I don’t think Mark Lamarr is one of the gods mate."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
I don’t think Mark Lamarr is one of the gods mate."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
58? She has cats older than that.I think I pegged you for about 58, what do you consider long?
What happened to him?I don’t think Mark Lamarr is one of the gods mate.
And then just as I get used to it, they invent stereo.We've had two millenia to get used to monotheism but there's always a few struggling to keep up ;-)
The majority of religious people (actually all, I would argue) follow their religion for purely social reasons. Intelligent people can believe in God, but no-one has ever actually come to belief in God intellectually. They may try to intellectualise it later on, but they're coming at it from an intense desire to believe for whatever reason (usually social or emotional). Intelligent people still believe in God for the same reason intelligent people still don't accept that their wife is cheating on them when it's obvious to everyone else.You're dodging the two main thrusts of the conversation though.
1. Your view implies almost all religious people are stupid, naive, or gullible. There's also a shared implication that people who aren't religious are the opposite and therefore superior intellectually.
The majority of religious people (actually all, I would argue) follow their religion for purely social reasons. Intelligent people can believe in God, but no-one has ever actually come to belief in God intellectually. They may try to intellectualise it later on, but they're coming at it from an intense desire to believe for whatever reason (usually social or emotional). Intelligent people still believe in God for the same reason intelligent people still don't accept that their wife is cheating on them when it's obvious to everyone else.
We've got people on this thread boasting about how 85% of people 'believe in God.' And yet 85% of that 85% live in places where if they publicly denounced the prevailing religion, at best they'd end up ostracised from their community, and at worst, they'd end up dead. Which shows what a sham the whole thing is, based entirely on social belonging and control, and not at all on any kind of objective observations about the nature of the world.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
internet mining not allowedon the contraryJesus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
rubbish, apart from the gospels which are all anonymous and written at least 2 generations later than the alleged dates there is no corroborating evidence from the alleged time(romans or jews, basically anyone) to support them or that he even existed( not saying he didn't)That's as far as the records can carry us, a good deal more precise than for most historical figures at this time though.
You want different historiographical standards to apply in his case?rubbish, apart from the gospels which are all anonymous and written at least 2 generations later than the alleged dates there is no corroborating evidence from the alleged time(romans or jews, basically anyone) to support them or that he even existed( not saying he didn't)
the 1st century is a well written period to boot
the Josephus link which is from 93ad (the antiquities of the jews) is very tenuous and very dubious that is pretty much it