No wonder Jesus has such mass a peel. :rimshot:
Hell, I mentioned Jesus in this very thread. That doesn't make him any more real...
There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever of an actual person we think of as Jesus. As I said, just the mythology surrounding him. You've admitted as much yourself.
I'm not dismissing evidence because there is none to dismiss. That's the point. You can't point to a single 1st person account of Jesus to corroborate the Bible.
There's probably a divine reason there isn't a " 1st person account of Jesus to corroborate the Bible " because if there was the whole idea of salvation through faith would be compromised. Jon said it himself... reason is the enemy of faith.
Also, on evolution.. It's not creation vs. evolution. Evolution is part of creation. Evolution is scientifically proven. Birds take one generation to evolve. Evolution is a means of adaptation to an environment, nothing more.. It's been a few pages since evolution was brought up. I've been staying out of this one reading... but really... I don't see the point in debating any of this, unless you are a Christian and you just want to raise awareness of the living God. It's beyond me why a non-believer would bother with the topic. Anyone who has true faith has it personally affirmed all the time... and unless someone wants that for themselves... it can't be "sold" in a tidy argument. It crosses into the whole free will component and when you start talking like that the non-believer is lost in the semantics of what they do not want to understand... Lead the horse to water... but what if he's not thirsty?
Also, on evolution.. It's not creation vs. evolution. Evolution is part of creation. Evolution is scientifically proven. Birds take one generation to evolve. Evolution is a means of adaptation to an environment, nothing more.. It's been a few pages since evolution was brought up. I've been staying out of this one reading... but really... I don't see the point in debating any of this, unless you are a Christian and you just want to raise awareness of the living God. It's beyond me why a non-believer would bother with the topic. Anyone who has true faith has it personally affirmed all the time... and unless someone wants that for themselves... it can't be "sold" in a tidy argument. It crosses into the whole free will component and when you start talking like that the non-believer is lost in the semantics of what they do not want to understand... Lead the horse to water... but what if he's not thirsty?
So its crazy to believe that there was an intergalactic war 75 million years ago and thats how humans got here as opposed to a guy who followed the same script as 30 or more other saviors of man kind who was born of a virgin, walked around raising the dead, ascended into the sky and defied death. The common denominator in this is "Faith". How can you say faith in one religion is invalid, but faith in another religion is completely valid, when both religions are completely void of any facts that can be absolutely verified.
The mear fact that Mary allegedly had a child and claimed to be a virgin is extremely far fetched, considering most women of that time were not respected, would have been killed on site for lying, much less being pregnant without Joseph tappin that @ss.
Your comment about graves is bunk. So Josephus Flavious can write a 2nd hand account (When in fact he was born after Jesus was allegedly on earth) that many scholars believe to be inauthentic and altered, yet you believe it to be fact, then you claim that the same thing could be said about Graves? When did circular reasoning and fallacy become an acceptable substitute for logic?
Explain the 30 other so saviors of mankind that follow the same script of Jesus. I can explain it... It's called Solar Deities. The entire story of Jesus Christ and the Christian religion has pagan roots and is a carbon copy of Horus, the Egyptian sun god.
As avvie said, this has gotten off subject. Alex has confused intelligence with intellectualism. You can be intelligent and not be an intellectual. Just because your IQ is at a certain level, doesn't mean you aren't susceptible to accepting bat insane ideologies as fact, when there is no credible evidence of it being true. It's like saying ignorance is the same as stupidity, when in fact, they are two completely different concepts.
No one here has challenged me in my original thought, in my original post. Both Conservative commentators and pastors are united in prefacing anti-intellectualism as a basis for their ideas. Glenn Beck had an hour long program bashing liberal professors at NYU. An easter service that I attended at a mainstream church was also prefaced by republican ideologies and anti-intellectualism as well.
Anti-intellectualism and conservatism are completely dependent on each other and no one can debunk that. Have you listened to Sarah Palin? What did Sarah Palin tell Bill O'Reilly in an interview?
I have to ask Ms. Palin, what's wrong an Ivy League education? Does an Ivy League education not require hard work? Are all Ivy Leaguers elitists? Isn't that casting the same blanket of generalizations and stereotypes that you are accusing me of? Conservatives can dish out punches, but cower in a corner when their ideas are challenged by common sense. Obama did an interview with O'Reilly... Why won't Palin do an interview with Keith Olbermann?
Well, I'd take issue with that... Conservatism isn't anti-intellectual; it's NEO-conservatism that is.... that's who we're actually fighting: the defenders of plutocracies, MICs, and theocratic authoritarianism.
This is funny, because Rush Limbaugh was constantly defending attacks on Bush's intelligence by pointing out his Yale diploma.... at any other time an Ivy league diploma is an endorsement of liberal propaganda.
I stand corrected. Paleo-Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism almost have completely different principles. Ron Paul could be considered a Paleo-Conservative while George Bush, Mitch McConnell, John McCain are neo cons at heart. Self described Social conservatives can land somewhere in the spectrum between paleo and neo, although most fall in the neo catagory.
Deny the similarities between Jesus and Krishna if you wish.
Deny the similarities between Jesus and Dionysus...
1. Dionysus comes down to earth as god made flesh as a savior and is the son of God.
2. His Father is a god and his mother is a mortal virgin.
3. His born in a humble stable on December 25 before three shepherds.
4. He dies at Easter time for the sins of the world.
5. After he dies he descends into hell and rises again on the third day.
6. He preaches about a Holy communion of his sacred body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.
Christianity is just every other religion before it regurgitated. Paganism mostly.
lol @ what's in bold. Yet it's not crazy to believe the story of Noah's ark? Jonah and the Whale? A man walking on water? Etc etc etc??
it was a fish not a whale!!! Stupid liberals should know that man can live inside a fish but not a whale
Bush also has a Harvard MBA.
You make your point clumsily. I don't think anybody objects wholesale to an IVY league education but IVY league lawyers are not worth a damn and they are the ones causing a lot of our problems.
FYI Bill O'Reilly has an MPA from Harvard.
I think both conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in terms of the percentage of brain dead idiots on each side and both sides have a fair percentage of very smart well educated people.
The difference is that conservatives are less likely to vote for a candidate because they think they can get get something for free that somebody else paid for.
I consider it more honorable and moral for someone to want to keep the fruits of their labor vs someone who wants to live on the fruits of someone else s labor.
The difference is that conservatives are less likely to vote for a candidate because they think they can get get something for free that somebody else paid for.
I consider it more honorable and moral for someone to want to keep the fruits of their labor vs someone who wants to live on the fruits of someone else s labor.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6I5BQcqihnE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6I5BQcqihnE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Obama intellectuals?
20,000 line up for some of that Obama stash and then complain about having to wait in line for it. Doubt if there are too many conservatives or libertarians in that crowd.
Did it ever occur to them that liberal policies are the reason their city and state are in such a horrible economic mess? Of course not they just want a check paid for by somebody else.
Obama intellectuals?
20,000 line up for some of that Obama stash and then complain about having to wait in line for it. Doubt if there are too many conservatives or libertarians in that crowd.
Did it ever occur to them that liberal policies are the reason their city and state are in such a horrible economic mess? Of course not they just want a check paid for by somebody else.
eight years of the liberal Bush doctrines just ruined us, didn't it?
Bush wasn't a "Tax and Spend" Liberal. Bush was a "Borrow and spend" liberal. One of the biggest fiscal liberals in American history.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
