Pope Benedict stumped by Japanese girl's question about suffering - Polidicks

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29393935][url]http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm[/url][/QUOTE] "not from christian authors, therefore it's wrong"

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29393947]"not from christian authors, therefore it's wrong"[/QUOTE] "A Ploy from the almighty god to test my faith"

[QUOTE=bravehat;29393956]"A Ploy from the almighty god to test my faith"[/QUOTE] Fucking satan burying dinosaur fossils and creating carbon dating

See I could never get all these arguments, I always end up seeing God as some tremendous cock, and the christians just adore him for his "wisdom" for testing us, which makes him seem violent and paranoid so my view of it all ends up like this: God is that redneck asshole with a pickup blasting out freebird with a shotgun in the back and 2 teeth in his whole mouth and christians are like the once upon a time hooker who gets beaten black and blue then goes on Jerimy Kyle and is all like "No but he loves ME, he looks after me and put a roof over my head, he's always been there for me!" completely disregarding all the bad shit that happens as if they're in fucking denial

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;29382016]Only the Catholics care about birth control. It's a catholic born idea thought up by a few stupid theologians sometime around 1 to 10 A.D who believed that when you shag you should allow for the possibility of a child. Why they thought this I really don't know.[/QUOTE] So they could condemn recreational fucking.

To the above quote - I think the decision against birth control came a LONG time after 10 A.D. Regardless, I'm not surprised the OP of the quote "really doesn't know", as he/she probably didn't bother to even find out, which is pathetic, really. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29393929]So the events of the bible are true? Uhm, no. They may be historically accurate in some senses, but they are not anywhere near a truthful retelling of any events of the time(Hey, earth isn't 6000 years old, it's not that accurate). And you're still saying hearsay is reliable, which, even by ancient standards, it isn't. It's far more accurate and reliable than hearsay histories today, but if you honestly believe an oral retelling of an already embellished story is a form of truth, then I've no desire to talk about it. And his historical existence really is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, Jesus's divinity was still a 100% myth. I'm still struggling to believe you said hearsay from a different age counts as truth, you can't possibly believe that a game of 2000 year old chinese whispers results in you having a fact to stand on[/QUOTE] Should've been clearer, my mistake. I was referring to the New Testament, not the Old Testament, as regarded as partially historically accurate. And you'd be right about the hearsay, if we were talking about one or two isolated tales. However, the legend of Christ is based on sterner stuff - references, oral and written, to him, his life/death and early Christianity from many different sources. Now you're changing the issue - from the existence of Jesus at all, to the existence of Jesus as a god. But, out of boredom, let's go with it. How is the historical existence of Christ not relevant - in ancient history, there's a far bigger leap in proving the divinity of a man with no evidence of even his EXISTENCE, let alone godly nature, than proving the divinity of a man who is confirmed to have existed. Once again (because you'll probably leap to this), I'm not saying any of this is proof that Christ was the Son of God, but proof of his existence is certainly important.

Whether real or not it really doesn't matter, it's had an effect on billions of people throughout history, real or not the stories and wars and shit that's came from that have effected a lot of folk.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;29394092]To the above quote - I think the decision against birth control came a LONG time after 10 A.D. Regardless, I'm not surprised the OP of the quote "really doesn't know", as he/she probably didn't bother to even find out, which is pathetic, really. Should've been clearer, my mistake. I was referring to the New Testament, not the Old Testament, as regarded as partially historically accurate. And you'd be right about the hearsay, if we were talking about one or two isolated tales. However, the legend of Christ is based on sterner stuff - references, oral and written, to him, his life/death and early Christianity from many different sources. Now you're changing the issue - from the existence of Jesus at all, to the existence of Jesus as a god. But, out of boredom, let's go with it. How is the historical existence of Christ not relevant - in ancient history, there's a far bigger leap in proving the divinity of a man with no evidence of even his EXISTENCE, let alone godly nature, than proving the divinity of a man who is confirmed to have existed. Once again (because you'll probably leap to this), I'm not saying any of this is proof that Christ was the Son of God, but proof of his existence is certainly important.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm[/url] just read this. I also know you were talking of the New Testament, which is not historically accurate as it contains a huge number of clearly mythical tales without any reference outside of themselves. see, you use the word "legend". It's JUST that. A legend, a mythology, a tale being told. Show me these outside written and oral references as accepted by non-theologist bible scholars that don't just rely on themselves as hearsay Proof of his existence would be important to prove his nature, indeed. But, if you take the idea that just for a second, if there were references to his divinity outside of the bible, him being the divine god of all and what not(Which divine god would really be my question, there's oh so many, even within christian mythology) they would have survived a 2000 year game of chinese whispers. They have not, not even the bible is able to survive that having gone through revision after revision after revision, since the beginning of the church. Doesn't the fact the earliest written gospel was written 70 years after jesus's death in a time where to live to be 90 to actually write that would be a statistical impossibility, let alone there be 4 people survive to that age, bother you?

