it wasn't for science. But to each there own.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Aug 26, 2011)

I think if anything is to believed as truth, it needs evidence to back it up.


----------



## sen.c (Aug 26, 2011)

Luger187, 


> the old pascals wager. huh? nice...
> 
> yes i think its dumb to whole heartedly believe something you have no evidence for. you see it as fact when you have no reason to. to say i cant poke and prod at your beliefs is laughable. i have every right to do that because you spread lies as if they are fact. religion should be questioned. that is what i am doing.
> 
> ...


You are really funny, but here is the fact of the two:

The Bible and it's teachings in it's simplest form asks us to believe based on faith. (Part of that is for the simple fact that we were not present at the time Jesus walked the Earth.)

The part of Science I have the problem with is that they ask you to take as fact things such as the fish you say I was hollaring about. By the way it was a valid point I made but if you want to buy 
off on it as fact than go ahead, I have some ocean front property on the moon I will be glad to sell you as well.

Circular thinking at it's finest.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 26, 2011)

sen.c said:


> The Bible and it's teachings in it's simplest form asks us to believe based on faith. (Part of that is for the simple fact that we were not present at the time Jesus walked the Earth.)


So the bible asked you to be satisfied with not knowing. In this context Faith is an appeal to ignorance. Faith is saying lets ignore what we don't understand or have proof for, and believe anyway.



> The part of Science I have the problem with is that they ask you to take as fact things such as the fish you say I was hollaring about. By the way it was a valid point I made but if you want to buy
> off on it as fact than go ahead, I have some ocean front property on the moon I will be glad to sell you as well.
> 
> Circular thinking at it's finest.


You showed no evidence of circular thinking, nor of adam and eve. You seem to think it's okay for the bible to appeal to faith when facts aren't available, yet it seems you criticize science for asking you to believe something, even though they provide proof. I understand that this proof does not meet your personal requirments, but why do you have a different set of standards when it comes to religion? Your requirements there seem to be nothing more than the bible asking you to believe.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 26, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey I don't want no trouble, Jk. Nah I don't believe science requires evidence as long as it teaches you something it's all good.
> And I have stated before that I don't care how much science proves they really can't prove god wrong. But I do respect science I would probably be dead of some disease if it wasn't for science. But to each there own.


how can science work without evidence? there is no way to prove something without verifiable evidence.



sen.c said:


> Luger187,
> 
> 
> You are really funny, but here is the fact of the two:
> ...


so because the very same book that tells you the stories about god, also tells you that you should believe in it, that means you should believe it? for what reason should we believe in the bible? faith alone just tells us you believe it without question

if i had faith that your moon property was real, wouldnt you think i was crazy? if i just took you at your word without anything to back up your claims, wouldnt that mean im not doing my job by not verifying the facts before i believe you?

how are you able to make valid claims about lack of evidence about that fish, but not about your own holy book? if its something that affects your life that much, shouldnt you at least look into it?


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 26, 2011)

Faith in God is like Trust in a Relationship, it's nice.. gives you a peace of mind.. you happily spend your money.. then WHAM! !! You're screwed 50 years old mid-life crisis wondering why you did not actually think things through & plan better.


----------



## sen.c (Aug 26, 2011)

> I understand that this proof does not meet your personal requirments


Exactly, that's it in a nut shell. With that being said there are other areas of science that I enjoy, like Metallurgy, Botany, Medicine, and many others. I just have always had a problem
with science in the sense that they can and will deem someone a failure if they choose not to believe certian things (not all) that lack someones personal requirements they may want to 
see before they except it as fact. This very issue causes issues in learning, someone can be brilliant in the field of science but because they believe something that goes against the 
hierarchy they are automatically deemed a nut or a failure when in actuality they are many times just as smart and are still shut down in the name of control of the system.

I choose to read the Bible and trust by faith in God's word and it is a personal decision that is all. It is no different than you choosing to believe in what you believe in but I am not bashing you 
for how you believe. Just as you stated some things in science do not meet my personal requirements for evidence that I feel is important to address.

Budski,


> Faith in God is like Trust in a Relationship, it's nice.. gives you a peace of mind.. you happily spend your money.. then WHAM! !! You're screwed 50 years old mid-life crisis wondering why you did not actually think things through & plan better.


No not really, it's called life and we all have to live it. Every decision we make will affect us at some point in our life, some may hit you right away and others may get you 20 years later but they all have consequences good and bad.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 26, 2011)

So do you not like enough of science to prove to yourself that certain aspects of the bible cannot be true?


sen.c said:


> Exactly, that's it in a nut shell. With that being said there are other areas of science that I enjoy, like Metallurgy, Botany, Medicine, and many others. I just have always had a problem
> with science in the sense that they can and will deem someone a failure if they choose not to believe certian things (not all) that lack someones personal requirements they may want to
> see before they except it as fact. This very issue causes issues in learning, someone can be brilliant in the field of science but because they believe something that goes against the
> hierarchy they are automatically deemed a nut or a failure when in actuality they are many times just as smart and are still shut down in the name of control of the system.
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 27, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Exactly, that's it in a nut shell. With that being said there are other areas of science that I enjoy, like Metallurgy, Botany, Medicine, and many others. I just have always had a problem
> with science in the sense that they can and will deem someone a failure if they choose not to believe certian things (not all) that lack someones personal requirements they may want to
> see before they except it as fact. This very issue causes issues in learning, someone can be brilliant in the field of science but because they believe something that goes against the
> hierarchy they are automatically deemed a nut or a failure when in actuality they are many times just as smart and are still shut down in the name of control of the system.
> ...


 Scientists don't have a problem with believers, only the ones that must deem a priori untrue anything that contradicts their interpretation of the bible. IOW, when it comes to a choice between two conclusions, it must be consistent with what the bible says or it must be wrong, evidence be damned.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 27, 2011)

well i can tel you one thing which amases me just the other day who came to my door with a bible and pamflet some jewhovau
anways as i explained i was no interested but low and behold if there wasnt the hottest tight assed big titted and i mean hotty with her well as she tryed to talk to me i couldnt but stare at this knock out on a scale of 1 - 10 she was a 20 
well to make a story short as the old women babbled on point blank said i will join your faith under one condition i get into her pants lol she smiled but it was a no go they left hahaha


----------



## sen.c (Aug 27, 2011)

Budski, 

It isn't really an issue of me liking or disliking science as it pertains to the Bible. Are there things in the Bible that I don't understand? Sure, but I feel that as a man with only finite knowledge that there are things that I will never understand 
and that is why with some things I just have to have faith. To me trying to understand God's infinite mind would be impossible, however he did I feel give us all an extremely powerful tool the mind to be capable of critical thinking and understanding things of our world.


----------



## Strangelove (Aug 27, 2011)

I find the question of "there is a God/ there is no God"

Why can't people just understand that no one will ever know such.

Just be.


----------



## tardis (Aug 27, 2011)

We all have the right to believe whatever we want. Nobody has the ability to change what you believe, so you shouldn't fear people with different beliefs or feel that they are out to get you for your beliefs. Just believe what you want because nobody can take that away.


----------



## DrFever (Aug 28, 2011)

tardis said:


> We all have the right to believe whatever we want. Nobody has the ability to change what you believe, so you shouldn't fear people with different beliefs or feel that they are out to get you for your beliefs. Just believe what you want because nobody can take that away.


people are afraid of change thats that if science and ogeology has proven already that earth is way over 6000 yrs old yet the bible says earth is 6000 yrs old if science can prove a man guilty of raping someone thru DNA or how the deeper you go into the earth it gets hotter kinda simple when you watch history channel and they show stuff on layers of the earth and the age of it 

for instance how some pesticides dont work as well as before insects adabt how a person at one time could take just one 222 and get rid of his headache but now he takes 3 or 4 to get the job done its evolution 
and to think just one god made everything makes me think most ppl are hollow 

We did this thing in scholl 40 ppl involved where as teacher drew a picture of a fish a simple fish easy to draw in his office and one by one we went in as the student drew his picture of a fish the teacher left his for next person to draw then took one away so next person got to draw what last person drew and so on 
well after all 40 ppl were done he taped it on the board amasing from a fish to a straight line and a dote was final drawing 
makes me believe the bible is truly false 
as well if there was a god a savior to us all wouldnt he have shown his face by now to fix some of the hardships on earth wouldnt you think ???? if were his children 
wouldnt you pick up your kid if he fell of his bike and was hurt ??????


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 28, 2011)

DrFever said:


> people are afraid of change thats that if science and ogeology has proven already that earth is way over 6000 yrs old yet the bible says earth is 6000 yrs old if science can prove a man guilty of raping someone thru DNA or how the deeper you go into the earth it gets hotter kinda simple when you watch history channel and they show stuff on layers of the earth and the age of it
> 
> for instance how some pesticides dont work as well as before insects adabt how a person at one time could take just one 222 and get rid of his headache but now he takes 3 or 4 to get the job done its evolution
> and to think just one god made everything makes me think most ppl are hollow
> ...


you should really start using periods and complete sentences. your points seem less valid when you type like a 5th grader... no offense

the example about the guy taking a pill for his headache is not evolution. thats just his body resisting a substance. a better example would be antibiotics and bacteria.


----------



## Newera (Aug 29, 2011)

I have a solution to all... 1. READ the bible without questioning. 2. go to church. 3. have a private discussion with a preacher/minister/etc...( its the only way your gonna find out what you dont know). Hope this helps. ps. havent you watched the Waterboy? Astronomy is one of the many tools of the devil... haha.. i couldnt resist myself.


----------



## hydroleaf (Sep 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The holy bible.
> Well, its not too hard to explain why it doesn't make sense to you. The old testament doesn't have Jesus's words in it, and the new testament does and it also says that anything without Jesus in it is completely false and is ment to deceive you because it is of the anti christs.
> 
> Making EVERYTHING in the old testament false, even if it had good morals in it. It is still there to deceive you(idk about the songs, some of them are fucked up too(Worst songs i've heard are singing for god to change things, knowing damn well God tells us if we listen to what he said while he was on earth we will be saved) (were waiting for sinners to change their ways, hence repent for heaven on earth is at stake)).


 
Hate to bust your bubble buddy but Jesus is not God nor was he ever God. Nor is the being who was the Messiah that is spoken about in the Scriptures your speaking of called Jesus. Jesus was a name created 300 years ago. This man came 2,000 years ago- and he was fully a human not the God-Man you make him out to be. Christianity is the biggest lie ever pulled off by the powers of Darkness. This is specifically the group 1 John talks about and how they deny the Machiach(Messiah). YOu deny the Father and the Son since you say they are both 'one.' As in one entity. They are one in Spirit (as the Machiach says when he says for the believers to be one, as he and the Father are one.) Does that mean that all believers are all one being? No. But they are one 'Spirit' One 'Will' One 'Belief' One 'Power.' The trinity is a straight up lie. "Numbers 23:19 God is not a man that he should lie, Nor the Son of Man." How many times did this Hebrew Man (with a Hebrew Name) say he was the Son of Man? And before you start saying things like John 1 ect... Check up on your Hebrew and Greek. Most of the the English versions of the Bible have lost all meanings and true translations have been replaced by men who thought what they knew was the truth. AKA - biasly translated. Simple example.. In John Ego Eimi is translated when the Machiach says it as "I AM"- Like the Machiach is the creator. Well why isn't Ego Eimi translated into "I AM" right before this when the Pharisees ask the blind man, "Are you the blind man who recieved sight?" He said, "Ego Eimi"- and they translated it as, "I am he" Same thing the Machiach said yet they put I AM to fit their doctrine. 

Obviously you are not a follower of this one either, considering the language you spew. How can salt and fresh water flow from the same spring? Neither does a rotton plant produce good fruit or a good plant produce rotton fruit. (Come on you should know this).


----------



## hydroleaf (Sep 1, 2011)

I once followed Him, and he revealed his self to me. But like many others I turned away to do my own thing. One of those things is smoking bud. Anyone who consistently smokes buds I know they are not following the MaChiach. He didn't need buds, and the Spirit reveals that neither do you. You are to walk as he did, so you are to always rely on the Spirit in every situation. And that includes putting artificial things into your body to accomodate for a feeling of.. whatever it is. Not only that, but if you are really walking in the way you won't ever sin because you love the truth and the truth guides you away from ALL sin.

So if your consistently sinning and that includes a whole morae of things- and think you are 'following' the Creator and his beloved Son- You are WAY off and deceiving yourself. Your words are like stones falling from your mouth that don't amount to shit. You path is crooked. Your eyes are not opened and you are stumbling in the darkness. You are like a Marijuana plant in a hydro system with no water. A curse to begin with. Leaves falling off so easily. A wilted piece of shit, that in the end (if you ever believed he was truly who he is) you MIGHT be used as manure in the soil.


----------



## hydroleaf (Sep 1, 2011)

I just reread your post. Dude I can't believe you think you are a follower of the Ma'Chiach yet you deny the Old testament. These books are more of a foundation than the New Testament is. What do you think all the Scriptures in the Old Testament pointed towards? What Scriptures do you think Paul and the other believers were speaking of when they were to "Study the Scriptures."??? THE OLD SCRIPTURES, not the 'NEW' - Those weren't even created yet.

I think I'm done here.


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 1, 2011)

hydroleaf said:


> How can salt and fresh water flow from the same spring?


Diverging molarity and molecular mass? Just trying to see if I won a cookie. =)


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> Diverging molarity and molecular mass? Just trying to see if I won a cookie. =)


Out of cookies want a special brownie?


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Out of cookies want a special brownie?


 Sure. .....


----------



## hydroleaf (Sep 1, 2011)

I'll take one of those brownies please. I need a late night snack


----------



## TogTokes (Sep 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Well, if you wanna get that Jesus rep; just admit to Jesus coming in the flesh of man on earth to die because of sin. Like I can.
> 
> If it God's existance doesn't make sense, then you diddn't read the whole bible.
> If you diddn't read the whole bible it makes sense that your athiest, your beliefs are based upon something you know nothing about.
> ...


It's not that it does not make sense, it's that it is soo far out beyond bullshit and people still believe it that is the not making sense part. I mean c'mon seriously think to yourself, is he gonna come down and shoot fireballs from his arse like william wallace used to or?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Sep 4, 2011)

simple answer, to a simple question...


nobody knows! lol


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

TogTokes said:


> It's not that it does not make sense, it's that it is soo far out beyond bullshit and people still believe it that is the not making sense part. I mean c'mon seriously think to yourself, is he gonna come down and shoot fireballs from his arse like william wallace used to or?


he will have arm cannons like megaman. except on both arms because he is god


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 5, 2011)

please share the clip where william wallace shoots fireballs out of his ass?




TogTokes said:


> It's not that it does not make sense, it's that it is soo far out beyond bullshit and people still believe it that is the not making sense part. I mean c'mon seriously think to yourself, is he gonna come down and shoot fireballs from his arse like william wallace used to or?


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 5, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enwqNa39DqE&t=1m40s


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Sep 10, 2011)

Wowzers...I just read this entire thread....someone is a dick and should get a award for that super long post 10 pages ago. I noted a post that some said that the majority of scientific evidence points to christ never even walking the planet.....Well, brother, without giving you a minor in history I will say this : The evidence science does hold proves he was alive and walking on earth at one point in human history. What evidence does not prove is that he is God Almighty himself. 

When the pilgrims came from the plymouth rock, on the mayflower...they cared a sacred chalice that was sacred because it was used to catch the first blood of Jesus after his death on the cross. We have since recovered a chalice and it still had positive remnants of human blood in the pores of the metal.... Through science, we can look back and indeed conclude Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a person, did walk earth, and proclaimed to be the son of god. . There are many artifacts that prove his very existence. However, nothing yet has proven his proclamations were authentic, and indeed to be the son of god. 

No I do not believe Jesus in any shape or form, what so ever, is god, was god, or ever will be god. I think at best, he was the best bullshitter of all times, his legend still lives, and with science that is all we can say as of today....He is a legend at best! At the worst end....he was a clever, con who bullshitted his way to his own fatality. Way to go...after all...god(s) don't die, and its not a good thing to say your a god when someone can shoot you dead in the face, on the spot.


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 13, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Well, if you wanna get that Jesus rep; just admit to Jesus coming in the flesh of man on earth to die because of sin. Like I can.
> 
> If it God's existance doesn't make sense, then you diddn't read the whole bible.
> If you diddn't read the whole bible it makes sense that your athiest, your beliefs are based upon something you know nothing about.
> ...


i can get that, but what i dont get is why god lets innocence suffer. why is that? a small child has no kind of comprehension what sin is so he is pure, but yet god lets them starve, die of disease, die via gun shooting whats your answer to that?


----------



## sen.c (Sep 13, 2011)

> i can get that, but what i dont get is why god lets innocence suffer. why is that? a small child has no kind of comprehension what sin is so he is pure, but yet god lets them starve, die of disease, die via gun shooting whats your answer to that?


It rains on the just and unjust alike. If you are asking what the Bible says the reason is for than you need to read Genesis. Adam was made according to the Bible in Gods own image and God created a helper for Adam which was Eve at the time because they were created in God's image they were perfect and had dominion over everything. The only thing God told them not to do was take from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve was tempted by the surpent and when Adam found her taking of the tree she tempted Adam and he took as well. At that moment, sin entered the world and God told them "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With that being said Adam and Eve's offspring were born in the image on sin and not in the image of God due to what Adam and Eve did in the garden. Before this happened there was no sickness and man was perfect and created in the image of God and had dominion over all things birds of the air, creatures of the sea, all land dwelling animals even the plants. Once sin entered the world through Adam and Eve breaking the one law that God gave them sickness, death and everything else came upon mankind. God said the wages of sin is death, he did not put an age limit or restriction on it.


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> It rains on the just and unjust alike. If you are asking what the Bible says the reason is for than you need to read Genesis. Adam was made according to the Bible in Gods own image and God created a helper for Adam which was Eve at the time because they were created in God's image they were perfect and had dominion over everything. The only thing God told them not to do was take from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve was tempted by the surpent and when Adam found her taking of the tree she tempted Adam and he took as well. At that moment, sin entered the world and God told them "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With that being said Adam and Eve's offspring were born in the image on sin and not in the image of God due to what Adam and Eve did in the garden. Before this happened there was no sickness and man was perfect and created in the image of God and had dominion over all things birds of the air, creatures of the sea, all land dwelling animals even the plants. Once sin entered the world through Adam and Eve breaking the one law that God gave them sickness, death and everything else came upon mankind. God said the wages of sin is death, he did not put an age limit or restriction on it.


im sorry but i dont buy that at all. so somethin that literally doesnt know what sin is is automatically full of sin enterin the world? to me that doesnt sound like somethin a just and lovin god would do. and do you really believe in a story that has a talkin snake in it?


----------



## sen.c (Sep 13, 2011)

You asked the question, I am sorry if you don't like the response you'll have to take that up with your maker some day so your issue is not with me. Yes we are born into sin, it is mans nature and to deny that fact is a massive fail on anyones part believer or not. The heart and mind are wicked and capable of just those things, are you denying that?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> You asked the question, I am sorry if you don't like the response you'll have to take that up with your maker some day so your issue is not with me. Yes we are born into sin, it is mans nature and to deny that fact is a massive fail on anyones part believer or not. The heart and mind are wicked and capable of just those things, are you denying that?


I don't think he had a problem with the implications of your response so much as the inconsistent logic and the suggestion that god is coldhearted and vengeful. Drawing a literal methodology from a mythical story doesn't sit well with some. That is, unless you believe the story is not myth and therefore snakes can talk, in which case his problem is with fantasy. 

That is what I got from his post.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 13, 2011)

> suggestion that god is coldhearted and vengeful


What makes him coldhearted and vengeful the fact that he held his creation accountable for breaking the one law he gave them. That makes him just, you break the law and there are consequences.

Like I said his beef is with God not me.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> What makes him coldhearted and vengeful the fact that he held his creation accountable for breaking the one law he gave them. That makes him just, you break the law and there are consequences.
> 
> Like I said his beef is with God not me.


He actually pointed out what makes God coldhearted and vengeful. The fact that he gave us free will to individually follow or break this law, and then holds us all accountable for actions we had no control over. That part is indeed to be taken up with the bible and God. 

The beef with you is that you might actually believe in a talking snake, or that we should derive incontrovertible morals from a story involving a talking snake, or failing to think things through.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 13, 2011)

> He actually pointed out what makes God coldhearted and vengeful. The fact that he gave us free will to individually follow or break this law, and then holds us all accountable for actions we had no control over. That part is indeed to be taken up with the bible and God.
> 
> The beef with you is that you might actually believe in a talking snake, or that we should derive incontrovertible morals from a story involving a talking snake, or failing to think things through.


So you do admit that we have free will, he put in place laws for us to follow, and that he does hold us accountable. We have control over our actions, just like your parents told us growing up as kids "just because your buddy jumps off a bridge does that mean you have to" or how about another one "No body can make you do anything you don't want to." Moral law is written on everyone's heart whether you admit to it or not it is there. A man does what he does because he wants to not because he had no choice. The fact that we do anything we do is proof enough that we made a choice, does that mean that all choices we make are going to be right.

Would you rather be created as a robot that has no ability to rationalize and think for yourself or have free will to understand, solve problems and so on. Free will is a double edged sword it is both the greatest gift and can be the greatest downfall we have.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

sen.c said:


> So you do admit that we have free will, he put in place laws for us to follow, and that he does hold us accountable. We have control over our actions, just like your parents told us growing up as kids "just because your buddy jumps off a bridge does that mean you have to" or how about another one "No body can make you do anything you don't want to." Moral law is written on everyone's heart whether you admit to it or not it is there. A man does what he does because he wants to not because he had no choice. The fact that we do anything we do is proof enough that we made a choice, does that mean that all choices we make are going to be right.


I was simply playing along with your premise for the sake of simplicity. I believe we have covered my criticism of the premise thoroughly in the past. If it is to be taken up with god, then why are you defending it? You seem to want to posit these things with certainty, but be exempt from offering validation. This allows you to hold whatever pompous opinions you want while using god as a scapegoat to avoid accountability.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 13, 2011)

Why is your opinion better then sen.c? Thats all they are, opinions, a





Heisenberg said:


> I was simply playing along with your premise for the sake of simplicity. I believe we have covered my criticism of the premise thoroughly in the past. If it is to be taken up with god, then why are you defending it? You seem to want to posit these things with certainty, but be exempt from offering validation. This allows you to hold whatever pompous opinions you want while using god as a scapegoat to avoid accountability.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 14, 2011)

> This allows you to hold whatever pompous opinions you want while using god as a scapegoat to avoid accountability.


Not true at all, everyone is accountable for everything they do it just so happens that I have another person I feel accountable to that you obviously don't and that would be GOD.



> Why is your opinion better then sen.c? Thats all they are, opinions, a


Thank you.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Not true at all, everyone is accountable for everything they do it just so happens that I have another person I feel accountable to that you obviously don't and that would be GOD.


Nice deflection. Of course I was talking about being accountable for the things you posit. You assert that someone is born with sin, and when someone says they don't believe it, you avoid accountability for that accusation by telling them to take it up with god. That is the furthest thing from being accountable of yourself. This allows you to say whatever you want without having to show merit. Your merit amounts to an idea of an invisible man and a book which has all the earmarks of being written by mortals ignorant of modern knowledge.


----------



## LightningMcGreen (Sep 14, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Would you rather be created as a robot that has no ability to rationalize and think for yourself or have free will to understand, solve problems and so on. Free will is a double edged sword it is both the greatest gift and can be the greatest downfall we have.


I would just lie to point out, IMO, this isn't a fair comparison. It's called Artificial Intelligence for a reason; it's not natural intelligence in the human sense, as it's pre-programmed to do specific tasks...or, in a biblical sense, lacks a soul and concious decision.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 14, 2011)

> Nice deflection.




wow, really? are you being serious dude? deflection? 

seems you dont see what you do


----------



## sen.c (Sep 14, 2011)

I am accountable for everything I say or do as I posted earlier and don't dodge or deflect it in any way. All I said was the truth I hold at the base of my principles, if it bothered you ar offended you in some way I am sorry but still will not change my feelings about my core values. So there it is, I have no problem being accountable for what I said you can't please everybody right. So if you or anyone else want to fire back at me for my statement that was made I accept that and I knew it would happen before I hit the post button, so in knowing that as I pressed the post button I made the decision to accept responsibility for the statement I was posting.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 14, 2011)

All you've done is rehash your earlier deflection, and included a denial of deflection.

I'm talking about taking responsibility for the things you imply and the feelings you provoke when you tell someone they were born with sin and are thus damned to burn forever unless they accept salvation. That is a rather extreme claim to make and it is only natural that someone would question it. It describes a mentally ill deity who punishes people for not excepting him based on actions of people we didn't know, and you cited it as justification for suffering in the world. When the poster questioned your claim, you offered no further context or support for this assertion but instead passed the buck onto god before reasserting that man is wicked and doomed without salvation. Indeed the poster wasn't even confining his questions to the implications, but also expressing that he couldn't understand why someone would consider a deity to be just and loving based on such a story. 

You made an accusation extending from your belief; an accusation that favors prejudging guilt over innocence, and you offered no accountability for this accusation other than the scapegoat of god. That is not what is considered to be taking responsibility. Why do you spread these ideas, ideas which cause guilt, fear, apprehension, and bewilderment, if you have no rationale for them other than some words some people wrote a long time ago?


----------



## sen.c (Sep 15, 2011)

> All you've done is rehash your earlier deflection, and included a denial of deflection.
> 
> I'm talking about taking responsibility for the things you imply and the feelings you provoke when you tell someone they were born with sin and are thus damned to burn forever unless they accept salvation. That is a rather extreme claim to make and it is only natural that someone would question it. It describes a mentally ill deity who punishes people for not excepting him based on actions of people we didn't know, and you cited it as justification for suffering in the world. When the poster questioned your claim, you offered no further context or support for this assertion but instead passed the buck onto god before reasserting that man is wicked and doomed without salvation. Indeed the poster wasn't even confining his questions to the implications, but also expressing that he couldn't understand why someone would consider a deity to be just and loving based on such a story.
> 
> You made an accusation extending from your belief; an accusation that favors prejudging guilt over innocence, and you offered no accountability for this accusation other than the scapegoat of god. That is not what is considered to be taking responsibility. Why do you spread these ideas, ideas which cause guilt, fear, apprehension, and bewilderment, if you have no rationale for them other than some words some people wrote a long time ago?


Like I said, I took responsibility for my statement before I posted it. Sorry if you don't like my answer or the God I place my faith in but it doesn't matter what you think really. My statement causes no more Guilt, Fear, Apprehension, and Bewilderment than some of your scientific views so what exactly makes you right and me wrong. Like I said before the moral law is written on everyones heart, if you feel any of the above assertions you made it is a sign that moral law is indeed written on your heart or you wouldn't have them at all. I don't feel any of your asserted feelings as stated above when you say the things of science that I don't prescribe to even when I research them and give them a chance. Not everything is Science, but you always try and push things to that arena so that you feel better but it doesn't have to be that way.

I need not offer any further context to support my statement, I said it was in the Bible and it contains all the context I need. Kinda like the old saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 15, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Like I said, I took responsibility for my statement before I posted it. Sorry if you don't like my answer or the God I place my faith in but it doesn't matter what you think really.


Authoring a post is not the same as taking responsibility for your assertions. My liking or not liking the post is beside the point of it having no intellectual merit.



> My statement causes no more Guilt, Fear, Apprehension, and Bewilderment than some of your scientific views so what exactly makes you right and me wrong.


I hold no views which assert guilt, promise indefinite torture, and offer salvation in exchange for their belief. The views I do hold I will go to painstaking lengths to explain and support, and I openly submit them for criticism. This does not make me right, it makes me intellectually accountable for what I posit. What makes you wrong is that you have not given the slightest thought to the validation of your claim, yet hold others to it's standards. Your accusation is inserted into every life by implication, no matter how wholesome and fulfilling that life may be, and creates a dilemma that can only be solved by submitting to one of the most asinine and unsupported ideas in existence.



> Not everything is Science, but you always try and push things to that arena so that you feel better but it doesn't have to be that way.


Ad hominem attack, not surprising. Your belief makes a number of scientific claims. The virgin birth is a claim of biology. Walking on water is a claim of physics. Healing the sick is a claim of physiology. Even prayer suggests a substantial declaration about extra sensory mental communication. Religion makes no attempts to stay outside of science, despite constantly pleading that science leave it outside.



> I need not offer any further context to support my statement, I said it was in the Bible and it contains all the context I need. Kinda like the old saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."


So again, spreading with certainty the belief of original sin which entails prejudice, guilt, torture, and employs manipulation does not warrant to you any more justification than some words from an old book which gives no evidence whatsoever of being written by anything other than mortals oblivious to any rational sense of how reality operates. This is your idea of accountability?


----------



## sen.c (Sep 15, 2011)

> Authoring a post is not the same as taking responsibility for your assertions. My liking or not liking the post is beside the point of it having no intellectual merit.


Like I said I asserted it, and I stand by it and accept responsibility for all you who it made feel the way you described in your previous post. From an intellectual stand point merit is in the eye of the person reading it. I don't expect you to understand it through your scientific method of thinking, sometimes things just have to be and people have to just accept the fact that there will be things that will never be understood. You know, sometimes I believe that if a person tried hard enough he could actually over analyze something to the point of making it nonexsistent in his own mind.



> Ad hominem attack, not surprising. Your belief makes a number of scientific claims. The virgin birth is a claim of biology. Walking on water is a claim of physics. Healing the sick is a claim of physiology. Even prayer suggests a substantial declaration about extra sensory mental communication. Religion makes no attempts to stay outside of science, despite constantly pleading that science leave it outside.


Call it what you will but my belief makes no scientific claims other than what the scientific community wants to call a scientific claim to support their argument. I happen to believe that God is above science and there are many things in everyday life that leave science without an answer. 



> So again, spreading with certainty the belief of original sin which entails prejudice, guilt, torture, and employs manipulation does not warrant to you any more justification than some words from an old book which gives no evidence whatsoever of being written by anything other than mortals oblivious to any rational sense of how reality operates. This is your idea of accountability?


So what is your point, is the mind and heart of mankind not evil? How else do you explain the atrocities capable of coming out of the human thought process? It had to come from somewhere didn't it? Are you saying there is no such thing as evil?

Explain to me how reality works, you can't because everyone's reality is different from person to person and that is what makes us unique as individuals. Like I said sometimes you need to just be happy in the fact that you exsist and you will not know some things.



> What makes you wrong is that you have not given the slightest thought to the validation of your claim, yet hold others to it's standards. Your accusation is inserted into every life by implication, no matter how wholesome and fulfilling that life may be, and creates a dilemma that can only be solved by submitting to one of the most asinine and unsupported ideas in existence.


I hold nobody to anything, I can't make you do anything. If someone asks a question I will answer it my way and you answer it your way. 

It would be no more asinine than some of the unsupported ideas you live by and hold as true in science. So again I ask you what makes your truth any better than mine? There are things in mine that can be proven and things that can't and the same is true for your science so what say you. By the way this is not a deflection as you so fondly like to throw out there but a legitimate question.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> It rains on the just and unjust alike. If you are asking what the Bible says the reason is for than you need to read Genesis. Adam was made according to the Bible in Gods own image and God created a helper for Adam which was Eve at the time because they were created in God's image they were perfect and had dominion over everything. The only thing God told them not to do was take from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve was tempted by the surpent and when Adam found her taking of the tree she tempted Adam and he took as well. At that moment, sin entered the world and God told them "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With that being said Adam and Eve's offspring were born in the image on sin and not in the image of God due to what Adam and Eve did in the garden. Before this happened there was no sickness and man was perfect and created in the image of God and had dominion over all things birds of the air, creatures of the sea, all land dwelling animals even the plants. Once sin entered the world through Adam and Eve breaking the one law that God gave them sickness, death and everything else came upon mankind. God said the wages of sin is death, he did not put an age limit or restriction on it.


I've always been curious about this reasoning: god is omniscient, which means that he knows exactly what is going to happen in the big picture, and knows exactly what each one of us (including himself) is going to do. Which would seem to mean that we have the illusion of free will, but no matter which paths we choose or decisions we make, god knows what those will be ahead of time (or that wouldn't be omniscience). So, he put the tree of knowledge there knowing exactly what would happen, and created Adam and Eve knowing that they'd eat from that tree and condemn mankind. Why purposefully set humanity up like that? Seems cruel at worst, and shortsighted at best...


----------



## sen.c (Sep 16, 2011)

I have wondered the same thing at times, I can't pretend to understand it either. I just chalk it up to the fact that I have a finite mind and he has an infinite mind and understanding just is not something we are able to comprehend due to that.

I don't know it is kinda like when you are a dad and you teach your children they way he should go and they stray. All I can do is raise my children and teach them right from wrong but in the end it is up to them to choose and there is nothing we can do no matter how much we love them and want the beast for them. Sometimes you want more for someone than they want for themselves I guess.


----------



## trichomedome (Sep 16, 2011)

Yes plain and simple, as said 1000,s of totaly inocent children die each day, a slow painfull death through starvation,diseases,etc,etc. Need i go on. And you sit there talking shite about reading genisis to understand why this happens. Fate and mans "inhumanity" to man is why it happens. Tcd Got 4 real gods in my attic


----------



## sen.c (Sep 16, 2011)

You want to know why children in Africa for example die of starvation, man. No other reason than that, man. There is so much aide sent to Africa's starving villages it is ridiculous but what happens? The depravity of man and his own lust for power through control of people through food. Get a grip dude and learn something before you just listen to all these bleeding heasrt liberals on tv you never hear the stories about the guerillas ambushing the aide trucks and stealing all the food for themselves on the news but it happens everyday. Why do little girls die every day of aids in Africa because there belief in the local witch doctor telling them that if they have sex with children it will cure their disease so now not only do innocent little children that are starving get raped then they are given aids on top of it and why? Man.

This has nothing to do with God, it is all man.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> I have wondered the same thing at times, I can't pretend to understand it either. I just chalk it up to the fact that I have a finite mind and he has an infinite mind and understanding just is not something we are able to comprehend due to that.
> 
> I don't know it is kinda like when you are a dad and you teach your children they way he should go and they stray. All I can do is raise my children and teach them right from wrong but in the end it is up to them to choose and there is nothing we can do no matter how much we love them and want the beast for them. Sometimes you want more for someone than they want for themselves I guess.


I understand the parent/child metaphor, I have a young son, too. But it would be like knowing that our children are curious and can't fully comprehend the consequences or their actions, even when we tell them not to do something, and we put within their reach a loaded gun, an open bottle of bleach, and a bear trap. Then we say, 'don't play with those things, you'll die/get hurt!' We know what would happen, our kids would shoot themselves while caught in the bear trap after drinking the bleach  It's even worse with the garden of eden story because god KNEW what would happen, so he simply could never have put the tree there in the first place. That is what all us parents do, we don't present dangerous temptation to our children because we love them and don't want them to be hurt. How is it that we know better than god? It's either that, or god meant to damn us from the very beginning because our free will would have nothing to do with it...


----------



## sen.c (Sep 16, 2011)

Good question, I know alot of people that ponder that as well. 

I guess it was part of his plan, I don't know. He said he created us for his own glory but if he created something that had no choice but to love him would it be love or just the fact that something was created that had no choice but to do so.
I know as a person love is the fact that that person chooses of their own free will to give that love to you.

How's that Vanilla Kush by the way? Curious to know, might give it a shot.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

man that is the stupidest thing i have read so far! you got to be really ignorant right?

those kids die thanks to their government taking care of them... what do you expect? that everyone will always be happy and there will never be bad on this planet? there are over 6 billion assholes on this planet and you are complaining about some kids... we need to start taking care of the planet if we plan to stay here longer, not how many kids are dying thanks to their government.





trichomedome said:


> Yes plain and simple, as said 1000,s of totaly inocent children die each day, a slow painfull death through starvation,diseases,etc,etc. Need i go on. And you sit there talking shite about reading genisis to understand why this happens. Fate and mans "inhumanity" to man is why it happens. Tcd Got 4 real gods in my attic


----------



## Justin00 (Sep 16, 2011)

Listening to an Atheist argue is like watching a retard argue with themselves about why ice cream is better then blow-pops. Until he realizes that his opinion is all that matters to him and it matters inversely little to anyone else he will sit there and argue about it with himself all day. The real question we should be asking is: Why is he even arguing about it if he doesn't believe/fear/ect it......... but then again its hard to understand retards..... and atheists. Just ask yourself why do you care if others believe something different, is simply letting people know your belief not enough? Do you think it needs constant justification for you to feel secure and comfortable with it?

And i want to apologize to any atheists who are not self righteous twats for any offence i may have caused. My hostility is only toward the arrogant teenagers who consider there opinions to be facts not open to debate or reason, and feel it is there civic duty to force there opinions upon the community in order to save them form a life of happiness and security that religion often offers to its followers (regardless of the modern religion they do in fact provide that for many). The next part I say subjectively because I understand there are many people of many faiths reading this, religion also may, even if you consider it an outside chance, offer some form of supernatural rewards in this life or after.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 16, 2011)

Justin00 said:


> Until he realizes that his opinion is all that matters to him and it matters inversely little to anyone else he will sit there and argue about it with himself all day.


Yet, here you are, right on time to make a response because you don't care about an atheists opinion. 



Justin00 said:


> The real question we should be asking is: Why is he even arguing about it if he doesn't believe/fear/ect it


What is it about this that's so difficult to understand? You realize 85% of HUMANITY is under the influence of organized religion, right? It doesn't have to be true to impact the planet or our society in a negative way, people simply have to think it's true. 

If 6 billion people believed in Santa Clause and it had a similar negative impact, I would be posting the inconsistencies and paradox's involved in its validity too.



Justin00 said:


> ... but then again its hard to understand... atheists.


I'm confused. What's so hard to understand about atheism?



Justin00 said:


> Just ask yourself why do you care if others believe something different


Because what someone else might believe might be dangerous to other people. Simply _believing_ it, and worse yet, believing it's a supernatural entity with supernatural abilities that are untestable, don't give it a pass to fact. 

Maybe a better way to answer your question is to phrase it a different way and ask you back...

-just ask yourself, why do you care if others believe in Islam?

-just ask yourself, why do you care if others believe in geocentricism?

-just ask yourself, why do you care if others believe in new age, alternative medicines?

-just ask yourself, why do you care if others believe in eugenics?

-just ask yourself, why do you are if others believe in Nazism?

... hopefully you get the point. _Some_ beliefs are in fact very dangerous, most atheists believe a lot of organized religions that most people affiliate themselves with are dangerous. They harm society, the environment, and institute unnecessary divisions among populations. They instill false forms of morality by conditioning populations. 



Justin00 said:


> is simply letting people know your belief not enough?


It's not "my belief", it's "reality". It's time for you to accept reality for what it actually is, not for what makes you feel comfortable. This behavior slows progress. Your comfort level isn't my priority, progress is. Solving things like cancer, AIDS, space exploration/colonization, developing viable clean energy sources for the growing population, making sure we can all eat, making sure there is enough clean water, making sure people can read... this is the stuff that is important. Your ancient fairy tale is standing in the way of it. 



Justin00 said:


> Do you think it needs constant justification for you to feel secure and comfortable with it?


Oh man, the irony..

Do you know how many times I see something religious on a daily basis?

Who does it sound like needs justification? 

Atheists are outspoken against it today because there's no threat of death in America, we have freedom of speech, I personally don't really care if what I have to say offends somebody religious, I always encourage them to counter anything I say, but guess how many times that happens? Very few. What I get in person is what you see in these threads, religious people who can't back anything up with scientific fact, people who don't understand words or know how to use them correctly, people who quote mine and take things out of context... It doesn't take long for an intelligent person to realize these tactics amount to desperation.


----------



## Justin00 (Sep 16, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> I understand the parent/child metaphor, I have a young son, too. But it would be like knowing that our children are curious and can't fully comprehend the consequences or their actions, even when we tell them not to do something, and we put within their reach a loaded gun, an open bottle of bleach, and a bear trap. Then we say, 'don't play with those things, you'll die/get hurt!' We know what would happen, our kids would shoot themselves while caught in the bear trap after drinking the bleach  It's even worse with the garden of eden story because god KNEW what would happen, so he simply could never have put the tree there in the first place. That is what all us parents do, we don't present dangerous temptation to our children because we love them and don't want them to be hurt. How is it that we know better than god? It's either that, or god meant to damn us from the very beginning because our free will would have nothing to do with it...


there is a few big parts of what you just typed that you have fully analyzed yet, i'll give you a few hints. in your post you are assuming that you are correct in all your judgments, more so than an all powerful crafter of the universe? you assume that since it dosn't make since to you then it *must* in fact have faults, either he is wrong or cruel in your example, but by what standards.....yours? 

Is free choice of no importance to you? Would anything mean anything if you were not given the ability to make choices? If you came home and found your child with the gun unloaded and place in a case and the bleach taken to the laundry room and left on the shelf and the bear trap disarmed and packaged safely in your closet and your child making there self some lunch..... how would you feel then? =) Is it wrong in your opinion for "God" to give us that chance? I'm just saying that we often look at things from our limited perspective and never even try to see the bigger picture, granted how could we possible expect to understand the full picture as small and insignificant as we are in the universe?


----------



## Justin00 (Sep 16, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Yet, here you are, right on time to make a response because you don't care about an atheists opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i read most of your post but haven't finished it yet, but i want to clarify something first.... you don't think we should have freedom of religion? I am getting a very strong feeling from your post that you are offended by other people being allowed to have any opinion differing from your own dew to fear that it might in some way be forced upon you, yet you want to force your feelings on someone else.....brb work is over ill be back when i get home.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 16, 2011)

I'd really like to personally commend Hep for being the ONLY religious persons on all of RIU for being man enough to admit he believes what he believes based on faith. 

That is so much more respectable than someone trying to constantly prove the unprovable, untestable (as designed by their own faith) claims. It highlights their own ignorance and inexperience.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Good question, I know alot of people that ponder that as well.
> 
> I guess it was part of his plan, I don't know. He said he created us for his own glory but if he created something that had no choice but to love him would it be love or just the fact that something was created that had no choice but to do so.
> I know as a person love is the fact that that person chooses of their own free will to give that love to you.
> ...


Well, if god created us for his own glory, it would make sense to give us no choice but to love him, then he'd be glorified by all. Upon creating each one of us, he knows whether each one will love him or not, indeed he knows if we'll be an African child born with AIDS and die at 3 and never has the opportunity to learn about him, or whether we'll be a white man in America that will be a multi-millionaire that will live until 100. His omnipotence is why he knows, so why make creatures that he knows won't, or doesn't get the chance to, love him? His omnipotence makes our free will merely our illusion, since our actions are preordained. So, we really have no choice to love him or not...

Vanilla Kush is my favorite everyday smoking weed (22% THC, low CBN %)! I'm almost out from last harvest (shit went like hot cakes), but I've got 8 VK ladies with 3 weeks to go. Also got one HUGE Strawberry Diesel in her own bucket that's almost done with the biggest, densest colas I've ever seen. Hope to pull a little more than 4 ounces of her alone. Cant wait


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 16, 2011)

Justin00 said:


> i read most of your post but haven't finished it yet, but i want to clarify something first.... you don't think we should have freedom of religion? I am getting a very strong feeling from your post that you are offended by other people being allowed to have any opinion differing from your own dew to fear that it might in some way be forced upon you, yet you want to force your feelings on someone else.....brb work is over ill be back when i get home.


I absolutely believe people should have freedom of religion. Existence is not figured out yet, your guess is as good as mine, I invite you (and anyone else willing) to help figure it out together. The tool I offer is science. As established, it's the best method we have for getting to the truth. A better method has not been presented, if you disagree with that, provide one.

I simply want all religious influences kept in private. I shouldn't know your religion unless I ask. Churches shouldn't get special tax stipulations, homosexuality shouldn't be openly oppressed, ignorance of science shouldn't be glorified, etc.


----------



## sso (Sep 16, 2011)

...while you are still assuming there is a all powerful crafter of the universe

and believing the Words of People that he exists.

lol, and selectively so.

you have never seen any proof, other than the words of people, written or spoken.

nothing that would hold up to any examinations.

Neither side, atheist or religious, can do much else, than go blablabla till they are blue in the face and yet be not a single step closer to proving their case.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 16, 2011)

> Well, if god created us for his own glory, it would make sense to give us no choice but to love him, then he'd be glorified by all. Upon creating each one of us, he knows whether each one will love him or not, indeed he knows if we'll be an African child born with AIDS and die at 3 and never has the opportunity to learn about him, or whether we'll be a white man in America that will be a multi-millionaire that will live until 100. His omnipotence is why he knows, so why make creatures that he knows won't, or doesn't get the chance to, love him? His omnipotence makes our free will merely our illusion, since our actions are preordained. So, we really have no choice to love him or not...
> 
> Vanilla Kush is my favorite everyday smoking weed (22% THC, low CBN %)! I'm almost out from last harvest (shit went like hot cakes), but I've got 8 VK ladies with 3 weeks to go. Also got one HUGE Strawberry Diesel in her own bucket that's almost done with the biggest, densest colas I've ever seen. Hope to pull a little more than 4 ounces of her alone. Cant wait


I hear you, if you ever get a chance spark one and read Romans it really is a pretty good book of the Bible. The VK sounds like one I will have try for sure, is it a pretty good producer when topped then scrogged?


----------



## sen.c (Sep 16, 2011)

> I'd really like to personally commend Hep for being the ONLY religious persons on all of RIU for being man enough to admit he believes what he believes based on faith.


I never stated that though.



> As established, it's the best method we have for getting to the truth. A better method has not been presented, if you disagree with that, provide one.


Well science has it's valid points no doubt, but there will still be things it will never figure out. When a man diagnosed with terminal cancer so bad that he is given a couple weeks to live
and out of the blue his body that was infested with cancer is all of a sudden gone without ant sign all doctors can do is say i don't know. I would have to call that a miracle.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 16, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Well, if god created us for his own glory, it would make sense to give us no choice but to love him, then he'd be glorified by all. Upon creating each one of us, he knows whether each one will love him or not, indeed he knows if we'll be an African child born with AIDS and die at 3 and never has the opportunity to learn about him, or whether we'll be a white man in America that will be a multi-millionaire that will live until 100. His omnipotence is why he knows, so why make creatures that he knows won't, or doesn't get the chance to, love him? His omnipotence makes our free will merely our illusion, since our actions are preordained. So, we really have no choice to love him or not...


The answer you will get (and have gotten) is simple, we are not meant to know the mind of god. This is the same thing as saying, be satisfied with ignorance and move on.

It would seem being omniscient and omnipotent at the same time is impossible. If god decides to intervene and save a drowning child, he has always known he would make this choice, being omniscient. How then, could he change his mind and decide not to intervene? If he is all powerful, then he must be able to change his mind, but if he changes his mind then he was wrong about always knowing he would help. Does god then change the past and make so that he always knew he wouldn't help? If so then, being omniscient, he must have always known he would change his mind in the past. So it seems god can change his mind in the past, but not change his mind in the future, since he always knows the future state of his mind. So he can be either omnipotent or omniscient, but not both.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Weel science has it's valid points no doubt, but there will still be things it will never figure out. When a man diagnosed with terminal cancer so bad that he is given a couple weeks to live
> and out of the blue his body that was infested with cancer is all of a sudden gone without ant sign all doctors can do is say i don't know. I would have to call that a miracle.


Why do you attribute it to God though? (more specifically, your god)


----------



## sen.c (Sep 16, 2011)

> The answer you will get (and have gotten) is simple, we are not meant to know the mind of god. This is the same thing as saying, be satisfied with ignorance and move on.


