Georgia Is A** Backwards

Religion has no place in state sponsored schools....but knowledge does. You don't even have to name the "creator" or rather the "initiator" in intelligent design. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The manner in which most scientists, including myself, approach ID is that life had "help." My persaonal theory is that an intelligent being, which will remain nameless for the duration of this discussion, had to give life a nudge. Whether that was transplanting the first single cell organism or establishing the first ecosystem; life had help. Abiogenesis and biopoesis are fatally flawed in that the odds are astronomical and evidence of failed inceptions would be present somewhere.

And all I'm saying is that what you're talking about is not part of the creation/intelligent design debate in public education. People looking to push those issues aren't interested in the kind of objective, broader exploration of potential creators, rather, its the Christian religion specifically, and the Christian version of creation, that people are attach to public school curriculum.

I have no problem with an agnostic exploration of origin possibilities, and if others want to contend with theories of evolution, that's fine. Provided its done on a scientific basis, I see absolutely no reason to deny anyone that discussion. All I've said and all I keep saying, is that I do have a problem with Christian lobbies attempting to force their specific religious doctrine into schools. Again, its not as though the major pressures behind teaching creation or intelligent design in schools are fighting for anything remotely like what you and I are describing. They want JESUS IN THE DISCUSSION. I'm just not sure how much more clear I can be about this.
 
NEXT TO NO EVIDENCE = EVIDENCE

It is not logical that such a well respected historian would risk his life to write about Jesus. He was no convert. He was a witness. If you have proof to the contrary, then prove it. So far all you did was take a fact filled couple of paragraphs and dismiss them with a "whatever he does not count." I was a debate champion, let me tell you bro...you lost.

I bet you make a lot of excuses for things that have gone wrong in your life. That is why you are so filled with hate and anger. So much so that you are jealous of my life and my experiences? Well thank you for the compliment.

-bj

Wow, you sure get cranky when someone tells you that you're wrong :-)

Your claims are debatable, which is my point. You can't argue the fact that many people disagree about whether or not Josephus was actually a convert, and you're certainly no Josephus scholar yourself, so lets just skip to the part where we accept that there is "LITTLE TO NO EVIDENCE" that Jesus ever existed (which would include your Josephus reference, even if he's telling the truth), and certainly no evidence that he was anything other than a dude who needed a haircut. One citation... a mountain of evidence does not make. There's no need for you to begin cutting and pasting Wikipedia text to continue supporting an argument that does nothing to nullify what I've clearly stated and you've clearly misunderstood.

As for all the indignant personal attacks, go for it. Forum loud mouths are a dime a dozen, and alongside your porno comic book adventures (why anyone would believe that shit, I don't know...), I suppose you're just being consistent. You clearly love yourself very much and think very highly of your own dong and IQ.

But you're batshit crazy if you think that evolution is an outdated theory. I'm with Jeton on his request... Please tell us how you figure that the majority of the scientific community has abandoned evolutionary theory?

Are you some kind of Zeitgeist nut?
 
CITATION PLEASE.:popcorn:

edit: wtf is a "cosmonologist"? i assumed u meant "cosmologist", but then right after that u include "ASTROLOGISTS"...THAT had better have been a fukn typo! :D

Not that you have provided anything but opinion in any of your posts...

Opposing Views: Scientists to Detail How Charles Darwin was Wrong on Evolution
Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine
Some scientists oppose Darwin's theory
CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise
Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/new_scientist_says_darwin_was.php

In 2005, nearly half of all Americans believed that Charles Darwin was wrong. That number has climbed significantly with the formal and signed declarations from the world's top scientists (cited above). BTW America is the biggest proponent of Charles Darwin. It wont be long before his theories are completely torn apart by the scientific community, but if you kept up on these topics you would already know this.

And yes cosmologist, I did not use a spell check. Hardly worth pointing out, but thanks.

-bj
 
Not that you have provided anything but opinion in any of your posts...

