The bible itself condems Jesus

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Don't they? You honestly claim that we could have come to exist through evolution and God creating us? Go on, try to reconcile creationism and Darwinism.

LJS9502_basic

They are mutually exclusive because one of the principles of evolution is that it is by natural selection. If it were God's doing, it wouldn't be evolution, because then the core element of evolution that it is by natural selection is lost. Without natural selection, it's not evolution; it's divine mutation.

The documentaries were not funded by churches. They were historians and scientists....now you're reaching. LJS9502_basic

Notice I said it was possible, I didn't say it was for sure.

My age has nothing to do with anything. I don't give out personal info.....those who have been here awhile can ascertain my age group if they wished. Nice try....seriously dude stop dwelling on my personal information. LJS9502_basic

Age has nothing to do with anything we're discussing, sure. It was merely for the satisfaction of my curiosity. But, personal info? Talk about "reaching"... no one is going to be able to track you by your age! :lol: and on top of that, you already gave out personal info...a quick check of your profile reveals that you reside in Pittsburgh, PA. Is that not personal info? I think I could find who you are a lot easier by knowing your hometown, than I could just by scouring the whole country for a ??-year old. What's the worry?

I haven't been owned in OT yet.:roll:

LJS9502_basic

Actually you have been. Funky_Llama owned you earlier when he pointed out how you question the authenticity of the paintings, yet you'll readily accept and swallow the NT as a factual book. That's the end of the line right there, because it's true. It's what you actually did (claimed that paintings weren't accurate), and what you actually believe (that the NT is true). It's a clear contradiction, therefore, ownage was layed upon you.

I also owned you. Remember a few weeks ago, when we were discussing something similar, and you said, "opinions can be wrong if they are based on incorrect facts." I pointed out how "incorrect facts" doesn't even make sense because if something is incorrect, it couldn't be a fact. Then a week later, you said it again, only changing "incorrect", to "inaccurate". "Something isn't true if based on inaccurate facts." I again pointed out how if something is inaccurate, it couldn't be a fact. That's impossible. Both times you ignored me because it was crystal clear ownage, and you ignored it in hopes no one would notice that your imaginary undefeated debate record had just taken a blow. I guess you also thought I would forget too...ha, not.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And what is your source for this? I doubt that 'a big portion' would be needed, I really do. Only a small swatch is required.

LJS9502_basic

Translation: "Oh no, I have no counter-argument!"

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Don't they? You honestly claim that we could have come to exist through evolution and God creating us? Go on, try to reconcile creationism and Darwinism.

Funky_Llama

They are mutually exclusive because one of the principles of evolution is that it is by natural selection. If it were God's doing, it wouldn't be evolution, because then the core element of evolution that it is by natural selection is lost. Without natural selection, it's not evolution; it's divine mutation.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"] Samson and John the Baptist had long hair which was a sign of their commitment to God. If it's a sign of their commitment to God then how could it be morally wrong?Deity_Slapper

So, having long hair is a sign of commitment to god, you say, yet the very scripture that you tried to defend is now smeared by your new take on the subject. If it's a commitment to god, then the bible (being the perfect word of god!) would not claim for it to be a shame. If the bible is perfect, and it's gods' word, and god is never wrong, then it must be a FACT (assuming the bible is really god's word) that long hair is a shame. If you believe the bible is 100% true, then why would you now say that long hair is a commitment to god? So you believe in 2 contradicting theories at the same time? How can you live with that? :lol:

How he looked is of little or of no importance to who Christ was. We have little idea of what most of the people of the Bible looked like and that's also of little or no importance. mindstorm

See my latest post on this.

The thing about the prostitutes was a situational thing for the Corinthian church as that was who he was writing to. The cultural norms of that city is what caused Paul to state that. If the cultural norm is different in another town then the point of the verse needs to be found which is simply to not dress like a prostitute.

mindstorm

Situational? The verse reads quite literally, and uses "nature itself" as the reason for claiming that long hair is a shame. If he had a problem with the actions of the prostitutes, why didn't he just say their ACTIONS were abominable? He even could have brought up the whole homosexuality angle...for example, it could have read like this: "Doth not nature itself teach you that sex with another man would bring shame upon him?" How about that? Why would he say anything regarding HAIR, if his focus was on their BEHAVIOR? Seems like hair would be a petty thing to attack, and it wouldn't be very effective at stopping the behavior that he didn't like either. If he was trying to convince them away from prostitution, he would have told them explicitly why. Not just tried to get them to cut their hair. :roll:

Honestly what would that do? Oh you've cut your hair? Congratulations, you're no longer a prostitute! (As if hair is connected to the whims of the heart) Gee whiz.