No what it means is that who are you to question the creator and try and understand his infinite mind. Let's say for the sake of conversation since I know you don't believe in God but let's say he does exsist. Do you think for a second that you would be able to have an inkling of understanding as to the knowledge he has to create all the complex systems he has created?

With that being said I am still trying to figure out what makes your congregated multiple sources of weapons-grade insight and reality right and anyone who thinks any different than you wrong.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> No what it means is that who are you to question the creator and try and understand his infinite mind. Let's say for the sake of conversation since I know you don't believe in God but let's say he does exsist. Do you think for a second that you would be able to have an inkling of understanding as to the knowledge he has to create all the complex systems he has created?
> 
> With that being said I am still trying to figure out what makes your congregated multiple sources of weapons-grade insight and reality right and anyone who thinks any different than you wrong.


Why wouldn't an omnipotent being be able to explain existence to a human being in a way he could understand it?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

thats the whole mystery about life bro. if it was that easy, dont you think we would be a totally different people?




Padawanbater2 said:


> Why wouldn't an omnipotent being be able to explain existence to a human being in a way he could understand it?


----------



## sen.c (Sep 16, 2011)

> Why do you attribute it to God though? (more specifically, your god)


In this situation, to give him the glory he deserves and because he is the one true and living God. Let me guess you would attribute it to science although 
science can't begin to explain it but maybe they will in the future so I will go ahead and give them credit for it anyway.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> In this situation, to give him the glory he deserves and because he is the one true and living God. Let me guess you would attribute it to science although
> science can't begin to explain it but maybe they will in the future so I will go ahead and give them credit for it anyway.


You simply saying "It must be a divine miracle!" is inconsistent with reality. Why didn't God step in and save the thousands from hurricanes killed each year? Why didn't he step in and save the neighborhood boy who was struck by a car? You giving credit to your god is no more valid than me saying "by the power of Zues, he's healed!". 

Nothing connecting 'miracle' - 'God'. 

I wouldn't attribute it to anything, simply mark it up as 'unknown' for the time being, be grateful the guy survived and keep studying it and trying to figure it out. Why give something credit that doesn't deserve it? It only helps in moving us backwards.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 16, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> thats the whole mystery about life bro. if it was that easy, dont you think we would be a totally different people?


 Appeal to ignorance.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 16, 2011)

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Hundreds of Proofs of God&#8217;s Existence


Ones we see most often...

ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8 ) [Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists.

PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question.]
(2) [Atheist answers question.]
(3) [A lapse of time]
(4) [Christian repeats question.]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question.]
(8 ) [Atheist repeats answer.]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) [Atheist leaves in frustration.]
(11) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(12) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

man you are the ignorant one for thinking nothing is possible without science telling you it is,

[video=youtube;4j5h9IgwYgs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j5h9IgwYgs[/video]


[video=youtube;bVvdbYKIXQw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=bVvdbYKIXQw[/video]



Padawanbater2 said:


> Appeal to ignorance.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 16, 2011)

Justin00 said:


> there is a few big parts of what you just typed that you have fully analyzed yet, i'll give you a few hints. in your post you are assuming that you are correct in all your judgments, more so than an all powerful crafter of the universe? you assume that since it dosn't make since to you then it *must* in fact have faults, either he is wrong or cruel in your example, but by what standards.....yours?
> 
> Is free choice of no importance to you? Would anything mean anything if you were not given the ability to make choices? If you came home and found your child with the gun unloaded and place in a case and the bleach taken to the laundry room and left on the shelf and the bear trap disarmed and packaged safely in your closet and your child making there self some lunch..... how would you feel then? =) Is it wrong in your opinion for "God" to give us that chance? I'm just saying that we often look at things from our limited perspective and never even try to see the bigger picture, granted how could we possible expect to understand the full picture as small and insignificant as we are in the universe?


I read your post and really thought about what I posted to see if I did indeed miss something in my reasoning. I am confident that I haven't. I feel that my standards are the standards of all loving, caring human parents. I may be wrong, maybe some parents feel that they should let their small children choose their own fates with dangerous objects lying around. Though if that were the case, I don't think there would be a quarter of people that currently exist on this planet, as so many would die in early childhood. I recently saw a Nova episode where a bunch of 6 year old boys were shown a gun, understood that it was loaded (it wasn't, of course) and that if aimed and fired at someone they would be killed. Then the adult left the room. Less than 3 minutes later one of the boys had picked up the firearm and was waving it around, pointing it at playmates and had pulled the trigger several times. Your analogy of me being surprised if my son didn't kill himself and instead put the dangerous items in their places is flawed: I am not omniscient to know exactly what will happen, but god is. If god is omniscient then we have no free will, only the illusion of it, because upon creating us he knows exactly which 'choices' we will make. I don't have this luxury with my son. I value free will very much and believe that it actually exists, but this is because I don't believe in a god...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

how does God knowing what we are going to do before we are born with the decisions we make as a human being?





tyler.durden said:


> I read your post and really thought about what I posted to see if I did indeed miss something in my reasoning. I am confident that I haven't. I feel that my standards are the standards of all loving, caring human parents. I may be wrong, maybe some parents feel that they should let their small children choose their own fates with dangerous objects lying around. Though if that were the case, I don't think there would be a quarter of people that currently exist on this planet, as so many would die in early childhood. I recently saw a Nova episode where a bunch of 6 year old boys were shown a gun, understood that it was loaded (it wasn't, of course) and that if aimed and fired at someone they would be killed. Then the adult left the room. Less than 3 minutes later one of the boys had picked up the firearm and was waving it around, pointing it at playmates and had pulled the trigger several times. Your analogy of me being surprised if my son didn't kill himself and instead put the dangerous items in their places is flawed: I am not omniscient to know exactly what will happen, but god is. If god is omniscient then we have no free will, only the illusion of it, because upon creating us he knows exactly which 'choices' we will make. I don't have this luxury with my son. I value free will very much and believe that it actually exists, but this is because I don't believe in a god...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> I hear you, if you ever get a chance spark one and read Romans it really is a pretty good book of the Bible. The VK sounds like one I will have try for sure, is it a pretty good producer when topped then scrogged?


I've read the bible several times all the way through when I was young, as I was brought up christian. I don't remember Romans specifically, but I will flip through it when I get to a family members house (I don't own a bible). VK is an amazing producer with fast flowering and pretty much foolproof to grow, I top them but I've never scrogged...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> No what it means is that who are you to question the creator and try and understand his infinite mind. Let's say for the sake of conversation since I know you don't believe in God but let's say he does exsist. Do you think for a second that you would be able to have an inkling of understanding as to the knowledge he has to create all the complex systems he has created?


yes

&#8220;I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record to say that he knew or understood the mind of god. Yet this is precisely the qualification which the godly must claim&#8212;so modestly and so humbly&#8212;to possess. It is time to withdraw our 'respect' from such fantastic claims, all of them aimed at the exertion of power over other humans in the real and material world.&#8221; 
&#8213; Christopher Hitchens



> With that being said I am still trying to figure out what makes your congregated multiple sources of weapons-grade insight and reality right and anyone who thinks any different than you wrong.


Strawman: being right is not my de facto position. I am sometimes right and sometimes wrong. When I am right, it is not by accident, it comes from hard consideration and endeavors to validate. When I think someone is wrong, I thoroughly explain why.

My location paraphrase is purposely absurd and meant to be self defeating as there is no way for a single person to congregate anywhere, and no way to congregate over more than one place at time, which makes it a statement that would suggest the opposite of insight.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

> Strawman


ad hominin

appeal to ignorance


----------



## karetwo (Sep 16, 2011)

We are born into a mindstate where there is only 1 life for us individual beings, on this earth or ever. Religion believes this.

There has to be a god like, awesome infinite force that created us, our mind and everything else that we can conceivable thing of. life is too perfect.

As for the deaths on earth, the negativity, it has a purpose. To experience it. Because if those hurricanes didnt kill those people you would not have the mind state you have now, and would not be seeking closure. or answers.

I believe that our body is a biological physical shell for our soul, and the soul, would be our mind and thoughts, the non physical about us, and i believe that never dies, as for nothing could leave this creation we are in, because nothing could not be part of the creation because that too would be a creation. I beleive we reincarnate as a human until we learn our lesions and move on, as we did in our past stage of evolution as an animal.

We are infinite beings, as is everything in the creation, because the creation is one, and will always be... and always has.

Those are my thoughts. haha.


----------



## Porkchops (Sep 16, 2011)

jesus wrote
:-)
Jesus loves you[/QUOTE said:


> But everyone else thinks your a cunt
> 
> Jking
> Much love pork chops


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> Well science has it's valid points no doubt, but there will still be things it will never figure out. When a man diagnosed with terminal cancer so bad that he is given a couple weeks to live
> and out of the blue his body that was infested with cancer is all of a sudden gone without ant sign all doctors can do is say i don't know. I would have to call that a miracle.


There have been cases of cancer that have completely disappeared. Why then does god favor cancer victims, but COMPLETELY ignores the suffering of both paraplegics and amputees? god has NEVER EVER regrown limbs, or healed a single paraplegic. Why does he hate them so? If god ever decides to regrow human limbs, I'd be a lot closer to buying into miracles...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 16, 2011)

sen.c said:


> I never stated that though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You would have to call that an unknown, which your mind makes sense of by labeling a miracle. In the meantime no real indication of god has taken place. 'I can't explain...therefore credit god' is no more appropriate in this instance than when a hurricane kills a baby and someone says, 'I don't understand..therefore blame god'.

It is true that there will be some things science will never figure out, we will never reach omniscience. To apply that point to cancer remission is unfair. We may indeed understand why this happens one day, and it will probably be science that explains it, not religion. Science demands progress, religion prefers mystery. Despite science not being able to tell us everything, it is still the best system of deciphering reality we have, and forever destined to narrow the gaps in present knowledge. In addition to it being invalid to assign gaps in knowledge to god, there will eventually be fewer and fewer of those gaps to choose from, thanks to science.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 16, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The answer you will get (and have gotten) is simple, we are not meant to know the mind of god. This is the same thing as saying, be satisfied with ignorance and move on.
> 
> It would seem being omniscient and omnipotent at the same time is impossible. If god decides to intervene and save a drowning child, he has always known he would make this choice, being omniscient. How then, could he change his mind and decide not to intervene? If he is all powerful, then he must be able to change his mind, but if he changes his mind then he was wrong about always knowing he would help. Does god then change the past and make so that he always knew he wouldn't help? If so then, being omniscient, he must have always known he would change his mind in the past. So it seems god can change his mind in the past, but not change his mind in the future, since he always knows the future state of his mind. So he can be either omnipotent or omniscient, but not both.


This is the simplest way I've ever heard this impossibility stated:

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?
&#8212;Karen Owens


----------



## karetwo (Sep 16, 2011)

maybe god made that happen to them so you could be thinking what your thinking now, and what ever reaction ever produced by something negative happening to anyone, and anyone else experiencing by observing or anything, maybe thats the purpose, experience. Some people are mortars to serve other people, like a victim of something, that being chose every experience before it was born as we all did, that being would be a catalyst for karma for the person harming him/her, thats how perfect the creation is, and how INFINITE.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 16, 2011)

karetwo said:


> maybe god made that happen to them so you could be thinking what your thinking now, and what ever reaction ever produced by something negative happening to anyone, and anyone else experiencing by observing or anything, maybe thats the purpose, experience. Some people are mortars to serve other people, like a victim of something, that being chose every experience before it was born as we all did, that being would be a catalyst for karma for the person harming him/her, thats how perfect the creation is, and how INFINITE.


That's a lot of maybes. Without some empirical evidence to back anything up, Speculation is masturbation...


----------



## Porkchops (Sep 16, 2011)

I'm a simple man with simple needs and all I know is that if gods intention was for you to stay faithful to one woman as in marriage then why the fxxk did he invent so many others!


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

it is a test of faith and for the strong at heart, not some weak minded fool who cant keep his penis in his pants.




Porkchops said:


> I'm a simple man with simple needs and all I know is that if gods intention was for you to stay faithful to one woman as in marriage then why the fxxk did he invent so many others!


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

corpus colosum





tyler.durden said:


> There have been cases of cancer that have completely disappeared. Why then does god favor cancer victims, but COMPLETELY ignores the suffering of both paraplegics and amputees? god has NEVER EVER regrown limbs, or healed a single paraplegic. Why does he hate them so? If god ever decides to regrow human limbs, I'd be a lot closer to buying into miracles...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 17, 2011)

Prefontaine said:


> you are the deceiver and you are trying to steal souls for satan. silence yourself beezelbub for you have been called by name and have no power here.


I actually laughed when I read that.
Good joke. OP ftw!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 17, 2011)

Bong hits for Jesus!
Lets all get high so Jesus could tell us after we die that we did the right thing!
Love for everybody!


----------



## TheLastWood (Sep 17, 2011)

Gods evil because he put us here with a purpose? He didn't put us here with everything always perfect all the time giving us no reason to DO ANYTHING so he's evil and therefore doesn't exist.

Yeah that's good logic ur right on track with that


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 17, 2011)

Man, were human. Were gonna die and have a new life afterwords.. Who gives a shit if we had to suffer to become perfect for eternity?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Thanks for posting everyone! Just wannna tell you all that I love you and that everyone who posted made me a stronger man.
Hope you guys can forgive me, and I hope you guys can be at peace when you remember my name.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Maybe one day IF I make it to heaven I can try to convince him to forgive you all and give you an other chance to meet Jesus besides judgement.
Don't worry about it till then, Jesus says don't worry because it only wastes time.

Jesus also says do not fear man for what could man do that God can not?

Love is perfect.-Jesus Christ


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thanks for posting everyone! Just wannna tell you all that I love you and that everyone who posted made me a stronger man.
> Hope you guys can forgive me, and I hope you guys can be at peace when you remember my name.


This is kind of troubling, if you need someone to talk to you can PM me.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> This is kind of troubling, if you need someone to talk to you can PM me.


 No man, just had too much to drink and puked and my head was saying that I puked because I was such an asshole to everyone.

Ended up realizing that I just want to spread the love, I have many friends who are athiests and it just hurts that I can't trust then more then 15%.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> No man, just had too much to drink and puked and my head was saying that I puked because I was such an asshole to everyone.
> 
> Ended up realizing that I just want to spread the love, I have many friends who are athiests and it just hurts that I can't trust then more then 15%.


Why can't you trust someone because they're atheist?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Why can't you trust someone because they're atheist?


Experiences mainly. 
I end up feeling retarded because the bible says not to trust them and I trust them anyways.
I usually only trust my best friend, and their the ones who hurt me the most(So many ex best friends I can't even count).
I wonder what regular friends would do behind my back.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Experiences mainly.
> I end up feeling retarded because the bible says not to trust them and I trust them anyways.
> I usually only trust my best friend, and their the ones who hurt me the most(So many ex best friends I can't even count).
> I wonder what regular friends would do behind my back.


What is it specifically about atheism that makes you unable to trust someone though?


----------



## Wrekstar (Sep 20, 2011)

Fuck atheism
fuck satanism
believe in one god
their is a god
believe.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What is it specifically about atheism that makes you unable to trust someone though?


Atheism is an other word for Anti-christ. Either way they are denying the only God: Jesus Christ who died for everyone.

Who do you know that what die for you?
That would die for you because they love you and not because they would feel too guilty to live if they diddn't?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

When your feeling like shit and you remember that Jesus suffered wayy more then anyone ever has, it gives you more then hope. 
Because you know he was thinking about your pain right when he was dying, so he could take you to heaven after you die; to show you that earth really is a peice of shit.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Especially if you ever cry, and wonder if it could hurt any more.
Then you think about Jesus crying on the cross and you realize how bad it really hurts.
Then after your done, you realize that Jesus is the *only one* in the universe that loves you.

Thats why I hate when people talk shit about God.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Jesus suffered wayy more then anyone ever has


 How do you figure this? There have been others that were crucified. There have been others that have suffered more and longer than people that were crucified. Not only that, none of these other people expected that as soon as it was over they would be a powerful god in heaven.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 20, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> How do you figure this? There have been others that were crucified. There have been others that have suffered more and longer than people that were crucified. Not only that, none of these other people expected that as soon as it was over they would be a powerful god in heaven.


Don't forget, come back to life just to see if it worked.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Don't forget, come back to life just to see if it worked.


That's what I meant, come back to life as a god.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> How do you figure this? There have been others that were crucified. There have been others that have suffered more and longer than people that were crucified. Not only that, none of these other people expected that as soon as it was over they would be a powerful god in heaven.


I figured it because God could of just killed everyone.
Hes the only one that truely knows love and that truely loves EVERYONE.
He was killed by the people he loved.
He was God and did what he did so he wouldn't ever be seen as evil(thats why he diddn't break any laws).
Do some thinking man, im tired of answering these questions.

On top of everything he knew he was gonna die since birth.
He wasn't only cruified, he was the only one wearing a crown of 4inch thorns.
He was the only one who carried his cruifix through town while people laughed, spit, threw rocks, spoke blasphemy, ect.
WHILE people were crying in the backround wondering why this was happening and praying to the Father.


----------



## stumps (Sep 20, 2011)

The bible was put togather by Rome to contol the masses. It's all about man contoling man. Look 2000 years later with man changing things to keep control. It still works to a point. If you need something to worship try the sun without it nothing lives.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

stumps said:


> The bible was put togather by Rome to contol the masses. It's all about man contoling man. Look 2000 years later with man changing things to keep control. It still works to a point. If you need something to worship try the sun without it nothing lives.


What the heck did they need to control? They were killing babys and getting away with it.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

They invented the government to control masses. Africa doesn't have a government(a proper gov) and they know that there is a God.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

There are still other third world countrys being dominated by their government.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

People invent rules to control people not stories.
Rules turn into control because someone has to make those rules.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

The boogeyman is a myth, frankenstein was a myth, and bigfoot is still being hunted.

How stupid do you guys think previous humans were to not call out the bible or say where the heck did this come from?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Ever wonder why there is never a book written about why the bible came out of no where?
Ever realize that if there was a book it would be famous?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Why are Christians the biggest religion out there?
Why are they the nicest? Why do they claim to know God and his works?
Why do we accept Jesus? Why does it all make sense?

Why do we see athiesm as stupid?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 20, 2011)

Africa.?. Religion has been abusing africa for a Long time. Pope requesting them to abandon Condoms? Witch Children? Africa would do better without Foreign Religions. So to a point yes, Africa has felt the hand of religion being used as a type of control.


Marlboro47 said:


> They invented the government to control masses. Africa doesn't have a government(a proper gov) and they know that there is a God.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Why do athiests seem so lost and sad?

Why do Christians seem so happy and forgiving?


Is it because they have God in their heart? Or is it because they "Think," that they'll be saved?

Wouldn't you know exactly how you feel? Why do Christians never convert back once they feel God inside their heart?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 20, 2011)

Christianity is the Largest Religion. Islam is the FASTEST growing religion. Nicest? I think Buddhism > Christianity in the Nice Department.


Marlboro47 said:


> Why are Christians the biggest religion out there?
> Why are they the nicest? Why do they claim to know God and his works?
> Why do we accept Jesus? Why does it all make sense?
> 
> Why do we see athiesm as stupid?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 20, 2011)

You are incorrect. I know many depressed religious people, mainly it's due to the religion & not getting what they feel they deserve from their "God". 

& It is because they "Think" they will be given kudos from a figment of their imagination.


Marlboro47 said:


> Why do athiests seem so lost and sad?
> 
> Why do Christians seem so happy and forgiving?
> 
> ...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> You are incorrect. I know many depressed religious people, mainly it's due to the religion & not getting what they feel they deserve from their "God".
> 
> & It is because they "Think" they will be given kudos from a figment of their imagination.


What are these "religous" people not getting from their God?
I did say Christians are the only ones following the real God.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Its said that we are rewarded in heaven. So how can you really expect a reward on earth?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 20, 2011)

All Christians do not have Equal Beliefs. So when Christians are describing a Different God w/ different values from Other Christians.. Who is Correct & How do you know? Such as the many versions of the Bible, one has a merciful god, one has a God that will smite man in a heartbeat.. one has a Nice Jesus, another has a Jesus that promotes the killing of Bad Children.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 20, 2011)

Well believing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will grant you an Eternity of MeatBalls after you die seems easier to obtain than having to read a huge book.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

The worst part of all is that ignorance is what is running the anti-christs, even though they believe in science and evidence.

The devil hates us so much because we have the opportunity to live forever and to be perfect.

He hates those who worship him the most because their just blowing their chance by going to hell.
Which in turn makes him hate humans even more because he can't stand the fact that he can't live forever and humans are so stupid and that they can(obviously written from the uglyiest perspective, because humans are pretty smart).
So he tricks you into sinning and makes you a SLAVE so you go to hell for sure.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

I don't even wanna respond to you guys... With these bad questions and anti-christ logic.
You can't ever describe Jesus differently, he says love one an other and everything else that he says supports it.

If he supports killing bad children its obviously to save their souls from the evil they will become and to save them from suffering for eternity.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

He says beat kids with an iron rod to teach them what is good and bad, I haven't read anything about him killing or supporting killing children.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Like I said, I love you all and thats why I want you to stop talking crap about God.
Do something better with your time.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

I remember everyone on RIU when I get high


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

[video=youtube;jBDF04fQKtQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBDF04fQKtQ[/video]

Wanna thank you all for helping me grow, can't wait to show you the nug porn!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

[video=youtube;LlLsbL2LJKw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlLsbL2LJKw&ob=av2n[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> They invented the government to control masses. Africa doesn't have a government(a proper gov) and they know that there is a God.


yeah and theyre doing great, right?!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> yeah and theyre doing great, right?!


 Thus proving that they diddn't make the bible to control great masses.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> People invent rules to control people not stories.
> Rules turn into control because someone has to make those rules.


the ten commandments are rules on how to live your life. i know you think those came from god though.



Marlboro47 said:


> The boogeyman is a myth, frankenstein was a myth, and bigfoot is still being hunted.
> 
> How stupid do you guys think previous humans were to not call out the bible or say where the heck did this come from?


uhh why would they throw away their holy book? they believe in it... remember, they had the education of todays 1st graders, if that. their fact checking skills arent the greatest



Marlboro47 said:


> Why are Christians the biggest religion out there?


because it just happens to be the most popular. are you suggesting that because a lot of people believe it, we should? 



> Why are they the nicest? Why do they claim to know God and his works?


i think buddhists are the nicest. they dont say its ok to slaughter animals.
every religion claims to know god and his works! why is your religion the 'right' one? please dont quote scripture haha



> Why do we accept Jesus? Why does it all make sense?


because you have been told jesus was actually god. you believe he is god, so you accept him because thats what you think you need to do.
christianity is nowhere close to making sense. 



> Why do we see athiesm as stupid?


because you obviously dont know what atheism is. i put that quote of you saying atheism means anti christ in my sig. thanks for that.

atheism is the LACK of belief in a god. we are unconvinced by your argument that god does exist. we are also unconvinced by other religions as well.
please do not confuse the definition by thinking it is "belief there is no god", because that is not what atheism is.



Marlboro47 said:


> Why do athiests seem so lost and sad?


because you view us that way. we are far from lost and sad. we see the universe as a beautiful place that is full of wonder. we just dont attribute that wonder and mystery to an unseen god. atheists also tend to use science to help them see the world for what it really is.



> Why do Christians seem so happy and forgiving?


because they believe they know who god is. they believe they are going to heaven. they are taught forgiveness is good.
happiness and forgiveness are not qualities only christians have



> Is it because they have God in their heart? Or is it because they "Think," that they'll be saved?


it is all a function of the brain. it is nice to think that there is an afterlife when you die, and that it isnt the end. you will be in heaven for eternity, as long as you just believe. it is comforting to believe that. but that doesnt mean its true.



> Wouldn't you know exactly how you feel? Why do Christians never convert back once they feel God inside their heart?


i dont understand the first question. but there are MANY former christians that converted to atheism. actually, im reading a book called _the believing brain_ by michael shermer. he used to be an evangelical christian, going door to door telling about jesus. then he realized religion is all brain functions after majoring in psychology. he witnessed many experiments and tried to find proof of god, or at least the supernatural. he found none. the book is about why we believe the things we do, from religion to conspiracy theories to ghosts. i recommend it to you


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thus proving that they diddn't make the bible to control great masses.


i was being sarcastic. africa is one of the worst places to be born in the world. the survival rate is very low. not to mention the aids epidemic, which religion played a big part in making.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 20, 2011)

> aids epidemic, which religion played a big part in making.



wow, now you are blaming AIDS on religion? why so? did they encourage the spread of AIDS by fucking everything that has an orifice? 

NO, the AIDS is due to you... The gay community or at least that what scientists said...


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> wow, now you are blaming AIDS on religion? why so? did they encourage the spread of AIDS by fucking everything that has an orifice?
> 
> NO, the AIDS is due to you... The gay community or at least that what scientists said...


religions went to africa and did campaigns that taught kids that condoms are evil. they spread their religion, and at the same time taught them to not protect themselves by using condoms. what do you think happened next?
im not sure if it was just catholics, or christians also.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> When your feeling like shit and you remember that Jesus suffered wayy more then anyone ever has, it gives you more then hope.
> Because you know he was thinking about your pain right when he was dying, so he could take you to heaven after you die; to show you that earth really is a peice of shit.


Have you stopped drinking yet?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 20, 2011)

bullshit! AIDS or HIV or whatever comes first was spread from a damn monkey in the jungles in africa to some dude that had a hard on for monkeys, flew to america and spread it like wildfire especially in the gay community and drug community... 

then our government USA sent all these air borne pathogens carrying the virus into africa and thats how they got it... the government needs live human subjects to do their sick tests on, you didnt know this?





Luger187 said:


> religions went to africa and did campaigns that taught kids that condoms are evil. they spread their religion, and at the same time taught them to not protect themselves by using condoms. what do you think happened next?
> im not sure if it was just catholics, or christians also.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> bullshit! AIDS or HIV or whatever comes first was spread from a damn monkey in the jungles in africa to some dude that had a hard on for monkeys, flew to america and spread it like wildfire especially in the gay community and drug community...


i didnt say religion started the virus. dont forget about the straight people that spread it too.



> then our government USA sent all these air borne pathogens carrying the virus into africa and thats how they got it... the government needs live human subjects to do their sick tests on, you didnt know this?


where did you hear that from?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 20, 2011)

> where did you hear that from?



i had a really cool biology professor and he would tell us about all these conspiracies that he has heard over the ages, well he is old, 63 and about to retire, but he would say these things and i mean think about it dude? Here in the US it is unethical to perform such experiments on humans, there is no way possible to get that approved for funding or anything, but you send a few smart scientists to africa where they can and you get the picture? NO law or anyone to attest to what they are doing, send a couple million of our tax dollars so they can speak to warlords so they can take them people to test... i mean, my mind isnt that closed, it is possible




> dont forget about the straight people that spread it too.


they are included in the "drug community" by sharing needles and having unprotected sex for trade or for drugs


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i had a really cool biology professor and he would tell us about all these conspiracies that he has heard over the ages, well he is old, 63 and about to retire, but he would say these things and i mean think about it dude? Here in the US it is unethical to perform such experiments on humans, there is no way possible to get that approved for funding or anything, but you send a few smart scientists to africa where they can and you get the picture? NO law or anyone to attest to what they are doing, send a couple million of our tax dollars so they can speak to warlords so they can take them people to test... i mean, my mind isnt that closed, it is possible


so if its possible, its probably true? that professor was telling you conspiracy theories. if you want to find evidence, look for it. dont just expect it to be true because it sounds good...



> they are included in the "drug community" by sharing needles and having unprotected sex for trade or for drugs


what about just having unprotected sex in general? like if you pick up a chick in a bar or something


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> the ten commandments are rules on how to live your life. i know you think those came from god though.


I already said that I don't beleive that in the old testament. They don't have Jesus's words and that means the scriptures do not contain the word of eternal life.




Luger187 said:


> uhh why would they throw away their holy book? they believe in it... remember, they had the education of todays 1st graders, if that. their fact checking skills arent the greatest


Since the old testament is false to me, because it doesn't contain Jesus's word.
The new testament is true to me because people know Jesus was alive, they would of said he wasn't and they would of said the miracles in the book were not done.
Obviously people weren't too stupid if they knew Jesus was God.
They questioned religion and searched and searched. The only edvidence of whether or not Jesus was alive and in fact God is the evidence proving that he was(the bible).




Luger187 said:


> because it just happens to be the most popular. are you suggesting that because a lot of people believe it, we should?


No I am simple suggesting that a majority of the people alive like to do things the right way.




Luger187 said:


> i think buddhists are the nicest. they dont say its ok to slaughter animals.
> every religion claims to know god and his works! why is your religion the 'right' one? please dont quote scripture haha


Buddhists are nicest because they don't have to deal with anti-christs.
I claim that Christiananity is the right religion because of the bible(two quotes above).




Luger187 said:


> because you have been told jesus was actually god. you believe he is god, so you accept him because thats what you think you need to do.
> christianity is nowhere close to making sense.


I was not told. I read, its makes perfect sense! If you read the whole bible the only thing that doesn't make sense is the old testament.




Luger187 said:


> because you obviously dont know what atheism is. i put that quote of you saying atheism means anti christ in my sig. thanks for that.


Atheism is dening God. Doesn't matter if it is because you have no evidence, it is denying God. If you deny the one who died for you, then your soul is corrupt. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Atheism




Luger187 said:


> atheism is the LACK of belief in a god. we are unconvinced by your argument that god does exist. we are also unconvinced by other religions as well.
> please do not confuse the definition by thinking it is "belief there is no god", because that is not what atheism is.


Like I said, if you read; it is denying God. Simple "not believing" is agnostic not athiesm. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Atheism




Luger187 said:


> we see the universe as a beautiful place that is full of wonder. we just dont attribute that wonder and mystery to an unseen god. atheists also tend to use science to help them see the world for what it really is.


Then why is everyone complaining about everyone suffering? If its so beatiful why is everyone worried about money? And why is there so much pollution and shit in this world? Are tree huggers really christians?
I see you all as sad because your saying F the only person and God that truely knows the def of love and truely loves you in this world without knowing if he exists or not.




Luger187 said:


> because they believe they know who god is. they believe they are going to heaven. they are taught forgiveness is good.
> happiness and forgiveness are not qualities only christians have


We do believe we know who God is, which is why we praise Jesus; Because he preformed miracles that no one can explain with science without proving that he is in fact God.
We are happy because if we follow Jesus commandment Love one and other, then we mostly stay away from from unhappiness. Forgiveness is the right thing to do because you stop hating, you stop remembering who you hate, and you can live life with no regret.




Luger187 said:


> it is all a function of the brain. it is nice to think that there is an afterlife when you die, and that it isnt the end. you will be in heaven for eternity, as long as you just believe. it is comforting to believe that. but that doesnt mean its true.


A function of the brain tells me that I am doing the right thing. It also tells me that I can't make any mistakes by beleiving in Jesus. Thus there is no regret.
Love one and other, and you don't have to worry about death. You don't have to worry about money, greed, and if you follow the rule that is to not talk to anyone who is an anti christ you will in fact be happier then ever.




Luger187 said:


> i dont understand the first question. but there are MANY former christians that converted to atheism. actually, im reading a book called _the believing brain_ by michael shermer. he used to be an evangelical christian, going door to door telling about jesus. then he realized religion is all brain functions after majoring in psychology. he witnessed many experiments and tried to find proof of god, or at least the supernatural. he found none. the book is about why we believe the things we do, from religion to conspiracy theories to ghosts. i recommend it to you


What I ment by the first question was that:
You know when its your brain or when there is something more powerful inside of your heart.
There is no denying it, and you know that satan is tempting you and making you unhappy and making it harder to continue living and loving one and other.
There is no point to denying Jesus if you realize that there is a battle inside of your brain/heart and there is a battle for your soul.
Christians who convert are probably ones who don't know how to answer their own questions.
Ever wonder why some christians have to ask priests and preachers things? Because they don't know everything. I can tell you that christians who completely study and read the full bible they will find God. NOT HOPE, but God. You WILL feel a change in your heart, you will notice it with every breath you take. You will not convert unless you were just like the one who betrayed Jesus.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Have you stopped drinking yet?


No but I quit smoking cigarettes.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

I understand that by denying God you have evil sprits in you. Which is why I choose not to trust any athiests more then 15%. If I trust them any less, my posts will be worse then the OP.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Aids from religion?
I just wanna ignore your posts completely.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The worst part of all is that ignorance is what is running the anti-christs, even though they believe in science and evidence.
> 
> The devil hates us so much because we have the opportunity to live forever and to be perfect.
> 
> ...


 I am quoting myself not to speak to myself like you guys always tease about, but so that you can try to understand a different concept.
If you choose to deny, then so be it; just understand that Satan hates you because you have the chance to live perfectly forever.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 20, 2011)

*Why don't you try jumbing everything you have to say into one Big Post instead of trying to up your count by breaking every sentence into a post. *


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Because I live in america buddy.
Are you offended that my posts go up?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 20, 2011)

_*Jelly.. . *_


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> because you obviously dont know what atheism is. i put that quote of you saying atheism means anti christ in my sig. thanks for that.


Atheism is dening God. Doesn't matter if it is because you have no evidence, it is denying God. If you deny the one who died for you, then obviously you know why we see athiesm as stupid.
Take that off your sig, you don't even know what athiesm is. Saying its the lack of belief is COMPLETELY differen't from denying christ. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Atheism



Luger187 said:


> atheism is the LACK of belief in a god. we are unconvinced by your argument that god does exist. we are also unconvinced by other religions as well.
> please do not confuse the definition by thinking it is "belief there is no god", because that is not what atheism is.


Like I said, if you read; Athiesm is denying God. Simple "not believing" is agnostic not athiesm. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Atheism


Your trying way too hard to deceive me.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

I love you all, like I said I think about everyone on RIU when I toke.


----------



## Sandbagger (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> ......Satan hates you because you have the chance to live perfectly forever.


There's no such thing as satan either. No ghosts,goblins,witches,warlocks, etc......
People have the right to believe in any of this nonsense. All fairy tales created by mans imagination to fool other men.

PS I love you too.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 20, 2011)

Hello new guy!
Be vewwy vewwy quiet ... we're huntin wabbit. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 20, 2011)

I am more of an Agnostic Atheist


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Atheism is dening God. Doesn't matter if it is because you have no evidence, it is denying God. If you deny the one who died for you, then obviously you know why we see athiesm as stupid.
> Take that off your sig, you don't even know what athiesm is. Saying its the lack of belief is COMPLETELY differen't from denying christ. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Atheism


Why don't you read your own links

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the *absence of belief that any deities exist.*[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists"


Agnosticism is an entirely different epistemological question. It is asking if it is possible to "know" god. Agnostics claim that god is not or cannot be known. It has NOTHING to do with existence. 

One cannot deny something that they do not believe exists. I do not deny fairies or unicorns. Denial implies the existence first. That's a fallacy called begging the question.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Why don't you read your own links
> 
> "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the *absence of belief that any deities exist.*[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists"
> 
> ...


 
I am too fucked up...

Athiests is the rejection of the belief. It is the rejection of Christ.

"*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]"-Wiki


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Either way its all denying Christ.
> Your all anti-christs if you don't believe in Christ.


i believe he probably existed. but that doesnt mean he was god. people just believe he was


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Why don't you make sense?
> I only here athiests speaking the most blasphemy. Which is what makes me conclude that athiests deny, not only have an absence of a belief.


Some do actively deny the existence of a god but that is a subset of all atheists. A person that has never been exposed to the idea of a god is also an atheist, an implicit atheist. Anyone that is not a theist (a believer) must by definition be atheist. I personally am willing to go beyond the atheist label but since the term atheist is only about what I don't believe, it is insufficient to detail my particular anti-theist beliefs.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

I really don't care about the defs, im not gonna go researching others religions knowing that they're a lie.
People who aren't Christians are anti-christs.


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I really don't care about the defs, im not gonna go researching others religions knowing that they're a lie.
> People who aren't Christians are anti-christs.


There is no God. There is no Jesus.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i believe he probably existed. but that doesnt mean he was god. people just believe he was


Why would anyone believe a regular preacher is God(That taught about love)? Unless he said he was God and proved it.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Bwpz said:


> There is no God. There is no Jesus.


Why would you quote the devil without giving him credit?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I really don't care about the defs, im not gonna go researching others religions knowing that they're a lie.
> People who aren't Christians are anti-christs.


Are you not familiar with Revelations? You said you don't believe in the OT, the foundation of your religion, because Jesus didn't speak in any of it (because he wasn't born yet), OK.. that's kind of important, but moving on... 

The ONE and ONLY anti-Christ is supposed to stand up and be supported by a faction of humanity in the end days and take control of the world, yadda yadda, 7 years of tribulations, yadda yadda.. So how could we ALL be anti-Christs?

I've got a question for your Christian mind... 

For the sake of this hypothetical, pretend you have kids if you don't...

Would you rather let Jeffrey Dahmer babysit your kids or me?

Jeffrey Dahmer is a guy who murdered and mutilated 17 boys/men and became a born again Christian during his prison sentence.

I'm an atheist with no belief in any god.

Be honest.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 20, 2011)

[youtube]qlZv7V-Gixg[/youtube]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Are you not familiar with Revelations? You said you don't believe in the OT, the foundation of your religion, because Jesus didn't speak in any of it (because he wasn't born yet), OK.. that's kind of important, but moving on...
> 
> The ONE and ONLY anti-Christ is supposed to stand up and be supported by a faction of humanity in the end days and take control of the world, yadda yadda, 7 years of tribulations, yadda yadda.. So how could we ALL be anti-Christs?
> 
> ...


Revelations is in the NT. 
Jesus said the scriptures and prophecys were about him, the few things that were wrong can be found if you research the diff between Jews and Christians.

Read the bible man, im tired of these questions. Any spirit that denies christ is an anti christ, the bible explains that a final anti christ will come and all the Christians will be tested.

To be completely honest, I rather let me kids stay home alone. I don't want anyone around my kids unless I am there or until I realize they are trying to outsmart me.

Might just throw em in day care, something in public and teach them how to kill someone with one hit.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

But then again... Jesus says if someone slaps you turn the the other cheek.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

If you want me to answer your question more directly I would have to meet both of you and test your spirits(also instructions from the bible).


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Why would anyone believe a regular preacher is God(That taught about love)? Unless he said he was God and proved it.


yeah he proved it to a bunch of uneducated tribesmen. those people wouldnt be easy to deceive, would they?


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> But then again... Jesus says if someone slaps you turn the the other cheek.


he also said that if you should so see your neighbor doin work on sunday you need to off em.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> yeah he proved it to a bunch of uneducated tribesmen. those people wouldnt be easy to deceive, would they?


What are you talking about man?? He was in Rome, there were buildings.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> To be completely honest, I rather let me kids stay home alone. I don't want anyone around my kids unless I am there or until I realize they are trying to outsmart me.


Come on Marlboro, that's not what I asked you, letting them stay home alone isn't an option.

Would you rather have a convicted serial killer born again Christian babysit your kids or an, in all intent and purposes, average guy who simply lacks a belief in God?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

blazinkill504 said:


> he also said that if you should so see your neighbor doin work on sunday you need to off em.


There are many storys about working on sunday.
Love one and other is his commandment.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Come on Marlboro, that's not what I asked you, letting them stay home alone isn't an option.
> 
> Would you rather have a convicted serial killer born again Christian babysit your kids or an, in all intent and purposes, average guy who simply lacks a belief in God?


Like I said I gotta test you both bro. I gotta see how you both walks, talks, stands, and if he lies just to get a conversation going, ect.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> What are you talking about man?? He was in Rome, there were buildings.


Dude, he wasn't in Rome. Go read that part of the Bible again. He was in the Roman empire. Rome is a city in Italy.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Like I said I gotta test you both bro. I gotta see how you both walks, talks, stands, and if he lies just to get a conversation going, ect.


If he did and I didn't, say the three of us had coffee and your first impression of me was higher than of him, which one of us would you pick?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> What are you talking about man?? He was in Rome, there were buildings.


what are you talking about? im talking about jesus


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Dude, he wasn't in Rome. Go read that part of the Bible again. He was in the Roman empire. Rome is a city in Italy.


oh this might explain the confusion lol


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 20, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Dude, he wasn't in Rome. Go read that part of the Bible again. He was in the Roman empire. Rome is a city in Italy.


My bad, I ment romans are the ones who killed him... Making the tribesman theory false...

I do need to read the bible again though, and again and again.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 20, 2011)

I like Penn Jillette's simple approach to this problem: "If your god ordered you to kill your child, would you do it? If you wouldn't, you're an atheist. If you would, you are a dangerous person and should stay far away from me..."


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 20, 2011)

You always think you are sooooo right, right? do people like you in the real world? You remind me of this dude i saw on utube once, if i can find it ill post it so you can see!

I dont go to bars and i dont speak with whores. Im pretty sure it was spread more by the gay community back in the day then straight people.

I have seen how so extremely gay dudes act and it seems they'll sleep with anyone who has a dick, thaft mtv show, the real life, it was a gay 4way relationship and that was just sickening what sluts they are!

Dont get me wrong, i got a few gay friends and they hate those types of gay guys,.



Luger187 said:


> so if its possible, its probably true? that professor was telling you conspiracy theories. if you want to find evidence, look for it. dont just expect it to be true because it sounds good...
> 
> 
> 
> what about just having unprotected sex in general? like if you pick up a chick in a bar or something


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 21, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You always think you are sooooo right, right? do people like you in the real world?


It's not that we're "soooo right", it's just that you're constantly wrong, and worse yet, proud of the ignorance you display. I've told you many times that if you would simply realize the errors you make instead of stand up and scream the loudest how wrong everyone else is, we would respect you. 



olylifter420 said:


> I dont go to bars and i dont speak with whores. Im pretty sure it was spread more by the gay community back in the day then straight people.


This is exactly what I'm talking about... :facepalm emoticon:

Do you know the ratio of heterosexual people to homosexual... fuck.. why even bother..

Nevermind oly, you're right, the homosexuals had all the unprotected sex and spread the HIV virus. A guy fucked a monkey and that's how it originated. Why bother researching anything if you can simply make shit up, call it the truth and call it a day?! 
 


olylifter420 said:


> I have seen how so extremely gay dudes act and it seems they'll sleep with anyone who has a dick, thaft mtv show, the real life, it was a gay 4way relationship and that was just sickening what sluts they are!


How does this affect you in the least? How is this display of ignorance and hate any different than the things you accuse all of us of doing? You say we all try to push our beliefs onto believers (when we don't) but what are you trying to do here? You don't like homosexuality, even though it has nothing to do with you (or so you claim), yet here you are complaining about it, so, using your own logic, that must make you gay right?! lmfao



olylifter420 said:


> Dont get me wrong, i got a few gay friends and they hate those types of gay guys,.


You have gay friends yet you make broad generalizations about the majority using the worst aspects of the minority. Brilliant.

(for comparison purposes)

To the collective intellect, I think this is a good representation;

UTI






olylifter


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 21, 2011)

Check this out everyone, its a preview of this book called 90minutes in heaven.

http://www.90minutesinheaven.com/

I read the book btw, it was amazing. I might buy the ebook and share it with everyone.
The last athiest I let borrow it disapeared with my book. He went awol from rehab. I don't blame him for keeping the book though, it was really really good.


[video=youtube;9O0KCfLqMZo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O0KCfLqMZo[/video]


----------



## sen.c (Sep 21, 2011)

> Are you not familiar with Revelations? You said you don't believe in the OT, the foundation of your religion, because Jesus didn't speak in any of it (because he wasn't born yet), OK.. that's kind of important, but moving on...
> 
> The ONE and ONLY anti-Christ is supposed to stand up and be supported by a faction of humanity in the end days and take control of the world, yadda yadda, 7 years of tribulations, yadda yadda.. So how could we ALL be anti-Christs?
> 
> ...


Obviously you don't know that much about Revalations. Secondly there are anti-christs other than the singular one you mentioned.
The book of Revalations was written to the seven original churches in Asia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, 
Philadelphia and Laodecia about the problems they were facing at the time. Then the book went on to Prophecy the second coming
of the Lord.

I would suggest you stick to science and leave the Bible to people who know how to read it in context and understand who the books 
where written to and why. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read it by all means please do that way maybe you will be given a conviction and see the
error of your ways but until then you should stay out of the explaining department.



> Would you rather let Jeffrey Dahmer babysit your kids or me?


That's funny, kinda like a test in school over evolution. (A) Did evolution happen over a long period of time? (B) Did evolution happen over a short period of time? Notice they didn't give you an option to say "Neither of the above."

In the real world it doesn't happen that way we have a choice and mine would be neither of you.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Sep 21, 2011)

no one really knows, bottom line... to say that you do, is one of the most ignorant things for any human being in the existence of existences to say. fuckin ignorant humans. know the truth, that the truth cannot be known.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 21, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> no one really knows, bottom line... to say that you do, is one of the most ignorant things for any human being in the existence of existences to say. fuckin ignorant humans. know the truth, that the truth cannot be known.


Thy are arguing over who is closer to the truth.


----------



## Basshead (Sep 21, 2011)

i look at you and you look at me. thats all the proof i need that god exists. anything else would lack reasonable consideration. 64 pages? i read the first and the last. its the same song. God - Nature - Whatever you prefer is everything. if you believe that anything exists, then there is a nature to things. recognize that nature is intelligent. recognize that God is intelligent. 

Honor the Sacred Books - not because of the writing and stories - but because the nations who prayed to the Holy Books. Even if it ain't your book. Respect the people who had honorable prayers, even if they wasn't all honorable people. Books were written by people. Nature doesn't need books, and we have a team of scientists struggling everyday with natural mysteries as well. i don't understand the complex mathematics in bio/astro physics. i read stories written by people as foolish as me in hopes it makes some sort of principle. recognize the limit of comprehension and respect it. where a scientists can't explain any further, is where faith in God begins. Its happening, we don't know why, it just is. recognize the limit in comprehension and respect it. there have been several Holy Men and Women who dedicate every waking moment in attempts to do absolutely nothing but goodwill to others until their last day on Earth. i don't see them very often but i'm well read enough to know they exist. Alot of them prayed to Jesus when they were doing their goodwill. wish i was that nice - but i'm not. in fact sometimes i'm an asshole.
To go forth and make an evaluation with limited comprehension is the problem. some people must have a conclusion even without conclusive evidence. i don't understand everything but i can accept i am a part of everything. that is all.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 21, 2011)

sen.c said:


> In the real world it doesn't happen that way we have a choice and mine would be neither of you.


This is your obvious attempt to Weasel out of answering a hypothetical question, just like diesel did. You can't be honest to me or anyone else on the boards, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised when you can't even be honest to yourself.

Keeping quiet says more than anything.

Religion has warped your mind into thinking that just because somebody converted to Christianity, they're a good person. Clearly Dahmer was faking the shit to save face for his father.

If you can't pick between a guy who murdered and dismembered 17 boys/men and a guy who simply lacks a belief in God, there is truly no hope for you at all. I'd never want to associate with a person like that and can't imagine anyone who would.

Simply cowardice.

*hypotheticals aren't bound by reality and still you can't choose. You know the right answer and still won't say it because you can't admit you were wrong. You know where it would lead, the next question, and you already know you can't answer that one either.


----------



## sen.c (Sep 21, 2011)

> *hypotheticals aren't bound by reality and still you can't choose. You know the right answer and still won't say it because you can't admit you were wrong. You know where it would lead, the next question, and you already know you can't answer that one either.


Coulda, shoulda, woulda doesn't fly here this is the real world. What if a pig had wings? I chose and my answer was neither, see that is how it works in the real world people have tons of choices they can make.



