Weird Debating a 61-year-old... (Read 4172 times)

  • Insane teacher
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 8, 2002
  • Posts: 10515
i'm hella tired but i know for sure most christians take Cor 11:14 as a condemnation against long hair. i'm not sure why you kind of lied dogg but

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htm

also a lot of the links were to say JESUS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WHAT THEY SAID BECAUSE NO ONE SEEMS TO AGREE which I think is true.
brian chemicals
  • Avatar of Dark Angel
  • The Angel of Death
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Apr 9, 2003
  • Posts: 196
i pointed out two of the most ludicrus

Quote
this site is really ridiculous. why was God apeased by a circumcision? god was going to kill moses because he hadn't circumcised his sons. he's kinda a stickler for obedience. also there's a fair few spelling mistakes and a lot of the science is outdated

ahahaha, did you know Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December??

that website would work well for face to face stuff but when you have a little time to think about it, or even to look it up yourself you can find it's pretty far-out. i would not recommend it for a myspace debate!

I didn't respond to this earlier because I just didn't know what you meant by it. I don't know which page talks about that particular circumcision and I'm not going to re-read every page just to find the word. I did a quick ctrl F for "circum" on all of the Moses pages and it didn't come up. So what exactly are referring to then? And why the laughter with Jesus not being born on Xmas? You disagree or what? So that was why I didn't respond when you first posted it, there was just too much you left out.

Quote
but here's some extras for kicks:
But there is also some evidence that Jesus was noticeably ugly. In Byzantine citations of a now lost text of the Roman historian Josephus Flavius, Jesus is said to have been three cubits tall (that’s three human underarms tall – almost a midget!), crooked and dark-skinned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus


Quote
In fact, the texts explicitly describe Jesus as being very ugly. He was almost completely bold, had a long nose and eyebrows that touched each other. Jesus looked much older than he really was, the Byzantine texts read.

Again, what exactly is your point here? You give that link right after talking about his looks but a quick skim of that page and I didn't see anything related to that dept. Do I REALLY need to read the whole freaking wall of text, or could you just quote the specific part?

Quote

i take it that's meant to be bald, and he's only references the one work so that should be 'text.' (the first part is an innocent typo probably, the second part is important because he implies a larger support)
an average peasent son of a carpenter (wealthy) who was a descendent from the line of david. blending in is different to being the same as everyone, and perhaps people didn't know what jesus looked like because they didn't exactly have TV back then??? roman soldiers (who were well paid) gambled for his clothing, and i doubt it was for its religious significance.

At the bottom of the Appearance page on Jesus, there are THREE sources listed. And gay, I just found out ctrl F doesn't work in frames. I don't really know why you are talking about this one when that particular article seems to be pretty clear on the issue. You aren't being clear enough for me to understand what you are trying to get across.

Quote
First, we know for sure that Jesus didn’t have long hair. The New Testament explicitly calls it ‘a disgrace’ if a man had long hair (Cor 11:14).

Quote
this is iffy! i think this is a passage where paul is saying it's a disgrace for a man to pray with his head covered, and this is well after jesus died (that very site says that they never even met). the jews used to have their head covered constantly

How is that iffy? Right there in the bible at Cor 11:14 is says it is a dishonor for a man to have long hair. Cor 11:13 mentions that women should constantly have their heads covered, is that what you were thinking about? Nevermind that having your head covered doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with hair length...

Quote
However, in other sources such as the Book of Jubilees, Cornelius Alexander (frag. 10), Abydenus (frags. 5 and 6), Josephus (Antiquities 1.4.3), and the Sibylline Oracles (iii. 117-129), God overturns the tower with a great wind.

Quote
these are all apocryphal book, but regardless there were plenty of ziggurats built. I'm pretty sure if the tower of babel existed and the bible said it was destroyed then a lot less people would have followed judaism way back then (using your dates alexander the great came after the old testament)

We're talking about THE BIBLE and you want to make distinctions on which religious books are DOUBTFUL in their nature? Come on. The fact of the point is that several books explicity mention God as being the one responsible for the destruction of Babel. And I really doubt destroying Babel would be seen as worse than the flood. Or any of the other atrocities in the bible which are a hell of a lot worse than God giving out different languages and destroying a building. That was a really horrible point.

