261 replies to this topic

[vodkamaru]

So yeah, Hercules would be one of the better comparisons, but Jesus is the selfless good guy where Hercules is a schizo superhuman.

You're changing it around though. The comparisons aren't saying they were exactly the same. They're saying that there are key moments in both lives that are similar or identical. There are the 22 hero traits that they mention. That's what's being compared. What I don't understand is how people can treat Jesus as a real person, but not any of these other mythical figures.

[Arturo]

Because, (shock horror) there are actually proofs of Jesus' existance, and not even the Jews neglected that. Thinking Jesus is a myth is just being ignorant. Another completely different thing is sayong that some (or even most) events of his lifes are mythical. But eh existed and was hung on a cross, this is historical truth.

Edited by Arturo, 31 July 2007 - 04:37 PM.

[Showsni]

I'm not sure if I can be bothered to watch all of these. I'll talk about points as I get to them.

Vid 1.
So the Christians he interviewed couldn;t remmeber the book Acts in much detail? That doesn't say much.

Vid 2.
Paul doesn't know anything about Jesus' life? Um, hmmm... Why does he say he talked with Jesus' brother, then?
"18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother."
So saying he knew nothing of Jesus' life on earth is straight away proved wrong. He met the man he accepted as Jesus' brother.
Why should he go over the events of the gospel in his epistles? He's writing to people who already know them!

That quote from Hebrews 8:4 - wht version of the Bible are they using? Every one I look at says "4If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law." or words to that effect. Basically, "If he were," not "if he had been."

19 points of the hero pattern? I don't think they can count.

Hero's mother is a royal virgin No.
His father is a king, and No.
Often a near relative of his mother No.
The circumstances of his conception are unusual Yes.
He is also reputed to be the son of a god Yes.
At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but Not exactly...
He is spirited away, and Yes.
Reared by foster parents in a far country No.
We are told nothing of his childhood, but No.
On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom Well, not really.
After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast No.
He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and No.
And becomes king No.
For a time he reigns uneventfully and No.
Prescribes laws, but Kinda.
Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and Yes.
Is driven from the throne and city, after which Yes.
He meets with a mysterious death No.
Often at the top of a hill Yes.
His children, if any do not succeed him N/A
His body is not buried, but nevertheless No.
He has one or more holy sepulchres. Yes.

About 8 or 9?

Anyway, I'm bored now.

Also, Selene, what about Mithra?

You mean Selena? And Mithras? I can talk about Mithras! We did him at school. (Roman Britain bit). He was born from some kind of rock/cosmic egg, and killed a bull. From the bull's blood, body and semen came all the useful plants and animals. As I recall. There are seven levels in the initiation... and the cult was popular with soldiers. (At Hadrian's Wall, for example.)

Wikipedia is odd... The first half of the article says "Mithraism is only documented in the form it had acquired in the Roman Empire, where it was evidently a syncretic development that drew from the practices of a number of different cultures. It was an initiatory order, passed from initiate to initiate, like the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was not based on a supernaturally-revealed body of scripture, and hence very little written documentary evidence survives."
It then tells most of what we know; the astrological symbolism, and stuff. Then, under the Chritianity versus Mithraism bit (headed "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed.") they suddenly manage to pick up a whole wealth of information (the only sources being pictures carved onto Mithraeum walls and a few dedications, remember) like "Mithras was born from a virgin on the December 25, a date later co-opted by Christians as Christ's birthday in 320 AD. A traveling teacher and master, Mithras also performed miracles. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras died for man’s sins and was resurrected on the following Sunday. The crucifix, water baptism and the breaking of bread and wine are also shared by both religions." which aren't even remotely hinted at in the factually accurate section, and downright contradict some of it! Fascinating. It's like they're just blatantly lying.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

[quote name='TheAvengerButton' post='351076' date='Jul 31 2007, 03:30 PM']I know that SOAP (and a few others here) believe Jesus is a real person, I do too. However, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, which is the basis for Christianity. If I hear someone say "It's all BS" I'm assuming that goes with what the beliefs are, which causes one to assume that they're saying Jesus being the Son of God and dying for our sins is BS.[/quote]

Which isn't exactly the same as saying Jesus is BS, although I can see where you can get the idea.

