The earth is round

[TheJackal]

Alan Watts: proud man, self-serving, selfish, deeply lacking in humility, a man of shallow virtue. Not a person anyone wants to look up to. His words, to some, might be beautiful, preserved in his careful professional recordings in his elegant voice [they certainly strike you beautiful and refined, as you don't listen to what the words are actually saying], but his life - what a turn off. How he lived his life is who he is. Not what he says. And in that, he is no guru. http://www.academia.edu/18433958/ZEN..._of_Alan_Watts

Incorrect.. You really don't understand anything about Pantheism do you? So far the Irony of your post is utterly hilarious though.. I explained to you the context of Alan Watt's lecture "The Real You", and it seems to me that you are unable to grasp it.. Furthermore, I selected specific lectures on specific points, and no matter how you feel about Alan Watts on a personal level, that feeling or judgement you passed on does not invalidate those points. I don't agree with everything Alan Watt's says, something I had already stated.., but it is obvious at this point that you are woefully dodging the point and context of what my post on the subject entailed. So I will repeat those two quotes :

It’s like the universe screams in your face, “Do you know what I am? How grand I am? How old I am? Can you even comprehend what I am? What are you, compared to me?” And when you know enough science, you can just smile up at the universe and reply, “Dude, I am you.” -- philhellenes

So then, when you’re in the way of waking up, and finding out who you really are, what you do is what the whole universe is doing at the place you call here and now. You are something that the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is something that the whole ocean is doing… The real you is not a puppet which life pushes around; the real, deep down you is the whole universe.

- Alan Watts

This isn't a difficult realization to understand.. We are not simply a product of the Universe (Existence) sir, It is literally us, and we are literally of it.. When you speak, it speaks, when I speak, it speaks... And when you know enough science you can look back at the Universe and say "Dude, I am you".. There is no need to bow down, no need to worship it as a worthless sinner..., and no requirement to praise a Jealous and vengeful being you call God.. So when you make this statement:

- proud man, self-serving, selfish, deeply lacking in humility, a man of shallow virtue.
- you don't listen to what the words are actually saying

I will repeat the following:

Exodus 34:13-14
13"But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim 14-- for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--

The Greatest Commandment
Deuteronomy 6:14-15
…14"You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, 15for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth.

Exodus 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am ajealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

Deuteronomy 4:24
For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealousGod.

Joshuah 24:19
But Joshua said to the people, “You are not able to serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins.

Nahum 1:2
[ God's Wrath Against Nineveh ] The Lord is a jealousand avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.

You also let me know when you can quote Alan Watt's saying anything near this sort of bullshit..

[TheJackal]

Ah, so you really can't prove anything that you haven't personally witnessed, can you?

Nope, nobody can.. But I can offer 99.9999% certainty... And if you think your argument is a challenge to science, it's not.. So unless you have actual empirical evidence to invalidate a consensus, your appeals are essentially meaningless, unconvincing, and really not worth consideration. Your pandering to crank such as FET is not helping me take you seriously either. I am comfortable in understanding and accepting that which is falsifiable , but you are going to have to do better than fallacy arguments. I only need to be reasonably certain, and the more evidence there is, the more reasonably certain I can be of the Earth's shape. Evidence such as a navigable coordinate system for a globe makes me reasonably certain..., let me know when FET has a navigable coordinate system that doesn't require accounting for the curvature of the Earth with an Equal area map.

[Jeremy8419]

Nope, nobody can.. But I can offer 99.9999% certainty... And if you think your argument is a challenge to science, it's not.. So unless you have actual empirical evidence to invalidate a consensus, your appeals are essentially meaningless, unconvincing, and really not worth consideration. Your pandering to crank such as FET is not helping me take you seriously either. I am comfortable in understanding and accepting that which is falsifiable , but you are going to have to do better than fallacy arguments. I only need to be reasonably certain, and the more evidence there is, the more reasonably certain I can be of the Earth's shape. Evidence such as a navigable coordinate system for a globe makes me reasonably certain..., let me know when FET has a navigable coordinate system that doesn't require accounting for the curvature of the Earth with an Equal area map.

