Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother Thomas,
Quack quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hello Dippy one.
When did I say that the British PM was also an Australian PM?
You just twist things so much. I have said
Our British PM.
I have talked about the British PM being a PM of the Commonwealth.
I have even linked to all of the different PMs in the Commonwealth.
Yes, I am an Aussie. I don't think the British PM is also the Australian PM. I never said it was.
You REALLY are an Idiot and you should learn to read and you should stop being such an arrogant prat who demonstrates stupidity at every turn. I get it. You hate me and despise me. Good for you. But stop lying and stop calling me a liar. And Get a life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It doesn't take too much to get you frustrated does it Stephen, you little stalker you?
Mark 15:45 gives evidence by a Roman Centurion that Jesus was dead. That this evidence was satisfactory to Pilate enabled him to permit the body to be removed and given to Joseph of Arimathea.
John 19:32 also gives evidence by Roman Soldiers that when they came to Jesus he was already dead, so they did not break his legs. Instead one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear - bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. This was evidence that Jesus was dead.
The scriptures testify that Jesus died. There is sufficient evidence of this. To say there is none is nonsense. And the ravings of a man not willing to accept anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Have you ever seen a chicken run?
Waddle and twaddle.
quack and quack.
cognito ergo, sum duck. with gravy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Funny thought really:
Birds that quack are ducks - and yet South Kentucky is the home of Brother. Perhaps he is a chicken.
Certainly given he never really replies in any way but hiding behind his innuendos and false bravado - it makes me lean towards the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I looked at each of your posts and didn't find anything worth responding too. It all looked like "quack, quack, quack". And I don't speak duck.
It's ironic you come from south Kentucky. I wouldn't thought that the preferred bird would have been chicken not duck. In either case - you are very good at roasting yourself.
Does that come with gravy.
Thanks for playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Best Korea is a satirical nickname given to North Korea under the humorous assumption that it is the better of the two divided nations on the Korean ...The North Korean god has surfaced. We are still waiting for the South Korean gods to enter the ring.
Of course it satyrical, just like Brother D Thomas.
Except the Brother comes from south Kentucky.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
best.korea
If I was to say to that there is no Hell, what would say to that?
If Hell is everlasting torture, then what did you mean in John 3:16? Let me quote it to you.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him won't perish but will have everlasting life.
A couple of things come to my mind as I read this verse.
- Firstly the word "perish". What does perish mean? In all of my limited experiences - perish means end. It does not mean eternally perishing. Or eternally dying. It means finish. When something perishes it doesn't keep going - you throw it away. That is the ordinary meaning of it. Another meaning is "death". When we die, we die. Not we keep on dying and dying and dying and dying ad finitum. That really diminishes the definition of death.
- Secondly, everlasting life. Isn't the opposite of life, death? If we believe, we get life, if we don't we get death. But what is death? It is not eternal life in hell. That makes no sense. Death is death. It might be everlasting death. But it can't be everlasting life in death - that makes no sense. After all, you have to believe to get life.
- Hence, I think from your own words - John 3:16 anyway, that the idea of suffering eternally in Hell is a nonsense. Unless of course you mean you give us life - for eternity to suffer. But that is not what you mean so WHAT are you talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Is the bible contradicting?
Why don't you go and ask your master. I notice he has joined the site recently under the name of best.korea.
He seems almost as "quacky" as you.
Both of you seem determined to be the biggest fraud and fake on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Quack Quack.
You do realise that some people live in the real world and are not seduced or even convinced by a link to website.
Oops sorry - I forgot that "some people" include you - my little precious Duckie.
It does surprise me how some people look at a website page and go "aha the truth in spades" - their own personal little gotcha moment.
Well it helps you sleep.
thanks for playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Another quack. How precious. Quick someone get the dogs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am not sad.
For a so called god you really don't know much do you?
Who said I have a family? And who says I have any friends?
Surely I would not be here on this site if I had family or friends?
You are not omniscient are you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Luke 14:27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.You never said you are a reverend. But you did say all the other depraved things Stephen and BrotherD. accuse you of being. You can’t be a reverend and pervert but here you are making that possible by admitting “that I have never said I was a reverend or asked to be called one.
