Any verifieable aspect of religions?
- Thread starter teguh123
- Start date
Moisturizers were a lot better back then, they had vitamin E, frankincense, and a little myrrh. Abraham didn't look a day over 368 years old.
that's great... moses must've kept in pretty good shape too being able to build that arc in his mid 300's and all
Organized religion is terrible but the aspects of most religions are noble and good. No reason to spit on religion as a whole.
Hello friend,
It because when people die they no really die they just reincarnation. For new life begin old life have die.
Also not all god good god and love all people. There evil god and good god like there good people and evil people.
Good luck bro
Uhh, no - no there isn't at all. Every Roman historian at the time, Christian or atheist, says he existed.
You atheists would be better off trying to dispute his divinity, because you don't have a chance trying to actually challenge his existence. I don't care what they're teaching in German schools nowadays or whatever fucking European country you're from, it's just an exercise in recto-cranial inversion if you're trying to push that line.
> Every Roman historian at the time
And if you heed those historians, then you should also heed their judgement of Christianity at the time. Tacitus had this to say:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians [sic] by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired"
You can't ignore that someone from the time, someone renowned for being a careful scholar, someone you are relying on for proof of your prophet's very existence, has recorded that christianity is a disgraceful, evil, hideous, shameful, mischievous superstition.
In addition, his comments are supported by most other historical observations of christianity, and further we simply need to look around us now to see what Tacitus saw - nothing's changed. Christianity has always been an ignorant, malicious, superstitious scourge to any society it manages to strangle. Likewise, its cousin, isalm. Christianity didn't spread because people thought it was a cool idea - it spread through bloodshed, force, fear and indoctrination of children.
Or are you going to cherry-pick your historical records like you cherry-pick your way through all the ugliness, depravity and ignorance perpetrated by the deity described in the bible?
And if you heed those historians, then you should also heed their judgement of Christianity at the time. Tacitus had this to say:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians [sic] by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired"
You can't ignore that someone from the time, someone renowned for being a careful scholar, someone you are relying on for proof of your prophet's very existence, has recorded that christianity is a disgraceful, evil, hideous, shameful, mischievous superstition.
In addition, his comments are supported by most other historical observations of christianity, and further we simply need to look around us now to see what Tacitus saw - nothing's changed. Christianity has always been an ignorant, malicious, superstitious scourge to any society it manages to strangle. Likewise, its cousin, isalm. Christianity didn't spread because people thought it was a cool idea - it spread through bloodshed, force, fear and indoctrination of children.
Or are you going to cherry-pick your historical records like you cherry-pick your way through all the ugliness, depravity and ignorance perpetrated by the deity described in the bible?
This morning my kid came tearing through the living room cause he thought he heard knocking on the door. (He does this about 15 times a day) So when he did it today my hubby says "hurry up it's jesus at the door he wants you to let him in your heart" and when my kid flings the door open I said "See honey? Just like real life, no jesus" and then we all got a great big laugh.
So if you accept their facts, you have to accept their opinions too?
Rock-solid logic right there.
So your best response is that I'm a "dinosaur-denier"?
Sigh..
Yes because I don't waste my time looking into religious bullshit
If some random man got nailed to a cross that's his problem not mine.
Can you post up one about fundamentalist Mormons? They are allowed to eat bacon and have multiple wives.. seems like a win win to me yo.
> So if you accept their facts, you have to accept their opinions too?
> Rock-solid logic right there
You're the one who touted their scholarship (which surely includes credibility and impartiality).
So now you've changed your mind; apparently we can't trust what they recorded?
Or perhaps we should trust the bits that you wish to believe, but reject the parts you find inconvenient?
NB: I'm not going to get drawn into this discussion - no time for this nonsense.
> Rock-solid logic right there
You're the one who touted their scholarship (which surely includes credibility and impartiality).
So now you've changed your mind; apparently we can't trust what they recorded?
Or perhaps we should trust the bits that you wish to believe, but reject the parts you find inconvenient?
NB: I'm not going to get drawn into this discussion - no time for this nonsense.