God Squad
- Thread starter peapod
- Start date
You know what we are in this discussion?
We are the owners of pets. We are obviously the dominant species. We are obviously more intelligent, and yet we don't quite know how our pets think and why they don't always obey. They're not human but we impute to them our qualities, we infer from their behavior something human.
How fascinating it is to observe intelligence that cannot know what it looks at.
We hold this issue of religion in our hands.
We examine all of the components.
Endless examination, faulty on all of its aspects.
We debunk this or that and that's accurate, but debunking a piece leads us to miss the whole of it.
But dominant intelligence can still not understand what it controls.
I hear you knocking...
But you can't come in...
I hear you knocking...
where the hell have you been ?
We are the owners of pets. We are obviously the dominant species. We are obviously more intelligent, and yet we don't quite know how our pets think and why they don't always obey. They're not human but we impute to them our qualities, we infer from their behavior something human.
How fascinating it is to observe intelligence that cannot know what it looks at.
We hold this issue of religion in our hands.
We examine all of the components.
Endless examination, faulty on all of its aspects.
We debunk this or that and that's accurate, but debunking a piece leads us to miss the whole of it.
But dominant intelligence can still not understand what it controls.
I hear you knocking...
But you can't come in...
I hear you knocking...
where the hell have you been ?
Well there has been more than ample opportunity for "Jesus" "Allah" "Buddah" "God" "Zeus" "Maya" "Shiva" "Kurma" "Durga" "Thor" "Matangi" "Amon" or any number of the hundreds of diferent "gods" to make an appearence.
Funny, none ever have.
People in the BCE (and early CE) time frame were very superstitious and even in the recent CE there has not been one shred of evidence to prove any of the hundreds if not thousands of alleged "gods" even exist or ever existed.
Funny, none ever have.
People in the BCE (and early CE) time frame were very superstitious and even in the recent CE there has not been one shred of evidence to prove any of the hundreds if not thousands of alleged "gods" even exist or ever existed.
http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php
Gives histories written by the most prominent Roman historians. If you do not think that Jesus existed based on these, then you probably do not think there ever was a Roman Empire. The following Roman writers mention Jesus:
Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
Did Christians alter ALL of these historians? What is the point of arguing with a guy about evidence if any evidence that is presented is edited by the vaste right wing Catholic conspiracy?
Gives histories written by the most prominent Roman historians. If you do not think that Jesus existed based on these, then you probably do not think there ever was a Roman Empire. The following Roman writers mention Jesus:
Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
Did Christians alter ALL of these historians? What is the point of arguing with a guy about evidence if any evidence that is presented is edited by the vaste right wing Catholic conspiracy?
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/jesusthelegend.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Gaius Cornelius Tacitus -- 55-120 CE
Lucian of Samosata -- 120-180 CE
Josephus Flavius -- 37-100 CE
Pliny the Elder -- 23-79 CE
Pliny the Younger -- 61-112 CE
Arrian of Nicomedia -- 87-145 CE
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus -- 75-160 CE
Marcus Valerius Martialis -- 40-104 CE
Decimus Junius Juvenalis -- 60-140 CE
Mestrius Plutarch -- 45-120 CE
Petronius -- 27-65 CE
Vellius Paterculus -- 20 BCE-30 CE
Philo Judaeus -- 20 BCE-50 CE actually lived in Jerusalem during Jesus' life, yet he never wrote about him.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca -- 4 BCE-65 CE Roman playwrite, never wrote about Jesus.
Etc, etc, I think you get the point...
Most of the writers you mentioned were either born after Jesus alleged crucifixion, or were still in diapers (did they have diapers in 1st century Judea?), and so could not have given a first hand account of anything Jesus said or did. The writers that were around during that time are silent on the matter of Jesus, with the exception of the forgeries that I'd mentioned before.
There is really no point in continuing to argue that a historical Jesus existed, because history itself speaks against that conclusion , and you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary.
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/jesusthelegend.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Gaius Cornelius Tacitus -- 55-120 CE
Lucian of Samosata -- 120-180 CE
Josephus Flavius -- 37-100 CE
Pliny the Elder -- 23-79 CE
Pliny the Younger -- 61-112 CE
Arrian of Nicomedia -- 87-145 CE
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus -- 75-160 CE
Marcus Valerius Martialis -- 40-104 CE
Decimus Junius Juvenalis -- 60-140 CE
Mestrius Plutarch -- 45-120 CE
Petronius -- 27-65 CE
Vellius Paterculus -- 20 BCE-30 CE
Philo Judaeus -- 20 BCE-50 CE actually lived in Jerusalem during Jesus' life, yet he never wrote about him.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca -- 4 BCE-65 CE Roman playwrite, never wrote about Jesus.
Etc, etc, I think you get the point...
