(Post a new comment)

	WTF? llama_treats 2004-04-20 03:38 am UTC (link)
	I'm confused. According to this swooley person, it is now illegal for me to express my opinion that someone else is an asshole? I think I missed the memo on that one. (Reply to this)

	lurker32 2004-04-20 03:46 am UTC (link)
	Seth Woolley? Why is that name ringing a bell? thinks (Reply to this)

	kookaburra 2004-04-20 05:21 am UTC (link)
	swooley is talking out of his ass. There is proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed on a cross. Arrrgh. People who don't research their facts=>. (Reply to this)(Thread)

kookaburra
2004-04-20 05:41 am UTC (link)

Ah ha! I knew I could find where I read the various non-Christian references to Jesus.
Jesus of Nazareth was mentioned by Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, and the Jewish historian Josephus. These all establish that Jesus lived, became a public figure, and died under Pontius Pilate. Also, they establish that within 12 years worship of him had spread to Rome. (source: A Survey of the New Testament 4th ed. by Robert Gundry)

There is not a way to 'prove' that Jesus was the Son of God, and everything that NT canon claims, but he did indeed exist.

(pardon me, I'll just be Biblewanking off in my own corner...*fwap-fwap-fwap* ewww, the pages are getting all sticky!)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

rogue
2004-04-20 06:25 am UTC (link)

Yeah. I don't get why people get so like "OH EM GEE U HAVE NOE PROOF HE EXISTED" over Christianity and other Jesus-centered religions. Despite the fact that his historical existance has little to do with the faith (that he is the messiah - even Jews acknowledge Jesus' existance, they just don't worship him) - what proof do we have that anything existed? For all we know, Rome could be a big theme park built by space aliens, and all the culture and civilization could be complete bullshit. It's such a silly point to try and argue, because no side's ever going to win without a time machine.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kookaburra 2004-04-20 06:43 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, I mean, if you're going to disprove written documents of Jesus' time that reference him, you're going to have to throw out all other documents like that, and then there's no history. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kookaburra 2004-04-20 06:45 am UTC (link)
	Pthhh. Disprove should be "discard". Me=stoopid. (Reply to this)(Parent)

rogue
2004-04-20 06:18 am UTC (link)

The stupid.

It burns.

Okay, you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian religion. Neither does a good chunk of the rest of the fucking planet. Good for you! Now, it's time to shut up, because attacking Christians/ect simply because of their faith is as bad as the Christians/ect who attack others simply because of their lack of faith.

Also, why are so many anti-Christians all uptight about Jesus not existing? Maybe I'm imagining things, but I think I learned about Jesus actually existing in, like, sixth grade, when we learned about world history. Him starting the Christian religion and all that shit made him worthy mentioning, I guess. I mean, what do these people think, that ~~Republicans~~ Romans just grew from pods and said, "Hey, we're here and we think this Jesus feller is swell! Let's worship him!" No, they took Jesus from the native people, like they took the Greek Gods. Romans = not creative. So yeah, Jesus's existance may not be historically chroniclized in vast detail (but what is, from that day and age?), but to insist he does not exist just because you don't believe in the religion surrounding him is silly.

Not like Jesus historically existing one way or another would affect most peoples faith. Key word being faith.

I.. er.. I think I had a point, somewhere, but it's gone now. *waddles away*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	kookaburra 2004-04-20 06:41 am UTC (link)
	No, they took Jesus from the native people, like they took the Greek Gods. Romans = not creative. The Romans, they're like Crystal Gamgee, in a way. runs like hell (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rogue 2004-04-20 04:31 pm UTC (link)
	chokes on breakfast (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sewingmyfish 2004-04-22 03:47 pm UTC (link)
	JESUSES CROZZ IS PASTEDE ON YAY! (Reply to this)(Parent)

darkerthanpale
2004-04-20 05:25 pm UTC (link)

Man, swoolley's rape of logic, it burnsssss!

