Did Jesus really exist?

>>7002
I'm sure that he did not have long hair

yes and even the most reddit fedoratipper would admit that

no one knows if he was actually the divine son of god tho but jesus was definitely a real guy who lived in israel during that time period

>>7002
Yes.
Was he holy? That's what is up to debate

Yes but he sure ain't white and doesn't sacrifice himself for our sins.

File: feuerbach.jpg (13KB, 200x266px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x266px

He was as real as Socrates; [spoiler]he never existed[/spoiler]

>>7049
why not?

>>7002
Yep, he was the real song of god and carried an american flag around while healing lepers.

>>7002
Almost all modern historians agree that Jesus was a person who existed. His holiness is another matter that is up for debate. But was he an actual living person? Yes.

JESUS TAKES THE WHEEEEELLSSS

File: 1431397651550.jpg (46KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 403x403px

Most historians and biblical scholars agree that Jesus probably existed.

However, there is an alternate minority viewpoint that some Serious People have entertained:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

>>7002
A question I've wrestled with. Most historians agree that a man fitting the description existed in the area, and that he could have indeed preached and traveled, like many prophets of the time. However, the earliest non-religious (and therefore unbiased) recordings of him were not until nearly 100 years after his death. Therefore I'm personally skeptical.

Here's a better question. If he existed but didn't do anything that we associate with Jesus, was he really Jesus at all? Is there any point in saying he existed just because there was someone with his name, but shared nothing else? Isn't what we call Jesus more of a character than a person?

>>7093
Well, it's certainly the consensus that there was a character who Jesus were based on, but nobody knows shit about him basically, except what's said in the bible, and that isn't really a good source.

>>8054
This could have been an extension to my post; >>8373

>>8054
Saul/Paul is pretty clearly the founder of Christianity. He either 1) made up a character named Jesus, or 2) took the story of a real life person and embellished it and spun it to suit his needs. I know that doesn't directly answer your question, but it sheds light on the notion of a fictionalized character

probably? dunno about the whole god shit though, rpobably just a travelling herbalist/healer/guru

Isn't the modern depiction of Jesus based off of the look of Cesare Borgia?

He existed. Whether he was the son of God or not is what the debate is about.

>>7002
I've watched a few debates about this topic. The answer I think is that we don't know. There's not much contemporary evidence for him outside the Gospels. The authentic Pauline epistles are fairly quiet about Jesus as a historical figure. They're the earliest writings in the New Testament, and even they were written by someone who never met him.

IMHO, it's hard to know for certain either way whether he existed or didn't exist, although most scholars think he probably did. If there was a historical Jesus, we know very little about his life, and the Gospels are certainly in great part fictional.

>>8492
I don't know exactly who it was based off of, but white Jesus was created during the forced spread of Christianity throughout Europe. It was easier to worship a god that looks like you than the traditional, short, dark complexion figure that would have existed in the middle east

Good lecture on the historical Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_dOhg-Fpu0

>>7002
We have zero contemporary evidence for his existence.

>tfw Jesus wasn't actually as beautiful as depicted in all the paintings and he probably looked like an ugly caveman

File: jesus.png (451KB, 546x720px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 546x720px

No way to know, but if he did then he probably looked like this

Well, the guy(s) on who the stories were based probably did as likely did some of the acts attributed to him in some form or another.

But there's no real reason to believe all of those stories have to be about the same person or that the acts attributed to him were even performed as such by him.

Also i doubt that he was known as Jesus back then, i suspect the name's been mangled quite severely over the millenia.

>>8054
Who's Jesus? its very likely that many, but not all of the quotes of him in Mark are based on stuff "Jesus" actually said, the miracles are probably embellishments, but they are only central to his message if you accept he was the Son of God or the Messiah

>>8761
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)

>>8710
On what merit? To be clear, I'm not opposed to the idea that he wasn't as White Spanish as we commonly see today, but why would he have a fat face?

>>7002
Of course. Even fucking Tacitus mentioned him.

Doesn't mean he was anything other than a Jewish cult leader in 1st century Palestine.

>>8054
You're getting into a philosophical debate about the referents of proper names. But the question isn't whether there was somebody named "Jesus": "Yeshua" was a common name among Jews at the time. Rather, the question is whether there was a historical figure who inspired early Christianity and whose life shared some broad outlines with the familiar Gospel narrative (like being a wandering preacher). Assuming (as you say) that there was such a person, but that his life was much unlike the story in the Gospels, then it's a simple matter to resolve confusion by referring to them by different names: the "historical Jesus" and the "mythical Jesus". That's why the term "historical Jesus" is commonly used in discussions like this.

>>8624
that's just absolutely wrong

>>8971
It's a general depiction of the people in the area Jesus would have lived.

So why is Jesus commonly shown as white when he is from the middle east?

>>8828

Nice, didn't know that.
Still the vocal representation of such words has likely been subject to a lot of change too, so what i said might still stand.

>>9008
Not really. The earliest known secular reference to Yeshua was from Annals, written by Tacitus in 116 AD. Since Jesus is estimated to have died around 30 AD, that's nearly 100 years after him. Not really a credible or reliable reference for empirical proof, as it all would have been second and third hand knowledge.

>>9074
See >>8576

>>9193
I see, makes sense

>>7002
Yes.

>>9074
>>8576

Thank the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church for that.

Here's a venerable compromise: Jesus depicted as brown(ish) from the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, 531.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Jesus-Christ-from-Hagia-Sophia.jpg

>>9074
I think depiction in European artwork had a part to play in that.

>>9276
My bad, date is wrong: dated 12th-13th century.

>>7002
yes

>>8821
The miracles actually happened, you cant separate the divine Jesus, form the historical Jesus. All the reports were made together, I mean, the sources are the same.

