Official Religion Debate Thread

[DarkPacMan77]

POSTED TWICE FOR RECOGNITION

since nothing can 100% substantiate religion, and nothing can 100% substantiate athiesm/ agnosticism or prove religion false 100% by scientific means, wouldn't that, in turn, mean that religion, just as well as science, are both equally wrong?"

-DarkPacMan77-

READ

Main Entry: faith Function: noun

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

As per the definition, science does not even play into it. Anyone see the word science in that definition?

But you see, that was exactly my meaning. To have faith is to believe, to trust, to accept a set of guidelines that were taught to you by your superiors under unfortunate circumstances in which can't even be proven... but not only that, can't even be proven by the text in which the guidelines were originally written. That's what I mean when I say the Bible doesn't prove itself. If the Bible used science to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, was dead for three days, was resurrected and ascended into heaven, how come you never see a formula or equation proving how such a thing was possible? Before, during, and certainly after the life of Jesus, the world had more than enough physicists, mathematicians, astronomers, natural philosophers, alchemists and theologians needed to come up with scientific and mathematical answers for how such amazing things happened... but yet you find that there is still no science that substantiates religion, and no religion that substantiates itself using science, so therefor, the most LIKELY answer is that the Bible is fiction.

And ace, the planet Pluto is real because we have photographic evidence of the mother fu*ker... for crying out loud. We know Pluto's mass, surface area, density, how fast it rotates, how much it tilts, how many moons it has, and we can pretty much come up with an accurate air density and composition.

But wait... you must have DNA evidence of Jesus Christ right? No way would you bring up that same "Pluto" bullsh*t and make yourself look dumb, right? Or maybe you have photographic evidence of Jesus Christ that propounds the same scientific leverage as these pictures of Pluto. With an argument like the one you just brought up... you better have at least a picture of similar quality to the last one taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.







-DarkPacMan77-

[ace]

I just pointing out what is obvious to me man. You said all religions bash each other then say you didn't say that. I was just questioning what you said. I'm sorry if I sounded like I was attacking you or anything, I just got aggervated at what all you were saying, and it wasn't adding up for me.

Whoa I was about to flip out. I thought dpm done deleted our conversation. By pictures dpm though, I was thinking of that painting of the last supper. Just to put that out there.

photographic evidence of jesus

http://www.tribulation.com/images/KingJesus.jpg

[ace]

photographic evidence of jesus

http://www.tribulation.com/images/KingJesus.jpg

I'd have to say that's better quality then the pics dpm posted, but I'm sure your being sarcastic. If not then thanks.

yah i am being sarcasctic hahaha i thought it would be very funny

but anyway, movies like zeitgeist and the god who wasnt there have proven jesus is not real.

Also the fact that non of the 20 historians form that time period whos books are used today even mentioned jesus is kind of weird isnt it?

[DarkPacMan77]

By pictures dpm though, I was thinking of that painting of the last supper. Just to put that out there.

Ok, fair enough. But when you provide evidence, such as The Last Supper, you must cite your credible resources as to why that is an accurate depiction of Jesus Christ and the 12 disciples...

... and I'm just going to save you the time and tell you that it's NOT an accurate representation of Jesus Christ, nor was that picture painted while Jesus Christ was alive. It's not a portrait, and therefor, it's not credible for proving Jesus Christ existed. In fact, The Last Supper was painted over fourteen CENTURIES after Jesus Christ was already dead. That picture is only an artist's perception of what he invisioned The Last Supper to look like (presuming that was his intent, of course). Leonardo da Vinci can't prove Jesus Christ existed.

-DarkPacMan77-

you did not just say muslims think jesus existed...
wow i have never heard something that stupid from you.

I assumed that since Jesus is mentioned in the Muslim holy text that Muslims would know of him more than just from their wars with the Christians and the Jews.

The Koran not only discusses Jesus, son of Mary many times but also gives him a role of high honor perhaps quoting him as much as The Prophet Mohammed!