With 99.99% certainty? Is this based upon the assumption that the parts which lead to such a logical conclusion are also proven?

[TheJackal]

With 99.99% certainty? Is this based upon the assumption that the parts which lead to such a logical conclusion are also proven?

Nope, it is based on empirical evidence..,it is the evidence that dictates , not any blind assumption.. Clearly you do not comprehend the principles of science.. Let me know when you can present more than a 1st grade understanding of science.. Your arguments are pleading, but you can feel free to meet a base jumper at the Cliff's edge and prove to him that gravity isn't real..

[Jeremy8419]

Nope, it is based on empirical evidence..,it is the evidence that dictates , not any blind assumption.. Clearly you do not comprehend the principles of science.. Let me know when you can present more than a 1st grade understanding of science.. Your arguments are pleading, but you can feel free to meet a base jumper at the Cliff's edge and prove to him that gravity isn't real..

You don't have proof of the empirical evidence. You're just using proof that you do have to make a logical assumption. You have no proof the earth is round. All you have is logical assumptions based upon a myriad of other logical assumptions.

[Jeremy8419]

Is there anything more hubristic, self-serving, selfish, and lacking in humility and virtue than someone who believes they are god and that the sole purpose of humans is to worship you for all eternity...and that anybody who refuses to do so will be Damned?

So, one man, who says to love and serve others, committed the ultimate hubris by saying to worship one man as God or face eternal hell while damning his own self to such a fate, which would require absolute rejection of hubris from others to comply, such to the point that they would be required to submit irrevocably to the love of and service of another besides themselves, has taught us nothing worth believing in.

The darkness is only a reminder, a reminder which promises the existence of the light. Some things are ingrained so deeply into this world that they require not searching, not unearthing, not finding... But simply remembering. Remembering a sight which can never be unseen.

[TheJackal]

You don't have proof of the empirical evidence. You're just using proof that you do have to make a logical assumption. You have no proof the earth is round. All you have is logical assumptions based upon a myriad of other logical assumptions.

I have 99.9 percent certainty, and that is far more reliable than your pleading bull shit.. Sorry kiddo, none of your arguments lend credibility to the flat Earth claim.., and I certainly wouldn't put my life in the hands of it either.. And the evidence I do have lends to a logical assumption, and there is nothing wrong with it, it works... But hey, if you think, for example, that the laws of physics is all assumption, you can feel free to jump off the cliff's edge to show the base jumpers that they don't need parachutes .. You let us know how that works out for you. I would put more credibility to science and a parachute then some idiot such yourself making these stupid sort of anti-intellectual arguments above. And on that note, you let me know when you have navigable coordinate system on an equal area map Jeremy, otherwise I will just sit here laughing at your pleading arguments. Heh, you have to love anti-intellectuals using fallacies... Seriously Jeremy, your arguments are a joke.. You're crank bro.

[Enters Laughing]

So, one man, who says to love and serve others, committed the ultimate hubris by saying to worship one man as God or face eternal hell while damning his own self to such a fate, which would require absolute rejection of hubris from others to comply, such to the point that they would be required to submit irrevocably to the love of and service of another besides themselves, has taught us nothing worth believing in.

The darkness is only a reminder, a reminder which promises the existence of the light. Some things are ingrained so deeply into this world that they require not searching, not unearthing, not finding... But simply remembering. Remembering a sight which can never be unseen.

Jesus didn't say love and serve others. He emphasised the importance of the scripture "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength", and also "You shall love your neighbor as yourself".

Jesus believed he was god, so that was pure selfishness on his part. Loving your neighbour as yourself is also not a positive philosophy: it does not say "love your neighbour as he wishes to be treated" or even "love your neighbour". It is completely possible that you do not love yourself. Christianity is fundamentally an ideology of negation also.

