Adoption by Homosexual Couples
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| When is genocide ever an answer?! |
Q: What should you not do on a Monday?
A: Genocide
Edited to make it more obvious what I was saying :0( It was a joke, I guess it failed if I have to explain/extend it.
Last edited on by Canis lupus
| What should you not do on a Monday? |
Same thing I do everyday? Otherwise, I have no idea?
| Try to conquer the world? |
Dammit! I had "try to take over the world" typed out and forgot to hit submit before switching tabs.
@Anothernoob (Nathan):
That first link just says there were studies on Jesus and that different studies showed different results.
I quote from that very page:
Regarding the 2nd link... I'm curious... did you even read this one? It seems to support me more than it supports you. Some quotes:
Reason #8: Using one part of the Bible to back up another might seem counterintuitive, but it’s not as insane as it might first appear.
*sigh*. "The Bible is true because the Bible says so" is not proof. These people really need to look up "evidence" in a dictionary.
Reason #7: I’ve mentioned before how the Gospels kinda don’t agree on anything. Some see this as the final nail in historical-Jesus’s coffin; but for others, these screw-ups point in exactly the opposite direction.
Again... this is more of "the Bible is true because the Bible says so". You need something apart from the Bible which confirms its claims in order to be proof.
"I never lie because I'm an honest person" is a meaningless statement.
So is "I'm not lying about X because I've told the truth about Y and Z".
I'm not going to just take a book's word for it. I need evidence.
Reason #5: Buried deep in Book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews is a passing reference to the execution of “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”. That’s as far as it goes. But, like Paul above, it confirms the historical existence of James and therefore Jesus.
While I am hesitant to accept another book to prove the contents of the first book... let's say this is true. All this suggests is that Jesus existed (which I don't doubt). It speaks nothing as to whether or not he was truly the son of God and could heal people.
Reason #2 suggests my point is true... that it's easier for people to subscribe to a religion if there's a real person behind it. It even gives several examples of modern religions and their followings... all of which I'm sure we'd all agree are bogus. Though granted, like everything else on the page, it's speculative and is not evidence.
Reason #1 is like reason #2. It's basically saying "Yeah, Jesus probably existed, but he probably wasn't the son of God."
That first link just says there were studies on Jesus and that different studies showed different results.
I quote from that very page:
| That first link wrote: |
|---|
| Of course, this proves nothing concerning whether or not the resurrection actually occurred. But it does provide perhaps a hint--a barometer, albeit quite an unofficial one, on where many of these publications stand. |
Regarding the 2nd link... I'm curious... did you even read this one? It seems to support me more than it supports you. Some quotes:
Reason #8: Using one part of the Bible to back up another might seem counterintuitive, but it’s not as insane as it might first appear.
*sigh*. "The Bible is true because the Bible says so" is not proof. These people really need to look up "evidence" in a dictionary.
Reason #7: I’ve mentioned before how the Gospels kinda don’t agree on anything. Some see this as the final nail in historical-Jesus’s coffin; but for others, these screw-ups point in exactly the opposite direction.
Again... this is more of "the Bible is true because the Bible says so". You need something apart from the Bible which confirms its claims in order to be proof.
"I never lie because I'm an honest person" is a meaningless statement.
So is "I'm not lying about X because I've told the truth about Y and Z".
I'm not going to just take a book's word for it. I need evidence.
Reason #5: Buried deep in Book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews is a passing reference to the execution of “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”. That’s as far as it goes. But, like Paul above, it confirms the historical existence of James and therefore Jesus.
While I am hesitant to accept another book to prove the contents of the first book... let's say this is true. All this suggests is that Jesus existed (which I don't doubt). It speaks nothing as to whether or not he was truly the son of God and could heal people.
Reason #2 suggests my point is true... that it's easier for people to subscribe to a religion if there's a real person behind it. It even gives several examples of modern religions and their followings... all of which I'm sure we'd all agree are bogus. Though granted, like everything else on the page, it's speculative and is not evidence.
Reason #1 is like reason #2. It's basically saying "Yeah, Jesus probably existed, but he probably wasn't the son of God."
Last edited on
so a bit off topic, but has this thread won the record for longest thread?
Pretty funny joke Canis Lupis. Went waaaaaaaaaay over my head though without the explaining though. =/
i constantly wonder how a topic can go from one thing to something completely different
The best song about Mondays? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYH8DsU2WCk
(posted on a Tuesday, naughty)
(posted on a Tuesday, naughty)
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
Monday, Monday, sometimes it just turns out that way
Oh Monday mornin you gave me no warnin of what was to be
Oh Monday, Monday, how could you leave and not take me
Monday, Monday, sometimes it just turns out that way
Oh Monday mornin you gave me no warnin of what was to be
Oh Monday, Monday, how could you leave and not take me
Monday? I hate Saturdays.
Some deep memories are buried in a Saturday of Jan 2014.
Some deep memories are buried in a Saturday of Jan 2014.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.