[quote]I don't know about you, but that sentence sounds absolutely contradictory. Unless you mean, prayer makes a difference in that it makes me feel good.[/quote]It doesn't sound contradictory at all.[/quote]

Oh, how so? Saying it isn't contradictory doesn't make it so. It seems contradictory to me, unless your definition of prayer is something different from mine.

When you prayer, you're sending your thoughts and feelings to God, are you not? It's like a conversation between you and God. You're asking him for something or just talking to him. Now if God will not change his mind, because if he did that meant his first idea probably wasn't a very good one (and being a perfect God, why wouldn't his first idea be a good one?), what difference does prayer make?

[quote name='"Wolf O'Donnell"]And SOAP' date=' I'm kinda worried by the sentiments you're expressing... You wanna talk about some of your problems? I know that the collapse of a belief system can be devastating to some people. If you want to talk about it, I'm willing to listen.[/quote']

It's just stress from school mostly.[/quote]

In a way, I'm glad to hear that. However, should you feel the need to talk, we're here for you. In the meantime, perhaps you might want to deal with stress via a stress sperm?

http://www.stress-re...stressbody.html

[quote="Showsni"]Hero's mother is a royal virgin No.[/quote]

Doesn't have to be a Royal in order to fit the model.

[quote]His father is a king, and No.[/quote]

Actually, Jesus is supposed to be a descendent of a King.

The characters don't have to fit the model exactly... because for some reason, even Luke Skywalker fits the Hero model.

[vodkamaru]

Hero's mother is a royal virgin No.

Mary is considered Queen of Heaven

His father is a king, and No.

God is King of Heaven.

At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but Not exactly...

Herod tried to kill all newborns.

We are told nothing of his childhood, but No.

After Jesus is found in the temple by his parents thats the last you hear of him for a while.

On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom Well, not really.

He returns on a donkey to Jerusalem.

And becomes king No.

King of the Jews

Prescribes laws, but Kinda.

Jesus preaches new laws that were to replace the outdated laws of Moses.

His body is not buried, but nevertheless No.

If thats true then we should be able to dig up the body of Jesus.

Can't really say I agree with your score at all.

Because, (shock horror) there are actually proofs of Jesus' existance, and not even the Jews neglected that. Thinking Jesus is a myth is just being ignorant. Another completely different thing is sayong that some (or even most) events of his lifes are mythical. But eh existed and was hung on a cross, this is historical truth.

Oooooh, oooooh, show me then. Are there Roman records? All I was able to find were some guys: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and some others. The majority of these guys are after the life of Jesus or their references are to Christianity and not an actual, physical Jesus.

I haven't fully denied that Jesus is a historical person, but I do lack the evidence to prove it besides the Bible, and when the only counter arguments I hear are "uh huh there is evidence" or a list of "no's" that I can easily change to "yes's" nothing is really confirmed. I think my post just got a few Christians upset... Instead of just denying what the videos say why not try supporting what you believe.

Edited by vodkamaru, 01 August 2007 - 09:01 AM.

[LionHarted]

As a wise man once told me: It wouldn't be the truth if it didn't suck and wasn't hard to swallow.

[vodkamaru]

As a wise man once told me: It wouldn't be the truth if it didn't suck and wasn't hard to swallow.

By that logic, any conspiracy theory is truth... Your wise man seems to like double negatives too.

[LionHarted]

By that logic, any conspiracy theory is truth... Your wise man seems to like double negatives too.

I fail to see the double negative. You took it out-of-context. And other things that deem your counter-argument pointless.

Which leads me to another quote: "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

Christianity suggests no conspiracies. Christianity makes claims about history that are outrageous to those who believe in no God; history itself is outrageous, whether there is a God or not. Christianity's claims, unlike those of conspiracy theorists, are not paranoid, and not based in circumstantial evidence.

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 09:07 AM.

[vodkamaru]

By that logic, any conspiracy theory is truth... Your wise man seems to like double negatives too.

I fail to see the double negative. You took it out-of-context. And other things that deem your counter-argument pointless.

Which leads me to another quote: "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

Christianity suggests no conspiracies. Christianity makes claims about history that are outrageous to those who believe in no God; history itself is outrageous, whether there is a God or not. Christianity's claims, unlike those of conspiracy theorists, are not paranoid, and not based in circumstantial evidence.