I do not believe this "darkness" you refer to can be a reminder: nobody would know anything about hell unless it was passed down over the centuries from the people who invented it, and there is clearly genuine and valid uncertainty about it. To base a whole morality on it is rather base. Hell is a very real punishment in Christianity ideology, a sign of a fundamentally evil deity - not a mere "reminder".

The light you refer to is also not at all light: worshiping a self-obsessed, jealous, and malicious being for eternity would be hell.

Jesus supposedly gave his life to suffer in hell for the sins of the whole world, and yet the bible makes it clear that this could not have been much longer than three and a half days. Hardly equivalent in value to the eternity in hell that Jesus as god threatens to torment each individual for supposed sins such as not believing in a benevolent god with a honest conscience. It was utterly illogical to suffer the alleged sins of all humanity for a mere three and a half days...and then say that there is still a debt to pay. If there is one thing worse than an evil supreme being, it is one that is illogical. Why trust the word of a logical evil deity, nevermind an illogical one?

[Jeremy8419]

I have 99.9 percent certainty, and that is far more reliable than your pleading bull shit.. Sorry kiddo, none of your arguments lend credibility to the flat Earth claim.., and I certainly wouldn't put my life in the hands of it either.. And the evidence I do have lends to a logical assumption, and there is nothing wrong with it, it works... But hey, if you think, for example, that the laws of physics is all assumption, you can feel free to jump off the cliff's edge to show the base jumpers that they don't need parachutes .. You let us know how that works out for you. I would put more credibility to science and a parachute then some idiot such yourself making these stupid sort of anti-intellectual arguments above. And on that note, you let me know when you have navigable coordinate system on an equal area map Jeremy, otherwise I will just sit here laughing at your pleading arguments. Heh, you have to love anti-intellectuals using fallacies... Seriously Jeremy, your arguments are a joke.. You're crank bro.

99% certainty? No. Your "99% certainty" is zero proof. Your "round" is zero proof. You have zero proof. All you have is a series of chosen beliefs strung together, based upon the core belief that the choice is even yours. You ask for "proof" of God, while your entire "existence" is based solely upon beliefs and none on proof? Well, look at that... Seems your "proof" is "proof" that God exists. Checkmate. Bye.

[Enters Laughing]

You don't have proof of the empirical evidence. You're just using proof that you do have to make a logical assumption. You have no proof the earth is round. All you have is logical assumptions based upon a myriad of other logical assumptions.

Your claim that @TheJackal does not have proof of the empirical evidence is an illogical assumption at best. The empirical evidence will always trump any attempts you can make to refute it, because your attempts would be by their very nature (!) be unfalisifiable at best.

Come back when you have something productive and demonstrable.

[Enters Laughing]

99% certainty? No. Your "99% certainty" is zero proof. Your "round" is zero proof. You have zero proof. All you have is a series of chosen beliefs strung together, based upon the core belief that the choice is even yours. You ask for "proof" of God, while your entire "existence" is based solely upon beliefs and none on proof? Well, look at that... Seems your "proof" is "proof" that God exists. Checkmate. Bye.

If there is no evidence that god exists, then "god" must be dismissed. Suggesting that a god exists requires proofs that are falsifiable, otherwise at best, it is just your belief (at worst, you may not even believe it yourself: and why should anyone believe such a thing, if you have no proof and you don't even believe it yourself?). If something is fiction, or purely the stuff of dreams, it can be labelled as such. But to assert something as true means that the burden of proof is on you. You have no right to be indignant when others say that your thing does not exist because there is no evidence, if that is indeed the case. Keep such thoughts to yourself, or recognise it as fiction and/or speculation.

[Jeremy8419]

Jesus didn't say love and serve others. He emphasised the importance of the scripture "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength", and also "You shall love your neighbor as yourself".

