Total posts: 1,002
Posted in:
"The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether or not Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, historically existed (as opposed to being a purely mythical figure). Virtually all scholars of antiquity argue that Jesus existed.[1][note 1] The contrary perspective, that Christ was mythical, is regarded as a fringe theory.[note 2]"
"Some scholars estimate that there are about 30 surviving independent sources written by 25 authors who attest to Jesus.[27] The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.[28][need quotation to verify] There are also numerous Jewish and Roman sources (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and rabbinic tradition[which?]) that talk about Jesus.[29] On the quality of extant sources, Hans-Joachim Schoeps argues that they intertwine history and legend and present the views of the early disciples and the Christian community.[30] According to Christopher M. Tuckett, most available sources are collections of early traditions about Jesus.[31] According to Maurice Casey, some of the sources, such as parts of the Gospel of Mark, are translations of early Aramaic sources which indicate proximity with eyewitness testimony.[32]"
Created:
Posted in:
there's not evidence for all the apostles, but there's evidence of the martydom of the closest apostles. like, james, john, and peter. james, jesus brother was put to death and it caused an uproar because he was so beloved by jesus. it's evidence that people dont die for a lie, but even beyond that, their testimony you wouldn't think would be made up if people are up in arms about one of jesus' loved ones dying. you have to read into history to make that leap of logic to assume people got attached to a story teller.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
early christians thought jesus would return in their lifetime. the bible seems to indicate that, though it's open to interpreation. i'm not a christian who assumes just because it's in the bible we have to use that as the measure of truth. i also dont know why that's a relevant question to this debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
there's no archeological evidence for a lot of historical figures that we know existed.
"Roman historians Pliny and Tacitus also wrote about Jesus Christ about 20 years after Josephus's book. The “Annals” by Tacitus from AD 115 mentioned the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate executing Jesus, alluding to crucifixion, and placed that event within the timeframe that agrees with Christian gospels."
"Jesus's historical existence is generally accepted among scholars. The evidence for the reality of Jesus Christ includes writings by historians, artifacts and eyewitness accounts."
"Based on the evidence we have, can anyone with certainly say Jesus really existed about 2,000 years ago? While incontrovertible proof may be impossible to come by, those who study the period believe there was someone named Jesus Christ living in the area and time period that we generally agree on, said archaeologist Eric Meyers, emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University.
“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Meyers.”The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”"
“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Meyers.”The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
See:Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate HeresyIn the space of this hard-hitting monograph and supplemental interview, dissident scholar Kenneth Humphreys interrogates the biblical and historical evidence to offer this concise and pithy exposition of a “fringe” idea whose time has come. Not content to merely poke holes in tall tales from antiquity, Humphreys presents a surprisingly straightforward case that Jesus, thought by millions of naïve believers to have been God incarnate, or at least the Son of God, was not even a man.Until now, most scholars of religion have, at least publicly, been content to repeat the safe and conciliatory assurance that a Jesus “probably” existed. But we may well be approaching a tipping point when those same scholars, confronted with powerful evidence and an inquisitive public, will summon the courage to aver that Jesus “probably” never existed after all.Having devoted much of his life to the careful study of ancient history, Humphreys harbors no doubt: Jesus, the non-existent son of a non-existent father, will soon be consigned to a place among his ancestors–Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses–in the realm of mythology, not history.
that's not an argument if you just regurgitate someone's conclusion. it's an appeal to authority fallacy. the fact remains that there's historical evidence that Jesus existed, and the consensus of historicans is that he did.
Created:
Posted in:
st paul wrote most of the new testament. i think there's a real question if he intended his letters to be considered the word of god. that's quite a far out claim. he was just writing his letters to guide early christians the best he knew how. it's a wild claim to just assume God meant for an infallible groups of letters and writings to be collected. it's a non sequirter. 'we know the bible is true cause we're told by christians that it's true'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
how r u so sure? that's a far out claim and it doesn't strike me as a true probability. i think we can adapt to climate change.