I wasn't saying that Christianity is a conspiracy theory and "wouldn't be truth if it didn't suck and wasn't hard to swallow" is a double negative meaning it would be truth if it did suck and was hard to swallow, smartass , but what I'm saying is that conspiracy theories are hard to swallow usually because of their drawn out explanation for ordiary events. Does that make it truth? Just remember that when you call people stupid you're a part of that group too...

9/11 conspiracy:
The idea that our government carried out attacks on us sucks.
The whole thing being covered up is admittedly hard to swallow even by this forum.
Truth?
Unless I'm taking this out of context in which case please explain your quote, but it should work both ways right? Maybe I should just forget about logic...

Edited by vodkamaru, 01 August 2007 - 10:21 AM.

[Reflectionist]

As a wise man once told me: It wouldn't be the truth if it didn't suck and wasn't hard to swallow.

By that logic, any conspiracy theory is truth... Your wise man seems to like double negatives too.

So you're saying that anything with more than 1 attribute automatically contradicts itself? Or is a double negative, in this case?

I don't think he was using it as a double neg., I think he was using it as 2 different, but similar qualities of Truth.



This whole thread reminds me of the mormon thread. That video was apparently a gross misrepresentation of what the Mormons believe, and what you guys are saying is kind of a gross misrepresentation of what Christians believe.

And about an earlier point made in the thread.


Jesus' body isn't in the tomb? Really? Man, that must mean that everything about him is false. Especially considering the Bible says he rose from the dead.

I can see how that's another example of how archaeology disproves Christianity again. [/sarcasm]

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2007 - 10:48 AM.

[LionHarted]

I wasn't saying that Christianity is a conspiracy theory and "wouldn't be truth if it didn't suck and wasn't hard to swallow" is a double negative meaning it would be truth if it did suck and was hard to swallow, smartass , but what I'm saying is that conspiracy theories are hard to swallow usually because of their drawn out explanation for ordiary events. Does that make it truth?

Conspiracy theories are much easier to swallow because they tend to have solid targets, as opposed to (in the case of 9/11) fearing the unknown.

People hate the government anyway. It's easy to blame the government.

[Reflectionist]

People hate the government anyway. It's easy to blame the government.

Of course it's easy to blame the government for stuff like what's happening now. But then again, anything is easy to blame the government for when it's prophesied by Nazis.

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2007 - 10:56 AM.

[vodkamaru]

So you're saying that anything with more than 1 attribute automatically contradicts itself? Or is a double negative, in this case?

I don't think he was using it as a double neg., I think he was using it as 2 different, but similar qualities of Truth.

Using a negative twice in the same sentence is a double negative. Saying "I don't want nothing" means "I want something" saying "If I'm not lying, I'm not flying" means "If I'm lying, I'm flying". It's just how language works.

I am the first son of my parents. Doesn't suck, isn't hard to swallow but its still truth. Those attributes don't apply. The quote is meaningless.

Jesus' body isn't in the tomb? Really? Man, that must mean that everything about him is false. Especially considering the Bible says he rose from the dead.

I don't know if this is in reference to what I said about how we should be able to dig up Jesus or not but close enough. One of the hero attributes says that the hero is not buried, and since he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven he wasn't buried. If anything you just gave an example of how Jesus fits the formula.

Conspiracy theories are much easier to swallow because they tend to have solid targets, as opposed to (in the case of 9/11) fearing the unknown.
People hate the government anyway. It's easy to blame the government.

No... just... no...

Whats harder to swallow:

1. A group of terrorists who hate America hijack planes or our government fills the building with explosives then crashes planes into the buildings to give them a reason to go to war.
2. Lee Harvey Oswald shot president Kennedy or the CIA with ties to the mafia secretly had him assassinated.
3. Americans landed on the moon or the whole thing was recorded in a studio to fool the Russians.
4. An experimental government aircraft crashes in Roswell, New Mexico or an alien spacecraft crashed and the government hid it from us.
In each story the official explanation is much easier to swallow. Isn't the simplest explanation supposed to be the right one?

Edited by vodkamaru, 01 August 2007 - 11:29 AM.

[LionHarted]

The truth sucks and is hard to swallow.
It wouldn't be the truth if it didn't suck and wasn't hard to swallow.

Both say the same thing.

A double negative occurs when you use two negatives that negate one another, and which distort the intent of the negation.

"I don't need nothing", in certain vernacular, means "I don't need anything" (when literally it means "I do not need nothing").