Y'know, I could accept him saying 'look, several historians dispute the existence of Jesus the man, and I am swayed by their arguments and the proof they offer'. But to intimate that ALL historians believe this, not to mention all theologians to boot (even if they only tell him behind closed doors, because that's what they all believe secretly, but can't let anyone else know), is disingenious, and if he doesn't know that he's not anywhere near as intelligent or as rational or objective as he thinks he is; and if he DOES know that he has never offered any actual proof for any of his beliefs, barring his flawed "You can't have an all-good, all-powerful deity in a world where evil exists! It's logically impossible!" claim (yes, it is an age-old problem; there are, however, counter arguments such as the Free Will Defence, which I am sure he must know about; and one must assume that there actually IS a logical problem is having an omnibenevolent, omnipotent being in a world where evil exists - one is moving from logical parameters to moral parameters, which have no empirical data that can be considered, and which are notoriously tricky to get any sort of consensus on. I am happy to accept that anyone who makes all three claims has a moral problem on their hands; I am not, however, convinced that there is any sort of logical problem until much narrower constraints are placed on the problem. As it stands, there is a great deal of assumption being made - that an all-good being would always stop every single evil that was going to happen, for example, or that what we perceive to be evil actually is evil, that God only functions anthropocentrically, and so on. Put all these assumptions into the problem, and then we might actually have something that does cause a logical problem, but remember that each of these assumptions is a lot easier to refute than any of the umbrella claims that actually contain them), then he not only a hypocrite and a liar, but also so arrogant that he believes that no-one who reads his posts will notice that he either proffers no argument beyond 'logic has proved it; you are wilfully ignorant, so I'm going to ban you' (to which I say 'YOU are wilfully ignorant if you think that logic has proved anything of the sort) or that what little logic he attempts to use is flawed. If he is a logician, he's not a particularly good one, since he seems not to realise that logic can prove very little outside of mathematics, that valid arguments are not equivalent to sound arguments (take the case above, although that is arguably not even a valid argument, since the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premisses), and that we have such subjects as philosophy of religion BECAUSE THERE IS NO LOGICAL PROOF FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. :-L

Personally? I think he's much less intelligent than he thinks he is, not to mention incredibly hypocritical and narrow-minded, and incapable of providing arguments to the people he's demanding proof from :-L Ignorant atheists - as the dearly loved, and strongly atheist roommate of my boyfriend would say, swoolley is the sort of atheist that gives 'em a bad name.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

kookaburra
2004-04-20 10:18 pm UTC (link)

Yeah- another thing to consider is that perhaps "All-good" in a deity is does not mean "will prevent anything bad from happening EVER", or means "is really just a big pussy-cat, and all that stuff about punishing the whole nation of Israel by sentencing them to wander for 40 years, etc, etc, was just typo."

I think I had a point. I should also give a disclaimer that while I am a Christian, I am far from a theologian or a logician or a philosopher. So basically I have only the slightest idea of what I'm talking about.

And yeah, about the existence of God- I've always thought that there's a 50% chance for either atheists or thesists to be correct. Those are fair odds either way, and since the only proof we theists have is what we've experienced in our hearts, and you can't exactly use that as proof, only as anecdotal "evidence".

I think the point of that is that both sides need to stop thinking the other is either a) comprised of idiots who refuse to look at facts or b) comprised of guilty heathens who are in denial because of guilt.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	big_bad_wolf 2004-04-21 07:18 pm UTC (link)
	Damnit, why are you never this loud when I'm poking you? puts on a logical positivist hat to annoy you (Reply to this)(Parent)

	krazycat 2004-04-22 03:32 pm UTC (link)
	I just fell in love with you worships you said all the things I was thinking reading through that, but in a much better way than I would've. (seeing as my mind is destroyed by crystalwank) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Just checked out his website... darkerthanpale 2004-04-20 05:32 pm UTC (link)
	Turns out he's a logical positivist :)) I didn't think they existed any more :)) Oh man :)) It explains A LOT :)) (Reply to this)

	Maturity, huh? deoridhe 2004-04-20 07:06 pm UTC (link)
	I think Ben and Seth are just a little too mature for us... And Robbie thinks he is -__ Serpenta doesn't want maturity on the board she hands out on!!! I mean, heaven forfend the teenies learn what adults are like. 8) (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2004-04-22 12:10 am UTC (link)
	This entire saga burnssssss >,< Is there some rule somewhere that when communities get too big you have spooge reeking of immaturity flying from all sides? I really, really, tried hard to find one side I could relate to, but they are all acting like a bunch of babies... -ADR (Reply to this)