Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:31 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
willy who? i haven't heard of him, but i have heard of dozens of others.

excorsism? what?!?! are you joking? http://www.skepdic.com/exorcism.html

you should also read this book

somehow i don't think anybody responds to exorcism. "i pity the demon tortured man...". no one gets tortured by demons. i don't think an exorcism is "real help"!. whats better, scientifically researched, empirical evidence, or assumptions based on a superstitous book?

as for your line "jesus healed epileptics...". the bible is in no way an accurate historical document. jesus healed jack crap (we're all adults). its a book filled with fables and myths. if you are going to believe that crap, you know doubt believe in noahs ark, and don't even try to argue that with me, i'll rip it to shreds.

Quote:
As far as the similarities between cults and Christ's followers: they are counterfeits, whereas Christ and his followers were the originals. Counterfeits are always similar to originals, but that doesn't in any way disprove the validity of the originals.


oh really? The Roman histrouan Tactius mentioned that Christius had been sentenced to death by the roman governor Pontius Pilate. Tactius added that his death hadn't stopped the "pernicious superstition" of his followers. sounds exactly like a cult! and not all cults are based on christianity. scientology for example. and religion was around far before jesus hit the scene. the greeks and egyptians come to mind. but believeing in greek gods is crazy right?

Quote:
. If you (rhetorical you) believe that Creation happened in six days and it was laid out exactly as is stated in the Bible, you probably also believe that God is an all powerful being....don't you think He could create really old looking bones? And consider this - nobody was actually around to say, "Yep, I was there - I KNOW those bones are 1 million years old!" Don't you think that our testing could possibly faulty? After all, it wasn't that long ago that many people believed the world was flat! Remember Chemistry class in high school? Remember how many models of the atom people came up with before they actually figured out the right one? SCIENTISTS DO CHANGE THEIR MINDS!


the stupidest post yet. why would a god create old bones? to fool us? perhaps he doesn't want us to believe in him? but the bible says differently, right? and wasn't GOD there to say "Yep, i was there.". lets ask him.


Oh God, are those bones one million years old?


Hmmm, he must be busy. no answer. and to think he spoke to moses all the time.

how about this answer:

Quote:
In Alabama, biology textbooks carry a warning that says that evolution is “a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. . . .No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.” In Alabama, it seems, if you wake up to snow on the ground, but no one saw it snowing, then you may only propose a theory as to the origin of the snow.


about the earth being flat, uh, MYTH! no educated person believed that. you only have to look into the distance to see the curve of the earth. and our techniques of dating bones are extremely accuarte, are you still bitter after the shroud of turin debacle?

Scientists change their minds, that's what so great about them. They can admit their mistakes. with so many scientists, if one scientist does make a mistake, many will pick up on it. scientists collect evidence, BEFORE coming to a conclusion. they don't base their theories on (to use the phrase again) a superstitious book.

or from skepdic.com

Quote:
Scientific creationists are not impressed that they are in the minority. After all, they note, the entire scientific community has been wrong before. That is true. For example, at one time the geologists were all wrong about the origin of continents. They thought the earth was a solid object. Now they believe that the earth consists of plates. The theory of plate tectonics has replaced the old theory, which is now known to be false. However, when the entire scientific community has been proved to be wrong in the past it has been proved to be wrong by other scientists, not pseudoscientists. They have been proved wrong by others doing empirical investigation, not by others who begin with faith in a religious dogma and who see no need to do any empirical investigation to prove their theory. Erroneous scientific theories have been replaced by better theories, i.e., theories which explain more empirical phenomena and which increase our understanding of the natural world. Plate tectonics not only explained how continents can move, it also opened the door for a greater understanding of how mountain ranges form, how earthquakes are produced, how volcanoes are related to earthquakes, etc. Creationism is not a scientific alternative to natural selection any more than the stork theory is an alternative to sexual reproduction (Hayes 1996). The theory has not led and is unlikely ever to lead to a serious understanding of biological phenomena in the natural world.


Quote:
2. Let's say you do believe in evolution WITH GOD AT THE CONTROLS (this is my personal belief, however, I think the first option I presented is definitely plausible)


no it isn't

Quote:
. Well...do I really need to explain myself further? Ok - God's concept of time is completely different to ours - help me with my scripture here, everyone - 1000 years is a blink of an eye to Him. Isn't it possible that to us, creation actually happened over millions of years, but to God, it only took 6 days?


firstly, from skepdic.com
Quote:
Compare this attitude to that of the leading European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve around our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but they did have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error. Today’s creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible could be wrong.


and now to your stupid comment. that would mean "light" was created 3 million years before the sun! What the...? And it took 14 Billion years (bill bryson) for the earth to evolve, not 6 million. the sun was most defintely around before the earth. and it will probably be around after the earth. why would the years go quicker for your god? i'd imagine they go exactly the same, per us.

