Historical evidence that the land fell into darkness in the year jesus was crucified; is there any?
Just curious. Read somewhere there is some evidence not sure how though.

I don't know about actual documented history, but Passover is just the right time of year for an eclipse in that part of the world. I dunno for sure.

Regards, PA

Yeah... true. There are alot of cultures out there that freaked when a solar eclips happened. And there is usually some kind of spiritual. religious major story that happens during the time when the day time sky turned to night...

but they say it was all day eclipses don't last that long, maybe it was a really really bad sand storm

A few years ago there was an overzealous pentacostal minister in Mexico who once gave a sermon telling of how he had performed an exorcism on a woman who lived just outside of the village. He claimed that as the "demon" exited her body the sky became dark and strong winds blew. The next day all the pentacostal congregation was talking about the dark sky and strong winds.
The rest of the people in the village simply frowned or shrugged. No one noticed a darkened sky or unusual winds.
These are how tales develop and the move through the circles of people who most believe in one form of religious thinking.

eclipse? don't forget about the imaginary earthquake, the rending of the veil, and the walking corpses (matthew only). no proof, no documentation, no record. anyone can check when eclipses happened even thousands of years ago. the absence of claims by creationists is deafening.

No one really knows then?

As has been pointed out to you before, absense of evidence is more often than not absense of occurance. All contemporary evidence makes no mention of a "great" leader by the name of Jesus that performed miracles and raised from the dead. There is evidence for several "sons of God" that did raise the dead and perform miracles...men such as Apollonius, who not only had gospels written about him but even wrote several books himself. No one really knows, but the probability of Jesus ever existing, much less being crucified (probably borrowed from Mithraism) is extremely low.

No offence to anyone on this forum, but you and I are all cattle. Do you honestly think and I have access to all information. You have access to all information available to you. Knowledge is power, and the church is not in control of this world. Do you honestly think we have an independent media that the average person trusts. The people of United States have put there faith in government and governments lie.

Personaly all the main reason I believe in all this God Jesus Satan stuff is not because of the bible or religion but because of my reserach into the near death experiance. I have spoken with about a dozen people who have died and had there life changed so they now believe in God when before they died they didn't. I'm convinced I'm right, and you can belive what you want.

One NDE I read was of a woman who was shown the crusifiction during her death, and then a voice said to her, don't you realize I did this for you. Her name is Angie Fennimore and here is her NDE for you to read:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/suicide04.html

I don't think that quote is in there. I originally saw her on a TV documentry, that I have on video tape actually.

nde's make me wonder if that's what happened to yeshu (jesus), and he came back, told what he saw, etc.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." Thallus Circa AD 52 (as quoted by Julius Africanas)

One thing I would like to add to this one, he mentions that it grew dark AND there was a major earthquake in Judea as the same time. This is recorded in Luke 23:44-45. To add to it, the crucifixion occured during a full moon...you can't have a solar eclipse during a full moon...yet it is recorded as occuring in history. In fact, Africanas quotes Phlegon as well:

Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth — manifestly that one of which we speak. (Africanus, 18.1)

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!" Babylonian Talmud

These are quotes from outside the bible sources and are not flattering toward Christianity however they do offer a glimpse of a historical Jesus and the events of His crucifixion.

All The Best
Irish

I AM POSTING THIS REBUTTAL SOLELY FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE FOOLED BY IRISH'S POST.

For the record, Julius Africanus was a Christian writer of the second-third century.

You may access his writings on line at:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-...tm#P2101_600104

Then there are articles:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08565a.htm

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/africanus.php

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ADA_AIZ/AFRI...TUS_JULIUS.html



do not be fooled. this writer was a major xian apologist in his time. even xian scholars doubt his veracity.


let's run with that. this is the only non xian source you quote, and it throws a kibosh on the whole "arrested on friday, executed, and ressurected on sunday" premise. oh, well. forty days? not three? interesting. you disagree with yourself irish.