Dear Shila,
While you are correct that I have never said I was a reverend and never asked to be called one, you are incorrect in relation to any so called "depraved things" Stephen and Brother accuse me off. His retort in relation to chaplains in the defence forces is inaccurate. He can quote and link all he wants - but given he has never served he doesn't actually know how it really works. His explanation would exclude many pastors and chaplains from serving because many would never willingly or intentionally take on the title which they think is unbiblical. And yet they serve. How does Stephen explain that conundrum? He doesn't - he just repeats his doctrine and links to a site which he thinks answers all questions. That is why he never passed high school.
He also misunderstands completely why the presbyterian church does not call all of its pastors reverend. Not every person serving in the ministry is ordained. Ordination is a necessary part of the process of obtaining the title reverend. Many pastors and chaplains going into serve as chaplain in the defence force haven't been ordained. suitable qualified academically, professionally, and even in experience - yet not ordained. Many pastors see ordination as unnecessary. But hey Stephen has his google links to specific links. So don't confuse him with the real facts. He has lived so long in his home - in front of his computer that he rarely gets out of the house - let alone into the real world.
I will concede that I have spoken in frustration at Stephen calling him some pretty horrible things in quite disgusting language. I regretted doing so immediately and apologised. You can find my apologies on this site somewhere if you wish to check. Stephen of course thinks I was lying even in that apology and as such offers no forgiveness. That in my view is entirely up to him. He wishes to hold this against me and keep up his vendetta and resentment.
On the other hand, despite all of the allegations of perversity and depravity, or even sexual experimentation, what are the concrete accusations? What I consider depraved is not the same as what others might think is depraved. What I think is experimentation is not what others might consider experimentation. Indeed if the studies of Kinsey are correct every person experiments. There are no concrete accusations here - just vague suggestions.
I have labeled myself depraved - in a theological sense. That is NOT the same as labelling myself depraved in other ways. The Theological doctrine of Total Depravity is also a general doctrine. This means that if it applies at all, then it applies to every person on this planet. If it is not true, then it does not apply to any person on this planet. What it is not is a specific doctrine. Hence attempting to make it apply to me specifically as though it somehow makes me especially depraved is simply nonsense and the ravings of a person unacquainted with the doctrine of Total Depravity. This is another reason the allegations simply roll of my back since they demonstrate ignorance.
Brother D and Stephen are the number one stalkers on this site. They are both fakes and frauds. They accuse others of being liars but never quite produce the proof. They provide little snippets of evidence but never the killer blow. Like most con artists they use a piece of fact and attempt to build up from there with speculation to try and sound like they know what they are talking.
I am not perfect. Never have I claimed to be. But I am not a liar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Where in the bible does it say God hates evildoers? And don't think I didn't notice how you avoided my question. What is the definition of world in John 3:16.
Besides Jesus said - love your enemies. Or was Jesus lying?
you are a fake and a fraud. If Hell exists then you will be there. If it doesn't you will be snuffed out into nothingness.
Either way - you have had it. Thanks for playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I've never claimed to be anything that I am not.
but as for you talking about my intelligence or even lack of it - how flattering?
That you just have to find so many ways on any given way to talk about is as flattering as it gets. And you really think you are not stalking me?
I do hope they lock your children and grandchildren away from you each day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am right. You are evil. You will burn in hell. You are wrong. You didnt prove me wrong. You proved yourself wrong.Your words will be used to judge you. Every violation of Bible is unforgivable. You will be punished for it.I am right. I say that I am the God. God hates you. You want to fight a God. You better know your strength.
So just to be sure that I understand what you are saying. When the Apostle John wrote in the gospel of John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son .... - that you - fake god - think that God hates me? If God loves the world, then he loves me.
If you don't define the world to mean everything in it - then how do you define the world? So either you lied in John 3:16 in the bible or you are lying in your paragraph above where you say you hate me? Which is it, you proverbial loser?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Again my care level is zero.
Go away and stop stalking me - mr stalker.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
I can't speak for every congregation of the church but not all are the same and not all fit the label you "assume".
in the church of christ for instance - they don't have reverends - even though they are educated and even called to the position.
In the baptist church you can be a pastor - but not ordained and therefore not entitled to be called reverend.
In the salvation army they use the ranks of the services - no reverends.
In the Pentecostal or charismatic and brethren churches they don't use the title of reverend either - most haven't been educated and most would reject the title reverend as unbiblical.