>>9160
>for empirical proof,
You ain't getting that in history

File: Painting_of_David_Hume.jpg (218KB, 461x567px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 461x567px

>>9379
lol

>>8465
I can believe this.

Reason he's depicted white is because white's generally associated with purity, a fact (the association) that is true for most cultures, including those from India to the pacific islands and the well known example of Japan.

So that's really not an issue people should fret about so much, it's a thing similar to depicting a saint with a halo to denote his holiness.

Yes.
>>7114
this.

It's irrelevant whether he 'existed' or not, religious faith never needed concrete and physical reassurance (not a bad thing per se); in the end faith is all about the believer mediation with itself and his community through love.

>>9441
You're not getting it anywhere, and that's the point. It's a moot issue, we'll never know, and therefore there's really no point in arguing historical existence. What can be debated is any divinity, or lack thereof

>>9074
It was white people that created those paintings of Jesus, the same way that we have asian Jesus in asia and black Jesus in black communities.

>>7002
Yes

File: image.jpg (115KB, 584x777px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 584x777px

The child that was in the 'heaven is real' story confirmed Jesus to look like pic related.

>>9074
People tend to depict Jesus as looking like someone from their own culture. In these depictions, he looks pretty Asian. http://blog.daum.net/_blog/BlogTypeView.do?blogid=0Ddl5&articleno=7116787#ajax_history_home
Even within the white Jesus category we have differences that line up with geography (for example, Byzantine Jesus having dark hair)

>>9667
Oh and an atheist child said she was visited by Jesus and then began drawing paintings of him, then the father showed his son (kid from 'heaven is real') the paintings and then the son confirmed it.

File: 54.png (12KB, 538x413px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 538x413px

>>9818
>>9667
I'm an atheist. The funniest thing just happened, someone was knocking at the door and when I go check it turns out to be Jesus himself.

Here's what he looks like, I can confirm it. Nice fella, that Jesus guy.

>>9924
You are an atheist because you probably uses the empirical method to analise these questions.

>>10106
What's wrong with science? Not everyone is cool with blind faith and going off completely unproven, biased stories.

>>10180
Because using science in philosophical questions is retarded

>>9667
he looks i a reptilian m8

>>10180
Nothing wrong with science my dear, but science is based on logic, wich is the basis of the empirical method.

>>10289
Not when questioning divinity. It's perfectly reasonable to use science, since science can pretty much completely disprove a god of any sort.

>>10357
>science can pretty much completely disprove a god of any sort.
So you completly missunderstand the christian concept of God?

>>10393
I was raised Christian. I know exactly the concept of a christian god. There is no conscious deity.

>>10357
Thats my point, science is the wrong tool for this nd of investigaton.

>>10479
kind*

>>7002
Ieoshua, the Jewish preacher from Nazareth? Yes.

Him as zombie? Not really senpai(ily).

>>10446
No you clearly don't.
Elaborate on how science disproves the existance of a creator that doesn't exist inside the universe

>>10479
Not at all. If science can prove the existence of the universe without an intelligent design (and it can), then it logically follows that there is no intelligent deity. Religion fhrouthrough the ages can be proven as a man made construct in humanity's search for answers during a time of underdeveloped science. As science improves, answers are found, diminishing any reason for a deity to exist.

>>10568
Right on m8.

Science would be able to prove that God exists if he does in fact exist. It is outside the bounds of science to prove that God does NOT exist.

>>10568
It has been proven that matter can spontaneously pop into existence with no need for a pre-existing causation. Quantum mechanics and string theory has mathematical formulas that follow this observed phenomenon that show how the entire universe could pop into existence from nothing and be sustainable indefinitely.

>>10730

It has been proven that matter can spontaneously pop into existence with no need for a pre-existing causation...
Thats a logical fallacy, I cant accept this premise because every movement or fenomenon needs an external cause.

>>7002
I'd rather not have to report your thread friend, so from now on threads like these should be posted on slash fiction slash a.k.a. >>>/lit/
Thank you.

>>10868
Then therein lies your problem. A lack of proper understanding in science. I can't have a decent discussion with someone who refuses to educate themselves, and rather simply assumes based on their more limited understanding

>>10907
go back to 9gag

>>10868
So you're saying that the universe is not causal and science is worthless?

>>10907
For future reference, reading helps prevent you from looking like a retard. This board clearly states it is open to religious questions. OP asked a religious question.

>>10980
The universe is not causal, but that doesn't make science irrelevant. While indeed not causal, science can still be beneficial in gaining an understanding of how it came to be. For instance, science can help explain how larger particles form from quarks and whatnot. It puts the puzzle pieces together.

>>7002
yeah but he was a nigger

>>10926
>>10926
You Sir, needs to learn how to adress this problems properly, logic preceds Mathematics
>>10980
No, of course not. Why should I say that?

>>11014
No, friend, the character called Jesus is part of a fictional work of literature and therefore belongs on >>>/lit/.
Thank you.

>>7246
Wasnt fashionable at that time and one of the apostles wrote about how long hair is degenerate

File: o-SNAKES-facebook.jpg (511KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 2000x1000px

Le happy /his/s snake says

Jesus does it homosex.

>>11229
In that case, every religious question is fictional and belongs on lit, which defeats the purpose of allowing religious questions.

>>7002
Yup

>>10635
>A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (2+2=4), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).

>>11207
I can't take someone serious who 1) can't spell, and 2) has zero knowledge of the relevant science I'm discussing and therefore can't reasonably refute. No offense intended friend, but spend a year doing some research then come back and debate.

>>11099
No Science literally can't explain anything if the universe isn't causal.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that they didn't come to the conclusion that the universe is acausal

>>11433
My keyboard is not workin properly, its hard to get a new one here (third world)

>>11447
The universe is not causal in the sense that no prior intelligence, driving force, what have you was needed. The universe is able to exist with no driving or pre-existing factor needed to start it. But just because nothing preceeded the universe doesn't mean it doesn't follow certain laws of physics, which is where science comes into play.

>>11553
Hey I'm not trying to be a dick about any of this. I just have a decent understanding of proven science, which perfectly explains the existence of the universe without the need for intelligent design

>>11597
The universe was causal from shortly after the big bang to the present day, though. And still is.

>>11730
Yes, which is where science is relevant. But none of that lends any credence to a need for "god"

>>7002
Did King Aurthur really exist?

Did Robin Hood?

They're just stories, anon

>>7049
I actually think there's a possibility he did. Why would they draw him like that?
Jesus is completely different from what their ideal of a "man" is. Maybe they tried to reflect his personality when drawing it (which seems unlikely to me, but I can't say for sure), and no one wanted to change it afterwards because that's how he actually could have been, but I guess that's not how some people wanted him to be, and I guess they might have been the majority actually, so, if his appearance is made up, why didn't they give him short hair?
Of course, if he was like that, they can't adapt him to their >le alpha mael model easily, so they accept it and ignore that if it was anyone else other than God they would hate him. In fact, if Jesus came back now, wouldn't he be hated and accused to be a liar, just like in the gospels?

File: lokar5.png (556KB, 950x535px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 950x535px

>Not a single source in this entire thread

Great board, lads

>>11874 (Me)
It's stuff like >>11256 that I'm talking about.

>>9511
christians believe that jesus healed the sick. and walked on water. and came back from the dead. muslims believe muhammad split the moon in two. it is, of course, relevant to christians whether jesus existed and was the son of god. your post is retarded.

>>11654
>perfectly
Lets not get carried away now. There are still plenty of things that we don't understand but on the other side of that it doesn't mean that we can make up random shit and just believe it without any evidence or logic behind it. So the idea of god is already a terrible theory because it lies outside of the range of testable theories. That is that it can't be proven except by god himself. Therefore saying that its true with anything short of god coming down from heaven to announce it is stupid as hell. Even assuming it is true we wouldn't know anyway so the best thing to do is study the universe to the best of our ability and just admit that we don't know something when we hit a wall and NOT just make up whatever feels good.

>>11910
You can be sure that the sources are Wikipedia and various people's asses.

ITT: Muslims

>>10730
That's not true at all. Matter can't be created or destroyed and neither quantum physics nor string theory say any such thong.

>>12001
OK, so maybe not perfectly. But we can very easily trace a logical, testable pattern that explains the existence of the universe without a god, and one that has very few holes. Therefore it is is reasonable to lean on this evidence rather than reach for something with no evidence at all, such as a deity.

>>10730
>he doesn't understand one of the basic principles of matter

>>10926
Not him, but read the Problem of Induction by Hume and sceptic philosophy. The Empirical method is as much a religion as any other ideology.

>>12095
Perhaps you should double check your research, because this is proven knowledge and is a repeatable experiment.

>>12190
>he has done zero research and simply assumes based on his mediocre high school science class

File: Good_shepherd_02b_close.jpg (57KB, 255x361px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 255x361px

>>11874
Except that the earliest depictions of Jesus didn't have long hair. This one is from the 3rd century AD. It wasn't until the 5th century that the long-haired, bearded Jesus cemented.

>>9526
>What can be debated is any divinity, or lack thereof
It is not open to debate whether Jesus was divine. That's just silly. Many people believe he was, but many people also believe in homeopathy and astrology and that the Earth is 6000 years old, and none of these things are up for serious debate. The question is closed.

File: chrisco.jpg (226KB, 767x947px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 767x947px

>>10907

As real as the first Buddha, Joseph Smith and Mohammed, i'm sure.

I don't think there's been a case in history where a religion or an offshoot started without a central figure, and if christianity did, there would be too much conflicting and contradictionary information about what he did in the bible as everyone would model him after their own ideals rather than a unified agreed upon ideal he symbolizes etc.

>>12227
How about you give a source since you're making a claim.

>>12265
Not serious debate, but debate nonetheless. Sadly there are those who either 1) don't pursue knowledge, or 2) simply ignore it.

>>12217
Read Popper's rebuttal and then go look up Bayes' theorem

>>12260
Looks like an over encumbered Skyrim character.

>>12260
Thanks, I wanted to know if there was something like that.
Well, that doesn't mean that what I said couldn't have happened, but I wonder why they started to draw him with long hair later on then?

>>12311
Because I'm not your babysitter and you're perfectly capable of doing the same research I have done. But I'll help out anyway. Give me a minute. In the meantime here's a quote from Hawking-

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

File: image.jpg (11KB, 232x246px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 232x246px

>jesus is real

>>7246
1 Cor 11:14
>Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

>>8457
I thought it was Peter.

>>12291
>there would be too much conflicting and contradictionary information about what he did in the bible
The Bible is a compilation of gospels, by a Christian bishop, not all were included so your post is stupid.

>>12311
Start with this
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X

>>12260
>>12260
>Good_shepherd_02b_close.jpg
Is the Good shepherd literally Jesus?

>>12548
Peter was a character in the Bible. Paul was the major proponent driving Christianity. Most letters in the new testament are from him, and he was a major player in the initial push and organization of the religion

File: vincent.gif (999KB, 500x265px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 500x265px

There is a consensus among historians based on absolutely no evidence.
You are deemed a fool if you question this consensus.
This is why history&humanities majors flip burgers.

>>7093
I know Jesus was the divine son of God. How jewish must you be to even try to claim otherwise?

1 John 2:22
>Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

>>12560
You're not making an arguement here. Explain precisely what you mean. And do you disagree with the claim that religion and offshoots start with a central figure?

