[Marcov]

So a somewhat fictionalized person (no matter if there really was a Jesus of Nazareth, his deeds, however important and groundbreaking they were, have become somewhat exaggerated over the years) says that blind faith was better than using reason? What is your argument, exactly?

My point? My point is simply that the central figure of Christianity asserted that there's really no point in trying to prove the existence of this deity.

Riiiight. You really have no idea about your own religion's scripture, do you? By all accounts, Jesus of Nazareth was an extraordinarily charismatic individual, able to inspire his followers into acting according to his vision of what people should act like. Jesus was never described as being supremely gifted in all areas of human endeavour.

This is nothing new, or really that extraordinary, as charismatic individuals can be found in every strata of human society at any time. What made him different was his followers' continuing devotion to his ideals after his death, and their willingness to spread the word. Compare: Martin Luther King, to take one example.

So Jesus was this mega-ranter who performed miracles and walked on water...hmm...

...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?

No. Ghosts can be just as well considered a malfunction in the brains' pattern recognition. Which happens a lot more often than you think. Also, stop citing bull**** without providing reference points. I thought you should have learned this about debating on HLP by now, if you can't provide references other than your personal beliefs, your arguments are null and void.

So you think that I am simply some insane guy trying to prove something like Santa Claus. Better yet, if you really want someone insane, search for the user judgefloro.

Oh, really? So you just want to have a nice little chat without people who disagree with your ill-conceived notions and ramblings? Sorry, but no. Not going to happen.

I know for a fact that certain individuals will be questioning this idea of mine, but that doesn't mean I have to destroy them all in some sort of philosophical debate. It's your choice if you want to endlessly confront me, just know that a "debate" isn't what I really want. And no, I do not want to have a "nice little chat who agree to your senseless ramblings".

[Marcov]

and this pissed me off, so we are even.

You know, typing foul words against someone who never said them against you isn't always right.

[The E]

My point? My point is simply that the central figure of Christianity asserted that there's really no point in trying to prove the existence of this deity.

So, according to you, the central figure of your religion says that there's no reason to believe in said religion? Interesting. I am pretty certain there is nothing towards that effect in the scripture.

There are reasons why reason can never ever prove the existance of god. I have mentioned them above.

So Jesus was this mega-ranter who performed miracles and walked on water...hmm...

...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?

Do you have any idea what "charismatic" means? It has nothing to do with talking loud and emotional, and all to do with your ability to convince people of your ideals and goals. And yes, I believe just that. After all, there are plenty of historical persons who inspired just that much loyalty from their followers. Alexander the Great. Richard Lionheart. Winston Churchill. And all of them managed to do it without being the son of god.

So you think that I am simply some insane guy trying to prove something like Santa Claus. Better yet, if you really want someone insane, search for the user judgefloro.

No, I think you lack knowledge of the various ways in which the human brain can mislead you. Bobboau mentioned it above, and even provided a nice little link for you to follow.

I know for a fact that certain individuals will be questioning this idea of mine, but that doesn't mean I have to destroy them all in some sort of philosophical debate. It's your choice if you want to endlessly confront me, just know that a "debate" isn't what I really want. And no, I do not want to have a "nice little chat who agree to your senseless ramblings".

Sorry, what? First, do not try and start putting words in my mouth. There's a difference between "ill-conceived" and "senseless", the first being a somewhat neutral judgement of your arguments based on their merits, the second being close to an ad-hominem.
Second, if you do not want your ideas to be criticised, do not post them. Criticism does not mean "destroying" arguments, it means poking your theories and utterings for defects and seeing if they can hold water outside of your head. That your theories are susceptible to sinking under such pokings isn't really your fault, after all, noone can be expected to be aware of all the various pitfalls human reasoning is susceptible to.

Oh wait.

Yes, you can. But that would mean keeping an open mind and not being satisfied with the first answer you can come up with.

[Jeff Vader]

and this pissed me off, so we are even.

You know, typing foul words against someone who never said them against you isn't always right.

Finally, I don't like your attitude. It kind of gets me pissed off.

Notice the timestamps.

[Bobboau]

ok, because we are basically playing edit war I suppose I need to mark at what point this post was in response to, I started writing immediately after my last post, I have not read the 4 replys that came after, nor any changes to any posts that have been made while typing.