  • Avatar of baseball19225
  • Paranoid Android.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Nov 6, 2003
  • Posts: 1918
For some reason I keep thinking this topic title says "Dating a 61-year-old".
Glad I'm not the only one. Though I might be the only one who gets an erection over it.
i'm hella tired but i know for sure most christians take Cor 11:14 as a condemnation against long hair. i'm not sure why you kind of lied dogg but

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htm

also a lot of the links were to say JESUS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WHAT THEY SAID BECAUSE NO ONE SEEMS TO AGREE which I think is true.
That is awesome.
  • aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2005
  • Posts: 5149
i'm hella tired but i know for sure most christians take Cor 11:14 as a condemnation against long hair. i'm not sure why you kind of lied dogg

Quote from: 'climbtree
i think this is a passage where paul is saying it's a disgrace for a man to pray with his head covered' date='[/quote']
ugh WHAT A LIAR I AM i knew corinthians talked about head coverings etc but i didn't have my handy dandy bible on me, and i didn't bother with a google search because the main point was: corinthians was written after jesus, the other stuff about head coverings was just to give more support that maybe he could have long hair? my conclusion was only a maybe which is part of why i said iffy.

I didn't respond to this earlier because I just didn't know what you meant by it. I don't know which page talks about that particular circumcision and I'm not going to re-read every page just to find the word. I did a quick ctrl F for "circum" on all of the Moses pages and it didn't come up. So what exactly are referring to then? And why the laughter with Jesus not being born on Xmas? You disagree or what? So that was why I didn't respond when you first posted it, there was just too much you left out.
it's on the god page, here's what he said:

Quote
Even Moses isn’t safe for the wrath of God. In Exodus 4:24, we read how “the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him”, for no apparent reason. Zipporah manages to appease God by circumcising her son and touching Moses’ ‘feet’ with it (scholars point out that ‘feet’ are a eufemism for ‘genitals’).
like even reading this without knowing the rest of it you can kinda logically determine that if god was appeased by the circumcision, than maybe god was angry that moses hadn't circumcised his children yet???
also he spelt euphemism wrong and he didn't cite a source for the feet to genitals thing (which seems like a really unnecessary connecion anyway)


Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Again, what exactly is your point here? You give that link right after talking about his looks but a quick skim of that page and I didn't see anything related to that dept. Do I REALLY need to read the whole freaking wall of text, or could you just quote the specific part?

At the bottom of the Appearance page on Jesus, there are THREE sources listed. And gay, I just found out ctrl F doesn't work in frames. I don't really know why you are talking about this one when that particular article seems to be pretty clear on the issue. You aren't being clear enough for me to understand what you are trying to get across.
he is only refering to the josephus writing in the section when he says "texts," he's certainly not refering to his CNN link when he says Byzantine texts. the wiki link says right at the top

Quote
Its authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that is was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved
dodgy text (OH WELL SO IS THE BIBLE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BELIEVE THE BIBLE MIGHT AS WELL BELIEVE HARRY POTTER TOO HUH WHY NOT FELLATE DUMBLEDORE??)

Quote
We're talking about THE BIBLE and you want to make distinctions on which religious books are DOUBTFUL in their nature? Come on. The fact of the point is that several books explicity mention God as being the one responsible for the destruction of Babel. And I really doubt destroying Babel would be seen as worse than the flood. Or any of the other atrocities in the bible which are a hell of a lot worse than God giving out different languages and destroying a building. That was a really horrible point.
ugh what are you talking about?

chaos whatever said the bible never said the tower of babel was destroyed you linked to apocryphal books (books which are purposefully not in the bible (they're not just left out to save space))

the passage quoted was from this page http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/g_babel.html questioning the bible
not the one on whether god was good or not, so it's moot how worse it is for whatever reason.

i also pointed out that if the tower of babel existed when the bible was written then maybe people back then would've said "HEY!" back then???
also it is a REALLY HORRIBLE POINT that since the bible's authenticity is questionable, if you accept the bible as true you have to accept all the others too (specifically, ones that weren't included because they're too questionable)

also i remember hearing a joke in sunday school when i was like 6
a girl is in kindergarten coloring very fervently. the teacher comes over and asks "what are you drawing there sport?" and the kid says "i'm drawing jesus" and the teacher says "nobody knows what jesus looked like" and the girl says "they will in a second!

