137 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

taniwha, on 13 October 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

"  Jesus is just all right with me,
   Jesus is just all right, OOh yeah,
   Jesus is just all right with me,
   Jesus is just all right....
   hhhhO Yeahhh !!!....." Doobie Brothers

   I recommend this song if you need uplifting in Jesus name.....

I have heard many  Christians hymns / songs,   but that one  is one I have not heard before...  Jesus is just alight? < -- Where I come from, that is saying he is average lol He must have sat up all night to write those lyrics

Like  for example  - Joe plays baseball.. Is Joe really good at baseball?  .."Ack well he just alight at baseball" .. =  He is ok at it,.but could be better !!

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 13 October 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[Viviana98]

I have family members named Jesus....doesn't make me mad. It does however make others mad if I use my cousins name in vain for some reason. Jesus just freaking get over it already people!!!!

[Beckys_Mom]

pbarosso, on 13 October 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

i bet you all vote for obama too.(socialist ideas of getting rid of freedom to worship)

That would be rather....tricky...Well I would imagine  it would be   for anyone who  didn't live in the US ....and was not a citizen...!!

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 13 October 2012 - 11:02 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Viviana98, on 13 October 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

I have family members named Jesus....doesn't make me mad. It does however make others mad if I use my cousins name in vain for some reason. Jesus just freaking get over it already people!!!!

Do they pronounce is  as Jesus ?  OR like many do and it sounds as if they are saying  Hey Zeus?   I know that may sound funny, but when I hear them say the name it does sound as if they are calling - Hey Zeus  lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 13 October 2012 - 11:48 PM.

[Lion6969]

Does lack of evidence negate the existence of something?

[Arbitran]

Lion6969, on 14 October 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

Does lack of evidence negate the existence of something?

Not necessarily. But it does mean that there isn't a reason to believe in the thing; i.e., lack of evidence of leprechauns doesn't negate the possibility that there are leprechauns somewhere, there simply isn't any reason to think that there are (ergo, until we find some leprechauns, it's perfectly reasonable to say that there are no leprechauns, or at least that there probably aren't leprechauns).

[Lion6969]

Arbitran, on 14 October 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

Not necessarily. But it does mean that there isn't a reason to believe in the thing; i.e., lack of evidence of leprechauns doesn't negate the possibility that there are leprechauns somewhere, there simply isn't any reason to think that there are (ergo, until we find some leprechauns, it's perfectly reasonable to say that there are no leprechauns, or at least that there probably aren't leprechauns).

So you agree with me, good! Now take your belief out of it and points raised were there is no evidence for his existence, this alone does not suffice as proof of Jesus not existing does it. Based on lack of evidence you can hold any belief you like, but you can't categorically say he did not exist. You can say there are reasons to believe he did not exist, and the counter is there are reasons that he did exist, and cases can be presented either way.

Jesus is spoken about and talked about by so many people over centuries etc from relevant regions to other parts of the world etc.

To suggest he did not exist would also suggest that there was an almost global conspiracy on an unpresidented scale and over 100s of years. If so then you also have to prove that conspiracy with proof and reasoning.

[Arbitran]

Lion6969, on 14 October 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

So you agree with me, good! Now take your belief out of it and points raised were there is no evidence for his existence, this alone does not suffice as proof of Jesus not existing does it. Based on lack of evidence you can hold any belief you like, but you can't categorically say he did not exist. You can say there are reasons to believe he did not exist, and the counter is there are reasons that he did exist, and cases can be presented either way.

Jesus is spoken about and talked about by so many people over centuries etc from relevant regions to other parts of the world etc.

To suggest he did not exist would also suggest that there was an almost global conspiracy on an unpresidented scale and over 100s of years. If so then you also have to prove that conspiracy with proof and reasoning.

I certainly don't think that there was a conspiracy; but neither do I think that evidence demonstrates Jesus' existence, at this time. People having talked about him proves nothing; documentation would, but alas, there is no contemporaneous documentation of Jesus' existence. I think perhaps he did exist, but it would not be surprising in the least if he did not. In any case, his mere existence would not be step in the direction of proving his possession of magical powers, now would it?

[Lion6969]

Arbitran, on 14 October 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

I certainly don't think that there was a conspiracy; but neither do I think that evidence demonstrates Jesus' existence, at this time. People having talked about him proves nothing; documentation would, but alas, there is no contemporaneous documentation of Jesus' existence. I think perhaps he did exist, but it would not be surprising in the least if he did not. In any case, his mere existence would not be step in the direction of proving his possession of magical powers, now would it?