Do you think Jesus is that much of an idiot to seek popularity? Oh, well...

idiot? no, if I was cynical I would actually call it genius, not in a good way though. I am of the opinion that line in that book was told/written by who ever spoke/wrote it with the express hope that it would win them some followers, if it was the word of a hypothetical historical Jesus or not I cannot say. I will assume that who provided that line did not do so with a malevolent understanding of it's destructive implications.

I don't see any reasonable argument here.

argument being that _any_ thing that you can think up, anything that is completely without any evidence or support, something that you intentionaly made up as a work of fiction, but that does not directly contradict reality, anything that is completely unproven is also not "fully proven". but your using that word insinuates is that it has been partially, even largely proven, which on the subject of god is fallacious.

Yeah, some people who were thrown off a building, skinned alive, beheaded, hung on a cross for 2 days until death, burned alive, sawed in half lengthwise from the head were just insane retards ranting about someone who was a little smart being someone who knew everything.

not quite sure I follow you, are you implying that because a group of people was persecuted that they are factually accurate?

Find that evidence for yourself, then.

I have looked, I have failed to find it, therefore I assert that the premiss is false. you are asserting the premiss is true, if you care for anyone here to accept your position, you will need to provide support for it. personally if I am wrong I would like to know.

Unfortunately, computers don't cry.

I don't consider that unfortunate, actually I consider that their great strength, they cannot be swayed by a feeling.

Who cares if my definition was wrong? So what if I change it into an "idea" or a "thought", like what the thread says? Happy now?

that is a common low blow by theists basically trying to misrepresent scientific understanding as being just a wild unsupported guess, it is an intentional and dishonest tactic, it is more than simply a 'wrong definition', it is tantamount to a lie and borderline ad hominem.

[Bobboau]

and this pissed me off, so we are even.

You know, typing foul words against someone who never said them against you isn't always right.

are you really this stupid?
why would you say that when the quote goes directly back to your post that I am paraphrasing?
seriously, what are you thinking?
are you?
and even if you hadn't said those "foul words" against me to begin with, how would that make anything else you've said correct?

[Bobboau]

...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?

it would not be the first nor last time such a thing had happened.

So you think that I am simply some insane guy trying to prove something like Santa Claus. Better yet, if you really want someone insane, search for the user judgefloro.

insane? no, just mistaken.

I know for a fact that certain individuals will be questioning this idea of mine, but that doesn't mean I have to destroy them all in some sort of philosophical debate. It's your choice if you want to endlessly confront me, just know that a "debate" isn't what I really want. And no, I do not want to have a "nice little chat who agree to your senseless ramblings".

so you want us to just accept what ever you say, even if it is the sky is green and the world is flat, just because you say it is? sorry, no one is ever going to be convinced by that.

[dsockwell]

If magic is all we've ever know
Then it's easy to miss what really goes on
But I've seen miracles in every way
And I see miracles everyday
Oceans spanning beyond my sight
And a million stars way above em at night
We don't have to be high to look in the sky
And know that's a miracle opened wide
Look at the mountains, trees, the seven seas
And everything chilling underwater, please
Hot lava, snow, rain and fog
Long neck giraffes, and pet cats and dogs
And I've seen eighty-five thousand people
All in one room, together as equals
Pure magic is the birth of my kids
I've seen **** that'll shock your eyelids
The sun and the moon, and even Mars
The Milky Way and ****ing shooting stars
UFOs, a river flows
Plant a little seed and nature grows
Niagara falls and the pyramids
Everything you believed in as kids
****ing rainbows after it rains
there's enough miracles here to blow your brains
I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay
It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away
And music is magic, pure and clean
You can feel it and hear it but it can't be seen

[Bobboau]

****ing magnets...

[Marcov]

So, according to you, the central figure of your religion says that there's no reason to believe in said religion? Interesting. I am pretty certain there is nothing towards that effect in the scripture.

There are reasons why reason can never ever prove the existance of god. I have mentioned them above.

There is a difference between not believing, and not TRYING TO PROVE the existence of said God.

Do you have any idea what "charismatic" means? It has nothing to do with talking loud and emotional, and all to do with your ability to convince people of your ideals and goals. And yes, I believe just that. After all, there are plenty of historical persons who inspired just that much loyalty from their followers. Alexander the Great. Richard Lionheart. Winston Churchill. And all of them managed to do it without being the son of god.

