The Real face of Jesus

[devilof76]

(I know I'm going to have trouble sleeping over this one, but...)



Even if Christ existed, the question of his divinity is another question entirely, and there is no route in logic to reach that conclusion. It is still an act of pure faith claiming that he was the son of God, as is belief in God.

I don't know why this bothers religious people. What do you care if others don't believe?

 

[Bamboota]

God:

 

[pixletwin]

I don't know why this bothers religious people. What do you care if others don't believe?

Exactly. Isn't the purpose of the religion experience to learn to live by faith?

 

[The Mike]

I know there is a God. I've seen his angels.

 

[Maglor]

(I know I'm going to have trouble sleeping over this one, but...)



Even if Christ existed, the question of his divinity is another question entirely, and there is no route in logic to reach that conclusion. It is still an act of pure faith claiming that he was the son of God, as is belief in God.

I don't know why this bothers religious people. What do you care if others don't believe?

Indeed, but if it can be established that he existed, he was either truly the son of God or he was a liar.

 

[Maglor]

But as you say, "history is the lie agreed upon." Surely Nicea taught us that.

^^^^^

 

[BadMoon]

I know there is a God. I've seen his angels.

A bit too thin to be from god.

 

[siquisiri]

A bit too thin to be from god.

LMAO

what about this??

 

[Devil_666]

 

[wofford29]

You might try reading what people write rather than arguing with yourself. I never said Jesus didn't exist. I pointed out there are no primary sources indicating he existed, which gives him the same credence from a historical perspective as Robin Hood. It's also worth noting the Roman Empire is one of the best-documented civilizations in history, with endless bureaucratic documentation in existence. It does stretch belief that a person who becomes so well known that Pilate takes an interest - and who is criminally executed - goes unmentioned in any contemporary record.

I'm about 99% certain that there are non Canon documents that mention Jesus. I believe there are some Roman letters from Herod Antipas addressed to the Roman senate about his handlings of certain matters, one of which was Jesus. I also remember a couple syriac and greek manuscripts in musuems over in Britian and France. I'll have to research it more, but I'm certain I've read them years ago.

 

[Maglor]

That just made my day!


Best Lonely Island song ever!




Bruce Willis was dead at the end of Sixth Sense: I...

 

[BadMoon]

LMAO

what about this??

Boobs are fake and about three sizes to big. However, the legs and thighs seem to be more on target.

 

[Maglor]

^^^^^


And I like the tummy!

 

[twistedfreak]

Is external "evidence" necessary to "prove" the validity of things?

 

[devilof76]

...no, not at all. All you have to do to prove something is make it up in your head, then call it true. There you go. Your idea is proved. If someone disagrees with you, you find a bunch of people to agree with you, and once you have established a consensus, where your believers out number the unbelievers, your fact becomes incontestable.

 

[twistedfreak]

...no, not at all. All you have to do to prove something is make it up in your head, then call it true. There you go. Your idea is proved. If someone disagrees with you, you find a bunch of people to agree with you, and once you have established a consensus, where your believers out number the unbelievers, your fact becomes incontestable.

There's a question that I like a lot.

What's more important; being right or knowing what's right?

 

[devilof76]

I have no idea what that means.

If you are introspecting, and find evidence of the nature of your own thought processes, then looking outside of yourself for evidence woulddn't make much sense. But if you wished to communicate the information found through introspection to someone other than yourself, and they demanded proof, you would have to find a way to demonstrate the information in an external manner if you expected to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are free to claim whatever you like. What's more, only self-evident internal phenomena can be validated by direct introspection. More abstract phenomena would require a logical chain for you to understand what you are observing, let alone claim it as proved.

Let's say you know in your heart that there is a God. Well, why do yoou think so? How do you know it? Do you feel good when you are good and bad when you are bad? Are you sure it's not just gas? What makes you certain? Etc.

True faith would consist of abandoning all pretense of logical validity. You would have to forego all evidence, proof, need for certainty, and the entire apparatus of rational thought. You would have to explicitly acknowledge that there is no cause for your belief in God, and then choose to believe anyway. Anything less is a confession of an impure faith.

 

[devilof76]

THE REAL FACE OF JESUS!

I'd almost buy that if it weren't for the existence of John Candy and Richard Pryor. I'd believe them before Chevy Chase.

 

[Maglor]

Let's say you know in your heart that there is a God. Well, why do yoou think so? How do you know it? Do you feel good when you are good and bad when you are bad? Are you sure it's not just gas? What makes you certain? Etc.

 

[The Ween]

Science and Religion........both have believers with blind faith. Why argue about it? It's not like anyone is going to change their mind.