well if you realized that religions are used for power, hate and war these days, so there's no point in being one or believe in it
Sigh, religion yes however having a relationship with Jesus and God can not be used for power hate and war, that is if you actually know what you believe.
I'm Christian and I use to believe in all of that stuff when I was a little kid, but once you start thinking on your own and do things on your own without preying to God, I can assure you that life is much better when you're free instead being a slave to a bible
How can you sustain your faith as a Christian without being a "slave to the Bible"? What you say certainly shows the state of your spiritual growth as a Christian, if it can still be considered as such.
but to me it explains everything and I have all the proof I need
Yes - the proof *you* need.
Your standards for proof are very low. There are others in the populace who actually need something more substantial. You still haven't come up with those links I asked you for huh? About the Roman King (that in itself is hilarious for the time period, try: Emperor) who was christian but executed Jesus anyway? Or *all* those people removed from the Roman census or judiciary logs?
If you say my proof standards or low then millions of other peoples proof is low to right?
Yes. Yes it is. After all, lots of people believe in ghosts, or that they've been abducted by aliens, or that helium ballons with roadside flares attached to them are actually alien craft from another world. A lot of people in this world are terribly gullible, and believe things with little evidence for them - the old joke "The word gullible doesn't appear in the dictionary".
1. Why do I need to look for the link your trying to prove me wrong as much as I'm trying to prove you wrong.
You need to look for it because you didn't have anything to back up your own point. Given the fact that you *haven't* produced a link, through conjecture I can conclude that you looked, but haven't found anything - and now you're trying to save face instead of admitting you were wrong.
2. I have better things to do than that.
If you're not interested in actually making an effort, why bother posting in the first place? People who do research & post links to support what they're saying are just going to walk all over you - much like they have in this thread.
Or if you wont look for that link look for a link that is contrary to what I said.
Again, it's not my argument & not my responsibility to do your research for you. If you want to be lazy and get figuratively stomped in a debate, that's your buisness; I'm not going to help you. Put it this way:
The philosopher Bertrand Russel made an analogy with regards to the skeptic being responsible for 'disproving' the claims of religion - it also works here because you think you can claim *anything* and it stands up in an argument if I don't look for proof otherwise. It's called the "celestial teapot". I'll quote:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
It's your responsibility to make your own argument.
I can conclude that you looked, but haven't found anything
No I haven't looked yet.
If you're not interested in actually making an effort, why bother posting in the first place?I can conclude that you looked, but haven't found anything.
And your not making the effort to look for a link that can disprove what I said.
Again, it's not my argument & not my responsibility to do your research for you
How can you say that you are arguing against what I said so this is your arguement as much as if it were mine.
Ok discount everything I said in that post I didn't quote properly.
After all, lots of people believe in ghosts
If you don't believe in ghosts or spirits your not an actual full Christian
You need to look for it because you didn't have anything to back up your own point. Given the fact that you *haven't* produced a link, through conjecture I can conclude that you looked, but haven't found anything
I haven't looked yet.And you would have to look to to back up you own point that I'm wrong. I can conclude that you looked, but haven't found anything.
Again, it's not my argument & not my responsibility to do your research for you
It's your arguement as much as it is mine since your arguing that I'm wrong and since you originally made the arguement. Therefore you should look for a link disproving my point.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
That doesn't really make sense since you don't have any facts or anything what so ever to prove it. (I do have my facts and millions of people agree with it).
That's a URL to a pro-religious website that suggests Tiberius didn't have any knowledge of Jesus at all, and Jesus, being the creator of Christianity - if you haven't even heard of the guy, you're not going to be following his teachings.
I do not believe in God, but i do acknowledge that a man named Jesus Christ walked the earth. However, the legitimacy of ghosts and supernatural beings is idiotic. The human mind is powered by nerves and resources. Also, the idea of making a woman from a man's rib is just...... not really believeable.
URL describing the 7 Roman Kings - none of them were even alive during the time of Jesus
why would you post that then if none of them were around when Jesus was born? So for that it'd be a waste of time to go to the link.
Did you even read my post? Did you even read my post? It's not my responsibility to refute something that has no basis all
I did read the entire post. Yes it's both of our responsibilities SINCE WERE BOTH ARGUING IT. I think it does have a basis.
That's a URL to a pro-religious website that suggests Tiberius didn't have any knowledge of Jesus at all
Suggesting isn't exactly knowing is it.
So, to a point - you're completely wrong
Not exactly.
[quote]I'm only reading your last link not your 1st to since one the 1st one is irrelevent if the kings weren't born when Jesus was. And your 2nd one you said is a suggestion.
However we note that Luke's excuse for bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was the Roman census of Quirinius (Luke 2:1). While we have problems with Luke's description of the method of the census (as was discussed earlier), the census itself is undoubtedly a historical event. Josephus described a Jewish revolt that resulted from this census. The date of the census, like the death of Herod, can also be dated with some precision. Josephus clearly states that the census took place thirty seven years after Caesar defeated Antony at Actium
That clearly stats Jesus had a census now theres no proof of it ah?
According to Matthew and Luke Jesus was born on or before 4 BCE, during the reign of Herod the Great.
That stats when Jesus was born.
[quote]The link you brought me to says everything contrary to you