None of those you mentioned actually have the influence even far to that of Jesus.

idiot? no, if I was cynical I would actually call it genius, not in a good way though. I am of the opinion that line in that book was told/written by who ever spoke/wrote it with the express hope that it would win them some followers, if it was the word of a hypothetical historical Jesus or not I cannot say. I will assume that who provided that line did not do so with a malevolent understanding of it's destructive implications.

But you said this;

people will say silly things if they think it will make their position stronger, for instance if you are trying to convince a bunch of people to believe a completely nonsensical explanation you might assert those who just believe anything you say without questioning it are great people that everyone should emulate, it doesn't make it a fact.

...which I take as describing Jesus as someone who would try to convince others of these nonsensical explanations to gain more followers. Why the heck would Jesus want to actually "gain" followers? And okay, so it was his peers who did it. They did not actually raise an army of Christians to force people in their belief system, did they?

argument being that _any_ thing that you can think up, anything that is completely without any evidence or support, something that you intentionaly made up as a work of fiction, but that does not directly contradict reality, anything that is completely unproven is also not "fully proven". but your using that word insinuates is that it has been partially, even largely proven, which on the subject of god is fallacious.

Well, you said that I didn't have solid evidence. Okay. Whatever. Feel free to think what you think is right.

not quite sure I follow you, are you implying that because a group of people was persecuted that they are factually accurate?

I am implying that, who would risk themselves of these disastrous consequences, in following some charismatic dude who isn't correct anyway, and they know it?

I have looked, I have failed to find it, therefore I assert that the premiss is false. you are asserting the premiss is true, if you care for anyone here to accept your position, you will need to provide support for it. personally if I am wrong I would like to know.

As much as I can think of, it's personal sensitivity that allows one to encounter ghosts. If you haven't, then okay, you don't have evidence.

Videos, articles, forums, are available on the net, or on TV, on radio, on books, or any other multimedia instrument you can name, that discusses this. But of course, nothing is better than a personal experience, and if you don't have one, feel free to disapprove of such things.

I don't consider that unfortunate, actually I consider that their great strength, they cannot be swayed by a feeling.

They don't cry simply because they are not as complex as we humans are.

that is a common low blow by theists basically trying to misrepresent scientific understanding as being just a wild unsupported guess, it is an intentional and dishonest tactic, it is more than simply a 'wrong definition', it is tantamount to a lie and borderline ad hominem.

I never said that scientific understanding was "just a wild unsupported guess".

are you really this stupid?
why would you say that when the quote link goes directly back to your post that I am paraphrasing?
seriously, what are you thinking?
are you?
and even if you hadn't said those "foul words" against me to begin with, how would that make anything else you've said correct?

Saying bad words when I haven't said any pisses me off. I'm sure many will also suffer the same fate. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with proving myself.

it would not be the first nor last time such a thing had happened.

So...what happened? Who suffered the same way?

insane? no, just mistaken.

How's he mistaken?

so you want us to just accept what ever you say, even if it is the sky is green and the world is flat, just because you say it is? sorry, no one is ever going to be convinced by that.

Yeah, because I'm not trying to convince anyone? Seriously. It's your style. Of course I can try to reply to those who point out the discrepancies in my statement, like you do.

[Bobboau]

There is a difference between not believing, and not TRYING TO PROVE the existence of said God.

I am curious what you mean by this.

None of those you mentioned actually have the influence even far to that of Jesus.

how about Hitler?
how about Mohamed?
how about the Pharaohs of Egypt?
emperor of Japan?

...which I take as describing Jesus as someone who would try to convince others of these nonsensical explanations to gain more followers. Why the heck would Jesus want to actually "gain" followers?

cannot say for certain, but there are tones of reasons why a hypothetical Jesus may have been motivated to do this. maybe he was egotistical? maybe he thought that he was the son of God and that if he didn't convince everyone they were going to burn in hell for all eternity?

And okay, so it was his peers who did it. They did not actually raise an army of Christians to force people in their belief system, did they?

eh, actually...

I am implying that, who would risk themselves of these disastrous consequences, in following some charismatic dude who isn't correct anyway, and they know it?

who said they know it?