Jesus believed he was god, so that was pure selfishness on his part. Loving your neighbour as yourself is also not a positive philosophy: it does not say "love your neighbour as he wishes to be treated" or even "love your neighbour". It is completely possible that you do not love yourself. Christianity is fundamentally an ideology of negation also.

I do not believe this "darkness" you refer to can be a reminder: nobody would know anything about hell unless it was passed down over the centuries from the people who invented it, and there is clearly genuine and valid uncertainty about it. To base a whole morality on it is rather base. Hell is a very real punishment in Christianity ideology, a sign of a fundamentally evil deity - not a mere "reminder".

The light you refer to is also not at all light: worshiping a self-obsessed, jealous, and malicious being for eternity would be hell.

Jesus supposedly gave his life to suffer in hell for the sins of the whole world, and yet the bible makes it clear that this could not have been much longer than three and a half days. Hardly equivalent in value to the eternity in hell that Jesus as god threatens to torment each individual for supposed sins such as not believing in a benevolent god with a honest conscience. It was utterly illogical to suffer the alleged sins of all humanity for a mere three and a half days...and then say that there is still a debt to pay. If there is one thing worse than an evil supreme being, it is one that is illogical. Why trust the word of a logical evil deity, nevermind an illogical one?

Evil and illogical? That's why he was crucified. A choice to be evil and illogical. A choice to be good and logical. They're forever intertwined and collapsing upon themselves. Jesus was labeled both human and divine. His story isn't his story. It is The Story. Everyone is that moment in time, where the light shines down and the darkness shines back. It's not fiction. It's not history. It's not religion. It is everyone. Everyone walked those steps. Everyone erected that cross. Everyone hid in hubris. Everyone asked to forgive. Everyone asked to be forgiven. It's a memory.

[Jeremy8419]

If there is no evidence that god exists, then "god" must be dismissed. Suggesting that a god exists requires proofs that are falsifiable, otherwise at best, it is just your belief (at worst, you may not even believe it yourself: and why should anyone believe such a thing, if you have no proof and you don't even believe it yourself?). If something is fiction, or purely the stuff of dreams, it can be labelled as such. But to assert something as true means that the burden of proof is on you. You have no right to be indignant when others say that your thing does not exist because there is no evidence, if that is indeed the case. Keep such thoughts to yourself, or recognise it as fiction and/or speculation.

Proofs don't exist. All you have are beliefs.

[Enters Laughing]

Evil and illogical? That's why he was crucified. A choice to be evil and illogical. A choice to be good and logical. They're forever intertwined and collapsing upon themselves. Jesus was labeled both human and divine. His story isn't his story. It is The Story. Everyone is that moment in time, where the light shines down and the darkness shines back. It's not fiction. It's not history. It's not religion. It is everyone. Everyone walked those steps. Everyone erected that cross. Everyone hid in hubris. Everyone asked to forgive. Everyone asked to be forgiven. It's a memory.

There is no evidence that the biblical Jesus even existed, nevermind was crucified. There is no contemporary and non-religious text evidence that the historical Jesus that had Christianity founded in his name was crucified either (the 'Christ' referred to in Josephus for example was a different Christ to yours).

[Jeremy8419]

There is no evidence that the biblical Jesus even existed, nevermind was crucified. There is no contemporary and non-religious text evidence that the historical Jesus that had Christianity founded in his name was crucified either (the 'Christ' referred to in Josephus for example was a different Christ to yours).

There's plenty of evidence. You're still there.

[Enters Laughing]

Proofs don't exist. All you have are beliefs.

You are entitled to your belief, but if you don't wish to be a bore, you should prove it.

[Enters Laughing]

There's plenty of evidence. You're still there.

Fabricated 'evidence' does not count as evidence. You shouldn't confuse your belief or your wishful thinking with 'proof'.