Opposing Views: Scientists to Detail How Charles Darwin was Wrong on Evolution
Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine
Some scientists oppose Darwin's theory
CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise
Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/new_scientist_says_darwin_was.php

In 2005, nearly half of all Americans believed that Charles Darwin was wrong. That number has climbed significantly with the formal and signed declarations from the world's top scientists (cited above). BTW America is the biggest proponent of Charles Darwin. It wont be long before his theories are completely torn apart by the scientific community, but if you kept up on these topics you would already know this.

And yes cosmologist, I did not use a spell check. Hardly worth pointing out, but thanks.

-bj

So wait... Astrologists disagree with Darwinism and we should all give a shit?

*falls down laughing*
 
Not that you have provided anything but opinion in any of your posts...

Opposing Views: Scientists to Detail How Charles Darwin was Wrong on Evolution
Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine
Some scientists oppose Darwin's theory
CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise
Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/new_scientist_says_darwin_was.php

In 2005, nearly half of all Americans believed that Charles Darwin was wrong. That number has climbed significantly with the formal and signed declarations from the world's top scientists (cited above). BTW America is the biggest proponent of Charles Darwin. It wont be long before his theories are completely torn apart by the scientific community, but if you kept up on these topics you would already know this.

And yes cosmologist, I did not use a spell check. Hardly worth pointing out, but thanks.

-bj

Oh, and, quoted from your link about New Scientist and the article which suggests Darwin was wrong, which it actually did not, here's some text...

As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.

So...

In your own link, supposedly substantiating the idea that Darwin's theories and notions of evolution are being abandoned, not only does it explicitly state that THIS IS NOT HAPPENING, but likewise takes a moment to ABSOLUTELY HAMMER the notion that any of these... more appropriately characterized as new understandings that help build upon the theories of evolution... would in any way give help to arguments for creationism.

Did you even read that before you linked it? Or did you just google "Darwin & wrong" and cut/paste what you found?
 
Last edited:
Not that you have provided anything but opinion in any of your posts...

Opposing Views: Scientists to Detail How Charles Darwin was Wrong on Evolution
Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine
Some scientists oppose Darwin's theory
CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise
Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/new_scientist_says_darwin_was.php

In 2005, nearly half of all Americans believed that Charles Darwin was wrong. That number has climbed significantly with the formal and signed declarations from the world's top scientists (cited above). BTW America is the biggest proponent of Charles Darwin. It wont be long before his theories are completely torn apart by the scientific community, but if you kept up on these topics you would already know this.

And yes cosmologist, I did not use a spell check. Hardly worth pointing out, but thanks.

-bj

OH WAIT!

This is great...

From your "Some Scientists oppose Darwin's theory" link...

"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman, a former deputy assistant to President Ronald Reagan. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."

The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank founded in 1990 which has been promoting teaching of intelligent design in schools.


So, let me make sure I understand what you're using here as your basis for claiming that the theory of evolution is antique...

You linked an article... that cites a public statement... signed by 600 scientists... which just happens to have been enacted and executed by a... CHRISTIAN THINK TANK... founded in 1990... which has been promoting teaching of intelligent design in schools...

*SMACKS FOREHEAD*

Tell me something, Mr. Debate Champion, do you perhaps understand what a conflict of interest is? Or perhaps, an agenda?

Again... might want to read some of these articles before you do that fancy googling... Either that or check with your Astrologist first. I believe Madame Cleo is available 24/7...
 
Last edited:
Not that you have provided anything but opinion in any of your posts...

Opposing Views: Scientists to Detail How Charles Darwin was Wrong on Evolution
Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine
Some scientists oppose Darwin's theory
CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise
Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/new_scientist_says_darwin_was.php

In 2005, nearly half of all Americans believed that Charles Darwin was wrong. That number has climbed significantly with the formal and signed declarations from the world's top scientists (cited above). BTW America is the biggest proponent of Charles Darwin. It wont be long before his theories are completely torn apart by the scientific community, but if you kept up on these topics you would already know this.

And yes cosmologist, I did not use a spell check. Hardly worth pointing out, but thanks.

-bj

I really should have put this all in one post... but I just can't help but jump on the stupidity of this the moment I click on one of these links...

From your "Opposing Views: Scientists to Detail How Charles Darwin was Wrong on Evolution" link...

