Distracted

No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't. The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels. I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.

"i knew about dis way before x, thumbs up if you knew it 2 lol" Ugh, who cares how you heard of it, the important thing is you did and now you're enjoying this video.

Of course it wasn't "no reason". They obviously had a reason, but this reason may have been a false reason...I mean, why were they Jewish to begin with? Because someone made up a story about God. It isn't that much of a stretch to think that someone would make up a story about the son of God and people would start to believe it in the same way. Except there were multiple people in that period writing about Jesus, it wasn't just one person. Besides, if one guy would spread rumors about the Messiah coming to Earth, do you think it would spread over all of Judea like that? No, the logical explanation is lots of people witnessed Jesus (it's always told in the Bible that great crowds followed him) and that some of those wrote down what he did and those writings are what we now call the canonical gospels. I know people probably exaggerated it all, for example, there's no way the gospel writers could've known a lot about his childhood, but the man was there. Like I said, it's not because it was written with an agenda and exaggerated the good deeds of a man, that it didn't happen. I just think that there would have to be a LOT of lost documentation. A good comparison is that we have a lot of detailed knowledge of Chinese emporors from the same time period, and Egyptian rulers from even earlier time periods. But this guy comes along who is "king of kings and lord of lords" and there is only religious scripture to prove his existence. It just seems to me that if such a momentous figure really existed, there would be more conclusive evidence to suggest so. I mean and this is even in question of only his existence. We at least have multiple writers of scriptures who write about Jesus existing. If we want to question the validity of any of the stories in the Bible...what do we have? One recording of each story? There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time. The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations. We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books. Well if they don't believe this...then what DO they believe? How else did God create men? I'm not sure what exactly they believe. I know my sister, who's a devout Christian, told me she knows it didn't happen like in the Bible, that the stories are more a demonstration of the power of God and a way of showing God's intentions with mankind (for example, he gave Adam and Eve free will and he allowed them to do whatever they pleased, except for one thing). Anyway, I'm not gonna speak for other people here, so you'll have to ask actual devout Christians.

To be honest, I don't really know how to make sense of a lot of all this stuff you wrote. It is interesting nonetheless. To me, it just looks like a lot of people who wrote about religous stories that they heard, like if someone from today would write a book about the Bible. It doesn't really look like historical documentation of the life of Jesus. I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all. It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages. Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth. Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name. Kid in my class believes this particle story and the adam and eve story to be true, besides that he realizes most is false. So i think this is a legitiment question Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people. I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.

Japan gets struck by an enormous earthquake, which naturally leaves a nuclear plant in pretty bad shape. So suddenly, all the nuclear reactors in the world are unsafe. Come on, seriously? Nuclear energy is our best shot at the moment at alternative energy, especially rhodium-based energy (look it up), but the fear-mongering is making the public scared of them. I'm not saying plants are the safest thing in the world, but with the right precautions and good safety regulations, they should be alright, unless it just happens to be in the middle of one of the largest recorded earthquakes. Anyway, the end of my nuclear rant.

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth. Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name.

Ugh, way too hot in here for my liking. I'll be going out in a bit to go apply for a job at a local McDonald's for the summer. Hope I get it so I can get myself an acoustic guitar this summer.

Actually, now you put it that way, I'm kinda confused. Wouldn't it be more lucrative if the men were distracted and went and got themselves a beer or a hotdog or whatever? It annoys when I criticize someone, and suddenly everyone is against me for criticizing that person: "I don't see you doing any better!" What, so I can't call someone a bad singer unless I've got some platinum albums to back it up? I should steer clear from calling tennis players bad too, because I'm not on the WTA ranking? Ugh.