Now you can see why even Christians have issues with deciding if having long hair is morally correct or not. It is something that is often debated like that of tattoos, predestination, women's role in ministry, etc.

You are merely giving the opposing argument to whether it is right or not. It may or may not be but that is for the individual to decide. It's like the early Christians debating over whether or not circumcision was required or not. Some things the Bible simply is not as clear on or it'd be a heck of a lot longer book, there's no avoiding that. One must read the Bible and understand it before deciding for themself if it is morally correct. I cannot expect one who does not believe the Bible to be true to understand this. One must let the Holy Spirit guide as to whether or not this is right or not.

Issues like prostitution, homosexuality, gossip, slander, pride, etc. etc. are all spoken of clearly as wrong and with the issue of hair length it simply is not as clear of an issue.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And what is your source for this? I doubt that 'a big portion' would be needed, I really do. Only a small swatch is required.

Funky_Llama

Translation: "Oh no, I have no counter-argument!"

Actually you have been. Funky_Llama owned you earlier when he pointed out how you question the authenticity of the paintings, yet you'll readily accept and swallow the NT as a factual book. That's the end of the line right there, because it's true. It's what you actually did (claimed that paintings weren't accurate), and what you actually believe (that the NT is true). It's a clear contradiction, therefore, ownage was layed upon you.

I also owned you. Remember a few weeks ago, when we were discussing something similar, and you said, "opinions can be wrong if they are based on incorrect facts." I pointed out how "incorrect facts" doesn't even make sense because if something is incorrect, it couldn't be a fact. Then a week later, you said it again, only changing "incorrect", to "inaccurate". "Something isn't true if based on inaccurate facts." I again pointed out how if something is inaccurate, it couldn't be a fact. That's impossible. Both times you ignored me because it was crystal clear ownage, and you ignored it in hopes no one would notice that your imaginary undefeated debate record had just taken a blow. I guess you also thought I would forget too...ha, not.

Deity_Slapper

How are paintings accurate WITHOUT A DESCRIPTION OR A PHOT0?

Answer...they are not. Simple. Pithy. True.

You haven't owned me...and yes....facts can be incorrect. One of the reasons we sometimes see reverses in the scientific community. You aren't arguing that science has changed over time...are you?

And I already posted text from the Bible that ends this threads. Out of context FTL.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Don't they? You honestly claim that we could have come to exist through evolution and God creating us? Go on, try to reconcile creationism and Darwinism.

LJS9502_basic

They are mutually exclusive because one of the principles of evolution is that it is by natural selection. If it were God's doing, it wouldn't be evolution, because then the core element of evolution that it is by natural selection is lost. Without natural selection, it's not evolution; it's divine mutation.

Yes I have. Evolution cannot be a conscious, directed thing. It MUST be through natural selection. If God were being the gradual alteration of species - well, I haven't proved that wrong, but if it were true, it would NOT be evolution and that idea certainly contradicts science. So, yes, religion and science are incompatible.

What if God...is science? Hmm...every think about that. And it's natural selection because that ....now hold on.....is man's understanding of how things work. Which is actually all science is. Now...you have not proven that a God cannot be behind evolution. LJS9502_basic

Is that what you think? Or even something you consider to be a possibility? Cause if so, you're kinda not really being a "christian", which is cool of course, but why claim to be one if you're not one?

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"]

Did Jesus had long hair? He could be bold for all we knoiw.

And this letter was written to the Churches at Corinth, so it was probably uncommon for a man to have long hair back than there.

luke1889

Could be? Probably? So am I just supposed to live in imagination land with the rest of you guys until something better comes along? I'd rather remain firmly grounded in reality, and believe in what I can actually see. When god shows his face, I'll believe in him...but since none of the gods of the past ever did, I doubt the christian god will ever do so either.

Haha, damn right. They're so dependant on what-ifs and yeah-buts and outright speculation, it's laughable.

Thats why its call faith.

Yes I have. Evolution cannot be a conscious, directed thing. It MUST be through natural selection. If God were being the gradual alteration of species - well, I haven't proved that wrong, but if it were true, it would NOT be evolution and that idea certainly contradicts science. So, yes, religion and science are incompatible.