>>12311
>>12576
This can help. The rest is up to you. No one held my hand in my quest for knowledge, so if you need more, I trust you know how to work the Google.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.b5uof0mmo

>>8457
>Paul is pretty clearly the founder of Christianity
You mean Catholicism

>>12754
Catholicism is the original Christianity. All factions of Christianity are offshoots of Catholicism.

>>8457
Eh, I really don''t think Jesus was made up. While it's difficult to find, there is some evidence that early Christians accepted martrydom. If it was fiction, they wouldn't accept it. They truly believed.


>>12548
In Catholicism, Peter is considered the first Pope. Because of this verse:
>Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church

>>12650
This is also why forensic science is bullshit. All they do is make predictions after seeing some bullet chasings. There's no proof that those chasings were used in murder until these dipshits tells you they are based on assumption.

>>12697
I think he is disagreeing when you say the gospels are not an accurate depiction of his life and works.

It is. Jesus Christ was a real man. He walked the earth. He performed the miracles described. He came back from the dead. He is the son of God. He is the savior of mankind.

Do not be lukewarm. What do you profit if you trade favor in the eyes of God for favor in the eyes of men?

Mark 8:38
>Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

>>12873
When it gets down to it, I think there was probably a guy used for reference, but that all the miracles were embellishments to sell this new religion

>>12408
Archaeologist/art historian Paul Zanker says it's based on a combination of the philosopher beard and basically wizard hair
>The type of the bearded Christ, on the other hand, has always been recognized as inspired by philosopher iconography. A different avenue of interpretation, which seeks to establish a link to the Classical iconography of the Greek gods, whether Zeus or, as more recently suggested, Asklepios, has rightly found little favor.[51] Nevertheless, I believe it is one particular tradition of philosopher iconography with which we are dealing. His shoulder-length hair clearly separates the bearded Christ from the philosopher portraits of Classical and Hellenistic art and places him instead in another tradition, one that we first encountered in the description of Euphrates (cf. p. 257). As I have tried to demonstrate, this type of portrait, or, rather, the self-image that lies behind it, was meant to translate into visual terms a special aura of dignity, as well as magical and spiritual powers to which these "holy men" lay claim. Of all the guises in which intellectuals of the past had appeared, this one radiated the ultimate authority. Although it has proved impossible to arrive at a clearly defined prototype, both because literary descriptions are vague and contradictory and because the visual evidence from the second century is still rather spotty, I nevertheless remain convinced that the image of the bearded Christ with shoulder-length hair is closely associated with that of the theios aner . The comparison of Christ with the pagan miracle workers, who likewise possessed divine powers and, in their own way, also promised a kind of "salvation," was self-evident and became a favorite topos in the debate between pagans and Christians. It is in the portraiture of the later Charismatic philosophers, who were believed even more "holy" and "divine," that we shall once again encounter the type with shoulder-length hair.
field too long

>>12933
sauce
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3f59n8b0&chunk.id=d0e6346&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e5616&brand=eschol;query=Monza#1

>>12922
That's not a credible source. The vedic scriptures point to "proof" of Hindu gods, yet Christians refute that as valid evidence, while touting the Bible as valid.

>>12965
What the fuck? How short is /his/'s post timer?

>>10635
>science can prove the existence of the universe without an intelligent design
But it does have an intelligent design. Everything works as it should, and that's inevitable since the rules of the universe themselves are what makes it work

>>12733
This is in keeping with Hawking's general obsession with highly theoretical constructs that have little hard data to support them

>>13000
No, an intelligent design means that something was pre-planned by a conscious agent. There isn't really any scientific evidence to support that.

>>9534
>Blue eyed blonde Russians carried banners of a semitic looking Jesus since ever
Your wordview is too simplistic

>>11229
If you're not being ironic, whatever you believe, don't think you're better than anyone completely disregarding something they have no way to know about.

>>13022
Except that 1) the math supports this theory as plausible, and 2) as stated, spontaneous existence has been observed. If it is observed as true and math can be used to support the theory, it logically follows that this is a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe

>>12990
I pity you of little faith.

Do you not know you are a sinner? Can you say truly your soul is clean? Only through the grace of Christ can we achieve salvation. God is at no expense of a miracle to end your life now. You dangle above hell by the hand of God, by his soveriegn decision and hope.

Repent, so that you may be saved.

>>13022
Even the notion of "nothing" Hawking uses is problematic

>>12990
Well, because there's a difference. 1. The Vedic scriptures are talking about 10,000 armed lizards flying through space. 2. The Bible is a historical account of the time period

>>12800
Apostles (or anyone who followed Jesus) weren't catholics though. Catholicism didn't exist yet. They were Christians.

>>12667
This reminds me I need to reread John's epistles

>>13231
There is exactly the same amount of evidence for space lizards as there is for Yahweh. You cannot refute one without refuting the other.

File: Intellectual observation.png (78KB, 554x676px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 554x676px

While i'm not religious myself, i cannot fathom how so many people vehemently refuse to entetain the notion that Jesus existed as a mudane person espousing a new branch of religion, much like the many christian charlatans, sect leaders, "messiahs" and so on has.

I mean, when L. Ron Hubbard could create the Church of Scientology and gain traction as late as 1950, why couldn't someone named Jesus do the same two thousand years ago?

>>13295
I never mentioned Yahweh. If we are talking about Jesus, the Bible says when and where it happened. It speaks about shit happening at the time, speaks about the government at the time. etc

You're pretty stupid mate

>>13231
Well the Bible also talked about plants being on Earth before the Sun was made, and a flood that covered Everest, but you're probably specifically talking about the Gospels

>>13375
It is scientifically impossible for space lizards to exist. It is also scientifically impossible for Jesus to rise from the dead and perform the other mentioned miracles. If we allow for a divine exception for one, we can allow it for the other. The only real argument for Jesus within historical context is his human existence, which I do indeed allow. I just don't accept impossible miracles.