"If Charles Darwin knew 150 years ago what we know today, he likely would not have published Origin of the Species," said John Baumgardner, Ph.D., whose organization, Logos Research Associates, will lead the two-day "Darwin Was Wrong" conference Nov. 13-14 at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa."

That's right. They're holding this conference... AT A CHURCH... and the Logos Research Associates organization? Well I happen to know what Logos means in Greek (often used as a reference to Christ, i.e. he is the Word, etc. - yep, no education, right?), so I got curious and went to their web site. HERE... is what they provide in the ABOUT US section...

"We are a fellowship of scholars and scientists who faithfully hold to the teachings of Jesus Christ and all of his Word, and also faithfully hold to the scientific method and the need for scientific integrity."

I'm not going to click on any more of your links.

4 of 4 have spawned either a complete contradiction of what you're saying or yet another blatant religious attempt to defeat Darwin (read that as Atheism, on the Logos web site they talk a lot more about the horrible moral and social consequences of Darwin and his "wicked ideas"...).

Friend, you deserve the dunce hat for this shit. Fucking priceless! You and Kirk Cameron need to meet each other. Love at first sight!

P.S. Your "CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise" link.. only refers back to this same organization and all of their scientific love for Jesus and hate for Atheism. Good times.
 
Last edited:
Not that you have provided anything but opinion in any of your posts...

Opposing Views: Scientists to Detail How Charles Darwin was Wrong on Evolution
Was Darwin Wrong? @ National Geographic Magazine
Some scientists oppose Darwin's theory
CSC - Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise
Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/new_scientist_says_darwin_was.php

In 2005, nearly half of all Americans believed that Charles Darwin was wrong. That number has climbed significantly with the formal and signed declarations from the world's top scientists (cited above). BTW America is the biggest proponent of Charles Darwin. It wont be long before his theories are completely torn apart by the scientific community, but if you kept up on these topics you would already know this.

And yes cosmologist, I did not use a spell check. Hardly worth pointing out, but thanks.

-bj

:rolleyes: i'm lazy about internet debate, i only pull out enuff internet-cock to WIN, n leave the rest in my e-pants. LifeEditing has refuted u rather effectively.

as it happens i'm neither an atheist nor a dogmatic rationalist myself, but u have grievously overextended urself here. :)

there certainly appears to be more to Evolution than simple natural selection, and there is more to cosmological theory than can be enlisted in the efforts of the atheistic internet mafia, but u have cited none of it correctly.

i suspect u simply need to be more careful and considered when attempting to address the Big Topics.

addenda:

A) mythical figures r very commonly found to have had real historical antecedents, whether we're talking about Jesus, Odin or Budda...

B) dont get snippy about questioning ur spelling, should i also assume u meant "astronomers" when u wrote "astrologists"? i don't give a fuk about ur form or spelling, just ur meaning.

C) i happen to believe ur sexual exploits, being an advanced male uber-slut myself. still hope to find a vid of u tripping balls with a dildo up ur ass someday. ;)

D) i have well-developed thoughts on the actual thread topic, which i'll get to later bcuz my wrist is hurting.

:cool:
 
Wow, you sure get cranky when someone tells you that you're wrong :-)

Your claims are debatable, which is my point. You can't argue the fact that many people disagree about whether or not Josephus was actually a convert, and you're certainly no Josephus scholar yourself, so lets just skip to the part where we accept that there is "LITTLE TO NO EVIDENCE" that Jesus ever existed (which would include your Josephus reference, even if he's telling the truth), and certainly no evidence that he was anything other than a dude who needed a haircut. One citation... a mountain of evidence does not make. There's no need for you to begin cutting and pasting Wikipedia text to continue supporting an argument that does nothing to nullify what I've clearly stated and you've clearly misunderstood.

As for all the indignant personal attacks, go for it. Forum loud mouths are a dime a dozen, and alongside your porno comic book adventures (why anyone would believe that shit, I don't know...), I suppose you're just being consistent. You clearly love yourself very much and think very highly of your own dong and IQ.

But you're batshit crazy if you think that evolution is an outdated theory. I'm with Jeton on his request... Please tell us how you figure that the majority of the scientific community has abandoned evolutionary theory?

Are you some kind of Zeitgeist nut?