It doesn't have to be true. It's just important that the people whose behaviour you're trying to control think it's true enough and do as they're told because they think you control what happens to them when they die. [editline]24th April 2011[/editline] It's also pointless trying to convince a person who has been successfully conditioned to not think critically about Bible stories to think critically about them. You lot are wasting your time and just circle jerking in front of people who think you are rude, thoughtless heretics.

I read it, before I even posted in this thread. Personally, I think it's poorly written as an article, even one so rampantly anti-Christian - really, stuff like "scholars say x", without naming any of the said scholars, doesn't present a persuasive case. I was looking more at this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus[/url] [quote]The majority of biblical scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus,[7][8][9] agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[/quote] [quote]Material which refers to Jesus includes the books of the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, hypothetical sources which many biblical scholars argue lie behind the New Testament, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources[24] such as Josephus, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.[/quote] Also, this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_canonical_Gospels[/url] [quote][b]According to the majority viewpoint[/b], the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus.[1][2][3] and of the religious movement he founded, but not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion.[/quote] Cool? I don't get it - are you still expecting eye-witness accounts? There aren't any, that's not how historical records worked at the time, and it DOESN'T matter - it's already accepted by the historical community consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was real. As for divinity: I've explained this a thousand thousand times, but I'll do it again. Christians don't JUST base their faith on the Bible, but on their own knowledge of God's presence, something which cannot be explained to anyone else or disproven to the believer. I'm not going to be drawn into an argument of Christ's divinity, it'll go nowhere - as it always does. [QUOTE=mikfoz;29394202] It's also pointless trying to convince a person who has been successfully conditioned to not think critically about Bible stories to think critically about them. You lot are wasting your time and just circle jerking in front of people who think you are rude, thoughtless heretics.[/QUOTE] I resent that remark - you have no idea what I'm thinking. Don't dare even try and write me off as "some deluded Christian lol".

Faith isn't a form of evidence to me. And you commit the same fucking fault you call the writer out for. You say " already accepted by the historical community consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was real." I have attended many history and religious history classes. They have not told me "Without a shadow of a doubt Jesus was alive at some point". Nope, but you know that to be true, through faith or through "fact", you know that to be true? You'd think for a man(Jesus) who was crowded by multitudes of people in the thousands, who rubbed elbows with the lords of the time, that one, JUST one mention of this... would be made when he was actually alive... It is not. I expect more than hearsay to say "oh yeah, that happened". Anyways, I'm done arguing this, I don't like religious arguments because even if you have a "fact" it's worthless to either party because one is governed entirely by faith, the other is not. [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa4.htm[/url] Why is that jesus, who follows a character archetype of many other religious figure heads before him, had to exist, but the ones he's clearly based off of, never did? If Jesus did exist, and I concede, he could have, [i]he's been turned into a fictionalized character by the church since the inception of the church and stands no more as a real man than someone like Luke Skywalker.[/i]

[quote]it's already accepted by the historical community consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was real[/quote] Well that's wrong and silly, they don't have any actual evidence. And dude you've said enough in the past that you effectively write yourself off as a deluded christian, I expect it everytime I see you post now.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;29394287] Christians don't JUST base their faith on the Bible, but on their own knowledge of God's presence, I resent that remark - you have no idea what I'm thinking. Don't dare even try and write me off as "some deluded Christian lol".[/QUOTE] yeah, you gave me a good reason to say you're not deluded, you're going off faith and you have the balls to say, "Yeah, my faith is objective truth"