>>12800
Catholicism teachea false doctorine.

Dueteronomy says men and women should not dress as eachother and Jesus says to call no man father.

Catholic priest dress like mama and wanna be called papa.

In Acts, it is said that belief is a prerequisite to baptism. Yet catholics babtise babies.

The Catholic church held all the bibles and tried to stop the spread of scripture. The read it only in dead languages and forbid translations. They are hypocrites, like the pharasiees. Seeing themselves superior by birthright. They were here first, they are most holy. Wanna know what Christ said?

Luke 14:11
>For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

File: julius.png (102KB, 746x717px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 746x717px

>>13375
I'm not the person you are replying but you're painfully biased.
I just came to this board and expected to find these kind of posts everywhere,I was not wrong,humanities are disgusting and this board was a huge mistake.

>>9379
Well, in the histories of some cultures all sorts of supernatural phenomena are reported along with day to day information. This type of thing is very common.

You read critically, sources have biases and you filter the information they give you with those biases in mind

>>13437
>Well the Bible also talked about plants being on Earth before the Sun was made, and a flood that covered Everest,

Find me these

File: helloreddit.jpg (210KB, 600x324px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 600x324px

>>13540

>>13540
It's not if people are open to honest debate. The issue is people who refuse to be educated on the matter and spew unproven beliefs.

>>13295
You obviously do not know what you talk about.

Exodus 6:3
>And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

When the day of judgement comes, will you stand before the King of Kings and tell him that he is but a myth?

>>13540
Also, you're here voluntarily. If you find it disgusting, there is a neat little back button you can hit to exit the thread.

>>13146
Hawking and Mlodinow concede, when they said the Physical Laws are pre conditions for the creation

>>13642
Again, using the Bible as proof. I submit the vedas as proof of Hinduism.

>>13667
No way bro,, because he's totally not biased bro. That's why he sticks around here, so he can give his totally unbiased opinions while posting disapproving reaction images

>>13587
go back to /pol/ please

File: 1429752739604.jpg (251KB, 858x952px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 858x952px

>>9160
If you apply this same rigor to Alexander the Great, then his case for existence would be even more dire as our main sources come from writers several centuries after his death. Also, I think Josephus and Pliny the Younger reference Jesus, or at least Christians with Pliny, before Tacitus; admittedly, there is some controversy regarding the former as part of the Jesus passage is thought to be an interpolation. Also, it should be noted that the Bible is not a singular book; rather, it is several joined together, much later, into a whole. Therefore, it is unfair to say only the Bible provides testimony of Jesus; instead, it would be more fair to the author of John, the author of Luke, Paul, etc give witness to his existence. Of course, with the Gospels it gets a bit tricky as they themselves are composed with other now lost sources in mind, but this is the scenario that Arrian or Plutarch would have been in while writing on Alexander.

>>13699
However, that does not in anyway require an intelligent creator, which is the issue at hand.

>>13593
Young's Literal Translation is my preference

Genesis 1
11 And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12 And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;
13 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.
14 And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so.
16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night;
17 and God giveth them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over day and over night, and to make a separation between the light and the darkness; and God seeth that [it is] good;
19 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day fourth.

Genesis 7
17 And the deluge is forty days on the earth, and the waters multiply, and lift up the ark, and it is raised up from off the earth;
18 and the waters are mighty, and multiply exceedingly upon the earth; and the ark goeth on the face of the waters.
19 And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which [are] under the whole heavens;
20 fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;

>>13739
I actually don't argue against a human Jesus. Just like to present all sides of the argument.

>>13642
Well I mean like if I'm standing before him I obviously can't tell him he's a myth, but that hasn't happened yet so the jury's still out on that one

>>13667
I rather stay and try educating people before other boards become infested by burger flippers spilling from this shithole.

>>13821
Well...I just wrote all that for nothing. Still you're right to play devils advocate.

>>13766
I agree with you, but it requires a first cause that was not caused. They are very poor logicians.

>>13853
>educating people
>has not provide any educational content
>only content is complaining

>>13725
You seek proof because you have no faith.

Mathew 13:13-15
>That is why I use these parables,

>For they look, but they don’t really see.
>They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand.

>This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah that says,

>‘When you hear what I say,
>you will not understand.
>When you see what I do,
>you will not comprehend.

>For the hearts of these people are hardened,
>and their ears cannot hear,
>and they have closed their eyes—
>so their eyes cannot see,
>and their ears cannot hear,
>and their hearts cannot understand,
>and they cannot turn to me
>and let me heal them.’

>>13905
It's what I do best. I'll argue a side I don't believe in at all just to play devil's advocate. I am however ardently atheist

>>13807
........


1. Go read the first 5 verses of Genesis

2. Mountains is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word harîm meaning hills in this context. The King James Version of Genesis 7:19 translates hills correctly. There is no mention of draft or deep or depth in the Hebrew text of Genesis 7:20. A literal translation from Hebrew is "Five ten cubits upward rose the waters and they covered the hills."

>>13946
No, those are all lies and you simply lack faith in the Vedas

>>13927
>>has not provide any educational content
You're right, let me fix that.
This should be stickied in the front page http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/
Every poster here should play it multiple times a day.

>>13920
My only goal here is to argue against the existence of a deity. Which I believe I've done halfway decent

File: 1401432354121.jpg (65KB, 555x786px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 555x786px

>>14071
> Which I believe I've done halfway decent


You're only the 1 millionth person in history to do so. Trust me, it's not even 1/10000th a way decent

>>14054
Go through my posts (I'm the one arguing pro science, anti deity) and point out any issues you have and I'll try to correct them

>>13993
1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3 and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
4 And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
5 and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.

It says that God created light on day one and the Sun on day 5. I hear young-earth creationists explain it as a sort of general illumination that he later stuffed into the sun.