Created:
Posted in:
it's worth noting that a lot of scientist think the earth's population will level off at 10 billion people. basically, developed countries tend to level off,and the world as a whole will probably level off too. so if the max is ten bil, then maybe it will be the magic number. i do think though that it comes down to food okay but decent living maybe not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
there's always insect farms, and farming the oceans with plants and animals. i think food wise, we have a lot more room to grow. i think the real question is everything else... obviously everyone can't live like a typical american, but there's a lot more to life than just food, and even if we assume shelter can be taken care of, there's everything else about life that someone should have the dignity of acquiring. so basically, we have a lot more room for humans to live in squalor but not dignified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
at least u r self aware. i think most people are combative when you ask them how they can have such drastic conversions. drastic sudden full on conversions dont make sense, that's not a natural way of changing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
how does that process of conversion take place internally within you? one day you're anti gay and the bible is inerrant, then suddently all that changes... why doesn't just a belief or two just gradually change, why do you do such a 180 degree turn around on so much all at once? did you feel a tension or realize you were wrong for a long time and got tired of fighting it? tell me about that conversion process for so much of your beliefs.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
you dont always have to be a contrarian to 'the other side'. if there's something you like, you should just say so and not try to spin a way into disagreement or "i'm only this far on my own party's side". that's just basic maturity.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
maybe i'm not being clear enough. if a victim was dependent upon a criminal's body for three months months, would you say the criminal can terminate?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i made the point but you didn't seem to pick up on it. why do you think a mother should have to carry a late term baby but a criminal has no obligation to use his body to support a hypothetical victim? how do you make that distinction for one but not the other? like if a victim was dependent upon the criminal for a few months or something.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you say in no circumstance should a criminal be required to use his body to provide for his victim. but that means you are willing to support the death of the victim. if you support the death of a real human in that situation, i dont see how you justify requiring the woman to support the baby later in her pregnancy. it's still her bodily autonomy. if you used the argument for her own personal responsibility for her actinos, then it makes sense, but you claim to not use that argument.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
there are lots of people who say there should be no restrictions on abortion. they say we should just trust women, and they usually point out that it woudln't be common for a woman to abort late term just for the heck of it.
it sounds like you wouldn't use the argument that the women should take responsibility for her the consequences of her choices, but i dont know how you would frame the argument when it comes to why you would accept the restrictions you would agree to. if it's not personal responsiblity, it would be very easy to just say a baby has no right to her mother's body, period.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the issue of whether it's a human is its own issue, if it's clearly not a human then of course the woman's autonomy is highest. but if it's a human, then the woman's autonomy in my opinion is on the same level as the baby. for me, i am willing to admit it's a gray area earlier in the pregnancy, but as time goes on, the fact that she assumed the risk of pregnancy comes into play. also comes into play how soon she chooses to abort.
i agree with you that society would call i barbaric to steal a criminals organs if they were responsible for the victim needing organs, but morality is too subjective for your argument hold up to me. what's fair is fair... if you cause someone to need an organ, and you have the organ, it's only fair. i concede by social standards my position is insane, but i think your position is insane that you would let a victim die at the hands of a criminal when the criminal could fix the situation.
i dont know why you could try to pigeon hole me into thinking i dont care about people's rights. of course i do. at least give me the credit that i think the baby has rights at a certain point. so, if anyone is heartless, it is you, because you are not trying to find a common ground between the baby and the mother. i wouldn't even be surprised if you think a woman has complete right all throughout her pregnancy even late term to abort at will. that would be a heartless, insane, and also i might stress a radical position.
if you concede that the baby's rights eventually come into play, then we're just talking past each other, and all my arguments you could make for the point where you would limit abortion. all your arguments i could make for when when i would permit abortion.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
a better analogy would be if someone causes an accident, and the victim to the accident is somehow dependent for life upon the body of the person who caused the accident. i would say the person who caused the accident doesn't have bodily autonomy to let the victim die... in fact, the trangressor must let the person live up to and including the transgressor's death, if necessary.
another example, if a criminal stabs someone in their organ, and the victim needs a replacement organ, i say the criminal is responsible to provide it.
i know some people are absolutely on the right of bodily autonomy even for criminals who cause dependency, but that just ain't fair in my mind.
Created:
U guys r forgetting that if a woman gets pregnant she assumed the risk of pregnancy. If it's anyone's fault she's pregnant, it's hers. And, as time goes on with pregnancy, she assumes the obligation of aborting sooner than later, while the morality is more debatable.
