I know I’m getting even further off topic but, its funny that you should comment about how there might be question that the Old and New Testaments speak of the same God. I personally believe they don’t.
As for other religions, I agree that it would be hard for any of us to say “this one is true, and all the rest are false”, and, in fact, I feel like, many of the religions all have a singular root, and that the differences are due to cultural interpretation. Now, I wouldn’t include ancient Greek, or Egyptian, or similar polytheistic religions, but I guess we can agree to disagree, as this is very much opinion based.
And, for the record, it might be fair to call Jesus dense, but I would merely call Him human. Assuming God did not tell Him that He would be reborn, then He had to trust that God was doing the right thing. The granting of miracles does allow one to believe there is a God, but there is a difference between belief, and faith that God is well-intentioned.
On topic bit: Gee, those roman gladiators where pretty tough guys.
Old vs. New Testament: I think you’re the first faithful I’ve heard that agrees with me on that point. You might be a heretic, though.
As for all other religions, my point was not that they were all the same, but mainly that common themes kept reappearing; the cause being that religions “borrow” stuff they like from other religions. Which is why I view all of them as “mythology”; stories made up to pass on values, etc. But with very little grounding in reality.
The only singular root I’d see would be that man has always been curious about the world around him, and invented “god” or “gods” to explain phenomena he couldn’t understand. Older, more primitive men had gods for a lot of natural events. A god to move the sun around, one did the wind, one for rain, etc. As knowledge evolved and we became aware of the real causes of those events, those gods were then obsoleted and replaced with new gods that were more spiritual in nature.
For Jesus, you’re still saying that the granting of miracles allows one to believe there is a God. I think they allow one to know there is a God. Whether that God is benevolent (well-intentioned) or not, is a moot point once you know He exists.
Yep, I probably am. I have an Encyclopedia of Heresies that I bought out of curiousity to see where I fit
Just to clarify, I know we were saying different things about the many religions, I was just commenting on my view.
Also, sorry, I think my brain wandered mid-thought, as, the last paragraph didn’t come out quite as complete as I meant it. What I was getting at was, if one knows God exists, but is not sure of His righteousness, then doesn’t one have reason to question laying down one’s life freely for His cause, just because He says it will lead to souls being saved?(again assuming Jesus did not know He would be reborn or saved Himself)
On Topic: My feeling, like that of many others here, is that the toughest man is probably someone we’ve never heard of, plus there are variables like “what does tough mean?” and “what time frame are we using?” To put it simply, I’m copping out because I don’t like choosing a favourite/best/etc
Persian King Xerxes son of Darius with his million man army sends a letter to the King of the Spartans Leonidas and his THREE HUNDRED troops defending thermopolae’s pass and tells them to, lay down their arms and surrunder.
The Spartan king’s reply that is sent to Xerxes is only two words.
MOLON LABE.
Translation: Come and get them.
If that’s not as tough as it gets I don’t know what is.
There was an american soldier (I don’t remember the specific’s) over there in afghanistan chasing Osama Bin Laden. Some reporter asked him something about maybe Allah is real and Helping Osama to escape etc etc liberal bs etc etc…
The soldier’s reply was something similar to: “I don’t know much about god, and I don’t know much about Osama…all I know is that it’s my job to arrange a meeting between the two”
[quote]BOSS wrote:
The toughest man of all time would be Alexander the great. He defeated the largest empire in the world at that time, the persions. He also paved the way for the Athenians to take over the Greek states and form Rome. He defeated an army of over 500,000 solders with less the 30,000 solders. Alexander concurred more land then any General in History. He is the General which all others are compared. Even Attila the Hun and Julius Cesar paid his grave a visit. Alexander?s Generals feared him so much that they saved him a chair even after his death.
Another candidate would be Napoleon Bonaparte. He was one of the most feared and successful generals in history, only one man surpassed his achievements and that was Alexander the great
[/quote]
Alexander the Great inherited an invincible army from his father. Seriously read up on recent literature about him. All he had to do was send the word. Which is pretty frickin’ cool. But his father was the power behind him, he set everything up.
[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
BOSS wrote:
The toughest man of all time would be Alexander the great. He defeated the largest empire in the world at that time, the persions. He also paved the way for the Athenians to take over the Greek states and form Rome. He defeated an army of over 500,000 solders with less the 30,000 solders. Alexander concurred more land then any General in History. He is the General which all others are compared. Even Attila the Hun and Julius Cesar paid his grave a visit. Alexander?s Generals feared him so much that they saved him a chair even after his death.
Another candidate would be Napoleon Bonaparte. He was one of the most feared and successful generals in history, only one man surpassed his achievements and that was Alexander the great
Alexander the Great inherited an invincible army from his father. Seriously read up on recent literature about him. All he had to do was send the word. Which is pretty frickin’ cool. But his father was the power behind him, he set everything up.[/quote]
Once more I find myself hijacking this thread…
Although he did inherit the army, at least the core of it, from his father, Alexander was leading in the army as one of his father’s generals even before his father’s death. It’s also important to note that Alexander’s strength was his ingenius mind. While his father was adept at creating an army, he was not adroit in its use. Once Alexander combined his brain with his father’s army, victory was a viable goal for the Macedonian phalanx.
That all being said, I don’t believe either Alexander, nor Napoleon were neccesarily the world’s toughest men. They surely weren’t soy-boys, but their strengths lay in their intellects and their convictions.