This is the KJV
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

It says mountains.

>>14130
Don't take it as a personal attack,just look around the thread and witness what it has turned into.

>>13946
If I'm wrong I'll have upset a happy hippy benevolent God that loves me.

If you're wrong you'll have upset 10000 space lizards.

>>13807
Only KJV is valid

Genesis 7:19
>And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Also the verses in Genesis 1 you quoted in no way support your assertion that "the bible says the planets and moon and sun were on earth." It clearly states they were in the heavens.

>>14124
I'd love an example of what you don't agree with. I've posted scientific links and attempted to only argue using proven, testable issues. I've tried to keep any subjectivity out of my posts. Meanwhile I have received nothing but biblical quotes and denial of my submissions with zero hard data to support such rebuttal.

>>14216
>your assertion that "the bible says the planets and moon and sun were on earth."
I never said that. I said plants existed on earth before the sun was made. Plants, not planets.

>20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
That is the KJV.

>>14212
I'm not, sorry if I came off that way. I just genuinely don't want to come off as anything less than objective, and try to use only proven data in my side of the arguments

>>14142
So....in those first five verses, you don''t think how a dude writing it could be talking about the sun? Nope? Not at all? Especially when he says that this light is called DAY...and when it goes away..its called NIGHT. No?

Okay then

>>14071
Of course you did!
I would recommend Aristotelian Theology, before going into Physics

>>14289
No dude, because then what does God create in verse 16? He doesn't make the sun again.

>>14308
Will do. In all honesty my passion is raw theology. I can read all the physics in the world, and am highly interested in quantum mechanics and string theory, but it's beyond my ability to fully understand.

File: Karl_von_Piloty_Nero_Róma_égését_szemléli.jpg (48KB, 450x335px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 450x335px

>>7002

Tacitus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

>>14215
Where do you get that idea?

Luke 13:28
>There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

Hell is infinite. Your pain will be more than you can bear and He will not hear your cries for mercy. When you have been there day after day, month after month, year after year, century after century, eon after eon, you will know that all that was is but a speck to that what will be. Why do you long to dive head first in to this eternal lake of fire?

Salvation is at hand! You can be saved, sinner.

>>14427
This has already been discussed. Annals by Tacitus was written in 116 AD, roughly 80 years post Jesus, and therefore third hand knowledge. Although to clarify, I don't refute Jesus's existence.

>>14316
I don't see were it says Earth was first. Simply alluding back to confirm what the light is

In the Latin, it's translated to "The luminaries rule" instead of "God made the luminaries"

>>14278
Then it was covered.

Are you trying to say that the creator of the universe would be unable to keep plants alive a day without sun?

>>14452
Again, you read a book of lies. The Vedas are the true words of the gods. There is certainly just as much evidence for them being true as the Bible.

>>14452
Alright, you enjoy your pissed off space lizards, mate.

>>14476
So.....if someone today wrote something about say Napoleon, would you dismiss i?

>>14452
I don't understand why people say "God loves everybody and everything!" because clearly he doesn't

Yet again those are probably the same people who think humans become angels when they die... halo and all

The real question is…why do Protestants persist in their heresy and how can we crush them into dust?

Why did Martin Luther eat his own shit?

Why do Protestants love Jews so much?

Why do Protestants think that the only truth comes from the Bible when the Bible never makes this claim?

Why do Protestants fantasize over the end times like they will be able to predict when the time comes?

Why are Protestants masses such a joke?

Why don't Protestants listen to the word's of Christ?

>>14374
Just dont think that the very idea of God is "anti science" or other fashionables ideas of today.

>>14544
>Although to clarify, I don't refute Jesus's existence.
I was simply presenting the counter argument and displaying that there is no firsthand secular, textual reference to Jesus, and therefore all text is arguably hearsay

>>14544
If they made wild unverifiable(as in sources) claims, like 'napolean was a black trans man' than yes.

>>14608
The issue isis that there is strong evidence that explains an existence of a universe without the need for god. It therefore logically follows that it makes more sense to disbelieve in a god than it is to ignore the evidence and allow for a deity that has no supporting evidence outside of the Bible, which is not a valid source.

>>14508
Then why do my plants die when I remove them from the sunlight?

Why doesn't god keep his plants alive?

>>14071
"Out of nothing didst Thou create heaven and earth – a great thing and a small — because Thou are Almighty and Good, to make all things good, even the great heaven and the small earth. Thou wast, and there was nought else from which Thou didst create heaven and earth." Confessions, St Augustine

>>14491
Well it says in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.
And then he made light.
And then 3 days later he made dry land and plants.
And then the day after that he made the sun.

I mean even the valid KJV says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"

>>14508
No, all I said was that Everest was covered. You'd need, like a lot of water to do that, man. And then it'd have to go somewhere. And plus there's no geological evidence for a flood of that magnitude. You would find a layer of sediments and high salinity in ice core samples around the world, and the ice caps would have lifted and broken, but you don't and they didn't.

>>13574
so you reject bias using bias?

>>14764
>strong evidence that explains an existence of a universe without the need for god
What... the big bang theory? Something coming from nothing?

>>14835
Bill Nye vs Ken Hamm adequately covers the flood issue. Don't know if you've seen it but it's on YouTube and I highly endorse it.

>>14535
Exodus 20:3
>Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

>>14863
I guess you're new? Haven't read the thread? Spontaneous creation of matter from nothing has been proven and documented. Mathematics further supports this observed phenomenon to explain how a universe could spontaneously generate and be sustained indefinitely.

>>14863
You are right, there is no such evidence...

>>14835
>No, all I said was that Everest was covered. You'd need, like a lot of water to do that, man.

It never said Everest. I already explained it to you what it meant.

>And plus there's no geological evidence for a flood of that magnitude
Yes, there is evidence of a gigantic flood around the time of Noah.