of course they could have just swapped jesus and god, but the joke in that is that they'd discuss religious matters in a school

also the xmas thing:
Quote
The Bible: Jesus was born on December 25th
the bible never says anything like this, and i thought it was pretty well known that he wasn't actually born on christmas, that's why i laughed. like i'd laugh if an 'academic' work highlighted that WHOA, THE QUEEN WASN'T BORN ON THE QUEENS BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY (i don't know if you americans have an equivalent)
I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Sep 3, 2007
  • Posts: 3
also the xmas thing:the bible never says anything like this, and i thought it was pretty well known that he wasn't actually born on christmas, that's why i laughed. like i'd laugh if an 'academic' work highlighted that WHOA, THE QUEEN WASN'T BORN ON THE QUEENS BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY (i don't know if you americans have an equivalent)
For the Americans you could go with:  George Washington wasn't born on the 3rd Monday in February.  Or that the pilgrims didn't celebrate the subjugation of the native Americans *only* on the 4th Thursday in November. :)

Well, DarkAngel, it looks like I'm not the only person who thinks that website is poorly researched and presented.  If you want to continue to argue the validity of the site, it looks like you can go point-by-point with cilmbtree.  I found enough sensationalism and misrepresentation in the few parts I did skim--I don't need to read and research every word to tell that your source is not much of a valid or scholarly source.  The points I (and climbtree) made about the quality of research show this.  And, as such, isn't worth my time.

You weren't the only person who offered (read: spouted) websites.  You weren't the only self-proclaimed atheist.  I wasn't writing only to you.  You seem to have ignored the meatier part of that sentence that speaks much more specifically against many Christian ideas.  Apparently, you've decided to take the first one-third of a sentence and take it much more personally that it was intended to be taken by any one person.  If you're so offended by my obvious generalizations, start defending the born-again Christians I brought up in that sentence as well.

Quote
three different stories/books were all written before the bible. The oldest of of those being written in 1700 BC, still 200 hundred years older!
When do the events in these stories take place?  MANY BIBLE SCHOLARS AGREE (that's a fun phrase) that Adam & Eve were cast from the garden of Eden around 4000 BC (give or take a few years--the record is pretty scarce :rolleyes:​).  So, a few thousand years later separate civilations have similar stories...  Perhaps they all came from a similar source?
Let's look at this from a pseudo-eternal perpsective.  If Christianity is the true religion that will bring everyone to God, and God wants us to be brought to Him, would Abraham or Moses be the first to hear the Gospel?  That wouldn't make much sense, would it?  If God created Adam & Eve (Or Gilgamesh, or Lilith, or Frankenstein, or Elvis) wouldn't He want them to follow Him?  Wouldn't He tell them His laws?  Wouldn't stories about the Gospel get warped and misrepresented over time (just like they do today) by people who aren't quite following them, and even many of the people who are?  I assume you've played the Telephone game: imagine that, over a few thousand years into groups separated by miles of desert who continue to play amongst themselves.  How similar might their stories be by the time we dig up various records and compare them?  I think it can be agreed on that God doesn't spend all his time politely correcting the records of people who aren't doing anything He said to do in the first place.  So, the civilations who aren't following His word aren't going to keep flawless renditions of the creation (or any other story).  The Bible isn't a ripoff, its a record.  I believe it to be one of the more inspired records, but who's to say that all these mysteriously similar stories didn't originally come from a common source?

If you want to understand Christian religions you need to look at the whole picture they paint, not try to prove random traditions false.  Many of these tactics sound similar to the nit-picking I hear from Jehova's Witnesses who don't teach doctrine, they argue obscurities and tradition in hopes of confusing rather than converting.
So what if Jesus was born in what we now call April and not December, does that change who He was?
So what if he had long hair, short hair, no hair, does that change the means by which we can get to heaven?
So what if parts of the Bible have been corrupted by the Catholic church (which was started by Romans as a means of controlling people), does that change the nature of God?
So what if Moses brought down tablets with an indeterminate number of precise Laws on them, does that change the fact that obeying God is a good idea?
So what if Saturday (not Sunday) is, according to the Gregorian calendar, the Seventh day of the week, does that change the fact that we should worship God?
"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" (Matt. 23: 24).  Don't pick the Gospel to death, live it correctly and it will work out in your favor.
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
*topic lockes** this is so lame. hopefully one of you are trolling