As much as I can think of, it's personal sensitivity that allows one to encounter ghosts. If you haven't, then okay, you don't have evidence.

oh, so only "special" people can get evidence, ad we are supposed to just believe them, on their word, that they are not misremembering, because they can remember.

Videos, articles, forums, are available on the net, or on TV, on radio, on books, or any other multimedia instrument you can name, that discusses this. But of course, nothing is better than a personal experience, and if you don't have one, feel free to disapprove of such things.

I have watched quite a bit of these materials, none of it I found especially convincing. personal experiences I have had that I could see others accepting, upon examination did not bear out.

They don't cry simply because they are not as complex as we humans are.

and yet they are vastly superior to us in many problem domains, for example the one you presented.

I never said that scientific understanding was "just a wild unsupported guess".

it is a well established common talking point used by theists in these contexts to try and discredit science. if you did it out of habit, be aware that usage of that word in these circumstances will have that connotation. I highly doubt that you use the word theory in your day to day life however.

Saying bad words when I haven't said any pisses me off. I'm sure many will also suffer the same fate. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with proving myself.

I haven't said any

pissed off.

you said it first.
YOU SAID IT FIRST!
I was paraphraseing YOU!

So...what happened? Who suffered the same way?

how about Hitler?
how about Mohamed?
how about the Pharaohs of Egypt?
emperor of Japan?
a million other examples of this sort of stuff.

How's he mistaken?

you not he.

Yeah

well... that isn't going to happen...

[Marcov]

There is a difference between not believing, and not TRYING TO PROVE the existence of said God.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Haven't you said --

So, according to you, the central figure of your religion says that there's no reason to believe in said religion? Interesting. I am pretty certain there is nothing towards that effect in the scripture.

Saying there's "no reason to believe in my religion" is different from "you know, it isn't really going to benefit you anything trying to believe in God only if there's proof".

None of those you mentioned actually have the influence even far to that of Jesus.

how about Hitler?
how about Mohamed?
how about the Pharaohs of Egypt?
emperor of Japan?

Look at the pie, mate. "Mohammed" is still forgivable, but do you see any "Nazi", "Ancient Egyptian Fanatic", "Japanese die-hard fanatic" there? See for yourself.

...which I take as describing Jesus as someone who would try to convince others of these nonsensical explanations to gain more followers. Why the heck would Jesus want to actually "gain" followers?

cannot say for certain, but there are tones of reasons why a hypothetical Jesus may have been motivated to do this. maybe he was egotistical? maybe he thought that he was the son of God and that if he didn't convince everyone they were going to burn in hell for all eternity?

The latter reason seems pretty intriguing. While Jesus may have blurted out these statements to gain more followers to save them from hell, wouldn't he be outright saying the false already? Wasn't his job to preach the good news, and not the "edited-to-save-more-dudes-from-hell" news?

Jesus doesn't edit the Word of God to gain more followers, of course he has to be true to it for his followers to be saved.

And okay, so it was his peers who did it. They did not actually raise an army of Christians to force people in their belief system, did they?

eh, actually...

So...it was St. Peter who did that? The Holy Roman Emperor isn't exactly Jesus's "peer", is he?

I am implying that, who would risk themselves of these disastrous consequences, in following some charismatic dude who isn't correct anyway, and they know it?

who said they know it?

Well, they SHOULD know that the man they were following was a fake.

As much as I can think of, it's personal sensitivity that allows one to encounter ghosts. If you haven't, then okay, you don't have evidence.

oh, so only "special" people can get evidence, ad we are supposed to just believe them, on their word, that they are not misremembering, because they can remember.

Maybe. It's really up to you.
Certain people claim to be able to talk to ghosts, while those like you can't. On my observation and personal life, certain people are such things, while others aren't, including you.

They don't cry simply because they are not as complex as we humans are.

and yet they are vastly superior to us in many problem domains, for example the one you presented.

That doesn't take into account if Jesus knows everything. Sure, we can make computers so smart they can tell us the secrets of magic, but still, that's still limited intelligence.

I never said that scientific understanding was "just a wild unsupported guess".

it is a well established common talking point used by theists in these contexts to try and discredit science. if you did it out of habit, be aware that usage of that word in these circumstances will have that connotation. I highly doubt that you use the word theory in your day to day life however.