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 11:14 AM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Oh, how so? Saying it isn't contradictory doesn't make it so. It seems contradictory to me, unless your definition of prayer is something different from mine.

When you prayer, you're sending your thoughts and feelings to God, are you not? It's like a conversation between you and God. You're asking him for something or just talking to him. Now if God will not change his mind, because if he did that meant his first idea probably wasn't a very good one (and being a perfect God, why wouldn't his first idea be a good one?), what difference does prayer make?

Forgive me, I still don't understand you.

[LionHarted]

Why would it be contradictory for a perfect and benevolent God to give you what you want every once in awhile? Moreover, what makes you think that God hadn't already made up His mind before you asked?

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 11:17 AM.

[Reflectionist]

[quote name='vodkamaru' post='351350' date='Aug 1 2007, 04:07 PM'][quote name='Reflectionist' post='351342' date='Aug 1 2007, 10:41 AM']So you're saying that anything with more than 1 attribute automatically contradicts itself? Or is a double negative, in this case?

I don't think he was using it as a double neg., I think he was using it as 2 different, but similar qualities of Truth.[/quote]
Using a negative twice in the same sentence is a double negative. Saying "I don't want nothing" means "I want something" saying "If I'm not lying, I'm not flying" means "If I'm lying, I'm flying". It's just how language works. [/quote]

While I agree with you here, it's not what I, or he, was saying. He wasn't using a double negative, in that case. He was saying that 1, the truth sucks and 2, the truth is hard to swallow. So there's 2 attributes to the same thing. It's not saying "I don't owe you nothing" or whatever. It's not a double negative.

[quote name='vodkamaru' post='351350' date='Aug 1 2007, 04:07 PM'][quote name='Reflectionist' post='351342' date='Aug 1 2007, 10:41 AM']Jesus' body isn't in the tomb? Really? Man, that must mean that everything about him is false. Especially considering the Bible says he rose from the dead.[/quote]I don't know if this is in reference to what I said about how we should be able to dig up Jesus or not but close enough. One of the hero attributes says that the hero is not buried, and since he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven he wasn't buried. If anything you just gave an example of how Jesus fits the formula.[/quote][/quote]

I see. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, but Jesus was buried. He was dead, and He was in his tomb. So for all intents and purposes of your legend or myth or whatever, Jesus doesn't fit in. Jesus resurrected after the fact that he was buried, so whatever paralells you think you've got between Jesus and some mythical character don't apply here. Want to try another one?


[quote name='vodkamaru' post='351350' date='Aug 1 2007, 04:07 PM']Whats harder to swallow:

1. A group of terrorists who hate America hijack planes or our government fills the building with explosives then crashes planes into the buildings to give them a reason to go to war.
2. Lee Harvey Oswald shot president Kennedy or the CIA with ties to the mafia secretly had him assassinated.
3. Americans landed on the moon or the whole thing was recorded in a studio to fool the Russians.
4. An experimental government aircraft crashes in Roswell, New Mexico or an alien spacecraft crashed and the government hid it from us.
In each story the official explanation is much easier to swallow[/quote]

Of course the official explanation is easier to swallow.

Remember my quote from Hermann Goering? Where paraphrased it said that all a government had to do was get the people to believe the country is being attacked, and accuse the pacifists or anti-war movement of being un-patriotic, and then they could go to war with whoever the hell they wanted?

The United States, believe it or not. Has motive, regardless of what the official story is. Do you think it's just coincidence that saying that Saddam Hussein (a man whom has 'rumbled' with the president's father before) just has something to do with the reason we're attacking him?

No, you think it is just coincidence. A lie, simply because it's not easy to swallow. And by that logic, everyone is a perfect human being, with an untarnishable record. And that everyone in the entire world, including Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler, if he were still alive, can be trusted with anything. And that there's no such thing as a lie, because clearly, only things that are easy to swallow are the truth.

Is that what you're saying, Vodkamaru?

Edited by Reflectionist, 01 August 2007 - 11:29 AM.

[vodkamaru]

While I agree with you here, it's not what I, or he, was saying. He wasn't using a double negative, in that case. He was saying that 1, the truth sucks and 2, the truth is hard to swallow. So there's 2 attributes to the same thing. It's not saying "I don't owe you nothing" or whatever. It's not a double negative.