Elite soldiers today are highly trained badasses. However I do believe they have an easier job then the elite from the past. Have you military march with a package carrying arms and supply for say 50km? Jesus, I thought that was tough. Imagine doing it with a heavy armor, a heavy sword, maybe arrows, with bad shoes (left and right foot shoes are new inventions), bad clothes, having to hunt their food as they advance. Imagine in combat, seeing your best friend getting his bodyparts chopped off, screaming still alive. Neither can you pause, sitting down and shoot, but have to keep movements fast and powerfull to the end of the battle to have a chance to survive. These were normal swordsmen. Imagine the elites of these men. Again, not trying to say todays soldieres are pussies either.
Next thing is… great leaders are braver. What guy is toughest? A guy who will lose his home and family, or his life anyway, if he surrender without a fight, and therefore joins other men into the war. Or a guy that says, I know how to do this, I will stay and do it no matter what you guys say. I assume total responsibillity for my plan, which may actually make our situation worse if bad. And I will show you how to win, from the front.
Offcourse that is a rare idealistic leader. I certainly did not think of my leaders like that when I was in the military. But a guy like William Wallace (atleast the movie version, I have no idea of the original), is a great example. Good marketing or not, he assumed responsibillity when everybody had more of less given up. In addition to this, fighting in the front lines as a normal soldier. He could easilly die in every fight. Even though John Superman maybe was in the same fight, killing 50 men alone, with one leg, one arm and 2 fingers chopped off, while wearing a wounded man on each shoulder (what’s left of them), Wallace still gets the credit. Because without him, there would not even be a fight.
Alive now?- Lance Armstrong. Read the book “its’ not about the bike”. Even if you aren’t a fan of cycling. The man grows up poor and without a father (not uncommon but sucks), gets testicular cancer and loses a nut, endures numerous rounds of sickening chemo, comes back and trains like a son-of-a-bitch to be the only man in history to win the grueling 2,000 mile Tour de France.
[quote]Galvatron wrote:
Navy SEALs get my vote. That BUDs training is some insane shit to go through.[/quote]
It is impressive what they do, but if you put SEALs in there, you have to go ahead and put other commando groups in there as well, like Mussad, Delta Force, KGB and CIA (the ones out there cleaning up, not the office types). They are no less tough than SEALs.
What about Ron Jeremy? It takes an awfully tough SOB to nail some of the things he has nailed - like that 85 year-old bitty [I just got the willies thinking about that]
This may not be the thread to correct you, however since you brought it up:
When you compare Chirst to Santa Clause you are not being accurate, as Santa Clause is a fictional character. Jesus Christ on the other hand is an historical figure. Whether you think he is the embodimont of God on earth, or not, he indeed existed!
Crap how did the toughest man in the world thread turn into a religion thread, you damn hijackers.
Enough of the religion here, go move your discussion about jesus and santa and such to a new thread. For all intents and purposes lets stick with people whos acts can be proven and not based on ideology or faith.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Crap how did the toughest man in the world thread turn into a religion thread, you damn hijackers.
Enough of the religion here, go move your discussion about jesus and santa and such to a new thread. For all intents and purposes lets stick with people whos acts can be proven and not based on ideology or faith.
[/quote]
Vegita,
I like it much better when you hijack a thread and turn it into a best ass or best rack thread. Do your thing.
When you compare Chirst to Santa Clause you are not being accurate, as Santa Clause is a fictional character.[/quote]
No, actually I compared God to Santa Claus. God is Santa Claus for grown-ups.
There seems to be extremely little evidence of that. The few remaining documents from Jesus’s time and place seldom make mention of him. Most documents that make mention of him are either scripture (which is kinda like proving Santa exists by using stories about Santa to make your point) or were translated and copied over the years by religious monks (who have “edited in” Jesus, so that the accounts matched their beliefs).
There are some (very few) documents that are believed to be authentic and that do make mention of someone who may have been Jesus; but the importance given to the man in those document is pretty small for someone who was supposedly “the Messiah” and performed miracles.
Some also believe that the Church has in it’s possession many original documents, but keeps them secret because they don’t agree with established doctrine. One of the problems with religious dogma and doctrine is that you can never be wrong. You can’t find new documents and revise your doctrine; that might make people wonder about papal infaillability and the Bible’s supposed innerancy. And once the cracks appear… but I digress.
Their may have been a man at some point, believe to be “a prophet” (Judaism) or “the Messiah” (Christianity) that somehow influenced many people with his teachings and his life. My belief is that the true story (if true story there is ) has been changed and magnified through retelling and embellishment (see my campfire analogy in a previous message). But that’s ok. Boring stories don’t last 2000 years.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Crap how did the toughest man in the world thread turn into a religion thread, you damn hijackers.
Enough of the religion here, go move your discussion about jesus and santa and such to a new thread. For all intents and purposes lets stick with people whos acts can be proven and not based on ideology or faith.
[/quote]
Sorry man. Next time we’re looking for a toughest/biggest/baddest/xxxest something, let’s make the rules very clear from the start.
Something like “Worlds Toughest Man That Is/Was Alive; Is Not A Cartoon, Concept, Spawn of Supernatural Entity or Fictional Character”
well, you don’t have to be a republican. Hell, I’m not either, except that I’m registered as one because it’s simpler than saying “Conservative Liberterian” every time I go vote.
Best.
Oh, and you can call me Joe .