> This is your obvious attempt to Weasel out of answering a hypothetical question, just like diesel did. You can't be honest to me or anyone else on the boards, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised when you can't even be hones


My answer was quite clear. What didn't you understand about it? Who are you to set the standard for what good or evil is? For all I know you could be a axe murderer that has never been caught? It is my decision to make it isn't an issue of you saying you are a better person than Dahmer which I am sure you are by mans standards.



> Simply cowardice.


Nope, not in the slightest there is no backup in me I am not afraid to stand my ground whether it be intellectualy or physically.



> Religion has warped your mind into thinking that just because somebody converted to Christianity, they're a good person


No god has unwarped it quite a bit, and I never said being converted to christianity made someone a good person. "No one is good not one."
The only difference in me and someone who is not saved is that I will stand blameless in the sight of the father for repenting and putting my
faith in his son.


----------



## Hiro Katsamoto (Sep 21, 2011)

He is the potter, we are the clay, we are all the work of His hand. Isaiah 64:8


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 21, 2011)

just look these names up if you believe jesus as god. lord krishna, buddha, odysseus, romulus, dionysus, heracles, glycon, zoroaster, attis of phyrgia, and last but not least horus. better yet here's the link to all the info

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 21, 2011)

blazinkill504 said:


> just look these names up if you believe jesus as god. lord krishna, buddha, odysseus, romulus, dionysus, heracles, glycon, zoroaster, attis of phyrgia, and last but not least horus. better yet here's the link to all the info
> 
> http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/


 But I like Jesus.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 21, 2011)

Like I said before anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is an anti-christ(against christ).
Even if you trick yourself into saying that there is a God, if you don't accept Jesus then your still gonna be in a SHIT LOAD of trouble for *enterinty*.

Jesus said himself that the Old testament doesn't have the words to eternal life, he said if you believe in the OT then you will believe in me.


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Like I said before anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is an anti-christ(against christ).
> Even if you trick yourself into saying that there is a God, if you don't accept Jesus then your still gonna be in a SHIT LOAD of trouble for *enterinty*.
> 
> Jesus said himself that the Old testament doesn't have the words to eternal life, he said if you believe in the OT then you will believe in me.


like i said you might wanna click on that link and check that out.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 21, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Like I said before anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is an anti-christ(against christ).
> .


How can I be against something I don't believe in? That's like saying because you don't believe in Santa Claus that you're the Anti-claus...

Everyone is born an atheist, you have to learn religion....

I'm an atheist, and I have no more malice or ill-contempt towards the christian god than I do towards Zeus, Odin, Mythra, Vishnu, or any of the millions of other gods that have been "The one true god."


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

If I told you that I will meet you in heaven, and then you said I diddn't exist. You are dening me.

So if your say he diddn't exist you are dening Jesus and you are an anti-christ, because you tell other people hes not real; which the why anti-christs go to hell.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 22, 2011)

Im a perfectly content man without having a religion.I follow a little Buddhism,not a religion though.I just do the right thing.Smoke and dont make any problems.
Its a little frightening,is God into violence and stuff?,i dont know i dont follow that particuliar part of life.To troublesome.Is he going to kick all non believers into dust?!WOW!!
I can assure you God DOES NOT OWN ME.Prove theres a God.Any God.Theres many to choose from.Heres a trick!! Pick a god,any god,double them,add 10 more gods,
and what you got..........Fuck all.The Sun is God.The night the devil.Thats where it started.Read about Horus,read about Krishna,read about Dionysus,and all the other Pagan Gods that were supposedly here on Earth thousands of years before Jesus.All same birthday 25th dec,all had 12 followers,etc etc.Christianity stole the pagan stories to keep an order.(my opinion).
I accept your belief in God and respect it,but dont tell me God owns me,because he doesnt.I dont want to sound harsh but it makes sense for me not to believe in God because if i do believe in him theres a very good chance i will burn in eternal hell!! So you must see what i mean.its not in my interest to believe in someone who into that stuff.Anyway the bizzarre thing is im Munted/Baked on Greenhouse The Church!!!!I find that almost spooky,maybe there is a g.........



Marlboro47 said:


> Its says not to greet your false doctrine, if you deny Jesus. So your point is invalid.
> No point in playing games bro, you tell me you don't believe and I know your just dening him and trying to be a buzz kill.
> Imho by the time science proves God exists he'll be kicking every deceivers ass into dust. And science won't do shit against God because God owns you, science, the scientists, this world, and the devil.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 22, 2011)

No.
Jesus existed like jimi hendrix existed.No God,no magic.The belief is taught,indoctrinated,if you live in a christian society your brainwashed with Christianity.Live in another country your brainwashed into another God.How many Gods are there?and which one is right?(As in the Real one)



RawBudzski said:


> Doesn't he had to have existed in the first place for any of this to be relevant.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

buddha webb said:


> No.
> Jesus existed like jimi hendrix existed.No God,no magic.The belief is taught,indoctrinated,if you live in a christian society your brainwashed with Christianity.Live in another country your brainwashed into another God.How many Gods are there?and which one is right?(As in the Real one)


Or maybe I'm sitting in a tower controlling all of you like little robots and give you each a personality so you can fight over things on RIU.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 22, 2011)

lol,
Maybe?
I just enjoy the garden,its beautifull enough without fairies....


Hepheastus420 said:


> Or maybe I'm sitting in a tower controlling all of you like little robots and give you each a personality so you can fight over things on RIU.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

buddha webb said:


> lol,
> Maybe?
> I just enjoy the garden,its beautifull enough without fairies....


"Life's a garden, dig it"

But I just believe someone tends the garden that we both frolic and play in, .


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 22, 2011)

Well your entitled to your belief as i am mine,whoevers correct doesnt matter because we still frolic and play in the same garden.
One thing though,i guarentee,i am definately the only one that tends mine,full time job,and if God wants to give me a hand hes more than welcome.
I will even make him tea.



Hepheastus420 said:


> "Life's a garden, dig it"
> 
> But I just believe someone tends the garden that we both frolic and play in, .


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

If you accept that there is a God, then you have to accept that he created us. 
If you accept he created us then you have to accept that you don't make descisions about what God will do for you according to your beliefs and works.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

There were 7 continents with 7 'sets' of people. Over time the writings from each continent have been brought together. How, without all of the techy communication we have now, did they write the same base stories?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

People deny that Jesus preformed miracles. People deny that Jesus even existed.
That is what an anti-christ is.

If Jesus died for you, and you say that he diddn't exist you are misleading other Christians or people that don't know about God yet.


The final anti-christ will be here to deceive all the faithful christians and the ones don't know about God aswell and even the other deceivers. They will all be asked if they pledge to the evil one(meaing you completely reject Jesus(meaning your going to hell 100%)). If they don't pledge then the anti-christ will tourture them until they die(which is why the book says stay faithful all the way through to receive your reward).


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm not denying you, I clearly believe you exist - because you're talking to me. When I can have a conversation with Jesus like this I will believe in him too. 

But as for right now, the story of God and Jesus is just really unpersuasive... Why do you believe in Jesus instead of Muhammad? 


One word.

Location.



That's why if you were born in the middle east you'd be calling us all the anti-muhammad, and defending Islam with the same vigour and enthusiasm... Religious, is religious, is religious.... doctrine doesn't mean shit.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

agreed. (malboro47)

The final anti-christ is yourself. It's your self you need to overcome to be able to believe.

Location is not the factor. (sorry to butt in)

Location is a statistic.

The God-Image will soon change. It's a 2000 year rotation. So, you might just get your chance to 'talk to him'.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

buddha webb said:


> No.
> Jesus existed like jimi hendrix existed.No God,no magic.The belief is taught,indoctrinated,if you live in a christian society your brainwashed with Christianity.Live in another country your brainwashed into another God.How many Gods are there?and which one is right?(As in the Real one)


Saying Jesus existed without preforming miracles is saying Jemi hendrix existed but he was really a guitar playing "retard"(for lack of better works in my vocab).


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> agreed. (malboro47)
> 
> The final anti-christ is yourself. It's your self you need to overcome to be able to believe.
> 
> ...


An anti-christ makes everything known to him.
If he denys christ will 100% of his will it is the spirit of an anti-christ.
The blood of Jesus will cleanse your whole body of evil, when you choose to cleanse yourself of all evil(if you do).

There will be a final antichrist. Ill do a couple of quotes...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

When you understand why you don't believe in every other religion, you will understand why I don't believe in yours.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

The first Epistle of John.

*Deceptions of the last hour*

*2:18 *Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
*2:19* They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
*2:20* But you have an anointing from the holy One, and you know all things,
*2:21* I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
*2:22* Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is an antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
*2:23* Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Some Quotes from the Quran.... how come you don't believe these are the true word of god? They're written in a holy book too!


2.39. But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.

2.161. Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- on them is Allah.s curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind;

2.190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

The second Epistle of John.
*Beware of Antichrist Deceivers*
*1:7* For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as comming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ.
*1:8* Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
*1:9* Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
*1:10* If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house no greet him;
*1:11* For he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

*1 John* *5:18*
Knowing the True-Rejecting the False
*5:18* We know that wheover is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.
*5:19* We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
*5:20* And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in his son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
*5:21* Little children, keep yourselfs from idols,
Amen.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

It's impossible to be the anti-christ of something that doesn't exist. 

But if you want to continue to call me an "Anti-christ", I'm going to call you the "Anti-Zeus". Clearly, if you don't believe in Zeus you are against him and his lightning like wrath!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

*1 John 2:15*
*Do Not Love the World*
*2:15* Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him.
*2:16* For all that is in the world the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life- is not of the father but is of the world.
*2:17* and the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

it exists the same way day turns to night... or white in opposition is black. Or life and death... matter and anti-matter. Can you see or talk to anti-matter? Christ is a consciousness, so anti-christ consciousness exists.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> *1 John 2:15*
> *Do Not Love the World*
> *2:15* Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him.
> *2:16* For all that is in the world the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life- is not of the father but is of the world.
> *2:17* and the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.


Derp Herp Herp Derp Derp Derp Herp.

Using something to prove itself is a circular argument.

This is your argument, LOL.

"God is real because the bible says so. The bible is real, because god says so in the bible. And God is real because the bible says so. And the bible is real because god says so in the bible.... and it goes on, and on, and on repeating forever in a hopelessly circular argument....


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Satan worships the Lord, our God.

*Matthew 4:10* Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, "you shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve."
*4:11* Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Derp Herp Herp Derp Derp Derp Herp.
> 
> Using something to prove itself is a circular argument, dumbass.
> 
> ...


 I have a book to prove he exists. You have to say the book is fake to have any part of an arguement with me.
Does it get you mad that you can't deceive me?

God is real because the bible proves his existance. The bible is real because someone would of said that it was fake, and that it was just a story(But its not just a story its the Holy Bible).
People love to prove things, no one is just going to let something be called Holy if it is a lie.

If your gonna do some quotes, don't put words in my mouth. 

For those reading, like I said if they do not confess in Christ coming in the flesh of man on earth they are an anti-christ, and a deceiver.

If they do not love God, then they do not love life.
If you do not love life then you do not love God.

Which is why it is said that if you love life you love God.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Thats like saying a true story if fake, when at the time it was published everyone knew it was real.
But the next generation started to say that it was fake, and so on...
The smart ones that look through and examine the evidence are the ones that keep the religion spreading.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

If the scientist leaves a manual behind for his children and the offspring say the original scientist who discovered it is a lie and it really wasn't him, then you know exaclty what you all(antichrists) are doing.

Yes the bible is a manual. It is all that is left of Jesus that proves of his existence, which is why he says his words are eternal life.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thats like saying sceintific evidence is fake, then saying scientists are idiots for saying it exists because the proof is right before them.
> 
> You know what your studing if your the scientist, and anyone saying your a liar or a retard is against you and is deceiving you.



What are you talking about? That analogy makes no sense at all. 

Do you know anything about the scientific method, or how the burden of proof works? I take it you've never studied logic or philosophy either...

You are making a positive claim that god exists. Above and beyond that, you're claiming that out of all the other religions around the world, that pre-date Christianity by thousands and thousands of years, that you have chosen the specific sect of Christianity that best describes, and lives by the practices Jesus would want you to live by.


That is a lot of proving to do my friend.... I don't have to prove anything. I have rejected the claim that god exists on grounds of lack of evidence, show me a burning talking bush, a parted sea, a man laying down with lions, 2 angels that are about to be raped, a talking snake, or any of the other mind-numbingly blatant myths that are in the bible, and maybe I'll concede that god MIGHT exist.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

The "bible" has been translated more times than "Thriller" and we all know how popular "Thriller" was.... It's been changed to suit Kings, and Scholars, and lots of other important people over the ages. Did you know that a "council" made up of many men actually decided what went into the bible? Picking and choosing which bits and pieces to include/exclude for their own gains? 

The earliest accounts of Jesus were written 2 generations after Jesus' death AT THE EARLIEST! So picture your great grandfather telling you a story, and then you write it down - and then imply to everyone it was actually a first hand account! Oh and lets not forget that this was 2000 years ago in the bronze age, written by completely primitive and superstitious men.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

The sad part about it all is that you have to wait for me to make a mistake to jump on me, everything your saying is wrong and you still keep talking.
Obviously your not trying to learn and your just on this forum for shits and giggles. Your not even analyzing anything being your denying simple logic.

The bible is real, not because God says so... 
But because humans like you wouldn't let a book like that in this world without it being real.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Care to explain what's wrong? Or would you like to continue making vague, blanket statements because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Want to prove Gods not real? Show me evidence that proves that during that time romans never killed anyone on a cross named Jesus who clamined to be God and who spoke "blasphemy(Saying your god and not being God is blasphemy)."

Want me to prove God is real? The bible.

Thats 863 more pages then you have.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Im getting dumber talking to you. I love you, but I gotta stop. Peace out.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thats like saying a true story if fake, when at the time it was published everyone knew it was real.
> But the next generation started to say that it was fake, and so on...
> The smart ones that look through and examine the evidence are the ones that keep the religion spreading.


There you go, I fixed what you quoted and requoted it with a better analagy. 
All you have on me is a shitty analagy, while I am getting over my hangover its not a big deal...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Want to prove Gods not real? Show me evidence that proves that during that time romans never killed anyone on a cross named Jesus who clamined to be God and who spoke "blasphemy(Saying your god and not being God is blasphemy)."
> 
> Want me to prove God is real? The bible.
> 
> Thats 863 more pages then you have.



I'm not denying historical Jesus. I'm denying that historical Jesus was actually the son of god and could perform miracles because an old book full of fables doesn't prove jack shit. Just because it's written doesn't make it so! Surely we can agree on that, seeing as how you vehemently deny the Qu'ran, The writtings of Buddha, Taoism, Scientology and they all have books as well.

How can you possibly prove that god exists from a single book? Did it never occur to you that maybe it's just a book, and that men created it to have control over people? I mean come on, how much truth do you pull from other books that are 2000-5000 years old? People thought that the Sun was a person for christ sake.... and that the world was flat and you could literally fall off the side....


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Thats why every religion is fake, because its all BS!

Thats why I don't like talking to anti-christs in the first palce, what made me change religion was because you guys act so stupid to deceive me and to skimp my sack and pretend your my friend so ill buy you an other beer.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Want to prove Gods not real? Show me evidence that proves that during that time romans never killed anyone on a cross named Jesus who clamined to be God and who spoke "blasphemy(Saying your god and not being God is blasphemy)."
> 
> Want me to prove God is real? The bible.
> 
> Thats 863 more pages then you have.


There you go again with that circular argument. 


"God is real because the bible says so. And the bible is real because god says so."

I'm a Philosophy Major dude, I've done many classes on logic, critical thinking, religious studies, etc.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Smoke weed all day, drink beer all night, I fucking get so high i cant stand you guys. Your like a come down to me because you can't even use logic when your telling me you dont believe in him because of logic!

Fuck that shit, you need more then a spell check.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> "God is real because the bible says so. And the bible is real because god says so."


Thats not what I said to being with, after you said that the first time I explain it to you. Ill even explain it to you again.

God is real because the bible proves he exists.
The bible proves he exists because no one can prove that the bible is a lie.

I told you I was getting stupier talking to you.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Smoke weed all day, drink beer all night, I fucking get so high i cant stand you guys. Your like a come down to me because you can't even use logic when your telling me you dont believe in him because of logic!
> 
> Fuck that shit, you need more then a spell check.


I don't think you even know what logic is, I'm somewhat surprised you can spell it actually.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Smoke weed all day, drink beer all night, I fucking get so high i cant stand you guys. Your like a come down to me because you can't even use logic when your telling me you dont believe in him because of logic!
> 
> Fuck that shit, you need more then a spell check.


Smoke weed all day, drink beer all night, I fucking get so high *I* *can't *stand you guys. *You're *like a come down to me because you can't even use logic when *you're *telling me you *don't *believe in him because of logic!

Fuck that shit, you need more *than *a spell check.



There, that's better.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Smoke weed all day, drink beer all night, I fucking get so high *I* *can't *stand you guys. *You're *like a come down to me because you can't even use logic when *you're *telling me you *don't *believe in him because of logic!
> 
> Fuck that shit, you need more *than *a spell check.
> 
> ...


 
That makes more sense then anything you have said.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

IMHO, you couldn't even spell check 6paragraphs worth of text without more then one mistake.

I wonder what I would look like if I turned "douche bag grammer police" mode on.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I'm a Philosophy Major dude


What evidence do you have? I doubt you have a major in anything. Everytime I meet an antichrist if they think they're stupider then me they start lying about not dropping out of HS and saying they went to college.

I don't believe any of you and you all get a clean slate when I meet you.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Want some logic? Here;

Occam's Razor states the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. 

Situation A) Jesus was a normal man, with some really good (and really bad) philosophies. People didn't know how to explain much, as far as science is concerned, back around the year 0, so they made up stories. Just like they did with literally EVERY OTHER RELIGION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.

Situation B) Jesus was a cosmic zombie wizard that did all kinds of crazy feats that have never been repeated, or even been shown as conceivable by modern science. He literally came back to life and floated away to heaven (the sky?). Decades/centuries after his death people wrote about his OBVIOUSLY true, impossible feats and Christianity flourished because it's just so undeniably real.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Want some logic? Here;
> 
> Occam's Razor states the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
> 
> ...


Jesus was perfect, that is not a normal man.
What are his really bad philosophies??
Wheres your logic if you don't know any bad philosophies? You would believe some bullshit that is obivously ment to deveive you?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Luckily, your blessing and belief that I attend University isn't a required part of my curriculum, and has no bearing on me receiving my degree.

PHEW!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Luckily, your blessing and belief *that I attend University* isn't a required part of my curriculum, and has no bearing on me receiving my degree.


My belief is that you *don't* attend a university.
Turn deception mode off when your not speaking about Jesus.



Beefbisquit said:


> PHEW!


 Was it really that hard to write a lie with some words that throw me off the subject?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Im the kind person that would accidently put your lighter in my pocket when I smoke weed with you. And I would return it to you the next day or buy you a new one the next time I see you.

Im sure your the type of person plots to steal my lighter just so I don't notice anything else you stole from me.


----------



## mouthmeetsoap (Sep 22, 2011)

List of things that are less productive then arguing about religion;

...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

I will defend your right to believe anything you want.

Whether or not you believe my credentials or not is irrelevant, you still haven't provided a shred of evidence other than a 2000 year old book of fairy tales.


The burden of proof is on you, not me, to prove the positive claim that god exists. I am not claiming to know 100% that god doesn't exist, but the evidence I've seen so far is totally unconvincing. 

How do you know Jesus was perfect? And I swear to god, (LOL) if you say "because it says so in the bible", I'm just going to chalk this up to irrationality. 



&#8220;Rational arguments don&#8217;t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.&#8221;


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

mouthmeetsoap said:


> List of things that are less productive then arguing about religion;
> 
> ...


You realize this is a specific part of the forum devoted to religion, in a specific post about proving whether or not god exists, right?


----------



## mouthmeetsoap (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You realize this is a specific part of the forum devoted to religion, in a specific post about proving whether or not god exists, right?


Haha! Nope, I didn't. Carry on.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I will defend your right to believe anything you want.
> 
> Whether or not you believe my credentials or not is irrelevant, you still haven't provided a shred of evidence other than a 2000 year old book of fairy tales.
> 
> ...


 
Jesus was perfect because he was the Son of God, because he is God.
He wasn't the Christ if his name was Jesus and he was just a regular man.


Theres your logic, try to understand it before making me respond to an other stupid question.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You realize this is a specific part of the forum devoted to religion, in a specific post about proving whether or not god exists, right?


Why don't you post on your main account? I know you made your account specifically to debate.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Jesus was perfect because he was the Son of God, because he is God.
> He wasn't the Christ if his name was Jesus and he was just a regular man.
> 
> 
> Theres your logic, try to understand it before making me respond to an other stupid question.


This is like baby town frolics....

How do you know he was actually the son of god without referencing the bible?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Examples of cruelty in the new testament.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html


If the bible was written by the creator of the universe, how come it doesn't mention any of the fundamental truths we have discovered about the universe? It says nothing of thermodynamics, quantum theory, cosmology, relativity, ect. The bible has all the earmarks of be written by mortals who were ignorant of how the world works, and provides nothing that even hints at divine knowledge. There is no justification for claiming it the word of god, the belief has to be made on faith.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Why don't you post on your main account? I know you made your account specifically to debate.


This is my only account.

You can go to my grow journal if you want? You can look under newbie advice for my other posts?

I don't need a fake account to put the nuts to a fundie.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Examples of cruelty in the new testament.
> 
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
> 
> ...


The bible was not written by God. Which is why the names of the chapters lead you to who wrote them. If you do some further research you can find out who wrote them, why they wrote them, who they were... ect(you'll also find that the people who witnessed Jesus were hunted so they ended up writing their part of the book 30-40years later(science even proves that)).

How I can trust them? Because their telling me to stay away from people that hate me and my beliefs.
Jesus's words that are in the bible are all quotes, and if you meet the son of God yourself you would never forget the quotes because they would change your whole perspective of life.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The bible was not written by God. Which is why the names of the chapters lead you to who wrote them. If you do some further research you can find out who wrote them, why they wrote them, who they were... ect.
> 
> How I can trust them? Because their telling me to stay away from people that hate me and my beliefs.
> Jesus's words that are in the bible are all quotes, and if you meet the son of God yourself you would never forget the quotes because they would change your whole perspective.


So, by this definition Muslims are justified in killing non-muslims because it says so in the Qu'ran? Wow, so reading something that says "stay away from different people" gives you reason to believe it's true..... interesting. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard.

[video]http://youtu.be/fEkWH8DB7b0[/video]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

There are too many anti-christs to "google" anything about religion and trust what your reading. 
You need to do hours of research to find what is real and what is some santan worshipper distorting his words so that you will believe some bullshit mixed in with words of the bible.

Read the bible first, then do research.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> There are too many anti-christs to "google" anything about religion and trust what your reading.
> You need to do hours of research to find what is real and what is some santan worshipper distorting his words so that you will believe some bullshit mixed in with words of the bible.
> 
> Read the bible first, then do research.


Yeaahhh, I've done Qualitative and Quanitative research papers and proposals.... I really don't need advice on how to do "hours of research".


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> So, by this definition Muslims are justified in killing non-muslims because it says so in the Qu'ran? Wow, so reading something that says "stay away from different people" gives you reason to believe it's true..... interesting. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard.
> 
> [video]http://youtu.be/fEkWH8DB7b0[/video]


Muslims aren't Christians, they don't believe in Christ. They're anti-christs, I wouldn't expect their religion to be legit.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 22, 2011)

The last 5 pages prominently display complete stupidity. 

I can't believe people can actually be this way..


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Muslims aren't Christians, they don't believe in Christ. They're anti-christs, I wouldn't expect their religion to be legit.



Actually, you are incorrect - Muslims do believe in Jesus, just not that he was the son of god. They see him as a prophet. (There's that research you were talking about!)

What makes their Holy Book less truthful than yours. There's was written by Muhammad, who could speak directly with god! It's about the same age, a little newer, but still has billions of followers..... What makes you so sure you picked the right religion? How can you so easily discredit Islam (the same way I do Christianity), but grasp so tightly to your own indoctrination?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Examples of cruelty in the new testament.
> 
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html


Matthew 3:10 "And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

The whole list is completely warped, dont even read that shit past the first quote.


Edit:I diddn't even click the link before I wrote this :


Marlboro47 said:


> There are too many anti-christs to "google" anything about religion and trust what your reading.
> You need to do hours of research to find what is real and what is some santan worshipper distorting his words so that you will believe some bullshit mixed in with words of the bible.
> 
> Read the bible first, then do research.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The last 5 pages prominently display complete stupidity.
> 
> I can't believe people can actually be this way..


Im serious about that too bro, Im getting stupider... I might just have to quit posting again...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The bible was not written by God. Which is why the names of the chapters lead you to who wrote them. If you do some further research you can find out who wrote them, why they wrote them, who they were... ect(you'll also find that the people who witnessed Jesus were hunted so they ended up writing their part of the book 30-40years later(science even proves that)).


The bible is either the perfect word of god or it isn't, regardless of who wrote it or when. If it isn't, then who decides which is legit and which isn't? If it is, then you either have concrete reason to believe this, or you have faith. If it's faith, then that faith carries no more weight than the belief that the cat in the hat doesn't like green eggs and ham. 



> How I can trust them? Because their telling me to *stay away from people that hate me and my beliefs.*
> Jesus's words that are in the bible are all quotes, and if you meet the son of God yourself you would never forget the quotes because they would change your whole perspective of life.


I believe Jesus taught to do good to those who hate you. Repay evil with kindness. Answer hate with love, ect. At least on the good days. 

You're claiming that the bible teaches exclusion and intolerance? Those seem to be less than desirable virtues.

It's okay to admit you believe something on faith. It's not okay to pretend you have good reason when you really just haven't thought things through and applied consistency. But if you believe something on faith, you really have to just state your beliefs and sit down. There is no way to justify faith in the context of judging truth value.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im serious about that too bro, Im getting stupider... I might just have to quit posting again...


My favourite part was when you told me I wouldn't give a lighter back if I "bic'd" someone... It really made a valid point in the god discussion. LOL

I've done more reading on ethics and ethical systems than I would care to remember, I'm actually an "Act Utilitarian", for the most part.... although every ethical system I've seen so far has degraded in the face of certain thought experiments.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The bible is either the perfect word of god or it isn't, regardless of who wrote it or when. If it isn't, then who decides which is legit and which isn't? If it is, then you either have concrete reason to believe this, or you have faith. If it's faith, then that faith carries no more weight than the belief that the cat in the hat doesn't like green eggs and ham.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe the bible is the truth because ever since I have become religous I haven't been ripped off other then by black people that work at the medical clubs. Also I seem to understand basic pyschology to the point where I can communicate to someone my belief without trying to manipulate them into believing it.

I got 10x smarter then I was before I read the bible, that is all the proof I need that Jesus's quotes truely are the words to eternal life.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I have a book to prove he exists. You have to say the book is fake to have any part of an arguement with me.


the bible is NOT proof!! where did you go to school man? is the jack and the beanstalk true because it says so in the book? 



> Does it get you mad that you can't deceive me?


no it makes me mad that someone thinks jesus was the son of god because a 2,000 year old book tells him. 



> God is real because the bible proves his existance.


thats a big FAIL



> The bible is real because someone would of said that it was fake, and that it was just a story(But its not just a story its the Holy Bible).


if they believed it was a book with holy writings, why on earth would they throw it away and say it is fake? would you do that?



> People love to prove things, no one is just going to let something be called Holy if it is a lie.


people call the qu'ran holy. people call the torah holy. the bible is just another book that people like to believe is true. what makes your bible 'more right' then those other books? 



> For those reading, like I said if they do not confess in Christ coming in the flesh of man on earth they are an anti-christ, and a deceiver.


theyve convinced you that anyone who doesnt totally believe in jesus is the anti christ and they are just trying to decieve you. so how is anyone going to show you something if you already dont believe it? are you just gonna stick you fingers in your ears and close your eyes?



> If they do not love God, then they do not love life.


that is not true at all



> If you do not love life then you do not love God.


maybe since religious people always have a false sense of hope



> Which is why it is said that if you love life you love God.


why is everything so black and white? isnt it perfectly reasonable for an atheist to love life?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I believe the bible is the truth because ever since I have become religous I haven't been ripped off other then by black people that work at the medical clubs. Also I seem to understand basic pyschology to the point where I can communicate to someone my belief without trying to manipulate them into believing it.
> 
> I got 10x smarter then I was before I read the bible, that is all the proof I need that Jesus's quotes truely are the words to eternal life.



Ok, so you have faith - no proof and reason. Glad we came to that conclusion.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im serious about that too bro, Im getting stupider... I might just have to quit posting again...


No no, you're a perfect example of how faith can warp someones world view, please continue, I'm getting some popcorn!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> the bible is NOT proof!! where did you go to school man? is the jack and the beanstalk true because it says so in the book?


 Jack and the beanstalk? That book says "not a true story" in the front.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

I have a book.

In my book it says that I'm god.

God never lies, it says so in the book.

Therefore, I am not lying and I am god.



WHAMMY.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Prove the bible is real?

The bible said you would steal from me and lie to me and hate me before I even met you.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I believe the bible is the truth because ever since I have become religous I haven't been ripped off other then by black people that work at the medical clubs. Also I seem to understand basic pyschology to the point where I can communicate to someone my belief without trying to manipulate them into believing it.
> 
> I got 10x smarter then I was before I read the bible, that is all the proof I need that Jesus's quotes truely are the words to eternal life.


I got smarter when I read my biology 101 book. If that is all the proof needed, which you clearly stated, then my text book must also be the words to eternal life. Again, you are grasping at straws trying to justify your belief, when it's clear you have nothing but faith. Faith is believing for no other reason than wanting to. You can say, "I believe because I want to" and you would be telling the truth, the rest is just rationalizations which mean nothing outside of your own mind.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

I find it hard to believe as well. Real knowledge & research must be like an annoying task for religious nuts, they would rather sloppily quote a book that was crammed in their heads since youth than to be independent thinkers & actually decide for themselves what to believe in. The human brain works in mysterious ways.  


Padawanbater2 said:


> The last 5 pages prominently display complete stupidity.
> 
> I can't believe people can actually be this way..


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Prove the bible is real?
> 
> The bible said you would steal from me and lie to me and hate me before I even met you.


That's exactly how the bible keeps you believing! It's telling you to not listen to anyone, close your eyes, plug your ears, and make sure you don't listen to reasoning and logic!


Follow the book blindly, without questioning, and you will be rewarded! *INSERT SPOOKY LANGUAGE HERE*


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

We have a winner. 
This is like reading a convo between a Father & his son on why & how santa clause does not bring those presents every year. 


Heisenberg said:


> I got smarter when I read my biology 101 book. If that is all the proof needed, which you clearly stated, then my text book must also be the words to eternal life. Again, you are grasping at straws trying to justify your belief, when it's clear you have nothing but faith. Faith is believing for no other reason than wanting to. You can say, "I believe because I want to" and you would be telling the truth, the rest is just rationalizations which mean nothing outside of your own mind.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

*BUT THE STICKER SAID "FROM SANTA" !!! *how could you tell me otherwise.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> It's telling you to not listen to anyone, close your ears, don't listen to reasoning and logic!


 What the hell are you talking about?
You diddn't even read the bible. You probably watched some warped ass stories on tv or listened to someone deceive you when you were a kid.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> *BUT THE STICKER SAID "FROM SANTA" !!! *how could you tell me otherwise.


Pfffttt... we all know men don't lie, especially for wealth and power..... CLEARLY the bible is 100% truth.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Christian religion IS about logic. It is a logos based vs. eros based 'academy'.

Faith is not a blind belief, it comes after much study. Actually, it's the point where one no longer needs logic.

The idea is to drop the head into the heart. That's religion.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Marl if you do not mind me asking your age? It may add another piece to this puzzle for me on where you are coming from.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

I do not respect your beliefs. They encourage prejudice, ignorance and cruelty. There is no act so malevolent that it can not be justified through scripture.

I do not respect the way you justify your beliefs. You may not engage in manipulation, but you make many mistakes which include logical fallacies, inconsistency, and sloppy thinking. It is blatantly irresponsible.

I do respect your right to express your beliefs. You have the right to stand up and say what you believe and why, but you must then suffer the reactions of others. You have the right to not be silenced, but that does not give you a pass from criticism. 

I do respect your desire for a better life and understanding of the world. You seek a path to personal contentment and social coherence, but you choose an easy path that gives false comfort at the expense of other's well-being.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I believe the bible is the truth because ever since I have become religous I haven't been ripped off other then by black people that work at the medical clubs.


so you made a connection between your bible reading and the fact you didnt get robbed. therefore the bible stopped you from being robbed! great logic... 



> Also I seem to understand basic pyschology to the point where I can communicate to someone my belief without trying to manipulate them into believing it.


if you understood psychology, you would also understand why you are being tricked. the brain functions a certain way, and its easy to manipulate its thoughts.



> I got 10x smarter then I was before I read the bible, that is all the proof I need that Jesus's quotes truely are the words to eternal life.


so you think you got smarter by reading the bible, therefore jesus really was the son of god and god is real? the bible is real because it made me smart! der der der


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Marl if you do not mind me asking your age? It may add another piece to this puzzle for me on where you are coming from.


 I'd rather not disclose that type of information to an enemy.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Christian religion IS about logic. It is a logos based vs. eros based 'academy'.
> 
> Faith is not a blind belief, it comes after much study. Actually, it's the point where *one no longer needs logic*.
> 
> The idea is to drop the head into the heart. That's religion.


yeah that sounds like a great way to live your life. blindly follow the first book you read that 'makes sense'...


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

then again.. since when did the bible make any sense? the bibles contradict one another
QUOTE=Luger187;6330723]yeah that sounds like a great way to live your life. blindly follow the first book you read that 'makes sense'...[/QUOTE]


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I'd rather not disclose that type of information to an enemy.


How very un-Christian of you.

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I do not respect your beliefs. They encourage prejudice, ignorance and cruelty. There is no act so malevolent that it can not be justified through scripture.
> 
> I do not respect the way you justify your beliefs. You may not engage in manipulation, but you make many mistakes which include logical fallacies, inconsistency, and sloppy thinking. It is blatantly irresponsible.
> 
> ...


My beliefs encourage a Godly understanding and wisdom. 
When you say my beliefs encourage ignorance and cruelty I see you as an other anti-christ that diddn't read the bible. 
Only someone who read the bible himself will truely understand the religon. 
Anyone else is mislead to believe that they understand what they heard.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Christian religion IS about logic. It is a logos based vs. eros based 'academy'.
> 
> Faith is not a blind belief, it comes after much study. Actually, it's the point where one no longer needs logic.
> 
> The idea is to drop the head into the heart. That's religion.


That's one very selective definition of some people's religion.... There shouldn't come a point when you "no longer need logic".


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...people in the bible are models of being... 'bad' people in your mind are what's known as 'legion'. The enemies are in the mind. Angels are pure thoughts (whatever you deem those to be - usually things that do not 'harm your neighbors'). If you love your enemies (problems of mind) they will lesson and you will heal.

It's a book of metaphors... that doesn't make it bad. It makes it a book of descriptions - multiple levels of descriptions.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...people in the bible are models of being... 'bad' people in your mind are what's known as 'legion'. The enemies are in the mind. Angels are pure thoughts (whatever you deem those to be - usually things that do not 'harm your neighbors'). If you love your enemies (problems of mind) they will lesson and you will heal.
> 
> It's a book of metaphors... that doesn't make it bad. It makes it a book of descriptions - multiple levels of descriptions.


yeah but the problem is people take it literally. a lot of people


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

*Matthew*
*Love Your Enemies*
*5:43* "You have heard that it was said, 'you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
*5:44* "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
*5:45* "That you may be sons of you Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
*5:46* "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
*5:47* "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
*5:48* "Theresfore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...it means a different kind of logic. Not to have NO logic. It means to use your heart instead of your head.

After being born, your stomach and brain separated into 2. It's up to you if you want to use the 'top of your stomach' to think.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I agree whole-heartedly that people misinterpret the bible.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...it means a different kind of logic. Not to have NO logic. It means to use your heart instead of your head.
> 
> After being born, your stomach and brain separated into 2. It's up to you if you want to use the 'top of your stomach' to think.


It actually says that the heart will utter preversity. Use your head man, not your heart.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...it means a different kind of logic. Not to have NO logic. It means to use your heart instead of your head.
> 
> After being born, your stomach and brain separated into 2. It's up to you if you want to use the 'top of your stomach' to think.


so basically you start thinking with you emotions as opposed to logic? not a good way to find truth man


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I agree whole-heartedly that people misinterpret the bible.


I do firmly believe that too, which is why people should be working together to fully understand the bible, but with so many anti-christs thinking that they understand(calling it stupid(without reading it) and not believing it) and with the other anti-christs that just plain manipulate you.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...yes, but this again is metaphor. Tame the 'wild horse' and you'll find the rider is God.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

My heart is the one telling me to fight, my head is the one telling me to use reason and logic over emotions.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Seeing as Christianity is so large & popular, I would think other Fellow Christians would have chimed in here to make this an Equal Debate or @ least shed light on Marls points. <3
But no.. . :[ you are being crucified by logic & common sense let alone reason.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

No, you do not use emotion. Emotion is a fallacy. "E" "MOTION" - energetic motion is what that means.

Ever have a gut feeling? It comes from the gut-brain.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...people in the bible are models of being... 'bad' people in your mind are what's known as 'legion'. The enemies are in the mind. Angels are pure thoughts (whatever you deem those to be - usually things that do not 'harm your neighbors'). If you love your enemies (problems of mind) they will lesson and you will heal.
> 
> It's a book of metaphors... that doesn't make it bad. It makes it a book of descriptions - multiple levels of descriptions.


If it's a book of metaphors why are we talking about the literal son of god being resurrected, and performing miracles? It's either true or it's not - that has nothing to do with the value you can learn from the teachings within. Sure, there are great lessons to learn from the bible, like tolerance (as long as you're not gay lol) , and forgiveness, sacrifice, and many more. But, just because part of it's moral landscape doesn't make the stories true, any more than a nursery rhyme or fairy tale.

My point is, it's CLEARLY not true in any way, shape, or form... it's a giant book of fairy tales just like the stories of Odin, Posseidon, Zeus, Ra, Vishnu, Allah, and the millions of once worshipped (and thought to be the TRUE), gods!


Eye; are you seriously drawing on Aristotle to defend Christianity? We can get into a big old debate on virtue ethics if you want to, I don't think it's going to help you out much....


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Do you honestly think you understand the bible the way it was intended to be understood?


Marlboro47 said:


> I do firmly believe that too, which is why people should be working together to fully understand the bible, but with so many anti-christs thinking that they understand(calling it stupid(without reading it) and not believing it) and with the other anti-christs that just plain manipulate you.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...and the gut-brain is linked to the heart.

TRUSTING intuition is religion.

Christ taught to use your heart - not emotion.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...and the gut-brain is linked to the heart.
> 
> TRUSTING intuition is religion.
> 
> Christ taught to use your heart - not emotion.


Christ said to be perfect.
Being perfect means using every sense you have perfectly.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I'm not looking for help in a debate. This is not a debate for me.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> My heart is the one telling me to fight, my head is the one telling me to use reason and logic over emotions.


your heart has NO say whatsoever in your decision making process. every decision or thought you have is in your BRAIN


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro, perfect is a concept.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> My beliefs encourage a Godly understanding and wisdom.
> When you say my beliefs encourage ignorance and cruelty I see you as an other anti-christ that diddn't read the bible.
> Only someone who read the bible himself will truely understand the religon.
> Anyone else is mislead to believe that they understand what they heard.


Look at this sentence -->"When you say my beliefs encourage ignorance and cruelty I see you as an other anti-christ that diddn't read the bible."

When your bible is criticized, you label that person an Antichrist. This is a demonstration of how your belief encourages ignorance by seeing critical analysis as a threat. If your belief is not allowed to be disputed, then how could you ever identify a mistake? When it is not okay to ask questions, especially when those questions should have easy answers? 

Wouldn't you place more trust in something that has been examined and disputed and survived, than something that has never been examined at all?

And of course I have read the bible, although it was many years ago. Since that time I have studied scripture and it interpretations as well as the history of the bible and other texts. It can quite clearly and conclusively be demonstrated that the bible promotes violence, murder, prejudice and racism. I understand that many modern people can mostly ignore those parts of the bible, but were responding to the claim that the bible is the perfect word of god, in which case the examples of malice become quite concerning. The bible presents god as vengeful, jealous and obsessive and commands quite clearly the death of non-believers. To belief something that entails all of this, no matter what positive aspects come with it, would seem to require more of a rationale than faith.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> No, you do not use emotion. Emotion is a fallacy. "E" "MOTION" - energetic motion is what that means.
> 
> Ever have a gut feeling? It comes from the gut-brain.


Emotion is a brain state actually.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

emotion is a part of 3 nervous systems we all have. Or, bodies, if you will.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Do you honestly think you understand the bible the way it was intended to be understood?


The bible to the point: Accept Jesus Christ as your savior and teacher and love him above all else.


Everything else is to expand your knowledge. Why do you think Jesus spoke in parables?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro, please watch this

[video=youtube;Txp8LhL56rU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txp8LhL56rU[/video]


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

therefore emotion is controlled by the brain. The brain is not the emotion itself.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Or maybe I'm sitting in a tower controlling all of you like little robots and give you each a personality so you can fight over things on RIU.


 Well then fer grief's sake do a better job.  This is like watching penguins play foosball. 
cheers 'neer.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> emotion is a part of 3 nervous systems we all have. Or, bodies, if you will.


 Jesus talks about using your intelligence over emotions. In specific he says that men need to learn how to use anger for good instead of bad.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> emotion is a part of 3 nervous systems we all have. Or, bodies, if you will.


They're definitely not bodies... it's an electro-chemical reaction inside the brain.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> emotion is a part of 3 nervous systems we all have. Or, bodies, if you will.


where did you learn that?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Really? Bodies was used a metaphor - your argument in a nutshell.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

This thread makes me want to punch a christian.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger, in my 'random' studies.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Really? Bodies was used a metaphor - your argument in a nutshell.


why would you use a metaphor when explaining something? especially when you dont tell us its a metaphor


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...some christians punch back. You know, there's a time to...


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Luger, in my 'random' studies.


maybe you should learn to fact check? or at least study a little better


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Examples of cruelty in the new testament.
> 
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
> 
> ...


If the bible truly had divine authorship ... and it didn't mention (unspecified technical/philosophical breakthrough that would lead to interstellar prosperity among posthumans 10000 years from now) I'd accuse that authoring principle of petty sadism. Jmo.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...did I have to tell you?

Does God have to tell you?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Really? Bodies was used a metaphor - your argument in a nutshell.


When explaining REAL things let's stay clear of metaphors.....

You can say faith in god is like a seagull floating in the warm wind all day long, but emotion doesn't come from bodies, and you don't think with your heart.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> Marlboro, please watch this
> 
> [video=youtube;Txp8LhL56rU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txp8LhL56rU[/video]


2:20.

God says when you pray to me stand up and look up, as long as your ready to forgive men for their trespasses so I can forgive you for your trespasses(sins).


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Lol.. funny. <3 like asking a christian.. show me proof a god.. they whip out the bible. 


Luger187 said:


> why would you use a metaphor when explaining something? especially when you dont tell us its a metaphor


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

cruelty? if that's the argument then we should be placed in jails for at one time or another having bonked a mate over the head with a club...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

anti-matter is real. so how does that make sense?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> When your bible is criticized, you label that person an Antichrist. This is a demonstration of how your belief encourages ignorance *by seeing critical analysis* as a threat. If your belief is not allowed to be disputed, then how could you ever identify a mistake? When it is not okay to ask questions, especially when those questions should have easy answers?


Ciritcal analysis is what I am searching for. Not some idiot pretending he knows what he is talking about or someone who knows the truth and is manipulating me because he works for the master who is against mine. 

You don't understand that obviously I analyze EVERYTHING. If it were legit I would take what you have into consideration. I can tell its bullshit which is why I don't believe you in the first place.

Secondly the bible says not the believe you which just supports my reasoning.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...did I have to tell you?
> 
> Does God have to tell you?


God hasn't told anyone, anything because he's a FICTIONAL CHARACTER.


http://youtu.be/zCVlmhZgubU


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> There are too many anti-christs to "google" anything about religion and trust what your reading.
> You need to do hours of research to find what is real and what is some [Satan - ed.] worshipper distorting his words so that you will believe some bullshit mixed in with words of the bible.
> 
> Read the bible first, then do research.


Here's the heart of the thing. What specifiable test would a sincere but ignorant student use to discriminate between truth and deception? 
It was my complete inability to find such a test, despite serious effort, that eventually drove me into my current status of benign and recursive agnosticism. I also have strongly suggestive (although admittedly not QED conclusive) proof that nobody else has either ... in the continued fragmentation of any religion's core belief into sometimes violently opposed sects&denominations.
cheers 'neer


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...beef - this is my point. He is a fictional character. You, me and everyone else is a fictional character... THOUGHTFORMS.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...my point is that God is everything that was not created. The uncreate.

Thought created all that you see around you. It's like magic, let's say.

By the way, I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just adding my perspective.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...beef - this is my point. He is a fictional character. You, me and everyone else is a fictional character... THOUGHTFORMS.


Why don;t you go mentally masturbate than, you're obviously a solipsist...


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> *BUT THE STICKER SAID "FROM SANTA" !!! *how could you tell me otherwise.


 Satan always had that embarrassing dyslexia issue.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Here's the heart of the thing. What specifiable test would a sincere but ignorant student use to discriminate between truth and deception?
> It was my complete inability to find such a test, despite serious effort, that eventually drove me into my current status of benign and recursive agnosticism. I also have strongly suggestive (although admittedly not QED conclusive) proof that nobody else has either ... in the continued fragmentation of any religion's core belief into sometimes violently opposed sects&denominations.
> cheers 'neer


If you want to do a test. Google anything about the bible, find what it really says in the bible then realize everything on the internet was distorted. After you realize that you can't trust ANYONE you will know that the bible is the truth.

People changes the words of the bible online and thats how you know everyone is trying to cover up the truth, or just confuse kids into giving up their search for the truth.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

I wrote on another thread that right + left = us.

take either one out and 'we' no longer exist.

If balance is the way of the universe, then the vesica piscis (the womb) is 'it'.

Christ taught that.

Bottom line is that it is about managing your 'seed'.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> 2:20.
> 
> God says when you pray to me stand up and look up, as long as your ready to forgive men for their trespasses so I can forgive you for your trespasses(sins).


woah u got me. please tell me you watched it passed 2:20


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> woah u got me. please tell me you watched it passed 2:20


I don't distort my mind with bullshit. Thats why I don't read fiction books.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...well, I'm not a 'ist' anything really. Last refuge, eh?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> anti-matter is real. so how does that make sense?


because thats what data and equations show...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Ciritcal analysis is what I am searching for. Not some idiot pretending he knows what he is talking about or someone who knows the truth and is manipulating me because he works for the master who is against mine.


I can back up the things I say about the bible. As I said, it can be shown quite clearly and conclusively, and is done so on many websites, but I can begin listing examples here if I need to, and I wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem attacks such as claiming you work for my enemy.



> You don't understand that obviously I analyze EVERYTHING. If it were legit I would take what you have into consideration. I can tell its bullshit which is why I don't believe you in the first place.


Your analysis is flawed, which is why you need to embrace peer review, instead of shunning it. Not believing someone in the first place is only pretending to welcome criticism. Refuting criticism requires more than just saying "nu-uh, you're the devil!".