I do not actually believe he was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday. The sign of Jonah - Jesus would be in the ground for the same length of time as Jonah was in the belly of the big fish, ie 3 days AND 3 nights, physically impossible from Friday to Sunday (these days were chosen by the Catholics to coincide with the festival of Oestre, which became Easter, thus making it easier to convert the masses).

More likely Jesus was crucified on Wednesday (or possibly Thursday at the latest), the next day would be a High Sabbath (Passover).... three days and three nights pass..... and then he rose on Sunday.

But taht's just my opinion.

Regards, PA

maybe, but it wouldn't be 40 days, like the quote irish mentions.my point was, that he was quoting a christian apologist, and trying to pass it off as an outside source, then quoting the talmud, which would be an external source, but which disagreed with the n.t. faulty scholarship is faulty, no matter who he quotes.

Your comment is rude and crude and totally unjustified! I have not set out to fool anyone (What would I have to gain from such) I am simply presenting documented evidence that a number of people have requested. It is entirely up to them to research and decide if they consider it evidence, semi evidence or nonsense, in the same way you have done. They may very well concur with you or not!

The fact is you can not prove by literature itself that Plato or Socrates were who they said they were. And consequently you can refute any author from that period of history for not being who they claim to be but the speculation is based on the lack of evidence not on evidence itself.

The same claim is held against Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) writings, when the truth is Josephus has not been proven to be a fraud. What it is is people doubt his writings because he lends credit to Christ being a deity. However, the writing style is the same throughout all of Josephus' writings.

And so I present some more for your perusal.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) – Annals

Personally for myself the evidence many of you ask for is evident in the shear number of Christians at that time period who believed so strongly in their Lord Jesus that they gave themselves over to the Romans to be tortured and fed to the lions so many that the Romans Empire finally felt “If you can’t beat them you might as well join them” and formed the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
This was not many years after the crucifixion and I am sure they did not stop to question the evidence that they had but laid down their lives for it. And that fact is well known in history.

All The Best Irish

I guess you are a typical xian and can't admit you tried to fool them. The Testimonium of Josephus is a known fraud, probably by Eusebius. No, I won't quote a website. You have proven, once again, that xians and their b.s. little miserable god-man are equally worthless. You were so very offended by me catching you. Funny how the quote from Josephus mirrors, almost quotes, the gospels that hadn't even been written yet. Since you haven't read Josephus, you can't know whether the style matches or not. let me fill you in.the real writings of Josephus deal with each subject at length, for many pages, down to the slightest detail, not just one paragraph on the "Savior of the world". If Josephus had known about Yeshu ben Yosef, he would have written a book or two about him.

We don't really know whether Socrates existed. So? You answered the question yourself. Just like Socrates is only known from the writings of Plato, Jesus is only known from the writings of the n.t. btw, if the notations forged by Eusebius were real, that would make only one other witness. There were many other writers at the time, none of which knew diddly about the movement which supposedly was saving the world.


really, quote a single non-xian source for this.please.and, as i have clearly established earlier, the only reason there is a church today is because theodosius invented it to attempted to save his empire.btw, by your logic, the tens of thousands of jews who have resisted xianity and its loathsome torture, often preferring death to conversion-by your logic that would prove jesus and his followers to be wrong.
"the first shall be the last"

sigh! I guess defending the innocent is wrong and rude. Normal, ordinary xian tradition, dating back to the tyrant Theodosius. We non-xians have resisted your taunts, your persecutions, and your torture for 1500 years. Why back down now. The resistance to xian lies and poison has but just begun.

Whatever in the world has made you so paranoid? You keep stating that I am out to fool non believers into some kind of submission. Wake up Gideon I don’t even belong to an organized church let alone on a recruitment drive, I have nothing to gain from sharing what I believe and that is all most people do here. But you seem to feel it some kind of conspiracy out to claim your mortal soul.
My opinions are not lies or poison they are just that MY OPINION! If you do not agree with them I promise not to torture or taunt you.
It is obvious that you disagree with me so get over it! I disagree with a lot of people, that’s life my man.
I would not force you in the direction of a church but I would suggest a thorough psychiatric examination to find out why you have such pent up anger and hostility toward others beliefs. Who here has asked you for more than your opinion? Yet you feel you are a defender of the innocent (that’s a sign of schizophrenia) better get that checked also along with the ego it seems to be swollen a fair amount!
Sorry there is no conspiracy here, just take your meds and get a good night sleep.
Merry Christmas
Irish

no pent up anger here, i released it all. follow your own advice; i have nothing to sell here.