Most of the writers you mentioned were either born after Jesus alleged crucifixion, or were still in diapers (did they have diapers in 1st century Judea?), and so could not have given a first hand account of anything Jesus said or did. The writers that were around during that time are silent on the matter of Jesus, with the exception of the forgeries that I'd mentioned before.
There is really no point in continuing to argue that a historical Jesus existed, because history itself speaks against that conclusion , and you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary.
I think the best thing we can all agree, is that something happened, and even propaganda, even the best lie needs something to live....
Even metaphors live off of something solid.
Intuitively the partisan arguments to debunk or affirm have too brittle a feeling to make me trust the superiority of either side.
I do think the bureaucracy of religion has little to be afraid of and should embrace the list of historical fallacies and admit to it without giving up the core that something big did happen.
Even metaphors live off of something solid.
Intuitively the partisan arguments to debunk or affirm have too brittle a feeling to make me trust the superiority of either side.
I do think the bureaucracy of religion has little to be afraid of and should embrace the list of historical fallacies and admit to it without giving up the core that something big did happen.
This argument on religion, much like that of politics, is often dominated by partisans who tether their ropes to the facts, the strut of web links, the so-called proof that is their foundation.
You need some of this back and forth, but you also need an over-view, something more intuitive, something above the battle that deepens any discussion where an agreement can be found, where the well worn, tiring arguments can be put aside in favor of some synthesis.
You need some of this back and forth, but you also need an over-view, something more intuitive, something above the battle that deepens any discussion where an agreement can be found, where the well worn, tiring arguments can be put aside in favor of some synthesis.
The issue is not that the story had to start from something...this issue is that the story, as given, is not supported by history...
The story, in various forms, had been told for centuries before the alleged life of Christ...yet the early Christians attribute all of these qualities and characteristics to this man called Jesus, thus creating the myth, and then they do everything possible, including falsifying history, to support that myth...even today, there are hundreds of websites that cite the same information as the one that The Philosopher posted, but they are all based on falsehoods...they say this person, or that person wrote about Jesus, when in fact that is an outright lie...
If it were true, that there have been contemporaneous accounts of the life of Jesus, then there could be no argument...but because the Christian apologists have no supporting evidence, they are forced to spread falsehoods...
So, if they are spreading untruths concerning the historicity of Jesus, then why should anybody believe anything else that's written in the Bible as having actually occurred?
And if the Bible is just a haphazard collection of folk myths, then what power can it truly have over the hearts and minds of the billions who profess their faith?
And if the Bible is a fallacy, what then does that say for authenticity of the Quran?
And if the Torah, Bible and Quran are false, what reason then do we have to kill each other?
The story, in various forms, had been told for centuries before the alleged life of Christ...yet the early Christians attribute all of these qualities and characteristics to this man called Jesus, thus creating the myth, and then they do everything possible, including falsifying history, to support that myth...even today, there are hundreds of websites that cite the same information as the one that The Philosopher posted, but they are all based on falsehoods...they say this person, or that person wrote about Jesus, when in fact that is an outright lie...
If it were true, that there have been contemporaneous accounts of the life of Jesus, then there could be no argument...but because the Christian apologists have no supporting evidence, they are forced to spread falsehoods...
So, if they are spreading untruths concerning the historicity of Jesus, then why should anybody believe anything else that's written in the Bible as having actually occurred?
And if the Bible is just a haphazard collection of folk myths, then what power can it truly have over the hearts and minds of the billions who profess their faith?
And if the Bible is a fallacy, what then does that say for authenticity of the Quran?
And if the Torah, Bible and Quran are false, what reason then do we have to kill each other?
Speaking of fold myth, Hinduism has a lot of followers. I like the myths and the points they are trying to make. I know they're not true though.
I have the same thoughts on Jesus, I don't know if he existed or not, but the messeage of his "supposed" words are very powerful and meaningful.
I have the same thoughts on Jesus, I don't know if he existed or not, but the messeage of his "supposed" words are very powerful and meaningful.
A haphazard collection of folk myths? What power?
Grimm's Fairy Tales proved the power.
Hans Christian Anderson proved the power.
Tolkien proved a lesser power, but entertaining !
Don't let the fallacies be your proof that it all should disappear, because then you give no power to how Rome became a christian empire, or Byzantium, or Islam taking on such a strong following, or the long history of Protestantism contributing to many democratic concepts.
The Buddhist teach you to see a crazy wisdom beyond the much vaunted facts that imprison you.
There is much to condemn, repudiate and debunk, but still such effort is brittle if it misses the long span of history and the ideas that took over people's minds for good and bad.
I see your logic, but don't demonize those who do believe, or you commit the same error.
A straight line appears to be a fact, until it was proven otherwise.