Quote:
You obviously missed reading the reference I made above. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then we all (the apostles included) are to be pitied above all men, because we throw our lives away in the hope that we can be like Jesus in his death, and therefore like him in his resurrection. If he didn't rise, then us Christians are doomed. And the apostles knew that.

The resurrection isn't frosting to make morality broccoli look appealing. The resurrection is the core doctrine of Christianity, sine quo non. Jesus teachings were peripheral (frostings, even!); his sacrifice and subsequent ressurection is the meat.

Quote:
Without the resurrection, the apostles were so scared that one even fled naked. With the resurrection, they were willing to be martyred. The philosophy that "the disciples made it look good" is Andrew Lloyd Webber, not history.


he didn't rise, simple. back to the gospel of thomas, it completely left that bit out. nada. nothing. the earliest mention i can find of his ressurection was meant to be written by the hstorian Josephus, but actually edited by later christians.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Flat earth? Sacred writings have NEVER testified to a flat earth. Ptolemeus proved the earth was round long ago, and Scripture has never contradicted that. Again your accusations are unfounded and phoney.

Furthermore, you have no documentation whatsoever to prove any of your claims. You claim that the Gospel of Thomas doesn't mention the resurrection. So what? The Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic writing that was only discovered a few years ago, anyway. And considering that the real St. Thomas died in India, it's highly unlikey that this writing was his, anyway.

In short, as usual, you succeed at making accusations but fail to offer any substantial evidence.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
and it's extremely likely that the gospel of john wasn't written by john. but like you say, so what? WHO CARES about the evidence? not me! and not you either. so they found the gospel a few years ago, so it's not valid, right? bullcrap.

and i never said anything about the so-called "sacred writings" saying the earth was flat! stop imagaining things. maybe you've been possesed as well?

and yes, despite what you people think, i have plenty of evidence. Luke Timothy Johnston and his book "The Real Jesus". i seem to be the only one showing any sign of intelligent research here.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Intelligence? You come across to me like some 13 year old kid whose mommy just bought him a puter. I'll have you know I graduated at the top of my class in college, summa cum laude. I currently hold a Master's Degree. If you have better credentials, then lay 'em on the table, chump! Then you can talk smack.

And all this from a guy who started a whole new thread based on some program he saw on TV. Real impressive there, fossile.

If you have any evidence at all, you haven't bothered to share it with any of us, at least not in an intelligent manner. Now there are people on this forum with whom I disagree who show intelligence, including Upsilon and Interruptor Jones. Those two guys show tons more intellect than you.

As far as Luke Timothy Johnston, I'd like to see him present his documentation as well.

Furthermore, I don't like your tone, fossile. Your snide remarks do nothing to foster the atmosphere of friendly debate that the mods have striven to maintain. While I might disagree with IJ and Ups, at least I can do that with them in a friendly manner.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
you're acting like some 13 year old whose mummy just stuck his report to the fridge.

and as for my remarks? people should look back down the list to see what i've been called.

and where's your research? quote the bible and cannot expect to be taken seriously. we're looking at real evidence here folks. and you guys have shown none.

and as for Luke Timothy Johnston, why don't you go down to the library and read his book, and then make your mind up. i've read yours. it was quite amusing.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Answer a fool according to his folly...

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
why don't you stop these snide remarks and get back to the topic?

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
You mean the one about Jesus having epilepsy? The one for which there is absolutely no medical, forensic, or historical evidence for? Sure, why not?

I say no. Again, there is no forensic or historical data to suggest any such thing. Therefore, I can only conclude, no.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:52 pm
Posts: 1057
Location: Ever changing...
I refuse to have a discussion with someone who calls me stupid. Mr. Apostle, even though I have many choice words for you - most of which are not allowed on this forum - I will refrain. I completely agree with Didymus, and stand by my post from awhile back:

StrongCanada wrote:
...I'm glad there are people like [JoeyDay] who, no matter which side of the discussion they are on, can put forth a sound argument without personal attacks.


It's okay to disagree with us - no one on this thread who has replied to you is afraid to have their beliefs challenged - we SHOULD have our beliefs challenged, because it is only then that we can strengthen ourselves and what we believe in. But just as you will not change your mind for us, you aren't going to convert us into believing that Jesus had epilepsy.

And you know what? If He did, I don't care! I know several epileptics who are kind good people, and of all the things in Jesus' nature THAT'S what I consider most important; He was loving, patient, kind, and good. ANYONE can learn from Him, scientist or Christian (BTW - those aren't neccesarily different people). So what if he had a condition like that - epileptics aren't crazy!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 10:20 am
Posts: 2
okay...i have refused to get involved in this for a while now, but this is staring to get rediculous. if it was my forum, this would be lockd by now, when something like this degrades to name calling and mocking of beliefs (respectful questioning, yes, mocking, never), it is silly.

i am a christian, i spent 2 years working with a christian evangelistic group. in this time, there is one thing you will realise, you will NOT convince everyone of anything... scientists cant even convince every scientist of their beliefs... the inteligent design theory, is a NON CHRISTIAN (though there may be christian scientists within it) group who have found scientific evedence pointing to an inteligent creator (not any spacific creator) http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ (and i know this was not originally a creation evolution thing, but that is where i need to go to answer some of fossilise_apostle's points.

