The Obama Deception Censored

A classic example of mindfucking the religious ones out there.

 

Its impressive whenever anyone doesn't blow their top against their accusers. What is written is that Jesus apparently had a small conversation with Pontius Pilate but said really nothing to his defense and absolutely nothing in response to his accusers.
What did happen is that Jesus did seem to confront Pilate about his officiating because Pilate really didn't care one way or another, he was just one of those people who were appointed to preside over these people. There's more detail into that which should be made known when people read of this encounter.

The crucifixion is a bit much for me to read into right now, I still have to get up and attend to my various jobs.

Most of my own personal problems with evolution have already been stated. Other than those issues, I don't think there's anything significantly wrong with Darwin. And even some of the issues I have problems with still have a sporting chance at being right.
To get back into politics, I'd say I really wouldn't mind if Evolution was taugt in school as long as it was not voiced as an established fact. As I said, I don't think the T'Rex got smaller arms after years of not using them. Its not a bad theory to think that might be the case, but that sort of thing has to be identified by what it actually is... which is as theory. In the same vein, it would also be great to see other fringe subjects being mentioned since it will be the job of the future generation to prove what is real or not. Maybe a few John Keel books could be added to the school libraries instead of Harry Potter? Not that Harry Potter is bad, but I think its rather obsessive that every school has to carry several copies of those same books and make the kids read them. It certainly helps JK Rowling's sales. Its no wonder that the books almost get sold out during the very first seconds they are made available. I liked Goosebumps better, by the way.

 

Well, if you threw away your faith just on the basis of a ridiculous brain teezer than I'd say you weren't in very good shape to begin with.

 

From Aballister,

"-The evening of Christ's resurrection is the time of ascension for Luke, but Acts dates it 40 days after, (Luke 24:1-59 vs Acts 1:3 ). After resurrecting, Jesus was to meet the disciples, says Matthew, in Galilee; but says Luke, it was to be in Jerusalem -- merely 100 miles apart! (Matt.28:l6-17 vs Luke 24:33-36)"

The 40 day thing I'm not really equipped to answer. I'm raised in a completely different culture with a vast difference of how the weeks and months and seasons are labeled. Answering this would require a professional who is just a little more above my head.

The second inquiry I can take a better wing at. The word Jerusalem can also apply to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, if those were among the eleven that Christ was meeting with.
But really, it looks like we're reading separate events. One event seems to have occurred while Jesus was first proving that he had in fact risen from the dead while the other seems to have occurred when they had accepted that he had risen from the dead and he was telling them what to do next.

Unless you can give me similarities in the words being exchanged (like with Pilate), or another hard question having to do with the dates, I would have to think that these were separate meetings with similar people and that they certainly had time to move from place to place. Certainly, God can always appear anywhere he wants to, by the way (at least when he's not in the flesh which downgrades his powers on earth somewhat. That is also a way of handling the Boulder question. I tend to remember it as the the burrito question that Homer asked to Flanders on the Simpsons, "can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself he cannot eat it?". The answer is yes, if God occupies a different body. As for his actual supreme form.... that would have to be one very hot burrito. The question is to the effect of whether God could overpower himself. He probably can, but why would he want to?
Its a question worth asking but not something I'd want to get obsessed over. Mind you, there are philosophers who seem to have rather literally died trying to sort out their own crap like this. Its one of the most idol of all professions).

It'll probably take me many months to a year to figure out every detail about the old calendars so I sorta have to opt out on the basis of my meek credentials, probably in a similar way that you'd have to eventually opt out if we got too deep into some areas of science as so you mentioned ("I'm no anthropologist, but I'll try my best to answer").
Another issue you raised is to the effect of "why would the bible have to be this complicated", the truth is that it shouldn't be. Its primarily a fault of the religious leaders and teachers because many of them de-evolved (yes, its okay to use the terms) to a point of not really being good for anything except a few verses mixed with stories of their personal lives presented in a fashion of motivational speaking. Really, there's probably not a single good preacher on sunday television, and not very many on the religious TV networks either. I really tried to give each of them a fair shake by watching all of them at least once or twice. The best preacher I have would be Arnold Murray of Shepherd's chapel, and then I also like to dabble with Texe Marrs from time to time (he's not perfect, I should mention. But very he is rather enlightening, certainly on matters of the occult in general.). Murray certainly knows the calendars better than me.
Other than Murray and Marrs (no affiliation, I should point out), I mostly enjoy a lot of holy men who have been long gone as of today. Rasputin is good, Johnny Appleseed (though he had a different version of Christianity, Swedenborga-wha, something I can't spell and am not affiliated with. But I admire is overall character, and yes, most of the legends are true about him), Martin Luther, etc. People with better brains and higher work ethics essentially. Rasputin was almost perfect in my eyes except for the abuse of alcohol and multiple hoards of women under his pillow, but that is really more of his personal business that he struggled with and was also very open about. People with the double lives are more to be wearied about, and also the ones who vehemently campaign against others for the tings they personally do aswell. Swaggert is good example of someone like that, I'm rather sympathetic towards him because he seems more troubled rather than dirty (as opposed to the Bakkers), but he is simply not a good preacher and there is scripture that would tell him that if he read about Baal and the Donkey or so many other places in the bible that warn against the frenzy preachers and the exciteable preachers and the ones who don't have their eyes on scripture when they deliver their sermons.
People like Swaggart also do harm to people like Ozzy Osbourne, but also his own cousin Jerry Lee Lewis (cousin to Swaggart, not Ozzy). Lewis and Ozzy both believe in God to a substantial degree but they simply choose different professions and then become hounded for it. Poor Lewis is so conflicted that he's not altogether certain if he should even talk about "fire" in his lyrics. Lewis might probably be surprised to know that he has a better shot in the afterlife than someone like his cousin. But that would be judging, and I don't want to get too far into that except to say that Lewis pleases me a lot more than Swaggart in what I'd expect from a Christian. We're not perfect obviously, but at least Lewis is not a preacher (not that being a preacher is bad, but it is bad if you have a double life) and personally I've read their backgrounds and I think I think Lewis knows more about the Bible than Swaggart does.

But thats me getting sidetracked, that's why I cam to Fugly. Hoping people are more sympathetic to a wide range of topics and not upset if I derail. Of coarse, it is my own thread.

 

I didn't have a chance to reply in the last couple days. I have been busy with work and I have also been reading Stranger In A Strange Land by Heinlein. Good book.

I'm still researching a few arguments for our discussion. The Bible isn't always easy to read and my time is scarce at best.

 

I think I like your style. Its good to see someone putting some thought into their questions rather than just quoting regularly from one of the Atheist Vs Theists lists and Q and A's that are available over the internet. If we both did that to each other, it would be kinda like transplanting someone else's feelings into our own and never really making any progress.

Whenever I do get into this type of debate, I do try to work along the lines of what is available off the top of my head (what I already know) or what is present in the Word itself.
Questions having to do with the time line and calendar for instance could probably be answered by some one else, but I would not be in ideal place to just pull that sorta thing from someone and pretend it came from me. Furthermore, I'm not confident to think I would understand the right answer even after it is given to me. Its sorta like E=Mc Squared, whatever that happens to be the right answer to, I don't know what the answer is or how to present it or understand it once I have it unless months or years worth of work were put behind me learning it. But there are other people who do know those things.

For another interesting topic if you want something you're well acquainted with, would you mind telling me your beef with Creationists?
I enjoy the movement quite frankly. My major complaint (for the people who present themselves as Christians, the people of my faith) is that even with all their science dabbling they still don't have a very good scriptural knowledge at the foundation of their teachings. A good example is the fact of how when they defend the story of Eve being created from one of Adam's Ribs. Rib is simply a bad translation from the King James, and that is all I have to say to win that argument when some one brings it to my direction. I feel rather sorry that William Jennings Bryan didn't have that type of knowledge available to him when Darrow was digging into him on the stand for the Skopes thing, as I recall.
Bryan lost a pivotal moment in history because he didn't read his Bible enough.

 

Oh dear - you just bitchslapped the God of bull. He shan't be pleased!

 

Chumwad's avatar is in my top three on this site right now. Where the heck did you find that?

 

I took it from a sketchpad of drawings done by Bullgod. If you look at this one under UV light, you can see he has signed it in semen.

 

If you look closely, you will also see Cumwads tongue marks on my signature.

 

Easy answer to the arguement.

Bible=Bullshit

 

Post pics or it didn't happen.