Actually I went through private school through 12th grade, so yes I am a Josephus scholar.

So you need more historians? Here ya go, citation provided.

Q: "Are there any historical writings, other than the Bible, that prove that Jesus ever really lived?"

A: Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) was considered the greatest historian of ancient Rome. He wrote of Nero who "punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus [Christ], the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originiated, but through the city of Rome also."

Also, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, (A.D. 38-100+) wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities, saying that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, that Jesus was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected.

The existence of Jesus Christ is recorded not only by Josephus and Tacitus, but also by ancient writers such as Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian. And from the Jewish Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."

Thus, historians both favorable and unfavorable regarding Jesus did write about him. Also there were many historical writings about the early Christians.

How do we know Jesus ever really lived?

It seems to me that no matter how many people wrote about Jesus you would find a way to discredit the author or wordings. How is it that a man that has been the most popular person on the planet for the last 2000 years never exsisted? I'm not sayin' he is God, I'm just saying that he was a man who did live and was killed.

So do you believe that Siddh?rtha Gautama lived or is he a figment of every Buddhist's imagination?

Regarding my sex life. Glad you enjoyed reading. I suppose that you are just that type of person who has to "see" to believe anything. I have been a member of this forum since 2004 and anyone who knows me knows that I am honest, helpful, and a bit confrontational when it comes to bros I deem to be acting in an unjust manner.

For example, your attack and crude depiction of the Bible lacked tact and consideration of other people's feelings and beliefs. These are the same people that you choose to have fellowship with on these forums, so why would you want to start that kind of trouble? Would it not be better to express your opinion without slandering the beliefs of what might be the majority of bros on this board? Where is the logic in your behavior? I suppose it must be little man syndrome...I'm just trying to figure you out. You write things online that you could never say at the gym or at the bars because you might get your ass kicked?

BTW - See my previous post to catch the scientific trend that abandons the traditional evolutionary theory by Darwin.

-bj
 
I have been a member of this forum since 2004 and anyone who knows me knows that I am honest, helpful, and a bit confrontational when it comes to bros I deem to be acting in an unjust manner.

For example, your attack and crude depiction of the Bible lacked tact and consideration of other people's feelings and beliefs. These are the same people that you choose to have fellowship with on these forums, so why would you want to start that kind of trouble? Would it not be better to express your opinion without slandering the beliefs of what might be the majority of bros on this board? Where is the logic in your behavior? I suppose it must be little man syndrome...I'm just trying to figure you out. You write things online that you could never say at the gym or at the bars because you might get your ass kicked?

BTW - See my previous post to catch the scientific trend that abandons the traditional evolutionary theory by Darwin.

-bj

I just quoted the "when it coms to bros I deem to be acting in an unjust manner" line because I actually find it quite charming - it's almost like it leaped right out of Jersey Shore and onto the forums :-)

As for my tone... this thread has been heated for quite a while, and many of us, on both sides of the issue, have been quite passionate about our opinions. There's been some apologizing along the way and probably some firm decisions about who we do/don't like as a result, and in that process I think I've made my feelings about religion pretty plain. You're probably right that I shouldn't be so vitriolic about the bible in general, though you're also wrong to suggest that its one of the greatest books of all time. I've read it front to back many times, along with hundreds of commentaries on its meaning, and while it has sold more copies than any other book in America, personally I liked Lord of the Rings better. At least in that book nobody sends the Elves to hell for being a bit feminine...

And frankly, I find it completely disingenuine of you to get irate at me about the things I've said against religion, without also taking issue with some of your friends here that have said some pretty fucking horrible things about gay men and women in the name of their religion, perhaps even the lunacy of the topic itself.

As for the rest of your posting, I think I've already done enough to shit all over that today. Again, glad to see you citing other sources, I'm familiar with them and I don't find them incredibly compelling, which is why I made the very deliberate statement... "little to no evidence". You took that as an assertion that I believe Jesus never existed. You don't actually know what I think. All you know is that I made the argument that there's little reason to believe he did. There is still little reason to believe he did. Go google and paste some more, that won't change...