"It wouldn't be the truth if it didn't suck and wasn't hard to swallow." Wouldn't is negative number 1 and didn't and wasn't are both negative number two of their own phrases. You just undid the double negative yourself. He's saying that not truth not sucks and is not hard to swallow. Can't you not see that?

Jesus' body isn't in the tomb? Really? Man, that must mean that everything about him is false. Especially considering the Bible says he rose from the dead.

I don't know if this is in reference to what I said about how we should be able to dig up Jesus or not but close enough. One of the hero attributes says that the hero is not buried, and since he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven he wasn't buried. If anything you just gave an example of how Jesus fits the formula.

I see. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, but Jesus was buried. He was dead, and He was in his tomb. So for all intents and purposes of your legend or myth or whatever, Jesus doesn't fit in. Jesus resurrected after the fact that he was buried, so whatever paralells you think you've got between Jesus and some mythical character don't apply here. Want to try another one?

Yeah, you fucking win. Hooray for you. Color me pwned. Now just go back and undo the other 18...

Whats harder to swallow:

1. A group of terrorists who hate America hijack planes or our government fills the building with explosives then crashes planes into the buildings to give them a reason to go to war.
2. Lee Harvey Oswald shot president Kennedy or the CIA with ties to the mafia secretly had him assassinated.
3. Americans landed on the moon or the whole thing was recorded in a studio to fool the Russians.
4. An experimental government aircraft crashes in Roswell, New Mexico or an alien spacecraft crashed and the government hid it from us.
In each story the official explanation is much easier to swallow

Of course the official explanation is easier to swallow.

Remember my quote from Hermann Goering? Where paraphrased it said that all a government had to do was get the people to believe the country is being attacked, and accuse the pacifists or anti-war movement of being un-patriotic, and then they could go to war with whoever the hell they wanted?

The United States, believe it or not. Has motive, regardless of what the official story is. Do you think it's just coincidence that saying that Saddam Hussein (a man whom has 'rumbled' with the president's father before) just has something to do with the reason we're attacking him?

No, you think it is just coincidence. A lie, simply because it's not easy to swallow. And by that logic, everyone is a perfect human being, with an untarnishable record. And that everyone in the entire world, including Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler, if he were still alive, can be trusted with anything. And that there's no such thing as a lie, because clearly, only things that are easy to swallow are the truth.

Is that what you're saying, Vodkamaru?

I don't think its coincidence. According to the quote lies are EASY to swallow. Truth = sucks + hard to swallow so that means Lies = doesn't suck + easy to swallow. Just forget the quote, its fucking stupid.

Edited by vodkamaru, 01 August 2007 - 11:54 AM.

[LionHarted]

Whats harder to swallow:

1. A group of terrorists who hate America hijack planes or our government fills the building with explosives then crashes planes into the buildings to give them a reason to go to war.
2. Lee Harvey Oswald shot president Kennedy or the CIA with ties to the mafia secretly had him assassinated.
3. Americans landed on the moon or the whole thing was recorded in a studio to fool the Russians.
4. An experimental government aircraft crashes in Roswell, New Mexico or an alien spacecraft crashed and the government hid it from us.
In each story the official explanation is much easier to swallow. Isn't the simplest explanation supposed to be the right one?

"Official explanation" =/= "truth."

And, no, the simplest explanation doesn't EVER have to be correct. That's only in terms of observation.

"It wouldn't be the truth if it didn't suck and wasn't hard to swallow." Wouldn't is negative number 1 and didn't and wasn't are both negative number two of their own phrases.

"Wouldn't" is negated by "didn't" and "wasn't"; but that does not distort the literal meaning of the sentence.

"We don't know nothing": translated as "we don't know anything". Either "not" or "nothing" is improperly used.

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 11:56 AM.

[vodkamaru]

Yeah just forget it. I was taught that when you negate the negative you end up with a positive. It looks like it can also be resolved to a negative making it ever so confusing.

Wikipedia uses this example "There isn't a day when I don't think about her." In this case it is meant to be a positive. I'm going to stop bickering over language now. I'm a comp sci... too much logic thrown at my head.

Edited by vodkamaru, 01 August 2007 - 12:11 PM.

[LionHarted]

Double negatives occur when you end up with an unintentional positive.