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29394306]Faith isn't a form of evidence to me. And you commit the same fucking fault you call the writer out for. You say " already accepted by the historical community consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was real." I have attended many history and religious history classes. They have not told me "Without a shadow of a doubt Jesus was alive at some point". Nope, but you know that to be true, through faith or through "fact", you know that to be true? You'd think for a man(Jesus) who was crowded by multitudes of people in the thousands, who rubbed elbows with the lords of the time, that one, JUST one mention of this... would be made when he was actually alive... It is not. I expect more than hearsay to say "oh yeah, that happened". Anyways, I'm done arguing this, I don't like religious arguments because even if you have a "fact" it's worthless to either party because one is governed entirely by faith, the other is not. [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa4.htm[/url] Why is that jesus, who follows a character archetype of many other religious figure heads before him, had to exist, but the ones he's clearly based off of, never did? If Jesus did exist, and I concede, he could have, [i]he's been turned into a fictionalized character by the church since the inception of the church and stands no more as a real man than someone like Luke Skywalker.[/i][/QUOTE] You're ignoring everything I'm saying. I wasted my time writing of the evidence of a historical Jesus, it seems - that, or you're right and the majority of the historical community, who I daresay are more learned than you upon this, are wrong. Yeah, yeah, yeah- no. I said my faith is the objective truth. I never said you'd believe me, nor that I could convince you. Once again, we've had this conversation, and I'm tired of repeating myself.

yes, we've had this argument, and you're the one who believes quite fervently, you're right without a doubt. You ignore what I say, I "ignore" what you say. I'm not arguing this anymore because it's clear you lack the ability to actually try and undermine your own strongly held beliefs for the sake of a rational discussion, rather than a fact based discussion And you're the one who keeps saying "The historical community at large knows jesus existed", if this is true, show me the vast majority of the historical community at large, accepting Jesus's existence. And nowhere have I said "I know better than the historical community" because, I don't. But you don't either, but you say you know an objective truth? Cool, I see where your head's been, and I can even smell it too. And you may want to know, even "if that's not how history worked back then", there were still many eye witness reports of many things, it's not like they couldn't write what they saw, and the things you would have seen if jesus can be attributed to even one quality that is given to him in the biblical story, you'd think that shit would get written down at the time, not chinese whispered for 80-120 years, and then written down. What, I should take what's written there as a fact because it's the best we have? No, it's still fucking hearsay. You know what the difference between us is? You can say you know a truth and you know that in your heart, that's the god damn fucking truth to the letter. I can't. I can't say I know a truth because rationally, when you look around this big thing called life at this extraordinary planet in a huge universe, to believe that you [b]KNOW[/b] a [b]fact[/b] is... frankly, beyond absurd to me. I won't stop you from believing what you want, i've no desire to, please, go on living your life. But don't tell me you know a truth in this world. I just can't come up with a better way to say it then quoting fucking Socrates. "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing". To be sure of your knowledge is to commit great folly is his point. Frankly, if anyone ever took the time to read the Greek Philosophers, even if they are the most common of them, it would hopefully, shut down this Objective fucking truth bullshit.

[quote]I said my faith is the objective truth. I never said you'd believe me, nor that I could convince you. Once again, we've had this conversation, and I'm tired of repeating myself.[/quote] And you claim you're not deluded? You live your live based on blind faith of some fucking sky man who seems to have a fucking split personality disorder and is so retarded he couldn't think of any better way of "freeing" man than sending his fucking sun to be impaled to a couple of 2x4's by his most beloved creation. HOW CAN YOU GRASP HOW FUCKING MORONIC THIS IS !?!?!?! Also hearsay is not evidence because over the peroid of time and the distance the stories have been travelled they WILL have changed to such a degree they become unrecognisable from the truth and again to believe they haven't is a mind shattering act of blind stupidity and faith.

I don't see why the existence of Jesus would be any more unlikely than the existence of Muhammad or Buddha. It's not like people wandering around claiming to be prophets of some sort is uncommon. If L Ron or Charles Manson can convince a bunch of people to join their wacky cults in this relatively enlightened era, I'm sure some guy the Roman Empire's Bible Belt could.