Created:
Posted in:
the best interpretation is that adam and eve was not a literal story, given human history evolving the way it did
Created:
Posted in:
i imagine Oprah Winfrey when i see this thread... "everyone gets an abortion! you get an abortion! and you get an abortion! and you get an abortion! abortions for everyone!"
Created:
discussion on why it's irrational to say there's no evidence for afterlife. more philophsic oriented
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
do you still view the bible as inerrant?
before i thought you weren't very open minded, but now you seem too open minded
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
are you still a christian? how do you describe how your faith reconciles with your stance on abortion?
this new you is hard to tell if it's genuine. you went from no abortions to abortions for everyone. lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
it still doesn't sound like you are being serious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
are u being serious?
Created:
"At the most basic level, neuroscientists say, when a person’s brain changes in profound ways—as happens when that person goes into cardiac arrest, for example—their perceptions and emotions change in profound ways, too."
what i see, is that i post scientific evidence, but you choose to ignore it and respond not with a decent scientific response but rather with weak philosophy instead. what you post is more in the realm of philosphy than science, after all.
Created:
article about philosophically why an afterlife obviously exists
more
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
yes gun nuts will use the emotion that i hurt their feelings to avoid the cold hard logic that impulsive people with guns are more likely to murder others than if they didn't have a gun.
Created:
there's no doubt that having a gun handy when someone is impulsive will increase the likelihood that someone will be murdered. gun nuts like to pretend that impulsive people will just wait until they later get a gun and the murder will happen anyway. it defies logic or an understanding of human nature. of course, if someone is impulsive, and they happen to have a gun, the are more likely to kill someone. gun nuts also pretend that everyone who is denied a legal gun will get one illegally... the problem, is that's not true, not everyone who is told they can't have a gun will get one. that also defied logic... 100 percent of those denied will get a gun? ridiculous logic. so, if someone is told they can't have a gun, and they dont happen to have one when they're being impulsive... murder is less likely to occur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
our society and government is reactionary, though, they wait until there's a crisis point to do anything. that's not the smart response. we do have a democracy, but it's more accurately a representative democracy, so if the representatives can figure out a method to prevent future problems, they should. our representatives know better, often, that's why it's designed the way it is.
Created:
Posted in:
that has an interactive quiz where everyone can balance the budget. the bottomline is that trimming spending here and there and increasing taxes here and there can solve our future debt problems. nothing drastic needed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
if you acknowledge that the debt could or will proably be a problem someday, maybe you should put more emphasis on coming up with ideas about how to prevent that. the path we're on is unsustainable, and your focus is on saying it ain't so bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
but that doesn't mean there never will be a problem, right? unless you are cool with us spending a hundred trillion a year? my point, there is surely a limit on what is safe and responsible... so what is your theory on that?
Created:
THE END IS NEAR MY FRIEND, THE BEAST IS AWAKENING, DESTRUCTION IS AT HAND
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
maybe, but we gotta try anyway, gotta try to stay dominant
Created:
Posted in:
even if that were true that it's part of china, sometimes the only real option for survival is to deny all terms and conditions. to my understanding, china taking it over, would cause a massive shift in power between china the usa and the rest of the world. it would be the rise of china and the decline of the usa.
Created:
i think the question depends on the nature of the crime. if it's not a serious crime, then postpone. if it is a serious crime, then it wouldn't be just to not take care of it now. for whatever reason, everyone disagrees whether this is a serious crime or not.
Created:
another debate thread at a different debate website
example.