Quote:
excorsism? what?!?! are you joking?


no... no im not. working with lifeFORCE (the evangelistic group) we send teams all over the world, and hear alot of first hand stories of healings, miracles... and yes excorsisms. our one team in africa have some wild stories i could throw out for you...but you wouldnt believe that... thats africa, so it's all they have and anyway they are probably lieing to further purpetuate this christianity thing. i do, however hava a few stories i can tell you. a muslim leader at a local mosque had for a number of years been "afflicted" with some "psychological problem" (a kind of schizophrenia). for a time, whatever drugs he was on succeded in numbing the multiple personalities, however, in the process, also somewhat numbed his own. as time whent on, and the amount of drugs increased his own personality was basically gone.

the worshippers at the mosque had for a long time encouraged him to stop taking the drugs, and pray to allah to to take the "jinn" (demon) from him, to no avail. after a while, they realised the nearby church had a somewhat proven track record in "excorsism" they brought him there, and, without going into spacifics, within a few hours, he haad no multiple personality disorder (demons enyone?) and was back to normal. to this day, he (still a muslim mullar) will reccomend to anyone with MPD or similar, to go to the church. how do i know this??? i was there, at the exorcism.

Quote:
somehow i don't think anybody responds to exorcism. "i pity the demon tortured man...". no one gets tortured by demons. i don't think an exorcism is "real help"!. whats better, scientifically researched, empirical evidence, or assumptions based on a superstitous book?


can scientifically researched empirical evidence work... yes, after all, God created science. all the scientific evidence of years ago, said light was particular, then that it was waves, then some kind of orb thing i totally dont unferstand, then, probably particles, or a living organim, so, who knows. i think drugs do work, God created every part of them, the chemicals, the knowlede to make them, everything, does it make them the best option... absolutely not. would you prefer surgery, or healing? healing, obviously, but does the surgery stull work, heck yeah.
Quote:
if you are going to believe that crap, you know doubt believe in noahs ark, and don't even try to argue that with me, i'll rip it to shreds.

i do NO doubt believe in it. you wanna go over noahs ark... i'll start a new topic, [Omitted by InterruptorJones]

i wont argue thet christianity is a cult, by definition it is, a jewish cult, so is islam, and budhism, and... heck most major religions, they were all people coming away from some other religion, under the leading of the first person to do it... does that make it any less right? the fact tacticus mentioned he had been put to death and his followers still beilieve proves it happened, the fact that theythen went on to claim he raised should go to prove it may have happened. as has been said, all other "cults" have never found reason to lie about a ressurection of their dead leader to still believe, why would the early christians, and then DIE for that lie.

as far as the old bones thing, why not, are you saying (assuming he exists) the god who made everything couldnt make old bones, he says his ways arent our ways, we arent supposed to understand why he does eveything the way he does. but even so how about the faact that all dating methods ARE NOT as infallable as we would like to think http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Quote:
and now to your stupid comment. that would mean "light" was created 3 million years before the sun! What the...? And it took 14 Billion years (bill bryson) for the earth to evolve, not 6 million. the sun was most defintely around before the earth. and it will probably be around after the earth. why would the years go quicker for your god? i'd imagine they go exactly the same, per us.

okay... whatever, if anything was created, so was light, and the sun, and everything else, however, even if you are so blatantly ignorant as to assume that disproves the bible, you clearly havent read it, genesis 1:2 confurms the earth existed before this, God just formed it during creation, just like he formed the sun, and everything else during creation.

anyhwo. my point isnt to change anyone who has already made up their minds, the whole conversation just seems to, for some time have been devoid of any open and honest discussion, at least from some peoples perspectives, so i hope to encourage that again


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 6:05 am
Posts: 5636
Location: swirlee.org for great justice
loplop wrote:
Put up or shut up.


The next time you use language like this, I'm deleting the entire post.

And do please do us all a favor and work on your spelling and grammar. It may be helpful to compose your posts in Word, which knows the difference between "I" (a word) and "i" (not a word).

_________________
StrongCanada wrote:
Jordan, you are THE SUCK at kissing! YAY! Just thought you should know! Rainbows! Sunshine!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:17 pm 
Offline
Wiki Proprietor
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 499
Location: 14.7 miles South of Stu's backyard
Fossilise, have you ever read or studied about the Gospel of Thomas? It's only 113 verses long, and it's simply a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. Yes, it leaves out his resurrection and all of his miracles, but it also leaves out his birth, his death, and every other historical detail of his life. It was never meant to be a biography. It leaves out all the details because it's only intent is to list his most notable sayings.