> Secondly the bible says no the believe you which just supports my reasoning.


This didn't come through very clear. Please restate.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...why is it that people who don't believe in a God always get angry about 'it'. I tend to not get mad about something I don't believe in.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> I wrote on another thread that right + left = us.
> 
> take either one out and 'we' no longer exist.
> 
> ...


What the hell are you tripping on bro? 

Can you confess that Christ came in the flesh of man on earth?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

equations are quantifications of 'actuality' - the 'actuality' you have to observe, did you create that?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...yes I can, and I can also say that 'Jesus' became the Christ.

Anyone can incarnate the Christ, but no one has the balls to.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...Christ said it - YOU can do more than me.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I don't distort my mind with bullshit. Thats why I don't read fiction books.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

If RIU was American Idol, 
Marl.. .you would be William Hung.. 

[video=youtube;4ApZbtYPhy4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ApZbtYPhy4[/video]


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> anti-matter is real. so how does that make sense?


How does antimatter matter in all this?
cheers 'neer


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...why is it that people who don't believe in a God always get angry about 'it'. I tend to not get mad about something I don't believe in.


Who is getting mad? We are asking questions and getting riddles for answers. That can be exasperating, but the only one showing anger is the believer. 

I do tend to get mad about things I don't believe in. Homeopathy for example, pyramid scams, false advertising, communicating with dead relatives for money, ect. Anything that takes advantage of people and causes harm is worthy of contempt. I see no reason religious dogma should be excluded from the list.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...yes I can, and I can also say that 'Jesus' became the Christ.
> 
> Anyone can incarnate the Christ, but no one has the balls to.


So then teach me a bit about Jesus, and Ill confirm that I can trust you.

It says every spirit must be tested for there are false prophets out there.

I don't like anything you said before btw, except that you accept Jesus.


Correct a scoffer and you only get shame for youself. Correct the wise and they will continue to get wiser.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...Marlboro - hell is a state of mind I've experienced. The 'tipping point'.

That's my proof. I'm still here out of love.

That's it man.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...why is it that people who don't believe in a God always get angry about 'it'. I tend to not get mad about something I don't believe in.


If 6 billion people believed something that induced prejudice, applied unnecessary divisions, fostered fear and hate, and effectively eliminated the value of a good education, I think it'd make you a little angry too.

We're pissed billions of people could choose to be comfortable believing a fairy tale at the cost of the livelihood and integrity of their fellow human beings, show no evidence to support the idea, claim moral superiority because they believe in mythical, magical beings and continue to ignore the objective truth we actually have figured out.

That'd be my guess...


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

_*I will go out on a Limb here & say Both of you are Wrong.*_


Marlboro47 said:


> So then teach me a bit about Jesus, and Ill confirm that I can trust you.
> 
> It says every spirit must be tested for there are false prophets out there.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...pada - sorry, I don't know how to quote on here yet.

It's up to the people, not the bible. It did what it did already. The rest is up to us. The world is in a state of continual healing. That's really all that I know.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

old testament, new testament and qu'ran are the same book - with different levels of description.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

You seem to have a more sane approach to understanding the bible & what to get from it..  Marl seems like he is missing 51 cards in his deck


eye exaggerate said:


> ...pada - sorry, I don't know how to quote on here yet.
> 
> It's up to the people, not the bible. It did what it did already. The rest is up to us. The world is in a state of continual healing. That's really all that I know.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

If you don't accept Jesus, then it means that you hate Him(Since he is God then it means you hate God).

Since God made life it means that you hate life, if you hate God.


If you hate life and you hate God then I wouldn't believe anything you say and it makes perfect sense why I was told not to speak to you in the first palce. But then it was said that you shall love your enemies as well, and at least you can learn a couple new things about the bible and when you realize that you love life, you will realize that you love God.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Raw...if I am wrong, can YOU teach me to be right?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> If you want to do a test. Google anything about the bible, find what it really says in the bible then realize everything on the internet was distorted. After you realize that you can't trust ANYONE you will know that the bible is the truth.
> 
> People changes the words of the bible online and thats how you know everyone is trying to cover up the truth, or just confuse kids into giving up their search for the truth.


I have read the Bible from cover to cover. I've also read selections from other major religious texts. To the best of my ability to determine, they all, including both halves of the Bible, boil down to an appeal to authority, one that our ardent new player with the pirate hat correctly points out is circular. 
Any test that would have any traction would have to satisfy two criteria in order for me to look twice.
1) It must be extrascriptural ... a minimal requirement to escape the hamsterwheel.
2) It must be at least somewhat objective. You mentioned that scripture "worked" for you in improving your life. While I won't belittle that, I do point out that it is entirely subjective. You cannot extend the principle beyond yourself without doing violence to reason. While I do not worship reason, I won't abandon it either. The "it worked for me" argument is probably why astrology and other obviously random mystical pastimes still have a strong following today. Jmo.
cheers 'neer


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Raw, experience is what helps me have that 'sane approach'. Not by negating all that there is which is 'unclean'.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Please Re-Read everything you type before you click [post quick reply] this is maddening. To not believe in something is to Hate it? Would you not have to 1st acknowledge its existence to dis like it?


Marlboro47 said:


> If you don't accept Jesus, then it means that you hate Him(Since he is God then it means you hate God).
> 
> Since God made life it means that you hate life, if you hate God.
> 
> ...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...if you read the bible without spiritual eyes then it will be a pointless mess. Sorry, spiritual 'eye'.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...pada - sorry, I don't know how to quote on here yet.
> 
> It's up to the people, not the bible. It did what it did already. The rest is up to us. The world is in a state of continual healing. That's really all that I know.


Down at the bottom right of each post is 'edit post' (enables you to edit your post after you've made it, spelling errors) 'reply' 'reply with quote' (click that and it'll quote the person you're responding to) and '+' (multi-quote, use that if you want to quote more than one post)

But isn't it the responsibility of each individual person who believes anything to demonstrate justification for their beliefs? Is it OK for fanatical Muslims to believe in Jihad? Shouldn't people, and philosophies, be held accountable for the harm they cause?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...neer, go back in the tread - we were talking about 'tangibles'.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> If you don't accept Jesus, then it means that you hate Him(Since he is God then it means you hate God).
> 
> Since God made life it means that you hate life, if you hate God.
> 
> ...


You must be an algebra teacher or something.. (any math geeks get that reference?) lmfao


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> But isn't it the responsibility of each individual person who believes anything to demonstrate justification for their beliefs? Is it OK for fanatical Muslims to believe in Jihad? Shouldn't people, and philosophies, be held accountable for the harm they cause?




YES! We are all accountable - so love your neighbor, that's all.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...and thanks for the help.

*radical anything is not good.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Well if we ever met irl and we diddn't discuss religion I would know if I could trust you without speaking about God.
Usually I am the only one I can 100% trust.

After realizing that preachers add things to help complete your understanding, I realized that they don't understand that everything they are say is quoted; and kids who misinterpret something that was added to help complete their understanding of the subject end up finding out that the preacher lied or started spreading something that they thought was true. Making people think they know what their talking about, making the religion look bad; and making someone who hears something that is wrong thing that the bible is bs because of whatever was said that was originaly misinterpreted.

If you trust anyone you should never stop checking to see if they lie to you or not. Also you should try to fully understand them to see if they have their wits about or not.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> If you don't accept Jesus, then it means that you hate Him(Since he is God then it means you hate God).
> 
> Since God made life it means that you hate life, if you hate God.


Do you accept that Santa is real? No.

Do you HATE santa because you don't think he's real? No.



Use your brain man, you're spouting logical fallacy after logical fallacy, it's hard to keep up with the lack of intelligence. I just can't figure out how not believing in something HAS TO mean that I hate it.... Guess you have to have under 80 IQ to figure that one out...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...but not the doctrine itself. We are responsible for our 'take' on it. It's like saying that Germans should change who they are because of Hitler. (sorry to extend to that place)


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I am the only one I can 100% trust.


You've never been so right. That applies to ALL.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

I am getting a better understanding on why so many countries hate America & the Christian Religion.. . Imagine a bunch of Marlboros running around in the early 1100's Preaching about the Bible in such a manner.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Do you accept that Santa is real? No.
> 
> Do you HATE santa because you don't think he's real? No.
> 
> ...


 Wtf does santa have to do with everything? he flew with magic reindeers or some shit...
Guess you still haven't learned when to stay quiet.
A smart man knows when to stfu.

And no I don't hate santa because I think hes not real... I love whoever he is and I would help him if everything was legit and it wasn't a trap.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> YES! We are all accountable - so love your neighbor, that's all.


But that's inconsistent with reality. Theists are not held accountable for their beliefs. 

You think it's OK for fanatical Muslims to believe that anyone who does not believe in Islam or that Allah is God should be put to death?

Is it OK for fanatical Christians to believe homosexuals should be denied equal rights in a nation founded on religious freedom?

These are things that the people who believe them are not held accountable for. These are things they teach their kids based on the authority they feel their religion gives them.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...yes, but we are not 'those people' are we? Inclusivity is at the heart of this.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...reality bites, as they say. It starts 'at home', in the heart. WE will change reality - not the fanatics.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Makes perfect sense & is a response to your lame post earlier. <3
You just insulted yourself.  Yes, A Smart man does know when to stfu, even in his own thread. 


Marlboro47 said:


> Wtf does santa have to do with everything? he flew with magic reindeers or some shit...
> Guess you still haven't learned when to stay quiet.
> A smart man knows when to stfu.
> 
> And no I don't hate santa because I think hes not real... I love whoever he is and I would help him if everything was legit and it wasn't a trap.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Wtf does santa have to do with everything? he flew with magic reindeers or some shit...
> Guess you still haven't learned when to stay quiet.
> A smart man knows when to stfu.


BECAUSE JESUS AND SANTA ARE BOTH FICTIONAL FUCKING THINGS!!!

It doesn't matter if it's santa!!!! Non-belief doesn't mean you hate something!!! I don't believe in leprauchauns, but I don't hate them! I don't believe in unicorns, and I don't hate them - so why *IN THE NAME OF FUCK* do you say I hate Jesus because i don't believe in him????!!!!!!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...time to work ( = 666) 

Thanks to all. Respect also.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> But that's inconsistent with reality. Theists are not held accountable for their beliefs.
> 
> You think it's OK for fanatical Muslims to believe that anyone who does not believe in Islam or that Allah is God should be put to death?
> 
> ...


Should we allow hobos to fornicate in public for equal rights? or should we be smart enough to stop things that aren't right from happeneing?
Homosexuality is lust and preversion. Loving your brother sexualy is an abomination.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> If you don't accept Jesus, then it means that you hate Him(Since he is God then it means you hate God).
> 
> Since God made life it means that you hate life, if you hate God.


If I don't accept Bigfoot, does that mean I hate him? How can I hate someone who I do not believe exists? Do you believe in Santa Clause? Do you hate him?

To be fair I can think of two people I hate who do not exist. Santa Clause, because he watched me pee as a kid, and that creepy burger king guy. I don't care much for Mrs Butterworth either, but I don't hate her.




> If you hate life and you hate God then I wouldn't believe anything you say and it makes perfect sense why I was told not to speak to you in the first palce. But then it was said that you shall love your enemies as well, and at least you can learn a couple new things about the bible and when you realize that you love life, you will realize that you love God.


I love life and the people I get to share it with. Nothing means more to me than my existence and well being than perhaps the well being of my loved ones. I care about my environment and the creatures in it, both of today and tomorrow, and I am deeply concerned with the state of the world, including the prosperity of people across the globe who I will never meet. I am willing to love god as well if god exists, and all I have ever done is search for a reason to believe he does. No reason has presented itself, unless I am willing to dumb myself down and not fully use the brain god apparently gave me. Even then, I would have to believe in a cruel and selfish god if I believe the bible, so I can't say love would be guaranteed. The best understanding we have of the world today comes from an evidential interpretation of reality. This approach has improved our lives greatly in every aspect including the fact that we live much longer. I see no reason to abandon this approach when it comes to god, and you can't seem to give any that aren't grounded in fantasy and befuddlement.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

[video=youtube;Re8VxjgdTrs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re8VxjgdTrs[/video]

ALLAH AKBAR !


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 22, 2011)

It doesn't make any difference. People being 'passive' with their beliefs is just as harmful as the fanatics that spread all the hate.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Should we allow hobos to fornicate in public for equal rights? or should we be smart enough to stop things that aren't right from happeneing?
> Homosexuality is lust and preversion. Loving your brother sexualy is an abomination.


This is a good example of asserting prejudice and oppression based on the false authority you think your asinine beliefs afford you. Which is to say, you just proved Pad's point.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> BECAUSE JESUS AND SANTA ARE BOTH FICTIONAL FUCKING THINGS!!!
> 
> It doesn't matter if it's santa!!!! Non-belief doesn't mean you hate something!!! I don't believe in leprauchauns, but I don't hate them! I don't believe in unicorns, and I don't hate them - so why *IN THE NAME OF FUCK* do you say I hate Jesus because i don't believe in him????!!!!!!


Because he died for your sins. Your say you don't believe in him. 


How do you think someone would deny Jesus Christ?
By saying "I deny him," that would be retarded and the anti-christ would be seen as a disgrace by other deceivers.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...pada - MIDDLE.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...neer, go back in the tread - we were talking about 'tangibles'.


I just caught up with a hundred posts on a thread that has exploded into pyroclastic activity while I lay sleeping.
If there were tangibles buried in there, I missed them. I have had trouble comprehending your posts because to my eyes they are protean, metaphoric, quite maddeningly vague. They have a certain suggestive poetry to them, but imo poetry is the last refuge of philosophical failure.
If I had to choose a "tangible" for which I'd seek focusing into something we can fruitfully debate, I'd ask you to explain and show me how to test the assertions you made in post #661. What is God-image? What are its unique manifestations in the measurable mundane material dimensions? How do I measure change therein? Most provocatively ... this 2000-year rotation; what is it and where do I learn objective, testable, non-metaphoric fact about this claim?
cheers 'neer


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Should we allow hobos to fornicate in public for equal rights? or should we be smart enough to stop things that aren't right from happeneing?
> Homosexuality is lust and preversion. Loving your brother sexualy is an abomination.


No, don't let people fuck in the streets... that's just silly.

But you are certainly a bigot, and a hateful person for saying things like that against homosexuals. If you've got such a problem with gays, blame straight people - they're the ones making all the gay babies...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> This is a good example of asserting prejudice and oppression based on the false authority you think your asinine beliefs afford you. Which is to say, you just proved Pad's point.


Prejudice and oppression??
We are oppressed because of the homosexuals who spread aids!!
How did they get aids and stds?? By not listening to the bible!
What did the bible say about fornicating with animals?
That it was an abomination and the animal should be put to death!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Ask a preacher anything, and he will most likely answer you in the best way possible(with an intelligent answer that makes perfect sense).

Watch an anti-christ ask a preacher something and you will see how sad it is because the anti-christ is just laughing and making fun of the preacher.

Im not a preacher, specifically so I won't feel bad about kicking ass.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Prejudice and oppression??
> We are oppressed because of the homosexuals who spread aids!!
> How did they get aids and stds?? By not listening to the bible!
> What did the bible say about fornicating with animals?
> That it was an abomination and the animal should be put to death!


Actually, my slow witted, ignorant friend - AIDS came about from people eating monkey's.... despite what Dave Chappelle may have told you, people more than likely, weren't fucking monkey's...

...but thanks for proving again your incompetency!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...trying to get the hell to work! 

neer, WE are the God-image - Christ is a 2000 year epoch. We are the image of God that is changing.

Sorry about being vague, I have a hard enough time keeping up with the 'hundreds of posts'...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I'll formulate some proper ideas and convey them in a less poetic tone.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Actually, my slow witted, ignorant friend - AIDS came about from people eating monkey's.... despite what Dave Chappelle may have told you, people more than likely, weren't fucking monkey's...
> 
> ...but thanks for proving again your incompetency!


If you even understood what you were reading or watching(which I know you never do) you would understand that it wasn't from eating monkeys it was from skinning monkeys(an some dude accidently cut himself with the knife he used to skin the monkey). But obviously its bullshit if we got syphilis from sheep, and other stds from other animals.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I'll formulate some proper ideas and convey them in a less poetic tone.


How about conveying a coherent thought that doesn't revolve around mysticism, or straight up "whoo-whoo", as Michael Shermer would call it....


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> How about conveying a coherent thought that doesn't revolve around mysticism, or straight up "whoo-whoo", as Michael Shermer would call it....


How about staying quite until you learn something or go to a real college?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> If you even understood what you were reading or watching you would understand that it wasn't from eating monkeys it was from skinning monkeys(an some dude accidently cut himself with the knife he used to skin the monkey). But obviously its bullshit if we got syphilis from sheep, and other stds from other animals.


Never mind the fact that AIDS is estimated to have been around for 32,000 years.... but wait, according to the bible the world is only 6,000 years old any ways....


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...beef, nothing mystic here. Have you ever been in love? Can you explain the feeling. It's mystic...meaning mysterious.

Love and Pain are 2 things the mind cannot remember. So, I'm being as clear as I can be about something that is unexplainable.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...beef, nothing mystic here. Have you ever been in love? Can you explain the feeling. It's mystic...meaning mysterious.
> 
> Love and Pain are 2 things the mind cannot remember. So, I'm being as clear as I can be about something that is unexplainable.


Love is a reaction to external stimuli, the actual "feeling" is neurotransmitters being released. You can't "remember" a brain state, you can try to remember how it felt - but unless you get the same dose of neurotransmitters in the same way, you won't "remember" it.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Never mind the fact that AIDS is estimated to have been around for 32,000 years.... but wait, according to the bible the world is only 6,000 years old any ways....


"HIV is a lentivirus, and like all viruses of this type, it attacks the immune system. Lentiviruses are in turn part of a larger group of viruses known as retroviruses. The name 'lentivirus' literally means 'slow virus' because they take such a long time to produce any adverse effects in the body. They have been found in a number of different animals, including cats, sheep, horses and cattle. However, the most interesting lentivirus in terms of the investigation into the origins of HIV is the *Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV)* that affects monkeys, which is believed to be at least 32,000 years old.1"

From http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...brought upon by thoughtforms. So yeah, you're right, but most people haven't the slightest clue what 'feeling' is. Chemical, or otherwise.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Prejudice and oppression??
> We are oppressed because of the homosexuals who spread aids!!
> How did they get aids and stds?? By not listening to the bible!
> What did the bible say about fornicating with animals?
> That it was an abomination and the animal should be put to death!


You can't be oppressed by a disease. You seem to be saying that you or someone you know has contracted aids, and apparently from sex with gay people??

Gay people do not have sex with animals, unless they are also a zoophile, but animals do have gay sex with each other.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Love is a reaction to external stimuli, the actual "feeling" is neurotransmitters being released. You can't "remember" a brain state, you can try to remember how it felt - but unless you get the same dose of neurotransmitters in the same way, you won't "remember" it.


 Perfect avatar btw, your stupidity gives the guy in the picture +rep.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> How about staying quite until you learn something or go to a real college?


"How about staying *QUIET* until you learn something or go to a real college"

I think that's what you meant.... and I'm almost positive we've discussed how little I give a shit if you believe I'm in UNIVERSITY. I'm Canadian, we don't call it college unless it's a community college...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...feeling is actually a lack of feeling. Experiencing 'nothingness' is what allows a person to be 'full'.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> neer, WE are the God-image - Christ is a 2000 year epoch. We are the image of God that is changing.


I have no way to understand what this means. Thus I cannot even imagine a verity test, so from the "there" that isn't there I cannot advance to the point of determining relevancy. The exercise of reason (which imo is an indispensable part of this complete breakfast, to use metaphor myself) requires that we begin by arriving at mutually-shared definitions. This elicits an emotional response from me: frustration.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Perfect avatar btw, your stupidity gives the guy in the picture +rep.


You would like Michael Bolton, wouldn't you... lol


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...and full is 'balanced'.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Love is a reaction to external stimuli, the actual "feeling" is neurotransmitters being released. You can't "remember" a brain state, you can try to remember how it felt - but unless you get the same dose of neurotransmitters in the same way, you won't "remember" it.


Aaaaww you killed my whole thread! lol

https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/468829-what-love.html


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You can't be oppressed by a disease. You seem to be saying that you or someone you know has contracted aids, and apparently from sex with gay people??
> 
> Gay people do not have sex with animals, unless they are also zoophile, but animals do have gay sex with each other.


Homosexuals obviously want to have their sexuality hieghtened to a different state, which is why they prefer men over women; it is a warped way of thinking, I really don't think anyone with a desire to have sex with their brother knows how to stop their preversion from spreading.

Homosexuality is an other way of saying "Too lazy to find the right women."
If the homo is too lazy to find the right women, I would assume that he would fuck an animal too.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

negentropy...oops, pada. That could be a descriptor for love.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Homosexuals obviously want to have their sexuality hieghtened to a different state, which is why they prefer men over women; it is a warped way of thinking, I really don't think anyone with a desire to have sex with their brother knows how to stop their preversion from spreading.
> 
> Homosexuality is an other way of saying "Too lazy to find the right women."
> If the homo is too lazy to find the right women, I would assume that he would fuck an animal too.



and that's why you're an idiot.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...beef, nothing mystic here. Have you ever been in love? Can you explain the feeling. It's mystic...meaning mysterious.


No.
Mysticism is the study andor exercise of occult knowledge/power to read and manipulate supposed spirit-forces. 
Mystery is the experience of awe.
The two have very little to do with one another.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Homosexuals obviously want to have their sexuality hieghtened to a different state, which is why they prefer men over women; it is a warped way of thinking, I really don't think anyone with a desire to have sex with their brother knows how to stop their preversion from spreading.
> 
> Homosexuality is an other way of saying "Too lazy to find the right women."
> If the homo is too lazy to find the right women, I would assume that he would fuck an animal too.


First to call Poe on this shit! Nobody could _actually _be this damn ignorant!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I see that my avatar says that I am 'able to roll a joint' to which I'll add "and get the fck back to work after!"


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

neer, I study both. So, I am happy to say that they are inextricably linked.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...they are called 'the mysteries' after all.


cheers to you as well.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> neer, I study both. So, I am happy to say that they are inextricably linked.


I will await elaboration.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marl - Why does every known mammal have gay sex? Are dolphins and giraffe's just doing it to spite god? 

Or,

are they're all just too lazy to "find a good women"? (ROFL, didn't know you were a polygamist?)


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Homosexuals obviously want to have their sexuality hieghtened to a different state, which is why they prefer men over women; it is a warped way of thinking, I really don't think anyone with a desire to have sex with their brother knows how to stop their preversion from spreading.
> 
> *Homosexuality is an other way of saying "Too lazy to find the right women."*
> If the homo is too lazy to find the right women, I would assume that he would fuck an animal too.


So what you are saying is, if you were deserted on an island with another man, or if all the women on earth disappeared, you would have gay sex for lack of anything better, and failing that, you would grab an animal. Because this is what's in your mind, you assume it is in the mind's of homosexuals as well.

Nothing optional--from homosexuality to adultery--is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting (and exact the fierce punishments) have a repressed desire to participate." &#8213; Christopher Hitchens


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> So what you are saying is, if you were deserted on an island with another man, or if all the women on earth disappeared, you would have gay sex for lack of anything better, and failing that, you would grab an animal. Because this is what's in your mind, you assume it is in the mind's of homosexuals as well.
> 
> &#8220;Nothing optional--from homosexuality to adultery--is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting (and exact the fierce punishments) have a repressed desire to participate." &#8213; Christopher Hitchens


No I am saying that homos want to fuck(I understand that there could be love inbetween them but the only way to feel that that love is right is to be twisted to point where homosexuality seems like its legit).

I don't agree with homosexuality and I think it would be retarded in the first place to have sex with the only friend(brother) I have on an island.
He would turn into a pussy, or vice versa.
Two straight men>two homos (imho)


Has anyone felt love between a man and a women?
Doesn't it seem like you fall deeper in love after you have sex?


Can you imagine how twisted it would be to think man on man is right in the first place?
Everyone has their own conscience, if they can't control it then I wouldn't trust that a homo has more of a will to not have sex with monkeys.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> No I am saying that homos want to fuck.
> 
> I don't agree with homosexuality and I think it would be retarded in the first place to have sex with the only friend(brother) I have on an island.
> He would turn into a pussy, or vice versa.
> Two straight men>two homos (imho)


Then you have just refuted your own allegation that homosexuality comes from the lack of female availability. If you would not engage in homosexual acts in the absence of women, what makes you think that is the reasoning for others doing it? This is what I am talking about when I say you do not think things through and consider the implications. You don't have any internal logical consistency or the slightest awareness of cognitive bias and your assertions depend on a deep misunderstanding and ignorance of reality, which leaves any opinion you have on god or homosexuals utterly without merit.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

I am sure their are plenty of Homo/gay men that would kick your ass, making you look like even more of a dumbarse.


Marlboro47 said:


> No I am saying that homos want to fuck(I understand that there could be love inbetween them but the only way to feel that that love is right is to be twisted to point where homosexuality seems like its legit).
> 
> I don't agree with homosexuality and I think it would be retarded in the first place to have sex with the only friend(brother) I have on an island.
> He would turn into a pussy, or vice versa.
> ...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Then you have just refuted your own allegation that homosexuality comes from the lack of female availability. If you would not engage in homosexual acts in the absence of women, what makes you think that is the reasoning for others doing it? This is what I am talking about when I say you do not think things through and consider the implications. You don't have any internal logical consistency or the slightest awareness of cognitive bias, which leaves any opinion you have on god or homosexuals without merit.


I said it came from laziness, not female availability.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Then you have just refuted your own allegation that homosexuality comes from the lack of female availability. If you would not engage in homosexual acts in the absence of women, what makes you think that is the reasoning for others doing it? This is what I am talking about when I say you do not think things through and consider the implications. You don't have any internal logical consistency or the slightest awareness of cognitive bias and your assertions depends on a deep misunderstanding and ignorance of reality, which leaves any opinion you have on god or homosexuals without merit.


Well played, sir!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> I am sure their are plenty of Homo/gay men that would kick your ass, making you look like even more of a dumbarse.


I diddn't say they couldn't fight, I just said two straight men>two gay men...
Two straight men have the will to find a way off to create offspring.
Two gay men are full of lust, preversion, and are only thinking about sex and even falling in love and staying on that island by themselves and doing what they do.

Imo the ones who get off that island are the smarter ones.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

i really hope marlboro is trolling because if he isnt, that says a lot about the religious mind.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

You can't stop liking women any more than a gay man can stop liking men. How could you possibly know if it's a choice or not if you've never been in the situation? I can guarantee you don't read any gay literature, so could you possibly be *so *in tune with how gay men must feel, and how they make their decisions?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Two straight men have the Will to Create Offspring?


Marlboro47 said:


> I diddn't say they couldn't fight, I just said two straight men>two gay men...
> Two straight men have the will to find a way off to create offspring.
> Two gay men are full of lust, preversion, and are only thinking about sex and even falling in love and staying on that island by themselves and doing what they do.
> 
> Imo the ones who get off that island are the smarter ones.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Hi neer, elaboration in the ready.

If mystery is 'awe' inspiring, and the 'mysteries' occult practice...it follows that the mysteries are 'unknown' and therefore a 'mystery'. From personal experience I can say that the mysteries were mysterious enough for me to want to study them. I've been in awe ever since!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...'gay' is not a physical experience - I have friends that are 'gay'. They LOVE the same sex and most of them will tell you that it has little to do with say...lesbian porn.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

This is a stupid ass conversation if you want me to explain to you how a homo feels. I said imho homos are just lazy.
I've got wayyy better things to do.
Peace.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I said it came from laziness, not female availability.


Too lazy to find a woman = no woman

Apparently you think it's easier to find a man?

You don't seem to even understand your own words. Think about things before you say them. Apply an internal filter that says "hey, does this make sense?" before you spread hatred and misunderstanding. This is a great example of why you should examine your beliefs and have something more concrete to go on than dogma. You perceive your faith as giving you some sort of authority to judge, which means you yourself must be without sin, or else engaging in blasphemy.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Too lazy to find a woman = no woman
> 
> Apparently you think it's easier to find a man?
> 
> You don't seem to even understand your own words. Think about things before you say them. Apply an internal filter that says "hey, does this make sense?" before you spread hatred and misunderstanding. This is a great example of why you should examine your beliefs and have something more concrete to go on than dogma. You perceive your faith as giving you some sort of authority to judge, which means you yourself must be without sin, or else engaging in blasphemy.


Too lazy to find attractive qualitys in a women, and too infatuated with yourself is what I mean by homos being lazy.

Im sorry I am so tired of this conversation and im not typing everything out... Maybe next time I post you'll understand what I say because I had a chance to restore my energy levels.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Too lazy to find attractive qualitys in a women, and too infatuated with yourself.


So for you it takes effort to find women attractive? The only way you like females is to have low self esteem and try really hard? Someone who is not willing to put in that effort turns to men, because there is no effort involved there? Which means in your mind, finding men attractive is easy, and finding women attractive is difficult?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Hi neer, elaboration in the ready.
> 
> If mystery is 'awe' inspiring, and the 'mysteries' occult practice...it follows that the mysteries are 'unknown' and therefore a 'mystery'. From personal experience I can say that the mysteries were mysterious enough for me to want to study them. I've been in awe ever since!


I appreciate that. I too value the awesome experience of mystery. However that does not speak to mysticism. 
Mysticism is essentially the practice of magic. It is irreducibly about using occult knowledge (either kenning or spelling) to draw power from the presumed spirit-realm into that of the mundane ... for the purpose of effecting tangible definite material change. Most mystical disciplines (e.g. astrology, masonry) use massive complexity to camouflage their essential randomness, their zeroness of magical content. Others, like palmistry, rely on the deceitful manipulation of peculiarities of human psychology, especially our deep inner instinct/drive to believe in the validity of mysticism.

I tend to dismiss mystical arguments as being ultimately as circular as using God and Scripture (pick your flavor) to prove each other's verity. That is why i am so keen to ask you to define your terms. I can only learn from ideas that have been focused to the point where they are deniable. N.b. this does NOT mean untrue! It means that the idea is definite enough that there is a reasoned possibility to say No or point out an internal or external inconsistency.

My experience of mystery has been entirely subjective. As such, it does not lend itself as a springboard for discussion or teaching. It assists in keeping me just a little bit humble. All jmo.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Too lazy to find attractive qualitys in a women, and too infatuated with yourself is what I mean by homos being lazy.
> 
> Im sorry I am so tired of this conversation and im not typing everything out... Maybe next time I post you'll understand what I say because I had a chance to restore my energy levels.


That's like saying you're too lazy to find attractive qualities in marijuana. You either like it or you don't, you don't get to choose.....


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

You can either act, or not act upon your own will but you cannot choose what you will.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg, sorry, I missed your post about being 'angry over nothing'...

Here's the deal from my perspective. Any time a person has to argue a point it is adding something to nothing. In psychological terms this would be 'aggregates' pasted to archetypes. I've found in my travels that a lot of so-called atheists are angry about their belief, or, non-belief.

Personally, I think we should all be able to learn from each other instead of having to hammer points in like spikes into a hand.

To me, God is this 'no-thing' - but a 'thing' at the same time. God is an acceptance of different modes of living.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...neer, we are the mystery and the mysteries combined. I don't mean that 'hand is quicker' sht we read about... Maybe I can put it like this... My personal feeling about myth is that it is a reflection of the same being. We are a part of that being. We are hermes, we are adriadne, etc...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Personally, I think we should all be able to learn from each other instead of having to hammer points in like spikes into a hand.
> 
> To me, God is this 'no-thing' - but a 'thing' at the same time. God is an acceptance of different modes of living.



That is an incredibly ambiguous statement, and does nothing to explain anything about a spiritual, non-physical, creator of the universe dubbed, "God."


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...but you're looking at God as a person if you put it like that beef.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I'm saying that God is 'no-thing' and we are 'things'. No one can argue that we are not physical beings. If you're scientific then you know that the 'anti' to everything exists. This is the same principle.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...if there is a physicality which is observable, then it follows that there would be a non-physicality which is not observable.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...but you're looking at God as a person if you put it like that beef.


Not a person, but an actual thing.... 

If it can make changes in the physical world, it has to manifest itself in some way - if it's manifesting itself in the physical world, it has to be testable.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Heisenberg, sorry, I missed your post about being 'angry over nothing'...
> 
> Here's the deal from my perspective. Any time a person has to argue a point it is adding something to nothing. In psychological terms this would be 'aggregates' pasted to archetypes. I've found in my travels that a lot of so-called atheists are angry about their belief, or, non-belief.
> 
> ...


What god is to you is your prerogative, but the sense of god you are describing is not the god that an atheist rejects. Some atheists arrive at the position out of anger and rebellion, others are pushed to anger by discrimination and having to live in a world where dogmatic certainty in god causes us hardship and at times outright oppression. In any case, it is not wrong to express my beliefs or criticisms of others beliefs. The goal of debate is to find common ground and to progress past dispute in search of higher ground, argument comes about when people don't observe standards of debate and logic, which causes everyone to waste time chasing their tale, in which case having feet nailed to the floor may be desirable.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I'll go back to a post I made in another thread. Has science produced DNA yet from nothing? I don't mean cloning either. I mean, from scratch.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I'll go back to a post I made in another thread. Has science produced DNA yet from nothing? I don't mean cloning either. I mean, from scratch.


No, but many of the original complex proteins that were the first building blocks of life have been replicated in labs....

Keep in mind it took an entire planet of swirling gasses and liquids billions of years to make a single living organism.... how fast, in your opinion, should science be completing this endeavour?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg, I agree that we are searching for common ground. I do not agree that running circles is bad. A straight line becomes a circle in time, it is inevitable.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> So for you it takes effort to find women attractive? *The only way you like females is to have low self esteem and try really hard?* Someone who is not willing to put in that effort turns to men, because there is no effort involved there? Which means in your mind, finding men attractive is easy, and finding women attractive is difficult?


 Women are automatically attractive to me, its just natural instinct. 
Men remind me of myself, and I am not attracted to myself sexually.

Define what is in bold.

Whats underlined: What I ment is that I know alot of homos with bad experiences with women, which makes them homo(making them lazy to not try to find attractive qaulitys in women)...

In my mind men aren't attractive, in my mind they are disgusting. I think about myself and how many times I have to wash my hands, and use hand sanatizer and it fucking disgusts me when I use someone elses computer or laptop. I have to wash my hands before I stick my hands in my pocket or Ill need to disinfect my lighters, cellphone, id, ect.

I have to use alcohol on a paper towel on my xbox360 controllers and keyboard and mouse before and after I have any friends over otherwise Ill freak out when I want to smoke pot or eat.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...right, replicated


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> Heisenberg, I agree that we are searching for common ground. I do not agree that running circles is bad. A straight line becomes a circle in time, it is inevitable.


Has religion produced DNA yet from nothing? I don't mean a story in an old book, I mean proof that religion, or god created DNA....


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...fast enough to not put down those that believe in a higher entity.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...no, but religion (as it is known) does not act so arrogantly as to assume it could.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Women are automatically attractive to me, its just natural instinct.
> Men remind me of myself, and I am not attracted to myself sexually.


Men are automatically attractive to gay men, it's just natural instinct.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...neer, we are the mystery and the mysteries combined. I don't mean that 'hand is quicker' sht we read about... Maybe I can put it like this... My personal feeling about myth is that it is a reflection of the same being. We are a part of that being. We are hermes, we are adriadne, etc...


I believe I used the wrong term earlier. I said deniability while trying to remember about falsifiability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

eye exaggerate, I am having trouble with your responses to me. I see them as imprecise to the point of being without discussible content. That frustrates my desire to learn, not merely whether i agree with some of your bolder claims, but if I can even reduce them to a claim that can be tested, verified, falsified. Ya can't wrestle with gelatin.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...no, but religion (as it is known) does not act so arrogantly as to assume it could.


Name one scientist who has claimed they can create life from nothing....

EDIT: Correction, NON-life.... not "nothing"


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...art and science are one to me. I feel unified...that's enough for me to believe in God. That's enough for me to believe that I am a fraction of God.

Any artists here?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...so then, what is it that science is trying to do? study the 'god-particle' at all??


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Men are automatically attractive to gay men, it's just natural instinct.


 No, you are attacted to sin not the man. Men naturally want to be wicked.
You then think that you have a better friend because they seem chiller until you realize that they're creepy as shit.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

neer, agreed, it's been swell.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

I hate typing, I wish I could just speak outloud to you guys... I hate technology...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Women are automatically attractive to me, its just natural instinct.
> Men remind me of myself, and I am not attracted to myself sexually.


Then to explore the ramifications of your logic, it is not a choice for straight people, it is automatic, but it is a choice for gay people. This would mean that those who have a choice always choose the same sex? I find that hard to believe. It seems much more logical and reflective of reality to assume gay people's sexual desire is also a result of natural instinct, unless you think your situation is unique. Your conclusions do not seem to be based in any sort of reasonable observation. Your belief tells you it's wrong and should be stopped, but you can not give any meaningful reason for this belief other than scripture. You think it's wrong because you were told, and you can not give even the slightest justification for why without incorporating fantasy and misrepresentation of reality. This is how you are required to view the world to coincide with your beliefs. It warps your reality and poisons your good will to your fellow man. It causes you to preach intolerance and exclusion over things which don't effect you in the slightest, and all in the name of God.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

post edited due to futility


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...so then, what is it that science is trying to do? study the 'god-particle' at all??


OMG it's just a particle that was present at the big bang, not a particle OF god.... please don't wilfully construe the truth.

It's moniker for the Higgs Boson... the particle that gives everything mass...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...please do not assume I am creating a truth. If science could, it would. Man has never ceased it's arrogance toward creation.

I know what it means, thanks.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...energy can only be transformed, never destroyed. Omniscient, omnipresent...etc, etc, etc. Science searches for something with no beginning or end. Something that has always just 'been' - making the case for chasing one's own tail?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...OF God?? It postulates that the particle IS God - and this would give an explanation for all that is?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...we created the nukes, and all else that can destroy 'us'. the energy that was there in the first place will always be there - long after our own ignorance has eradicated us.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

so science creates nuclear energy and assumes it will rest in the hands of responsible / rational people?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...energy can only be transformed, never destroyed. Omniscient, omnipresent...etc, etc, etc. Science searches for something with no beginning or end. Something that has always just 'been' - making the case for chasing one's own tail?


Energy isn't omniscient. It has no consciousness, so how can it know everything? Why are you personifying inanimate objects?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...energy can only be transformed, never destroyed. Omniscient, omnipresent...etc, etc, etc. Science searches for something with no beginning or end. Something that has always just 'been' - making the case for chasing one's own tail?


I don't remember the laws of thermodynamics using words like omniscient. Science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. The careful part would ensure one is not chasing ones tail.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

f.e. GE - bringing good things to 'life'? Hardly a believer on the team I assure you. Look at them now. No balance = death.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...no, matter and energy has consciousness.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...OF God?? It postulates that the particle IS God - and this would give an explanation for all that is?


You are misrepresenting the opinions expressed by the majority of scientists. They don't believe the particle IS god....


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...no, matter and energy has consciousness.


You talk with lightning and fire do you? Sounds credible...

There is literally zero proof that consciousness can exist outside of the brain..... it's possible it can, but there's no evidence thus far to suggest otherwise.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You talk with lightning and fire do you? Sounds credible...
> 
> There is literally zero proof that consciousness can exist outside of the brain..... it's possible it can, but there's no evidence thus far to suggest otherwise.


I have gained the impression that eye's entire m.o. is to advance thoroughly unscientific arguments ... while co-opting the vocabulary of science. This can generate the spurious impression of reasoned discourse.

btw Ahoy from a neighboring 'stan!
cheers 'neer


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> I have gained the impression that eye's entire m.o. is to advance thoroughly unscientific arguments ... while co-opting the vocabulary of science. This can generate the spurious impression of reasoned discourse.
> 
> btw Ahoy from a neighboring 'stan!
> cheers 'neer


Always nice to meet another critical minded person! 

Basically, what you're saying is he's to this conversation, as Deepak Chopra is to Quantum Mechanics... lol


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Just because they call it the "god particle" does not mean they are speaking literally about God, from the bible.


eye exaggerate said:


> ...OF God?? It postulates that the particle IS God - and this would give an explanation for all that is?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Always nice to meet another critical minded person!
> 
> Basically, what you're saying is he's to this conversation, as Deepak Chopra is to Quantum Mechanics... lol


I will admit I don't know much about Deepak Chopra. I would greatly like to be more generous toward eye, but I'm a bit peeved about his spurn of my requests to provide information. So I will restrict myself to saying things that I can defend, such as my abiding impression that he has come to the game with ball and mitt but won't agree on ground rules.

 That stated, there is something to be said for bringing a skeet gun to a Frisbee championship ... 
cheers 'neer


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

I always liked Epicurus's Riddle;

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

There's a debate on youtube between Sam Harris, and Deepak Chopra where Deepak keeps talking about QM and vibrations incorrectly, so Dr. Leonard Mlodinow stands up and puts him in his place.... That being said; Deepak is very humble while getting schooled.... 

[video]http://youtu.be/-y5D7q1O1Uk[/video]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Then to explore the ramifications of your logic, it is not a choice for straight people, it is automatic, but it is a choice for gay people. This would mean that those who have a choice always choose the same sex? I find that hard to believe. It seems much more logical and reflective of reality to assume gay people's sexual desire is also a result of natural instinct, unless you think your situation is unique.* Your conclusions do not seem to be based in any sort of reasonable observation.* Your belief tells you it's wrong and should be stopped, but *you can not give any meaningful reason for this belief other than scripture.* You think it's wrong because you were told, and *you can not give even the slightest justification for why without incorporating fantasy and misrepresentation of reality*_._ This is how you are required to view the world to coincide with your beliefs. *It warps your reality and poisons your good will to your fellow man.* It causes you to preach intolerance and exclusion over things which don't effect you in the slightest, and all in the name of God.


 Its wrong because the anus wasn't ment for intercourse. It rips, bleeds, and causes hemorrhoids.

It is un natural.

Religion strengthens me when I have to deal with idiots, it is the cure to the poison that I get from reading bs articles.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Its wrong because the anus wasn't ment for intercourse. It rips, bleeds, and causes hemorrhoids.
> 
> It is un natural.


Anal rape might.... sure.... but I don't know many gay guys that go around raping people just for the hell of it, that's more of a straight thing.... lol

EDIT: What about tattoo's, body piercings, etc..... hell, you could even claim that cutting hair is unnatural, where do you draw the line in the sand for what is "natural"?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Anal rape might.... sure.... but I don't know many gay guys that go around raping people just for the hell of it, that's more of a straight thing.... lol


yeah, you love that straight anal sex with men especially when you can't say no

Throw an other joke out to pretend your cool again


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> yeah, you love that straight anal sex with men especially when you can't say no


You don't know love till you get a reach around... ROFL


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> There's a debate on youtube between Sam Harris, and Deepak Chopra where Deepak keeps talking about QM and vibrations incorrectly, so Dr. Leonard Mlodinow stands up and puts him in his place.... That being said; Deepak is very humble while getting schooled....
> 
> [video]http://youtu.be/-y5D7q1O1Uk[/video]


 Oh my. Yes; I see the parallels. 

cheers 'neer


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You don't know love till you get a reach around... ROFL


I love you less and less everytime you post. 
Your at 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% loved.
Say something smart and I might bump you back up to 0.0005.
Stay quiet and I might bump you up to 0.001 again.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

You have yet to say something intelligent as well.


Marlboro47 said:


> I love you less and less everytime you post.
> Your at 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% loved.
> Say something smart and I might bump you back up to 0.0005.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I love you less and less everytime you post.
> Your at 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% loved.
> Say something smart and I might bump you back up to 0.0005.


OH NOES! Someone I don't know used a fraction they probably can't even understand, to tell me how little they love me! What ever will I do.... better have some wild, gay sex on Sunday while taking the lords name in vain and praying to a false idol...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> You have yet to say something intelligent as well.


I wonder why you can't understand me...


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> [It's] wrong because the anus wasn't [meant] for intercourse. It rips, bleeds, and causes hemorrhoids.


Maybe ... you're doing it wrong.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Its wrong because the anus wasn't ment for intercourse. It rips, bleeds, and causes hemorrhoids.
> 
> It is un natural.
> 
> Religion strengthens me when I have to deal with idiots, it is the cure to the poison that I get from reading bs articles.


This is an statement about sodomy, and a misleading one at that. Sodomy does not usually cause bleeding or hemorrhoids, although your are correct that the anus is not meant for sexual intercourse. Neither is the mouth or the hand, so I guess it's a pretty dull world you live in. In any case not all homosexuals engage in sodomy, and plenty of heterosexuals do, so why do you list this as a reason to single out gays? Again, you show nothing meaningful or well thought out, you are grasping at straws to justify your dogmatic adherence to scripture. Is this the strength you were talking about?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Hetero Anal is Win. <3


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

*Proverbs 6:12-6:19*
*The wicked man*
*6:12* A worthless person, a wicked man, walk with a perverse mouth;
*6:13* he winks with his eyes,
He shuffles his feet, 
he points with his fingers;
*6:14* Perversity is in his heart,
He devises evil continually,
He sows discord.
*6:15* Therefore his calamity shall come suddenly
Suddenly he shall be broken without remedy.
*6:16* These six tings the Lord hates.
Yes, Seven are an abomination to Him:
*6:17* A proud look,
A lying Tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
*6:18* A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
*6:19* A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> There's a debate on youtube between Sam Harris, and Deepak Chopra where Deepak keeps talking about QM and vibrations incorrectly, so Dr. Leonard Mlodinow stands up and puts him in his place.... That being said; Deepak is very humble while getting schooled....


Deepak will also freely admit his assertions are nothing more than speculative hypotheses if he is pressed, leading to Sam's conclusion that he is happily misunderstood, which makes me think of eye's jibber.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> *Hands that shed innocent blood*


Thats why I love reading the bible, self defense is fine but if its that bad Ill just wait until your not innocent(theoretically of course of course! I never throw the first punch, I like to get enraged first)


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> *Proverbs 6:12-6:19*
> *The wicked man*
> *6:12* A worthless person, a wicked man, walk with a perverse mouth;
> *6:13* he winks with his eyes,
> ...


16:10 - Insert meaningless copy/pasted quote
20:69 - Insert biggoted comment here
1:45 - Freeble Frabble, Razzle dazzle!


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Hetero Anal is Win. <3


Fuck yeah, my gf takes it in the ass like a champ! lol

*fingers crossed she doesn't ever create an account on here*


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> This is an statement about sodomy, and a misleading one at that. Sodomy does not usually cause bleeding or hemorrhoids, although your are correct that_ the anus is not meant for sexual intercourse_. Neither is the mouth or the hand, so I guess it's a pretty dull world you live in. In any case not all homosexuals engage in sodomy, and plenty of heterosexuals do, so why do you list this as a reason to single out gays? Again, you show nothing meaningful or well thought out, you are grasping at straws to justify your dogmatic adherence to scripture. Is this the strength you were talking about?


I remember something a colleague told me these many years ago.
"If God had meant for man to have gay sex, He'd'a put a hole in his ass."
Imo the anus, especially but not exclusively the man's, has evolved to become a significant erogenous zone, so in this instance I will dare to dissent with the Glacier.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Fuck yeah, my gf takes it in the ass like a champ! lol
> 
> *fingers crossed she doesn't ever create an account on here*


You said you were gay, now you say you have a gf. Your jokes suck, thats why I changed my religion because of lame ass jokes that are based on lies. 
On top of everything else, I can't even hold a decent conversation with someone without feeling like hitting them for lying and thinking their cool about it.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> You said you were gay, now you say you have a gf. Your jokes suck, thats why I changed my religion because of lame ass jokes that are based on lies.