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-14.htm
this is so good (did the romans write that)
  • aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2005
  • Posts: 5149
please don't use my name ChaosTechnician it discredits me.
my point was ONLY that that site is fairly useless. first glance it's like "oh yikes" but then it's like, "oh, hangon..." so again it would be good for a QUICK BATTLE FACE TO FACE but if you give them time to think about what you've said it'd be counterproductive, and you'd be best off just picking the best arguments and slinging them (hint: similarity to other religions isn't one)
I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S
  • Overlord.
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 22, 2007
  • Posts: 20
Who Saved the Saviour?

I ran across a piece on google today that suggests Jesus actually survived the crucifixion and went on to live in India afterwards.  Some of it is a little weird, but makes for a cool read.

And lol.  Who gives a shit what Jesus really looked like?  I mean, it's kinda funny to picture him bald with a unibrow, but c'mon, what does it really matter?
The Mikespace | Associated Content
ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
  • Avatar of Dark Angel
  • The Angel of Death
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Apr 9, 2003
  • Posts: 196
ugh WHAT A LIAR I AM i knew corinthians talked about head coverings etc but i didn't have my handy dandy bible on me, and i didn't bother with a google search because the main point was:
like even reading this without knowing the rest of it you can kinda logically determine that if god was appeased by the circumcision, than maybe god was angry that moses hadn't circumcised his children yet???
also he spelt euphemism wrong and he didn't cite a source for the feet to genitals thing (which seems like a really unnecessary connecion anyway)

Ok, Ex 4:24 IS the source for the genitals to feet. Ok, it's actually 4:25. And that, I am willing to bet without even checking for sure, was probably under the "Wrath of God" section. That section I belive is just trying to show how God can be an angry tyrant at times. "Hey! You did not cut your penis I KILL YOU!" So I don't see how anything is wrong with that piece of writing.

Quote
he is only refering to the josephus writing in the section when he says "texts," he's certainly not refering to his CNN link when he says Byzantine texts. the wiki link says right at the top

Alright. But how does that negate the other sources? Or are you just pointing out the misleading nature of "texts"?

Quote
dodgy text (OH WELL SO IS THE BIBLE IF YOU'RE GOING TO BELIEVE THE BIBLE MIGHT AS WELL BELIEVE HARRY POTTER TOO HUH WHY NOT FELLATE DUMBLEDORE??)
ugh what are you talking about?

chaos whatever said the bible never said the tower of babel was destroyed you linked to apocryphal books (books which are purposefully not in the bible (they're not just left out to save space))

the passage quoted was from this page http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/g_babel.html questioning the bible
not the one on whether god was good or not, so it's moot how worse it is for whatever reason.

i also pointed out that if the tower of babel existed when the bible was written then maybe people back then would've said "HEY!" back then???
also it is a REALLY HORRIBLE POINT that since the bible's authenticity is questionable, if you accept the bible as true you have to accept all the others too (specifically, ones that weren't included because they're too questionable)

Ok, WHO says those books are doubtful in nature?  Again I feel I have to stress that the POINT is that there are books that DO state that God destroyed the tower of Babel. Here is another link which supports those exact three books, which I found by searching for "god destroyed babel". It really sounds to me like you are arguing that the bible needs to be the only book considered when discussing its history, which I don't think is an accurate route to take.


Quote
also the xmas thing:the bible never says anything like this, and i thought it was pretty well known that he wasn't actually born on christmas, that's why i laughed. like i'd laugh if an 'academic' work highlighted that WHOA, THE QUEEN WASN'T BORN ON THE QUEENS BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY (i don't know if you americans have an equivalent)

Ok, so you thought it was funny because it was such common knowledge. I still fail to see why you think the site is as ridiculous as you are making it out to be. Yes there are errors but I have yet to see anything that is blatantly mis-represented. I will step-back and say that I was over-zealous in my "walk away victorius" comment. The site is heavy on the humor and even if the errors are minor, they are there and it does add an unproffessional air to it (as does the humor). Still, I feel the overall message of the site is clear and accurate even with the mentioned errors.

