A_Falcies_Fancy's forum posts

Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts

so im 16 and catholic but i dont believe anymore. all these teachings in school and all these things happening i just dont think its real, i try to pretend to believe in god but i cant stand it i dont want to waste 1hour and 30 minutes of my time every sunday or 2 minutes before every meal to something i dont think is real anymore and it just doesnt feel right. i cant tell them because i want to stay in the good side of my parents to enjoy the benefits of allowance, being able to hang with friends, less nagging and other benefits, if i told them its unlikely they would accept it they would nag and rant for weeks and the years to come, one time i said to a friend of mine in our dining table about the rapist priest and my dad said shut up and stop saying lies or youll go to hell. and maybe this would happen, their not so religousthey miss church when they are both at work and few prayers prayers, whenever im force to pray i feel really angry.

gugler990
hang in there, buddy. being an atheist in today's world takes alot of courage. growing up in the south, i felt alot of those same feelings so i pretended to believe for many years. and still do on occasion. its a tough world for us, but as long as you think what youre doing is the truth and right, then you've got nothing to worry about.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts

-Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
-Catcher in the Rye
-Metro 2033
-House of Leaves

LZ71

Dude, House of Leaves is phenomenal, i read it 3 years ago as a sophomore in high school, its a charm. But as for my to read list: "Final Fantasy and Philosophy", "Paradise Lost", "Chariots of the Gods", and this random manga I picked up called "Hanako and the Terror of Allegory" its ok, i give it a 6 or 7 out of 10.

Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
i think Dashboard are pretty decent.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts

[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"][QUOTE="gaming25"] But there is evidence. Its your decision whether or not you can handle it. Anything in this world can be distorted, but faith in God isnt. Read the Bible, and try to see what I mean.blackregiment

you know what they say about the word assume...anyway, i have read the Bible. i've studied four years of Latin which included Roman history, and I'm a philosophy major in college. So, I'm somewhat informed, i'd say. If i make provable mistakes, well, I'm only human and I admit that that does happen fairly often.

Here's something that might be of interest to you. Here is a person that doubted the resurrection and set out to disprove it.

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and author of A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. He was determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. He examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. He came to the conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in ancient history.

Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence; he committed his life to Jesus Christ!" source: Evidence that Demands a Verdict

i'm gunna give you the benefit of the doubt and look this guy up before i call total and complete bull**** on this guy, but i'm gunna say i'm fairly certain that there is 0 evidence that a man died and then came back to life, but hey, i consider myself a man of reason, so i'm gunna go read up on this guy, if for nothing but the lulz.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"][QUOTE="gaming25"] First of all, how many Roman historians would even be allowed to write something about the Crucifixion in the first place. The Roman government hated Jesus and had him killed, and then created a mass genocide on people who believed in Jesus. What makes you think that there would be many out of Biblical accounts of it in the first place???

they were only persecuted for a period of less than ten years, or at least killed. and what you say may be a reason why theres a lack of evidence. but a reason for lack of evidence doesn't indicate that there WOULD be evidence.

But there is evidence. Its your decision whether or not you can handle it. Anything in this world can be distorted, but faith in God isnt. Read the Bible, and try to see what I mean.

you know what they say about the word assume...anyway, i have read the Bible. i've studied four years of Latin which included Roman history, and I'm a philosophy major in college. So, I'm somewhat informed, i'd say. If i make provable mistakes, well, I'm only human and I admit that that does happen fairly often.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"] Thats part of it. Also, the Romans weren't bureaucrats as much as modern day America. they probably didn't have hard records of every execution. Tacitus was a historian and when he was documenting the Great Fire of Rome (which Nero blamed on Christians), he felt the need to elaborate on the origin of them. All he really tells us is that there were Christians at that time, and fine, I agree with that, but his account of the "Crucifixion" does not mean "It happened." Which is what the origin of this debate was, that there was absolute evidence for Jesus' crucifixion when in actuality there is hardly enought to fill half a page, and by enough authors that I could count them easily on one hand.

First of all, how many Roman historians would even be allowed to write something about the Crucifixion in the first place. The Roman government hated Jesus and had him killed, and then created a mass genocide on people who believed in Jesus. What makes you think that there would be many out of Biblical accounts of it in the first place???

they were only persecuted for a period of less than ten years, or at least killed. and what you say may be a reason why theres a lack of evidence. but a reason for lack of evidence doesn't indicate that there WOULD be evidence.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"]

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"] The book says that Christ suffered the most extreme penalty. That i think seems to point to crucifixion.hydralisk86

that could be true, but do you understand why thats not a viable record of the crucifixion? i shouldn't have to explain it to you.

I don't know, maybe because the historian wasn't first of all interested in Jewish religious teachers...

Thats part of it. Also, the Romans weren't bureaucrats as much as modern day America. they probably didn't have hard records of every execution. Tacitus was a historian and when he was documenting the Great Fire of Rome (which Nero blamed on Christians), he felt the need to elaborate on the origin of them. All he really tells us is that there were Christians at that time, and fine, I agree with that, but his account of the "Crucifixion" does not mean "It happened." Which is what the origin of this debate was, that there was absolute evidence for Jesus' crucifixion when in actuality there is hardly enought to fill half a page, and by enough authors that I could count them easily on one hand.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts

[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"][QUOTE="hydralisk86"]

In a book i read, he states that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

hydralisk86

i don't think he says crucified, i think he says convicted. This is the phrase: auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat. which means something like "The author whose name is Christ was judged throught the courts of Pontius Pilate. (my Latin's really off since I haven't taken it in a few years. but thats the gist.)

The book says that Christ suffered the most extreme penalty. That i think seems to point to crucifixion.

that could be true, but do you understand why thats not a viable record of the crucifixion? i shouldn't have to explain it to you.

Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts
[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="hydralisk86"][QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"] actually, this is false. there is no inscrutible evidence for the crucifixion. there are a few extrabiblical sources that reference Jesus but there all dated from at least 50 years after Jesus died and there not exactly what I'd call trustworthy.

is 50 years that long enough for it to be accurate??

Thats what ive been saying. All of this disproving of renowned historians is foolishness. We wouldnt say this about the historians of today. The historians back then were competent and just as smart as any historian today.

you should also look at the context. that was written in a chapter about the Great Fire of Rome and he used it to explain where the term Christian comes from. Not to document Christ.
Avatar image for A_Falcies_Fancy
A_Falcies_Fancy

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

5

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 A_Falcies_Fancy
Member since 2010 • 326 Posts

[QUOTE="A_Falcies_Fancy"][QUOTE="gaming25"] Those people are respected historians so I dont see this "national enquirer of roman times" at all.hydralisk86

That's what my Latin teacher called Tacitus, and I trust his judgment, although I fully recognize that he could be wrong. Tacitus wrote alot about the lives of the Emperors and its his writings that are the source for the miniseries I, Claudius (look it up). He popularized the theory that all the emperors up to Nero were poisoned, most of which have never been confirmed. The point is, though, that Tacitus' judgment isn't trustworthy. How could he know about Jesus? Also, there is NO mention of the crucifixion, he mentions Christ, but only once, in one very obscure sentence.

In a book i read, he states that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

i don't think he says crucified, i think he says convicted. This is the phrase: auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat. which means something like "The author whose name is Christ was judged throught the courts of Pontius Pilate. (my Latin's really off since I haven't taken it in a few years. but thats the gist.)