Claiming that the Gospel of Thomas is the only credible document regarding Jesus' life is tantamount to claiming that the Gettysburg Address is the only autobiographical document we have concerning Abraham Lincoln.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Oh, Fossilise, I neglected to mention something very important. I apologize for doing so, because this is something I had already mentioned before in other threads. I am a clinical chaplain. At least for right now, I work mostly in hospitals and medical facilities. Right now, I'm working in a nursing home with a dementia ward, mostly for Alzheimer's patients. Though I am not a trained medical doctor, it is part of my job to be able recognize the symptoms of mental illnesses and certain other medical conditions. That is why, according to my own professional experience, I feel that there is no evidence to support the Jesus/epilepsy theory.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
loplop wrote:
i am a christian, i spent 2 years working with a christian evangelistic group. in this time, there is one thing you will realise, you will NOT convince everyone of anything... scientists cant even convince every scientist of their beliefs... the inteligent design theory, is a NON CHRISTIAN (though there may be christian scientists within it) group who have found scientific evedence pointing to an inteligent creator (not any spacific creator) http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ (and i know this was not originally a creation evolution thing, but that is where i need to go to answer some of fossilise_apostle's points.


the intelligent design theory is metaphysical, designed to prove the existence of god. it is not a valid scientific theory.

and as for your exorcism evidence, that is testimonial evidence from somebody who already has a preconcieved notions. you are, by nature, only going to shoehorn the evidence to fit your beliefs.

Quote:
can scientifically researched empirical evidence work... yes, after all, God created science.


re read what i said about intelligent design.

Quote:
all the scientific evidence of years ago, said light was particular, then that it was waves, then some kind of orb thing i totally dont unferstand, then, probably particles, or a living organim,


???????

Quote:
so, who knows. i think drugs do work, God created every part of them, the chemicals, the knowlede to make them, everything, does it make them the best option... absolutely not. would you prefer surgery, or healing? healing, obviously, but does the surgery stull work, heck yeah.


prescription drugs, while not perfect, are the best thing we have. what do you mean by healing?

Quote:
i wont argue thet christianity is a cult, by definition it is, a jewish cult, so is islam, and budhism, and... heck most major religions, they were all people coming away from some other religion, under the leading of the first person to do it... does that make it any less right? the fact tacticus mentioned he had been put to death and his followers still beilieve proves it happened,


possibly, but it doesn't mean he was raised from the dead.

Quote:
the fact that theythen went on to claim he raised should go to prove it may have happened. as has been said, all other "cults" have never found reason to lie about a ressurection of their dead leader to still believe, why would the early christians, and then DIE for that lie.


are you saying that other leaders have been ressurected?

Quote:
as far as the old bones thing, why not, are you saying (assuming he exists) the god who made everything couldnt make old bones, he says his ways arent our ways, we arent supposed to understand why he does eveything the way he does. but even so how about the faact that all dating methods ARE NOT as infallable as we would like to think http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html


your link is from a christian propaganda website, less concerned with the truth, than with protecting it's own misconceptions.

Quote:
okay... whatever, if anything was created, so was light, and the sun, and everything else, however, even if you are so blatantly ignorant as to assume that disproves the bible, you clearly havent read it, genesis 1:2 confurms the earth existed before this, God just formed it during creation, just like he formed the sun, and everything else during creation.


whaaaat? blatantly ignorant? confurms? :homsar:

anyway, back to my previous point. i believe it is entirely possible the jesus had epilepsy. it's either that or dinosaurs and humans lived together.

Quote:
You mean the one about Jesus having epilepsy? The one for which there is absolutely no medical, forensic, or historical evidence for? Sure, why not?

I say no. Again, there is no forensic or historical data to suggest any such thing. Therefore, I can only conclude, no.


historical data? what about the bible? there are enough hallucinations in that thing to suggest, yes, it's very well possible.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 890
Location: Royse City, TX
If we're getting picky about individual sentances, this one is a gem.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
i believe it is entirely possible the jesus had epilepsy. it's either that or dinosaurs and humans lived together.


I pick none of the above.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
most creationists including the answers in genesis website would love to have us believe that dinosaurs and humans lived together.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Quote:
historical data? what about the bible? there are enough hallucinations in that thing to suggest, yes, it's very well possible.

(1) can you cite any specific example of Jesus himself experiencing a halucination?

(2) can you demonstrate beyond doubt that the experience was indeed a halucination and not a real experience of something transcendent?

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
hmmm

1. I never said that the bible is all true except for the hallucinations. I said it is pretty much all fake, except for what i discussed above. jesus simply told a lot of fibs, so the things that he said (like being the son of god ect.) is perfectly in line with frontal lobe epilepsy. people today have similar visions caused by FLE. it seems real, so thats what you believe. seeing is believeing, right? we are only taking his word for it that he is the son of god. if we took everyone who said that's word then the world would be a pretty crummy place.