I think these are 6 good reasons there are not a lot of references to Jesus outside the bible!


On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a "marginal Jew" about whom we have so little information:
1.As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
2.Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
3.Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
4.Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
5.Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
6.Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!
Source: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

The information that we have on Socrates comes from contemporaries, in this case two of his students - Plato and Xenophon. We know Socrates father and mother’s names, his wifes name (and the fact that she was considered a shrew), how many children he had, we know of his military service, what battles he fought in, his acts of bravery and heroic rescue of a friend on the field of battle and his subsequent refusal of decoration for that action. We also know of Plato and Xenophon from the writings of a contemporary of them - Aristotle, a student of Plato, so as you can see, the Greek philosophers are fairly were (albeit fragmentarily) documented by contemporaries. We also have the knowledge that none of these individuals made fantastic claims of divinity, consequently there is no reason for more than normal evidence of their existence.



None of the early Christians cite the “Testimonium” in their works, not Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexander, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius,
nor Lactantius. Although each of these writers show familiarity with the works of Josephus, as pointed out by Michael Hardwick in “Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius”. Origen used passages from the Antiquities to establish the historicity of John the Baptist and would have been eager to quote the Antiquities to prove the historical existence of Jesus. Interestingly, It was for the purpose of proving that Jesus performed true miracles, not to establish his historicity, that Eusebius quoted the “Testimonium” in his “Evangelical Demonstration”. So we can show that the early Church Fathers would have gladly quoted an existing “Testimonium”. This is an absence of proof, but strong evidence of the “Testimonium” being a much later Christian interpolation. This is only one of a myriad reasons (including the style of Greek used in proven Josephus’ works as compared with the Testimonium – nowhere similar, the Greek of the Testimonium is a much more educated version, unlike Josephus’ mediocre Greek, the brevity of the Testimonium as opposed to other mentions of “Messiahs”, the fact that as a Pharisee, Josephus could not have said what is in the Testimonium and remained a Pharisee – which he did ) that scholars are hesitant to consider the Testimonium as more than a forgery by the first person to quote it (Esuebius in the 4th century CE)



Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the Annals he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day. The term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews. One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a capitation tax levied on the Jews and it was the Jews – throughout the empire – who were required to pay for the city’s rebuilding – a factor which helped to radicalize many Jews in the late 60s AD. No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan. In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.


Using that criteria, then the Islamic Terrorist Bombers must give evidence of the validity of Islam over Christianity. They, after all, are willing to die for their religion! Wllingness to die for a cause does not give evidence of anything other than the individuals value their beliefs over their life. It definitely does not give evidence of the validity of their beliefs. At the time that Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Empire, there were an estimated (based on the number of churches and average size of congregations) 150,000 Christians in an Empire of 6,000,000+ people, hardly a “shear” number.

You make some valid points Mako however my point is there is evidence outside of the bible contrary to some contemporized thinking. Evidence in most cases is disputable to some degree just ask a good lawyer, and therefore can be used to support both sides of an argument.
Anyway some more fodder for your consideration
Cluadius.Sec 25
He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus
Source http://www.historyinfilm.com/claudius/clas...r/claudius3.htm
Nero sec 16
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.
Source http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-nero-rolfe.html
Origen
2d cent., Roman philosopher, an aggressive antagonist of Christianity. His works have been lost, but the substance of his True Discourse is given by Origen in his Against Celsus, ed. and tr. by Henry Chadwick (1953, repr. 1965).
Source http://www.bartleby.com/65/ce/Celsus.html
Pliny, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Source http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html
All The Best
Irish

the fact that there were a few xians, about a century or so after jesus was supposed to be around, doesn't prove there was a jesus, or not. does the mention of mithras by christian authors prove that mithras was real?