Tacitus lived in the second half of the first century AD, around the same time as Nero and was (and still is) a respected historian. That text was talking about the great fire of Rome of 64 AD and Nero's reaction to it. The Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, would come about 300 years later, and even the gospels were barely written at that time, so you can't claim his source as the Bible. This is a quote from Josephus, a Jewish historian. To be honest, this is the only direct mention to Jesus in his writings, excluding a part where he mentions Jesus' brother James. The part where he talks about James is almost unanimously thought of as authentic, but debate exists about this passage. Many historians believe that part to be embellished by later Christians, but they believe the core of the passage to be true. One historian attempted to reconstruct the text without the Christian embellishments: This quote is of a more passing nature, but it clearly states "at the instigation of Chrestus", Chrestus being a considered a misspelling, which also appeared in Tacitus' work. The quote doesn't really go on about Jesus, but it does prove that Christianity didn't just come out of nowhere, they were following a man they believed to be the Messiah. This text deals about Claudius, who was an emperor halfway the first century AD, which would be about 20-30 years after Christ himself died. At this point, Christians weren't really completely separate from the Jews, explaining the use of the word Jews instead of Christians. Also Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ in his works, in his letters to the emperor Trajan, detailing how to deal with this 'nuisance' and stating that instead of worshiping the emperor, they were instead worshiping Christ from Judea. Even the Talmud, a Jewish work, talks about Jesus at some points, talking about his crucifixion and such. Of course debate exists about the authenticity of all these works, which is normal for works written almost 2000 years ago. Also, take in account that we only have a handful of writings left about the eruption of the Vesuvius, that buried Pompeii and took many lives. As far as I know, the most important work about it was written by Pliny the Younger. I read that text and it includes many things he just couldn't know, detailing his uncle's (Pliny the Older) actions, even though he didn't go along with him and his uncle had died. It was also written 20 years after the actual eruption. It is known that Tacitus wrote about the eruption, since that letter Pliny wrote was directed at Tacitus, who had asked Pliny the Younger to tell him about the eruption, as Pliny was an eye-witness. But the text Tacitus wrote has been lost to us. So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).

I actually, honestly enjoy the smell of a cigarette. I'm not a smoker or anything, but I like the smell. Anyway, on to annoying things, this Justin Bieber cursor kinda qualifies as one, doesn't it? :P

The alternative is that the Big Bang itself is the "unmoved mover". If everything needs to have a creator, then the creator has to have a creator. If the creator doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one? I don't know. I honestly don't know. I'm not gonna make up something. I can't claim to know what happened at the beginning of the universe, but you can't claim that either. No one, at the moment, can. Theres little historical proof that the stories of the new testament actually occurred. The only evidence we have is the Bible itself. If divine events happened today, and they were unmistakenably caused by divine power, we would presumably be able to document these events well so that future generations could make no mistake about what happened 2000 years ago, writing all these books down is what they considered documenting the events well. Who's to say 2000 years from now, all these well documented facts won't be viewed in the same way? That's if they even all survive it. Also, saying the Bible is the only evidence we have is a bit wrong, there were hundreds of books that never made it into the final canon of the Bible.

What you're saying is that the beginning of the universe needs an explanation. What is the explanation for your explanation? How does the unmoved mover exist? Every action has a reaction, and every action itself is a reaction to another action. In other words, something can't just start moving by itself, it needs to be triggered by something else. This action-reaction pattern can't be traced back forever, there has to be something in the beginning that just somehow moved by itself, the unmoved mover, that would set in motion the rest of the reactions that would form the Universe. Of course, finding this unmoved mover is near impossible, and I have no idea how it would exist, but what's the alternative? If a giant man came to Earth and started floating around and taking us to solar systems that are many lightyears away, curing diseases, and doing all kinds of other Godly stuff, you don't think that would be scientific proof of God? Well yes, but that's not something that's controlled by humans. You asked if "we could find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist", which suggests that humans themselves would find the evidence. If God comes over here and shows himself, it's God that showed us the evidence and not human beings. So yeah, to go back to your example, I think most people would be convinced and a minority would stubbornly decline to accept. Also, on a side note, by that logic everyone should be a christian now, since 2000 years ago there was a man walking the earth that came back from the dead and told of the word of God. Who's to say that if that would happen again, people living 2000 years from now wouldn't look at the writings and such from this encounter the same way we view the bible today?

Personally, I have a different view of God. I'm not really religious, but I think of God more as something that's not really made of matter, that can't, at this point at least, be defined by science. It probably sounds [developmentally delayed]ed, but that's kind of the vision I've gained recently, while thinking of the beginning of the Universe. Just some force, at lack of a better word, the unmoved mover, that set in motion the expansion of the Universe and thus life. Perhaps it's not even a God in the normal sense of the word after all, I don't know, it's just, something that goes above the mental capabilities of mankind to fully comprehend at this point. But then again, there could be no such thing, but there'd still need to be an answer to what happened at first. I don't think science at this time is capable of finding that answer. But that's the thing with religious debates, there's no definitive answer, at least not yet. In response to Mywepons, no, I don't think we can. I doubt a scientist will one day come out with a discovery saying "God is real and I have this scientific data to confirm it." And even IF something like that would ever happen, society would never accept it as real, just dismissing the scientist as a nut.

