Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:31 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Good point Sarge. So weird this thread is about God, when it should be about what a good person BK is.
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:32 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
You seem to not realize that the New Testament is a collection of books written by different men from different backgrounds at different times documenting different works and parts of the life of Jesus
But, they are not contemporary with Jesus' life.
Look man, I have absolutely no agenda. It is a fact that no contemporary writing speaks of Jesus. The Gospels (although they may be true accounts of the life of Jesus) were written MANY years after Jesus died. Some of the Gospels were not even written by the people alleged to have written them.
That's all I am saying.
When you see shite like Scientology, Islam, Mormonism, Branch Davidians, etc. clearly designed to mislead the masses, you have to at least consider that Christianity is the same type of charlatanism. Failure to at least consider it as a possibility is beyond ignorant. No educated person can ignore that possibility.
You can still believe in Jesus and at the same time admit that it is not unreasonable for others to believe that Christianity could be a grand fraud.
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:34 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
You can still believe in Jesus and at the same time admit that it is not unreasonable for others to believe that Christianity could be a grand fraud
You can believe in the that Jesus was a non-fictional character who physically lived on earth, but you cannot believe that (A) Jesus was a good person spreading a great message and (B) Christianity is a fraud.
The two are not compatible. Either Jesus was a charlatan and/or mad man or he is the son of God sent to earth to save mankind. There isn't an in-between.
This post was edited on 3/21/16 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:34 pm to Old Sarge
And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with BK acknowledging that things greater than himself are responsible for any success he has. That is the very definition of a humble man.
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:36 pm to KaiserSoze99
My personal relationship with Christ says otherwise, but to each their own. 
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:36 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
That is the very definition of a humble man.
Exactly. He is awesome for that.
I am not as big of a man that he is. I would have grabbed the microphone and shouted "And to all those coaches who told recruits I would die so they wouldn't come to A&M, I hope you have plenty of time to go frick yourself sitting at home this March."
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:42 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
You can believe in the that Jesus was a non-fictional character who physically lived on earth, but you cannot believe that (A) Jesus was a good person spreading a great message and (B) Christianity is a fraud.
I actually do believe that Jesus lived on earth.
I actually believe that Jesus was a good person.
I believe that Jesus' message was a good message.
"Christianity" is a broad term with many different meanings, but if it is simply a matter of living in accordance with Jesus' message, then I support it.
If Christianity means any and all religious actions done in the name of Jesus, then I disagree. They are absolutely compatible.
What many people have done with Jesus' message, over and over again throughout history, is absolutely a fraud. Are you telling me that no person has ever exploited Jesus' message to control, enslave, or defraud others?
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:42 pm to cardboardboxer
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:45 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
I said before, I have no agenda. Just because it is unequivocally factual that there is no known contemporary writing about Jesus does not mean he did not exist. Those two factual statements are not mutually exclusive. There is no contemporary writing that King Authur ever existed, but that legend grew from something.
Historic documents do not have to be contemporary to be true. That is a very weak argument and it severs has zero value to prove or disapprove one's existence. Jesus only preached 2.5-3 years. His followers were small in numbers. Just an example, Jesus performed miracles in front of hundreds of people but non believers claimed this was the power of the devil. Why would people who think they were tricked want to write about it in contemporary form? The Jewish church denied his teachings and he was the son of God. The Romans also denied him. Why would the Romans or Jewish people write in contemporary writing about a man who preached the gospel that they considered to be a liar and a threat? Even if other non Christian scholars did write about Jesus, in contemporary form, the records would have been destroyed after Jesus's death. Christians were being persecuted. The 4 disciplines were scared, due to persecution as well, but managed to write in detail the historic events that occurred by gathering information from people with first hand knowledge.
Contemporary or Non-contemporary proves nothing on the true accuracy of historic documents.
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:45 pm to cardboardboxer
Yeah. No doubt. I would have grabbed the mic and yelled "Suck it, Bitch. KS out" and dropped the mic.
