| Author |
Message |
    
Tankhead
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 09:25 pm: | 
|
Blake said this:
How do you agree with questions?
I didn't watch it past the first one, so forgive me if there was more to it than that.
No forgiveness necessary. Maybe you should go back and watch it before offering you questions to me. Come on now I read your article, can you do that for little 'ol me. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 09:29 pm: |
|
Yes I do remember that term transubstantiation growing up being drilled in my head.
It's a shame that Catholics aren't encouraged to challenge teachings.
I was. |
Tankhead
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 09:56 pm: |
|
Good for you FT. Good for you. I am glad to hear it. so where do you stand. Catholics are wrong or are they right? Protestants wrong or are they right? How about those who believe in the circumpunct (ya know the Target symbol) it is one of the oldest symbols for god. The Sun God RA. No need to answer the last question I hope you understand my point....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circled_dot
(Message edited by tankhead on September 20, 2011) |
Alfau
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Thus Edith the lesson for today.
|
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 11:44 pm: |
|
Chris Please. An anti-Christian bigot disdainfully flaunting his ignorance on youtube compares poorly to the expert scholarly presentation of a double PhD Christian philosopher.
You got two answers. Most believers don't ever need philosophical constructs like the ontological argument to find faith. I certainly don't. 
Jeremy,
Christians disagree about Jesus virgin conception/birth??? HUH??? That's news to me Really? Who doubts it?
more later... |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 12:01 am: |
|
Not my words nor do I agree with them. Just posting the information found on the SAME website as the list of similarities of Jesus with Krishna.
The sources of those comparisons are dubious at best. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 12:17 am: |
|
Oh, LOL! I was kinda wondering when SDave's own quoted blurb included the admission that many of the claimed similarities were a stretch. |
Etennuly
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 12:06 pm: |
|
I don't know of any. It's a common myth I think. The inquisition was less about the church, more about the government of Spain getting rid of its enemies. Not saying that the church was not corrupt. I think it still is. So did Martin Luther
Galileo and Copernicus would probably give you a run on that. |
Superdavetfft
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 03:09 pm: |
|
The whole jesus/krishna thing? well folks you missed the point.
Jesus/horus etc? there are a dozen or so others if memory serves, you can do the research.
The point is that jesus is just a copy, a ripoff of previous gods. You think the bible is so irrefutable then why is it that all these other religions based their key figures around the same dates, similar events and even similar 'miracles'? These other gods predate jesus by a long shot in some cases and many aren't even from the same region.
The point is that mankind has used the sun as a god figure for eons, the pattern of the sun in the sky gives us the dec 25th date, 3 days and then arose bit and even the cross can be traced to the original zodiac.
Just as Sifo is trying to do in the other thread, man took what he could not comprehend, the sun in the sky, and considered it 'holy' or a 'god'. This pattern continued until science dawned.
Once that happened we realized (as a species) that the sun was just hydrogen and helium fusing at incredible temperatures and pressures in order to create energy as well as the heavier elements.
Eventually science will understand more and this silly human need for a deity will dissipate and we'll be able to stop killing each other over gods that aren't there. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 04:09 pm: |
|
Then your "point" was very poorly supported.
Your argument is that other religions exist which share similar dates and traits with Christianity, some predating Christianity.
You then conclude based on what has already been shown to be highly dubious claims of similarity that Christianity is "a copy, a ripoff."
I see very little in the way of actual credible evidence that supports your claim Dave. As usual you profess little more than hollow rhetoric.
You cannot take Jesus in a vacuum. The entire history of Judaism begs to differ with your assertions. Or are you claiming the same for Judaism?
The cross is what Romans used to crucify people. Its significance to Christians didn't come from the zodiac. LOL!
>>> Eventually science will understand more and this silly human need for a deity will dissipate and we'll be able to stop killing each other over gods that aren't there.
Religion other than statism is not even close to the major instigator of war and mass murder in the world. That is a very well-known fact, easy to prove. You aren't being honest Dave.
Seek truth.
Your faith in science is misplaced. Science has shown us that our universe and time itself did indeed have a beginning. Explain the implications of that Dave. Don't ignore science, explain how if time itself and space and that which we know of our universe did not exist, what that implies. I dare you.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Perfect order from random chaos simply isn't convincingly plausible, not by any science anywhere. You have to believe in magic to believe that DNA formed and morphed into a living cell just accidentally from a chaotic sterile environment. The proposition of a creator, god, isn't magic; it is apparently just beyond your ability to comprehend. It is in fact the best, most plausible explanation for that which science has observed. Again, time itself, space, and the universe sprang forth from nothing, before which they did not exist. Explain.
Postulating that "eventually science will understand more" raises huge questions. What will science understand Dave? I'd like to see you state a single plausible scientifically valid theory for the genesis of our universe and life via purely naturalistic mechanisms. Just tell me how DNA in its near infinite perfection was able to happen by accident on a planet devoid of life and all organic matter. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 04:19 pm: |
|
Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus coinciding with pre-existing party days, so Christianity is false? Huh? How in your mind does that render Christianity false? I'm also left wondering, what are these purported co-opted party days, and where are they celebrated today? The truth is that they were never much of a big deal to anyone but modern atheists looking to deride Christianity.
We celebrate Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays on one day every year, not the same date even, and not the actual dates of their birth, so then are Washington and Lincoln fictitious? Are they just fairy tales made up so we can promote fictional stories? |
Tankhead
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 04:21 pm: |
|
This Blake seems illogical. An anti-Christian bigot disdainfully flaunting his ignorance on youtube compares poorly to the expert scholarly presentation of a double PhD Christian philosopher.
You got two answers. Most believers don't ever need philosophical constructs like the ontological argument to find faith. I certainly don't.
So do you disagree with craigs (double grad scholar) ontological argument or not?
Why is he a bigot? (The video) |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 06:23 pm: |
|
I haven't studied the ontological argument in detail. On the surface, the logic appears sound, kinda makes my brain hurt.
The video guy is a bigot because he is incredibly intolerant of Christians, insulting and deriding them, very condescending and hateful. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 06:25 pm: |
|
Just as Sifo is trying to do in the other thread, man took what he could not comprehend, the sun in the sky, and considered it 'holy' or a 'god'.
Dave, at this point you are just flat out lying. There is no other way to put it. My question deals with what science currently knows about DNA and what scientific theories predict about DNA. You have gone beyond pathetic. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 07:19 pm: |
|
And to clarify there Chris, my point about the video bigot versus Dr. Craig concerned your incredulous insistence that I ought to waste ten minutes listening to the video bigot since you read Craig's discussion of the ontological argument. Chris, you were the one asking for an explanation of the ontological argument. Dr. Craig, eminently qualified expert on the subject. The video bigot, entirely unqualified hostile ignoramus on the subject of scripture and the Christian faith. See the difference? |
Tankhead
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 08:58 pm: |
|
Says You. And NOPE no difference. Last word. I doubt it. |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 12:39 am: |
|
"No difference."
Honesty matters. |
Tankhead
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 04:25 pm: |
|
Made you look.
(Message edited by tankhead on September 22, 2011) |
Tankhead
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 04:39 pm: |
|
Just kidding. |
Slaughter
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2011 - 10:21 am: |
|
quote:"Creator — A comedian whose audience is afraid to laugh."
— H.L. Mencken
|
|