I'm probably not the first one to notice this, hell, I might be pointing out something obvious everyone had figured out, but for some reason that seems like. FIRST PERSON DONE 71 "NCBE" (maybe NBCE, not before common era? Kinda far-fetched, I know, wouldn't even make sense either way) SECOND PERSON DONE 74 "NCBE" "PRTSE" (maybe FIRST again?) PERSON REDONE 75 "NBCE" Anyway, I'm just throwing stuff in here, maybe someone else will see the pattern in it, but so far I see nothing, well except for these half anagrams :/ But that part just resembles a kind of list too much for it to be coincidence.

Waste by Phish.

The Hardest Button to Button by the White Stripes. Shame they split :/

Why the hell should a religious person need to give evidence? If he himself is sure that God is guiding him, why do you want to rain on his parade and ask for evidence? Religion isn't a science, it's a personal matter.

There's a huge difference between unicorns and God, there's no denying that. This discussion is about religion, not about unicorns. Have you ever seen someone pray to a unicorn? On the subject of praying, there are people that are seriously influenced by their religion, that feel someone is listening to their prayers. I've seen it first-hand. It's not just "Yeah, sure, I believe in God.", but "I feel God is looking over me, protecting me and hearing my prayers." Who are you to dismiss what other people feel?

Do people also have the right to believe that the Earth is flat and not be called "irrational"? I mean they just happen to believe in something that you don't believe. No, they don't. We know for a fact the Earth is round and we've known this since the 16th century. We've sailed around it, we've seen it from space and saw that it was, in fact, round. There's simply not a single piece of evidence that says otherwise. Calling them irrational might be a bit unfair, uneducated would match the situation better. But honestly, show me anyone that thinks the earth is flat. What Ginger meant, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's unfair to immediately dismiss someone religious for believing in their god, reason being that there's just no definitive answer to give. Believing in a god is personal and is not a science, there's no evidence for either side that there is or isn't a god.

People have done the same for causes that have nothing to do with religion. The women's suffragete movement, or black civil rights for example. It's just silly to assume that because someone is willing to die for something, that it must be part of 'something greater' that humans are incapable of understanding by their volition. There are many people in America who would defend freedom of speech with their lives if called upon, not necessarily because of religion, but because freedom of self-expression is so valued in American culture. I wasn't claiming that for someone to sacrifice themselves they needed religious reasons, I was responding to a claim saying people that died in name of their religion didn't have any significance. I'm not in any way claiming that people can only sacrifice themselves for religious reasons.

Its not a complete joke because 11 of the original 12 followers of Christ were martyred for their belief. Laying all this academic mumbo jumbo aside, can you think of anything you believe in so strongly that you would die for it? Do you honestly think the so called believers of the FSM would stand firm and refuse to renounce their belief if they were tortured, only to suffer a slow and excruciatingly painful death? If there was nothing to religion, why would it stand the test of time for thousands of years, why would people spend their lives and deaths devoting themselves to a "joke"? Why does it matter that people were willing to give their lives (quite stupidly in my opinion) for their ideas? Sure, many people have died for good causes throughout history (such as revolts against malevolent dictatorships or anti-segregation movements) but honestly, what about religion makes it so exceptional that people should want to die to protect their beliefs? What does it do for the world that makes it so special? Dying for your beliefs is basically the highest devotion you can show for anything, and that level of devotion doesn't simply come from reading some stories. These people must have experienced something greater than life, something that convinced them that their religion is the right one. They accepted the fact that they would get killed for their beliefs and they took their punishment with pride. That's what makes it special. Also, at myweponsgood, if you're religious, of course you'll think of your religion as the right one, why else would you believe in it? Yes, it's annoying when people get too pushy, but it's only normal that you think you have the right religion and that you want people to experience the same you did. Of course you have nutcases who go to far and end up missing the point of religion by going way overboard, but there are nutcases everywhere, in all parts of life, they aren't the norm, but the vocal minority.

Ok, uhm, someone explain me this. So I'm sitting home alone, when suddenly I notice my cat isn't here. I did hear a banging sound, like she was trying to get out of some trap. Anyway, I start looking around, couldn't find her, started panicking, went outside, went back in, heard the banging sound again. This went on for about an hour until I suddenly realized she was in a travelling bag. I have no idea how she got in there o.o

In the fade by QOTSA. One of my fav songs of theirs.

I don't know if it's just the theme I just got, but I can actually rearrange all my icons. Anyway, FF4 is really nice, I'm happy with it :)

Meh, it's even worse when there are subtitles you can read but you can also just understand the original language of the movie. You can't just ignore the subtitles and watch the movie, but actually looking at the movie without being distracted by subs is more intense. Though I have to say, I prefer subtitles over dubs any day.