Funky_Llama

Again...science is perfect in the realm of man's understanding. That doesn't mean that more exists that man hasn't discovered/understand.

And if evolution can't coexist with religion...how is it there are people that believe in both?

Again....your opinion. No facts...and lots of loopholes.

By the way...pulled out the Bible to read the entire text and not that taken out of context. In it's entirety it merely promotes what was custom at that time in regard to proper appearance by males and females. Custom dude. The last part is particularly revealing since it states the opposite of what you've quoted...

11:16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do churches of God.

Oops....the entire quote is not what you stated it to mean.:lol:

LJS9502_basic

Sounds like a backdoor being left open for easy escape...that's all that looks like. "Just in case there's a problem, we never meant it!" How wishy-washy. They must not be to serious then about the whole idea that long hair is a shame, and if it isn't, then why would they begin to denounce it in the first place? :roll:

So you worship a book that was written by back-peddlers...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What if God...is science? Hmm...every think about that. And it's natural selection because that ....now hold on.....is man's understanding of how things work. Which is actually all science is. Now...you have not proven that a God cannot be behind evolution. Deity_Slapper

Is that what you think? Or even something you consider to be a possibility? Cause if so, you're kinda not really being a "christian", which is cool of course, but why claim to be one if you're not one?

No one knows exactly what God is. His force can be what "we" understand as science. I'm not going to claim I can define God. And that doesn't go against Christianity.

And you didn't address the biblical text yet.

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Actually you have been. Funky_Llama owned you earlier when he pointed out how you question the authenticity of the paintings, yet you'll readily accept and swallow the NT as a factual book. That's the end of the line right there, because it's true. It's what you actually did (claimed that paintings weren't accurate), and what you actually believe (that the NT is true). It's a clear contradiction, therefore, ownage was layed upon you.

I also owned you. Remember a few weeks ago, when we were discussing something similar, and you said, "opinions can be wrong if they are based on incorrect facts." I pointed out how "incorrect facts" doesn't even make sense because if something is incorrect, it couldn't be a fact. Then a week later, you said it again, only changing "incorrect", to "inaccurate". "Something isn't true if based on inaccurate facts." I again pointed out how if something is inaccurate, it couldn't be a fact. That's impossible. Both times you ignored me because it was crystal clear ownage, and you ignored it in hopes no one would notice that your imaginary undefeated debate record had just taken a blow. I guess you also thought I would forget too...ha, not.

LJS9502_basic

How are paintings accurate WITHOUT A DESCRIPTION OR A PHOT0?

Answer...they are not. Simple. Pithy. True.

You haven't owned me...and yes....facts can be incorrect. One of the reasons we sometimes see reverses in the scientific community. You aren't arguing that science has changed over time...are you?

And I already posted text from the Bible that ends this threads. Out of context FTL.

We're not arguing about the existence of the paintings. We're arguing about their accuracy. And I distinctly remember you questioning their accuracy.

Facts can't be incorrect. As for science changing over time... I can't think of any examples, but I imagine that, sometimes, the scientific understanding of something is wrong. And instead of dogmatically sticking to it, it would be corrected. But the scientific method, and the principles of logic, and proof, and reasoning at its core, would not change. If something is widely believed and is wrong, it is not a fact.

Also, the discussion in this thread has changed such that the text you posted is irrelevant now.

He is the figurehead and divinity upon whom all Christians look up to. His portrayal is very important, because if that is not accurate, why should you believe anyuthing about him? It casts a shadow of doubt, that is all.

Look, Jesus was supposed to have been witnessed by hundred and hundreds of people. They would have known what he looked like down to the very last detail. According to every single portrayal of him, he was a white man with long, brown hair. The people responsible for capturing his image would have no reason to lie and misrepresent him in such a way.

You would expect the images we see today to be accurate, yet they are not, because we know that people from the middle east are not white. Like I say, this calls Jesus very much into question.

Also, why was Moses portrayed as a white man? And Mary? And every other mother out there?

luke1889

You do know that us Christians believe that the spiritual is more important than the physical right?

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What if God...is science? Hmm...every think about that. And it's natural selection because that ....now hold on.....is man's understanding of how things work. Which is actually all science is. Now...you have not proven that a God cannot be behind evolution. LJS9502_basic

Is that what you think? Or even something you consider to be a possibility? Cause if so, you're kinda not really being a "christian", which is cool of course, but why claim to be one if you're not one?