What you are quoting is from the biography called “Twelve Caesars” written by Caius Suetonius around 112 CE and refers to the period of Claudius. Now, nowhere in his writings did Suetonius refer to a Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ or even Christ. But wait, you say, he did mention one Chrestus making constant disturbances. However, Chrestus does not equate to the English “Christ”, that would be the word “Christus”. Chrestus equates to “the Good” in Greek and was a very common name used by slaves and freemen in Rome. This name is attested by more than 80 different inscriptions and Suetonius is explaining why the Jews were being expelled from Rome and referred to a Jewish agitator in the 50s CE, not a Galilean Rabbi of the 30’s.



This is from Suetonius’ “Life of Nero” and supposedly describes Nero’s persecution of the Christians. Here we have moved from rebellious Jews to mischievous Christians. However, there are problems with this….Would Nero (or any other Roman) been able to make such a distinction between Jew and Christian at this point in time? Especially since there were no identifying faith document (not a single gospel had been written) – so just what would ‘Christians’ believed? Paul himself (who was writing about this time) never make a single reference to ‘Christians”. The idea that a newly born Christianity faced immediate persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is utter nonsense. Rome was very tolerant of religion, even those that claimed (as did Christianity) a resurrected Son of God, as evidenced of the acceptance of Mithraism, Osiriusism, etc. Also, at that time, the Roman authorities considered the Christians to be just another sect (among many sects) of Judaism and it remained this way until around the time of the destruction of the temple, several decades later. Early Christians called themselves “saints”, Brethren” and “Brothers of the Lord”, their detractors called them “Nazoreans”, Ebionites, “Gd Fearers” and Atheists. By the 2nd century CE, they began identifying themselves by the names of their various rival leaders – Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcionites, etc. The Romans knew so little about the early Christians that as late as the 90s that they were referred to as Atheists or “Those adopting Jewish Manners”. The label “Christian” only appears in the 2nd century CE, where the story in Acts is that it began in Antioch. Incidentally, this isolated sentence appears in a section where Suetonius was listing Nero’s good point. All in all, this seems to be another of the insertions perpetrated by that old buddy of ours, the 5th century forger, Sulpicius Severus, who is also the one who created the myth of the coliseum being lighted by the torched Christian martyrs.

You have it backwards, Origen was a late second century apologist who wrote a rebuttal to the work of Celsus, a early 2nd century Roman philosopher. In his Alethes Logos (True Word) he created a powerful criticism of Christianity that shows why 2nd century people of high attainments and character rejected Christianity. In his rebuttal, Origen was hard pressed to refute Origen’s assertions and probably only won the contest because Origen had been dead for several decades and could not refute Origen. In no place does Origen mention the historic existence of Jesus, and pointed out that what the Christians had done wrong was to build a new superstition using the conjury of the eastern mountebanks and magicians. All you can prove with Origen and Celsus is that there was a group of people in the 2nd century that called themselves Christians and in no manner proves the existence of a Jesus, son of god.


Earlier in the letter is a description of what these folk believed… “asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so”' …doesn’t really sound like Christians but more like Essenes who believed this particular dogma. You could also note that Pliny is relaying what those arrested said they believed. All this goes to prove is that there was a group of people that identified themselves as Christians in the 2nd century CE, something that we already knew. You can search all of Pliny’s letters and not once will you find a mention of a Jesus of Nazareth. You will notice that in his answer to Pliny’s letter, Trajan said, “They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it -- that is, by worshiping our gods -- even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance” showing the toleration of Roman jurisprudence in the 'golden age' of the Empire. Trajan further said, “'But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age”. Compare this ruling of the pagan Trajan with that of the Christian Inquisitors thirteen centuries later – for whom anonymous accusations and seek out of heretics was modus operandi!

You know, this just reminded me of something I did when I was in High School. I was studying Ancient History, and myself and my friend went about proving, through architecture, history, writings and the like that Cleopatra was a fraud, created as an historical scapegoat for the Egyptian and Roman Empires.