In the Pressie church - you can be a pastoral assistance, a student pastor - educated in both instances - but still not entitled to be called reverend.
now perhaps it works differently with the posts you have googled. Again I don't care.
you were wrong then and you are still wrong and I don't care - you simply have no idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That is all I needed to do.
Or perhaps that is all you were able to do!
Thanks for playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR EXPLICIT QUOTE: “The Bible says woman can speak in church”Cite the EXACT passages that support your alleged premise. WAITING!
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised (1984), electronic edition. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), 1 Co 12:7–11.
The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised (1984), electronic edition. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), 1 Co 12:7–11.
The implication of this passage is for all persons in the church, old and young, Jew and Gentile, clergy and non-clergy, male or female. EVERY ONE is given different gifts for the common good.
5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised (1984), electronic edition. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), 1 Co 14:5.
The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised (1984), electronic edition. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), 1 Co 14:5.
Paul is making the point that he would like EVERY ONE to speak in tongues in church. EVERY ONE includes young and old, Jews and Gentiles, clergy and non-clergy, males and females. EVERYONE who belongs to the church should be able to speak.
26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised (1984), electronic edition. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), 1 Co 14:26.
The Holy Bible: New International Version—Anglicised (1984), electronic edition. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984), 1 Co 14:26.
Here is an explicit passage that tells us that when the church folk come together EVERYONE has a hymn or a word of instruction, a revelation etc. So long as everything is done in order - then age or youth, clergy or non clergy, Jew or Gentile, male or female - all are allowed to speak in church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Thank you for admitting you are not a Reverend. I will no longer address you as that and will continue to demand you are more humanely treated despite your condition. But my primary goal is to defend the Historical Jesus and the Christian institutions that bear his name.
I am neither admitting nor denying anything in relation to what or who I am. I have a name on this site and that is how I wish to be addressed. namely: Tradesecret. Thanks for your courtesy in this regard. I just repeat I have never requested or asked to be called reverend.
In respect to the historical Jesus, why is it necessary to defend what is clearly in the OT and the NT? I believe it was Charles Spurgeon who indicated there was no reason to defend a lion.
As for the Christian Institutions whom bear his name, are you prepared to defend each and every one of them or just a select few?
It does sound like an honourable task - and I wish you all the best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Now if you also add to stephen’s list what BrotherD. had to say about you, Reverend you need some serious help. You might even need to get all that eastern religion flushed out of your system to help you start anew.Or even temporarily drop the name Reverend out of respect for the Christian institution you belong to.
Perhaps it might be worthwhile knowing that I have never said I was a reverend or asked to be called one. Infact Stephen lied about this as well - and when challenged, came up with nary a response. All his stalking left him with more egg on the face.
As for stalking, it is very clear Stephen is the no. 1 creepy stalker on this site. Brother is coming close as no. 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Was that a quack I heard?
Quack quack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Hi Shila,
I am surprised by your support - but just for the record, the British Commonwealth has many more than one PM. It has 32 in fact.
Of course the website probably needs to be updated to reflect the new king of England. It appears to not have been updated since 2020.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am right. You disagree with me. That means you are wrong. I am the God.You will burn in hell for about 300 years.More bad things: Your entire family will burn in hell.Children are punished for the crimes of their parents.Didnt I write in the Bible that behavior such as yours takes you to hell? You still do it.I am not angry that you are going to hell to burn. It wont harm me in any way.God is always right. It is wrong to disagree with God. Those that disagree with God will be punished.Logic of God is simple, yet many fail to understand it. Thats why they burn.
Well a little petty god who doesn't like it when people prove him wrong.
Hey god, - if you knew your bible - you would know that what I said was not the unforgiveable sin. But hey- if you're really god you wouldn't made such a silly slip.
Fraudulent one. It is you who will spend eternity in Hell. For blasphemy against the Spirit of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are so precious. I said our English PM. It's not a lie. She was not our Aussie PM. she is part of the commonwealth. I don't really care that you are such a ding dong. - but really - accusing me of lying over this is just the ravings of a little baby. Stop whining all the time.
but all the same have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
wow - is that really the best you can do?
You do realise that the OP was just that? the Op.
Of course the data is not there yet. It was to come after that.
And it did.
I don't have to draw conclusions for you - you're a big boy. Well that is what you want us to think. Oh wait you don't care what we think. So why bother drawing any conclusions for you?
As I said - the only reason to come back now is to respond to so called clever stalkers. Again you just prove my case. So predictable. Good night old chap. thanks for playing,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So your Australian PM is English, is he?
No, our PM is very Australian.
Yet Australia is part of the Commonwealth so I am quite entitled to view every PM in the commonwealth as ours. Just as every nation in the Commonwealth is entitled to call the King our Majesty.
This is one of the beauties of the Commonwealth as opposed to the UN.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am right. You are wrong. What I say is right. I say that I am the God. I am the greatest of all. People cannot win against me.People set their traps thinking they can trick a God. God is the master of the worlds. No one can trick a God.God is always right. You should always listen to God.God gave the Bible. Bible is not a collection of stories. Bible is the truth. Bible is Gods word that is to be followed literally.Every part of the Bible is true. Doubting just one sentence in the Bible means you go to hell.
You are a fraud. Perhaps you are really Brother D Thomas in a new form of parody. Who knows.
I set no traps. You fell into your own little hole. Once you denied miracles you stuffed up. I do happen to believe the bible. You sadly do not know it very well.
In any event - your threats have no credibility - since you are not God. And that is a problem for you - not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I notice he's contributed very little to his own thread. This will be another topic he will want to disappear and wish he hadn't stated.
Well there you go again, exposing your cleverness to the entire forum. Unlike you - some of us actually have real reasons for starting threads and unlike you some of us know when the reason has sufficiently been addressed.
Here the purpose was not ton demonstrate that Josephus was not a real person but to demonstrate that the lack of original data does not prove the person existed or not.
This was covered very early. The underlying purpose was for then to see whether people on this site were able to make the logical step from the lack of source documents for Josephus to Jesus. Some did and some didn't.
Once that purpose and the underlying purpose was achieved, I had no further reason to contribute further - save and except when stalkers come on and pretend that they are so clever. Still have a good day. And thanks for playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well what a strange little god you are then dear best.korea.
And a sad name too.
Now it is pleasing to see that you point out persuasively that we should not seek a sign therefore there is no need for you to provide me the name of my daughter.
Indeed to perform any such miracle would in fact probably invalidate your own words in the bible, not to mention yourself.
But you see there is one sneaky problem that now you are going to have resolve for me.
If you don't do miracles anymore - how is it that you are able to speak on this site for this is truly a miracle.
Why refuse to do miracles - and then at the same time do a miracle. That makes no sense - even if you are always right. It appears that you also always wrong.
But then again -perhaps your name is not best.korea but rather best career. And it seems that you actually have made a poor choice - and ended up like our recently deposed English PM - a short lived poor career.
Happy holidays- and thanks for playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
-->@ShilaStephen confirmed everything I said - in post 251.Post #251 was your post.You posted, “ Shila, Stephen lives in a delusional la la land where everyone else is delusional and attacks him but where he never does anything wrong.He doesn't see insulting, refuting, arguing, using ad hominem arguments, gee pretty much everything as "attacking".It would be nice if Stephen gave us an example of what an attack is - since he is the only one on this site who knows what an "attack" is.But don't hold your breath. Just wait for the non-attacking replies that Stephen will send our way - all for our own good.”
Yes exactly, post 251 is my post.
And in post 253 I was noting that Stephen's response in post 252 confirmed everything I said about him in post 251. Nothing in Post 252 by Stephen is true per se. In fact it is a pack of lies. Yet the manner and style and emotion of his message in post 252 as a totality confirmed what I was saying about him in post 251. And he did not let me down.