No one knows exactly what God is. His force can be what "we" understand as science. I'm not going to claim I can define God. And that doesn't go against Christianity.

And you didn't address the biblical text yet.

If God is science, that is not God as portrayed by the Bible.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

By the way...pulled out the Bible to read the entire text and not that taken out of context. In it's entirety it merely promotes what was custom at that time in regard to proper appearance by males and females. Custom dude. The last part is particularly revealing since it states the opposite of what you've quoted...

11:16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do churches of God.

Oops....the entire quote is not what you stated it to mean.:lol:

Deity_Slapper

Sounds like a backdoor being left open for easy escape...that's all that looks like. "Just in case there's a problem, we never meant it!" How wishy-washy. They must not be to serious then about the whole idea that long hair is a shame, and if it isn't, then why would they begin to denounce it in the first place? :roll:

So you worship a book that was written by back-peddlers...

So you see....long hair wasn't important either way. Your topic is null and void.....by your OWN evidence.;)

You haven't owned me...and yes....facts can be incorrect. LJS9502_basic

No they can't be, that's kinda the whole meaning of the word "fact". There. You just got owned again. :roll:

One of the reasons we sometimes see reverses in the scientific community. You aren't arguing that science has changed over time...are you? LJS9502_basic

Science never claims anything as fact. They're well aware things can change, and leave things open for that change, and because of that, would never claim any "study-ending", or conclusive facts. :lol:

And I already posted text from the Bible that ends this threads. Out of context FTL.

LJS9502_basic

See my response to that above. It proved nothing. Denial FTL.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

He is the figurehead and divinity upon whom all Christians look up to. His portrayal is very important, because if that is not accurate, why should you believe anyuthing about him? It casts a shadow of doubt, that is all.

Look, Jesus was supposed to have been witnessed by hundred and hundreds of people. They would have known what he looked like down to the very last detail. According to every single portrayal of him, he was a white man with long, brown hair. The people responsible for capturing his image would have no reason to lie and misrepresent him in such a way.

You would expect the images we see today to be accurate, yet they are not, because we know that people from the middle east are not white. Like I say, this calls Jesus very much into question.

Also, why was Moses portrayed as a white man? And Mary? And every other mother out there?

Lonelynight

You do know that us Christians believe that the spiritual is more important than the physical right?

That's irrelevant. Jesus' physical appearance, while not as important as the deeds he did, would still undoutedly be documented.

If God is science, that is not God as portrayed by the Bible.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

If God is science, that is not God as portrayed by the Bible.

LJS9502_basic

Well, since you're suddenly supportive of science... can you prove it?

We're not arguing about the existence of the paintings. We're arguing about their accuracy. And I distinctly remember you questioning their accuracy.

Facts can't be incorrect. As for science changing over time... I can't think of any examples, but I imagine that, sometimes, the scientific understanding of something is wrong. And instead of dogmatically sticking to it, it would be corrected. But the scientific method, and the principles of logic, and proof, and reasoning at its core, would not change. If something is widely believed and is wrong, it is not a fact.

Also, the discussion in this thread has changed such that the text you posted is irrelevant now.

Funky_Llama

Simple logic problem for you...if science changes and reverses a theory...the facts were then wrong....or the theory wouldn't have changed. Therefore, facts can be wrong.

The text is not irrelvant......it just proves you two to be incorrect in your inference. It's okay to admit you should have read the text before agreeing with him.;)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What if God...is science? Hmm...every think about that. And it's natural selection because that ....now hold on.....is man's understanding of how things work. Which is actually all science is. Now...you have not proven that a God cannot be behind evolution. Funky_Llama

Is that what you think? Or even something you consider to be a possibility? Cause if so, you're kinda not really being a "christian", which is cool of course, but why claim to be one if you're not one?

No one knows exactly what God is. His force can be what "we" understand as science. I'm not going to claim I can define God. And that doesn't go against Christianity.

And you didn't address the biblical text yet.

If God is science, that is not God as portrayed by the Bible.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

If God is science, that is not God as portrayed by the Bible.

Funky_Llama

Well, since you're suddenly supportive of science... can you prove it?

:lol: I've always been scientific in nature. Prove what? CAN JUST BE is not absolute. However, you can't say CAN'T JUST BE either.;)

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

Sounds like a backdoor being left open for easy escape...that's all that looks like. "Just in case there's a problem, we never meant it!" How wishy-washy. They must not be to serious then about the whole idea that long hair is a shame, and if it isn't, then why would they begin to denounce it in the first place? :roll:

So you worship a book that was written by back-peddlers...