If you'd like to be friends and sweep this under the rug, I'm more than happy. Seems like you're going that direction. Up to you.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and, quoted from your link about New Scientist and the article which suggests Darwin was wrong, which it actually did not, here's some text...

As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.

So...

In your own link, supposedly substantiating the idea that Darwin's theories and notions of evolution are being abandoned, not only does it explicitly state that THIS IS NOT HAPPENING, but likewise takes a moment to ABSOLUTELY HAMMER the notion that any of these... more appropriately characterized as new understandings that help build upon the theories of evolution... would in any way give help to arguments for creationism.

Did you even read that before you linked it? Or did you just google "Darwin & wrong" and cut/paste what you found?

I just googled. lol It's late and I'm tired. There is still great debate over the topic but there is a growing trend toward looking for alternative explanations (scientifically). All we have are theories. What I am trying to do with you LifeEdit is take the God factor out and get you to admit that there are serious holes in the theory of evolution. That the possibility of another explanation exists... You seem to really be stuck on this creationism bit and I think that is the problem for scientific minded bros like me who want their kids to not be limited in thought and education. If everyone would just let up and allow any theory that did not name a "god" ....then what is the big deal? I fear that the "fear" of Christian creationism is preventing my kids from getting the best possible education, becuase those who oppose religion limit what can be taught in schools.

That has got to make some sense....please?

-bj
 
I just googled. lol It's late and I'm tired. There is still great debate over the topic but there is a growing trend toward looking for alternative explanations (scientifically). All we have are theories. What I am trying to do with you LifeEdit is take the God factor out and get you to admit that there are serious holes in the theory of evolution. That the possibility of another explanation exists... You seem to really be stuck on this creationism bit and I think that is the problem for scientific minded bros like me who want their kids to not be limited in thought and education. If everyone would just let up and allow any theory that did not name a "god" ....then what is the big deal? I fear that the "fear" of Christian creationism is preventing my kids from getting the best possible education, becuase those who oppose religion limit what can be taught in schools.

That has got to make some sense....please?

-bj

It makes total sense and I feel like I've agreed with that notion several times. Again, and to be clear, I have NO problem with, as a function of exploring scientific theory, students are also considering agnostic questions about potential creators. I have no problem with that at all.

What I keep trying to make clear is that what you and I would be glad to have as a part of the education process, is not what anybody is fighting for. You have Christians trying to insert Christian tenants into secular education, and secularists fighting it. It is in THIS sense that I mean that teaching only evolution would be appropriate, because the idea of teaching evolution alongside Genesis makes NO SENSE. I'm sure you would agree with that?

In this regard I think we're both saying the same thing, and since you've very graciously admitted to a bad google link job (I forgive you), please forgive my excitedly demoralizing response(s) - I found the mistake too good to be true :-)
 
I just quoted the "when it coms to bros I deem to be acting in an unjust manner" line because I actually find it quite charming - it's almost like it leaped right out of Jersey Shore and onto the forums :-)

As for my tone... this thread has been heated for quite a while, and many of us, on both sides of the issue, have been quite passionate about our opinions. There's been some apologizing along the way and probably some firm decisions about who we do/don't like as a result, and in that process I think I've made my feelings about religion pretty plain. You're probably right that I shouldn't be so vitriolic about the bible in general, though you're also wrong to suggest that its one of the greatest books of all time. I've read it front to back many times, along with hundreds of commentaries on its meaning, and while it has sold more copies than any other book in America, personally I liked Lord of the Rings better. At least in that book nobody sends the Elves to hell for being a bit feminine...

And frankly, I find it completely disingenuine of you to get irate at me about the things I've said against religion, without also taking issue with some of your friends here that have said some pretty fucking horrible things about gay men and women in the name of their religion, perhaps even the lunacy of the topic itself.

As for the rest of your posting, I think I've already done enough to shit all over that today. Again, glad to see you citing other sources, I'm familiar with them and I don't find them incredibly compelling, which is why I made the very deliberate statement... "little to no evidence". You took that as an assertion that I believe Jesus never existed. You don't actually know what I think. All you know is that I made the argument that there's little reason to believe he did. There is still little reason to believe he did. Go google and paste some more, that won't change...