I never said I was gay, I said "You don't know love until you've had a reach around ROFL"..... Although I do have some gay friends, and they've hit on me before - I just don't find dudes attractive, the same way they don't find women attractive.

Apparently you didn't learn the subtleties of humor from the bible...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thats why I love reading the bible, self defense is fine


 It's one thing to state your belief in god and attempt to explain why, it's another to use your belief in god to justify monomaniacal discrimination. When your attempts at logic and reason fail, you fall back on your scripture, somehow finding comfort and absolution in bigotry. I can't not think of a better description of perverse.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Marl seems sheltered. :[


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I never said I was gay, I said "You don't know love until you've had a reach around ROFL"..... Although I do have some gay friends, and they've hit on me before - I just don't find dudes attractive, the same way they don't find women attractive.
> 
> Apparently you didn't learn the subtleties of humor from the bible...


You diddn't even read the bible, you need to shut your mouth.

It says not to laugh at those who do evil, lying is evil.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> You diddn't even read the bible, you need to shut your mouth.
> 
> It says not to laugh at those who do evil, lying is evil.


Lying is NOT evil.

If you were sheltering Jewish refugees in WWII and nazi's came to your door and said, "Are you harbouring Jews?" and you said "yes" - YOU would be evil for NOT lying.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Marl seems sheltered. :[


 Rawbudzki seems oblivious.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Lying is NOT evil.
> 
> If you were sheltering Jewish refugees in WWII and nazi's came to your door and said, "Are you harbouring Jews?" and you said "yes" - YOU would be evil for NOT lying.


Obviously people like you are stupid enough to think that you can only answer yes or no.

I would say in a loud voice "Why the hell would I be harbouring jews!?! They don't even accept JESUS!"...ect.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Wowzorz...


Marlboro47 said:


> Obviously people like you are stupid enough to think that you can only answer yes or no.
> 
> I would say in a loud voice "Why the hell would I be harbouring jews!?! They don't even accept JESUS!"...ect.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Obviously people like you are stupid enough to think that you can only answer yes or no.
> 
> I would say in a loud voice "Why the hell would I be harbouring jews!?! They don't even accept JESUS!"...ect.


You must be a troll.... either that or you're the single stupidest person I've ever conversed with.

You JUST SAID; "LYING IS EVIL", now you say lying isn't evil?

What about this scenario; Your christian friend is framed for a murder you know he didn't commit, but the evidence is stacked against him. The police come to your door and say "Have you seen him?"

You can either lie, and do the right thing - or not lie and have a man sentenced for a crime you KNOW he didn't commit....


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You JUST SAID; "LYING IS EVIL", *now you say lying isn't evil?*


Are you on crack kid? You sounds smoked out either way if your just trying to see what my responses are.
Your warping your own personality, even if your laughing at me or trolling.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

Hypothetical ethics is where I bow out, have fun guys. Don't think I overlooked your misguided discrepancy cannabineer. I will forgive it as it is your first offense.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Obviously people like you are stupid enough to think that you can only answer yes or no.



Explain to me what this means, because it's pretty non-nonsensical... 



> I would say in a loud voice "Why the hell would I be harbouring jews!?! They don't even accept JESUS!"...ect.


That's being dishonest, you're implying that you don't have any jews - do you want to split hairs about what kind of lies are acceptable?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Explain to me what this means, because it's pretty non-nonsensical...
> 
> 
> 
> That's being dishonest, you're implying that you don't have any jews - do you want to split hairs about what kind of lies are acceptable?


Im not implying that I don't have any jews, I am simply asking them why they would think I am harbouring jews knowing that I am against their religion.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Some of your responses are priceless. <3
I thank you for contributing to the RIU community in such a manner, things can get dull now & then.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Have fun bro, im off.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Hypothetical ethics is where I bow out, have fun guys. Don't think I overlooked your misguided discrepancy cannabineer. I will forgive it as it is your first offense.


Goodness. I can't always be crepant. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im not implying that I don't have any jews, I am simply asking them why they would think I am harbouring jews knowing that I am against their religion.


Ok, so in the thought experiment they bitch slap you and ask you again for a straight up answer - they also put a gun to your head. How would you respond? Would you lie to save the innocent family? Or would you tell the truth and let the nazi's kill them?

Does your religion lead you to deontological or teleologic ethics?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

For those of you reading. Allow what i say to make you wonder for yourself.
Don't try to remember anything I say, just know that you can't trust me either.

Jesus was betrayed and he was a God. Becareful everyone out there.
Love you all.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Its wrong because the anus wasn't ment for intercourse. It rips, bleeds, and causes hemorrhoids.
> 
> It is un natural.


what about heterosexual anal sex? are prostate exams unnatural? i assume you wont be getting checked at all, correct?



> Religion strengthens me when I have to deal with idiots, it is the cure to the poison that I get from reading bs articles.


so you formed your beliefs, then look for information that backs up your beliefs. and all the articles you dont agree with are categorized as 'bullshit articles'. they are of satan and the anti christ; simply there to lead you astray from the truth, which is the bible. i guess michael shermer is right then lol


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> what about heterosexual anal sex? are prostate exams unnatural? i assume you wont be getting checked at all, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> so you formed your beliefs, then look for information that backs up your beliefs. and all the articles you dont agree with are categorized as 'bullshit articles'. they are of satan and the anti christ; simply there to lead you astray from the truth, which is the bible. i guess michael shermer is right then lol


 No, bullshit articles like this: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

Look up the same chapter and subchater and you'll see that it is in fact bullshit.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

After you read the bible, if you do.
You'll notice that only about 5-9% or of all the articles on the internet is completely legit.
Anything with an opinion pretty much makes the whole article bullshit.

You can't just quote one subchater and one chater then warp it in with an opinion. But most people are mislead to the point where they believe it because the article is about Jesus.

But what you don't see is the writer confessing himself that he believes and accepts Christ and knows he came to die for our sins in the flesh of man.

I've even read e-book bibles and realized that some of that stuff looks so sketchy that I just stop reading it.
Stick to the printed version.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

You Lied Evil Sinner.


Marlboro47 said:


> Have fun bro, im off.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> No, bullshit articles like this: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
> 
> Look up the same chapter and subchater and you'll see that it is in fact bullshit.


thats not an article. but anyways, whats wrong with it? the words on that list are the guys interpretation of the bible verses. if you click on the link to the verse at the end of each line, it takes you to it. i checked one at random and the verse matches word for word with christian websites. have you found one that is incorrect or something?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> You Lied Evil Sinner.


 Actually I did get up and leave the pc. I was off my chair.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> thats not an article. but anyways, whats wrong with it? the words on that list are the guys interpretation of the bible verses. if you click on the link to the verse at the end of each line, it takes you to it. i checked one at random and the verse matches word for word with christian websites. have you found one that is incorrect or something?


They're all wrong.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
( [Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

*Reality for everyone:*

Christian) God exists

Anti-Christ) No he doesn't, wheres your evidence?

Christian) The bible

Anti-Christ) The bible isn't real

Christian) How is it not real *throws the holy bible over to the anti-christ*

Anti-Christ) I mean its just a story

Christian) Why is there proof that Jesus came, and why does everyone know what Jesus ment by "love."

Anti-Christ) Thats bullshit, he was never here.

Christian) Then why is there evidence that he changed the world and that people wrote about the same man in differen't parts of the world with the same descritipion as the perfect and only God?

Anti-Christ) Ok ok, he was just a man though... You can't prove he is God.

Christian) How is it not God if he ressurected and preformed miracles and says that hes our ticket to heaven...ect?

Anti-christ) God is dead

Christian) God doesn't die.

Anti-Christ) Whats the defintion of God

Christian) This is why I was told not to talk to you. Because your a liar and an anti-christ.

Anti-Christ) What if I told you I believe in God? just not Jesus?

Christian) Then your still going to hell.

Anti-Christ) Why would I go to hell if I im a good person?

Christian) How are you a good person to deny the only one that loved and died for you?

Anti-Christ) Your so judgemental and stereotypical and stupid, and you don't use logic.

Christian) How am I not using logic?

Anti-Christ) Because you believe in a fairy tell

Christian) How do you expect me to believe that it is a fairytell if no one said it was a fairytale?

Anti-Christ)Because there is no evidence that he existed.

Christian)The bible is the evidence

Anti-christ) posts some more bullshit
"ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION

(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8][Atheist gives up and goes home.]
(9) Therefore, God exists."

Second Anti-Christ) *likes stupid post to try to win the argument even though he looks retarded doing it*


Third Anti-Christ) says to other anti-christs seceretly "Your so fucking cool for doing that."




*Christian's conversation with other christian)* 

Christian 1) Anti christs are so stupid!! How can they manipulate themselves into saying the bible is fake when logic is what is proving it to be real?

Christian 2) Because they think that they know everything. They don't accept help from anyone and they hate being told what is right and what is wrong. To them there is no right or wrong they call it karma.

Christian 1) Well, at least I tried saving them right?

Christian 2) Hey look at it this way... You got smarter and you loved your enemies, you got nothing to loose your already living life without regrets!

Christian 1) I freaking love you brother! lets go smoke some pot and drink some alcohol and try to find someone fun to hang out with over at my homies kickback.

Christian 2) For sure, lets try to get some girls numbers too.

Christian 1) I hope we don't meet anyone that will jack my lighter, or someone who bullshits until my high disapears.

Christian 2) I know what you mean man, I hate that shit... People just can't chill anymore and relax and open a cold one.

Christian 1) Blame the anti-christs and their stupidity and ignorance.

Christian 2) Blame the devil man, anti-christs just have an evil ass spirit in them...

Christian 1) I feel really bad for them, I just want them to find something better then being a slave to sin for their own enjoyment.

Christian 2) Dude you have to remember they want to take you to hell with them

Christian 1) *Oh yeah... I forgot they don't have feelings since they hate life and God.*


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

You are crazy.  


Marlboro47 said:


> *Reality for everyone:*
> 
> Christian) God exists
> 
> ...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2011)

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (II)
(1) The Bible says the Bible is true.
(2) Therefore the Bible is true.
(3) The Bible says God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NOT-BELIEVING
(1) The New Testament says people like you would question us.
(2) You question us.
(3) Therefore the Bible is true.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL IMPACT, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (III)
(1) Theist: How can you say the Bible isn't true, just look at (points out some arbitrary passage)?
(2) Atheist: But (points out some contradictions or falsehoods) makes it seem unlikely that it can be true, let alone the word of God. You are entitled to your beliefs, but ...
(3) (Theist cuts off atheist by throwing a Bible at him and knocking him unconscious.)
(4) Theist: Ha, let's see you argue now.
(5) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

You guys are the only ones copying and pasting. Thats the saddest part, I've answered every question wayy more then 10times and then an other one comes back and asks the same shit in a different way then leaves because he has no idea what to say.

Why don't you guys just read the bible before you say I don't know shit? lets here the quotes you think have been changed. lets see if you studied it to the point where you start thinking that someone changed that specific part.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> They're all wrong.


how are they wrong?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> how are they wrong?


They cut the sentence in half, and change the wording on the list; the side links say something completely different.''

Example
The first sentence talks about killing humans for having bad fruits,
what it really says is that farmers will cut down their shitty trees that are taking up space.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Theist: God is real because the bible says so!
Atheist: How do you know the bible is true? There are tons of holy books, each claiming the same thing - they can't all be true can they?
Theist: Those other religions are just copying Christianity, or are false in their teachings!
Atheist: Besides the fact that a lot of religions are older than Christianity, how do you know the scriptures in your book are any more valid than anyone else's holy book?
Theist: Because so many people believe in it!
Atheist: So that must mean Islam is true because billions of people believe in it too!
Theist: No, no, no - there's only one true religion Christianity - it says so in the bible!
Atheist: How do you know the bible is true?
Theist: BECAUSE IT'S THE WORD OF GOD
Atheist: Just like the Qu'ran is the word of god too, right?
Theist: /RAGEQUIT


----------



## gfreeman (Sep 22, 2011)

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this
because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like
all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both
logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that
they are invisible because we can't see them."


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Some kid buys an oz of weed and smokes it.
Next kid says he smoked an oz of weed.

Where is the evidence?
Where is the logic?

Who buys the oz of weed all the time?

Who smokes weed?

Who lies?

Who sounds stupid?

ect...

Are you really going to let some dumbass talk you into believing the second kid smoked an oz of weed if hes asking how to make a sneak a toke?

Are you going to believe the majority of the people that are smarter or the liars who would steal from you because they manipulate you into thinking that their smart?



Whoever believes that the second kid smoked pot, will end up trying to convince others that he did in fact because you believe it.


Then when there is a group of idiots who want to defy logic they call the smartest one who knows the second kid diddn't smoke pot stupid. They ask how he knows and they don't give up because he diddn't see either of them smoke on oz. But the smartest one knows that the second kid smokes crack, not pot. But it doesn't matter because their so stupid that they don't want to reconsider anything because they think it is brainwashing to raise your intelligence.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

The hell are you talking about.


Marlboro47 said:


> Some kid buys an oz of weed and smokes it.
> Next kid says he smoked an oz of weed.
> 
> Where is the evidence?
> ...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Some kid buys an oz of weed and smokes it.
> Next kid says he smoked an oz of weed.
> 
> Where is the evidence?
> ...


I'd ask the first kid for physical evidence that he had smoked an Oz of bud... like a ziplock baggy, I could drug test him, I could check for physical signs of being high.

Then I would do the same thing to the second kid. It would become obvious through physical inspection and evidence that he, in fact, didn't buy or smoke an OZ of weed.


----------



## gfreeman (Sep 22, 2011)

I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thou shalt have no other monsters before Me. (Afterwards is OK; just use protection.) The only Monster who deserves capitalization is Me! Other monsters are false monsters, undeserving of capitalization.
*&#8220;*
*&#8221;*​_Suggestions_ *1*:1​


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Ill believe the first kid because I know he smokes alot of weed and buys oz all the time.

I won't believe the second kid because hes a crack head!

And I won't believe anyone who trys to convince me that the crack head was the one with the oz of weed because their pretty much retarded.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Ill let you guys go. obviously your just having too much fun talking about how stupid everyone is that believes your lies.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Ill believe the first kid because I know he smokes alot of weed and buys oz all the time.
> 
> I won't believe the second kid because hes a crack head!
> 
> And I won't believe anyone who trys to convince me that the crack head was the one with the oz of weed because their pretty much retarded.



Thank you for that wonderful analogy, Captain Shortbus.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Ahaha. Epic. If Sigs could fit several paragraphs this would be it. Made my day


Marlboro47 said:


> Ill believe the first kid because I know he smokes alot of weed and buys oz all the time.
> 
> I won't believe the second kid because hes a crack head!
> 
> And I won't believe anyone who trys to convince me that the crack head was the one with the oz of weed because their pretty much retarded.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

No problem, next time try believing the smartest one.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Talk about being in La-La Land.


Marlboro47 said:


> Some kid buys an oz of weed and smokes it.
> Next kid says he smoked an oz of weed.
> 
> Where is the evidence?
> ...





Marlboro47 said:


> Ill believe the first kid because I know he smokes alot of weed and buys oz all the time.
> 
> I won't believe the second kid because hes a crack head!
> 
> And I won't believe anyone who trys to convince me that the crack head was the one with the oz of weed because their pretty much retarded.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Christian 1) Well, at least I tried saving them right?

Christian 2) Hey look at it this way... You got smarter and you loved your enemies, you got nothing to loose your already living life without regrets!

Christian 1) I freaking love you brother! lets go smoke some pot and drink some alcohol and try to find someone fun to hang out with over at my homies kickback.

Christian 2) For sure, lets try to get some girls numbers too.

Christian 1) I hope we don't meet anyone that will jack my lighter, or someone who bullshits until my high disapears.

Maybe we should let you go?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

101 pages, whoo!!!


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Some kid buys an oz of weed and smokes it.
> Next kid says he smoked an oz of weed.
> 
> Where is the evidence?
> ...


[video]http://youtu.be/fEkWH8DB7b0[/video]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Talk about being in La-La Land.


How else am I going to explain to you that you sound stupid for denying God?
And everyone else who believed the person who said God was fake is just an other idiot.

My iq is dropping talking to everyone with their stupid lies that try to defy what logic really is.
Especially beef with the IQ of 50.

And then you tell me to look up defs just to prove you wrong AGAIN.

Beef prob still thinks he won hes such an idiot.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> How else am I going to explain to you that you sound stupid for denying God?
> And everyone else who believed the person who said God was fake is just an other idiot.
> 
> My iq is dropping talking to everyone. Especially beef with the IQ of 50.


Although I'm no Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking, I do command an IQ of 133.... but I'll just chalk your mistake up to an inability to count properly! But I am proud of you for trying, WHO'S A GOOD BOY??? YOU ARE THAT'S WHO. USING GROWN UP WORDS..... SO CUTE!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Although I'm no Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking, I do command an IQ of 133.... but I'll just chalk your mistake up to an inability to count properly! But I am proud of you for trying, WHO'S A GOOD BOY???


You would be smarter then me with an IQ of 133.
100 is the avg IQ. Proves to me your more pathetic then an idiot.

Look up the def of count on google, you might need some extra help with that.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Ill let you guys go. obviously your just having too much fun talking about how stupid everyone is that believes your lies.


You should join me and diesel, I find it kinda funny now. And oly just thinks it's hilarious so yeah let's just smoke some bowls.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> You would be smarter then me with an IQ of 133.
> 100 is the avg IQ. Proves to me your more pathetic then an idiot.


You mean;

"Proves to me *you're* more pathetic *than* an idiot."

I don't really see what being pathetic has to do with being an idiot however.... guess I should ask the crackhead kid from your inane though experiment....


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> You should join me and diesel, I find it kinda funny now. And oly just thinks it's hilarious so yeah let's just smoke some bowls.


 Im scraping resin today. Saving up for something special.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

I am Agnostic, I just find it funny you seem to think you know so much about this "God".. .have you met Sen C? He will show you that his God from the King James Bible is real & yours is False.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You mean;
> 
> "Proves to me *you're* more pathetic *than* an idiot."
> 
> I don't really see what being pathetic has to do with being an idiot however.... guess I should ask the crackhead kid from your inane though experiment....


Well, what I mean in the nicest way. Is that lying makes you look pathetic. and that your an idiot for thinking that everyone thinks your not trying.

Making you more pathetic then an idiot.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Although I'm no Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking, I do command an IQ of 133.... but I'll just chalk your mistake up to an inability to count properly! But I am proud of you for trying, WHO'S A GOOD BOY??? YOU ARE THAT'S WHO. USING GROWN UP WORDS..... SO CUTE!


Your sarcasm is funny because it just shows who the more immature one is out of you two is. I'll give you a hint, it's not marlboro.
Also if you think any of those words are big then you may have a really low IQ. Just saying.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You mean;
> 
> "Proves to me *you're* more pathetic *than* an idiot."
> 
> I don't really see what being pathetic has to do with being an idiot however.... guess I should ask the crackhead kid from your inane though experiment....


Don't ignore his point and try to deflect it by stating that he misspelled a word.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Well, what I mean in the nicest way. Is that lying makes you look pathetic. and that your an idiot for thinking that everyone thinks your not trying.
> 
> Making you more pathetic then an idiot.


I think you mean;

"Well, what I mean in the nicest way*,* is that lying makes you look pathetic*,* and that *you're* an idiot for thinking that everyone thinks *you're *not trying.

Making you more pathetic *than *an idiot*.*

Who's lying? I'm spouting truth, you just can't take it and have no argument to base your faith on. It's fine, really, you can believe in god, just stop trying to give rational reasons for doing to - it just makes you look even more ignorant than you already are.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Your sarcasm is funny because it just shows who the more immature one is out of you two is. I'll give you a hint, it's not marlboro.
> Also if you think any of those words are big then you may have a really low IQ. Just saying.


Im gonna log off and smoke some resin, don't get caught up with these idiots the only ones who are trying to prove me wrong are the ones who are repeating all the stupid shit over and over until I get so bored I stop typing.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Your sarcasm is funny because it just shows who the more immature one is out of you two is. I'll give you a hint, it's not marlboro.
> Also if you think any of those words are big then you may have a really low IQ. Just saying.


Your opinion is noted, and discarded. Thanks!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I* think* you mean;


 If you don't know for sure then stfu. I already said to be quiet until you learn something.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Hey Heph.  
Glad to see you again.
Marl makes you & oly look good. <3


Hepheastus420 said:


> Don't ignore his point and try to deflect it by stating that he misspelled a word.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> If you don't know for sure then stfu. I already said to be quiet until you learn something.


Sweet, you spelled "quiet" correctly this time!

I've forgotten more than you probably know.....


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Hey Heph.
> Glad to see you again.
> Marl makes you & oly look good. <3


 Ooh with the insult man. So without marl me and oly would look bad? I always thought I had somewhat good arguments.
Ehh none of this matters.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Sweet, you spelled "quiet" correctly this time!
> 
> I've forgotten more than you probably know.....


Only thing I remember about you is that you make your avatar look smart, and he looks pretty freaking retarded.
I skipped more then half of the shit you said so I wouldn't contaminate my brain with ignorance and specific traits of a sociopath that I choose to stay away from.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Sweet, you spelled "quiet" correctly this time!
> 
> I've forgotten more than you probably know.....


Nice deflections to everything he's saying. That's sarcasm incase you can't sense satire.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

I kinda meant more of the ignorance, not that you are bad. You do ask legit questions. I would have worked better with Sen C.. but he is not here. 


Hepheastus420 said:


> Ooh with the insult man. So without marl me and oly would look bad? I always thought I had somewhat good arguments.
> Ehh none of this matters.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Nice deflections to everything he's saying. That's sarcasm incase you can't sense satire.


There's nothing worthy of being commented on - it's like asking me to comment on a 4 year old's shitty drawing of a dog.... what do you say? It's so realistic? You're the next Picasso?


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Although I'm no Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking, I do command an IQ of 133.... but I'll just chalk your mistake up to an inability to count properly! But I am proud of you for trying, WHO'S A GOOD BOY??? YOU ARE THAT'S WHO. USING GROWN UP WORDS..... SO CUTE!



What do you think albert einstein's IQ was and does it = right or wrong? Look at the thread I made about the implications of todays scientific discovery. Turns out light may not be the fastest thing in the universe. I don't understand most of the crazy particle stuff but find it interesting. This means E=mc2 just might be wrong. What will scientist's do? plug thier ears and scream No! I've spent my whole life working off the theory of E=mc2 it has to be right. Or will they accept it and move forward into the new discovery?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Where's oly? Hey oly come on over so we can kill these infidels. Muhahahahaha.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> What do you think albert einstein's IQ was and does it = right or wrong? Look at the thread I made about the implications of todays scientific discovery. Turns out light may not be the fastest thing in the universe. I don't understand most of the crazy particle stuff but find it interesting. This means E=mc2 just might be wrong. What will scientist's do? plug thier ears and scream No! I've spent my whole life working off the theory of E=mc2 it has to be right. Or will they accept it and move forward into the new discovery?


It doesn't = right or wrong... how can your ability to adapt to new circumstances and solve problems make you right or wrong?

I was reading earlier that they broke the speed of light with neutrino's @ CERN... interesting stuff!


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> There's nothing worthy of being commented on - it's like asking me to comment on a 4 year old's shitty drawing of a dog.... what do you say? It's so realistic? You're the next Picasso?


Well honestly yes, or at least try to see picture he is showing you. Metaphors man.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Where's oly? Hey oly come on over so we can kill these infidels. Muhahahahaha.


 Lmao, lets just wait for Jesus to do it bro. So we could laugh at them while they scream and cry and say "no its not real."

im pretty tired... although its fun id rather talk shit over xboxlive. sometimes people just have too much time to come up with bullshit.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> I kinda meant more of the ignorance, not that you are bad. You do ask legit questions. I would have worked better with Sen C.. but he is not here.


Ahh I get it I'm working overtime for sen C. Cool. Umm what do I do?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Show me Jesus. Where is he? If you can show me Jesus, well holy fuck! I'd believe in a second after witnessing him perform an honest to god miracle! 

Let's get Jesus' opinion on the matter.....

Hello? Jesus? This is Beef, can you perform a miracle for me? Or you know manifest yourself as a physical entity in any way, shape, or form, so we can validate your existence with something besides an old book written by primitive goat herders?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Just quote the bible, stick up for Marl & keep saying that the Bibles God is the One true god. 


Hepheastus420 said:


> Ahh I get it I'm working overtime for sen C. Cool. Umm what do I do?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Lmao, lets just wait for Jesus to do it bro. So we could laugh at them while they scream and cry and say "no its not real."
> 
> im pretty tired... although its fun id rather talk shit over xboxlive. sometimes people just have too much time to come up with bullshit.


nah dude Jesus isn't going to kill them, it's just supposed to be hell on earth. Jesus wouldn't kill, IMO. But I believe these people will go to heaven, well hopefully I'm not sure if they're child rapist/murderers.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Just quote the bible, stick up for Marl & keep saying that the Bibles God is the One true god.


Alright seems easy. It's what I already do, ha.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Just quote the bible, stick up for Marl & keep saying that the Bibles God is the One true god.



You forgot the most important part - Ignore all contradicting evidence!


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Show me Jesus. Where is he? If you can show me Jesus, well holy fuck! I'd believe in a second after witnessing him perform an honest to god miracle!
> 
> Let's get Jesus' opinion on the matter.....
> 
> Hello? Jesus? This is Beef, can you perform a miracle for me? Or you know manifest yourself as a physical entity in any way, shape, or form, so we can validate your existence with something besides an old book written by primitive goat herders?



Don't you guys get it? We honestly don't care if you believe.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You forgot the most important part - Ignore all contradicting evidence!


Where's the contradicting evidence? I don't feel like reading all the other pages to find the evidence.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Don't you guys get it? We honestly don't care if you believe.


What is the name of this thread? And what activities and discussion do you think should take place here, based upon the title of the thread?


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Im scraping resin today. Saving up for something special.


Do you know what resin is? It is basically everything but the thc. When you burn weed you burn everything and are affected by everything not just the thc (the good) part. Ever vaporized? Different high right? that's because your not burning and inhaling all the nasty stuff. 

Smoking resin is like doing the opposite. you get the tars and carcinogens etc, but very little if any thc. Some people like to think resin is stronger than weed. Well in a way it is it's like smoking the nasties from a whole bag in one hit.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> What is the name of this thread? And what activities and discussion do you think should take place here, based upon the title of the thread?


Well I don't even know why people are replying to this thread still. I'm just here to screw around for a little while.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Well I don't even know why people are replying to this thread still. I'm just here to screw around for a little while.


So you decided to pipe in, share with us whatever it is you thought you had to say, but want to remind people you disagree with that "[you] don't care what _ think?"

That's the most Christian thing done in here all day... 

Lemmie tell you how you're wrong, than tell you to shut up..._


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> So you decided to pipe in, share with us whatever it is you thought you had to say, but want to remind people you disagree with that "[you] don't care what _ think?"
> 
> That's the most Christian thing done in here all day...
> 
> Lemmie tell you how you're wrong, than tell you to shut up..._


_

No no I agree that I don't care what you think. It's not I disagree with I don't care what you think. 
Alright so what am I doing wrong? And how is this Christian?_


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> No no I agree that I don't care what you think. It's not I disagree with I don't care what you think.
> Alright so what am I doing wrong? And how is this Christian?


Sorry for the confusion, that was incredibly poorly written....

It was more about the entire overtone that the "christian side" has been taking over these last... 30? pages? "Lemmie tell you how you're wrong, then tell you to shut up."

Not to mention, you comment about how you don't care if we believe, yet you always have something to say....


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Sorry for the confusion, that was incredibly poorly written....
> 
> It was more about the entire overtone that the "christian side" has been taking over these last... 30? pages? "Lemmie tell you how you're wrong, then tell you to shut up."
> 
> Not to mention, you comment about how you don't care if we believe, yet you always have something to say....


Ahh I get it now, ehh I think I destroyed this little battle everyone had going on here. .
Now we can have fun living here on earth.


----------



## gfreeman (Sep 22, 2011)

beefbiscuit.
i would appreciate you accepting that the christian religion is a load of poppycock. 
oh you do>?
nvrmind carry on.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Don't think I overlooked your misguided discrepancy cannabineer. I will forgive it as it is your first offense.


I actually agree with him here also, while still minding your insight of this as well. I think the disagreement comes at the cost of one describing necessity for reproduction while the other is pleasure. 

So the question then becomes if the mouth, boobs, derriere, are unneccessary for reproduction but plays a significant role in attraction to procreation. What is the reasoning for the anus being an erogenous zone between both genders as well? If there is any, and maybe I just don't quiet understand. 

Sorry for getting off topic..



Hepheastus420 said:


> Well I don't even know why people are replying to this thread still. I'm just here to screw around for a little while.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I actually agree with him here also, while still minding your insight of this as well. I think the disagreement comes at the cost of one describing necessity for reproduction while the other is pleasure.
> 
> So the question then becomes if the mouth, boobs, derriere, are unneccessary for reproduction but plays a significant role in attraction to procreation. What is the reasoning for the anus being an erogenous zone between both genders as well? If there is any, and maybe I just don't quiet understand.
> 
> Sorry for getting off topic..


Ha is that your new sig? Wait, it is. I just couldn't tell if there was a crazy double quote where you can put one on top and one on the bottom.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

It is certainly weird that peeing, pooping, and fucking all take place within 2 inches of each other. lol

What a hotspot!


----------



## Brazko (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Ha is that your new sig?


No, but it does look pretty good, huh? It actually resonates with me a little.

It did pass my mind as I posted it, so I may have to go forth with it for a while..


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

My goodness, I think I may have just convinced myself that god exists...

Only a designer could make pissing, shitting, and fucking all happen in such a small area.... if that doesn't spell out DESIGN I don't know what does....


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Brazko said:


> No, but it does look pretty good, huh? It actually resonates with me a little.
> 
> It did pass my mind as I posted it, so I may have to go forth with it for a while..


 It's cool, I don't mind. 
That's pretty much what I do with the religious section now, I don't take it seriously now.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> My goodness, I think I may have just convinced myself that god exists...
> 
> Only a designer could make pissing, shitting, and fucking all happen in such a small area.... if that doesn't spell out DESIGN I don't know what does....


And with every case there lies a Big Sigh of Relief..lol


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Where's the contradicting evidence? I don't feel like reading all the other pages to find the evidence.


That's a shame. I left a response to you back there (in good fun; not hostile) which I thought wasn't at all bad. What can I say; I'm just a colossal Like slut. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> That's a shame. I left a response to you back there (in good fun; not hostile) which I thought wasn't at all bad. What can I say; I'm just a colossal Like slut.
> cheers 'neer


On what page? I didn't even see it ha.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> It's cool, I don't mind.
> That's pretty much what I do with the religious section now, I don't take it seriously now.


"The Force is Strong with This One"


----------



## Brazko (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> On what page? I didn't even see it ha.


Well don't go searching now you might lose your spot 20 pages later...hahahaha


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I actually agree with him here also, while still minding your insight of this as well. I think the disagreement comes at the cost of one describing necessity for reproduction while the other is pleasure.
> 
> So the question then becomes if the mouth, boobs, derriere, are unneccessary for reproduction but plays a significant role in attraction to procreation. What is the reasoning for the anus being an erogenous zone between both genders as well? If there is any, and maybe I just don't quiet understand.
> 
> Sorry for getting off topic..


THANK you Brazko. While I don't pretend to be always guided andor crepant , I'm wondering how or why Heisenberg thinks I'm wrong. I don't think i can be compared to a relentless geological force.

Heis, ppppplease don't turn me into Yosemite!! The price of beauty would be too great. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Well don't go searching now you might lose your spot 20 pages later...hahahaha


Yeah I left a pretty cool metaphor but I can't find it, ehh oh well. 
A couple pages ago I refreshed the page and left for a couple of seconds and they already filled up 3 pages, insane man.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> It is certainly weird that peeing, pooping, and fucking all take place within 2 inches of each other. lol
> 
> What a hotspot!


 I have heard that fact used to support the assertion that God must be a civil engineer.
cheers 'neer


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> On what page? I didn't even see it ha.


'twas post 768. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Well then fer grief's sake do a better job.  This is like watching penguins play foosball.
> cheers 'neer.


Hilarious man, ahh I can never rep you. I have to "spread my rep".


----------



## gfreeman (Sep 22, 2011)

ahahahahahahah


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...chopra? Is that all you can provide in my absence? Wow, I am thoroughly disappointed.

Though I am not a fan of Chopra has helped many people overcome obstacles. It doesn't matter if he is scientific or not. Depth psychology does use scientific terms to describe the human condition, and it makes no bones about this. It's the integral part of it. Chopra being 'schooled' means that he is creator and created - the teacher and the taught. It seems that here no one is willing to learn because they already 'know'. If a proper theory came about would you accept it? Or would you, by habit or by ego-binding, not accept it. Can you say that a God exists if it is proven? Somehow I don't hold a lot of faith in that possibility.

Finding like-minded people?...perhaps there should be some pom-poms here for you to shake at each other at appropriate moments... since it is in fact hard to clap with one hand you might be successful at being cheerleaders.

How many live at home?

Have you found yourself? Experience is paramount to 'real' criticism.

Jibber?

"To get the viewpoint of the other person appreciatively and profoundly and reconcile it with his own so far as possible is the supreme achievement of man and his highest vocation.
Henry Nelson Wieman

Wieman was instrumental in shaping thinking about Religious Naturalism. In 1963 he wrote, "It is impossible to gain knowledge of the total cosmos or to have any understanding of the infinity transcending the cosmos. Consequently, beliefs about these matters are illusions, cherished for their utility in producing desired states of mind. . . . Nothing can transform man unless it operates in human life. Therefore, in human life, in the actual processes of human existence, must be found the saving and transforming power which religious inquiry seeks and which faith must apprehend." [1]
In 1971 - "How can we interpret what operates in human existence to create, sustain, save and transform toward the greatest good, so that scientific research and scientific technology can be applied to searching out and providing the conditions - physical, biological, psychological and social - which must be present for its most effective operation? This operative presence in human existence can be called God..." [2] In this statement he is redefining God in a way that some Religious Naturalists would latch on to.
His was a naturalistic worldview, and as it was religious, a form of neo-theistic Religious Naturalism. For Wieman, God was a natural process or entity and not supernatural. This God was an object of sensuous experience. His God concept was similar to The All concept of Spinoza and theistic sectors of classical Pantheism and modern neo-Pantheism[3] but with a liberal Christian tone to it. He had been ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1912 but in 1949 while teaching at theUniversity of Oregon became a member of the Unitarian Church. Nevertheless, he was at the extreme edge of Christian modernism, critical of 20th Century supernaturalism and neo-orthodoxy.
Wieman helped start Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science which was prompted by discussions at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. Six days after his death in 1975, he was awarded the Unitarian Universalist Association Award for Distinguished Service to the Cause of Liberal Religion."


Just one more quote:

Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of everything. Simply trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions runs into fundamental difficulties since the resulting theory is not renormalizable. Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics. Some theoretical physicists currently believe that a quantum theory of general relativity may require frameworks other than field theory itself, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. Some models in string theory that are promising by way of realizing our familiar standard model are the perturbative heterotic string models, 11-dimensional M-theory, Singular geometries (e.g. orbifold and orientifold), D-branes and other branes, flux compactification and warped geometry,non-perturbative type IIB superstring solutions (F-theory).[2]


So, where are your dissertations? Can I see them please? What have you done to move humanity forward? You're nowhere near what chopra has done, for better or for worse. Regardless if I read him or not, he's done more than you and you are creating a likeness of him in me. Thank you.

Ridicule is a factor in moving theory forward, so thanks yet again.

Without the 'speculators' you'd have nothing to try and discover. I should add also that 'pure' scientific theory ALWAYS has holes that your community assumes will be filled by reincarnation. Good luck with that. Pauli won't be back, and I doubt any of you can forward his theories. Speaking of theories, does any of you have one of your own to share instead of sitting here taking the piss out of people?

I started out in this tread in a respectful mode, but that was as one-sided as your thinking.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2011)

Marl, you wanted a way to communicate without the typing? Here ya go, although I doubt you can handle it as it is a moderated discussion and bullshit won't fly. 
http://www.stickam.com/group/debatefaith


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

^^^ to much man, to much.



(eye exaggerate)


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...that's fair. Sht happens.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye, a key component of respect is to take your interlocutor's requests seriosuly. I asked you to define terms for some of your assertions, and you did a shadow dance. We cannot reason together if you spurn efforts at defining common/neutral ground. It's a necessary early step in building meaningful discourse.

For memory's sake, I will repeat my earliest question to you. You memntioned a two-thousand-year cycle. What is this cycle? Are you willing to give me a definite reply? Do you have links to references that describe it and how it can be observed/confirmed/falsified?
cheers 'neer


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...yes. But if I move into maya will you stay with me? The cycle was known as God's cycle, the big gear. I do not purposely shadow dance. We are the small gear. The earth's wobble makes it's way around and a new God image is formed.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...krishna, buddha, christ... and the next. this is what I am saying.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

kekekekkeke


mindphuk said:


> Marl, you wanted a way to communicate without the typing? Here ya go, although I doubt you can handle it as it is a moderated discussion and bullshit won't fly.
> http://www.stickam.com/group/debatefaith


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...and no, I do not believe in the 2012 bs that's all over the place. This stuff happens INSIDE.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I do apologize if that was disrespectful. I am enjoying this discussion to the best of my ability.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...God is a transforming God. To my mind, this is evolution.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...yes. But if I move into maya will you stay with me? The cycle was known as God's cycle, the big gear. I do not purposely shadow dance. We are the small gear. The earth's wobble makes it's way around and a new God image is formed.


 I confess ignorance.
Link so I might study?
One of my issues is ... i am a very literal verbal person. I find metaphors useful, but when talking about epistemological topics like this I find less metaphor to be better. 
Can you break the large/small gear metaphor down into something more literal, as a favor to me? Tia ...
cheers 'neer


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

La La La La La


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...neer, I'll go and grab some 'stuff'. I am an artist and writer, I live in metaphor and it's hard to 'get out'. I'm really trying here.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> View attachment 1801230 La La La La La


You're right!
cheers 'neer


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...raw, agreed. Much as Jung said "I hope I never become a Jungian", I feel that Christ would have said "I hope I never become a Christian"...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...chopra? Is that all you can provide in my absence? Wow, I am thoroughly disappointed.
> 
> Though I am not a fan of Chopra has helped many people overcome obstacles. It doesn't matter if he is scientific or not.


It does matter if it's scientific if he's making scientific claims to know how the universe and things within it work..... which he is. Perhaps you should watch the debate in its entirety....




> ... since it is in fact hard to clap with one hand you might be successful at being cheerleaders.


I can clap with one hand actually... my friend taught me how to do it, although I will be the first to admit, it does look kind of funny.



> How many live at home?


Not me... I'm living with my gf while I finish up university...



> Have you found yourself? Experience is paramount to 'real' criticism.


I've had profound experiences, if that's what you mean.... "finding yourself is an abstract term, that doesn't really mean anything....




> Wieman was instrumental in shaping thinking about Religious Naturalism. In 1963 he wrote, "It is impossible to gain knowledge of the total cosmos or to have any understanding of the infinity transcending the cosmos. Consequently, beliefs about these matters are illusions, cherished for their utility in producing desired states of mind. . . . Nothing can transform man unless it operates in human life. Therefore, in human life, in the actual processes of human existence, must be found the saving and transforming power which religious inquiry seeks and which faith must apprehend."




A great quote, and I won't pretend to know much about the fellow, but he's just one man... I can give you some quotes too, if you'd like....

"But we don't yet know wherther the Universe is open or closed. More than that, there are a few astronomers who doubt that the redshift of distant galaxies is due to the doppler effect, who are skeptical of the expanding Universe and the Big Bang. Perhaps our descendants will regard our present ignorance with as much sympathy as we feel to the ancients for not knowing the Earth went around the Sun. If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding Universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created, how did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question, where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed? There is no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, questions that were once treated only in religion and myth." - Carl Sagan




> In 1971 - "How can we interpret what operates in human existence to create, sustain, save and transform toward the greatest good, so that scientific research and scientific technology can be applied to searching out and providing the conditions - physical, biological, psychological and social - which must be present for its most effective operation? This operative presence in human existence can be called God..." [2] In this statement he is redefining God in a way that some Religious Naturalists would latch on to.
> His was a naturalistic worldview, and as it was religious, a form of neo-theistic Religious Naturalism. For Wieman, God was a natural process or entity and not supernatural. This God was an object of sensuous experience. His God concept was similar to The All concept of Spinoza and theistic sectors of classical Pantheism and modern neo-Pantheism[3] but with a liberal Christian tone to it. He had been ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1912 but in 1949 while teaching at the University of Oregon became a member of the Unitarian Church. Nevertheless, he was at the extreme edge of Christian modernism, critical of 20th Century supernaturalism and neo-orthodoxy.


Pantheism, while more probable than mono, or polytheism, still doesn't really explain anything.... There's a million versions of pantheism, and you can pick your flavour - but you still need faith, or a lack of a justified reason, to believe in it.



> Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of everything. Simply trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions runs into fundamental difficulties since the resulting theory is not renormalizable. Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics. Some theoretical physicists currently believe that a quantum theory of general relativity may require frameworks other than field theory itself, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. Some models in string theory that are promising by way of realizing our familiar standard model are the perturbative heterotic string models, 11-dimensional M-theory, Singular geometries (e.g. orbifold and orientifold), D-branes and other branes, flux compactification and warped geometry,non-perturbative type IIB superstring solutions (F-theory).[2]


Not really sure how this relates to god per say, but the mystery of gravity is definitely that - a mystery. I always wondered, if the sun just instantly disappeared would it take gravitons 7 minutes (like light) to stop holding us in orbit, or would we just shoot off into space the instant it disapeared...




> So, where are your dissertations? Can I see them please? What have you done to move humanity forward? You're nowhere near what chopra has done, for better or for worse. Regardless if I read him or not, he's done more than you and you are creating a likeness of him in me. Thank you.


You may not see them, because they don't exist yet. 

To move humanity forward? Jeez, that's a tough one - I'm a volunteer, and I give blood... I guess really that's about it, but I can tell you something I don't do. I don't use my position of power (mainly because I don't have one lol) to knowingly tell people lies to try to get them to feel better about themselves. I don't knowingly misuse scientific lingo, and terminology to try and convince people that my philosophies are real. I also don't offer spiritual guidance at $1000/hour (those diamond reading glasses won't pay for themselves, will they Deepak...) I consider those actions immoral.



> Ridicule is a factor in moving theory forward, so thanks yet again.


I actually agree with you, and you're welcome. 




> Without the 'speculators' you'd have nothing to try and discover. I should add also that 'pure' scientific theory ALWAYS has holes that your community assumes will be filled by reincarnation.


Citation? Never heard this before? And the majority of scientists are overwhelmingly agnostic, or atheist....




> I started out in this tread in a respectful mode, but that was as one-sided as your thinking.


Sorry, but it's hard to see the merit in your previous posts - they were full of nonsensical scientific jargon, that didn't really relate to what we were talking about... at least from what I remember, but I'm pretty high right now....


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Actually.. I am a Believer !


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...neer, I'll go and grab some 'stuff'. I am an artist and writer, I live in metaphor and it's hard to 'get out'. I'm really trying here.


 
No worries no hurries, eye. I do have an artistic side as well. However I consider metaphor like a nutrient, like nitrogen for planties. Not enough ... leaves yellow and die. Too much ... leaves you-get-it. 
To me, the postmodern movement in the humanities is a classic example of metaphor allowed to run unchecked. Anchorless subjectivity ... when a scholar seriously tries to position Einstein's theory as an example of phallocentric thought in a patriarchal narrative, I stop listening. Not saying you do that ... it's a comment on the limits and dangers of thinking entirely in metaphors. 

cheers 'neer


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I am a believer that does not believe in the current doctrines. Christ is inside, raw.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I am a believer that does not believe in the current doctrines. Christ is inside, raw.


See, I just don't understand WHY you believe in Christ in the first place...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...chopra is talking about the inner-verse, if I can put it that way.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...because Christ is an energy. That's why I believe. He was a man who was 'energized'. If not, why are 'we' still arguing about him? Real or not, he's made the mold for the last 2000 years.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...chopra is talking about the inner-verse, if I can put it that way.


What does that even mean? To me, you might as well be saying never-never land... what is an inner-verse? A universe inside you? How do you know an inner-verse exists, can I see it? How can we test and attempt to falsify this claim?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

There was a Star Trek TNG episode in which Picard &co. handled a tense first-contact situation with a species whose members communicated entirely by metaphor. That episode bugged me ... it seemed like complete horse poo. The thing about metaphors is - they are a code, a compact way of communicating something literal. How did the young of that species learn the metaphor code?? The premise of the show (to psycholinguistics) was the equivalent to floating in midair without support or applied force (to kinematics). 
cheers 'neer


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...or sarcophagus, if you want to see it that way...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...an 'inner-verse' would be described as the world inside which consists of archetypes. We all share the same experience 'coated' with our perception.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...are you hollow? Map the planets and you'll find how they correspond to internal organs. In physical terms, that is real.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...going to visit a buddy with my new v-tower... I'm not 'running', just going to get 'happy'.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...because Christ is an energy. That's why I believe. He was a man who was 'energized'. If not, why are 'we' still arguing about him? Real or not, he's made the mold for the last 2000 years.


He made the mold because of 1000+ years of murder in his name. Spanish Inquisition? The crusades? People were given the choice to convert or be butchered.... Native Americans had a completely shamanistic society, and something as simple as white men being able to predict things like a solar eclipse was absolutely revolutionary, so many of them converted! How could they not? It seemed they could control nature....

If god wanted everyone to know about Jesus, why do unheard of tribes in S.A. still not know about him? Is god that inept at getting the word out, that 2000 years later people still don't know? lol 

You say Christ is energy, but how do you know? You weren't there, you didn't see anything happen, for all you know the bible is as truthful as a 2000 year old Dr. Seuss book....


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I AGREE WITH YOU!!

But, I am not an inquisitor.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...or sarcophagus, if you want to see it that way...



So, you're claiming that a totally unverifiable thing is true, and somehow you know this...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 22, 2011)

...I am partly native, and believe in shamanism. Europe fkd that up.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I am partly native, and believe in shamanism. Europe fkd that up.


Yeah, the benevolence of Christ came with a sword at the throat...

I'm not saying Native religion is any more true than Christianity, just that they were fine for damn near 2000 years without Christ.... 

What is it specifically about Jesus that makes you believe in that doctrine?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...are you hollow? Map the planets and you'll find how they correspond to internal organs. In physical terms, that is real.


 As an avid amateur astronomer, I am very familiar with the planets and their dispositions. I have never heard of correspondence to human viscera. Citation/link? Please?
cheers 'neer


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> As an avid amateur astronomer, I am very familiar with the planets and their dispositions. I have never heard of correspondence to human viscera. Citation/link? Please?
> cheers 'neer


Even at best I'd claim it as correlation, not causation...


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Even at best I'd claim it as correlation, not causation...


 Right. I think of correspondence/correlation as "pattern matching". I'm familiar with the patterns of both planets and guts. I don't have a clue, either scientific or artistic, how they align. I'm not worried about causation here ... more about finding common terms for me right now.

cheers 'neer

<edit> Current disposition (map) of the planets


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Right. I think of correspondence/correlation as "pattern matching". I'm familiar with the patterns of both planets and guts. I don't have a clue, either scientific or artistic, how they align. I'm not worried about causation here ... more about finding common terms for me right now.
> 
> cheers 'neer
> 
> <edit> Current disposition (map) of the planets


Ahh, ok. I gotcha.