2. you know the answer to that. but like i said, it comes down to which is more likely - he had a scientifically validated condition, OR, he is the son of a supernatural being.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
But if it's pretty much fake, then why not those parts that you call halucinations?

No, we are also taking the word of his apostles who testified to his being the Son of God through deeds that they witnessed. But according to you, they all made it up anyway, so why take their word for it? (see above for reasons why I believe they were not lying.)

Furthermore, if Jesus lied, then whence the halucinations? That's just plain inconsistent. If he believed he was the Son of God, then what makes you think he would lie about it?

If there is a supernatural being (which your philosophy denies, not mine), then he might just as well be the Son of God. And since (according to you) we cannot rely on the historical documents, and we cannot go back in time to perform appropriate medical examinations, then we cannot scientifically validate that he did indeed have this condition.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
he may not have thought he was lying, certainly. but he was. he was not the son of god. thats the point. to US he was lying.

it's funny, all these people have accused me for saying "jesus lied!" but i never used those words.

"Michael Moore Lied!" I guess.

and about the apostles, (of which i am clearly one), i have said it before and i'll say it again "The bible is not a historical document". the apostles can "testify" all they want. it is not hard to find messed up people and make them believe.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Or they could have been entirely telling the truth (in which case, you are not one). Claiming that they lied and proving that they lied is two entirely different things. You can make all the accusations you want; you still have proven nothing.

And yet you rely on certain accounts from this document which you claim to be false in order to support your original thesis, that Jesus was epileptic. By making those accusations, you undermine your own evidence.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
where?

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Here it is:
(1) you claim the biblical documents are lies.
(2) you claim the Bible gives accounts of Jesus having epilepsy.
Therefore
(3) the accounts of Jesus having epilepsy are based on lies.

This is simply the logical conclusion of your argument.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:06 am
Posts: 95
Location: a vortex of sin and degredation
here is a distillation of what I have said thus far.

1. Jesus existed.

2. He may have had epilepsy because this is a far more hypothesis than him being the son of an all knowing supernatural being.

3. The visions he had (if the epilepsy hypothesis is true) were then written into the bible, along with a smattering of fact and downright fabrications (noahs ark, genesis and so on). I am NOT saying Jesus wrote the bible and is responsible for everything in there. JUST the parts to do with him.

did it ever occur to you that maybe the disciples just wanted to belive?

lets face it, the idea that there is a man up there who loves you and will except you to live forever in his perfect kingdom when you die is far more appealing than what any scientist will tell you ie. you die. life ends. no more. this kind of belief easily attracts lonely people dissatisfied with todays world, convinced there must be something better. I belive the one great foible of man is intelligence. look at the animals, they roam around, no idea that they are going to die. they are (for the most part) happy. then there is us. convinced we must be more intelligent for a reason, and not realising how the universe began and life evolved, we came up with a load of myths and fairy tales. all cultures did it. Here in Australia the Indigenous people have their Dreamtime stories. My mother is from PNG and they also have such stories. these are no different from the bible stories. they are myths to explain what we don't know.

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
I understand the whole dynamic of myth. But since the Gospels do not read like the Illiad or the Elder Eddas, I have a tendency to believe they are in something of a different category. No one ever wrote a documented biography of Thor or Zeus.

You never did give me any specific examples of Jesus having hallucinations. It seems to me that most of what occurs in the Gospels are events that the disciples saw. If anyone was hallucinating, it was them. But I find it extremely unlikely that 12 epileptics would share all the same hallucinations, not to mention all of Jesus' other friends who saw the same events.

Jesus having epilepsy would not explain why people saw him walk on water, or calm a storm with a word, or walk around after he had been executed. All the key events of his life seem to be those that other people saw. For this reason, I do not believe that the epilepsy theory really explains this phenomenon called Jesus.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I'm a believer now!
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
fossilise_apostle wrote:
somehow i don't think anybody responds to exorcism.

I've been involved in exorcisms of both person and place. Though the nature of demons is probably outside the scope of this thread and my reply. If anyone needs, I'd be happy to do what I can to help you fight them. It's really best not to let them in in the first place.

To summarize, I've observed demons cause some very real problems (e.g. places they touched hemorrhaged a few days later), and though the medical problems persisted a few days, the demons themselves were done once exorcized from the area. In a possession instance, I've observed a real change in the person's life.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
whats better, scientifically researched, empirical evidence, or assumptions based on a superstitous book?

What if both agree? Then your hatred for the Gospel may cause you to overlook or dismiss scientifically researched empirically evidenced ideas. Are you a scientist? I had assumed from your discussion that you were more interested in medical metaphysics, but on this page you seem much more interested in science. What is your course of study? I've found that the more I study objective, empirical science, the more it confirms Biblical principles. This has been especially true in psychology and sociology, and has occured to a lesser extent in geology, astrophysics, and somatic medicine. So your compiling all of these subjects and a hundred more into "science" as a general concept leaves me in the dark as to what study your passionate discussion arises from. Are you a biologist? A medical student? A historian? An Immam?

fossilise_apostle wrote:
the bible is in no way an accurate historical document.