LJS9502_basic

So you see....long hair wasn't important either way. Your topic is null and void.....by your OWN evidence.;)

If it wasn't important, then they never would have said anything. Not only did they bring it up though, but they took a clear stance against it, specifically stating that it was a SHAME. Not a maybe, or a "it could be", but a straight forward statement saying that it was a shame. Furthermore, Paul (I guess he wrote it?), was clearly trying to convince whoever read it that it was certainly something they should believe, as he infused his beliefs in the form of a question, so as to encourage pondering on the part of the reader. Why would that ever come to be, if it was never a big deal?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

If God is science, that is not God as portrayed by the Bible.

LJS9502_basic

Well, since you're suddenly supportive of science... can you prove it?

:lol: I've always been scientific in nature. Prove what? CAN JUST BE is not absolute. However, you can't say CAN'T JUST BE either.;)

And so, because the burden of proof is on you, one assumes, therefore, that your claim that God is science is untrue.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

If God is science, that is not God as portrayed by the Bible.

Funky_Llama

Well, since you're suddenly supportive of science... can you prove it?

:lol: I've always been scientific in nature. Prove what? CAN JUST BE is not absolute. However, you can't say CAN'T JUST BE either.;)

And so, because the burden of proof is on you, one assumes, therefore, that your claim that God is science is untrue.

Urk. Bad wording. One does not assume that your claim is true is better.

That's irrelevant. Jesus' physical appearance, while not as important as the deeds he did, would still undoutedly be documented.

Funky_Llama

Why should it be? What Jesus thought is that we should have a strong faith not requiring to see any miracles, and if we are not to believe only by seeing miracles, we should also believe by not knowing what he looks like.

P.S. Sorry if the wording is weird, English is not my first language.

And so, because the burden of proof is on you, one assumes, therefore, that your claim that God is science is untrue.

Funky_Llama

There is no burden of proof. I never, in fact, stated God to exist ..and at best I said God could be what we define as science. God's existence is something only faith answers....not physicss

Everytime I ask YOU to provide proof of something you twist the topic....say you don't remember...you did that twice yesterday. How one can forget what they just posted is beyond me...but whatever. I think you are buying into the hype DS is feeding you. It isn't correct.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What if God...is science? Hmm...every think about that. And it's natural selection because that ....now hold on.....is man's understanding of how things work. Which is actually all science is. Now...you have not proven that a God cannot be behind evolution. Silenthps

Is that what you think? Or even something you consider to be a possibility? Cause if so, you're kinda not really being a "christian", which is cool of course, but why claim to be one if you're not one?

No one knows exactly what God is. His force can be what "we" understand as science. I'm not going to claim I can define God. And that doesn't go against Christianity.

And you didn't address the biblical text yet.

If God is science, that is not God as portrayed by the Bible.

I refuse to read all hundred, but the first two alone... well... as for 1, some sources doesn't cut it. If it was known to astronomers that the earth free-floats, than that is not impressive at all. 2. Actually, the idea had been proposed by the Ancient Greeks. 3. As for the ark... Noah's Ark is impossible. It really is. What, for example, did the carnivores eat?

If it wasn't important, then they never would have said anything. Not only did they bring it up though, but they took a clear stance against it, specifically stating that it was a SHAME. Not a maybe, or a "it could be", but a straight forward statement saying that it was a shame. Furthermore, Paul (I guess he wrote it?), was clearly trying to convince whoever read it that it was certainly something they should believe, as he infused his beliefs in the form of a question, so as to encourage pondering on the part of the reader. Why would that ever come to be, if it was never a big deal?

Deity_Slapper

It can't be made any simpler that that. Your proof self owned you. Next time, read more than one verse.....

Jesus' physical appearance, while not as important as the deeds he did, would still undoutedly be documented.Funky_Llama

Exactly. How many times are people going to dodge this? :roll:

It's obviously something they just forgot to add to their fable when writing it. Much like a lot of fiction novels though, characters rarely have a physical representation of their form, and the author leaves it up to the imagination of the reader to create in their minds what the charcters look like.

This is PROBABLY what happened with the bible stories as well. It's funny that everything Jesus did for years and years would be documented, but no one would ever care to describe the looks of this man, who would go around performing all kinds of wonderful miracles and the like. I think his looks would have been described in great detail if it all really happened. People would want to remember what he looked like....if for no other reason than to reflect and remininsce on this great guy who changed so many lives. That's just human nature.