He did exactly what I said he would. Predictable as they come, is Stephen our own local stalker.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Stephen confirmed everything I said - in post 251.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Deb-8-a-bull
I DONT THINK I AM VERY GOOD AT TRANSLATING SCRIPTURES.Which still leaves you high above all theist here, Deb and even higher than the highly educated Reverend Tradesecret.. Take a bow. "good game , good game".See if you can translate these snide slights against you, Deb.I'll leave you to read for yourself his patronising tones towards you. HERE>> "cute and backward"
Sorry Tradesecret, no stalking in that at all. Stop it. Stop it Stop it. Stephen is just trying to protect that young man's honour from the horrible and evil trade secret. Oh ok then.
deb - you must be happy then, with Stephen acting now as your knight in shining armour. I think it suits him very well. And about time too I would say- since he has never ever said anything mean and nasty to you - or indeed to anyone. But take heart - he has his trusty sword in his hand - ready to poke and prod just where he desires in his endeavours to protect poor little you. ( I think that is a sword - but hey I could be wrong)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Oh yes I could ignore you. And you could ignore me. But that would be hard because you are addicted to me you little stalker you.
It seems you have a problem with humour and always see my digs at you in a negative light. Please know I bear no ill will to you - save and except you are a little stalker. But I can live with that - as I have demonstrated repeatedly.
I will treat best korea the same as I treat all others on this site. well probably apart from you and brother. Even Shila is a cut above you - and he has accused me of all sorts of things in the past.
Gee this must be my psychopath tendencies coming out.
or was that narcissistic tendencies. I forget really.
Have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yeah, you were beginning to bore me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Now you have confused me. Are you a man? No seriously. Are you a man? And he I am thinking you were a duck.
If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and thinks like a duck, then well logic says - it must be a duck.
I reckon you are duck, you old cheeky thing you. Don't be confusing us again. You old thing you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hi Stephen,
thanks for the response. It confirmed everything I said.
Thanks for playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Hello,
I just want to say that you have contradicted the Bible which you tell me is always right.
In Hebrews 1:1-3 - the bible says - in the former days, God spoke like this - but NOW in the present - He speaks this way.
In the former days - God spoke through all sorts of things like dreams, prophets, even donkeys. but now he has confined himself to the teachings of Jesus and his disciples. Hence the NT and the OT.
Interestingly too in Daniel 9:25 God said that he would seal up the revelation of God at or about AD 70.
So if the bible is right - then you are wrong. And if you are right then the bible is wrong.
these two things are mutually exclusive. So tell me why you think you are god?
and can you tell me the Christian name of my daughter? After all, Moses - you remember Moses needed proof that you were God when he to the Israelites.
If you can't tell me - then I won't waste any more of your time. Nor of mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother, how are you?
It's nice to see you can still use a computer.
Oh by the way - I am not a woman. Secondly, if I were, which I am not, it would not prevent me from putting my views down on this site.
Despite your silliness, and oh yes, don't forget the humour, you are wrong. The Bible says woman can speak in church. They can do all sorts of things - in fact pretty much anything a man can do. There are two exceptions. They cannot be an elder on a ruling church body. And secondly, they shall not teach men in a public worship service from the bible.
Of course - everything else is up for grabs. You don't seem to understand the cultural aspects of what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians. If you did, then you would realise that the places where people were meeting were primarily synagogues. And if you have ever been to a synagogue, you might have noticed something very similar to what happens in a mosque. the Men are separated from the woman and the children. and in the Jewish synagogue - gentile men were excluded from the section where the men would meet. Some of these synagogues were double story places - men at the bottom with the teacher. Woman and children and gentiles were at the top. You can google pictures of these synagogues if you really cared.
Now obviously - children can be noisy and if anyone upstairs was listening to the teacher down stairs there would at times be difficulty hearing what was said. This verse you pull out and wave around has a context. And the context is church order and discipline. You will find that other things mentioned in this context include prophecy speaking in tongue, gifts of the Spirit. Paul was concerned that a public worship service would be orderly not a public chaotic scene. So Paul gave the church at Corinth strict instructions about who could speak and when. Don't do anything that is going to disrupt the service. And that includes the idea that Paul said when he said woman should not speak but should go home and ask their own husband. Every time a woman shouted down to her husband - "what he saying? What does he mean?" It disrupted the service.
Hence, the primary rule is "don't interrupt the service". and whether this is speaking in tongues, prophesying, singing, or shouting down to ask your husband what the speaker is saying, don't do it. Do all things in order. Since God is not a God of chaos.
Now I know that you will simply ignore this and just go on with the drivel that you usually do. But at least now you have been told. And you can do whatever it is you do with knowledge that you acquire.
but have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Shila
He has repeatedly attacked Reverend Tradesecret.If you are going to keep alleging this let's have some evidence of these "attacks".