I think it's more the fact that there is no evidence for this particular prophet. Besides there is evidence for Muhammad, he actually did shit that leaves big physical traces like battles and shit.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;29394551]I don't see why the existence of Jesus would be any more unlikely than the existence of Muhammad or Buddha. It's not like people wandering around claiming to be prophets of some sort is uncommon.[/QUOTE] No, and that's why I concede Jesus COULD have lived. But, as you can see he fits to a character archetype so fucking perfectly, one laid out by at least 15 religions and mythologies BEFORE Christianity, you'd at least be able to see why he's been turned into a fictionalized character. Any religious book that refers to a prophet that it claims to have existed could very well be talking about a real person at some point. But that person has been fictionalized, sensationalized, packaged, and sold.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;29394551]I don't see why the existence of Jesus would be any more unlikely than the existence of Muhammad or Buddha. It's not like people wandering around claiming to be prophets of some sort is uncommon.[/QUOTE] Im not sure about this but if I remember there was real historic proof of budda especially since he wasnt based on other prophets before him and never did anything magical.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;29394551]I don't see why the existence of Jesus would be any more unlikely than the existence of Muhammad or Buddha. It's not like people wandering around claiming to be prophets of some sort is uncommon.[/QUOTE] There were plenty of Jesuses back in Jesus' day.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29394565]No, and that's why I concede Jesus COULD have lived. But, as you can see he fits to a character archetype so fucking perfectly, one laid out by at least 15 religions and mythologies BEFORE Christianity, you'd at least be able to see why he's been turned into a fictionalized character. Any religious book that refers to a prophet that it claims to have existed could very well be talking about a real person at some point. But that person has been fictionalized, sensationalized, packaged, and sold.[/QUOTE] That's exactly what I'm saying. I think lots of mythology could have based off real events.

I thought it was easy to blame everything bad on that satan guy.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;29394594]That's exactly what I'm saying. I think lots of mythology could have based off real events.[/QUOTE] Well, as much as it could be perhaps. There's a theory i've heard passed around on at least one "biblical" story(It's the epic of giglamesh bastardized by christians 250 years later). Noahs Ark. There's the idea that at one point in time, a group of people who lived in a small valley, isolated from the world, had to endure a flood like never before seen. Not a global one, not even a country wide one, it just flooded their valley. They probably built a ship. They probably survived. But what's important to note about this story is, it happens eons before christ, before the bible, and is a precursor story to many that come after it. All ANY religion is is transference of what was, to what now is. Religion rarely changes largely in ones lifetime, so we don't see that, but all any religion is, is transference of symbols, dates, names, places, ideas, and through this convergence of all sorts of storied materials, we get, a modern day religion that looks to be about as true as can be, because through-out history you have the same few stories repeated in a few different forms. These stories, these characters, they all fit too snuggly to fictional archetypes.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29394640]There's a theory i've heard passed around on at least one "biblical" story(It's the epic of giglamesh bastardized by christians 250 years later). Noahs Ark. There's the idea that at one point in time, a group of people who lived in a small valley, isolated from the world, had to endure a flood like never before seen. Not a global one, not even a country wide one, it just flooded their valley. They probably built a ship. They probably survived. [/QUOTE] I dunno, I guess, there was probably a flood once, with a guy there, and maybe he had animals or something.

It bugs me that people are of the belief it actually [i]matters[/i] whether the bible contains historical fact or not. It's a shame it's so pertinent to Christian thought that Jesus actually existed. Religious ideas that stem directly from metaphysical thought is, in my opinion, much more valid.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;29394902]It bugs me that people are of the belief it actually [i]matters[/i] whether the bible contains historical fact or not. It's a shame it's so pertinent to Christian thought that Jesus actually existed. Religious ideas that stem directly from metaphysical thought is, in my opinion, much more valid.[/QUOTE] I'm of the personal opinion that religious thought is useless and obsolete and is now a waste of time, since you know, most of the shit religion has said has been proven wrong and now all they have to go on is the vague metaphysical shit.

There's lots of thoughts that are useless and obsolete. The freedom to believe in what you want is the most important freedom there is. I think a lot of beliefs the majority of people have are invalid and rely on an element of faith given by authority.

I never said you shouldn't be allowed to believe in it, just saying it's completely moronic.

[QUOTE=Jasun;29372884]Some shitty poster who likes crossdressing in little girls bathing suits.[/QUOTE] Banned for making a news thread? Why here? He could of just have the message sent there. Really. No questions. Only answers.