But absolutely ZERO records of his appearance? EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. Makes it all look like a fable where the author either forgot to describe what his main character looked like, or purposely left it up to the imaginations of the reader, since being an imaginary character to begin with, a picture wouldn't be necessary. That's what I think. It's just a book that people have blown way out of proportion to have some great meaning and connection to the divine, when it's no more convincing than The Cat In The Hat.

But I've been sitting at this monitor for too long now, I need a break. I'll check you guys out later.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And so, because the burden of proof is on you, one assumes, therefore, that your claim that God is science is untrue.

LJS9502_basic

There is no burden of proof. I never, in fact, stated God to exist ..and at best I said God could be what we define as science. God's existence is something only faith answers....not physicss

Everytime I ask YOU to provide proof of something you twist the topic....say you don't remember...you did that twice yesterday. How one can forget what they just posted is beyond me...but whatever. I think you are buying into the hype DS is feeding you. It isn't correct.

Actually, I didn't remember once yesterday; the other time I had answered, and you seemed to have forgotten.

And if you're not claiming that God exists... that's fine! Great! I have no objection.

'God's existence is something only faith answers....not physicss' faith 'answers' it? That doesn't make sense. What do you mean, faith 'answers' God's existence? Sounds pretty - dare I say it? - vague. Also, the Bible's descriptions of what God has done contradict known scientific facts, so the claim that religion is somehow 'safe' from science is false. Besides, what happened to God being science?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Jesus' physical appearance, while not as important as the deeds he did, would still undoutedly be documented.Deity_Slapper

Exactly. How many times are people going to dodge this? :roll:

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Jesus' physical appearance, while not as important as the deeds he did, would still undoutedly be documented.Deity_Slapper

Exactly. How many times are people going to dodge this? :roll:

It's obviously something they just forgot to add to their fable when writing it. Much like a lot of fiction novels though, characters rarely have a physical representation of their form, and the author leaves it up to the imagination of the reader to create in their minds what the charcters look like.

This is PROBABLY what happened with the bible stories as well. It's funny that everything Jesus did for years and years would be documented, but no one would ever care to describe the looks of this man, who would go around performing all kinds of wonderful miracles and the like. I think his looks would have been described in great detail if it all really happened. People would want to remember what he looked like....if for no other reason than to reflect and remininsce on this great guy who changed so many lives.

But absolutely ZERO records of his appearance? EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. Makes it all look like a fable where the author either forgot to describe what his main character looked like, or purposely left it up to the imaginations of the reader, since being an imaginary character to begin with, a picture wouldn't be necessary. That's what I think. It's just a book that people have blown way out of proportion to have some great meaning and connection to the divine, when it's no more convincing than The Cat In The Hat.

But I've been sitting at this monitor for too long now, I need a break. I'll check you guys out later.

Exactly... plot holes.

I'm probably going too now. I might check back every so often. See you later.

*facepalm*

sometimes it makes me sad that I must share the label "Atheist" with people like this.

Mr_sprinkles

its ok...both sides have people liek this so its not a total loss haha

[QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Jesus' physical appearance, while not as important as the deeds he did, would still undoutedly be documented.LJS9502_basic

Exactly. How many times are people going to dodge this? :roll:

:lol: This thread amuses me. How about the two of you tell us why His physical appearance should be documented.

Because it's reasonable to expect that the physical appearance of - at the very least - the most important human being ever, a demigod, and, depending on your beliefs, God Himself, would be documented?

I think you are buying into the hype DS is feeding you. It isn't correct.LJS9502_basic

He thinks for himself LJ, that's obvious. He even questioned me earlier, go back and look. :roll:

He's obviously strong enough to form his own thoughts, so now you're insulting both of our intelligence. That's a sign of desperation and weakness.

You're actually being quite rude at this point, insinuating that we're dumb or something.

Now I'm going. Funky_Llama, peace bro. You're a smart dude. Don't let this guy ever make you doubt that. Take care.

Actually, I didn't remember once yesterday; the other time I had answered, and you seemed to have forgotten.

And if you're not claiming that God exists... that's fine! Great! I have no objection.

'God's existence is something only faith answers....not physicss' faith 'answers' it? That doesn't make sense. What do you mean, faith 'answers' God's existence? Sounds pretty - dare I say it? - vague. Also, the Bible's descriptions of what God has done contradict known scientific facts, so the claim that religion is somehow 'safe' from science is false. Besides, what happened to God being science?

Funky_Llama

Don't you know what faith means? Dude...to argue against something you have to understand it.

God as science.....science is mans understanding of nature....nature is God. They can fit together. By the way.....have you forgotten (again) that I asked for your proof that evolution and religion CANNOT both be embraced? I'm still waiting....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Jesus' physical appearance, while not as important as the deeds he did, would still undoutedly be documented.Funky_Llama

Exactly. How many times are people going to dodge this? :roll:

:lol: This thread amuses me. How about the two of you tell us why His physical appearance should be documented.

Because it's reasonable to expect that the physical appearance of - at the very least - the most important human being ever, a demigod, and, depending on your beliefs, God Himself, would be documented?

Now imagine a world with no cameras.....and one is not an artist. Would you write down a physical description of every individual you saw? Most people of that day were poor and didn't write much...if anything...down.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think you are buying into the hype DS is feeding you. It isn't correct.Deity_Slapper

He thinks for himself LJ, that's obvious. He even questioned me earlier, go back and look. :roll:

.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Actually, I didn't remember once yesterday; the other time I had answered, and you seemed to have forgotten.

And if you're not claiming that God exists... that's fine! Great! I have no objection.

'God's existence is something only faith answers....not physicss' faith 'answers' it? That doesn't make sense. What do you mean, faith 'answers' God's existence? Sounds pretty - dare I say it? - vague. Also, the Bible's descriptions of what God has done contradict known scientific facts, so the claim that religion is somehow 'safe' from science is false. Besides, what happened to God being science?

LJS9502_basic

Don't you know what faith means? Dude...to argue against something you have to understand it.

God as science.....science is mans understanding of nature....nature is God. They can fit together. By the way.....have you forgotten (again) that I asked for your proof that evolution and religion CANNOT both be embraced? I'm still waiting....

I responded to that message. Of course, if I were you, I'd slimily imply that you were lying and you saw that response. But I won't stoop that low...

As for faith... one could have faith in anything and everything. There are billions people who have faith in mutually exclusive beliefs... how do you know that you're right and they're wrong? If you're going to use faith as a 'get-out clause', I don't know why you bother debating at all.

I saw your response to my proof. It was so weak, even for you, that I didn't think it deserved a response. But hey, if you must.

You're really grasping for straws with the thing on the long hair.sonicare

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Deity_Slapper"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Jesus' physical appearance, while not as important as the deeds he did, would still undoutedly be documented.LJS9502_basic

Exactly. How many times are people going to dodge this? :roll:

:lol: This thread amuses me. How about the two of you tell us why His physical appearance should be documented.

Because it's reasonable to expect that the physical appearance of - at the very least - the most important human being ever, a demigod, and, depending on your beliefs, God Himself, would be documented?

Now imagine a world with no cameras.....and one is not an artist. Would you write down a physical description of every individual you saw? Most people of that day were poor and didn't write much...if anything...down.

No, but if that individual were the Son of God, I think it's reasonable to suggest that someone would.

[I responded to that message. Of course, if I were you, I'd slimily imply that you were lying and you saw that response. But I won't stoop that low...

As for faith... one could have faith in anything and everything. There are billions people who have faith in mutually exclusive beliefs... how do you know that you're right and they're wrong? If you're going to use faith as a 'get-out clause', I don't know why you bother debating at all.

I saw your response to my proof. It was so weak, even for you, that I didn't think it deserved a response. But hey, if you must.

Funky_Llama

Paragraph two.....no proof in other words. You said one can't believe in evolution and religion. They are NOT mutually exclusive....yet you keep saying they are. Again....no proof to this argument.

I have seen no proof presented by you...only opinion.

No, but if that individual were the Son of God, I think it's reasonable to suggest that someone would.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Nope.

I find it interesting my earlier post was ignored and it basically answered the question to the topic...

domatron23

In all fairness, the post you refer to does seems pretty sound. I have no problem in admitting that.

Would you agree, then, that the people who painted Jesus had absolutely no idea what he looked like, so they basically made it up?

If so, they still didn't give it much thought with the whole white skin business.

Apparently making a religion appealing is more importantant than having it make sense. Shocking I know.

Haha, I assume you were being serious there. If so, I quite agree.