If you'd like to be friends and sweep this under the rug, I'm more than happy. Seems like you're going that direction. Up to you.

If any of my friends have made negative remarks about gays, I apologize on their behalf. One of my best friends is gay, and we hang out all the time. He grew up in a strict Christian home and believe me I understand...

I liked Lord of the Rings also. But...I was in a university (400 level) english class (taught by an athiest) the Bible was considered to be one of the greatest literary workd of all time. I too have read the Bible, heck I grew up with it drilled into my head and church three times per week. I still agree that it really is a work of art. Just because I do not agree with the contents....hell I've hated plenty of best sellers...

I'm cool with being friends and shoving this under the rug....hopefully none of my prvious posts have ruined this offer if they posted after you wrote the quote above. =|

peace

-bj
 
If any of my friends have made negative remarks about gays, I apologize on their behalf. One of my best friends is gay, and we hang out all the time. He grew up in a strict Christian home and believe me I understand...

I liked Lord of the Rings also. But...I was in a university (400 level) english class (taught by an athiest) the Bible was considered to be one of the greatest literary workd of all time. I too have read the Bible, heck I grew up with it drilled into my head and church three times per week. I still agree that it really is a work of art. Just because I do not agree with the contents....hell I've hated plenty of best sellers...

I'm cool with being friends and shoving this under the rug....hopefully none of my prvious posts have ruined this offer if they posted after you wrote the quote above. =|

peace

-bj

We're all good then. Despite my distaste for religion, I do believe in the merits of forgiveness and reconciliation :-)
 
It makes total sense and I feel like I've agreed with that notion several times. Again, and to be clear, I have NO problem with, as a function of exploring scientific theory, students are also considering agnostic questions about potential creators. I have no problem with that at all.

What I keep trying to make clear is that what you and I would be glad to have as a part of the education process, is not what anybody is fighting for. You have Christians trying to insert Christian tenants into secular education, and secularists fighting it. It is in THIS sense that I mean that teaching only evolution would be appropriate, because the idea of teaching evolution alongside Genesis makes NO SENSE. I'm sure you would agree with that?

In this regard I think we're both saying the same thing, and since you've very graciously admitted to a bad google link job (I forgive you), please forgive my excitedly demoralizing response(s) - I found the mistake too good to be true :-)

:o

Aw thanks Life

You know, some Christians can really take the fun out of life. I feel bad for the ones who are generally good people. Good Christians don't have an "agenda." Keep church and state as far away as possible. If you want your kids to learn creationism, send em to private school.
 
You never did respond about these historians. Is this enough to prove Jesus Christ?

Q: "Are there any historical writings, other than the Bible, that prove that Jesus ever really lived?"

A: Yes.

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) was considered the greatest historian of ancient Rome. He wrote of Nero who "punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus [Christ], the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originiated, but through the city of Rome also."

Also, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, (A.D. 38-100+) wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities, saying that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, that Jesus was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected.

The existence of Jesus Christ is recorded not only by Josephus and Tacitus, but also by ancient writers such as Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian. And from the Jewish Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."
 
You never did respond about these historians. Is this enough to prove Jesus Christ?

Q: "Are there any historical writings, other than the Bible, that prove that Jesus ever really lived?"

A: Yes.

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) was considered the greatest historian of ancient Rome. He wrote of Nero who "punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus [Christ], the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originiated, but through the city of Rome also."

Also, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, (A.D. 38-100+) wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities, saying that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, that Jesus was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected.

The existence of Jesus Christ is recorded not only by Josephus and Tacitus, but also by ancient writers such as Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian. And from the Jewish Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."

To be honest, I have no problem accepting the idea that Jesus did exist. I'm not necessarily compelled to by some of these records, but its not something I'd argue very heavily against (truthfully I don't find this point to be critical to any genuinely important issue). What makes the records that do exist a bit difficult, is that many of them also refer to his ministry, his miracles, etc., and have been part of controversial debate. I'm not the one to have that debate, I've only read some of it, and I can see where there's a desire for more information.

So for the sake of our discussion, I'll concede that someone named Jesus did exist, and that I'm not sure it matters... *shrugs*
 
Last edited:
Back
Top