You know, the English language does not have boundaries. With literally tons of nations, there should be tons of slang English adaptations, with their meaning different from what is seen in the dictionaries. The English language, or any major language in general, is so widely used that there is no single definite source to be supposed to be followed. Many people will understand certain words in different ways. For instance, if one person accuses you of having used his computer without permission, you might not immediately call him "a devil";

The Devil (Greek: διάβολος or diábolos = 'slanderer' or 'accuser'[1])

You wouldn't immediately address anyone as a "devil" just like that. See how the Greek language is changed? See how language evolves?
Likewise, the word "theory" has evolved in some way to your typical "theist"'s vocabulary. Moreover, take note, a "theory" does not have to have "definitive proofs". How about the "Progressive Education" theory? You think they are actually based on "evidence" and "proofs"? No. "Theories", in that sense, are actually an idea, of some author, with his regards to the matter he is formulating.

And as such, John Dewey didn't base his "Progressive Education Theory" to something that MAY HAVE HAPPENED. Just because I use the word THEORY does not mean it is the SCIENTIFIC term.

Saying bad words when I haven't said any pisses me off. I'm sure many will also suffer the same fate. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with proving myself.

I haven't said any

pissed off.

you said it first.
YOU SAID IT FIRST!
I was paraphraseing YOU!

Sorry, but it appears you are misunderstanding what I said. By "bad words" I was referring to your occasional use of the word "bull****". That's a bit too offensive.

How's he mistaken?

you not he.

Oh. But yes, please do a reading on him. If you did, fine. If you haven't, take a look. I'm interested to know how someone like you would regard his posts.

[The E]

Random thought:

[karajorma]

...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?

Buddha did it too. Are you going to claim he's also telling the truth?

[karajorma]

...so you really think that individuals NEVER STOPPED until they were tortured and killed just because some guy talked loud and emotional? You think that since there was this one guy who was extra-excited when he talked, an organization that was established worldwide and converted a large chunk of the known population was formed, countless wars on him were fought, for 2,000 years? One guy can do all this?

Buddha did it too. Are you going to claim he's also telling the truth?

You say that I haven't actually put in anything substantial enough to put up a "serious discussion". Well, to inform you, a "serious discussion" isn't actually what I'm after; I'm after trying to express my ideas in a forum full of people who will reply reasonably. The thing is, you're treating this like some sort of debate. Well, I'll be entertaining, as much as I can, a debate which you can put up against me, but to be blunt, a debate isn't really what I want.

Tough ****! If you want to post random stuff and only have people agree with you, post elsewhere on the internet. This is the General Discussion forum and if you post something obviously false you should be prepared to have people fill your argument so full of holes you could market it as a Swiss Cheese!

HLP is not a place for your stream of conciousness posts. If you start a thread, you'd better be ready for people to disagree with you. 

[Polpolion]

You say that I haven't actually put in anything substantial enough to put up a "serious discussion". Well, to inform you, a "serious discussion" isn't actually what I'm after; I'm after trying to express my ideas in a forum full of people who will reply reasonably. The thing is, you're treating this like some sort of debate. Well, I'll be entertaining, as much as I can, a debate which you can put up against me, but to be blunt, a debate isn't really what I want.

Tough ****! If you want to post random stuff and only have people agree with you, post elsewhere on the internet. This is the General Discussion forum and if you post something obviously false you should be prepared to have people fill your argument so full of holes you could market it as a Swiss Cheese!

HLP is not a place for your stream of conciousness posts. If you start a thread, you'd better be ready for people to disagree with you.

I disagree. People shouldn't be allowed to disagree when other people post their ideas.

[Kosh]

Tough ****! If you want to post random stuff and only have people agree with you, post elsewhere on the internet. This is the General Discussion forum and if you post something obviously false you should be prepared to have people fill your argument so full of holes you could market it as a Swiss Cheese!

HLP is not a place for your stream of conciousness posts. If you start a thread, you'd better be ready for people to disagree with you.

Is this kind of reminding anyone of High Max? I mean the delayed editing the lengthy rants that go nowhere......

[Bobboau]

Haven't you said --

no that was The E

Saying there's "no reason to believe in my religion" is different from "you know, it isn't really going to benefit you anything trying to believe in God only if there's proof".

Yeah, I suppose it is technically not the same. but I think it is a good idea for you to base your understanding of the world on the world, not just what someone says because you believe them.