[Jeremy8419]

You are entitled to your belief, but if you don't wish to be a bore, you should prove it.

Entertaining someone's choices of beliefs is like telling them their top is the best one, and it's the only top worth viewing.

[Jeremy8419]

Fabricated 'evidence' does not count as evidence. You shouldn't confuse your belief or your wishful thinking with 'proof'.

It's all fabricated based upon belief.

[Enters Laughing]

Entertaining someone's choices of beliefs is like telling them their top is the best one, and it's the only top worth viewing.

I disagree. If something is falsifiable, you should frame no hypothesis.

[Jeremy8419]

I disagree. If something is falsifiable, you should frame no hypothesis.

Falsifiable has beliefs as precursors.

[Enters Laughing]

It's all fabricated based upon belief.

Are you talking about Josephus original commentary? Or the subsequent forgery of his writing by Christians?

[Enters Laughing]

Falsifiable has beliefs as precursors.

That does not mean that any conclusions are not proofs.

[Jeremy8419]

Are you talking about Josephus original commentary? Or the subsequent forgery of his writing by Christians?

Neither, I went back to one-on-one discussion.

[Enters Laughing]

Neither, I went back to one-on-one discussion.

For someone who considers everything beliefs, you are very sure of your Self.

[Jeremy8419]

That does not mean that any conclusions are not proofs.

It does. People simply all stop at a certain level of beliefs for which to frame their core. Earth is round. I believe such. Everyone says the earth is round. I believe such. People have done studies with data to show the earth is round. I believe such. The data was collected. I believe such. The data was based upon simple mathematical principles. I believe such. Mathematical principles are based upon relations between objective things. I believe such. Objective things have been known by other people besides myself. I believe such. Objective things have been known by myself. I believe such. Myself is an individual capable of making choices of beliefs. I believe such.

Take all of this away, and you simply have a numbers game of others believing in mathematical principles to those who do not, so, mathematical principles are proofs. More people believe in God than do not.

[Jeremy8419]

For someone who considers everything beliefs, you are very sure of your Self.

Nope. Just talking to myself.

[Enters Laughing]

It does. People simply all stop at a certain level of beliefs for which to frame their core. Earth is round. I believe such. Everyone says the earth is round. I believe such. People have done studies with data to show the earth is round. I believe such. The data was collected. I believe such. The data was based upon simple mathematical principles. I believe such. Mathematical principles are based upon relations between objective things. I believe such. Objective things have been known by other people besides myself. I believe such. Objective things have been known by myself. I believe such. Myself is an individual capable of making choices of beliefs. I believe such.

Take all of this away, and you simply have a numbers game of others believing in mathematical principles to those who do not, so, mathematical principles are proofs. More people believe in God than do not.

A new born baby never believes that gods exist. A new born baby does not even have any concept of the matter, nevermind a belief or a proof. Therefore gods do not exist, yes?

[Enters Laughing]

More people believe in God than do not.

Which god would that be? You are referring to the 63rd century, yes?

[Jeremy8419]

A new born baby never believes that gods exist. A new born baby does not even have any concept of the matter, nevermind a belief or a proof. Therefore gods do not exist, yes?

Depends upon what your definition of God is.

[Jeremy8419]

Which god would that be? You are referring to the 63rd century, yes?

That would be the present. They all do, hubris or not.

[Enters Laughing]

Depends upon what your definition of God is.

That would be the present. They all do, hubris or not.

You said that God is Non-existence, but all people who don't exist don't believe in god. Therefore god does not exist. Also, most people who do exist believe that the Earth is mostly spherical. Therefore the Earth is mostly spherical.

[TheJackal]

99% certainty? No. Your "99% certainty" is zero proof. Your "round" is zero proof. You have zero proof. All you have is a series of chosen beliefs strung together, based upon the core belief that the choice is even yours. You ask for "proof" of God, while your entire "existence" is based solely upon beliefs and none on proof? Well, look at that... Seems your "proof" is "proof" that God exists. Checkmate. Bye.