I'm really curious to see what eye has to say about the planets and organs!


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Ahh, ok. I gotcha.
> 
> I'm really curious to see what eye has to say about the planets and organs!


I just hope that it isn't metaphor wrapped in metaphor. i want the creamy center!!
cn
[video=youtube;LZ0epRjfGLw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0epRjfGLw[/video]


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Sep 22, 2011)

lol! bah! no one can really "know" what truth is either hehehe! there can only be an idea of truth...which you have acquired over the short span of your lifetime on this planet.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> lol! bah! no one can really "know" what truth is either hehehe! there can only be an idea of truth...which you have acquired over the short span of your lifetime on this planet.


Of course. Truth is a boundary condition, and the asymptote is steep. 
I generally content myself with collecting&polishing facts.
cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Zaehet Strife said:


> lol! bah! no one can really "know" what truth is either hehehe! there can only be an idea of truth...which you have acquired over the short span of your lifetime on this planet.


Yeah, but we have to have some sort of objectivity in our day to day lives, or we'd just be a bunch of solipsists lying around denying that anything exists... lol


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...because Christ is an energy. That's why I believe. He was a man who was 'energized'. If not, why are 'we' still arguing about him? Real or not, he's made the mold for the last 2000 years.


We are still arguing about him so he must have been a real god? I have not seen this mold of Jesus you speak of. I have seen people cherry-picking the best attributes and ignoring everything else and pretending it is a mold. There is absolutely no original moral thing that Jesus brought to culture. Additionally, he never spoke out against at least one thing that most in society today feel is morally wrong and that's slavery. One human owning another is wrong, even if it was done voluntarily or by contract. This is a troubling oversight for a book supposedly about how god wants us to live.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm a Christian, now let's start the cycle over again. I'm just joking, ha. Oh man I'm stoned, what're you guys doing?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...raw, agreed. Much as Jung said "I hope I never become a Jungian", I feel that Christ would have said "I hope I never become a Christian"...


So you're saying Jesus would have said I hope I never become a follower of Christ (myself).


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I'm a Christian, now let's start the cycle over again. I'm just joking, ha. Oh man I'm stoned, what're you guys doing?


I'm rockin some northern lights... it's actually not that great unfortunately... mediocre hydro at best...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I'm rockin some northern lights... it's actually not that great unfortunately... mediocre hydro at best...


Was it your own grow or did you just grab a sack, (snickering, no homo)?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Was it your own grow or did you just grab a sack, (snickering, no homo)?


Nah, my first grow is under way now - you can check my journal actually.... 4 little babies 

BC Bud Depot, "The Purps".... got 280w's of LED and 42w of CFL... doin a scrog...

None of this bud is ever leaving this house


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Nah, my first grow is under way now - you can check my journal actually.... 4 little babies
> 
> BC Bud Depot, "The Purps".... got 280w's of LED and 42w of CFL... doin a scrog...
> 
> None of this bud is ever leaving this house


Cool dude, congratulations on your first grow, ha. 
I'm gonna go check it out, .


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

If you notice earlier he mentions about how Jesus taught people about what "love" is. & what not. ^_^ It reminded me of you, Heisen & Pada slam dunking. Some actually believe Humane Morals Originated from Jesus. <3


mindphuk said:


> We are still arguing about him so he must have been a real god? I have not seen this mold of Jesus you speak of. I have seen people cherry-picking the best attributes and ignoring everything else and pretending it is a mold. There is absolutely no original moral thing that Jesus brought to culture. Additionally, he never spoke out against at least one thing that most in society today feel is morally wrong and that's slavery. One human owning another is wrong, even if it was done voluntarily or by contract. This is a troubling oversight for a book supposedly about how god wants us to live.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> If you notice earlier he mentions about how Jesus taught people about what "love" is. & what not. ^_^ It reminded me of you, Heisen & Pada slam dunking. Some actually believe Humane Morals Originated from Jesus. <3


Buddha was teaching peace and tranquillity while Jesus was still a metaphysical sperm in gods omniscient ball sack. lol


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

If you don't mind me asking, what's an Oz go for where ever you guys are?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Nah, my first grow is under way now - you can check my journal actually.... 4 little babies
> 
> BC Bud Depot, "The Purps".... got 280w's of LED and 42w of CFL... doin a scrog...
> 
> None of this bud is ever leaving this house


+ rep for first grow  peace dude.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> + rep for first grow  peace dude.


Thanks man! Much appreciated!


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> If you don't mind me asking, what's an Oz go for where ever you guys are?


I'm having supply continuity issues and down to my ... very ... last ...bowl. Argh. I'm piecing together the bits for a hydro grow, so it might be a long boring sober winter. Jheez.

<edit> Last decent 'z I got was a year ago, ~$200.
cn


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

an oz. Depends on what you want. If you want the best Grade A++ Clinic Shyt you will be forking out 400+ unless you know the guy who grew it.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

im in socal and its around 300 for an Oz of some good nugs. 350-400 for danks


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> an oz. Depends on what you want. If you want the best Grade A++ Clinic Shyt you will be forking out 400+ unless you know the guy who grew it.


GTFO... $400/oz??? That's fucking crazy man.... everyday hydro is like $150-175/oz here... AA is usually around $200 and shit that looks like it's straight out of the cannabis cup is usually no more than $220-230... obviously it just gets cheaper and cheaper the more you buy lol...


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> GTFO... $400/oz??? That's fucking crazy man.... everyday hydro is like $150-175/oz here... AA is usually around $200 and shit that looks like it's straight out of the cannabis cup is usually no more than $220-230... obviously it just gets cheaper and cheaper the more you buy lol...


Same here. central canuckistan. lol


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Same here. central canuckistan. lol


Ahhh gotta love Canada eh?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

I would put $20 bucks that your definition of Grade A is Different than Mine.  So Cal baby.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 22, 2011)

340 - 400 out here for the dank dank stuff.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> I would put $20 bucks that your definition of Grade A is Different than Mine.  So Cal baby.


the AAA here is pure madness.... I actually don't think it's hydro... Purple Urkel, Bluetooth, God Bud.... those were the last I saw.... Unfortunately, I haven't seen any AAA for probably 5 months now.... 

Had some really good hydro "ambrosia"....

There's a lot of blueberry, and m-39 around here... : \


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

I don't think I have ever bought outdoor in Canada. I don't see how indoor changes from location with the same genetics. I definitly would pay for a little more variety tho, that you def have over this area. I just have my own cross that has been on auto pilot every 8 weeks for the last few years. I can't remember the last time I bought a bag. I get just enough to last till next round every time, I smoke alot freely with friends and they trade me for some variety.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> I don't think I have ever bought outdoor in Canada. I don't see how indoor changes from location with the same genetics. I definitly would pay for a little more variety tho, that you def have over this area. I just have my own cross that has been on auto pilot every 8 weeks for the last few years. I can't remember the last time I bought a bag. I get just enough to last till next round every time, I smoke alot freely with friends and they trade me for some variety.


lol, that's exactly what I'm sayin' man... I just want enough to last me till the next crop lol


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> lol, that's exactly what I'm sayin' man... I just want enough to last me till the next crop lol


you should do a perpetual harvest


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> you should do a perpetual harvest


How exactly does that work? Just cut the buds off instead of cutting the plant down, and trim the vegetation down to keep it a manageable size - switch it back to 18/6 for a period of time and re-flower?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

Nah just grow different plants @ different ages. Example, would be to put 1 plant into bloom every two weeks, 8-10 weeks later you would be harvesting a plant every two weeks.


Beefbisquit said:


> How exactly does that work? Just cut the buds off instead of cutting the plant down, and trim the vegetation down to keep it a manageable size - switch it back to 18/6 for a period of time and re-flower?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Nah just grow different plants @ different ages. Example, would be to put 1 plant into bloom every two weeks, 8-10 weeks later you would be harvesting a plant every two weeks.


Ohhhhh..... yeah, I don't have the room for that... 

I'm just gonna try to grow like 250g's.... that might last me another 3 months... here's hoping...


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> you should do a perpetual harvest


Took since 2007 to get it down but now on my 8 week cycle I spend 15 mins every 4th day watering. Maybe 3 hours harvest, then same day transplant clones and take new ones also 3 hours max. So in one cycle (2months) It's only 10 hours of work! I can't call it work but attn I guess. Average 6.5 to 8 oz each time. 6 plants/6 clones One mother. 250 watt/hps cool tube cab.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 22, 2011)

1 plant per month would be good. & the waiting would not be as bad.. 30 day wait is ALOT better than a 60+


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

heehee - the thread has mutated. Prove to me there is a bud? 
cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Took since 2007 to get it down but now on my 8 week cycle I spend 15 mins every 4th day watering. Maybe 3 hours harvest, then same day transplant clones and take new ones also 3 hours max. So in one cycle (2months) It's only 10 hours of work! I can't call it work but attn I guess. Average 6.5 to 8 oz each time. 6 plants/6 clones One mother. 250 watt/hps cool tube cab.


2 months? What strain are you using, and how long do you veg and flower for? lol


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> How exactly does that work? Just cut the buds off instead of cutting the plant down, and trim the vegetation down to keep it a manageable size - switch it back to 18/6 for a period of time and re-flower?


I tried that once but it seemed the turn around time from flower to veg was nearly the same as using a decent clone.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> heehee - the thread has mutated. Prove to me there is a bud?
> cn


Yeah, we're all just high and lost our train of thought... hahaha


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2011)

no, srsly - I wanna beliiiieve! I need a miracle ... like in my mailbox. ~giggle~
cn

<edit> gonna go now and smoke my last bowl. Cry, cry for the children!


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> heehee - the thread has mutated. Prove to me there is a bud?
> cn


Kinda happens when the thiests aren't around.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> 2 months? What strain are you using, and how long do you veg and flower for? lol


I'll try to get some pics of it all. been meaning to for a while, since someone asked I will. If it's not up by sunday aft remind me plz. It a strain my brother and I crossed. Male I think was a white widow/rhino not sure the female was a Doc.greenthumb kashmir resin factory. 

2 months, everything in my cycle is 2 months including cure (sometimes a good part of it).


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Did darwin kill God? just came on the doc channel. Only a few mins in and it seems much the same as this and some of these other threads. Well maybe not, it's a thiest who is going to prove to me/us that the two can co-exist.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

beef, heres how perpetual works. lets say you have 6 plants flowering at once. instead of waiting a longass time and harvesting all at once, you can put in a few at a time. if its a 60 day strain, and you have the plants in 2 groups of 3, you will harvest every 30 days. or you can do 3 groups of 2, and harvest every 20 days. spreading it out like the latter example helps more if you have a lot of plants. so you dont have to trim many pounds at one time. oh and obviously you replace the plants with new clones or teens.

i sent you a link in your grow journal to a parabolic scrog journal


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> beef, heres how perpetual works. lets say you have 6 plants flowering at once. instead of waiting a longass time and harvesting all at once, you can put in a few at a time. if its a 60 day strain, and you have the plants in 2 groups of 3, you will harvest every 30 days. or you can do 3 groups of 2, and harvest every 20 days. spreading it out like the latter example helps more if you have a lot of plants. so you dont have to trim many pounds at one time. oh and obviously you replace the plants with new clones or teens.
> 
> i sent you a link in your grow journal to a parabolic scrog journal


There are many ways to work it. This way means diff fert levels for diff plants, cloning more often, chopin more often. The most time for me is the prep (for cloning and or watering) I'm a lazy grower.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> There are many ways to work it. This way means diff fert levels for diff plants, cloning more often, chopin more often. The most time for me is the prep (for cloning and or watering) I'm a lazy grower.


yeah man i need to setup a system thats easy like yours


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 22, 2011)

TogTokes said:


> If you need a God to give you Hope? you're messed up... I have tons of hope for our planet, and know better than to believe in Santa Claus.


 you may have to think about this for a second? Godspeed on your journey!


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

It harvest this weekend so it will be a good time to start a journal. It's nice if easy is what you want, all these diff methods have thier plus and neg. I've tried a bunch of ways, spent alot of time and loved it. Right now simple works. 
I'm a musician and sometimes I just don't feel like learning new skills or even playing for that matter but I still love listening to music. Same with growing. Right now I'm into the music tho and having a steady supply helps that. 

Ok sry. done hijackin people are talking bout god again.


----------



## thc&me (Sep 22, 2011)

Religion preaches hatred and bigotry. Case in point. The Crusades, Jew vs Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic (Ireland) and so on, and so forth. All through time, religion has caused nothing but violence. Believe in yourself. Leave God to the weak minded who fear death and need a fairy tale to make themselves feel important. And to all you bible thumpers out there. Stop pushing your religious crap on children and brainwashing society. You can be a good person without god.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Ok sry. done hijackin people are talking bout god again.


Check this out I have a friend in cali and he tells me about his marijuana laws.
He is allowed to have 6 mature, and 12 unmature.

So your flowering 6 right(completely mature and ready to harvest)? then you move 6 unmature into the flowering room, and you now have 6 mature, 6 unmature, and then 6 sprouts/clones(hint hint the only number that Jesus hates).

What do you think about that? In california they are making pot represent the peice of shit devil?

You trust your government? I don't, I want to move out of california and maybe to canada or somewhere else. 
Besides USA is the most broke country in the the world, who wants to stay right??


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

thc&me said:


> Religion preaches hatred and bigotry. Case in point. The Crusades, Jew vs Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic (Ireland) and so on, and so forth. All through time, religion has caused nothing but violence. Believe in yourself. Leave God to the weak minded who fear death and need a fairy tale to make themselves feel important. And to all you bible thumpers out there. Stop pushing your religious crap on children and brainwashing society. You can be a good person without god.


 The bible says to hate death and to love life, Imo I want to embrace it and accept it. I don't fear anything but loving death(at the time it comes) and what God will do to me for each and every sin. I honestly hate death, corpses, and other rotting smells.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Do you know what resin is? It is basically everything but the thc. When you burn weed you burn everything and are affected by everything not just the thc (the good) part. Ever vaporized? Different high right? that's because your not burning and inhaling all the nasty stuff.
> 
> Smoking resin is like doing the opposite. you get the tars and carcinogens etc, but very little if any thc. Some people like to think resin is stronger than weed. Well in a way it is it's like smoking the nasties from a whole bag in one hit.


I getcha, I don't smoke more then a bowl of resin after every 5-6grams and I smoke it out of a bong(water filtered). Im not to worried about it since weed cures cancer anyways...

Resin is a completely different high, I would def say its more concentrated then weed...But thats only because it burns as slow as a big chunk of hash.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I getcha, I don't smoke more then a bowl of resin after every 5-6grams and I smoke it out of a bong(water filtered). Im not to worried about it since weed cures cancer anyways...
> 
> Resin is a completely different high, I would def say its more concentrated then weed...But thats only because it burns as slow as a big chunk of hash.


Actually, weed doesn't cure cancer, THC has cancer fighting properties. Resin doesn't really have much THC in it, it's basically all the waste.... The tar, and other carcinogens that you really didn't want to smoke.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Actually, weed doesn't cure cancer, THC has cancer fighting properties. Resin doesn't really have much THC in it, it's basically all the waste.... The tar, and other carcinogens that you really didn't want to smoke.


Hmm... Ill think about that next time I get 2-3x higher on resin, CBD causes couchlock, usually I feel a sativa high on resin. Thus proving that there is more THC in resin then CBD.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Check this out I have a friend in cali and he tells me about his marijuana laws.
> He is allowed to have 6 mature, and 12 unmature.
> 
> So your flowering 6 right(completely mature and ready to harvest)? then you move 6 unmature into the flowering room, and you now have 6 mature, 6 unmature, and then 6 sprouts/clones(hint hint the only number that Jesus hates).
> ...


Is this an example of religion affecting policy?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> Is this an example of religion affecting policy?


 Actually I think its am example of the devil making the USA fail above all other countrys.

I wonder if our government worhsipped Jesus, what the US would be like.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Check this out I have a friend in cali and he tells me about his marijuana laws.
> He is allowed to have 6 mature, and 12 unmature.
> 
> So your flowering 6 right(completely mature and ready to harvest)? then you move 6 unmature into the flowering room, and you now have 6 mature, 6 unmature, and then 6 sprouts/clones(hint hint the only number that Jesus hates).
> ...


too bad thats not what the law says. that law on limitations is no longer in effect.
but when it was, the limit was 6 flowering *OR* 12 immature. they did this so you can plant 12 seeds, and if half turn out male, you can still get a full harvest.
and if you had 6 flowering and one clone, they could technically arrest you. but i doubt they would.

and we are far from being the most broke country


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> too bad thats not what the law says. that law on limitations is no longer in effect.
> but when it was, the limit was 6 flowering *OR* 12 immature. they did this so you can plant 12 seeds, and if half turn out male, you can still get a full harvest.


 ohh ok. for sure... I thought it said "*and/or*," not just *or*. 

"and/or," is an other trick im sure set up by the government to trick those who follow laws into being more oppressed then those who break laws.


----------



## thc&me (Sep 22, 2011)

God created man in his likeness? OK. He must have been one really screwed up son of a bitch. It's far more likely that man created god to suit his own need for power, wealth and superiority. Why can't people just preach forgiveness, kindness, honor, and accountability without all the corruption that is religion. Beware the wrath of god. OK. I'll be sure to steer clear of all those religious hypocrites.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Hmm... Ill think about that next time I get 2-3x higher on resin, CBD causes couchlock, usually I feel a sativa high on resin. Thus proving that there is more THC in resin then CBD.


you dont know what proof is, do you?


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 22, 2011)

So I take that as a yes? athiests don't belive in the devil.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Actually I think its am example of the devil making the USA fail above all other countrys.
> 
> I wonder if our government worhsipped Jesus, what the US would be like.


what other country has more christians than the US?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 22, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> you dont know what proof is, do you?


 Proof is evidence. (ex, is the the picture of your girlfriend fucking an other man, or the smell of an other man on her or even the look in her eyes that shows you that she is lying)
Remember when I said only you know how you feel? I said that you can't prove anything that you feel.

As I do keep an open mind, I realize that THC makes you hungry. next time you smoke resin check if you get the munchies or if you feel like you just smoked a cig(cigs usually help you fight food cravings(again we all know drugs effect everyones mind differently, but then again certain drugs are for certian illnesses)).


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 22, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> ohh ok. for sure... I thought it said "*and/or*," not just *or*.
> 
> "and/or," is an other trick im sure set up by the government to trick those who follow laws into being more oppressed then those who break laws.


actually the term 'and/or' is more including than just 'or'. do you have more choice when you have the choice between "apples and/or bananas", or "apples or bananas"?
or in the case of this law, "6 mature and/or 12 immature" or "6 mature or 12 immature".


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

I want some AK47 and/or some Master kush.

Of course I want both! But ill be fine with either one or both.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

I hope you guys are learning at least. means less stupid people in the world 

Loled irl


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 23, 2011)

and or more smarter people.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> and or more smarter people.


 What is everyone who is an anti-christ doing with their intelligence on this thread to be specific?

Ill answer it for you: their pretending that their not smart. So that they will have an opportunity to deceive me and everyone else. 
So does that mean that they set a example of their stupid self for others who are learning too? Making someone stupider for following a stupid example.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Sep 23, 2011)

Damn, this thread is still alive? I unsubscribed long time ago, I thought this was a whole new same kind of thread again.

Well, since I'm here, have any of you come up with any conclusions? Is there a god? No? 

Resubscribed.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

"In my opinion it depends who you smoke with. If you smoke with someone stupid the pot is going to trick your brain into thinking that your actually spending more time with that person, making undesirable traits specifically that of the retarded user apearing in the non retarded user.
Its harder to get rid of retarded traits then it is to catch em.

Don't smoke yourself retarded with retarded friends. Smoke yourself retarded with smart friends and they might just teach you something." 
-A quote from myself (Marlboro47) posted on (*Link>*) https://www.rollitup.org/stonable-quotables/417201-smoke-yourself-retard-2.html (*<Link*)


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 23, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> Damn, this thread is still alive? I unsubscribed long time ago, I thought this was a whole new same kind of thread again.
> 
> Well, since I'm here, have any of you come up with any conclusions? Is there a god? No?
> 
> Resubscribed.


Quick unsubscribe again, I'm not subscribed either.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Sep 23, 2011)

Hey, it's that one guy... 

What's new with you Hepheastus420?



Hepheastus420 said:


> Quick unsubscribe again, I'm not subscribed either.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

Since I use weed to medicate, I seldomly remember anything that isn't worthy of being remembered. Thats why I love weed so much, because I can forget all the stupidity that I read or heard.

As long as I don't forget how to drive or any other motor skills(or survival techniques) then I can keep medicating.

Since I forget alot of things, I know that Jesus will understand why I smoked soo much weed. So I can stop worrying because even he knows that worrying only wastes time.


----------



## NewGrowth (Sep 23, 2011)

I agree with you on one point. Why waste your time trying to 'prove' there is no 'god'? Then you gotta harass some poor Jesus freaks to feel like a better person? An atheist might as well be a religious zealot at that point.
The alternative is to allow people to believe whatever they want!
If you would like to expand from there you're welcome to use wisdom an logical discernment to realize that everyone has something to offer if not immeadiatly dismissed . . .


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

NewGrowth said:


> I agree with you on one point. Why waste your time trying to 'prove' there is no 'god'? Then you gotta harass some poor Jesus freaks to feel like a better person? An atheist might as well be a religious zealot at that point.
> The alternative is to allow people to believe whatever they want!
> If you would like to expand from there you're welcome to use wisdom an logical discernment to realize that everyone has something to offer if not immeadiatly dismissed . . .


 Subject of this topic and OP were mainly about having to prove to you that God exists, so you can stop condemning yourself by talking crap about someone who you can't even prove doesn't exist; because I love you guys and girls.

Imo thats why the only reason why they're stupid to begin with, because they talk crap about someone who they can't prove exists or doesn't exist(with their own eyes).


----------



## NewGrowth (Sep 23, 2011)

You are absolutely correct, the existence of 'God' can not be disproven nor can it be proven. The definition of the word 'God' is actually subject to debate itself. We can only make effective aguments to disprove many religious concepts of 'God'. 
However I still believe myth is an important guidestone towards a better understanding of 'God'.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 23, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> Hey, it's that one guy...
> 
> What's new with you Hepheastus420?


What's up man? Me, nothing much watching Simpsons smoking a few bowls of nameless dank and watching the useless debates on RIU every once in a while.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Sep 23, 2011)

Sounds like a perfect evening. I smoked a bowl of this stuff a friend of mine grew, and had a few, well like 15 shots of whiskey, today was a good day.

These threads are fun sometimes, I try to limit my comments on these, it's an argument that can't be won, they are fun to watch for a while though....



Hepheastus420 said:


> What's up man? Me, nothing much watching Simpsons smoking a few bowls of nameless dank and watching the useless debates on RIU every once in a while.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> *Reality for everyone:*
> 
> Christian) God exists
> 
> ...


yes I quoted myself.

@newgrowth The definition of God isn't up for debate, read what is in red I've heard that one before too...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

Gonna go tend to my babies. I can hear them begging for 12/12, so what do you think about breathing on your plants? Do you guys think that it may reduce their stress levels?
Do you guys talking to your plants really helps?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 23, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> Sounds like a perfect evening. I smoked a bowl of this stuff a friend of mine grew, and had a few, well like 15 shots of whiskey, today was a good day.
> 
> These threads are fun sometimes, I try to limit my comments on these, it's an argument that can't be won, they are fun to watch for a while though....


Haha, a few shots, that's funny dude.
Yeah it's a pretty relaxing evening. I tend to get into these debates and like 3/4 of my posts go in the religious section. Seriously check out how many posts I have.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

*Proverbs 9:1-9:18* is *The Way of Wisdom*
*9:7* "He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself,
And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself."
*9:8* Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you;
Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.
*9:9* Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

I love 9:8, thats how I know who are the smart people. The ones that love me back.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

I reccomend reading proverbs before anything else. After proverbs read the NT. After the NT read the OT.
After you read everything, reread it again and again.

Everyone can read differently but proverbs made me alot smarter, I was able to retain more of the bible after reading proverbs.

Proverbs is explaining to you how to be smarter on earth. Since it is in the OT it doesn't mention Jesus, but it is still the smartest book I have read and probably EVER will read(Besides the words to eternal life of course which are the only words that really matter).


----------



## El Superbeasto (Sep 23, 2011)

Really?



Marlboro47 said:


> *Proverbs 9:1-9:18* is *The Way of Wisdom*
> *9:7* "He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself,
> And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself."
> *9:8* Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you;
> ...


Really??



Marlboro47 said:


> I reccomend reading proverbs before anything else. After proverbs read the NT. After the NT read the OT.
> After you read everything, reread it again and again.
> 
> Everyone can read differently but proverbs made me alot smarter, I was able to retain more of the bible after reading it.
> ...


_Come on...._


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

I love you all soo much!


----------



## El Superbeasto (Sep 23, 2011)

"Captain, we have an instant message from the Romulon Commander.' It reads: 'Surrender or be destroyed LOL.'&#8221;


----------



## NewGrowth (Sep 23, 2011)

I will re-read Proverbs if you read a book by a Christian man named Joseph Campbell. The book is called "The power of myth". If the word 'god' was not up for debate this thread would not exist. People debate the word and concept 'god' all the time . . .


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

What do you guys think about throwing your plant into 24-36hrs of darkness before 12/12?

I read like 30-40different threads and my reasoning is that 24hrs is good because it makes the plant more hormonally abundant in the homones made in flowering mode.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

NewGrowth said:


> I will re-read Proverbs if you read a book by a Christian man named Joseph Campbell. The book is called "The power of myth". If the word 'god' was not up for debate this thread would not exist. People debate the word and concept 'god' all the time . . .


Hmm I understand you, no one on earth knows everything God does, so I guess you could say that no one knows the def.
But if no one knows exactly what God does, then how is it up for debate?


----------



## NewGrowth (Sep 23, 2011)

Just flip to 12/12 any other way you are losing light hours. Less hours of light equals less yield.


----------



## El Superbeasto (Sep 23, 2011)

I do 48 hours of darkness before harvest. Seems to work for me...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 23, 2011)

Hmm... I might wait until I make clones then.

So I can have three plants of the same pheno switch one directly to 12/12 put one inside a box by itself for 24hrs in total darkness. and keep an other one in a serparate box for 48hours in total darkness.

Ill see whats up and post a guide or something cool.

Ill just go 12/12 first just because im sure the darkness is a more advance techique(I might loose yeild if I don't do it right).


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2011)

El Superbeasto said:


> "Captain, we have an instant message from the Romulon Commander.' It reads: 'Surrender or be destroyed LOL.'&#8221;


 No worries. I'll fake insanity and get some ears grafted on. Spock will seduce the hottie-in-command, and Scotty will install the gumball machine into our shields. Then we'll run like an Alaskan's nose! It'll be cake.
cn


----------



## El Superbeasto (Sep 23, 2011)

Beam me up, Scotty


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 23, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> You Lied Evil Sinner.





Marlboro47 said:


> Actually I did get up and leave the pc. I was off my chair.


Off your chair? You're off your fucking rocker...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 23, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Off your chair? You're off your fucking rocker...


Hahahahaha, + rep bro, that was funny. No offense marlboro, that's hilarious no matter who it's aimed at. If it was aimed at me I would still be crying from laughter.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

I was joking about God helping me,and the Tea.I dont believe in God.You have every right to believe in whoever or whatever you like.



Marlboro47 said:


> If you accept that there is a God, then you have to accept that he created us.
> If you accept he created us then you have to accept that you don't make descisions about what God will do for you according to your beliefs and works.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

I just believe in one God less than you.



Marlboro47 said:


> An anti-christ makes everything known to him.
> If he denys christ will 100% of his will it is the spirit of an anti-christ.
> The blood of Jesus will cleanse your whole body of evil, when you choose to cleanse yourself of all evil(if you do).
> 
> There will be a final antichrist. Ill do a couple of quotes...


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

How much do you love this God fella!!




Marlboro47 said:


> The second Epistle of John.
> *Beware of Antichrist Deceivers*
> *1:7* For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as comming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-christ.
> *1:8* Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
> ...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 23, 2011)

...my friend has now experienced the vaporizer, he is a believer.

Same here, actually... whoa. Bubblegum for breakfast? Yeap!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 23, 2011)

"We have to understand and comprehend that the fluid of the Logos is related with the seven main metals, because when we talk about the planets we always refer to the law of heptaparaparshinokh, which is the law of seven, the law that organizes. And that reminds me, or brings into my mind, the Book of Revelation; it is stated there that the lamb, which is a symbol of fire, or that fluidic energy, has seven eyes and seven horns. And it is because the Solar Christ or that fluidic energy organizes itself in this solar system, and in any solar system, through the law of seven, which are represented by the seven planets, related with the week. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, which is of course a wrong organization, because the right organization of the planets is Moon the first, Mercury the second, Venus the third, Sun the fourth, Mars the fifth, Jupiter the sixth, and Saturn the seventh. So here we find the seven metals of the earth, silver for the Moon, quicksilver for Mercury, copper for Venus, gold for the Sun, iron for Mars, tin for Jupiter and lead for Saturn. So these seven metals are, we will say, in the kingdom of metals in any planet, the seven physical vehicles, in order for that fluidic force of the Logos, of that lamb of seven eyes and seven horns, to manifest in our world, in the earth. This is how we understand and comprehend that the Logos in its septuple activity helps the evolution of every single element in the earth."


...more


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

Really enough!...I like it,but it requires too much of me right now.You know Twinkle Twinkle Little Star????




eye exaggerate said:


> "We have to understand and comprehend that the fluid of the Logos is related with the seven main metals, because when we talk about the planets we always refer to the law of heptaparaparshinokh, which is the law of seven, the law that organizes. And that reminds me, or brings into my mind, the Book of Revelation; it is stated there that the lamb, which is a symbol of fire, or that fluidic energy, has seven eyes and seven horns. And it is because the Solar Christ or that fluidic energy organizes itself in this solar system, and in any solar system, through the law of seven, which are represented by the seven planets, related with the week. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, which is of course a wrong organization, because the right organization of the planets is Moon the first, Mercury the second, Venus the third, Sun the fourth, Mars the fifth, Jupiter the sixth, and Saturn the seventh. So here we find the seven metals of the earth, silver for the Moon, quicksilver for Mercury, copper for Venus, gold for the Sun, iron for Mars, tin for Jupiter and lead for Saturn. So these seven metals are, we will say, in the kingdom of metals in any planet, the seven physical vehicles, in order for that fluidic force of the Logos, of that lamb of seven eyes and seven horns, to manifest in our world, in the earth. This is how we understand and comprehend that the Logos in its septuple activity helps the evolution of every single element in the earth."
> 
> 
> ...more


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 23, 2011)

haha  I just wanted to get a 'tidbit' out about planets. The "more..." would have happened - whenever. I'm in no rush to convince anyone, it's not even my intent.

Intent, such a great word.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

I will be reading your planet knowledge,I am actually very interested,just cant quite digest it at the mo,,And yes" intent" is a a good word.Im liking the words...Agog......Sympathise.......Liquid Metal....this week.I love words.I posted on some forum yesturday my love of words and wordmanship.I find marijuana smokers like to individualise or maybe thats not the correct word,but certainly like to use words that maybe wouldnt occur to others.....occur.....nice word.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 23, 2011)

...I like to make words up. It's not a psychotic feature of my illness, I assure you. 

Kidding, but I do like words just the same. They are fun to play with.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

Disconbobulation........real. Flouresque......fake...i think.I make words up still.Brought up in Liverpool so got my fascination from slang...i find slang Genius.. Rhyming slang,,,,boat race/face............Dog humping retard.....a person of little knowledge....etc tec cet tce cte........


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 23, 2011)

recombination...

shampoo...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 23, 2011)

...slang is total genius. It's what got us to where we are.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

http://youtu.be/qqGKmLi4h4I Talking about planets and the seven by seven angle,heres one of my favourite bands songs.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

http://youtu.be/nTi5lQRKFZk Im giving you another song cos the other ones bad quality....Very spacey hawkwind...you know em??


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

Think shampoo might be an indian word???havent a clue why and havent the brain capacity to look it up.....jodhpur....defo Indian........I might be thinking Indian because i had indian food before????....Oh golly very sorry nearly forgotten Buddy Holly.............thats the kinda shit i come up with...more stoned.......more opaque renditions of wordery..




eye exaggerate said:


> recombination...
> 
> shampoo...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 23, 2011)

...don't know em, but thanks man. That's intense!

you are what you eat. Or, you project what chemicals you've ingested to a blank canvas of a world.


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 23, 2011)

I like that.I do hope i dont project all the chemicals ive injested onto the worlds blank canvas......it would no longer be blank...it would be absurd!!
Have you read The Prophet by Kahlil Gibram???Hes got the words down.I feel embarassed to even quote them.
Its late in Asia my friend so im off.nice chatting..chat again soon....Onwards and Upwards....B.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 23, 2011)

Thanks man. "death of a prophet??"


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 23, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> "In my opinion it depends who you smoke with. If you smoke with someone stupid the pot is going to trick your brain into thinking that your actually spending more time with that person, making undesirable traits specifically that of the retarded user apearing in the non retarded user.
> Its harder to get rid of retarded traits then it is to catch em.
> 
> Don't smoke yourself retarded with retarded friends. Smoke yourself retarded with smart friends and they might just teach you something."
> -A quote from myself (Marlboro47) posted on (*Link>*) https://www.rollitup.org/stonable-quotables/417201-smoke-yourself-retard-2.html (*<Link*)


LOL, I'm glad you're not a developmental psychologist....


----------



## tardis (Sep 24, 2011)

I believe there both IS and ISN'T a God at the same time. Discuss.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 24, 2011)

tardis said:


> I believe there both IS and ISN'T a God at the same time. Discuss.


Blowing my mind man.


----------



## tardis (Sep 24, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Blowing my mind man.


Is the fact that God does both exist and not exist truely make him omnipotent or does it limit him from being a true God?


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 24, 2011)

Was god a bounty hunter?


----------



## buddha webb (Sep 24, 2011)

Sorry dog,i forgot.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

tardis said:


> Is the fact that God does both exist and not exist truely make him omnipotent or does it limit him from being a true God?


"In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the so-called three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is"

God either exists or doesn't exist, if you say he both exists and does not exist, I'm going to have to ask for some sort of example of to understand what you mean, because at this point I'm going to have to say that's complete bullshit.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 24, 2011)

tardis said:


> I believe there both IS and ISN'T a God at the same time. Discuss.




...The uncreated and the created - which to me looks something like the relationship we have with our parents. They created us, we didn't create them.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...The uncreated and the created - which to me looks something like the relationship we have with our parents. They created us, we didn't create them.


WTF dude... The uncreated and the created? You mean, the uncreated god, and the created god? If god was once uncreated, then who created god? And if god was always here, isn't it more plausible to exclude god from the equation altogether and just say the universe was always here? It certainly works with Occam's razor...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

Eye, I'm not trying to be a dick - seriously, I'm not, but can you answer a question for once without using metaphors and flowery language that hides the real meaning of what you're saying? 

How about a concise, accurate answer that fully describes the full thought process involved with your answer, not a vague 1/2 sentence that doesn't actually explain anything? 

Again, not trying to be a dick - it's great that you respond at all!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 24, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Eye, I'm not trying to be a dick - seriously, I'm not, but can you answer a question for once without using metaphors and flowery language that hides the real meaning of what you're saying?
> 
> How about a concise, accurate answer that fully describes the full thought process involved with your answer, not a vague 1/2 sentence that doesn't actually explain anything?
> 
> Again, not trying to be a dick - it's great that you respond at all!




...throwing darts at a bubble that isn't there seems a little metaphysical to me.

Ease up a bit with the wtf's... it's early


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 24, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Eye, I'm not trying to be a dick - seriously, I'm not, but can you answer a question for once without using metaphors and flowery language that hides the real meaning of what you're saying?
> 
> How about a concise, accurate answer that fully describes the full thought process involved with your answer, not a vague 1/2 sentence that doesn't actually explain anything?
> 
> Again, not trying to be a dick - it's great that you respond at all!




...just read this. Sorry bout that.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...throwing darts at a bubble that isn't there seems a little metaphysical to me.
> 
> Ease up a bit with the wtf's... it's early


For the record, that was a "what the frig" lol - the slightly less confrontational version of W.T.F... lol


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 24, 2011)

god exists in the minds of the religious. but he does not exist in reality. therefore, he both exists and does not exist at the same time


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> god exists in the minds of the religious. but he does not exist in reality. therefore, he both exists and does not exist at the same time


[video=youtube;zCVlmhZgubU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCVlmhZgubU&t=5s[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 24, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> god exists in the minds of the religious. but he does not exist in reality. therefore, he both exists and does not exist at the same time


 That right there is an example of equivocation fallacy. You are changing the definition of exist to apply to two different circumstances. 

Oh, sorry, I thought we were still playing Heis's game.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> That right there is an example of equivocation fallacy. You are changing the definition of exist to apply to two different circumstances.
> 
> Oh, sorry, I thought we were still playing Heis's game.


Something cannot be both A, and not A at the same time, in the same sense.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 24, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> That right there is an example of equivocation fallacy. You are changing the definition of exist to apply to two different circumstances.
> 
> Oh, sorry, I thought we were still playing Heis's game.


good catch. i was half joking anyways


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 24, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> For the record, that was a "what the frig" lol - the slightly less confrontational version of W.T.F... lol



Cool, lol... thanks.


----------



## tardis (Sep 24, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Something cannot be both A, and not A at the same time, in the same sense.


sure it can. THink of an image of a car in your head. That both IS and IS NOT a car.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 24, 2011)

tardis said:


> sure it can. THink of an image of a car in your head. That both IS and IS NOT a car.


It is an (image) of a car this is the car isn't.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

tardis said:


> sure it can. THink of an image of a car in your head. That both IS and IS NOT a car.


The new Pontiac 'Is Not'. It's the best car you'll ever own, yet you can tell your friends it is not.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

tardis said:


> sure it can. THink of an image of a car in your head. That both IS and IS NOT a car.


No it's not in the same sense. One is a thought, and the other is physical - they do not share all the same properties, therefore they cannot be the same thing. See Leibniz' Law, or the identity of indiscernibles, or the indiscernibility of identicals - it's one of those, I always get them mixed up... lol

That doesn't violate "Something cannot be both A, and not A at the same time, in the same sense."


----------



## tardis (Sep 24, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> No it's not in the same sense. One is a thought, and the other is physical - they do not share all the same properties, therefore they cannot be the same thing. See Leibniz' Law, or the identity of indiscernibles, or the indiscernibility of identicals - it's one of those, I always get them mixed up... lol
> 
> That doesn't violate "Something cannot be both A, and not A at the same time, in the same sense."


Since when was God required to follow physical laws?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

tardis said:


> Since when was God required to follow physical laws?


Well, if God exists, they wouldn't; IF the description of the "entity" stands as - omnipresent, omnipotent, etc etc... but I, nor anyone else has ever seen anything break the afore mentioned logic law (That can actually be verified). 

But we weren't talking about god, we were talking about a thought of a car, and a car - which one would you like to talk about?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The new Pontiac 'Is Not'. It's the best car you'll ever own, yet you can tell your friends it is not.


The "G-Ain't"? SPOTLESS repair record! NO racing defeats! lol at using a defunct brand! cn


----------



## tardis (Sep 24, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Well, if God exists, they wouldn't; IF the description of the "entity" stands as - omnipresent, omnipotent, etc etc... but I, nor anyone else has ever seen anything break the afore mentioned logic law (That can actually be verified).
> 
> But we weren't talking about god, we were talking about a thought of a car, and a car - which one would you like to talk about?


As to the image of the car, let me try to be more clear.

Is that a car? yes
Is that a car? no

both answers are correct for that question. But lets not get off topic. I say God does and doesn't exist at the same time.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

tardis said:


> As to the image of the car, let me try to be more clear.
> 
> Is that a car? yes
> Is that a car? no
> ...


I say that's unprovable, and violates known laws, making it not only unprovable but also unlikely.

Back onto logic;

A car is a material object, not a thought. So, one is a thought of a car, and one is a car. 

Cars are material.
Thoughts are not material.
Therefore, cars cannot be thoughts.


----------



## tardis (Sep 24, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I say, that is unprovable.
> 
> Back onto logic;
> 
> ...


Which is God, Material or thought (spiritual)?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I say, that is unprovable, and violates known laws, making it not only unprovable but also unlikely.
> 
> Back onto logic;
> 
> ...


"The map is not the territory." Forget where I heard that, but it seems appropriate here.
cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 24, 2011)

...just a thought - well, quote and a thought.

Thought Forms is a book by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater that studies the nature and power of thoughts. It states that thoughts have two effects: "a radiating vibration and a floating form". Thought forms are divided into three classes:

That which takes the image of the thinker.
That which takes the image of some material object.
That which takes a form entirely its own, expressing its inherent qualities in the matter which it draws round it.
The effect of music, emotions, and colors on thought forms is also described in the book. The effect of the music of Mendelssohn (No. 9 of his "Songs without words"), Gounod (Soldiers Chorus from "Faust") and Richard Wagner (Overture to "The Meistersingers") is analyzed. The music of Wagner produced a "marvellous mountain-range" on the thought forms.

...is the car, then, a thoughtform?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...just a thought - well, quote and a thought.
> 
> Thought Forms is a book by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater that studies the nature and power of thoughts. It states that thoughts have two effects: "a radiating vibration and a floating form". Thought forms are divided into three classes:
> 
> ...


If you pertain to that specific philosophy, I guess so?

The idea of "forms" goes back to Plato and Socrates... I don't put much stock in the idea of forms. So much of metaphysics seems like a linguistic battle...


----------



## gfreeman (Sep 24, 2011)

View attachment 1804412View attachment 1804411View attachment 1804410View attachment 1804408
View attachment 1804413dj jesus he dies for ur spins


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 24, 2011)




----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 25, 2011)




----------



## gfreeman (Sep 25, 2011)




----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Sep 27, 2011)

Jesus... this thread is still going on?


ok lets throw everything that we learned from science and evidence available and just rely on our own tedious inquiry of this thing called life and what we know about "Gods"

even if god existed, it ain't hard to tell religion is too dirty as it is and sooooo easily corrupted since its already done... no more to be written, or even corrected(unlike science or reality) stop being left in the past reading what stone aged men decided what was right an moral. not only is it easily manipulated by anyone with the imagination to do so, its also open to interpretation in so many ways since supposedly there is no objective way to interpret it and anyone under scrutiny will suffer the usual cognitive dissonance and decide to take a new meaning in order to keep that belief held intact, and i went though this and most people who are religious go through this and manage it so well that it just becomes a part of how they view religious faith. its brainwashing and it is a self inflicted mental disorder. whether god exists or not, the religious use the wrong arguments to try and prove it's existence (like human existence for example), and if god's do exist, so few care enough to think on the same level as one.... to understand the mind of god.


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Sep 27, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> equations are quantifications of 'actuality' - the 'actuality' you have to observe, did you create that?


 *Wow its Deepak Chopra's disciple! *


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 27, 2011)

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:


> *Wow its Deepak Chopra's disciple! *




yes, yes for sure, we've been there already.


Weird though, for the last couple of days I've been playing around with how to write diabetes in the way that your avatar suggests... this was a 'holy shit' moment for me.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 27, 2011)

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:


> Jesus... this thread is still going on?
> 
> 
> ok lets throw everything that we learned from science and evidence available and just rely on our own tedious inquiry of this thing called life and what we know about "Gods"
> ...




Self inflicted mental disorder? Wow. Grasping at keeping a belief intact?

Card holding adhd + bpII... so much fun I'd love to have it all over again.  "religiosity" appears in the prefrontal cortex, where religion feels a christic view comes from. I hope some day you'll see that religion and science are different sides of the same coin and ease up on 'accidentally' poking fun at life's more serious problems.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 27, 2011)

gfreeman said:


> View attachment 1805879View attachment 1805878View attachment 1805877View attachment 1805876View attachment 1805875View attachment 1805874View attachment 1805872View attachment 1805871View attachment 1805870




There are many of those I love. Thing is, the people are god...it's people that let other people starve. It's the basic premise of 'free will' which is a spiritual law. When a person goes back to being a 'child' and regains 'wonder' new ideas are created. Some of the most intelligent, creative people have had 'imaginary friends' in their childhood. Some go on to change the world through science. Some believe, some don't so who really fkn cares anyway as long as the people are not starving? There's not a single place in any spiritual book that says "let it go to sht, and when you're done, I'll make some rainbow band aids for you." There's nothing tangible about it so why try to take it apart?


----------



## XxHazexX (Sep 27, 2011)

ehh monotheist he wa doing you an favor trying to open your eyes belief dose nothing but perpetuate ignorance and incite needless violence


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 27, 2011)

XxHazexX said:


> ehh monotheist he wa doing you an favor trying to open your eyes belief dose nothing but perpetuate ignorance and incite needless violence




You know, I think you're right! Damn it man, my eyes have been closed for soooo long! Fck yeah... 

Pantheist, maybe... who's fkn blind here?


----------



## XxHazexX (Sep 27, 2011)

Previous statement rephrased then.Anyone that believes in an higher existence is perpetuating ignorance weather monotheist polytheistic or any other variation.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 27, 2011)

XxHazexX said:


> Previous statement rephrased then.Anyone that believes in an higher existence is perpetuating ignorance weather monotheist polytheistic or any other variation.




...yes. I can see how an all inclusive world view is a horrible thing to try and attain. Listen, I'm not a kid here trying to disprove my own existence. I've worked with members of who, the un and unwra with more degrees than thermometers who make your 'scientific' thinking look foolish. There was one thing I noticed in the presence of 'real, actual' scientists. Respect. At present, I am working on a near 1gig illustrator file that takes a while to save. I'm here to learn something in between, and also out of boredom. You?


----------



## XxHazexX (Sep 27, 2011)

lol the u.n. & W.H.O. dont get me started i dont wanna get off thread.Most Men and woman of science that ive been able to get a real unfiltered conversation out of we've mocked our lesser counter parts who's religon has held them back from true understading.And im here for entertainment information and misinformation.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 27, 2011)

XxHazexX said:


> lol the u.n. & W.H.O. dont get me started i dont wanna get off thread.Most Men and woman of science that ive been able to get a real unfiltered conversation out of we've mocked our lesser counter parts who's religon has held them back from true understading.And im here for entertainment information and misinformation.


Great. I like that you wrote that you were here for entertainment, information and misinformation. Seems inclusive.

If you think the un etc are about conspiracy theories, we're off on the wrong foot. I have my own thoughts about the upper echelon as well, but really, it was a 'blessing' to sit with people who travel into jungles etc with the intent to heal people of problems like malaria, etc. Many have had guns pointed to their heads on account of "believing" that they could heal an insurgent's child... f.e. But, by reading and understanding MANY worldviews they had enough 'who-the-hell-knows-what' to be allowed entrance and work. It's actually quite inspirational.


----------



## XxHazexX (Sep 27, 2011)

i would love to go on you seem like a astounding wel-informed person yet misguided but i can't continue its a pet p if mine to go off thead until the next.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 27, 2011)

XxHazexX said:


> i would love to go on you seem like a astounding wel-informed person yet misguided but i can't continue its a pet p if mine to go off thead until the next.




I respect that. I'd say more like 'well-experienced' over "well-informed" though. It will be a life-long pursuit to be 'informed'.


----------



## Cropmaster420 (Sep 28, 2011)

[video=youtube;c0WBwxIKrzk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0WBwxIKrzk&feature=related[/video]

WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO IF YOU WANA KNOW THE TRUTH


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 28, 2011)

How
can
people
be
so
goddamn
stupid?