[vodkamaru]

So for the sake of clarification is the quote saying that truth sucks and is hard to swallow or truth doesn't suck and isn't hard to swallow. The first case would cancel out all negatives making a positive which is what I was assuming and the second only gets rid of one.

edit: Forget I figured it out. It's still not entirely true though. Logically anyway...

Edited by vodkamaru, 01 August 2007 - 12:23 PM.

[LionHarted]

If it doesn't suck and isn't hard to swallow, it's not truth.

(Not a sweeping rule, obviously, but it suffices to explain the idea of the "opium of the masses".)

[vodkamaru]

Well this thread is thoroughly derailed. I just wanted to show the videos comparing the bible to other literary works that are considered mythology. Cancelling out all the negatives works? I had it right from the start then. Stupid words...

Edited by vodkamaru, 01 August 2007 - 12:59 PM.

[Selena]

Arguing over the structure of the English language and something a former Rittmeister said about something completely unrelated to religion? This thread fails it.




Can't say I agree with that "If it doesn't suck and isn't hard to swallow, it's not truth" statement at all though. Sounds incredibly cynical. The truth may sometimes suck, but it's usually logical. Some cases excepted, of course.

And such faith in humanity itself as well.

[wisp]

I pray for people but I can't change the will of God. Prayer CAN make a difference, and many...MANY times it has for me. But whether or not you pray for someone it can never...EVER change the Will of God.

I'd just like to point out that correlation does not equal causation. Just because one time out of one hundred times, your wish came true, that doesn't mean it came true because God finally decided to grant you a favour. What about all the other times you prayed and nothing happened? Conveniently, you just assume it wasn't part of God's plan. The Bible claims that with faith in God, all things are possible, yet it's disproven in real life again and again.

[SOAP]

I pray for people but I can't change the will of God. Prayer CAN make a difference, and many...MANY times it has for me. But whether or not you pray for someone it can never...EVER change the Will of God.

I'd just like to point out that correlation does not equal causation. Just because one time out of one hundred times, your wish came true, that doesn't mean it came true because God finally decided to grant you a favour. What about all the other times you prayed and nothing happened? Conveniently, you just assume it wasn't part of God's plan. The Bible claims that with faith in God, all things are possible, yet it's disproven in real life again and again.

Exactly.

Also, any Christian telling someone who's obviously in pain or in need that all they can do is pray for a solution is wrong. Jesus said that even with faith as small a mustard seed we can move mountains. He also said that we will do greater miracles than he did in his lifetime. Not just a few special people but all those who believe in him. So telling someone that all they can do is wait around till God decides to do something, you're calling Jesus a liar.

[LionHarted]

The truth may sometimes suck, but it's usually logical.

This is, as any other such statement, an unfounded axiom.

What about all the other times you prayed and nothing happened?

"Not having gotten the result you wanted" =/= "nothing happened".

Edited by LionHarted, 01 August 2007 - 04:16 PM.

[Selena]

This is, as any other such statement, an unfounded axiom.

I certainly hope you think the same of your earlier comment, then, as it falls into the same category.




Furthermore, do you apply that statement only to matters of conspiracy and history? Because in most other cases, it would not apply, as vodkamaru was attempting to point out before you both continued arguing about language. "This forum is known as Legends Alliance." Is it difficult to swallow? No. It says it in the url, the logo and the forum itself. Therefore, your insightful statement is either false or serves only to complicate simple matters.

In regards to the actual topic of this thread, it also falls short of a goal. Both sides of the argument present something hard to believe in. Either you believe that a man was the son of a god, or you believe that one of the largest religions in the world is based on a fictional beginning. Both are difficult to accept unless you belong specifically to one side.

[wisp]

The truth may sometimes suck, but it's usually logical.

This is, as any other such statement, an unfounded axiom.

What about all the other times you prayed and nothing happened?

"Not having gotten the result you wanted" =/= "nothing happened".

Please read the rest of my post. Telling us that faith in God is all we need in order to achieve "all things" implies that so long as the prayer is prayed with faith, the outcome should be in the favour of the one who prayed it. Millions of people pray, sincerely and with unwavering faith, for lots of things, and these prayers go unanswered. Or, as Christians would say, God just said "no." Which, I believe I covered, albeit not in those exact words, in my original post, so your point has really already been made. So much for faith in God allowing us to move mountains, eh?

Edited by wisp, 01 August 2007 - 04:57 PM.