Like your compilation of various subjects into "science," the compilation of the 66 books into the "Bible" has the result of your noticing that some of it is not historical. Guess what? You're right! Half of Daniel, Leviticus, Revalation, Psalms, Proverbs, SoS, and everything Paul wrote are not historical at all. The Bible contains many kinds of literature; some of which is historic, some poetic, some prophetic, and more! There are historical documents that have been canonized, Such as Exodus and Luke, but to believe that a particular Psalm is historic would be, as you suggest, silly.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
jesus healed jack * (we're all adults).

No, we're not. I am, but many members of this forum are children. Don't worry, I had a (bad) pastor who made the same mistake. Please have respect for the children, and I'll do the same.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
its a book filled with fables and myths. if you are going to believe that crap, you know doubt believe in noahs ark, and don't even try to argue that with me, i'll rip it to shreds.

The ark is probably not in the scope of this thread, so I have no desire to argue it with you. As for the myths, there are a few myths in the Bible. Lazarus the beggar and the rich man, for example, or the man who stole the sheep from his neighbor who had only one. If the whole book were fables, however, then why are you so apparently angry? Should you not simly be laughing at us or feeling sorry for us? Your harsh words don't add anything to my experience of this forum. I have tried to answer your questions with grace; at least those parts that I could construe as questions. If instead, all your questions are answered by the sources you've cited, then why have you pursued this thread? I thought it started out very interesting and that you brought up things that we needed to think about! And I said as much in my previous posts. But if you're here as a speaker and not as a discussion participant, then I think you've already made your point. Your case has been heard. You don't need to go on insulting honest questioners and dissenters who've been gracious enough to listen as much as they speak.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
and not all cults are based on christianity. scientology for example.

I stand corrected. I had not been exposed to non-messianic cults.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
and religion was around far before jesus hit the scene. the greeks and egyptians come to mind. but believeing in greek gods is crazy right?

And yet the foundations of philosophy, science, and democracy come from those "crazies." Maybe theistic principles are not opposed to intelligence after all.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
why would a god create old bones?

The question you ask is a separate question from "can he create old bones." The intersection of the two questions is "did God create old bones." And since your blind faith in carbon-dating and sedentary layers is so strong, I won't try to argue them with scientific, empirical principles in this thread. You are a man of strong faith, I can only guess that this is the origin of your title "Fossilize Apostle."

fossilise_apostle wrote:
and to think he spoke to moses all the time.

I've often been jealous! God spoke with Moses as a man speaks with a friend. Maybe I need 40 or 80 years in the wilderness to pique my hearing.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
you only have to look into the distance to see the curve of the earth.

And I only had to look at the demon possesed man to see the results of posession and the results of exorcism. You here advocate observation over the education of the day, and elsewhere advocate education over observation. As a student of educational psychology, I conclude that you have a different, third source of information that guides whether you believe one or the other in each instance. What is your third source? What is your guiding principle? You'd mock me if I said my guiding principle was the Bible, but I suspect your guiding principle is a hatred of the Bible. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me and tell me what it is that makes you sometimes believe education and other times believe observation.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
Scientists change their minds, that's what so great about them. They can admit their mistakes. ... scientists collect evidence, BEFORE coming to a conclusion.

As someone who's studied philosophy of science, I notice that you've misinterpreted the basic principle. Science is an ongoing study, any principle (theory) of which is subject to upheaval when the research directs. For example, a skeleton recently found in the mountains of Turkey is radically reworking the basics of post-African human evolution. The correct "moral" to take away here is that you don't need to "believe" science. There's no reason to be dogmatic about it. I encourage you to grow beyond the need you have to use scientific principles as if they were absolute truth. This is not a statement from a religious viewpoint, this is the stance adopted by a secular graduate school education in science and philosophy.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
Quote:
I think the first option I presented is definitely plausible

no it isn't

Easy there, buddy. Plausibility, like ontology, is a little more delicate and less dogmatic than you give it credit for. You don't have to agree with a viewpoint to see the merit of the position. Historically, it's the Christians who have been viewed as the dogmatic, single-minded oafs; this perception has given opponents of Christianity an advantage. You are single-handedly forfieting that advantage here!

fossilise_apostle wrote:
and now to your stupid comment. that would mean "light" was created 3 million years before the sun!

Actually, your lack of knowledge of big-bang physics is showing. According to science's current understanding of primordial physics, space itself was opaque with light for several seconds after the big bang, millions of years before the first star. That light is still floating around, although the expansion of space has changed the wavelength and now you pick it up on your TV as static/snow. If there were not light before there were stars, then when you changed your TV to a channel that wasn't there you'd get black. Therefore, the fact that light existed before the sun is not only the view in the Bible, it is actually the view accepted by science. Your refusal to believe it establishes the statement I made in the second sentence of the second paragraph of this post.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
why would the years go quicker for your god? i'd imagine they go exactly the same, per us.