Quote from: ChaosTechnician
I am not a close-minded christian but everything I have posted says otherwise.

Ok, enjoy your stay at GW.

  • Avatar of KK4
  • Slit. Your. Throat.
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 21, 2007
  • Posts: 108
Who Saved the Saviour?

I ran across a piece on google today that suggests Jesus actually survived the crucifixion and went on to live in India afterwards.  Some of it is a little weird, but makes for a cool read.

And lol.  Who gives a shit what Jesus really looked like?  I mean, it's kinda funny to picture him bald with a unibrow, but c'mon, what does it really matter?



I've heard a couple of claims about Jesus that are somewhat strange. I've heard that he traveled extensively  before his ministry, spending time in India and Tibet. There is a book about that written by a Russian iirc called :The lost years of Jesus: the life of Saint Issa" which can probably found on amazon. I've also heard that he traveled to Ireland and Scotland with his father Joseph and learned from the druids. One of the strangest claims however came from a video I saw on Google Video which claimed that Jesus was actually the son of Julius Caesar (Pontifix Maximus of Rome) and Cleopatra (Self-styled Isis) who had escaped to India with servants posing as his parents after Marc Antony and Cleopatra's forces lost the Battle of Actium. It was silly as all hell, but interesting. I don't put much stock in it at all but if I manage to find the link I'll supply it.
  • aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2005
  • Posts: 5149
Ok, Ex 4:24 IS the source for the genitals to feet. Ok, it's actually 4:25. And that, I am willing to bet without even checking for sure, was probably under the "Wrath of God" section. That section I belive is just trying to show how God can be an angry tyrant at times. "Hey! You did not cut your penis I KILL YOU!" So I don't see how anything is wrong with that piece of writing.
in the bible god punishes people for disobedience a lot harsher than this (he assaulted that woman who turned back to see soddom and gommorah heh heh heh). circumcision is meant to be done around 9 days after birth, as commanded by god to the sons of abraham. if i remember right his sons were like 30 years old or something so that is an awful lot of lee-way!
she threw the foreskins at his feet is what the bible says, he says scholars say feet means genitals. he threw the foreskins at his genitals? either way she threw them at him, the author was just trying to gross you out or something.


Quote
Alright. But how does that negate the other sources? Or are you just pointing out the misleading nature of "texts"?
uhhh what?
the other sources were for other points he was making, he only had one source for that whole section describing jesus as ugly and it's widely discredited, but he still said SCHOLARS and TEXTS agree.
it weakens his other points because this is a really bad practice!!
also it's pretty goofy to put that he was actually HIDEOUS right after you say he looked JUST LIKE ANY OTHER JOE as hideous kinda stands out, no?

Quote
Ok, WHO says those books are doubtful in nature?  Again I feel I have to stress that the POINT is that there are books that DO state that God destroyed the tower of Babel. Here is another link which supports those exact three books, which I found by searching for "god destroyed babel". It really sounds to me like you are arguing that the bible needs to be the only book considered when discussing its history, which I don't think is an accurate route to take.
here's a quote from your link:
"It is not mentioned in the Genesis account that God directly destroyed the efforts of the builders; presumably, the building fell into disrepair."

which is what chaostectum said, he said the bible doesn't say it was destroyed, and you're saying "hang on, these books say that the bible was destroyed" but they're books NOT in the bible, and they're books specifically not in the bible because they're PROBABLY FAKE

if the bible said something like HEY THIS TOWER OVER THERE WAS DESTROYED while it was STILL STANDING why would anyone beleive it?
back in the day they didn't have to search for ancient scrolls in clay pots, they could have just walked over to babylon and taken a look.