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 28, 2011)

what i dont like about religious people and why i try and avoid this whole debate is because when it boils down to it most of the religious ones wont listen to what you say even if you're blue in the face from speakin logically.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 28, 2011)

Rationality doesn't work on the irrational.


----------



## gfreeman (Sep 28, 2011)




----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 28, 2011)

i just dont get it like faith must be deeply rooted in them for a reason....there are soo many facts that discredit their god yet they still believe


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 28, 2011)

gfreeman said:


>


Always loved that quote...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 28, 2011)

blazinkill504 said:


> what i dont like about religious people and why i try and avoid this whole debate is because when it boils down to it most of the religious ones wont listen to what you say even if you're blue in the face from speakin logically.


What we have to do is make religious people admit and understand that they have nothing to go on but faith. Faith is an okay reason to believe something as long as you are fully aware of what that means. It means, you are not allowed to debate your idea, because you can not support it. It means you are not allowed to use your ideas to influence any sort of social or public behavior, because you have no justification. You certainly are not allowed to teach your ideas in any sort of authoritative context. There are some religious people like this, they do not impose their ideas even to their children, in which case you could move onto to criticism of their inconsistencies and standards for belief, but if they are keeping to themselves then that would just be done out of spite.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 28, 2011)

In all fairness I follow an essentially materialist worldview out of faith. I do not accede to any claims that I may neither discuss nor champion my ideas. Religious people (at least adherents of the Abrahamic traditions) are under a universal mandate to evangelize. Asking them to not do so is not realistic imo. cn


----------



## karetwo (Sep 28, 2011)

www.lawofone.info 

Alleged more advanced being than human, explaining life, or the universe. :O


----------



## TalonToker (Sep 29, 2011)

Time for some comedic relief.......

Here's your proof that god exists---Leo (Chong) has met god.

[youtube]RXXIhwINNtA[/youtube]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 29, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> What we have to do is make religious people admit and understand that they have nothing to go on but faith. Faith is an okay reason to believe something as long as you are fully aware of what that means. It means, you are not allowed to debate your idea, because you can not support it. It means you are not allowed to use your ideas to influence any sort of social or public behavior, because you have no justification. You certainly are not allowed to teach your ideas in any sort of authoritative context. There are some religious people like this, they do not impose their ideas even to their children, in which case you could move onto to criticism of their inconsistencies and standards for belief, but if they are keeping to themselves then that would just be done out of spite.


There are certain things that are ok for people to believe in that make sense, and others which the more ignorant population of our citys follow which lead to self destruction and violence towards others which do not make sense. These that do not make sense follow by people who are beginning to be enlightenend but then are received by an evil spirit(Spirituality speaking) which at first blind the person into believing they know whats best and they stop making rational desicions that allow them to use their anger for something useful other then violence and irrational planning to gain benefit from some way or an other.

Starting your paragraph you stated that we have to make people admit and understand that they have nothing to go on but faith, because then faith itself becomes something more then needs to be redifined into a new word. 

I would define it as something that is extremely powerful and moving in a way that clears your mind from all negativity and allows you to think of the best and most rational reason to do things. I mean sure there are times where you have to put your shoes on and walk outside and sometimes you don't make the best choices in routes, but in the end you always come back home.
The defintion can continouously be lengthened into something that is described as not only something that clears your mind but when you allow yourself to be healed with Jesus's teaching that tell you exactly the difference betweens fools and others who have wisdom you can change all of your paths with something more then faith. So to admit that us that believe only have faith is the beginning to your wall of text that I was completely immune to which is why I was warned not to great your false doctrine.

The whole conclusion to my statements from the beginning is OP quote ftw, I know its why you hate me... And I love you all that try to help me understand from your perspective but I am helping you try to understand and to keep you from speaking against the word that you are denying that will enlighten you to the point way past where I am going to be in a couple of years.

I am not exactly sure where my paths are, I find the hardest ones to take sometimes. Going offroad is completely different from learning with the ussual paths that you end up fallings asleep from. Besides that when you go offroad you pay 100% and im sure it expands your mind wayy more then taking your normal path that you can take and walk/drive perfectly when your intoxicated more then you've ever been before...
Like I said already, I really just want you all to be enlightened...Not by me but by the book. The bible is so amazing that my eyes need rest after reading more then 10 pages.

I can almost admit to have meating something more then regular life living, it is something that releases all pnegative pressure because we are told to love one an other as a brother and sister. There should be nothing wrong with that knowing that when you hate someone or something its always somehow popping up and its the things that you remember the most, so when you love one an other and when you follow other wise teachings such as no lust, no worries, no fears, and ect... you become enlightened to the point where you can sit down and smoke a bowl and only remember that by being enlightened the only mistakes you make is be resisting temptation because like I said before you choose wrong paths sometimes.

By choosing wrong paths you learn and realize that the whole reason to forgiveness was because Jesus knew that we would take wrong paths occasionaly and thats the whole reason why we are judged in greateness, according to our works and those that deny him can not be great. Which is the whole reason why at least I want you guys tos top talking shit about God because you never know when you'll need him and if you shut your mouth you can be instantly enlightened. Because if you don't shut your mouth the spirits that blidn you from the light will be great.

When you begin to search for a greater understanding you can understand the whole reason why I am writing to you in the first place. Just remember that practice makes perfect and when you try to understand everything that I can type down to you at the pace that you can read at you will learn exactly what lies are and what can not be judged if from the beginning you know it is ment to deceive you which hould not be uncovered and should be left in the darkness. Unless you know what your doing... of course thats why there are differen't paths for everyone.



This was not copied and pasted.
Marlboro47


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 29, 2011)

I don't want to waste my time with people that do not search for understanding to begin with.

define understanding?

Understanding: read 1 page of the bible and try to remember it all week, or read it like a book just like ever other christian

If you don't wanna read the answer book then don't correct me, makes me

 anyone?

 maybe?

blunt, bong hits, waffles?


----------



## sso (Sep 29, 2011)

so, what really made you religious (christian (since we are on that note))

?

cant believe it was the bible itself that inspired you with its thoughtprovoking lines...coff...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 29, 2011)

sso said:


> so, what really made you religious (christian (since we are on that note))
> 
> ?
> 
> cant believe it was the bible itself that inspired you with its thoughtprovoking lines...coff...


 lol, what inspired me was people sounding retarded talking about someone they can't prove doesn't exist. 

I just wanted to say what was up loud enough for everyone to hear it, and then told you the truth and lowered my voice to the point where you would forget who I was.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 29, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> lol, what inspired me was people sounding retarded talking about someone they can't prove doesn't exist.


As opposed to sounding retarded using double negatives?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 29, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> As opposed to sounding retarded using double negatives?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 29, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> There are certain things that are ok for people to believe in that make sense, and others which the more ignorant population of our citys follow which lead to self destruction and violence towards others which do not make sense. These that do not make sense follow by people who are beginning to be enlightenend but then are received by an evil spirit(Spirituality speaking) which at first blind the person into believing they know whats best and they stop making rational desicions that allow them to use their anger for something useful other then violence and irrational planning to gain benefit from some way or an other.
> 
> Starting your paragraph you stated that we have to make people admit and understand that they have nothing to go on but faith, because then faith itself becomes something more then needs to be redifined into a new word.
> 
> ...


What about the Bible, *specifically*is it that moves you? I can pick bits and pieces from books or authors that have shaped the way I view the world. I can tell you why and I could even tell you when I read it or how it changed me, because it's so important to my own personal life. I'd expect you should be able to do the same, right? So what is it within the Bible that you believe all of us atheists are simply missing? Why have I read it and not seen what you seem to have seen? 

I notice this every time I read a testimony like this from a theist, it's incoherent and jumbled together, the whole post doesn't make much sense. This kind of stuff reinforces the idea that religious people simply have sloppy thinking. I'm not calling you dumb, I'm saying it's a lot easier to go with the crowd and believe what you're told than it is to think and figure stuff out for yourself. It's hard to think correctly, it takes effort. 

It's really rare I come across a theist whose actually adamant about thinking correctly and reaching the right conclusions based on truth and not comfort. I can think of one in my personal life, and I can also see instances in her thought process that lead her to believe the theistic claims she does and the inconsistencies she skips over to save the comfort. 



So what is it about the Bible, Marlboro, that makes you think it's the number one message the creator of the universe would want it's creations to understand?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 29, 2011)

ARGUMENT FROM REVEALED SCRIPTURES
(1) The existence of God can not be inferred from sense perception or from logic.
(2) The existence of God can be understood from the revealed scriptures.
(3) Revealed scriptures say that God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM JESUS SAID STUFF
(1) Jesus said some really cool stuff.
(2) No one else had said that stuff.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FOOLISHNESS
(1) The Bible says atheists are fools.
(2) I don't want to be a fool.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (I)
(1) Someone made fun of my faith.
(2) God said that persecution would happen.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II)
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 29, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What about the Bible, *specifically*is it that moves you? I can pick bits and pieces from books or authors that have shaped the way I view the world. I can tell you why and I could even tell you when I read it or how it changed me, because it's so important to my own personal life. I'd expect you should be able to do the same, right? So what is it within the Bible that you believe all of us atheists are simply missing? Why have I read it and not seen what you seem to have seen?
> 
> I notice this every time I read a testimony like this from a theist, it's incoherent and jumbled together, the whole post doesn't make much sense. This kind of stuff reinforces the idea that religious people simply have sloppy thinking. I'm not calling you dumb, I'm saying it's a lot easier to go with the crowd and believe what you're told than it is to think and figure stuff out for yourself. It's hard to think correctly, it takes effort.
> 
> ...


The bible itself is the most elaborate story I have ever read.
What is it specifically that moves me? Is the fact that it teaches me exactly how a smart person thinks and feels. And to top it off it teaches me how to agree with people and have conversations with eachother without lying and deceiving each other. Which is why I love the spirit that is in me when I love one and other and accept Jesus Christ as my savior.

What I dislike about all other books is that they are compiled by people with no morals; people that would lie just for entertainment money, maybe even for the purpose of brain washing you into buying their next book.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 29, 2011)

TV BRAIN WASHES YOU FIGHT BACKSMOKE MORE WEEDFight the power and fuck TV!
Listen to some music that is from the 70s!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 29, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The bible itself is the most elaborate story I have ever read.


'elaborate' in what way? What do you mean?



Marlboro47 said:


> What is it specifically that moves me? Is the fact that it teaches me exactly how a smart person thinks and feels.


How does it do that?



Marlboro47 said:


> What I dislike about all other books is that they are compiled by people with no morals; people that would lie just for entertainment money, maybe even for the purpose of brain washing you into buying their next book.


Even the Christians who've written books? 

The Bible has been rewritten dozens of times over hundreds of years, what makes you think someone, or a group of people throughout history wouldn't alter it to benefit them in some way?


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 30, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The bible itself is the most elaborate story I have ever read.
> What is it specifically that moves me? Is the fact that it teaches me exactly how a smart person thinks and feels. And to top it off it teaches me how to agree with people and have conversations with eachother without lying and deceiving each other. Which is why I love the spirit that is in me when I love one and other and accept Jesus Christ as my savior.
> 
> What I dislike about all other books is that they are compiled by people with no morals; people that would lie just for entertainment money, maybe even for the purpose of brain washing you into buying their next book.


look what you said...its a STORY...a book of literature not historical fact. and how the hell doesnt the bible do the same things you're talkin about when you talk about other books?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 30, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> So to admit that us that believe only have faith is the beginning to your wall of text that I was completely immune to which is why I was warned not to great your false doctrine.


Translation: You mention faith, and my faith teaches me to ignore criticism, so I didn't read your text. Thank you Jesus for such profound ignorance!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 30, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Translation: You mention faith, and my faith teaches me to ignore criticism, so I didn't read your text. Thank you Jesus for such profound ignorance!


Im lost man, I need a new translation.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 30, 2011)

At this point, and this post should not be moved to the best sexual position thread  I see the larynx as eve, the brain as adam, and the breath as being God. 'Words' come from there.

When I study cuneiform, I see that there are 'words' scribed onto 'clay' (= to me) the 'breath' that was placed into the 'earth'.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 30, 2011)

Bong hits anyone? Sometimes its better just to smoke up, enjoy life and realize whats stopping you from enjoying life...

Thing is only you can help yourself enjoy life, thing that sucks is you can't stop those who try to stop you from enjoying life.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 30, 2011)

I quoted you directly, answer that post please, there's a few questions in it.


----------



## beardo (Sep 30, 2011)

God Rules !!!!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Sep 30, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I quoted you directly, answer that post please, there's a few questions in it.


Jesus spoke in parables. Theres your multi-answer.

All other books suck because their based on lies, even if their Christian their writing a fiction book which is a bunch of bs.
The bible is the only thing I see with knowledge and power because Jesus's words have eternal life.



When textbooks were written in a way so that people have trouble learning, you know that textbooks deceive us just as well as anyone who would deny Jesus Christ.

The only real book is the bible, all the other ones are ment to warp your mind while they teach you something.

Read the bible, and listen to commercials closer, why do you think we have backround music?
Why do you think kids can't stop staring at the TV when you walk in the door?

Ever try talking to your kids while their watching tv or playing video games?

You want answers for a couple of questions, why not question everything that I am saying to find the answers that will help you find out why I am writting in the first place?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 30, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> ARGUMENT FROM REVEALED SCRIPTURES
> (1) The existence of God can not be inferred from sense perception or from logic.
> (2) The existence of God can be understood from the revealed scriptures.
> (3) Revealed scriptures say that God exists.
> ...


I'd like to pledge my undying allegiance to Heisensberg. I take my hat off to you, sir...

I'd also like to thank California, for making _"Toasted head"_ Chardonnay... I didn't get to see James Randi, (sold out) but god dammit I'm going to enjoy some wine.


----------



## hyperducer (Sep 30, 2011)

the realest words spoken so far!!!!! So my two cents are this, If any of it is to be considered, the Old Testament is where to start. Written by Hebrew priests, that are unknown to us, and seems to have the "basics" in it. Now the New Testament is another story. Mans ugly hand has disected and taken as well as added thousands of verses, and phrases so that noone knows exactly what the original text held in it. NONE of the books of the apostles were written by anyone who even knew them! Or were alive at the time they were! So how truly accurate could the new testament be? King James Version? I wonder who decided what would be put in that? Also its probably sortof important to remember that if you weren't a christian Emperor Constantine would feed you your balls, after his soldiers killed your family.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> There are certain things that are ok for people to believe in that make sense, and others which the more ignorant population of our citys follow which lead to self destruction and violence towards others which do not make sense. These that do not make sense follow by people who are beginning to be enlightenend but then are received by an evil spirit(Spirituality speaking) which at first blind the person into believing they know whats best and they stop making rational desicions that allow them to use their anger for something useful other then violence and irrational planning to gain benefit from some way or an other.
> 
> Starting your paragraph you stated that we have to make people admit and understand that they have nothing to go on but faith, because then faith itself becomes something more then needs to be redifined into a new word.
> 
> ...


No, wait. I love the end of this post "This was not copied and pasted." Which website would a monolog like this be from? www.confusedincoherantchristians.org?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> There are certain things that are ok for people to believe in that make sense,


I would LOVE to hear this "list"....



> and others which the more ignorant population of our citys follow which lead to self destruction and violence towards others which do not make sense.


And other which do that which is not that which isn't that which is that is not that... lol



> These that do not make sense follow by people who are beginning to be enlightenend but then are received by an evil spirit(Spirituality speaking) which at first blind the person into believing they know whats best and they stop making rational desicions that allow them to use their anger for something useful other then violence and irrational planning to gain benefit from some way or an other.


Dude, seriously - I've drank a quart of wine, and 12 beer, and I make 137% more sense than you.




> Starting your paragraph you stated that we have to make people admit and understand that they have nothing to go on but faith, because then faith itself becomes something more then needs to be redifined into a new word.


"then faith itself becomes something more *then* needs to be redifined into a new word" 

.... I....... you know what........ what-the-fuck-ever.....



> I would define it as something that is extremely powerful and moving in a way that clears your mind from all negativity and allows you to think of the best and most rational reason to do things. I mean sure there are times where you have to put your shoes on and walk outside and sometimes you don't make the best choices in routes, but in the end you always come back home.


So, god moves you to not be negative - and allows you to use reason to *not *figure out that you're not using reason...... I see.... see what I did there? 




> The defintion can continouously be lengthened into something that is described as not only something that clears your mind but when you allow yourself to be healed with Jesus's teaching that tell you exactly the difference betweens fools and others who have wisdom you can change all of your paths with something more then faith.





> So to admit that us that believe only have faith is the beginning to your wall of text that I was completely immune to which is why I was warned not to great your false doctrine.


Is this really a thing?




> The whole conclusion to my statements from the beginning is OP quote ftw, I know its why you hate me... And I love you all that try to help me understand from your perspective but I am helping you try to understand and to keep you from speaking against the word that you are denying that will enlighten you to the point way past where I am going to be in a couple of years.



It scares me, that I understand this..... somewhat....... 

I think it's a drunk thing... I'm pretty wasted and kind of, SOMEWHAT get the idea..... er.... maybe I don't.... at this point I'm not sure it matters....




> I am not exactly sure where my paths are, I find the hardest ones to take sometimes. Going offroad is completely different from learning with the ussual paths that you end up fallings asleep from. Besides that when you go offroad you pay 100% and im sure it expands your mind wayy more then taking your normal path that you can take and walk/drive perfectly when your intoxicated more then you've ever been before...


WTF IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. WHAT IS THIS.




> Like I said already, I really just want you all to be enlightened...Not by me but by the book. The bible is so amazing that my eyes need rest after reading more then 10 pages.


Eye fatigue... probably from atrophy.... you should probably read more...



> I can almost admit to have *meating *something more *then regular life living,* it is something that releases all *pnegative *pressure because we are told to love one *an other* as a brother and sister.* There should be nothing wrong with that knowing that when you hate someone or something its always somehow popping up and its the things that you remember the most, so when you love one an other and when you follow other wise teachings such as no lust, no worries, no fears, and ect... you become enlightened to the point where you can sit down and smoke a bowl and only remember that by being enlightened the only mistakes you make is be resisting temptation because like I said before you choose wrong paths sometimes.
> *


IS THAT ONE FUCKING SENTENCE? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.




> By choosing wrong paths you learn and realize that the whole reason to forgiveness was because Jesus knew that we would take wrong paths occasionaly and thats the whole reason why we are judged in greateness, according to our works and those that deny him can not be great. Which is the whole reason why at least I want you guys tos top talking shit about God because you never know when you'll need him and if you shut your mouth you can be instantly enlightened. Because if you don't shut your mouth the spirits that blidn you from the light will be great.
> 
> When you begin to search for a greater understanding you can understand the whole reason why I am writing to you in the first place. Just remember that practice makes perfect and when you try to understand everything that I can type down to you at the pace that you can read at you will learn exactly what lies are and what can not be judged if from the beginning you know it is ment to deceive you which hould not be uncovered and should be left in the darkness. Unless you know what your doing... of course thats why there are differen't paths for everyone.


I fucking quit. Game over, man.... Game over....





> This was not copied and pasted.


I fucking hope not.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Thank god its saturday! Clubs open early and there is no school today!
Bong hits like you've got munchies saved up for that day!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 1, 2011)

...ze sperm, en ze ovum ...1+0 makes 1

...the tension between the opposites (of mind) creates by planting a seed (thought) into a field of pure potentiality (reality). Seems reasonable to me that the voice is the vehicle. Nothing around me, that I can see, has been created without thought first.

There's a 'coupling' feature to reality at a quantum level. Strong forces, etc. Anyone willing to expand that with their knowledge of those forces is more than welcome to do so. Still reading a lot about this but so far it tickles me pink.


----------



## nog (Oct 1, 2011)

FFS are we still on with this? God exists in your mind or you wouldnt have asked the fucking stupid question in the first place.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

God exists in reality from the beginning, because my mind isn't the limit. 
   

Thing about it all is that believing that your race is the greatest because you can't prove that there is anything else out there, is as stupid as saying germs are fake because you have nothing to view germs.

What we know about germs is that we get diseases, sicknesses, and other formations, smells, ect...

What we know about God: he is *all* *powerful*.
The evidence can be: That we are alive, that we speak, that we think, that we can reject sin, ect..

But because we don't have anything to prove he exists besides the bible, some of us deny he exists; just like we would deny germs if we were born without a microscope even though we get sick, and the evidence is still there.


We weren't born with Jesus Christ in our century, but we were born with the book telling us he was here and it even has words that he spoke of which he said himself have eternal life. Which is why I choose to believe in the book, because you know a lie when you see one. Lies lead to more lies, and if you read the book it is all new knowledge each and every page, and those scriptures where are more or less the same as other scriptures support the truth.

Also the fact that its stupid to not believe in God after you read a book which tells you God exists, and Jesus Christ is our savior that died in the flesh of man on earth, and also the book that which increases your intelligence and tells you exactly what to do if you want to reject sin, be safe, and handle situations, ect...

There is so much in the book that expands your knowledge. The proof is in Jesus's words.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Thing about it all is that believing that your race is the greatest because you can't prove that there is anything else out there, is as stupid as saying germs are fake because you have nothing to view germs.


To make this comparison truly as stupid as religion, you would have not only say germs are fake, but that god is doing it. Germs make no sense, therefore...God. That is exactly what people thought before germ theory.



> What we know about germs is that we get diseases, sicknesses, and other formations, smells, ect...


Before we knew about germs people believed god brought sickness to those who displeased him. The gaps that require god for an explanation shrink daily. 



> What we know about God: he is *all* *powerful*.
> The evidence can be: That we are alive, that we speak, that we think, that we can reject sin, ect..


This is only evidence of God to you. The rest of us recognize that these thing have natural explanations.



> But because we don't have anything to prove he exists besides the bible, some of us deny he exists; just like we would deny germs if we were born without a microscope even though we get sick, and the evidence is still there.


Germ theory is thoroughly testable and can be conclusively demonstrated without the use of a microscope. God can not be tested or demonstrated no matter how powerful and advanced the equipment. Also, the bible does nothing to prove God, so we don't have anything to prove, or any reason to even suspect his existence. 




> We weren't born with Jesus Christ in our century, but we were born with the book telling us he was here and it even has words that he spoke of which he said himself have eternal life. Which is why I choose to believe in the book, because you know a lie when you see one. Lies lead to more lies, and if you read the book it is all new knowledge each and every page, and those scriptures where are more or less the same as other scriptures support the truth.


The bible has all the attributes of being written by ignorant mortals, and none of the attributes we would assign to divinity. The bible advocates rape, murder, slavery, prejudice and cruelty, these are the scriptures you revere as knowledge, but it's good to know you don't think it's lying.



> Also the fact that its stupid to not believe in God after you read a book which tells you God exists, and Jesus Christ is our savior that died in the flesh of man on earth, and also the book that which increases your intelligence and tells you exactly what to do if you want to reject sin, be safe, and handle situations, ect...


Do you ever re-read what you have written and apply thought? How about reading what others say and applying thought? I read a book that said Santa Clause exits...do I need to explain why that is not sufficient evidence to form a conclusion? How is it that you can believe something is true simply because a book says so? What malfunctioning part of your brain tells you it's a good idea to call someone stupid if they do not feel words in a book are proof of god? If that is the sort of conclusions your thought process leads you to, how is it that you did not choke to death on a bag of marbles as a kid? To me the fact that you are alive and able to type on a computer is more evidence of guardian angels than the bible will ever be, you should start using that as your example.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 1, 2011)

nog said:


> FFS are we still on with this? God exists in your mind or you wouldnt have asked the fucking stupid question in the first place.


As long as people like Marlboro exist and post on public forums, this will never end.


----------



## sso (Oct 1, 2011)

the religious want the comfort of someone allpowerful that "takes care" of everything. (guy with a big stick to some (after death, generally) or a big teddybear in the sky)

logical thought has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> To make this comparison truly as stupid as religion, you would have not only say germs are fake, but that god is doing it. Germs make no sense, therefore...God. That is exactly what people thought before germ theory.


Saying that God exists only because we can't explain something on earth is an other way of making you and God look bad, because your telling me that he exists only because you can't figure something out.
Because once you figure out what you said you can never figure out "and therefore... God"(which you knew you would in fact find out eventually just to say God is false again),you will claim that your athiest or any other religion that denys Jesus Christ(Everything except Christian) with your false story about how you only thought you found God.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Saying that God exists only because we can't explain something on earth is an other way of making God look bad.
> 
> Because once you figure out what you said you can never figure out(which you knew you would in fact find out eventually just to say God is false again),you will claim that your athiest or any other religion that denys Jesus Christ(Everything except Christian).


I almost never criticize someone for their spelling or grammar errors, but I can not extract any meaning from this block of text. It's not at all clear what you are trying to say. Slow down and articulate your point. Sloppiness is part of what got your mind into such a mess to begin with. 

The problem here is that you perceive you have some sort of advantage or authority that makes your belief correct. You pretend as if the answer is clear and anyone should see it, but when asked to explain that clarity you can't even come up with the first word. You believe because you want to, that is all you can show. That is a fine thing to say, but you do not leave it at that. You want all the righteousness that comes with belief in God, of which you deserve none. You seek the comfort of opinion while avoiding the discomfort of thought, and chastise others for not displaying the same petty half-witted behavior as you.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I almost never criticize someone for their spelling or grammar errors, but I can not extract any meaning from this block of text. It's not at all clear what you are trying to say. Slow down and articulate your point. Sloppiness is part of what got your mind into such a mess to begin with.
> 
> The problem here is that you perceive you have some sort of advantage or authority that makes your belief correct. You pretend as if the answer is clear and anyone should see it, but when asked to explain that clarity you can't even come up with the first word. You believe because you want to, that is all you can show. That is a fine thing to say, but you do not leave it at that. You want all the righteousness that comes with belief in God, of which you deserve none. You seek the comfort of opinion while avoiding the discomfort of thought, and chastise others for not displaying the same petty half-witted behavior as you.


Your trying to prove that germs exist and live naturally in the world.
You cant for some reason or an other, so then you say God exists.
20years later, we find out germs are naturally on earth.
You then say there is no evidence for God's existance anymore, therefore making God fake.

My problem with it is that you couldn't prove germs existed.


How can you prove that God is fake because we proved germs existed later on?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Your trying to prove that germs exist and live naturally in the world.
> You cant for some reason or an other, so then you say God exists.
> 20years later, we find out germs are naturally on earth.
> You then say there is no evidence for God's existance anymore, therefore making God fake.
> ...


:grabs popcorn and waits for EPIC reply!:


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

What I said:
"Thing about it all is that believing that your race is the greatest because you can't prove that there is anything else out there, is as stupid as saying germs are fake because you have nothing to view germs."

What you said: 


Heisenberg said:


> To make this comparison truly as stupid as religion, you would have not only say germs are fake, but that god is doing it. Germs make no sense, therefore...God. That is exactly what people thought before germ theory.


 
Now imagine yourself answering or even trying to understand what you wrote.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Your trying to prove that germs exist and live naturally in the world.
> You cant for some reason or an other, so then you say God exists.
> 20years later, we find out germs are naturally on earth.
> You then say there is no evidence for God's existance anymore, therefore making God fake.
> ...




...it's "fish" man, "fish". There's nothing that specifically says "sucker". (...for punishment  )


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Your trying to prove that germs exist and live naturally in the world.
> You cant for some reason or an other, so then you say God exists.


You misunderstand. What I am saying is, when you can't explain something, there is no reason to attribute it to god. To say "Disease makes no sense, therefore God", is wrong. That is what people did before we knew a micro-world exists. This mystery and so many others that used to be attributed to god have instead been explained by science. Now that we have an explanation, it is even more wrong to attribute it to god.



> 20years later, we find out germs are naturally on earth.
> You then say there is no evidence for God's existance anymore, therefore making God fake.


There has never been any sort of evidence for God. 



> My problem with it is that you couldn't prove germs existed.


My problem is that you somehow think things like speech and and thought not only prove God, but prove it to the point of being certain of specific instructions and ideology. You profess to not only know god exists, but to precisely know what he expects out of us. You use this ideology to judge others without the slightest justification for your ideas. You need to take responsibility for the things you say, admit that you have nothing but faith, and stop making propositions that you haven't thought through. This is what it takes to be a man, to have strength in your convictions, and to gain self-integrity. It's fine to have religious ideas, it's not okay to use those ideas to cover for cowardice, repugnance and intellectual sloth.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You misunderstand. What I am saying is, when you can't explain something, there is no reason to attribute it to god. To say "Disease makes no sense, therefore God", is wrong. That is what people did before we knew a micro-world exists. This mystery and so many others that used to be attributed to god have instead been explained by science. Now that we have an explanation, it is even more wrong to attribute it to god.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no point to this argument if your going to try to deceive me.
Im not calling you out on every mistake specifically so that I won't be making fun of you the whole time.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You misunderstand. What I am saying is, when you can't explain something, there is no reason to attribute it to god. To say "Disease makes no sense, therefore God", is wrong. That is what people did before we knew a micro-world exists. This mystery and so many others that used to be attributed to god have instead been explained by science. Now that we have an explanation, it is even more wrong to attribute it to god.


Nice way to redirect my statement about your statement.
Bong time  Peace out


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 1, 2011)

Once people reach a certain point in 'adulthood', there is no turning back. It takes education throughout childhood to combat ignorance.

You tried Heis, and I admire your persistence, but this guy isn't worth any more of your time..


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> There is no point to this argument if your going to try to deceive me.
> Im not calling you out on every mistake specifically so that I won't be making fun of you the whole time.


I do not afford you such courtesy when your mistakes include homophobia and foster stupidity. The deception you sense comes from your own mind, do not blame the messenger.



Marlboro47 said:


> Nice way to redirect my statement about your statement.



Yes, I redirected it back to the area of accuracy. How mean of me to deny you your strawman.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I do not afford you such courtesy when your mistakes include homophobia and foster stupidity. The deception you sense comes from your own mind, do not blame the messenger.


Do you think they tell the messenger the truth? Or do you think they deceive him so that those that him he informs perceives the messanger as knowledgable but in reality he is the one that was deceived to deceive in the first palce.

Don't you know why Christ brought division?
Christ said ever since he arrived father against son, son against father(or step father), daughter against mother(or step mother), ect.
Says that you should never love anyone more then Jesus Christ or you are not worthy of Christ's love, this was not only to protect you but it was because Jesus Christ is perfect and his teachings are perfect.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Yes, I redirected it back to the area of accuracy. How mean of me to deny you your strawman.


I can't agree nor disagree.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 1, 2011)

Are you capable of addressing the points in the posts or do you just like saying random nonsense?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Define nonsense.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

The point to this whole agrument is that the evidence of God is the bible.


What evidence do you need to consider fake for your point to get across?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Define nonsense.


Incomplete sentences/thoughts and faulty logic to name a couple nonsensical things....


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Define nonsense.


Anything that doesn't address the point.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The point to this whole agrument is that the evidence of God is the bible.
> 
> 
> What evidence do you need to consider fake for your point to get across?


The Bible is not evidence that God exists. It's evidence people can write a book.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

How is that of which you speak of not nonsense if it adresses the point and its still a lie?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 1, 2011)

You haven't demonstrated how anything any of us are saying is a lie. All you've done is claim it's a lie because the Bible has brainwashed you into believing anything _other than the Bible_ is a lie.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You haven't demonstrated how anything any of us are saying is a lie. All you've done is claim it's a lie because the Bible has brainwashed you into believing anything _other than the Bible_ is a lie.


 How is the bible brain washing me if its not electronic?
How does the bible brain wash me if everyone who is an anti-christ hates me and it says that talking to you is a mistake?
Do you hate or love me?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> How is the bible brain washing me if its not electronic?
> How does the bible brain washing me if everyone who is an anti-christ hates me and it says that talking to you is a mistake?
> Do you hate or love me?


Brainwashing doesn't require an electronic device - it's just a form of mind control. The bible tells you that you can't trust anyone who doesn't believe, which automatically makes you immune from any facts that could discredit your beliefs. No one hates you, and for you to _think_ everyone hates you is some pretty heavy shit. You might want to talk to someone about that....


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> How is the bible brain washing me if its not electronic?


Brainwashing isn't exclusive to electronic devices.



Marlboro47 said:


> How does the bible brain washing me if everyone who is an anti-christ hates me and it says that talking to you is a mistake?


I don't hate you, do you consider me an 'anti-christ'? Doesn't it occur to you that something that wants to keep you brainwashed would tell you that anything that opposes it is evil and that you should stay away from it?



Marlboro47 said:


> Do you hate or love me?


I don't know you, hate and love are both personal emotions. I am incapable of having either of those emotions towards anyone I haven't met personally. 

I don't dislike you. I appreciate talking to you. I just wish you would take some things people tell you into consideration. It seems like you read posts but don't digest them, you just kind of read them and skip over the substance, then come up with something new to post about, taking the subject off topic. It will benefit you to address the points people make, it'll make you question the beliefs you think are true, and the ones that aren't will be challenged and hopefully corrected, that's the idea right?

Why would you want to hold a belief that isn't correct, especially if it harms somebody?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Brainwashing doesn't require an electronic device - it's just a form of mind control. The bible tells you that you can't trust anyone who doesn't believe, which automatically makes you immune from any facts that could discredit your beliefs. *No one hates you*, and for you to _think_ everyone hates you is some pretty heavy shit. You might want to talk to someone about that....


Quit lying to me bro...
I know your fake because its impossible for me to be loved by EVERYONE. One lie means that you lie.
If your a liar then I can't trust you. If I can't trust you then I will ask your religion.
If your an anti-christ then it all makes sense.
Can you confess to Christ coming in the flesh of man on earth to die for our sins?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

I love everyone, I can prove that because I will risk myself to help others who need help.

To me your statement saying that you can not feel personal emotions for me because you don't know who I am is just like lying to me.
I feel for you, and it makes me realize that I want to try to save you all from self destruction.

You've already read what I have to say, you know what my points are, and you know that I will save you and your family if you ask me for help or if I happen to ran across a random family that needs me to fix their car or something...
I will help unless your telling me that you don't need or don't want my help.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Quit lying to me bro...
> I know your fake because its impossible for me to be loved by EVERYONE. One lie means that you lie.
> If your a liar then I can't trust you. If I can't trust you then I will ask your religion.
> If your an anti-christ then it all makes sense.
> Can you confess to Christ coming in the flesh of man on earth to die for our sins?



Fake? You took that way too literally. Let me rephrase - not all atheists hate you because you're Christian, and I happen to be an example of it. Someone, somewhere, might hate you - but what does that have to do with your religion? I know tons of Christians that hate people...

I don't think Jesus was the son of god, and I don't think he had powers, so no I won't be confessing anything.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Got a marijuana plant problem? Ill help you out by helping your medications qaulity increase.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I don't think Jesus was the son of god, and I don't think he had powers, so no I won't be confessing anything.


Goodbye then.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Goodbye then.


So, now do you hate me? Or you just too damn ignorant to listen to the evidence against your religion? It's kind of funny, but mostly sad - Christianity brainwashed you to the point where you reject any facts that people bring up, because the bible tells you to. It's the perfect ignorance breeding machine...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> So, now do you hate me? Or you just too damn ignorant to listen to the evidence against your religion? It's kind of funny, but mostly sad - Christianity brainwashed you to the point where you reject any facts that people bring up, because the bible tells you to. It's the perfect ignorance breeding machine...


 No I do not hate you, let me remind you that I became christitan *to stay away* from liars, deceivers, and those who hate me, and those who spitefully use me.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 1, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I love everyone, I can prove that because I will risk myself to help others who need help.


I'm afraid you're terribly confused.. "Love" doesn't simply mean that you'll 'risk yourself' (whatever subjective interpretation that means) to help others. I help other people all the time, I'm trying to help you -right now-, that doesn't mean that you _love_ them. Love is more than that, love is much harder. 

And you couldn't possibly love everyone. Do you love Kim Jong Ill? What about all the 'anti-christs'? 



Marlboro47 said:


> You've already read what I have to say, you know what my points are, and you know that I will save you and your family if you ask me for help or if I happen to ran across a random family that needs me to fix their car or something...
> I will help unless your telling me that you don't need or don't want my help.


I would expect you, as a human being, not just a Christian, to help another human being in need if they asked. I'd expect nothing less because that's what I'd expect of myself, a person with no god. What makes me feel this compassion towards another human being? Can you fathom a world other than complete chaos with no god?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I'm afraid you're terribly confused.. "Love" doesn't simply mean that you'll 'risk yourself' (whatever subjective interpretation that means) to help others. I help other people all the time, I'm trying to help you -right now-, that doesn't mean that you _love_ them. Love is more than that, love is much harder.
> 
> And you couldn't possibly love everyone. Do you love Kim Jong Ill? What about all the 'anti-christs'?
> 
> ...


Love to me is deeper then risking myself.
It is not only about risking myself, but it is also about helping you by telling the truth to the best of my capabilitys; so that you may learn from me without being deceived.
After meeting me you will learn more about those who hate you.
If I can get you to open your eyes and learn, then that is what I call love.

If you lie to me, then it pretty much means to me that you don't love me enough to tell me the truth.
And if your a Christian it just means that you've been consumed with something evil.
If your an anti-christ then it means that you will never be cleansed until you receive Christ into your life.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

I am trying to help everyone out because I know a truth soo deep that it you won't understand it.

Find out your computers FPS and wonder why we need 100fps in a second.

Wonder why and what else is working if technology advanced and the fps still hasn't gone up(to our knowledge at least).


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 1, 2011)

Anytime anyone says anything remotely against the bible you just call them a deceiver, or liar without actually thinking about what they're saying. You are so delusional that you can't even process criticism about your religion. Don't you see how the bible is deceiving you into closing your eyes, and plugging your ears? Ignorance is not bliss - it's why our world is as fucked up as it is.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 1, 2011)

Can you remember everything that we talked about? How about what you ate for breakfast two days ago?
Could we be brainwashed into forgetting things?
Keep wondering... forget about me and wonder for yourself.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Anytime anyone says anything remotely against the bible you just call them a deceiver, or liar without actually thinking about what they're saying. You are so delusional that you can't even process criticism about your religion. Don't you see how the bible is deceiving you into closing your eyes, and plugging your ears? Ignorance is not bliss - it's why our world is as fucked up as it is.


Remotely against the bible??

They are saying the bible says this.
When the bible says something else, its not against the bible its you warping my mind when you haven't even read the bible!

I do not greet your false doctrine, for you do not abide in Christ.

It is not brainwashing it is me telling you to take a hike.

Your telling me to drink from a bowl, and im telling you that your a deceiver because Jesus told me to drink from a cup.

Then you tell me im brainwashed because im telling you that your wrong while you drink from a cup seceretly at home.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 2, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Can you remember everything that we talked about? How about what you ate for breakfast two days ago?
> Could we be brainwashed into forgetting things?
> Keep wondering... forget about me and wonder for yourself.


Whoa Marl, Can you remember like 10 mins ago when you were accused of speaking nonsense? This is exactly what we were talking about. What does this have to do with anything? Other than you not having to answer the questions, or respond to the comments in the previous post....


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 2, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Love to me is deeper then risking myself.
> It is not only about risking myself, but it is also about helping you by telling the truth to the best of my capabilitys; so that you may learn from me without being deceived.


How old are you man? How do you know what you're trying to tell me is 'the truth'? You read the Bible? Well guess what, so have I, I definitely didn't find any divine truth in it. It's terribly outdated and immoral in today's context. You would know that if you actually read it without being under the influence of its authority. This is what I've been trying to tell you. You are going into _researching_ these topics with a biased mindset, already convinced of it's authenticity. People do this all the time, at best, they're oblivious of it, at worst it's purposeful and completely deceptive and they arrive at a specific conclusion. 



Marlboro47 said:


> If you lie to me, then it pretty much means to me that you don't love me enough to tell me the truth.
> And if your a Christian it just means that you've been consumed with something evil.
> If your an anti-christ then it means that you will never be cleansed until you receive Christ into your life.


Again, isn't this clearly something that would restrict your ability to actually examine your own religion?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Whoa Marl, Can you remember like 10 mins ago when you were accused of speaking nonsense? This is exactly what we were talking about. What does this have to do with anything? Other than you not having to answer the questions, or respond to the comments in the previous post....


 Your a liar, theres my answer.
I dont trust you because your a liar. 
AND YOU STILL SPEAK!

Your points are invalid to EVERYONE WHO sees them because they know that your a liar.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How old are you man? How do you know what you're trying to tell me is 'the truth'? You read the Bible? Well guess what, so have I, I definitely didn't find any divine truth in it. It's terribly outdated and immoral in today's context. You would know that if you actually read it without being under the influence of its authority. This is what I've been trying to tell you. You are going into _researching_ these topics with a biased mindset, already convinced of it's authenticity. People do this all the time, at best, they're oblivious of it, at worst it's purposeful and completely deceptive and they arrive at a specific conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, isn't this clearly something that would restrict your ability to actually examine your own religion?


I don't have a biased mind set.
I became a born again Christian, my mind set was blind just like yours and I thought that lying would take me farther then the truth. And I was wrong which is why I believe in the bible because I KNOW your all liars, your all fake, and the friends I had that did not abide in Christ were cruel and wicked. They lied to me, they deceived me, they stole from me, they betrayed me, and they told me to fuck off when I said Jesus loved them.

Quit acting like I don't know whats up... Every time you speak you use sarcasm and lies and even use other people to like your posts to make it look like your making sense.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

Just remember that God gives you all the choice, he made his own filter to pick out his best companions.
Why would he want to be companions with someone who is a deceiver?
Why would I want to be friends with someone who God doesn't want as a companion?!!?

On top of it all, you talk to me like an enemy. I talk to you like your family to show you my love for you and one an other.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 2, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I don't have a biased mind set.
> I became a born again Christian, my mind set was blind just like yours and I thought that lying would take me farther then the truth. And I was wrong which is why I believe in the bible because I KNOW your all liars, your all fake, and the friends I had that did not abide in Christ were cruel and wicked. They lied to me, they deceived me, they stole from me, they betrayed me, and they told me to fuck off when I said Jesus loved them.
> 
> Quit acting like I don't know whats up... Every time you speak you use sarcasm and lies and even use other people to like your posts to make it look like your making sense.


You don't understand logic, you don't understand critical thought, you don't understand.. much.

You do in fact have a biased mindset. Christianity is a cult.

"I thought lying would take me farther than the truth"

"I lied and it bit me in the ass, religion says lying is bad, I decided to stop lying, therefore religion is correct"

If you can't see the flaw in that I can't help you.

Your friends realized you're an unstable person who can't sufficiently justify his beliefs so they decided to de-friend you, as would I have. I'm sure many of them tried to help you realize what you were saying was wrong, just like people here have, and the cult of Christianity brainwashed you into believing the emotions they're designed to stimulate were true and everyone else is an 'anti-christ'.

How would I 'make other people like my post'? lmfao

People like the post because apparently, I seem to be making a bit more sense than you.

...but that couldn't be it, could it? (forgive the sarcasm... /sarcasm)


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 2, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Just remember that God gives you all the choice


The only choice you have is an illusion, you're just too inexperienced, inconsistent, and ignorant to realize it.



Marlboro47 said:


> he made his own filter to pick out his best companions.
> Why would he want to be companions with someone who is a deceiver?


Why design a system including deception in the first place?



Marlboro47 said:


> Why would I want to be friends with someone who God doesn't want as a companion?!!?


So you speak for GOD now do you?



Marlboro47 said:


> On top of it all, you talk to me like an enemy. I talk to you like your family to show you my love for you and one an other.


My family doesn't refer to me as an 'anti-christ' or a 'deceiver' or a 'liar' or any such things. 

You don't know what love is.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

My logic makes perfect sense.
I said not to trust me, I said I make mistakes so I can't be trusted.
I said allow me to make you wonder.

You said that religion is bs.

I said the bible opened my eyes.

I also said that I do know love. I know it because I stay with those who I love whether they deceive or not.


I don't see myself as unstable, I see myself as someone who stays away from liars and tells the truth.
I was only unstable after the shroom trip because of daylight savings time and maybe even because they took shrooms the same day... Anyways I never did anything to prove myself to be a bad person. The only reason why I think the shroom trip messed me about was because thats how I found out everyone was lying... Because nothing made sense to me after shroomies.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 2, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Your a liar, theres my answer.
> I dont trust you because your a liar.
> AND YOU STILL SPEAK!
> 
> Your points are invalid to EVERYONE WHO sees them because they know that your a liar.


Ummm.... How am I lying, and how do you know this?

Lemmie take a wild stab in the dark.....

The bible says everyone who's against god is a liar, I don't believe in god, therefore, I am a liar. But then we still come back to the question of how do you know the bible is actually accurate?


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Ummm.... How am I lying, and how do you know this?


 Ummmm.... Because lies don't make sense. And neither do mistakes.


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 2, 2011)

"Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself."

"A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)."

A delusional belief includes:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> "Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself."
> 
> "A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)."
> 
> ...


W/o the proof of God not existing and talking crap about God, well imo thats retarded.
Paranoid or not.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

Well... Gotta get to work... An other day.


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 2, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Well... Gotta get to work... An other day.


Dude, you're not seriously going to work on the Sabbath. Jesus _definitely_ doesn't like that...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Oct 2, 2011)

Damn you guys are still going at it? Lol.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Dude, you're not seriously going to work on the Sabbath. Jesus _definitely_ doesn't like that...


Matthew 12:9-12:14

*Healing on the Sabbath*
*Matthew 12:9* Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue.
*Matthew 12:10* And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"- that they might accuse Him.
*Matthew 12:11* Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?
*Matthew 12:12* "Of how much more value then is a man then a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
*Matthew 12:13* Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other.
*Matthew12:14* Then the Pharisees went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 2, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Matthew 12:9-12:14
> 
> *Healing on the Sabbath*
> *Matthew 12:9* Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue.
> ...


Are you saying you're going to heal people today? Because that would be interesting!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 2, 2011)

That's one of the points we've all been talking about. The dogma CLEARLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF. Not working on the Sabbath is in the 10 commandments. It's a *commandment* for Christ's sake! It doesn't say specify anything or go into any more detail than that.

"But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do *any work*&#8212;you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."

This is one of the major objections atheists have towards organized religion; each individual believers subjective interpretation. Which is why we end up with thousands of sects of Christianity. Perhaps if there was a god, and Christianity was the correct religion describing it, there would be only one Christianity.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 2, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That's one of the points we've all been talking about. The dogma CLEARLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF. Not working on the Sabbath is in the 10 commandments. It's a *commandment* for Christ's sake! It doesn't say specify anything or go into any more detail than that.
> 
> "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do *any work*&#8212;you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."
> 
> This is one of the major objections atheists have towards organized religion; each individual believers subjective interpretation. Which is why we end up with thousands of sects of Christianity. Perhaps if there was a god, and Christianity was the correct religion describing it, there would be only one Christianity.


Nah, it's more fun if god is completely inept at conveying his wishes (why else would we need prophets?). I mean, if everyone under the sun can't have their own definition of what the bible means, it'd just be too easy. God could easily make everyone in the universe instantly know of his presence and end ALL confusion with regards to all the various religions (and his true desires for mankind) - but chooses not to because.... well, I don't really know why.... but I'm sure it can be chalked up to "The mysteriousness of god"....

Or he just doesn't exist and we might as well be asking "Cameron McTavish The magical leprechaun" for guidance...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That's one of the points we've all been talking about. The dogma CLEARLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF. Not working on the Sabbath is in the 10 commandments. It's a *commandment* for Christ's sake! It doesn't say specify anything or go into any more detail than that.
> 
> "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do *any work*you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."
> 
> This is one of the major objections atheists have towards organized religion; each individual believers subjective interpretation. Which is why we end up with thousands of sects of Christianity. Perhaps if there was a god, and Christianity was the correct religion describing it, there would be only one Christianity.