>>13491
>It is scientifically impossible for space lizards to exist.
Because Scientist explored the whole universe t confirm that amirite? go back to r/athiest

>>7002
I believe he did and he accrued some followers, but no form of Christianity existing today is the "true church", it died out.

>>14950
>Spontaneous creation of matter
And where did that idea come from? Nothing decided that it will just spontaneously create something called matter?

>>15055
It was an example to prove how a theist cannot discredit an implausible claim in the vedas, yet fully endorse an implausible claim in the Bible. Chill man.

File: 1433933594532.jpg (48KB, 502x432px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 502x432px

>>15055
Top kek!

>>15027
But the valid KJV does say it covered the mountains in verse 20.
Can you link the global flood evidence? What about the ice caps?

>>15084
Yes. As stated. This has been observed. I know it's difficult to understand, but it's been proven. Not up for debate. I encourage you to go back up the thread and find my links, then continue down the Google rabbit hole. You'll find dozens of scholarly articles explaining this in much more detail.

>>14950
>All ideas concerning the very early universe are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period.

>>15094
But no one was trying to discredit it. Do you undeniable proof that there is absolutely no such thing as space lizards?

Jesus never existed. It's a myth perpetuated by the elite.

Do your own research.

>>15139
Did you not even read what I posted earlier?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

>>15203
I forget the exact number, but scientists have definitively traced back the universe in a proven development to 0.000001 seconds post big bang. Prior to that, yes is speculation, but there exist theories backed by the observed evidence we do have and worked out math that explain such prior events in a reasonable, plausible manner

>>15255
Nope, and I don't have undeniable proof that Jesus rose from the dead. I also have no undeniable proof that Russells teapot doesn't exist. I was simply trying to show a theist that his decree that the Bible is absolute truth must be met with equal decree that the vedas are the absolute truth.

>>15256
no

>>14578
No, God is angry and jealous.

He said so himself. The ones saying he loves all are yids attempting to push sodomy and adultery on society.

>>7049
Is it not a sin to cut your hair, though?

>>15384
Awesome evidence you got there, chum.

>>15444
Kek

>>15437
Where did you get that from?

>>15298
This theories are the Strings theory, and the deceased Multiverse theory...

>>15491
Theories such as spontaneous generation (observed in micro-form). Which have much more evidence supporting it than an intelligent being, whose only evidence is a book of dubious origins written by self-perpetuating authors who obviously will only write a story supporting itself. Is Harry Potter real too just because the Harry Potter books say so?

>>15298
>theories, theories, theories
It makes more faith to believe these theories than it does to believe that God created the universe

File: fuckingdisgusting.jpg (26KB, 312x312px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 312x312px

>>13539
>proddies on /his/
Disgusting heretic.

>>15486
Check out Leviticus

Probably. Josephus mentioned him, Tacitus mentioned him, and usually when a religion claims to be founded by a living figure in the recent historical past (and Christian writings start popping up a mere generation after Jesus) it was a real person.

The book of Mormon isn't the word of god, but Joseph Smith was still real.

Basically

>Jesus is born, raised in a temple
>He turns out to be a big loudmouth with big opinions (it's even on the bible that the argued with priests)
>Eventually he wisens up and starts to get a lot of listeners.
>We don't know if it was him or his apostles but he starts to get known as the messiah meant to make Israel independent (he did say "to Rome what's onto Rome" or some shit like that, meaning no revolution)
>He preaches a shittons of reforms to Judaism, but compared to the other contemporary sects his following was a small minority and few jews paid him attention, and only because of the Messiah deal
>Eventually the king of Judea gets worried about all this messiah talk and asks the romans to do something
>Romans do what Romans do and crucify his ass
>The Jews more or less stop paying attention to him because being the messiah - his main selling point - meant he couldn't die
>The apostles spread to the four winds deciding to proselytize as much as they can
>They get told to GTFO basically everywhere but East Africa, Southern Arabia and Rome
>Paul was so assblasted by Jesus' death he began to claim he was God himself sacrificing his own son for the sins of humanity
>Paul also happened to be one of the main Christianity pushers on Rome and practically bullied half the apostles into following his dogma
>Decades later Romans and Anatolians keep embellishing the fuck out of Jesus' life story until you get the bible

Fucking Paul.

>>15601
>Observed, documented, repeatable evidence supporting aforementioned theories.
>Zero objective evidence supporting the theory of god

>>15666
>666
Satan confirms

File: Black-sea-hist.png (6KB, 313x199px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 313x199px

>>15275
You mean about mountain being a mistranslation? So the KJV isn't actually all the valid anymore?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
Yeah, that's not global at all. See pic.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
Geological evidence, anon.
>A world-wide deluge, such as described in Genesis, is incompatible with modern understanding of the natural history and especially geology and paleontology.[24][25]
Do you even read the articles you post?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz
>The last major shift in drainage occurred around 8,200 years ago. The melting of remaining Hudson Bay ice caused Lake Agassiz to drain nearly completely. This final drainage of Lake Agassiz is associated with an estimated 0.8 to 2.8 m (2.6 to 9.2 ft) rise in global sea levels.[7]
Those are really small hills, anon. I don't think you can wipe out all life with something that small, especially when the average elevation of land is 840m above sea level. Again, do you read your own articles?

ohh he existed alright. i refuse myself to believe thin air made itself the mark of the beggining of our current calendar years. must have been someone.

>>15563
The existence of God does not need the Bible to prove itself, that is pure naiveness.
When you say that spontaneous generation was observed in micro-form, thats no proof, because not even the cientists are sure about what they saw.

>>14600
>Why do Protestants think that the only truth comes from the Bible when the Bible never makes this claim?

Matthew 4:4
>But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

2 Timothy 3:16
>All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

>>14766
Why do you think youraelf so deserving of such a sign from God, sinner?

Matthew 4:7
>Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

>>15256
You can still have a change of heart. What is missing in your life, what you have been searching for, you will find in Jesus.

You seem to me to be the one in need of research.

I was 15 once too. You will grow out of it.
Read the parable of the Pridigal's son. A shepard seeks to bring his lost sheep home.

>>8457
How can anyone with half a brain even believe this?
>all apostles exist before him
>he was persecuting Christians for Jerusalem before conversion
>gained absolutely nothing from his ministry, died as a result of it
>so did all the apostles

>>15822
Again, no evidence for god, with or without the Bible.

>>15695
They're both speculation, no matter how many theories you shit out, you cannot prove unknown metaphysics

>>8576
>forced

I can already tell there's a bright future for /his/

>>15738
not the original anon, but why does the flood need to be worldwide?

>>15624
Thinking your rituals and traditions are above the word of God.

Catholics actively violate the teachings of Moses, Elijah and Christ. I can point out the verses for you. Do not be as the Pharaisees, thinking yourself holy because you are in a church called holy by men.

>>15825
The bible was made to control the ignorant populace. Wake up, sheeple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giaZnIr-faM

>>15868
Both are unproven. But no deity has a greater deal of plausibility with objective explanations for precisely how it would happen (again, founded in previous knowledge gained from proven science) than deity

>>15909
Because that's what the Bible says. It's kinda the point of the story. God says he'll kill everything on earth and start over. You know, that's why he has Noah build the Ark in the first place. So that there's something left to repopulate. And it says the waters rose over the mountains and the highest hills, and it killed everything on land and air. You know, that's kinda hard to do if it was confined to one area. Everything would have survived outside of it.

>>13231
No, the Vedic scriptures tout the universe as being billions of years old and describe accurately all of the warring tribes in Northwest India at the time. There are no armed lizards flying through space.
The Bible, on the other hand, is about a zombie on a stick born to a virgin through God, who created the universe 6,000 years ago (even though some of the texts in the Vedas talk about history that occurred before this timeframe). The Bible describes Moses, who L I T E R A L L Y parted the sea to allow the Jewish people to cross. Your religion has no credibility, unlike Hinduism.

>>15866
In the Empirical sense, no. You should investigate further now we discovered a cause in the the beginning of the universe, a primordial cause.

>>15931
>Christianity is used to control people and prep them for war.

Do you understand what is meant by "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"? Its not a pro governement message.

Luke 3:14
>And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

Telling soldiers to do violence to no man is great for war, eh? Reab your Bible. God has given you his word, why wont you listen?

>>16161
Here's just one of the many ways in which Hinduism establishes a primordial cause:
http://vanisource.org/wiki/SB_4.21.27

>>16349
But I am listening. I've read the Vedas, the Upaniśad, and the Bhagavad Gita, and I practice Sandhyavandanam everyday. Why won't you listen to God's word?

>>16092
>God says he'll kill everything on earth
on earth, not on Earth

>>16431
Intentionally being obtuse and espousing faux faith in false gods will give you no esteem with the creator.

>>16572
Faith in gods with the exact same amount of evidence as your god. Each is supporting nigh on exclusively by its own book claiming authenticity. Any credibility you give to the Bible can also just as easily be given to the Vedas. Therefore you can neither support nor refute one without doing the same (objectively) with the other.

>>16512
The distribution of earth on Earth is approximately global

>>16658
Faith isnt about evidence and proof.

You have a lot of growing and learning to do, young man.

>>16764
>faith
Believing one thing with zero credibility while simultaneously screaming that every other claim for other religions have no credibility. And you wonder why intelligent individuals don't take religion seriously.

File: Proof.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>16572
I actually am a Hindu though, and my religion is true. I've attached a photo of my punal for proof.

>>16754
the issue is about what the jews meant by earth, not about what we mean by earth. Maybe the jews meant only their land. The point is that understanding genesis on a modern context is foolish

>>16886
Just curious as to what you think of Buddhists, seeing as they share a lot of similarities and origins.

>>7002
yes

>>16976
I think of it as sort of a less orthopraxic manifestation of the same philosophies behind Hinduism. I like the approach to mokśa in Hinduism better than the approach to nirvana in Buddhism though. Mainstream Hinduism, from what I understand, does not condone asceticism to the same extent as Buddhism — it's less "withdraw from the world" and more "follow your dharma within the world". I like the idea of becoming enlightened better than the idea of becoming detached from the world.

>>16840
>And you wonder why intelligent individuals don't take religion seriously.
They aren't any better, they pretentiously discard various possibilities about something they have no way to know about. The only thing we can say for sure is that we don't know.

>>17081
Interesting take. I consider myself an atheist, but believe Buddhism is more philosophy than religion. I consider myself loosely buddhist by philosophy and am always interested in other people's take on it.

>>17141
So that makes you agnostic. Which is even worse. Pick a side. Preferably the scientific one, which can actually back up its claims. If we're talking about hypothetical possibility then I raise you one "Russells teapot"

>>17249
>So that makes you agnostic.
Not necessarily. As long as you're not pretentious it's fine. Is it actually possible not to have any doubts at all? Even if you feel you don't? Apparently, according to Christianity, believing is kind of hard, isn't it?
>If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.

>Which is even worse.
How is it worse?

>If we're talking about hypothetical possibility then I raise you one "Russells teapot"
Okay I guess? I don't think there would be much to talk about that though.


>Preferably the scientific one, which can actually back up its claims.
It's kind of useless if what we're talking about something that science has no access to and can't study, I guess.

>Preferably my one
Further proving my point.

Anyway, is blindly believing the correct approach you should have with religion? What does being a Christian mean? From a Christian point of view, what should be more important? Following Jesus' thoughts and teachings and thinking about them, or hoping that when you die you go to heaven?