Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

The certain thing is that I'll see you there and we'll have a good laugh at us both
Rick

As I understand it, according to Christian doctrine, you will not be seeing him, since he has not accepted Jesus and has very likely never confessed, thus will end up in hell for all eternity.

 

[Rick Murchison]

As I understand it, according to Christian doctrine, you will not be seeing him, since he has not accepted Jesus and has very likely never confessed, thus will end up in hell for all eternity.

We'll see... While I'm not a proponent of "cheap grace" I do have a great deal of faith that many are called who don't yet know it, and that they'll get there in spite of my efforts to help 'em.
Rick

 

[Thalassamania]

we'll have a good laugh at us both
Rick

Let's not wait, if I'm right we will not have time later, so we should do that right now!<G>

 

[sandjeep]

Thalassamania said
"Secular evidence for the existence of Jesus"

This is a meaningless concept.

No, it isn't. It means simply what it says. Non-Christians (Secular) talking about a historical figure. Please note that at least one of them is a Historian.

As I pointed out earlier there is far more "secular" evidence for the actual existence of Herakles, Son of God than there is for Jesus, Son of God. By your standards we should all be making sacrifice to him on the weekend. Or that what the American mania for BBQ is really about?<G>

Sorry, as a Christian I don't make sacrifices, but I do like BBQ if its done right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandjeep
I did not say contemporaneous. However, since you insist in making this rather old argument, I want to know if CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITINGS is YOUR standard for all figures in history or is it just Jesus you have a problem with.

I actually asked a question above. As you said in an earlier post to someone else, its binary, yes or no, true or false, ect.

Does Thalassamania require that two contemporaneous cross-references are necessary to prove that a person existed?

 

[Thalassamania]

Sorry, as a Christian I don't make sacrifices, but I do like BBQ if its done right.

Sorry, I forgot, I was confused for a moment. Let's see ... Christian ... that's transubstantiation, not BBQ ... but it is ritual cannibalism from my perspective, and we athiests don't do cannibalism, we're not paraphilic by nature. Never could keep all the competating "truths" straight, transubstantiation, consubstantitation, idolatry ... it would make anyone's head spin.

actually asked a question above. As you said in an earlier post to someone else, its binary, yes or no, true or false, ect.

Does Thalassamania require that two contemporaneous cross-references are necessary to prove that a person existed?

Asked and answered. You're beating a dead horse.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Let's not wait, if I'm right we will not have time later, so we should do that right now!<G>

Why not both?
You know where I am
Lemme know when you're in the area and we'll toss a few back.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." (Ben Franklin, IIRC)
Rick

 

[agilis]

Why settle for less? Get the original! More than a thousand years before the Christian era, the original story described a living God in human form, who was born in a cave, his mother a virgin, and his coming foretold by a bright star. Attempts to destroy him resulted in a slaughter of infants throughout the kingdom. He survived, and grew to manhood. He became a worker of miracles,a champion of the poor and the oppressed. He cured lepers, made the deaf hear and the blind see. He was crucified on a tree, descended into hell, but rose again, and ascended into heaven, where he will judge the living and the dead at the world's end.
His name? Krishna! So many things have roots in Sanscrit.
As Yoko and John suggested, cultivate Krishna Consciousness.

 

[lamont]

All good questions. My question was aimed at the gentleman who said "There is no proof that the Universe itself cannot be uncaused" In that context, my question is sort of an inverse response to that assertion.

Either way it destroys the First Cause argument. If there are no entities in your ontology which are uncaused then God cannot be uncaused. If there are entities in your ontology which are uncaused then you need to prove that the Universe is not one of those entities, before concluding that God must be the First Cause (and the universe is pretty weird, particularly the beginning of it, so I don't accept as obvious that the universe cannot be uncaused just because we don't normally observe anything in it which is uncaused).

 

[Hank49]

I’m with you half way but I end that paragraph a but differently: I am continuously amazed at the human ego, a delusion so overarching that it drives otherwise sane and reasonable people to believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing God who is concerned about them and with whom they communicate on a regular basis.

I agree with you in agreeing with Rick... But I don't think it's ego that makes us believe in God...at least all the time. I'm still not sure about the whole deal to tell you the truth but since I lost my parents (dad about 10 years ago and mom this March), the only way to stay "in touch" (I do catch myself looking up and talking to them) I guess it's a good way of putting it, is hoping and believing that they are "up there" somewhere. And the only way they CAN be there is if there is an after life, or Heaven type place. I'm sure I would feel even more strongly about this if I were to lose one of my children. Does that make it a real place? I don't know....but it sure brings comfort and peace.

 

[Thalassamania]

the only way to stay "in touch"

That I can undersand, all too well.