 Its very sad that you act so intelligent only to pretend that you don't understand it. Then you add deception to make other people think that you are intelligent or a rolemodel and you still don't understand it.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 2, 2011)

*Matthew 12:11* Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?

Obviously the Lord knows that we will do what we must to survive. 

*Working on the sabbath for greed is what we should all avoid.*


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 2, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Its very sad that you act so intelligent only to pretend that you don't understand it. Then you add deception to make other people think that you are intelligent or a rolemodel and you still don't understand it.


No one is pretending to not understand Christianity, it doesn't make sense when you break it down and really examine it ---


This is what you're left with;


A bunch of outrageous claims, that have no evidence other than being written in a really old book. 




Other really old books aren't exempt from criticism, and neither is the bible. 

When you can demonstrate any type of physical evidence that supports the idea that Jesus Christ was actually the son of god, and came back to life and performed countless miracles you'll have a leg to stand on.


----------



## NinaDoll (Oct 2, 2011)

Religion to me is like a cock, its's cool if you have one, it's even ok to be proud of it but don't try to shove it down my throat !


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 3, 2011)

Im going to smoke a bowl. Peace out


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 3, 2011)

Exodus 31:15 - For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. Unless thou art strapped for cash, for then it is cool. Amen...


----------



## Harrekin (Oct 3, 2011)

Here's one for you...if God "designed" us all,and made man first and then afterwards made woman...why do men have nipples?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 3, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Here's one for you...if God "designed" us all,and made man first and then afterwards made woman...why do men have nipples?




...I've always thought that if evolution were the real deal, women would grow nipples on their bottoms over the course of their lives 

...no one would be unhappy, and the fitness industry would crash and burn


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 3, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I've always thought that *if evolution were the real deal,* women would grow nipples on their bottoms over the course of their lives
> 
> ...no one would be unhappy, and the fitness industry would crash and burn


You mean your silly caricature of evolution?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 3, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You mean your silly caricature of evolution?




...it's a joke man.


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 3, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...it's a joke man.


The "joke" could have just as easily been said without implying that evolution isn't real.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 3, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I've always thought that if evolution were the real deal, women would grow nipples on their bottoms over the course of their lives  )


Not sure how random genetic mutation would lead to nipples on the ass, seems like it would make it harder for babies to nurse - making it less likely to be favored by natural selection....


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Oct 7, 2011)

if evolution is a lie, why do men have nipples? < another stupid comment showing lack of understanding of biology.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 7, 2011)

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:


> if evolution is a lie, why do men have nipples? < another stupid comment showing lack of understanding of biology.


Care to explain?


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 7, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Not sure how random genetic mutation would lead to nipples on the ass, seems like it would make it harder for babies to nurse - making it less likely to be favored by natural selection....


(haven't visited this thread in a while) It would select for flatter babies ... cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 7, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> (haven't visited this thread in a while) It would select for flatter babies ... cn





...................


----------



## eye exaggerate (Oct 7, 2011)

..."saaaaaatur-day...iiiiin the paaaaaark, I think it was the 4th of ja'lye"

 this crazy 70's station is kicking my ass!


----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 8, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> (haven't visited this thread in a while) It would select for flatter babies ... cn


or possibly ass-shaped babies


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 13, 2011)

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/6o/

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/74c3/

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/fjd/


----------



## labudman (Oct 19, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> When your feeling like shit and you remember that Jesus suffered wayy more then anyone ever has, it gives you more then hope.
> Because you know he was thinking about your pain right when he was dying, so he could take you to heaven after you die; to show you that earth really is a peice of shit.


Why should it give anyone hope to think that someone has suffered way more than them? What's the difference between that kind of thinking and thinking, "I'm glad I have money, unlike all of the broke ass poor people"! Now that I have left the dogmatic teachings of my childhood and youth so far behind an electron microscope can't find them, I feel hope! What you're advocating only breads more hatred and self righteousness.


----------



## labudman (Oct 19, 2011)

Take all the time you need to think this through!!!


----------



## labudman (Oct 19, 2011)

[video=youtube;jyjNXdEGjO4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyjNXdEGjO4[/video]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 27, 2011)

So I've been thinking lately and they say we are here from evolution and that we evolved from monkeys.
So im thinking that the flesh is really like a mutation that can be formed on a monkey that makes all hair fall out, and over time the patch spread throughout the body and scientists are fake and make shit up, and still can't prove the only thing we have been searching for since science was invented.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Oct 27, 2011)

In the bible it says that we know everything.

Literally that the bible is only here that we can be told so that our memorys will be refreshed with all the information that we need so that we do not forget.

The thing that I have noticed is that science seems to deceive us all into thinking that were stupid instead of tellingn us that we know it all already so that we can remember everything, but then as the teachers deceive us there is no way to truely know without wondering where your girlfriend is or what your friend is planning behind your back.

I would suggest denying science so that you can question everything, then find out that everyone knows everything


----------



## mindphuk (Oct 27, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> So I've been thinking lately and they say we are here from evolution and that we evolved from monkeys.
> So im thinking that the flesh is really like a mutation that can be formed on a monkey that makes all hair fall out, and over time the patch spread throughout the body and scientists are fake and make shit up, and still can't prove the only thing we have been searching for since science was invented.


Care to repeat that in English?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Oct 27, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> The thing that I have noticed is that science seems to deceive us all into thinking that were stupid instead of tellingn us that we know it all already so that we can remember everything, but then as the teachers deceive us there is no way to truely know without wondering where your girlfriend is or what your friend is planning behind your back.
> 
> I would suggest denying science so that you can question everything, then find out that everyone knows everything


This doesn't even make sense. What the fuck do your friends and girlfriends doing things behind your back have to do with teachers? 

Science is *literally * looking at something; making a guess based upon what you see; and then testing to see if you are correct or not. If you want to deny that, you are an imbecile. Get off your computer (it's a product of science), turn off your lights (it's a product of science), run into the woods and live like a fucking cave man; because it's *science* that has given stupid fucks like you the luxury to complain like a whiny child on the internet.


----------



## wayno30 (Oct 27, 2011)

marlboro..............this is all bullshit right?? u dont actually believe all this do u?? i read prolly thirty pages hit and miss.....dude u been seriously mind fucked ..........and if u do believe all this u should do a lil better job of living it


----------



## labudman (Nov 12, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> So I've been thinking lately and they say we are here from evolution and that we evolved from monkeys.
> So im thinking that the flesh is really like a mutation that can be formed on a monkey that makes all hair fall out, and over time the patch spread throughout the body and scientists are fake and make shit up, and still can't prove the only thing we have been searching for since science was invented.


Have you ever had "goosebumps"? Guess what those are remnants of? In fact if you take a really close look at yourself, you will notice there is hair all over your body, just not as much as there used to be. It never just fell off. Monkey's have flesh too. It's just like ours, but covered by thicker course hair. One last note - WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS. The human species and the various species of modern day monkeys share common ancestry, meaning if you trace all of our genealogy back in time you will reach a point where they all meet. It also goes back further than that, but for your small mind, I won't go into further confusing details. The computer you're using right now only exists because science works or maybe you're not really using a computer.


----------



## labudman (Nov 12, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> In the bible it says that we know everything.
> 
> Literally that the bible is only here that we can be told so that our memorys will be refreshed with all the information that we need so that we do not forget.
> 
> ...


With that type of thinking we might as well go back to "KNOWING" the Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around Earth, the stars are painted, the sky is a floating ocean and so much more.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 12, 2011)

labudman said:


> WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS.


 Sure we did. We didn't evolve from modern monkeys. We evolved from monkeys, from fish, from worms, etc. Of course people like marlboro who actually thinks we have only been searching for one specific thing since science was invented (I wonder what he thinks that is), are not going to stop their idiotic beliefs and start learning critical thinking and learn how the scientific method actually works, unless something compels him to do so.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 12, 2011)

I think that labudman's point is that monkeys and modern apes evolved from a monkeylike common ancestor ("concestor" in Dawkins' terminology). So technically he's got a point. Monkeys are just as far evolved, if not as dramatically on the surface of things, from the last concestor as we are. cn


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 13, 2011)

Is Darwins work not too old to still use? I understand he set the stage for everyone, but arnt there better techniques used today? And was his mind too simple for the work so to speak? Well maybe not mind, but technology? 

Ive wondered this for awhile.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 13, 2011)

I don't think his mind was too simple, human intelligence has basically been unchanged in thousands of years. Darwin did what he could, with what he had; and did a damn good job if I do say so myself!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 13, 2011)

To expand on what beef said,

The guy was a dedication/ambition powerhouse! The era he lived was ripe with scientific potential. 

His work was the foundation of modern biology, we've discovered much more since he lived.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 13, 2011)

i know all of that, but, is it meant to be used this literature, forever?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 13, 2011)

'used' how?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 13, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Is Darwins work not too old to still use? I understand he set the stage for everyone, but arnt there better techniques used today? And was his mind too simple for the work so to speak? Well maybe not mind, but technology?
> 
> Ive wondered this for awhile.


Darwin's work, like that of Newton, has so far stood the test of time essentially whole. I recommend Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale", to which I alluded above, as a very readable synopsis of the state of evolutionary biology today. 
Part of the brilliance of Darwin is that he knew when to say "I don't know", and wasn't afraid to do so. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 13, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Part of the brilliance of Darwin is that he knew when to say "I don't know", and wasn't afraid to do so. cn


...super important note you make.  I knew nothing until I knew nothing. Like reversing polarity, something like that.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 14, 2011)

Used forever for references , what im trying to say is when will new laws and theories be developed such as the work of darwin


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Used forever for references , what im trying to say is when will new laws and theories be developed such as the work of darwin


Hey, Oly. Darwin's work and theories are the foundation of evolution by natural selection. Since his theory was correct, there won't be a competing theory to replace it, only work by others to build upon and refine it (i.e. advancing DNA/RNA methods, etc..).


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 14, 2011)

thats what im saying, why cant there be other stuff developed that competes with those laws and theories?

maybe not in our time right?


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> thats what im saying, why cant there be other stuff developed that competes with those laws and theories?
> 
> maybe not in our time right?


It's for the same reason we do not have competing theories of what 2+2 equals; because the one we have is right. Do not think of Darwin's work as laws and theories, but as an interpretation of what Darwin observed and tested. His interpretation was largely correct, more so than he could imagine. We do have other interpretations, but they do not stand up to critical analysis.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 14, 2011)

Understood, but what im trying to think of is will there ever be something that will rock the cradle so to speak... something so ground breaking that it just one up's everything we have ever believed... pretty far fetched thinking, this trainwreck has got me on, lol...

on another note, i saw a heis copy cat, but with 2 g's at the end...





Heisenberg said:


> It's for the same reason we do not have competing theories of what 2+2 equals; because the one we have is right. Do not think of Darwin's work as laws and theories, but as an interpretation of what Darwin observed and tested. His interpretation was largely correct, more so than he could imagine. We do have other interpretations, but they do not stand up to critical analysis.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Understood, but what im trying to think of is will there ever be something that will rock the cradle so to speak... something so ground breaking that it just one up's everything we have ever believed... pretty far fetched thinking, this trainwreck has got me on, lol...
> 
> on another note, i saw a heis copy cat, but with 2 g's at the end...


As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian..."


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Understood, but what im trying to think of is will there ever be something that will rock the cradle so to speak... something so ground breaking that it just one up's everything we have ever believed... pretty far fetched thinking, this trainwreck has got me on, lol...
> 
> on another note, i saw a heis copy cat, but with 2 g's at the end...


I think there could still be a few things that will rock the evolutionary world. We find small discoveries every year, like the recent finding that raptors probably had feathers. I am not informed enough about evolution to suggest some likely discoveries that are waiting out there to blow our minds, perhaps MP could suggests a few.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 14, 2011)

Where's mindphuk to come fuck all our minds?! 

Better get an umbrella, it's bout to be raining' knowledge up in this bitch!


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 15, 2011)

I think we are bound at some point to find extraterrestrial life, that would rock all of biology.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I think we are bound at some point to find extraterrestrial life, that would rock all of biology.


what leads you to believe that dude?


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 15, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> what leads you to believe that dude?


Because we are looking. Technology moves fast, we might be only a few decades away from finding it, if in fact life is common. There is some wishfull thinking too but I think that makes more sense than that life is rare, especially considering some of the scenarios by exobiologists. Advanced life I'm sure is pretty rare, at least in our immediate area. But how cool would it be to find life that can live in the methane seas on Titan or in the liquid water on Enceladus!


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 15, 2011)

It would be a mindphuk, ....


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> I think we are bound at some point to find extraterrestrial life, that would rock all of biology.


Wouldnt biology as we know it remain consistent with observation? Aliens would still evolve in the same way we do, right?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Wouldnt biology as we know it remain consistent with observation? Aliens would still evolve in the same way we do, right?


Yes, but they might have a different genetic chemistry, even if subtly different from the essentially monolithic DNA chemistry every living thing from/on Earth has. Maybe a different palette of amino acids. That would indeed rock biochemnistry! cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 15, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Wouldnt biology as we know it remain consistent with observation? Aliens would still evolve in the same way we do, right?


I think it's reasonable to say that aliens would evolve via natural selection, but there's no telling what environmental pressures they would endure so there's no way to determine how they would evolve.


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 15, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Yes, but they might have a different genetic chemistry, even if subtly different from the essentially monolithic DNA chemistry every living thing from/on Earth has. Maybe a different palette of amino acids. That would indeed rock biochemnistry! cn


I think a new type of replicating molecule different than DNA would be really incredible but a different set of nucleotides would also create a lot of questions and interesting investigations.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 15, 2011)

I always thought it was odd when you'd see an alien on tv or in a movie and it looked like a human only slightly different and could speak English rofl!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 16, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Yes, but they might have a different genetic chemistry, even if subtly different from the essentially monolithic DNA chemistry every living thing from/on Earth has. Maybe a different palette of amino acids. That would indeed rock biochemnistry! cn


...in a symbolic sense (I know, I know...  ) I like the 666 of the carbon atom. If I further that thought I see 777 as alien, 888 as christic, and 999 as all. I wonder what that would look like chemically. (einsteinium to the 9th?) ...no superscript for the apple nerds in the forum, that I know of


----------



## labudman (Nov 16, 2011)

Science has already discovered that life can survive in places here on Earth, where we once thought it couldn't http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Top-Ten-Places-Where-Life-Shouldnt-Exist-But-Does.html How cool is that?

I love how someone on here said, as I do too "I knew nothing until I knew I know nothing" 

I used to be very religious, you know thumpin away at Genesis - Revelation(NO FREAKING S), but then one days I actually read the book!

What makes you think science is going to be rocked with some new discovery? The practice of science is by it's very objective in search of things that will shack, rattle, and role the whole scientific community. LOL


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

labudman said:


> Science has already discovered that life can survive in places here on Earth, where we once thought it couldn't http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Top-Ten-Places-Where-Life-Shouldnt-Exist-But-Does.html How cool is that?
> 
> I love how someone on here said, as I do too "I knew nothing until I knew I know nothing"
> 
> ...


Not "some new discovery"; I don't think that's the topic.
For me it's about finding a non-terrestrial biochemistry.
I cannot imagine a different chemistry, even slightly different, for the genetic mechanism ... not any that does the coding job and still conforms to the rules of chemistry.
So when one day one is found ... it will be a triumph of reality over the limits of imagination.
It would definitely and significantly expand the boundaries of living chemistry, which is a topic that has always held me in thrall. 

I'm hoping Mars or Europa will turn up local native organisms, something like bacteria or archaea. Otherwise I'll have to hold out (im ny imagination) for sending probes to likely stars. cn


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 16, 2011)

What if the aliens looked like poop?


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 16, 2011)

They would be repulsive, lol!


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

There was a Star Trek Next episode that inverted Heph's premise. The crew discovered a crystalline life form that they all found beautiful. When Geekmeister Data finally succeeded in making a translator, the first thing the crystallites said was "UGLY! Ugly bags of mostly water." WE looked like poop with eyes ... cn


----------



## marijuananation (Nov 17, 2011)

proof right here guys and gals
*http://www.facebook.com/EliciaModel*


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 17, 2011)

marijuananation said:


> proof right here guys and gals
> *http://www.facebook.com/EliciaModel*


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 17, 2011)

mindphuk said:


>


fuck you.

lol


----------



## BA142 (Nov 18, 2011)

It's astounding to me that people still believe in this fictional God created 2000 years ago

Laughable


----------



## rolly187 (Nov 22, 2011)

If we did find evidence of aliens would that push people away from believing in a god or draw them into it? I believe in god and aliens. Give me a blunt and 45 minutes out of ur life and i will share my brilliance.


----------



## dababydroman (Nov 22, 2011)

its time for christians to get radical. death on athiest. your faith in the world will be tested by the wrath of god.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 22, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> its time for christians to get radical. death on athiest. your faith in the world will be tested by the wrath of god.


Have at it buddy, show the rest of the world what Christianity really teaches you.


----------



## dababydroman (Nov 22, 2011)

well world, im sure we all know that christianity teaches us to always have faith. faith so strong that none of the squares can fuck with us.

these people are mad that they do not have the psyche advantages to deal withs lifes problems and questions.

i mean i mMEAN how can you DeBATE with a CHRISTIAN about jesus you much be an IDIOT. 

and i bare witness to the same ppl doing it here for woow a long as time now.. fuckin loosers


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 22, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> well world, im sure we all know that christianity teaches us to always have faith. faith so strong that none of the squares can fuck with us.
> 
> these people are mad that they do not have the psyche advantages to deal withs lifes problems and questions.
> 
> ...



Wait, are you doing a satire of a hateful, angry christian, or are you actually a hateful, angry christian? Either way the post made me smile...


----------



## dababydroman (Nov 22, 2011)

fuck you thats who.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 22, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> well world, im sure we all know that christianity teaches us to always have faith. faith so strong that none of the squares can fuck with us.


Christianity teaches you to bury your head in the sand. Having faith so strong even reality can't shake it. The signature of a sheep.



dababydroman said:


> these people are mad that they do not have the psyche advantages to deal withs lifes problems and questions.


Religion is easy, figuring life out for yourself requires critical thought, discipline, reflection... an entirely new skill set you build as you go. What question has religion answered?



dababydroman said:


> i mean i mMEAN how can you DeBATE with a CHRISTIAN about jesus you much be an IDIOT.


It's interesting?



dababydroman said:


> and i bare witness to the same ppl doing it here for woow a long as time now.. fuckin loosers


You mad bro?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2011)

BA142 said:


> It's astounding to me that people still believe in this fictional God created 2000 years ago
> 
> Laughable


...you're still penning about on the wispy tracers of a 2000 year old fictional god. Is that invisible ink you've got in that stylus?

Sounds like wishful thinking.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Christianity teaches you to bury your head in the sand. Having faith so strong even reality can't shake it. The signature of a sheep.


...naturally, as a person who has a strong grip on visual representations of invisible precepts, I'd say no. (...precept, in this case, to shine - you know, like a sun does.)

I'm not a sheep. It's a sorely misunderstood metaphor. It goes so far as magnetism and particle interaction for a body that is well. If a person studies enough, they'll find that it is a way to keep their earth/body in harmony with an animating principle. A way to sustain life.

Not so much 'baaa', rather, 'beee'. 

I wonder, do you think it is ok for religion to evolve along the side of science?


----------



## doc111 (Nov 22, 2011)

If God did not exist, all things would be permitted


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Nov 22, 2011)

BA142 said:


> It's astounding to me that people still believe in this fictional God created 2000 years ago
> 
> Laughable


Why is it so laughable to believe in a god? Are you saying that it isn't a chance to find other beings in our universe? Why is it so far fetched to believe in a god when so many people believe in aliens?


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 22, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Wait, are you doing a satire of a hateful, angry christian, or are you actually a hateful, angry christian? Either way the post made me smile...


Poe's Corollary
&#8220;It is impossible for an act of Fundamentalism to be made that someone won't mistake for a parody.&#8221;


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...you're still penning about on the wispy tracers of a 2000 year old fictional god. Is that invisible ink you've got in that stylus?
> 
> Sounds like wishful thinking.


You make a good point in that, not all people's idea of god is ridiculous. Some people's idea's are quite interesting. Pantheism and deism are two ideas I have relatively little problem with. But a great deal of the world believes in a creator God who takes personal interest in peoples lives and answers prayers. Throw in salvation and damnation, and it makes me laugh quite often, even if only out of exasperation.



Hepheastus420 said:


> Why is it so laughable to believe in a god? Are you saying that it isn't a chance to find other beings in our universe? Why is it so far fetched to believe in a god when so many people believe in aliens?


He said, a god of 2000 years ago, which, considering the context of the thread, probably refers to an abrahamic god. You really don't have to search long to find something laughable about that.

If we find other beings in our universe, are they likely to be God's? Not in any biblical sense of the word but still, this is plausible. Now, the idea that we would find Jesus or Yahweh is pretty laughable.

As to your last question, many people believe Elvis is still alive. Would that give any weight to the idea that Michael Jackson is still alive? They are two different circumstances, with one having no real bearing on the other. We could have aliens visit us and confirm that belief but it would not allow us to be any more or less certain of God, unless the aliens had proof of their own, which would be really exciting.


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Poe's Corollary
> &#8220;It is impossible for an act of Fundamentalism to be made that someone won't mistake for a parody.&#8221;


That's great, Heis. I've never heard that before...


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 22, 2011)

> Having faith so strong even reality can't shake it.


Reality differs from person to person, making a statement such as that does not qualify. If i am mistaken, please post a definition that is accepted world wide that demonstrates your point.



> figuring life out for yourself requires critical thought, discipline, reflection.


WHy is it that i have been able to "figure out life" for myself with what i have learned from the teachings of God? I am a very accepted individual in society and i am a very good contributor to society, yet i believe in God, why is that so? My faith in God is what has gotten me through some really tough times in life. It got me through the death of my son(*you all can say what you want, but please remember, my son is dead, so dont be dicks)!!!!!*



> What question has religion answered?


i cannot speak for anyone else, but i do not seek religion for answers. My faith has nothing to do with religion as i believe that religion, structured that is, such as those massive church buildings you see and the assholes that ask you for half of your paycheck per month have nothing to do with what God set out to do. They have abused the system and will continue to do so till the end of time. I look to God for answers when i am in a hard spot, i ask questions... no i do not expect Him to answer them in a voice, but i understand that He has given me the ability to figure things out once i calm down and start to ask questions about the situation. Say what you want, but it has worked for me because i do Believe.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 22, 2011)

> its time for christians to get radical. death on athiest.


I do not know if you are being serious, but why would you say such a thing? It makes no sense to make such a statement when the few believers(heph and myself) on here have been trying to shed a new light on these atheists' views on believers.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You make a good point in that, not all people's idea of god is ridiculous. Some people's idea's are quite interesting. Pantheism and deism are two ideas I have relatively little problem with. But a great deal of the world believes in a creator God who takes personal interest in peoples lives and answers prayers. Throw in salvation and damnation, and it makes me laugh quite often, *even if only out of exasperation.*


...that's pretty accurate right there. Some of those fundamentalist types, man, I tell you 

...all in all, my thought goes to "how to help that situation". I mean, I get the 'who is the observer' question. But as that 'vision' approaches people they tend to look like those anti harry potter types. I think it's an ignorance hangover they have, something like that


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 22, 2011)

I wonder, do you think it is ok for religion to evolve along the side of science?

I don't see how something set in stone (literally) can evolve or progress with time or culture. If it changes, how can it truly be the inspired word of God, much less the word of God himself?



olylifter420 said:


> Reality differs from person to person.


No, reality remains reality, our individual perception and interpretation of reality is what changes.



olylifter420 said:


> Why is it that i have been able to "figure out life" for myself with what i have learned from the teachings of God?


What have you figured out as a direct result of your belief in God? 'life' is pretty vague.

I'm sorry to hear about your son, dude. 





olylifter420 said:


> i cannot speak for anyone else, but i do not seek religion for answers. My faith has nothing to do with religion as i believe that religion, structured that is, such as those massive church buildings you see and the assholes that ask you for half of your paycheck per month have nothing to do with what God set out to do. They have abused the system and will continue to do so till the end of time. I look to God for answers when i am in a hard spot, i ask questions... no i do not expect Him to answer them in a voice, but i understand that He has given me the ability to figure things out once i calm down and start to ask questions about the situation. Say what you want, but it has worked for me because i do Believe.


Serial killing works wonders for some people too bro. It takes more than that for the rest of us though.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I don't see how something set in stone (literally) can evolve or progress with time or culture. If it changes, how can it truly be the inspired word of God, much less the word of God himself?


...the things which are set in stone are completely fluid, that's the living word of belief. They will always be, and I think that is what is meant by 'in stone' - or, at the foundation of. Let's take happiness as an example. 100,000,000 years from now, happiness will be the same. It will still be as an aspect of an immutable god.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 22, 2011)

> I don't see how something set in stone (literally) can evolve or progress with time or culture


you believe in evolution so to say that something that has been set in stone that cannot change would contradict your belief. The wheel was set in stone, so were all of our tools and so on, they do evolve with time and so would the word the God. The changes occur to accommodate the needs of the people and with time the meaning of things change as well. Just imagine if we did change anything and stuck to our old draconian ways of the past. Everyone would kill everyone and only the strong would survive. I think it changes in order to cause change universally. 



> our individual perception and interpretation of reality is what changes.


Ok, so then since you are an atheist and do not believe in God that makes your interpretation and perception of reality superior to mine in the sense that i would not have a proper interpretation of this "universal reality"?



> I'm sorry to hear about your son, dude.


Thanks man, it was a really tough time in my life. I do not wish that on no one, what i went through. Nights filled with heavy drinking and on top of that my ex wife left me a month later, i caught her cheating, yeah, cheating... lol...




> Serial killing works wonders for some people too bro. It takes more than that for the rest of us though.


I dont get it, there are also serial killer atheists and death squads just as there is those religious martyrs.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 22, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...the things which are set in stone are completely fluid, that's the living word of belief. They will always be, and I think that is what is meant by 'in stone' - or, at the foundation of. Let's take happiness as an example. 100,000,000 years from now, happiness will be the same. It will still be as an aspect of an immutable god.





olylifter420 said:


> you believe in evolution so to say that something that has been set in stone that cannot change would contradict your belief. The wheel was set in stone, so were all of our tools and so on, they do evolve with time and so would the word the God. The changes occur to accommodate the needs of the people and with time the meaning of things change as well. Just imagine if we did change anything and stuck to our old draconian ways of the past. Everyone would kill everyone and only the strong would survive. I think it changes in order to cause change universally.


How could what God says is right be something different today than when it was written? Wouldn't that make God wrong? How could God be wrong?



olylifter420 said:


> Ok, so then since you are an atheist and do not believe in God that makes your interpretation and perception of reality superior to mine in the sense that i would not have a proper interpretation of this "universal reality"?


No, all it means is that reality is objective, our interpretation of reality is subjective. I might think its cold while you don't, fact is it remains 60F whether I'm cold or not.



olylifter420 said:


> I dont get it, there are also serial killer atheists and death squads just as there is those religious martyrs.


How I interpreted what you said earlier was something along the lines of 'it works for me', so I used the example of serial killing. Killing people gives some people a great sense of satisfaction or sexual gratification or whatever, it 'works for them', so I pointed out that simply 'working' isn't enough to warrant belief. The general consensus among most atheists is that religion is dangerous, and we can't even prove its authenticity.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 22, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How could what God says is right be something different today than when it was written? Wouldn't that make God wrong? How could God be wrong?


...you misinterpret my post. There are modes of being. One of them is happiness - it is part of a whole. When I say 'fluid' I mean it doesn't change, but is continually relevant - new.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Reality differs from person to person, making a statement such as that does not qualify. If i am mistaken, please post a definition that is accepted world wide that demonstrates your point.


I agree that parts of reality are subjective, or at least how we interpret events can be subjective. 

There are things in the gospels that require believers to suspend their better judgement about reality. For example, god stopping the movement of the sun, then reversing the movement of the sun, the parting of the red sea, the arc, and dozens if not hundreds of other events that are seemingly impossible. We know the world doesn't work the way it's described in the bible, so believing it requires people to "hang up their thinking caps", and accept things that are clearly impossible.

That kind of faith is harmful. 





> WHy is it that i have been able to "figure out life" for myself with what i have learned from the teachings of God? I am a very accepted individual in society and i am a very good contributor to society, yet i believe in God, why is that so? My faith in God is what has gotten me through some really tough times in life. It got me through the death of my son(*you all can say what you want, but please remember, my son is dead, so dont be dicks)!!!!!*


Sorry to hear about your son, that's something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. It's great that your faith in god, and Christ got you through those hard times, religion has always been based in the hearts of the downtrodden but just because something is comforting doesn't make it true. If you were born in the Middle east, it would be Allah and Muhammad that got you through the death of your son, or maybe it would have been Shiva is you lived in India.... the mechanism of religion can be useful, certain messages and practices are the problems. 

It reminds me of a quote from Proff. Stephen Weinberg;


*&#8220;Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.&#8221;*

I think religion helped you, but you could have gotten that help elsewhere; and it wouldn't come at the cost of believing impossible things.





> i cannot speak for anyone else, but i do not seek religion for answers. My faith has nothing to do with religion as i believe that religion, structured that is, such as those massive church buildings you see and the assholes that ask you for half of your paycheck per month have nothing to do with what God set out to do. They have abused the system and will continue to do so till the end of time. I look to God for answers when i am in a hard spot, i ask questions... no i do not expect Him to answer them in a voice, but i understand that He has given me the ability to figure things out once i calm down and start to ask questions about the situation. Say what you want, but it has worked for me because i do Believe.


That calming down and asking yourself questions about your situation is called 'critical thinking'. If you ask god, but he doesn't answer and you still figure it out; you shouldn't be thanking god, he didn't do anything - you did. So give yourself a pat on the back. 





eye exaggerate said:


> ...the things which are set in stone are completely fluid, that's the living word of belief. They will always be, and I think that is what is meant by 'in stone' - or, at the foundation of. Let's take happiness as an example. 100,000,000 years from now, happiness will be the same. It will still be as an aspect of an immutable god.


I disagree, there is no need to invoke any 'god' to describe happiness. Happiness 10,000 years ago was probably not dying after killing an animal to eat. A biological reward system designed to keep us trying to survive. Eat, sleep, fuck, take one good shit per day, that was happiness. 

Happiness now is much less about survival, and more about appeasing our wants and desires....


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 22, 2011)

> That kind of faith is harmful.


My faith is unlike the one you mention and describe and i know you understand that. Acceptance of several theories and laws is allowable, while a single person who minds their own business cannot practice their faith without being called insane. That is what i see a lot of among us here, that we all hold some beliefs that have affected others in our present, past or unseen future. Science and faith or religion cannot be used in the same discussion if you ask me. Everyone has a different understanding of the material at hand thus varying opinions will form due to our historical past. Everyone knows that there has been martyrs for both sides of the coin and to say nay towards the side of science is preposterous.. WE all know science has killed in the name of science and religious martyrs have killed in the name of their God.



> Sorry to hear about your son,


Thank you for the kind words.



> the mechanism of religion can be useful, certain messages and practices are the problems.


yes, i to agree that certain forms of religious practices can and are dangerous to other people... but to associate everyone who believes in God with such martyrs is, well, preposterous. 



> I think religion helped you, but you could have gotten that help elsewhere; and it wouldn't come at the cost of believing impossible things


people cope differently to different situations. the law of individual differences comes to mind. I think my faith is what got me through, not my religion. I did not seek out religious individuals for advice. Again, why is it impossible? The universe is so gigantic, impossible is possible, we just dont know yet.



> That calming down and asking yourself questions about your situation is called 'critical thinking'. If you ask god, but he doesn't answer and you still figure it out; you shouldn't be thanking god, he didn't do anything - you did. So give yourself a pat on the back.


i did, but without God, i would have not been able to. Again, my faith and the teachings i have learned is what got me through these tough times.. through my faith, God gives me the power to understand and think critically stabilize the situation. 


the only difference between us is faith. Faith keeps me going when all odds seem against me. Faith is what keeps me strong in times of a weakened mind. Faith is what gives me hope that one day, we will all be equal and have no discrimination against each other just cause of our beliefs.


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 22, 2011)

> How could what God says is right be something different today than when it was written?


There are many things that have changed through time. Language and letters were very different from what we are used to today.



> I might think its cold while you don't, fact is it remains 60F whether I'm cold or not.


again, individual differences comes to mind. You are forgetting about demographic and geographic settings. These two aforementioned settings are highly influential on what and how a person is raised or how a society evolves with time. 



> The general consensus among most atheists is that religion is dangerous, and we can't even prove its authenticity.


how do you prove authenticity? An expert? Literature? Scientific method?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> people cope differently to different situations. the law of individual differences comes to mind. I think my faith is what got me through, not my religion. I did not seek out religious individuals for advice. Again, why is it impossible? The universe is so gigantic, impossible is possible, we just dont know yet.


Quantum theory says that given enough time, anything is possible. 

However, quantum theory isn't something we base our macro lives on, because it wouldn't make sense. No one stands on the side of the road, *not* at a bus stop waiting for the bus because it "could" stop there, because it's "possible". No one waits patiently in their kitchen holding an empty glass hoping that a drink will appear in it, because it's "possible". 

That being said, I don't share your sense of "it could happen because the universe is big"....



We may not know 100% sure that god didn't stop the sun and move it around in the sky, but we've got a pretty freakin' good idea that's just not possible, ever. There's no justification to believe it, we've been watching the sun for a long time and it's not exactly an erratic object. Pretty damn predictable in fact.



olylifter420 said:


> There are many things that have changed through time. Language and letters were very different from what we are used to today.


Language never claimed to be the perfect, unchanging, rules of God. It's expected for language to change over time, but how can the unwavering, perfect word of god "evolve"? The need or want to change something perfect, explicitly negates its perfection. Unless by evolve you mean change from the perfect word of god into the word of man that makes *way *more sense. That I'd be down with.....


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Nov 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> There are many things that have changed through time. Language and letters were very different from what we are used to today.


Oly, you've gotta see how that just isn't the same dude. God and his followers attribute omnipotence to his list of character traits, if he's wrong about something, that means he's not omnipotent, if he's not omnipotent, why worship him as a god? (especially considering all the harm the belief causes)



olylifter420 said:


> how do you prove authenticity? An expert? Literature? Scientific method?


Science


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 22, 2011)

If some of God's word is no longer applicable to today's world, why doesn't he give us some that are?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> If some of God's word is no longer applicable to today's world, why doesn't he give us some that are?


God only talks to suggestible, primitive people, that have no witnesses around... Geez Heis, I thought you knew that.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 22, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> If some of God's word is no longer applicable to today's world, why doesn't he give us some that are?


"Beta release" didn't render well in Attic Greek ... cn


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 22, 2011)

> I don't share your sense of "it could happen because the universe is big"....


you are free to believe whatever you want bro, I got no problem with that because i do not rely on you for anything. People are free to do as they wish...



> Unless by evolve you mean change from the perfect word of god into the word of man that makes way more sense. That I'd be down with.....


I dont know if you are being serious, so i will wait on my response.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> you are free to believe whatever you want bro, I got no problem with that because i do not rely on you for anything. People are free to do as they wish...
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know if you are being serious, so i will wait on my response.


I was actually being serious. lol

If that's how you define "evolve" when it comes to religion, I'm down. 

Cut out all the impossible shit in the bible, all the resurrections and virgin births, denials of physics, all the bigotry towards women and gays, drop the old testament and revelations and I think it'd be a somewhat worthwhile book to live by.

Now, if the bits of the bible that remain after all the "B.S. removal" happen to be the only parts you practice, I'll give you a big 'Amen' brother...


----------



## olylifter420 (Nov 22, 2011)

COol. I respect that bro. Thanks

I forgot to post my response, lol! 

Yes, that is what i meant by evolve. I would really like that to happen, but i do not think that would happen anytime soon...



Beefbisquit said:


> I was actually being serious. lol
> 
> If that's how you define "evolve" when it comes to religion, I'm down.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 22, 2011)

Ghandi said it well;

&#8220;I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.&#8221;

You don't have to actually be a Christian to draw out, and use the good and moral parts of the bible.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 23, 2011)

...okay.

We're pluggin' stuff into these threads like a '50s operator...all giggly 'n sht.  Really, when did any religious type (especially here on this forum) say that 'good' 'kindheartedness' 'non-evil' originated with their version of whatever-ianity? That's some B.S. Removal worthy material, imo.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 23, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...okay.
> 
> We're pluggin' stuff into these threads like a '50s operator...all giggly 'n sht.  Really, when did any religious type (especially here on this forum) say that 'good' 'kindheartedness' 'non-evil' originated with their version of whatever-ianity? That's some B.S. Removal worthy material, imo.


I agree as well.

This is actually what I was thinking of...


----------



## eye exaggerate (Nov 23, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> I agree as well.
> 
> This is actually what I was thinking of...


...good call.

"The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1][2]"

It's interesting stuff.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Nov 28, 2011)

Prove to you there is a God?
Everytime you say "Fuck Jesus," or Any sort of blesphemy you are confessing to Christ coming in the flesh of man on earth.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Nov 28, 2011)

Christ won just like that.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Nov 28, 2011)

Everyone who lives has life in them.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Nov 28, 2011)

http://news.yahoo.com/want-run-president-just-sign-182502094.html


----------



## Beefbisquit (Nov 28, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Prove to you there is a God?
> Everytime you say "Fuck Jesus," or Any sort of blesphemy you are confessing to Christ coming in the flesh of man on earth.


That doesn't make any sense! LOL!

If I say "Fuck Santa" does that mean I'm confessing to Santa coming in the flesh of man on earth.... with presents?

Good to see you're still as abrasive and nonsensical as ever Marl...



> Christ won just like that.


..... seriously man, what are you talking about?


----------



## Harrekin (Nov 30, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> That doesn't make any sense! LOL!
> 
> If I say "Fuck Santa" does that mean I'm confessing to Santa coming in the flesh of man on earth.... with presents?
> 
> ...


 I think "the Almighty" has started talking back to poor Marlboro, he's even more batshit crazy than he used to be.

He still hates the gays tho, so at least he's consistent as well as insane


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 4, 2011)

[youtube]NviLvMRbGoE&feature=relmfu[/youtube]


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> [youtube]NviLvMRbGoE&feature=relmfu[/youtube]


I love the Amazing Atheist... great vids!


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

Christ really wants you all to know that he is the savior. Anytime you make a mistake he is the one who will honestly help us get through anything. If we lean on the understanding of Christ we can achieve perfection and through perfection we can achieve full control over our bodily actions.
I will not correct the wicked men, I will not correct a scoffer, and I will deny those who deny me.

Know that if I have seemed to correct you I correct myself so that you will not be corrected.
I will only correct wise men so they may increase their learning as they love correction when I correct them I learn from them as I correct them.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

As I learn from them they will learn from me.


Know that the darkness does not comprehend the light and that those which are not of God may not even understanding me and I speak word for word.

Love is perfect, once you achieve the status of having no fear then you may hate the world and flee and run from corruption so that you may only enjoy what is fullfilling and because we know that the world does not teach us and it only causes us pain we may achieve perfection with the Love of the Father. And through the love of the father we ahcieve love of everything because we know that Christ says fear the commandment love one an other, through loving one an other we can achieve love of the world through others that we love, and as we hate the world we can become perfect even through having love of the world in us.

Lust/Hate/Fear demonic wisdom.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

Remember to hate the world above all things, also understand that the perfect son was given to the world from what we know...

Fear the commandment "love one an other."

Hate the commandment "love one an other."


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 26, 2011)

You're rambling.... most of it doesn't make sense.

Don't hate the world, that's ridiculous and you're ridiculous for telling people that. Jesus the man, may have existed but Jesus the son of god is a myth.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

I hate the world because it can swallow me whole.
I fear the world because it can swallow me whole...
I ramble on because the wise men will learn from all of my corrections.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 26, 2011)

Hating something because you're scared of it it just stupid.

A pure stance from ignorance.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

An evil person told me I could do whatever I wanted. Because I want to achieve perfection and excellence I will hate the world to aquire love which is that of perfection which may include everything that the perfect Father loves. And if Love of the world blocks perfect love then I absolutely am in hate with the world because I want love which is that of the perfect one.

Anyways if I love someone who is in love with the world I know the love of the world is in them and because they have love in the world in them and because I love them aswell I may be automatically in love with the world and because I hate the world for deceiving us and killing who is perfect just so that the darkness can try to comprehend what it is too slow to comprehend because it is slow because it disobeyed its master and because it disobeyed its master it will indeed have a habbit because it disobeyed once it is no longer perfect and because it knows it is no longer perfect I feel that it trys to make up for what it did but because it isn't perfect it can't achieve love which is that of the Father because once rebelled the descision has been made to go fourth with 100% full force and because the Father is 100% perfect once that of the world disobeyed it is trying to achieve 100% unperfection.


Those who may love the world for what it may have to offer may even be deceiving me into making me love them through that I hate the world so that I may see exactly who everyone is and because I wasnt to ahieve perfection I choose to understanding what is perfecton and even if it is through only the imagination which I know it is know because the perfection actually teaches me and through that I know that whoever is 100% perfect is still alive beause 100% perfect will not let any of us who choose the route to 100% perfection down since it is 100% perfect.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 26, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Hating something because you're scared of it it just stupid.
> 
> A pure stance from ignorance.


It's also an instinctive response by the human animal. 
The real task of reason in this instance would be override our amazing capacity to equate Otherness with What's Bad. 
cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 26, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> An evil person told me I could do whatever I wanted. Because I want to achieve perfection and excellence I will hate the world to aquire love which is that of perfection which may include everything that the perfect Father loves. And if Love of the world blocks perfect love then I absolutely am in hate with the world because I want love which is that of the perfect one.



I was going to type out a big, long, response to this, but it's not worth my time.

Nothing you write has a shred of intelligence to it. You don't think before you write, and it certainly shows. This flowery, bullshit, diatribe is just....stupid. Your metaphors are stupid, your writing style is stupid, and your ideas are stupid...

None of the bullshit that comes from your mind, that makes it into this part of the forum has any validity, or structure to it.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

Smoke some mota.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 26, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> Smoke some mota.


Why'd you delete your weird response refering to people who died but didn't believe in 'the savior' turning into ghosts? I thought it lent credit to what you're attempting to convey...


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

Do you love to learn? Do you love correction? The truth will set you free.

Hate the world so that you may achieve victory over what may be deceiving us in the first place into thinking that someone who is 100% unperfect cannot rule, also know that since 100% perfection is 100% perfect it is watching 100% unperfect make the mistakes so that it may remain 100% perfect without defiling itself. and because 100% unperfect does not want to defile itself with anything that is 100% unperfect it will remain 100% perfect even through everything because if it is truely 100% perfect it will always rule.

In my mind and my mental state I only follow what is 100%perfect. I deny false promises. I deny unperfection so that I may only accept perection.

Since I know I make mistakes I love correction, making myself even more perfect knowing that I love correction...


I will not correct anyone who does not want to be corrected.
Know that if you choose to hate correction I will not correct you. I will not correct anyone who hates correction.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 26, 2011)

I love to learn, I just want to make sure what I'm learning is accurate. 

What you pass off as "knowledge" is mythology, and has no basis for believing it other than faith, which we've already established as; believing in something that's unproven.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

Do not resist an evil person explain to wise men:

If you do not resist a single evil person know that they all fight and because they all fight you may help your enemies and because you may help your enemies you can manipulate whatever is nessesarry to not resist an evil person so that you can truely achieve the full reward while you walk about in your daily life.

Remember the evil people told us to wash our hands before and after each meal... ect...


Also know that because if we do not resist an evil person we can be the one in the middle watching them all fight.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

Because I was told that I can do whatever I wanted from a evil person I will help those who follow me.

I am the master of myself and because Christ said I can only choose one master I am my own master.
Because I am my own master I can ahieve victory using Christ as my savior.

I may even be the master of masters because that is what I am masterying. 100% perfection through the love of the Father.

All those who cannot outsmart me instantly cannot be my master.
All those who I instantly outsmart know that you may choose me as your master so that I will free you of the bad spirits that cause you pain.

I will tie up the hatred inside of you an kill it instantly.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 26, 2011)

Hes altered, 5 of Haldol, call for a psych consult.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

Know that I choose to deny speaking as of the world. I rather be perfect and keep my thoughts completely of God rather then denying my own existance because I am deceived into not knowing.


I will now bind up deception so that you may all continue learning without the worry of deception.

Remember I do not correct those who hate correction.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

Through not resisting an evil person I am the master of masters.


As I will help me enemies I will give them the wisdom that they seek. Just Ask Daniel Isaac Valenzuela to deliever the wisdom you seek to you without even having to defile your lips with my name.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Dec 26, 2011)

You sound like a cultist.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

hahahah. I am w/e I wanna be bro.


Know that the anti Christ spirits(Unfriendly Ghosts) I will tell them that if they steal from my wise men they will be cursed upon for stealing so that they may not be tempted into stealing again. Also know that I will curse them so that if they still from you they still burn in hell for even longer. Also know that I will kick them out of your house if they have any plans of deception or have evil being divised from inside of them I will devise evil for those anti Christs to loose wisdom every second that I gain wisdom.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Dec 26, 2011)

If they choose to make me loose everything that I worked for I will make sure they loose everything that they worked for. Because they lost everything they worked for I will make sure to redirect their footsteps away from all of the houses that do not welcome unfriendly spirits.

Also know that those who disobey will look bad once everything is complete. 
Be as holy as possible.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 26, 2011)

Speaking nonsense with a twist of new age rhetoric doesn't impress me or anyone else here whose interested in legitimate discourse. You jumble up meanings and twist words around in an attempt to appear knowledgeable about what you're talking about, but it does the complete opposite.

I'm afraid even you don't know what you're saying.

But to take your incoherent rant down logic lane.. Your supposedly all powerful "perfect" being is overpowered by simple deception. 

Clearly imperfect. A perfect being would create its creations with the inability to be swayed by deception, especially in a universe he himself also created.


----------



## G.J. Stoner (Dec 26, 2011)

Four months and one hundred fifty pages and we're still feeding this psychotic, mush brained, illiterate? Come on gang, DNFTT!!!


----------



## kighpee (Aug 5, 2012)

Marlboro47 said:


> Any religion out there is of the anti christ, Except for Christianity of the new testament.
> The word "religion," was ment to deceive you. Its Christian(believer of christ) or anti christ(deceiver). All the other names were ment to cover up anti-christ.


I thought Jews were the first "God's People" , they are anti-christ too ?


----------



## Kaendar (Aug 5, 2012)

Who the hell bumped this thread


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Aug 5, 2012)

Oh God why did they bump it?Wait ...I used the G-word goddamit!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 3, 2013)

Wonder what happened to Marlboro..


----------



## tyler.durden (Mar 3, 2013)

The mission was called off, and he had to return to his home planet of Trolliana. If you missed his goodbye speech, here it is again...

[video=youtube;ULZWquS46y0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=ULZWquS46y0#![/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 3, 2013)

lulz!

Whenever these guys abruptly check out like that I always assume I'm going to see em on the news in a couple months! Remember, wasn't this the guy making batman clips to FDD?


----------



## ProfessorPotSnob (Mar 3, 2013)

[video=youtube;cDm_ZHyYTrg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDm_ZHyYTrg[/video]


----------



## Marlboro47 (Apr 25, 2013)

Bunch of winkers


----------