Dust off your Koran buddy, read for yourself.

You see, what I learned of Islam is that it sets guides for your live and rules to follow and if you want to learn more about this or that you go to the Christian Bible to read in much more detail but as you stated you do not like to read which is surprising and also evident from your posts.

Islam was originally intended to bring worshipers of god back on the "true" path of god but then it took so long to get everything written down and by the time someone decided to do that there were 40 different versions of Mohammed's message from god. The Koran that is in print today is a merging of those 40 some versions with things added in by clerics obviously.

[ace]

I know it wasn't painted during the last supper, but I was just saying, I was thinking that by saying there is pictures of Jesus that well, there is a picture of Jesus. I didn't mean anything by saying that, I was just saying there is a picture of Jesus, and there is a picture of Pluto. It's sort've like how you were comparing the bible to a fairy tale I guess. If you can stretch it that far.

[DarkPacMan77]

Studying the Koran helped me see how religion is used to structuralize society; how it makes it easier for political parties to influence change in society.



Say farrquezy, ... that sure looks like... hmmmm... without thinking too hard... that looks like a "sun" behind Jesus' head... wonder why that would be there...*cough*ZEITGEIST*cough*

-DarkPacMan77-

you did not just say muslims think jesus existed...
wow i have never heard something that stupid from you.

I assumed that since Jesus is mentioned in the Muslim holy text that Muslims would know of him more than just from their wars with the Christians and the Jews.

The Koran not only discusses Jesus, son of Mary many times but also gives him a role of high honor perhaps quoting him as much as The Prophet Mohammed!

Dust off your Koran buddy, read for yourself.

You see, what I learned of Islam is that it sets guides for your live and rules to follow and if you want to learn more about this or that you go to the Christian Bible to read in much more detail but as you stated you do not like to read which is surprising and also evident from your posts.

Islam was originally intended to bring worshipers of god back on the "true" path of god but then it took so long to get everything written down and by the time someone decided to do that there were 40 different versions of Mohammed's message from god. The Koran that is in print today is a merging of those 40 some versions with things added in by clerics obviously.

it might say that in the book, but people dont follow it.
im telling you i dont know a single muslim that believes in jesus.

I mean Quran tells muslims to pray 5 times a day, but the only person i know, and trust me i know many muslims who even come close to that is 3 times a day.

But im saying what the people believe not what the book says.

It's sort've like how you were comparing the bible to a fairy tale I guess. If you can stretch it that far.

Now that presents sort of a problem.

Not all of the bible can be taken literally even though much of it is intended to be taken that way. There are no guides to let us know when metaphors are being used. What is worse is that much of the Old Testament was pass down from generation to generation orally so over time things were added and much was left out.

If none of the bible is meant to be taken literally then The New Testament too must also be taken figuratively and therefore we can never say anything certain about Jesus one way or another.

Back to my point...

The Story of Noah probably in all likely hood never happened the way it was written.
There is a tale preserved in clay tablets that tells of The Sumerian king Gilgamesh's account of the great flood and it sounds a lot like the one about Noah in the bible. It has an Ark with animals 2x2, family and so on. The twist? The Holy Bible's account of Noah goes back about 3 to 4 thousand years while the Sumerian tale goes back almost 6000!

I will let you think about that one for a bit.

Say farrquezy, ... that sure looks like... hmmmm... without thinking too hard... that looks like a "sun" behind Jesus' head... wonder why that would be there...*cough*ZEITGEIST*cough*

-DarkPacMan77-

yah isnt that amazing haha...
zeitgeist is so amazing.
Made me so open minded about things that its unbelievable

Made me so open minded about things that its unbelievable

My mind is so open right now I have a headache!

Isn't it wierd how Jesus is depicted as white, when he is said to have been born and lived in the Middle East?
Also, Pluto isn't really a planet, but a dwarf planet.

There where Jewish people in the Middle East - Jewish and Bethlehemalonians maybe lol. But I know what you're saying I tell that to people as well.