the legal standard of 'evidence' is whether it is probative, whether it increases the likelihood for something being true. an anecdote is just an anecdote... but lots of anecdotes are a trend, and they are evidence. 'anecdotal evidence' and 'circumstantial evidence' are actual concepts, and everything i'm arguing is at the very least anecdotal and circumstantial. you just choose to ignore it. i provide lots of evidence, and all you have in response is philopshical quibbles, you have no science to support your claims other than speculation. you dont even have good philsophy on your side... if you it's common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, maybe an afterlife exists? it's not rocket science. we should at least entertain that idea since you are so weak when it comes to the science aspect.'brain chemicals' 'people are seeing something that soothes them', these are the realm of philsophical arguments, not science. what if the afterlife is exactly like these experiences purport them to be? what if you saw that was true when you died? would you claim you had no indication that there was an after life over your whole life? you at least had an indication that there's an afterlife. objectively even if you didn't want to call it evdeince, it indicated something to you, but you chose to disregard it. to quibble and say you had an indicator of an afterlife but no evidence is objectively an irrational statement... you have an indication of the afterlife, thus you have evidence of an afterlife.out of body experiences. you just choose to ignore it. when out of body experiences are investigated, they are almost always accurate. someone who just guesses what happened outside of their body are almost always wrong. these incidents involve credible witnesses like doctors. pam reynolds was being monitored the whole time of her surgery and saw medical equipment during her surgery that she could describe that lay people do not know about. it's a well established story. there can be something little like someone seeing shoes on the window sill of another hospital room that they had no access to. the accuracy of these stories are based on science... it's not science to the degree of certitude that you prefer, but it's basic science. these investigations and be repeated and verified as circumstantially accurate, which basic science.you also just choose to ignore that blind people struggle to come to grips with having sight during their expereince. for your argument to be true, you, again, just have to ignore this evidence. at best, for this point and all the others, you should be arguing that if the truth is as presented then evidence for the afterlife exists. you should at least be be open minded to that possibility, not just ignoring it all out of hand.you dont give good reasons why someone who hallucainte dead family members almost exclusively when they see earth beings. you have speculation that people are close to family, but it's a weak point, cause not everyone is close to family, some people are close to friends, some people are obsessed with taylor swift or elvis presley... they dont see celebrites or living people, it's almost always dead relatives. your only possible explanations for this are weak.you dont even have a plausible explanation for why communication is always telepahtic with these experiences. why aren't they talking during these hallucinations? you have no plausible explantion.if it's common for people to no longer fear death and be absolutely sure of an afterlife after these exerpeinces, and they say their expericences were more real than this life... it's just to not think maybe they are being accurate in their reports.all you have to argue is philsophy, not science. you dont even have to believe that an afterlife is probable or that it exists, just that evidence for those propositions do exist. all you are proving is that you have a deep seated need to be a skeptic, all you have is empty rhetoric.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
a perfect impression, perfect example
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i would be guess almost certainly that twitter bans porno to minors. i dont know why this is a relevant question, cause no one thinks everything is protected speech.
Created:
Posted in:
the supreme court says lies are a protected body of speech. of course not all lies, but in general. what twitter should do is just put a disclaimer on the problem posts. i know there are a lot of people who purposefully lie, but my impression is that most those guys are just guillible and stupid. free flow of ideas is important. defeat wrong info with disclaimers and with truth. that's the american way, regardless of if it's twitter or the government.
Created:
Posted in:
also i dont know what world ya'll live in, but books can contain all the same misinformation and lies and dangerous ideas. i dont know why ya'll are trying to split hairs to argue with me, when you should just be agreeing with me, that books should be treated the same as social media.
Created:
Posted in:
on facebook, conservatives can be banned just for not being politically incorrect. it might not be wrong or dangerous. i'm sure the same happens on twitter. there's an obvious left wing bias in the media and social media. so even if it's not techncially conservatives being banned for being conservative, it for practical purposes is that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So would you be OK banning books that r dangerous or for the same reasons u support banning conservatives on twitter?
Created:
Posted in:
At first I thought Twitter should ban bad info and conservatives then I realized free speech is free speech as a principle regardless of it's the government or anyone else doing the banning
Created:
Posted in:
I use to think referencing God in the government was going to far. Then someone asked me if it's really a big deal, and then I was like not really.
When I was a teen I trusted the government on the Iraq War. As I got older I realized I was too deferential and they never adequately tied terrorism and saddam... I was too gullible
Created:
Posted in:
free speech is a virtue, regardless if the speech is respected by the government or by private citizens and companies.
so it seems as far as the masses move, liberals are suppose to be opposed to book bans, yet support banning conservatives on twitter. i know not everyone falls into that category, but this is the brainless overall overture, movements.
i know a lot of liberals on here support twitter banning conservatives. do you also support those who ban books? if you oppose them banning books, why do you not also oppose twitter banning conservatives?
Created: