pookie. I’ll say it again. READ “The case for christ” by Lee Strobel. Its a good read that relates to the existence of jesus and the truth to the stories told about jesus.
[quote]harhar wrote:
pookie. I’ll say it again. READ “The case for christ” by Lee Strobel. Its a good read that relates to the existence of jesus and the truth to the stories told about jesus.[/quote]
That wouldn’t be the guy who also wrote “The Case for A Creator” and “The Case for Faith”? You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t think it’ll show both sides of the issue with equal enthusiasm.
I’ll stick with doing my own research.
You might find this interesting if you’ve read the book: http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm Seems that Lee Strobel didn’t even bother interviewing a single skeptic to see what they had to say on the matter. There’s also a chapter-by-chapter critique.
Using that methodology, I could interview a couple dozen kids under the age of 5, and write a convincing “The Case for Santa Claus”.
Maybe we should start a “God/Santa” thread were people could talk about who’s the toughest man ever…
If you want to get biblical, I think Samson slew 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass one day (or maybe 10,000).
Whoever the “real” bravehart was had to be pretty tough,
What about our founding fathers, you know the ones who made themselves traitors to the king for the sake of a principle.
The spartan army had to sprint 600 yards in 70 pounds of armor to defeat the persian archers, and to push the Persians into the sea in a 4 hour battle, and then march approximately 100 miles in less than a day in that armor (because it would have taken too long to remove it) to beat the Persian ships back to (uh Sparta I think)
Ghandi didn’t eat anything for over a month to stop a civil war.
Also, Yoda, the Maccabees, that guy from Digstown, Bruce Willis in die hard, Rocky, The Serbs at Kosovo who basically saved all of Western Europe from an invasion by refusing to take a bribe from the Turks to let them pass through unmolested, supergrover, that one guy who masturbated 24 times in one day, oh yea, I saw a documentary on a worker who agreed to go into Chernobyl to inspect the core when they all believed he would receive an instant lethal dose of radiation, my brother played an entire season of highschool football with a broken foot and a completely torn-off achilles tendon which he kept a secret of.
It all depends on what you mean by tough.
Spartans. Bad, Bad Mofos.
Ever’one should check out 300 by Frank Miller.
[quote]Vash wrote:
Spartans. Bad, Bad Mofos.
Ever’one should check out 300 by Frank Miller.[/quote]
Would that be fiction or non-fiction, and what makes it so good exactly in comparison to other works on Spartans(I assume that is the connection to the rest of the post)
I once unknowingly drank an entire beer bottle full of chew spit.
I nominate me.
hehe
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Pookie:
When you compare Chirst to Santa Clause you are not being accurate, as Santa Clause is a fictional character.
No, actually I compared God to Santa Claus. God is Santa Claus for grown-ups.
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!
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]
Since you are continuing the hijack…
I agree, there are not what we would call today an abundance of records regarding Jesus Christ. However, there were in fact very credible writers who had no reason to accept Jesus as the “Christ” but who wrote about him never the less.
The Romans would not have spent a great deal of time writing about Jesus as they were obviously not interested. Yet, there are Roman historians who did just that.
The Jewish people wanted to pretty much forget about Jesus as they did not accept him as the messiah, however there are on record Jewish accounts of Jesus Christ.
For someone whom you think did not exist there sprouted quite a religious following over 2000 years. No? Was this man, Jesus a figment of the diessenting Jews imagination? I hardly think so, and to believe this is certainly more “far fetched” than to think that there were actually someone there who began this religion. Does your denial of God also lead you to deny the existance of other founders of world wide religions, or is it just this one?
You are obviously an athiest and I am sure that a few posts may not change your mind. However, to deny Jesus existance is, I think wrong minded. Even those who do not believe he was the messiah agree that he lived.
Read the following it may or may not shed some light on the subject for you:
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html
(I now have to go and recieve my 10 lashes for continuing your hijack 
[quote]pookie wrote:
That wouldn’t be the guy who also wrote “The Case for A Creator” and “The Case for Faith”? You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t think it’ll show both sides of the issue with equal enthusiasm.
I’ll stick with doing my own research.
You might find this interesting if you’ve read the book: http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm Seems that Lee Strobel didn’t even bother interviewing a single skeptic to see what they had to say on the matter. There’s also a chapter-by-chapter critique.
Using that methodology, I could interview a couple dozen kids under the age of 5, and write a convincing “The Case for Santa Claus”.
Maybe we should start a “God/Santa” thread were people could talk about who’s the toughest man ever…[/quote]
I would think that you wont need to see the “other” side as the reader probably is or know very well of the “other” side. And interviewing 5year olds? Where did you get that from?
I could go on to argue about the reasonings in the link but I think we are straying way off now…
Topic: Toughest man excluding Jesus must be Aron Ralston from all the people I know of.
But I would like to be tough (as in strong) like Bill Kazmaier.
its difficult to say about past bad asses like alexander the great, napolean, atilla the hun and william wallace because information is sketchy at best. So for recent, documented people, Rickson Gracie without a doubt was the toughest person in the world for prehaps the entire decade of the 80’s and 90’s. Not a bad accomplishment eh?
George Washington definitely should get a vote or two himself, we wouldnt even be here if it wasnt for him…
Here we go…
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus…so tough
Christianity was intended for the Jews, but they correctly sniffed it out for being a crock of BS. Along came “Saint” Paul (Saul) who decided to give up his day job persecuting Christians for the State (Rome) and become one himself. Paul and the gang set about flogging their new cult to the Gentiles. Rome eventually became “Christian” (how ever the hell you would define that, after all, it’s not like they suddenly became pacifists).
The gradual conversion (or infection as I like to call it) of Europe occurred through violence and political expediency. Christian - in name only - the old heathen values born out of a love of battle, adventure and knowledge, still lived on, just twisted and cloaked with the mythology of Christ.
Christianity was an ascetic, anarchist type cult, which was why the Romans killed Jesus and his later followers because he was a nuisance to the State! Of course the Bible blames the Jews for the crucifiction, it was written by the Romans!!!
Jesus Schmesus, if he was shot with a rifle would you hang one of those around your neck! Science, medicine, democracy, politics, law, philosophy, ethics et cetera, et cetera, evolved out of the knowledge and practice of pre-Christian and non-Christian societies.
But I know what a lot of you are going to say … “It says in the Bible…blah blah” dogma is more comfortable than truth.
The World’s toughest man? Sheesh, is that what you were all talking about…
[quote]harhar wrote:
I would think that you wont need to see the “other” side as the reader probably is or know very well of the “other” side.[/quote]
What I meant is that if you’re trying to prove Jesus’s existence scientifically, you have to look at all the evidence, even the one that doesn’t support your case. Here, Strobel interviews only christian scholars who already believe that Jesus is both an historical figure and the true son of God.
Analogy. Strobel’s trying to make a case for Jesus, by interviewing only people who believe in Jesus. To make an easy (and wrong, of course) case for Santa, I’d interview only people who believe in Santa, namely 5 year old kids.
The point is: That’s no way to make a case for anything. You don’t start from the conclusion and then pick and choose your facts to support it; you look at all the evidence and follow it where it leads you, even if it means that your previous beliefs are proven wrong in the process. Your beloved “Case for Jesus” book is bullshit in other words.
Yes, the easy way out. Of course. For some reason, theists always find an excuse to leave the conversation when confronted with facts they can’t refute.
If you’re concerned about “straying” off topic, please feel free to start a “Historical Jesus” thread and argue about how the reasonings from the site I linked are all wrong.
Interesting how the “God haters” come out of the wood work as soon as you mention Jesus Christ. Hey, is that hate speech Sam?
From the link: “Indeed, one of the gospel writers (“John” in John 20:31) even admits that he’s writing propaganda - for the purpose of “building faith” as he puts it”
All the biographies that were written in ancient times were written for a purpose and the purpose was to give people a lesson about life. The “lesson” in this part of the bible is about having faith in god and getting to him through jesus. Now, John is merely stating the reason why he wrote this part of the bible. Why would this be propaganda?
Teaching the world a lesson in faith is propaganda (“bad”) to you folks, then I have not much more to say…
another quote: “They were no fools, they knew exactly what they were doing, just like modern propagandists”
Well then where are the supporting materials to this claim that these writers were propangandists? Just saying that the authors added a little fault to seem credible is not a good argument imo. If Jesus was part god part human, it is entirely possible that he would show god-like as well as human-like characteristics.
Anyways, thats about all I want to pump out in this conversation as I know this argument will lead to nowhere. No thread in any forums has lead to any good while discussing a subject such as the one we are discussing right now. You will remain an atheist as I will remain a christian. Nothing we can to to turn each other. At least I dont think so.
harhar:
Sorry to burst your bubble my man, but when you take one sentence out of context it’s sort misleading huh? You have John 20:31 all wrong!
John 20:31 is a direct reference to the previous sentence John 20:30, which states:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book (the Bible).”
Then John 20:30 goes on to state:
“these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
In other words Christ did many, many miracles however not all of them (most one can assume)are recorded in the Bible. The ones that are present were recorded so that you would believe.
I suppose any document can be distorted by highliting only one line and then attempting to make your case based on that.
[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]
Read up you say will prepare to eat crow.
Yes his father built up a sizable army which consisted of about 20,000 Macedonian solders. He did create the battle strategy that Alexander used until his death. Alexander improved on those greatly, by refining the strategy his father created and adding a new dimension to it. He also improved the training of his solders and created a much better logistics philosophy which even survives today (check out the old US war doctrinal manual ?U.S. Army FM 100-5 Field Service Regulations: Operations (1940)? He also united the Greek world by force, enlisting the help of the other Greek states.
When he went to war he was almost always leading his cavalry to the fight.
Dude you obviously know little about war,? there is no such thing as an invincible army only an army who refuses to be defeated.?
–Napoleon
I have read most of the literature about Alexander. I have even written articles about him and other great generals in the mag History of War.
It really comes down to this, his father did not unite the Greek states nor did he concur Persia, it was Alexander that did.
To quote The Truppenfuhrung (the Germans Doctrinal manual in WW2):
?Battles are not won by one General but bay the whole might of his character?
I’m surprised no one mentioned the Roman Gladiator turned rebel Spartacus.
The Gladiators were tough as nails.
[quote]BOSS wrote:
I’m surprised no one mentioned the Roman Gladiator turned rebel Spartacus.
The Gladiators were tough as nails.[/quote]
Spartacus? Would you fill a quick story of 5-10 lines about him? Never heard of him. But the gladiators had no choice. Kill or get killed.
I forgot to mention the legend of Marathon. Sparta conquered marathon, and a runner runs from marathon to sparta to spread the good news. When arrived, he was so exhausted that he just gave the news, fell on his knees and died. Pretty dedicated. Sad that it took 2000 years for exersizeology to spread that overtraining IS bad for you 
[quote]Imbrondir wrote:
BOSS wrote:
I’m surprised no one mentioned the Roman Gladiator turned rebel Spartacus.
The Gladiators were tough as nails.
Spartacus? Would you fill a quick story of 5-10 lines about him? Never heard of him. But the gladiators had no choice. Kill or get killed.
I forgot to mention the legend of Marathon. Sparta conquered marathon, and a runner runs from marathon to sparta to spread the good news. When arrived, he was so exhausted that he just gave the news, fell on his knees and died. Pretty dedicated. Sad that it took 2000 years for exersizeology to spread that overtraining IS bad for you ;)[/quote]
Not true. MOST Gladiators lived long enough to gain freedom if they wanted it. If a gladiator died, the show producer had to pay for him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
harhar:
Sorry to burst your bubble my man, but when you take one sentence out of context it’s sort misleading huh? You have John 20:31 all wrong!
John 20:31 is a direct reference to the previous sentence John 20:30, which states:
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book (the Bible).”
Then John 20:30 goes on to state:
“these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Respectfully snipped…
[/quote]
Zeb, my understanding would be that if John stated that something was not recorded in this book, that he would be talking about the Book of John, not the entire bible, as the bible is actually a conglomerate of individual books put together hundreds of years after the death of Jesus and his Apostles.