Easy there, buddy. Time doesn't go the same for any different frame of reference, and time is an artifact of space. Einstein, special relativity. Hawking acknowledges Constantine in A Breif History of Time that if God created the uuniverse, he would not be subject to time which is only in the universe. It's OK for you not to know science, but it's not OK for you to be ignorant of your ignorance.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
... but actually edited by later christians.

You come across as having an Islamic education. Muslims are taught to belive in the Gospel of Thomas to the exclusion of the other Gospels, and believe that the documents were changed after Mohammed's time. But your hate for God (or the idea of God) is evident, so you can't be a Muslim. Are you from a Muslim background? Has something happened to make you so angry? This is the same as my question about your guiding principle above.

Actually, in retrospect, a better question for challenging faith would have been "Did Muhammed have epilepsy?" since the man's seizure-like trances are the basis for the Koran and the Islamic tradition. I will not pursue it here, because it would just open a can of worms. But it raises the same questions about human perceptions of God as the original question here.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
WHO CARES about the evidence? not me! and not you either.

While evidence is not my guiding principle, I do care about it. Learning from education and observation both is good.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
maybe you've been possesed as well?

Didymus, I believe you've just been complimented.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
i seem to be the only one showing any sign of intelligent research here.

I do try! It takes time. And research is driven by a question, not an answer. This discussion has run low on questions, so of course it's going to run low on research.

Didymus wrote:
I'll have you know I graduated at the top of my class in college, summa cum laude. I currently hold a Master's Degree.

Me too. I was surprised at how big the diploma is for a Master's. It won't fit on the fridge.

Didymus wrote:
While I might disagree with IJ and Ups, at least I can do that with them in a friendly manner.

Yeah, they're pretty cool with me too. The discussions with them usually result in a thread worth reading by others with the same questions and ideas.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
and where's your research? quote the bible and cannot expect to be taken seriously. we're looking at real evidence here folks.

I expect to be taken seriously because I earn your (rhetorical you) respect by my attitude and contributions to the discussion, not because of my sources. The fact that someone has done some research (even if it's not by your favorite author) should earn some respect. I've tried to take you seriously and treat you like an equal; will you do the same for me?

Didymus wrote:
Answer a fool according to his folly...

On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, others lurking in the forum can gain edification from your honest and gracious contributions. I don't fault you.

StrongCanada wrote:
I refuse to have a discussion with someone who calls me stupid.

Wise words from our neighbor from the North.

StrongCanada wrote:
we SHOULD have our beliefs challenged, because it is only then that we can strengthen ourselves and what we believe in.

Or come around to the truth. Strengthened or corrected: either way, the benefit is apparent! Those that won't open up to being challenged will never have either.

StrongCanada wrote:
and of all the things in Jesus' nature THAT'S what I consider most important; He was loving, patient, kind, and good. ANYONE can learn from Him, scientist or Christian

And anyone who does learn from him will learn there's more to learn. Anyone who won't learn from him will not learn from anything else either. That's not a personal attack, it's just a proverb I made up because it seems consistent.

loplop wrote:
if it was my forum, this would be lockd by now... it is silly.

I second that emotion.

loplop wrote:
how do i know this??? i was there, at the exorcism.

Satan has two good strategies: make people follow him or make people disbelieve in him. They are opposites with the same results. One he's doing in Africa, and one in the West. C.S. Lewis anticipated the rise of the new age movement when he discussed in The Screwtape Letters the chance for the devil to perfect the scientific demoniac (though he used a different term).

loplop wrote:
God created science.

Or, "All truth is God's truth." Then God doesn't have to take credit for bad science.

loplop wrote:
i wont argue thet christianity is a cult, by definition it is, a jewish cult,

Sect. Christianity is a sect of Judaism, not a cult.

loplop wrote:
the whole conversation just seems to, for some time have been devoid of any open and honest discussion, at least from some peoples perspectives, so i hope to encourage that again

Acknowedged. I don't know if I contribute enough to save this thread from the imminent lock.

InterruptorJones wrote:
The next time you use language like this, I'm deleting the entire post.

IJ to the rescue! "All things in moderation, especially moderation." --W.C. Fields

JoeyDay wrote:
Claiming that the Gospel of Thomas is the only credible document regarding Jesus' life is tantamount to claiming that the Gettysburg Address is the only autobiographical document we have concerning Abraham Lincoln.

I just quoted that because it merited quoting, not because I have a comment.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
the intelligent design theory is metaphysical, designed to prove the existence of god. it is not a valid scientific theory.

Of course it's metaphysical. Metaphysics is the set of guiding principles through which physics is pursued. ID is not designed to prove God, it's the opposite: designed to accomodate a God-concept to prevent public education from preaching metaphysical ideas pungent to the community. Scientists who preach metaphysics (e.g. Carl Sagan, who said "Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact") make themselves look stupid even to other scientists. ID allows the public school to not have to do that self-deprication.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
you are, by nature, only going to shoehorn the evidence to fit your beliefs.

Again, she has a guiding principle. Something neither you nor I are above.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
prescription drugs, while not perfect, are the best thing we have. what do you mean by healing?

Agreed about the perscription drugs, and why I'm not into all that "herbal remedy" stuff. By healing I think she meant divine, miraculous, instantaneous healing.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
Quote:
the fact tacticus mentioned he had been put to death and his followers still beilieve proves it happened,

possibly, but it doesn't mean he was raised from the dead.

You're right; it's not proof but evidence.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
Quote:
all other "cults" have never found reason to lie about a ressurection of their dead leader to still believe, why would the early christians, and then DIE for that lie.

are you saying that other leaders have been ressurected?

I think she's probably implicating that other leaders haven't been successfully lied about in the manner you described.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
your link is from a christian propaganda website, less concerned with the truth, than with protecting it's own misconceptions.

While I'm not familiar with the website, you accusations could be leveled against every scientist you've cited. Be careful using that kind of ammo because it can come back around and bite you in the rear. I prefer to use the kind of artillery that can not harm me when I argue, unless I need to be harmed. So, either you have not considered that, or you acknowledge at some level that you need to to have your faith challenged youself.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
anyway, back to my previous point. i believe it is entirely possible the jesus had epilepsy. it's either that or dinosaurs and humans lived together.

I was about to accuse you of a nonsequitur, but then I thought about it and you're right. Either divine revalation is in the Word of God and the Word become man, or there's no such thing. Good observation! I don't know why you're so convinced that humans and dinosaurs were seperated, after all, Discovery Magazine just had an article on fossilized placental mammals found in Australia that date back to the Dinosaur era when evolutionists had previously thought this was impossible. Again, good scientists are open to new evidence. Be a good scientist.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
most creationists including the answers in genesis website would love to have us believe that dinosaurs and humans lived together.

Though probably not like Fred Flintstone and Dino.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
about the apostles, (of which i am clearly one),

You're certainly a disciple of something, but I don't know what cxriteria of apostleship you're applying to yourself. If you like, I can address you as "the self-proclaimed apostle."

fossilise_apostle wrote:
it is not hard to find messed up people and make them believe.

You're starting to make a believer out of me: that if someone's messed up that they'll believe something rediculous.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
lets face it, the idea that there is a man up there who loves you and will except...

"Accept." Common mistake.

fossilise_apostle wrote:
...I belive the one great foible of man is intelligence. look at the animals, they roam around, no idea that they are going to die. they are (for the most part) happy.

OK, now you're just making things up. I'm not saying that as an insult, I simply want you to realize that animals, in their native environment, are not particularly happy. As far as I can tell, the things that make humans happy don't do much for them. In fact, the only time I perceive animal happiness is a pet who's being treated well by its owner! It is man's intelligence that gives him the power to be happy, and it is man's intelligence that gives animals the power to be happy. You're right that intelligence creates the capacity for sadness, but you miss that it is intelligence that creates the capacity for the happiness you would want.

I came into this thread and made comments commending you for bringing up the philosophical question of the nature of our knowledge of truth (ontology), could anything anyone knows be the result of brain chemistry rather than logical conclusions? You also begged us to ask whether people believed things for reasons other than historical facts. After observing your apparent mental state, and your motivations for beliving things, I believe that you've more than proved those items to me.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 10:13 pm
Posts: 77
AgentSeethroo wrote:
Sadly, when it comes to Jesus, people who aren't believers are way more inclined to hold a theory that they heard in passing as absolute truth, rather than do the work and study the Bible and risk *gasp* conversion.


The Bible has no facts, therefore there is no point in studying it to find these kinds of answers.

_________________
Proudly raised by a cup of coffee


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: What are your intentions?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
Plaster-Man wrote:
The Bible has no facts, therefore there is no point in studying it to find these kinds of answers.

So, are you joining in the discussion, or just trying to get the thread locked? You don't seem to be answering a question nor asking one. You've added meaningful content to other threads when you've posted (e.g. asking about Homeschool Winner, or your contributions to all the "favorites" discussions); so if you're going to post something like this, at least skim the existing content and realize that we've already been over this ground in this thread and most of the rest us have risen above it. Those that haven't have been scolded by peers and mods less gracious than I'm trying to be. You're welcome to join us if you'll join maturely, like you do on the rest of the forum.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Does the package have a troll in it? or maybe a troll?

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Trolling Motor
PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
Didymus wrote:
Does the package have a troll in it? or maybe a troll?

Good Strongbad troll. I mean, quote. It's OK, I need to bring my post count up to reflect the massive volume I've contributed in exhaustingly long posts.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group