For the record, I do not believe what I wrote was true. I think, as most do, that Cleopatra was a real historical figure.

Just thought I'd share this with you.



I challenge you to prove that historically

regards, PA

you know its funny that gideon and mako spend so much time and energy and obvious hatred trying to debunk something that cannot be debunked. truthfully, it is faith.

so gideon and mako leave us alone and have some of your own medicine for once, or talk respectfuly and admire others for their faith.

you guys seriously have way too much pent up animosity and anger-hate. give it a rest you do nothing for your quasi-cause.

your fruits lay rotten on the ground.

funny, mako and I come from very different backgrounds, and have very different points of view on most issues. I have nothing to sell. If I defend myself against attacks by xians, I am the victim here. I have very strong spiritual beliefs. this is a forum. a forum is where people debate facts. the question on this one ends with "any proof?" I hate noone, and do not respond in anger. I try to incite people to think. I do not represent a false religion that has persecuted its detractors and murdered tens of thousands of those who have resisted its efforts at conversion. i have nothing to promote.the fruits of xianity, from theodosius on, are hatred, shame and terror. your reeligion, in my opinion, is anti-god and anti-science. your personal attacks are baseless, and typical or christian logic. "you can't disprove it, so I'm right anyway because I have faith".read your own post again. I have no cause.why are you on a debate forum if you are so weak and can't handle it?

Give it a rest Gideon! The crusades are long over and none of the Christians here had anything to do with it. You are not being attacked by marauding Christians bent on your conversion.

Mako can put forward an argument apposed to my belief without being insulting or paranoid in his responses, take a lesson or two from him.

I am glad that others have different opinions or there would be no need to have dialog in the first place. If you can’t show a little respect for others beliefs don’t bother contributing to the discussion.

Merry Christmas
Irish

As I have repeatedly pointed out, a religion that requires faith and can provide no viable evidence that it is the truth (no, that warm feeling in my stomach is not evidence) is nothing more than mythology – no matter how much you believe it. It would seem that a God that created mankind so skeptical, would make an effort to give evidence of the validity of a religion, to condemn someone to eternal torment without providing this proof would be giving lie to the love of God and showing a vengeful, cruel deity.

Ahem, did you notice the title of this forum? In “Spirituality and Skepticism”, one needs expect to be challenged when posting opinions and beliefs. I did not once disrespect your (or Irish’s) beliefs and there is no rule that I must admire others for their faith in what I perceive as a mythology.


And since when has pointing out inconsistencies in a religion been considered animosity, anger, or hate? I suppose you do something for your cause? Other than bore others with your personal opinion and belief (even when they didn’t ask for it). Irish understands that this forum is for informal debates and puts up a really good fight, often making me actually have to research an obscure point or fact. I enjoy our interaction and even PM him, offering a digital cocktail or beer on occasion. We have an understanding that although we don’t agree on religion, we can debate it without a loss of temper or getting nasty. I consider him a friend.


At least our fruit has evidence to back it, too bad about yours with no contemporary evidence at all! - Mako

^^I'm curious, Mako - what kind of proof do you have for your Deist belief?

Why, as I have stated any times in the past, I have exactly the same proof as do Christians for their god.....absolutely none! I postulate the existence of a Creator on the basis that mathematically there are the same odds for a Creator starting the Universe as there is for a "self-starting" Universe! Since no deity has stepped forward to declare himself to ALL humanity, in a way that can not be denied, and no deity has openly interferred with humanity in any manner throughout the history of mankind, it becomes (at least to me) fairly evident that the Deist Creator is probably the originating factor of this universe. Another very evident factor is that this Creator would be so far above us that he would have no more concern for us than any of his other creatures, that he would not be "human" in any way, much less showing human emotions (other than love for all his creation). He seems to have built the knowledge of right and wrong into us (some even point out that many higher mammals have this knowledge also), so our morals are a result of society and this knowledge, not something handed down to us from some emotional, very humanoid deity that displays more demonic traits than godly traits. That is merely my opinion, but it is the path that suits me. - Mako