Look at the pie, mate. "Mohammed" is still forgivable, but do you see any "Nazi", "Ancient Egyptian Fanatic", "Japanese die-hard fanatic" there? See for yourself.

have they never been there? just because the cult of personality dissipated doesn't mean it never happened, the point was people will follow someone just because that person is good at getting people to follow them, or because there is a cultural indoctrination to follow them. it happens. the fact that Christianity is at the moment winning the popularity contest doesn't change the fact that people will follow a person/idea just because it is good at getting people to follow it.

The latter reason seems pretty intriguing. While Jesus may have blurted out these statements to gain more followers to save them from hell, wouldn't he be outright saying the false already?

doesn't mean he knew it was false, if there was a historical Jesus, he could have totally believed everything he was saying

Wasn't his job to preach the good news, and not the "edited-to-save-more-dudes-from-hell" news?

that would be sort of hard to do if everyone would have reacted the way we are.

Jesus doesn't edit the Word of God to gain more followers, of course he has to be true to it for his followers to be saved.

how do you know he doesn't, you know the mind of God?
and yes he has to be right in order for him to be right, that doesn't mean he is right, but he could truly believe it even if he is wrong.

So...it was St. Peter who did that? The Holy Roman Emperor isn't exactly Jesus's "peer", is he?

you said followers... ok, fine the immediate followers of Jesus didn't form an army, they couldn't, they were persecuted for a few hundred years before converting the leader of Rome.it didn't take too long for them to form an army after that.

Well, they SHOULD know that the man they were following was a fake.

yeah, they should, but how are you to determine if any position you hold is truth or fiction?

Maybe. It's really up to you.
Certain people claim to be able to talk to ghosts, while those like you can't. On my observation and personal life, certain people are such things, while others aren't, including you.

and how do you know that these people are seeing/hearing something that is actually there?

That doesn't take into account if Jesus knows everything. Sure, we can make computers so smart they can tell us the secrets of magic, but still, that's still limited intelligence.

at least that would tell us that there was magic. that's a huge step forward as far as I can tell.

You know, the English language does not have boundaries. With literally tons of nations, there should be tons of slang English adaptations, with their meaning different from what is seen in the dictionaries. The English language, or any major language in general, is so widely used that there is no single definite source to be supposed to be followed. Many people will understand certain words in different ways. For instance, if one person accuses you of having used his computer without permission, you might not immediately call him "a devil";

The Devil (Greek: διάβολος or diábolos = 'slanderer' or 'accuser'[1])

You wouldn't immediately address anyone as a "devil" just like that. See how the Greek language is changed? See how language evolves?
Likewise, the word "theory" has evolved in some way to your typical "theist"'s vocabulary. Moreover, take note, a "theory" does not have to have "definitive proofs". How about the "Progressive Education" theory? You think they are actually based on "evidence" and "proofs"? No. "Theories", in that sense, are actually an idea, of some author, with his regards to the matter he is formulating.

And as such, John Dewey didn't base his "Progressive Education Theory" to something that MAY HAVE HAPPENED. Just because I use the word THEORY does not mean it is the SCIENTIFIC term.

this conversation is not happening in a vacuum.

Sorry, but it appears you are misunderstanding what I said. By "bad words" I was referring to your occasional use of the word "bull****". That's a bit too offensive.

I worked in a meat packing plant for about 10 years, it effected my vocabulary. sorry if it offends, but it is hardly pertinent to anything I am saying.

Oh. But yes, please do a reading on him. If you did, fine. If you haven't, take a look. I'm interested to know how someone like you would regard his posts.

I have, I regard them as funny. and yeah he is either crazy, trying to get attention, or has deluded himself to the point he is spewing nonsense.
or all of the above.

[karajorma]

You say that I haven't actually put in anything substantial enough to put up a "serious discussion". Well, to inform you, a "serious discussion" isn't actually what I'm after; I'm after trying to express my ideas in a forum full of people who will reply reasonably. The thing is, you're treating this like some sort of debate. Well, I'll be entertaining, as much as I can, a debate which you can put up against me, but to be blunt, a debate isn't really what I want.

Tough ****! If you want to post random stuff and only have people agree with you, post elsewhere on the internet. This is the General Discussion forum and if you post something obviously false you should be prepared to have people fill your argument so full of holes you could market it as a Swiss Cheese!