People spoke of him wrote about him and believed in him shortly after him (relatively speaking), a whole history exists about him in scripture form all be it not perfect but it's documentation. If your rejecting the scripture as proof coz it's not gods word that's a bad excuse to leave it out, even if it's written by men (which it is), then it's still evidence relating to him. There maybe not that much else corroborating the scripture (maybe we just ain't found it yet), but scripture, people, regional and global indications of his existence. Now for you to reason he did not exist you have only option is conspiracy, because we know lack of evidence does not negate existence but at the same time you bring baggage which is denial of scripture as proof or documentation, denial of aural traditions about him and etc. Therefore you can only reason he did not exist is because over centuries, thousands and thousands people globally colluded to create this myth of his existence. If so then you have to prove it with reasoning and proof that such a conspiracy took place.

[Vatic]

Lion6969, on 14 October 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

Does lack of evidence negate the existence of something?

Well we first need to ask if this peson would know where to look for evidence. if he isn't aware of existing evidence, then he certainly wouldn't be one to say his perspective negates anything.

[Lion6969]

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Well we first need to ask if this peson would know where to look for evidence. if he isn't aware of existing evidence, then he certainly wouldn't be one to say his perspective negates anything.

Whether you lack evidence or don't where to find it is irrelevant cause it still does not his existence.

If you approach it with baggage, ie, not considering scripture as evidence, then your coming with a bias, what ever that might be or what ever the reasoning for rejecting the only thing which relates to him the most is not a great academic approach is it?

Leave the baggage, you have scripture, aural tradition, other scriptures referring to him, regional and global references to him. If you come with baggage which rejects this outright from the beginning then you are being disingenuous towards the whole argument.

My point is simple, if you believe he did not exist, your only plausible reasoning is that it was all a conspiracy, if so you then have to substantiate it. Lack of evidence alone does not negate existence, but if you from the start reject and ignore certain sources and evidence then demand evidence, it's a bit hypocritical and simply arguing from ignorance.

[Vatic]

Lion6969, on 14 October 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

My point is simple, if you believe he did not exist, your only plausible reasoning is that it was all a conspiracy, if so you then have to substantiate it.

A global worldwide conspiracy that spans thousands of years among disconnected people, would be harder to prove than the idea that Jesus doesn't exist. Jesus exist...

[Beckys_Mom]

Arbitran, on 14 October 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

I certainly don't think that there was a conspiracy; but neither do I think that evidence demonstrates Jesus' existence, at this time. People having talked about him proves nothing; documentation would, but alas, there is no contemporaneous documentation of Jesus' existence. I think perhaps he did exist, but it would not be surprising in the least if he did not. In any case, his mere existence would not be step in the direction of proving his possession of magical powers, now would it?

When you watch  trick  by people such as Dynamo...

Walk on water..




Walks down a building..



And many more like it - Levitation, walking through glass etc etc..

If he was back in the times of Jesus,  I am willing to bet that many would think he was from god  or gods son too...

My point is.. I think that if this Jesus was real, he may have been the Dynamo of his day and a few of the stories exaggerated from tales past around...

[Arbitran]

Lion6969, on 14 October 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

People spoke of him wrote about him and believed in him shortly after him (relatively speaking), a whole history exists about him in scripture form all be it not perfect but it's documentation. If your rejecting the scripture as proof coz it's not gods word that's a bad excuse to leave it out, even if it's written by men (which it is), then it's still evidence relating to him. There maybe not that much else corroborating the scripture (maybe we just ain't found it yet), but scripture, people, regional and global indications of his existence. Now for you to reason he did not exist you have only option is conspiracy, because we know lack of evidence does not negate existence but at the same time you bring baggage which is denial of scripture as proof or documentation, denial of aural traditions about him and etc. Therefore you can only reason he did not exist is because over centuries, thousands and thousands people globally colluded to create this myth of his existence. If so then you have to prove it with reasoning and proof that such a conspiracy took place.

Unfortunately, scripture hasn't proven itself to qualify as documentation; it hasn't given us anything to set it apart from fiction. That's what I meant. No official records of his trial and execution, no census records, nothing. That's what I meant.

[Lion6969]

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

A global worldwide conspiracy that spans thousands of years among disconnected people, would be harder to prove than the idea that Jesus doesn't exist. Jesus exist...

Precisely it's harder to prove reasoning for his non existence than for his existence, ie scripture, aural traditions, foreign scriptures references to him etc. I'm not trying to prove it either way, just putting some perspective and context.