Luke, Jon, and Thomas

[fieryprophet]

And I'll forego breaking down the laundry list of highly dubious claims, "evidence" and outright falsehoods that "support" the story of Jesus as factual just to pass the time.

I've had far too many of these debates and it always comes down to what sources you put your trust in. But if you dig deep enough, the roots of conspiracy and myth are exposed. Religious apologists have a vested interest in perpetuating their mythology. Religion/faith is a deeply emotional and highly profitable endeavor, and any attempts to shed light on the fraud and enlighten the sheep are met with vigorous resistance on both ends of that spectrum, and understandably so.

I have no animus towards the faithful, only towards deception.

And to presume that I've done little research relative to you regarding the subject of religion and its origins, in all its variations, is to presume way too much. You may continue to engage me in this conversation, but I said in the beginning that I wasn't interested in debating this topic. Despite my knowing better I replied anyway, and I can see that if I continue that I will be going down that familiar road. I've done it enough.

Happy Easter! :devil:

Your first mistake was assuming that I was speaking on the topic from a religious perspective. I'm not. I have zero qualms with anyone disbelieving Christianity as a faith or all other faiths, or questioning the miracles or other non-scientific implausibilities found in the Bible and other religious works. If anything, I am glad that people will attempt to apply logical reasoning to situations that obviously demand it.

I am adamantly dismissive of the Jesus myth arguments because they smack of the same faith-based circuitous logic that they claim the religious subsist on. Primary textual sources? Forgeries! Cultural impact in an ancient near eastern society that celebrated character attributes diametrically opposed to the ones embodied by the character of Jesus? Mass delusion! The fact that no fewer than three major religious traditions all reference the same character in a historical fashion? Cross-religious conspiracies! That's not mention the entire groundswell of contemporaneous Gnostic sects who built their entire theology on trying to claim that Jesus was a spiritual being and that the form he held on earth amongst his followers was an illusion, because no God would humiliate himself by actually taking the form of a mere human. In other words, there existed entire sects within Christianity that were trying to convince the believers of that time that the Jesus they saw wasn't even a flesh and blood human!

You want to argue that Jesus was just a man and that God does not exist and that religion is a farce? Knock yourself out. You want to claim that an entire fiction was started and was perpetuated despite mass persecution and social ostracism around a figure that didn't even exist, and they managed to convince pagan Romans, non-Christian Jews and eventually even Muslims to perpetuate the myth? That's not science, that's faith.

[Growl]

Look, before this discussion continues further, somebody needs to say something offensive and inappropriate real quick so I can get defensive.

GET IT, DEFENSIVE?!?!

[Growl]

But in all seriousness, there's really no need for anybody to come in and jerk it up. Been a nice discussion so far.

[fieryprophet]

The aspect of this topic that really irks the piss out of me, though? The heavy reliance on my all-time most hated form of logical reasoning: the argument from silence.

Without the freedom to whine and complain that Google didn't exist before 1996, everyone from Jesus mythers to Plato mythers to Shakespeare mythers wouldn't a leg to stand on. Woe is us that we didn't satisfy future ignorant curiosity by preserving every scrap of evidence that some dumb twits in 2013 would suddenly demand they need as proof that these people actually existed. I mean, it's not like making sure these things survive two millenniums is too much to ask, now is it? It's this same attitude of self-important gratification that leads people to run around demanding to see birth certificates.

Guess what dipwads: just because everyone on earth in the first century didn't spam FaceTablet with status updates like "OMG, just saw Jesus Christ! He looks like an angel LOL!" doesn't mean the person in question didn't exist, it just means that people alive then were slightly preoccupied with not starving to death, or contracting plague, or that they happened to be one of the 99% that didn't know how to, you know, read and write.

[koolkatluke]

And I'll forego breaking down the laundry list of highly dubious claims, "evidence" and outright falsehoods that "support" the story of Jesus as factual just to pass the time.

I've had far too many of these debates and it always comes down to what sources you put your trust in. But if you dig deep enough, the roots of conspiracy and myth are exposed. Religious apologists have a vested interest in perpetuating their mythology. Religion/faith is a deeply emotional and highly profitable endeavor, and any attempts to shed light on the fraud and enlighten the sheep are met with vigorous resistance on both ends of that spectrum, and understandably so.

I have no animus towards the faithful, only towards deception.

And to presume that I've done little research relative to you regarding the subject of religion and its origins, in all its variations, is to presume way too much. You may continue to engage me in this conversation, but I said in the beginning that I wasn't interested in debating this topic. Despite my knowing better I replied anyway, and I can see that if I continue that I will be going down that familiar road. I've done it enough.

Happy Easter! :devil:

You are definitely not invited to my church.

[Zod]

I think it likely there was a prophet names Jesus at the time. Jesus was a common name. I have no problem believing the man existed. He said some pretty profound things that I can agree with for sure. We would all be better off if people paid attention to what he preached.

[jasonluckydog]

and how ironic is it that today is Easter and the final episode of the Walking Dead? Would Rick kill Zombie Jesus?

[Guest Irv]

[Guest BlueBoyRamses_E1b1a]

The reason QBs are getting paid over 20 mil per year is because majority of them are white. Kind of like "cutting the white man a piece of the pie" thingy. As soon as there are more black QBs the salary will start evening out among the players. No reason Homo should be getting that kind of salary. He would be a free agent in search of a back up spot if he were black. Kind of like the way they're pretending Geno Smith is not a franchise QB as if Tannehill is. Pathetic attempt at slowing down the emergence of the black QBs: 'THERE IS NO LUCK/RG3 IN THIS DRAFT CLASS'. Yea, right!

I always wanted to say that but I was just waiting for the right thread. This one fits the bill. Lol

[Mr. Scot]

The reason QBs are getting paid over 20 mil per year is because majority of them are white. Kind of like "cutting the white man a piece of the pie" thingy. As soon as there are more black QBs the salary will start evening out among the players. No reason Homo should be getting that kind of salary. He would be a free agent in search of a back up spot if he were black. Kind of like the way they're pretending Geno Smith is not a franchise QB as if Tannehill is. Pathetic attempt at slowing down the emergence of the black QBs: 'THERE IS NO LUCK/RG3 IN THIS DRAFT CLASS'. Yea, right!

I always wanted to say that but I was just waiting for the right thread. This one fits the bill. Lol

Unreal :rolleyes:

[Guest BlueBoyRamses_E1b1a]

Unreal :rolleyes:

QBs should be paid the 10-15mil range so the NFL can put a better product on the field. Those RBs, WRs, CBs, TEs are risking life and limbs every down while the QB is protected by big strong guys. Look what happened to McGahee & Lattimore. Other players need incentive to play the game too. It's a slap in the face when the best athletes in the world are getting paid chunk change compare to the least athletic ones(the QBs, with some exceptions). Football is a decent sport to follow but sometimes it feels like there are too much promotions of white players who plays the sport. The NFL figure if they can't validate the white players through on the field talent, why not throw money at them. To the NFL, if white players are paid more and do more commercials then they must be the best player in the game/world: NOT!

At least Europeans have enough balls and go the extra step by limiting the number of blacks playing in European soccer. The NFL, like european soccer, should at least tells us what they're doing and explain to us why. At least if they explain to us that because majority of football fans are white it is in the interest of the NFL to promote to a white audience. Although pathetic but we'd all understand when they're lavishly overpaying a mediocre QB/athlete like Romo.

Once again I wanna thank this thread for introducing a non-Panther topic so I get to sneak in this little remark. Lol :blush:

[Mr. Scot]

You actually look for excuses to post this garbage?

That's kinda pathetic.