HLP is not a place for your stream of conciousness posts. If you start a thread, you'd better be ready for people to disagree with you.

I disagree. People shouldn't be allowed to disagree when other people post their ideas.

You should have stuck a on the end of your sarcastic post. People might think you're being serious.

[Marcov]

Haven't you said --

no that was The E

Yes, sorry.

Look at the pie, mate. "Mohammed" is still forgivable, but do you see any "Nazi", "Ancient Egyptian Fanatic", "Japanese die-hard fanatic" there? See for yourself.

have they never been there? just because the cult of personality dissipated doesn't mean it never happened, the point was people will follow someone just because that person is good at getting people to follow them, or because there is a cultural indoctrination to follow them. it happens. the fact that Christianity is at the moment winning the popularity contest doesn't change the fact that people will follow a person/idea just because it is good at getting people to follow it.

[/quote]

This may be correct, but still, how about those who suffered for this religion? Why the hell did they risk their lives to preach it?

The latter reason seems pretty intriguing. While Jesus may have blurted out these statements to gain more followers to save them from hell, wouldn't he be outright saying the false already?

doesn't mean he knew it was false, if there was a historical Jesus, he could have totally believed everything he was saying

Jesus repeatedly claims himself as carrying the Word of God. He says that everything that comes from his mouth comes directly from God. Therefore, why should he edit it to suit his own needs?

Jesus doesn't edit the Word of God to gain more followers, of course he has to be true to it for his followers to be saved.

how do you know he doesn't, you know the mind of God?
and yes he has to be right in order for him to be right, that doesn't mean he is right, but he could truly believe it even if he is wrong.

Because Jesus is someone of supposedly higher intellect than any other human at least in his time, he may have seen and understood things the average person couldn't. This way, the average person might not understand "why" he has to do these things, so Jesus had to tell them to rely on faith rather than actual evidence. For instance, you teach a pet chimpanzee to write "1+1=2". The thing is, he doesn't understand what this actual equation means. He dismisses it as nonsensical. So, the best way you can probably make him do the equation CORRECTLY is to tell him to "just do it", to trust you, because you are the smarter guy. So if he indeed has faith on your direction, and writes "2" after 1+1, then the chimpanzee actually gets correct.

So...it was St. Peter who did that? The Holy Roman Emperor isn't exactly Jesus's "peer", is he?

you said followers... ok, fine the immediate followers of Jesus didn't form an army, they couldn't, they were persecuted for a few hundred years before converting the leader of Rome.it didn't take too long for them to form an army after that.

So...you're saying that if they had the power, they would turn their followers into warriors with swords and shields, and bully pagans into worshipping their God? I don't think so. If such would happen, the apostles should have directly THREATENED the people into believing them, whether they like it or not. But no, they did not actually force those pagans into Christianity. They let them decide.

Well, they SHOULD know that the man they were following was a fake.

yeah, they should, but how are you to determine if any position you hold is truth or fiction?

Well, they claim to have seen him alive 3 days after he was killed. They claim to have seen him literally walking on water. They saw him in the sky. If these didn't occur to them, why would they do all this? Of course it would be hard for them to risk being tortured and brutally murdered if they actually saw none of these magicky things.

Maybe. It's really up to you.
Certain people claim to be able to talk to ghosts, while those like you can't. On my observation and personal life, certain people are such things, while others aren't, including you.

and how do you know that these people are seeing/hearing something that is actually there?

Because they claim to have done it, because I know they don't lie, because they aren't generally wacky people. Also, what about poltergeist incidents? Books flying? Chairs flying? Lights opening and closing? How can those be mere tricks of the mind?

Seeing a flashy thing for 0.01 seconds can actually be explained away as some sort of mind trick, but...furniture being tossed around?

Oh. But yes, please do a reading on him. If you did, fine. If you haven't, take a look. I'm interested to know how someone like you would regard his posts.

I have, I regard them as funny. and yeah he is either crazy, trying to get attention, or has deluded himself to the point he is spewing nonsense.
or all of the above.

An intriguing reason.

Buddha did it too. Are you going to claim he's also telling the truth?

Possibly. That guy was supposedly "enlightened", so he was very eager to preach it out.