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:49 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
I would have grabbed the mic and yelled "Suck it, Bitch. KS out" and dropped the mic.
What would have been awesome is if he said something at the end like:
"Oh and Mr. Roger Klarvin, I just want you to know I read SEC Rant and I have been eating take-out Chipotle all week for flavoring."
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:51 pm to cardboardboxer
That would have broken the Internet
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:51 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
I actually believe that Jesus was a good person.
I believe that Jesus' message was a good message.
But if you believe all of the things attributed to Jesus in the New Testament were truly said by Jesus, then he's either a mad man/liar or the son of God.
There just isn't really another option. He states it plain as day on multiple occasions.
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:58 pm to ctiger69
quote:
Historic documents do not have to be contemporary to be true. That is a very weak argument and it severs has zero value to prove or disapprove one's existence. Jesus only preached 2.5-3 years. His followers were small in numbers. Just an example, Jesus performed miracles in front of hundreds of people but non believers claimed this was the power of the devil. Why would people who think they were tricked want to write about it in contemporary form? The Jewish church denied his teachings and he was the son of God. The Romans also denied him. Why would the Romans or Jewish people write in contemporary writing about a man who preached the gospel that they considered to be a liar and a threat? Even if other non Christian scholars did write about Jesus, in contemporary form, the records would have been destroyed after Jesus's death. Christians were being persecuted. The 4 disciplines were scared, due to persecution as well, but managed to write in detail the historic events that occurred by gathering information from people with first hand knowledge.
Contemporary or Non-contemporary proves nothing on the true accuracy of historic documents.
If you put the gospels in the order that they were actually written, you'll find that Jesus starts out as a nice guy with some good advice in the first one, and eventually morphs into a Marvel character with super powers by the time the last one is written HUNDREDS of years later. It's like the biggest game of Telephone ever.
Posted on 3/21/16 at 1:59 pm to Teague
That statement is complete nonsense
Posted on 3/21/16 at 2:02 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
That statement is complete nonsense
Because it isn't true, or because you don't want it to be true?
Posted on 3/21/16 at 2:02 pm to Old Sarge
So is this officially now a criticize Christianity thread?
Because if so that sucks. I mean I am ready for it, I too have read Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. But the fact that we can't talk about a good basketball coach because he mentioned God sucks.
Because if so that sucks. I mean I am ready for it, I too have read Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. But the fact that we can't talk about a good basketball coach because he mentioned God sucks.
Posted on 3/21/16 at 2:04 pm to ctiger69
quote:
Historic documents do not have to be contemporary to be true.
I agree.
It is still a fact that no contemporary writings speak of Jesus. That's it. Don't read anything more into that factual statement.
quote:
That is a very weak argument and it severs has zero value to prove or disapprove one's existence.
I agree that it is a weak argument to unequivocally prove that Jesus did not exist.
The absence of contemporary writings IS probative when calling into questing what Jesus actually said and did, or questioning the motives of some of the early Christians.
For Example:
"Jesus said X." Pick a quote or teaching that is controversial.
Response:
How do we know what Jesus allegedly said? All we have is an account that is based on multiple levels of hearsay.
Lets show it a different way:
"God showed me this ancient book written on sheet of gold in a bastardized form of Egyptian characters. God then gave me the power to translate this language.
"But you can't see the book. God took it back. You have to rely only on what I tell you. Here is what that golden book said, translated by me, into English.
"I am God's messenger. He came to me in person and I talk to him on a regular basis. Trust me. This is for real."
Do I even need to go into detail about a response the the above example?
Is it unreasonable for people to question authenticity, especially when the purported teachings prescribe a fairly burdensome demands and restrictions?
Posted on 3/21/16 at 2:06 pm to Teague
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Most likely order
Please cite examples of your phenomenon
Mark
Luke
John
Most likely order
Please cite examples of your phenomenon
Page 6 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News