Again your argument is a strong one, but its strength can also be a weakness when it become exlusionary, when it becomes the God of Unassailable Logic.
That is a big secular problem.
Grimm's Fairy Tales proved the power.
Hans Christian Anderson proved the power.
Tolkien proved a lesser power, but entertaining !
Don't let the fallacies be your proof that it all should disappear, because then you give no power to how Rome became a christian empire, or Byzantium, or Islam taking on such a strong following, or the long history of Protestantism contributing to many democratic concepts.
The Buddhist teach you to see a crazy wisdom beyond the much vaunted facts that imprison you.
There is much to condemn, repudiate and debunk, but still such effort is brittle if it misses the long span of history and the ideas that took over people's minds for good and bad.
I see your logic, but don't demonize those who do believe, or you commit the same error.
A straight line appears to be a fact, until it was proven otherwise.
Again your argument is a strong one, but its strength can also be a weakness when it become exlusionary, when it becomes the God of Unassailable Logic.
That is a big secular problem.
Hey said is that veronica lake in your avatar?? I love old films..I think it is her. Well I tired to bring this topic up with my fishing buds, man I am lucky I did not have to swim. The gist was, "are you nuts!! who gives a shit?? Bwhahahaha they are a nasty bunch 
peapod said:Hey said is that veronica lake in your avatar?? I love old films..I think it is her. Well I tired to bring this topic up with my fishing buds, man I am lucky I did not have to swim. The gist was, "are you nuts!! who gives a shit?? Bwhahahaha they are a nasty bunch
Oui, c'est her.
The only brand of Christianity I don't really care for is Evangelicalism. Actually, I don't care for any extremist version of religion, but on a hole the bible or the Koran etc isn't the worst place a person can find inspiration.
When I first fired up the hot topic of religion some months back, I included a caveat that I do not think ill of those who choose to believe in and practice religion...my wife is a Christian, so how on earth could I...
I am presenting my argument in the manner I have, for the purpose of honest debate...I am not insensitive to the reality that many may take offense to the truths that I reveal, yet that is not my intent...
Having said that though, I truly believe that there can be no reconciliation and no tolerance betwixt the religions, because they, at their core, are exclusionary...
I also believe that the religions, in insisting that faith be maintained at all costs, has stifled free thought for millenia...
So, whereas I do not think ill of those practicing their religion, in a sense, I do pity them, for having become, most often since infancy, trapped in a cyclical pattern of faith and obeisance...
I am presenting my argument in the manner I have, for the purpose of honest debate...I am not insensitive to the reality that many may take offense to the truths that I reveal, yet that is not my intent...
Having said that though, I truly believe that there can be no reconciliation and no tolerance betwixt the religions, because they, at their core, are exclusionary...
I also believe that the religions, in insisting that faith be maintained at all costs, has stifled free thought for millenia...
So, whereas I do not think ill of those practicing their religion, in a sense, I do pity them, for having become, most often since infancy, trapped in a cyclical pattern of faith and obeisance...
Perhaps Vanni, you can make a distinction between church and ones faith. Organized religion seems to be the problem. Not people having faith.
Yes she was famous for that hair over the eye said...well no they were not talkin about religion, they were talking about homosexuals getting married, I was telling those macho boys about lib was saying...hence the who gives a shit if they marry Okay I will leave you two alone now
Okay I will leave you two alone now peapod said:Yes she was famous for that hair over the eye said...well no they were not talkin about religion, they were talking about homosexuals getting married, I was telling those macho boys about lib was saying...hence the who gives a shit if they marry
I guess I missed more posts in that thread.
Said1 said:peapod said:Yes she was famous for that hair over the eye said...well no they were not talkin about religion, they were talking about homosexuals getting married, I was telling those macho boys about lib was saying...hence the who gives a shit if they marry
I guess I missed more posts in that thread.
Said1, looks alot sexier with a gun in her hand
I think not said:Said1 said:peapod said:Yes she was famous for that hair over the eye said...well no they were not talkin about religion, they were talking about homosexuals getting married, I was telling those macho boys about lib was saying...hence the who gives a shit if they marry
I guess I missed more posts in that thread.
Said1, looks alot sexier with a gun in her hand
Hmmm, I think the Yank has a crush on little ol moi. :lol:
I think not said:
I do make that distinction ITN, but the inescapable truth is that without faith, there is no church, nor religion. You cannot condemn one without condemning the other, by proxy.
It is people's faith in their religion that causes them to do attrocities against humanity...whether that be in the form of a holy crusade, or something more subtle, such as denying a minority their rights, due to religious convictions, with a whole gamut of infractions in between...
If they were allowed the opportunity to cast doubt on their church's doctrine, much misery could be avoided, however faith, by its nature precludes such an allowance...and the cycle of misery is continued ad aeternus...