Incorrect.. Proof is 100% certainty, and 99.99 percent certainty is essentially the same as 99.99% proof.. But you can demonstrate that it isn't at the cliff's edge and put your foot where your mouth is.. I am 99.99% certain you won't do that because you are crank.. And since it is your claim that 99.99% certainty is zero proof, the burden of proof is on you.. Let me know when you would like to meet some base jumpers on camera, we can make a YouTube video about the Darwin award.. Though I would with certainty stress that you do not jump without a parachute..

99.99 % certainty trumps your bullshit.., and it has demonstrable and practical application.. Such as parachutes. If you think this is all just a series of beliefs, step up to the cliff's edge , I will be there with my parachute and go pro camera..

And no, my proof is not proof of gods existence , but you can feel free to prove that.. At this point , you are just trolling with fallacy arguments.. You're a crank..

[TheJackal]

Depends upon what your definition of God is.

It doesn't matter what your definition is, there is no proof or means to demonstrate that any definition is even .01 percent certain.. You are still trying desperately to make a concept and title of pure opinion relevant to anything other than the holder of the opinion.. This is seriously hilarious , I have never seen someone plead so much for relevancy when they have none.. The irony of your argument of zero proof, oh that shit has got to hurt..

This is like watching someone punch themselves in the face as hard as they can because they believe there is zero proof they could get hurt doing so.. This is the level of stupidity we are dealing with here. I say go for it and have fun with that, I will sit back and enjoy the show.

I am just going to sit back and watch Jeremy beg the question lol

[TheJackal]

BTW, there is a difference between mathematical proofs and an ad populum fallacy.. Jeremy now says that since a lot of people believe in his god, it must therefore mean god exists.. And yet not a single baby is born believing in any such thing.., but is rather subject to taught opinion depending largely where they are born.. We can say every child is born an atheist as is every child is born without racial prejudice until taught to believe and believe otherwise..

I will take mathematical proofs in physics over ad populum fallacies any day

[Aylen]

There is no evidence that the biblical Jesus even existed, nevermind was crucified. There is no contemporary and non-religious text evidence that the historical Jesus that had Christianity founded in his name was crucified either (the 'Christ' referred to in Josephus for example was a different Christ to yours).

I take any opportunity to share this book. It's not that I completely buy what they're selling but it is an interesting read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ho...the_Holy_Grail


Amazon.com Review

Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh, authors of The Messianic Legacy, spent over 10 years on their own kind of quest for the Holy Grail, into the secretive history of early France. What they found, researched with the tenacity and attention to detail that befits any great quest, is a tangled and intricate story of politics and faith that reads like a mystery novel. It is the story of the Knights Templar, and a behind-the-scenes society called the Prieure de Sion, and its involvement in reinstating descendants of the Merovingian bloodline into political power. Why? The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail assert that their explorations into early history ultimately reveal that Jesus may not have died on the cross, but lived to marry and father children whose bloodline continues today. The authors' point here is not to compromise or to demean Jesus, but to offer another, more complete perspective of Jesus as God's incarnation in man. The power of this secret, which has been carefully guarded for hundreds of years, has sparked much controversy. For all the sensationalism and hoopla surrounding Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the alternate history that it outlines, the authors are careful to keep their perspective and sense of skepticism alive in its pages, explaining carefully and clearly how they came to draw such combustible conclusions. --Jodie Buller --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385338457

[TheJackal]

I take any opportunity to share this book. It's not that I completely buy what they're selling but it is an interesting read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ho...the_Holy_Grail