Shila, Stephen lives in a delusional la la land where everyone else is delusional and attacks him but where he never does anything wrong.
He doesn't see insulting, refuting, arguing, using ad hominem arguments, gee pretty much everything as "attacking".
It would be nice if Stephen gave us an example of what an attack is - since he is the only one on this site who knows what an "attack" is.
But don't hold your breath. Just wait for the non-attacking replies that Stephen will send our way - all for our own good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Christians don’t rely heavily on Josephus. They have the Bible.But they do.The works of Josephus are usually amongst the first place that Christians will point to as 'evidence' for the existence of an historical Jesus outside of the New Testament.You did it yourself, here>>> The case for the Historical Jesus (debateart.com)Shila wrote: The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.
You would hardly expect anything else though would you? Christians rely upon the bible - but since some people without a clue or an education suggest the bible is not a valid source to rely upon will only accept other sources - the go to case is going to be Josephus. There are a few others but too many - since there are not too many sources for anything back then for anybody. You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The essence of ideological theory perhaps.Which never quite tallies with the realities of ideological practice.For example, the ideological zealot will find enlightenment in cutting someone's head off.Though I fail to see what any of this has to do with the "essence of life".
that's ok Zed, I used the term essence of life - because I wanted us to discuss all of the varieties of worldview which make up life. Hence the essence of life. It is not the essence of religion - since I also included atheism which is not a religion unless of course you live in USA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Interested in people's views of Mormonism on this site. I live in a high Mormon population area, so it's hard for me to gauge the opinions of people less familiar with them in real life.
How would you describe the essence of Mormonism. I would think from their position that they want to see people live in accordance with their teachings not for salvation but for something else. I say that because in their teaching - they believe everyone gets saved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, let me take a stab at it.Judaism: Sticking to one's own ethnicity and being loyal to it, ensuring the Jewish people excel.Hinduism: This was a colonised amalgamation of Shaivism, Vaishnavism and pagan outliers, the underlying message is to celebrate the chaos and journey that we are on and do good if you can.Daoism/Taoism: Aim for balance, be the one to flow as life naturally leads, leaving drops of good when expedient and not the one to constantly force too much benevolence or too much malice.Christianity: Embrace all people and give, use guilt and the approval of others as the mechanics of the moral compass.Islam: Discipline, fear and undying loyalty to Allah and fellow Muslims but unlike Judaism, aim to spread it far and wide to other ethnicities, do not stay insular.Most Japanese-originating Religions, especially Shinto: Actions define us, not words or emotions.Buddhism: Discipline and minimalism above all else, shut up and give to your community or end up reborn instead of in Nirvana.Sikhism: Be natural and respectful of nature to the extreme, be hairy as you can get away with, ready to slay the beasts that may seek to impose against nature.Wicca and most neopagan religions: Today the sun is out, let us dance, today the moon is out, that is okay we will sacrifice a goat and have an orgy, preferably a lesbian one.Thanks for reading.
Fair enough stab. I did suggest a bit of positivity in the summaries. Let's see if you can do it again - this time trying to summarise from their own point of view - not your view of what you think they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The only one you got properly correct in a one sentence summary was Islam.
No right or wrong answers. I have asked if people can articulate what they think is the essence of each religion and worldview. I provided some which I thought might provide some answers. My answers were simply for the most part google answers.
Created:
Posted in:
If you could articulate the essence of every religion and worldview including atheism in one short sentence, what would it be?
Start with the more well known religions: and add others as you desire. Try and use a positive tone.
Buddhism: a movement desiring inner peace with the world and oneself.
Hindu: a movement hoping to reach enlightenment to be at one with the all in release.
Hebrew: A movement attempting to transform the world into a holy place
Christianity: a movement trying to reconcile God with humanity through Jesus.
Islam: a movement seeking a belief in and submission (worship) to Allah.
Atheism: a movement which seeks to understand the world through the eyes of humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Hold on - you are confusing me. Are you saying we don't have to have documentary evidence written in the same time as someone who lived to be able to verify they really lived?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
you think I have problems!I know you do.
Context Stephen, context, it really matters.
you - the number one stalker on this site - asked the question - with the obvious intention to distract.
Do I have problems? Yeah - but compared to you - I really don't.
It's all in the context.
Created: