If God Asked You For a Dime, How Would You Know It Was Him?

I've got nothing to be afraid about. My Lord has overcome this world and my future is secure. I have hope. Now that doesn't mean it is not going get nasty but that will only for a short time in the scale of things.

 

Continuing our typo talk from another thread...are you sure you don't mean 'infected'?

 

Thank you; I should have looked that up first. 'Infested' is indeed the correct term. Whether those causing said infestation are themselves infected is another question.

 

See, can't we all just get along. LOL

 

If two sides can't agree to co-exist, the strife will never end - doesn't matter what topic. Getting along can be done even if you disagree.

If one of those sides has people demanding they get respected yet constantly attacking the other side as evil and stupid, what is the result? Don't think it's just Christians that value "Treat others as you would wish to be treated."

I guarantee if several people kept threads active daily at PC with the message: "athiesm is evil and stupid - not trying to be personal...", there would be a great uproar and harden secular beliefs. Substitute athiesm for religion and this has/still is going on...isn't this exactly the same tact...a refusal to co-exist? Doesn't matter if that blank is "athiesm" or "religion" or anything else - a bad approach is a bad approach.

I could go away from PC forever, but this feud will continue forever if both sides can't co-exist.

 

Atheism isn't evil and stupid, neither are true Christians, the point is that religion doesn't leave it at that, many religious people feel that they have to push their agenda on all, atheists just want reality to reign, this causes the conflict. Religion really has very little place in the lives of all, it only has a place in the religious who believe, they shouldn't push their agenda on the rest.

 

Perhaps the motivation isn't about finding a common ground. When Dawkins interviews fundamentalists, he doesn't want to convert them. He already knows this is impossible.
Rather, he wants to highlight the fallacies and hypocrisies which might help people who have doubts about their religion.

 

^ agreed that both sides have some over-zealous/misguided types that end up being detrimental.

 

Chuck, I think you and I have agreed to at least a temporary truce - neither of us have made fun of the other's beliefs in some time. I understand beliefs are very personal, but we should be able to discuss the broader concepts at a more intellectual level, without too many feelings clouding the discussion. Feelings get hurt, people become defensive, and insults fly.

Religious schism has existed for thousands of years, and will likely continue for several thousand years more. It's only relatively recently that atheists have been able to openly debate their viewpoints - the dogma is so strong in some places that people risk their lives just talking about certain subjects. There was a time that christians faced the same risk - thankfully some small portions of humanity are enlightened and free enough to talk about their ideas without fear of persecution. For the most part, this is one of them.

 

Which? :noidea:

How is atheism doing these days, are the ranks growing or shrinking?
____________________________________________________________________________

Waiting . . .

 

It is widely accepted, even in religious cycles, that the gospels were not written by contemporaries of Jesus but beginning about 100 years after he was reported to have lived.

I'm also not aware of any historical source except for the bible that even mentions Jesus. We have the texts from both Jewish and Roman historians of the time and none make reference to a Jesus. They do mention other religious leaders but no Jesus. That is very odd considering the claims made in the Bible:

• Jesus road triumphantly into Jerusalem
• He was captured and tried by Pilote
• When he died there was a great earthquake, an eclipse, the dead came alive and walked in the streets, etc.
• He came back to life and was seen by hundreds of people

It seems odd to me that none of this was deemed worthy of a mention by the historians.

 

Huh!?!? I've never heard this. Some evidence of this claim please.

 

I disagree with your assertions... apparently you need to do a little more studying. But that is not surprising at all, you were not in some of our earlier discussions on these matters. Please search for previous threads.

 

You have to remember that history is just that. HIS STORY.
I've seen knock-down drag out fights over things that have happened in just this century.
Heck....we can't even get clean news stories over the happenings of this week, and it's a lot easier to jot things down now than it was a couple thousand years ago.
What do you suppose that history will have to say about our last 2 Presidents (to pick one from each herd) and how do you suppose that their terms will look 20 centuries down the pike?

If you want to lash your spirituality (or lack thereof) to the opinions of historians, I guess that's your lookout.
One of the cool things about the USofA is that we're pretty much set up so that believers and unbelievers alike can get along with each other.....if we choose to.
Yeah....I know. There are people on both sides of the whole GOD debate that choose not to.

 

Why didn't the skeptics Nietzsche or Voltaire raise such doubts?

The Historical Jesus

 

I think there is some room for disagreement with that statement . . .

Bagdad Christian attacks: elderly victims buried | euronews, world news

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.p...acks-against-Christians?p=2724057#post2724057

Christians Face Attacks From Extremists in Nigeria - Christian Post

Iraq Church Bombing: Series of Planned Attacks in Northern Iraq « Christian Media Monitor

U.S. Voices Concern Over Anti-Christian Attacks In Mideast, Africa - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2011

Muslim Extremists Torch Churches in Zanzibar, Tanzania « Persecution News

Iraqi Christians Targeted in Church Bombing « Persecution News

Christians Under Fire in Laos « Persecution News

Kachin Christians Flee From Attacks, Burmese Army Violates 17-year Cease Fire Agreement « Persecution News

 

It is generally believed that Mark was earliest of the synoptic gospels written (Mark, Mathew, and Luke). They are called the synoptic gospels because they are all very similar with the same major plot lines and stories. The authors of Mathew and Luke took the framework of Mark and built on it. Mark is generally thought to have been written from 50 to 70 AD or 5 to 7 decades after the death of Jesus. John is a Gnostic writing and is generally thought to have been written around 100 AD.

Contrary to popular belief, there are no original copies of the books of the bible including the gospels. What we have are thousands of fragments from different dates and different languages. We also have quotations from the books of the bible send from one religious leader to another. The earliest complete manuscripts date to the 4th and 5th centuries. The books and gospels included in the modern bible are also not the only ones written. Others gospels such as the Gospels of Mary, Thomas, Peter, Philip, Judas, and Nicodemus were not included after the Council of Carthage in 397.

I find the history of the bible to be fascinating. There are so many sources, languages, and variations, it is very interesting how we got to the documents we have today. There are whole books on the topic of course but Wikipedia has some good summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis

Two-source hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Wikipedia says Mark was written 64 AD or roughly 30 years after Jesus was nailed to the cross.

Anno Domini - literally translates to "Year of the Lord" or His birthday.

Happy Birthday to You
Happy Birthday to You
Happy Birthday Dear Jesus
Happy Birthday to You

"From 'Full Metal Jacket'"