Amazon.com Review

Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh, authors of The Messianic Legacy, spent over 10 years on their own kind of quest for the Holy Grail, into the secretive history of early France. What they found, researched with the tenacity and attention to detail that befits any great quest, is a tangled and intricate story of politics and faith that reads like a mystery novel. It is the story of the Knights Templar, and a behind-the-scenes society called the Prieure de Sion, and its involvement in reinstating descendants of the Merovingian bloodline into political power. Why? The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail assert that their explorations into early history ultimately reveal that Jesus may not have died on the cross, but lived to marry and father children whose bloodline continues today. The authors' point here is not to compromise or to demean Jesus, but to offer another, more complete perspective of Jesus as God's incarnation in man. The power of this secret, which has been carefully guarded for hundreds of years, has sparked much controversy. For all the sensationalism and hoopla surrounding Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the alternate history that it outlines, the authors are careful to keep their perspective and sense of skepticism alive in its pages, explaining carefully and clearly how they came to draw such combustible conclusions. --Jodie Buller --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385338457

I have read into that before, much of it is pseudo-history / pseudo-documentary.. Like stated before, there is literally no contemporary evidence of his existence... There is no contemporary historian in the region he supposedly lived that has ever talked about him or any of the supposed miraculous events ...None! Zero! Zilch! I wouldn't put much stock into it, it is more of a pleading attempt to put some historicity into what doesn't have any.

[Aylen]

I have read into that before, much of it is pseudo-history / pseudo-documentary.. Like stated before, there is literally no contemporary evidence of his existence... There is no contemporary historian in the region he supposedly lived that has ever talked about him or any of the supposed miraculous events ...None! Zero! Zilch! I wouldn't put much stock into it, it is more of a pleading attempt to put some historicity into what doesn't have any.

Using different words than you, I would say that was pretty much my conclusion too. I read it while I was trying to shed the hold christianity had over me. My christian experience was not really a good one though. In fact it was pretty terrifying most of the time. I don't begrudge anyone their positive associations and experiences with that particular religion but I know it isn't for me. I argued with christians on forums for a couple of years but then it hit me that it really didn't matter what I said because their beliefs had a strong hold on them and I was just being a bitch about it, mostly by being irreverent. Like telling them god spoke to me and he wanted me to tell them to call him "George" because he was tired of hearing people calling out "omg" and ending up in a threesome. Um, yeah I was not very nice and still immature and angry then. :/

Edit: I went from sharing my experiences with them, and what I had sorted out on my own. to being a troll out of frustration.

[TheJackal]

Using different words than you, I would say that was pretty much my conclusion too.

Sorry, I jumped the shark there.

I read it while I was trying to shed the hold christianity had over me. My christian experience was not really a good one though. In fact it was pretty terrifying most of the time.

Ditto, and the scariest thing about it to me was what it was attempting to turn me into..., a mindless blob that would if called on to commit atrocities..

I don't begrudge anyone their positive associations and experiences with that particular religion but I know it isn't for me.

I don't either unless they try to push it on me or use it in an argument..

I argued with christians on forums for a couple of years but then it hit me that it really didn't matter what I said because their beliefs had a strong hold on them and I was just being a bitch about it, mostly by being irreverent.

I used to be one of those that didn't listen or care what others had to say no matter how much of a valid point they had.. , but yet I couldn't really ignore it entirely...., and at some-point its grip on me snapped...
[QUOTE]

Um, yeah I was not very nice and still immature and angry then. :/

My tolerance fades fast when I know they are being dishonest with me.., its not that they believe that bothers me, it is the woeful dishonesty ...., especially when they don't even need to be.

[Eliza Thomason]

@Aylen, that idea, though it certainly seems a tasty bit of tittle-tattle and tickles itchy ears, is ridiculous on all accounts. I will address it some time after Easter. @TheJackal and @Subteigh, in response to the even sillier idea that Jesus did not exist, the following excerpt I post for you:

Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus existed. In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

James D. G. Dunn states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis".

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who kept detailed first century records. Recorded in Book 18 (Antiquities of the Jews), Chapter 3, Paragraph 3, there is a reference to Jesus:

"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, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; 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"