Quote
Ok, so you thought it was funny because it was such common knowledge. I still fail to see why you think the site is as ridiculous as you are making it out to be. Yes there are errors but I have yet to see anything that is blatantly mis-represented. I will step-back and say that I was over-zealous in my "walk away victorius" comment. The site is heavy on the humor and even if the errors are minor, they are there and it does add an unproffessional air to it (as does the humor). Still, I feel the overall message of the site is clear and accurate even with the mentioned errors.

if you use a lot of the stuff on that site in a debate you will set yourself up for a fail.
"The bible says jesus was born on the 25th of december, but he probably wasn't! what do you say to that?"
"well actually, the bible doesn't say that and nobody beleives that, we celebrate his birth on the 25th"
"DID YOU KNOW THE CELEBRATION WAS ORIGINALLY PAGAEN, AND THE CHRISTIANS TOOK THE DAY AND MADE IT ABOUT JESUS??"
"yeah, it was taken from them and now it's much more christian than pagan"
"THE BIBLE SAYS THE TOWER OF BABEL WAS DESTROYED WHEN IT WASN'T!!!!"
"well it doesn't say that it was destroyed specifically. the original jews would have to have been pretty goofy to follow a book that said a tower that was still standing had been destroyed though"

if you've got some really killer points you don't need to back them up with grandois language and a propagandic writing style. this site is really ridiculous was all i said. here are some better topics for debate:
-the johannian clause and the topic of the trinity
-how does a god that can see the future change his mind?
-we know that mental diseases, drugs and manipulation can all effectively hamper free-will. what consequences does this have on sin?
-jesus on the cross, engraven images, the virgin mary and idol worship

while these can all be countered too i think they're harder to answer than anything on that site, and if you're looking to win the debate then questions about discrepencies between orthodoxy and orthopraxy are the way to go
I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S
  • Avatar of Dark Angel
  • The Angel of Death
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Apr 9, 2003
  • Posts: 196
Ah ok, that post was much better (for me). I understand a lot of what you were saying now. The only thing I still disagree with is calling those books fake. I don't mean to argue their authenticity, I can't argue for or against that in anyway, what I mean is why discount them? What I don't understand is why you'd take the bible's story and assume that is the only piece to it, especially when the bible does not even meniton it's destruciton one way or the other? There are, at least, three other books which say that it was God's power that brought it down. Now, I had started thinking that your point as that these books are not a part of the bible, thus written by other religions trying to make God look bad or something, and that does make plenty of sense. Is that what you meant in that regard?

  • aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2005
  • Posts: 5149
there's a tonne of apocryphal books, a lot of which were didn't make the cut because they were too fake, but some were only excluded because they were written in a pen name or something.

i was saying they weren't part of the bible, so you have to take them with a grain of salt, and you certainly can't say something is biblical if it's only in an apocryphal book (there is more lee way with the official 'apocrypha' that the catholics use)
I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S
  • Avatar of Doktormartini
  • Stop Radioactivity!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Apr 24, 2003
  • Posts: 1949
Just an fyi there are many reputable scholars out there that believe the Josephus' mentioning of Jesus was a forgery.
Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 01:09:09 am by Doktormartini
Dok Choy
  • Insane teacher
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 8, 2002
  • Posts: 10515
why did chaos technician ignore my two posts.

1. missing link
2. format your damn post so it's readable.
brian chemicals
  • Avatar of LORd
  • SantaMan.EXE
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jul 28, 2002
  • Posts: 1219
as much as I dislike this discussion it's not really my place to deny you from having it. nevertheless it really doesn't belong here so I am going to give you four options in order of personal preference:

1. stop it
2. take it to PM
2. I'll split the posts into their very own argue the credibility of the bible thread where you can take this (I've never split a thread before I really want to try it out)
3. keep arguing here nonetheless and I'll warn you and lock this thread (effectively forceful execution of option 1.)

make youchoice.
  • Avatar of PTizzle
  • rap singing
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Nov 15, 2006
  • Posts: 1125
And religions aren't the only thing you can convert people to.



I'm an atheist, but I hate the CONVERSION WAR shit.  Everyone leave everyone the fuck alone--that goes for atheists AND christians.


I 100% agree.

This goes for anti-drug/vegetarian/anti-smoking/etc people as well. People can do what they please if it's mostly to do with themselves.
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 24, 2004
  • Posts: 3
Ask her about the correlations of the bible to astrology, with the three kings being the stars etc etc. Also ask her if she realises that Jesus shares the same story of birth, life etc etc with many other Gods that pre-date the bible, including Horus.
Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 09:36:48 pm by Reanz Starr
  • Overlord.
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 22, 2007
  • Posts: 20
So the first round of the debate is over with.  It seems to be going pretty well so far.
The Mikespace | Associated Content
ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE