Alright. How about this one?

http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents

 

good grief. with a TCL/BALLER combo coming at us the stupid level in this thread has reached staggering proportions.

 

I appreciate the effort, but he's really not worth it. He follows me around between threads and posts e-threats as a hobby. If you ignore him, he'll go away.

 

That's very true.....

but,

we aren't talking about any of them.

 

You started it! What did you expect from "Was Jesus Real?" LOL!

 

Say again?

THE
BOOK OF MORMON
ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST


That was at the top of the page!!

 

I don't have any prejudice because I don't need for him to have existed or for him to not have existed.

Which part of this is a quote exactly?
CS Lewis said that Jesus was "myth made fact", because there are so many parallels between the Jesus story and other contemporary myths: Osiris, Mithras, Zoroaster, Baal. Lewis argued that all these other myths were false and Christ was true - but his argument was counter-intuitive. Even within the frame of Judaic myth; Jesus was just an amalgam of Old Testament stories that would be recognized by the audience it was crafted for - particularly, Elijah.

That being said, it's pretty irrelevant. Jesus is more fact to people today than Caesar.

I've yet to see you display even a modicum of intelligence in your whole time on this forum.

 

Lol I love how you all have a God complex, as if you're special or something.

Seriously, name one interesting thing about you.

You're just yet another carbon copy douche and all I care about is not allowing unintelligent douchebags like you spew your BS all over the place.

 

That was my question. Is this historical fact?

 

Yes, and the specific fallacy I referenced is the Argument from Antiquity - essentially:

The story found in the Christian Bible is 2000+ years old.
We still discuss, & some believe, this story even in modern times.
Since it has survived all those years it must be (or is more likely to be) true.

The only "proof" to be had is whether you accept the definitions contained in systems of logical language or not. If you do not, you have rendered the discussion pointless; if you do, my assertion about your stated fallacy remains unrefuted.

 

I only mentioned historical.

What anyone takes as fact is up to them.

So stop putting words into my mouth.

 

for those of you blinded by the brilliant light of idiocy being emitted by our dynamic duo, I present to you an up to the minute score card.

So far we've had gems like

the bible and the koran are both unbiased historical documents

proving the existence of a negative is in fact quite possible

and this from our home town's boy wonder himself, baller16

it's a fine night for a show. the on field action has the crowd captivated.

we now return to the action...

 

I knew a guy from Norway who shits and grins aside believed in Odin and Thor. I doubt the person who believes the Christ story as fact because it's old applies the same "logic" to my buddy and Odin. That's because it's not logic. It's a fallacy.

 

I was referring to your prejudice against those who have stated publicly that they are atheist. You seem quite ready to take a swipe regardless of what they actually type.

See the parts highlighted in red? These indicate that the author is referring to another person's thoughts and ideas - not necessarily claiming them as his own. It is a commonly used literary device that they teach in high school - I'm surprised you didn't notice. :-|

 

I'd really love to know where you got this superior knowledge you act like you have when in reality you're an average douche who can't be the slightest bit open-minded without being high, who has a kid and yet is clearly still a kid himself, and who is a fucking travel agent.

 

Does that make Beowulf historical, too?

"Historical" implies fact. IE: Factual evidence of history. People can argue about interpretations, but historical implies a lack of bias as to root of those interpretations. Ergo, religious documents that assert a certain position concerning their topics of coverage cannot be considered historical as per the topic of coverage. IE: The KJV Bible may be used as historical evidence that King James existed, but not that Jesus existed.

 

and the crowd goes wild.

home town favorite baller the brawler 16 has just landed one of his trademark personal attacks.

will incubus be able to survive the impact and return fire?

let's watch....

 

Really, so why don't you go search the old discussions about God and whatnot before they were here and show my predjudice there? God grow up already. I can't believe I actually used to think you were above that bullshit.

I'm well aware of what he was saying CS Lewis said, but that wasn't what I had a problem with.

but his argument was counter-intuitive. Even within the frame of Judaic myth; Jesus was just an amalgam of Old Testament stories that would be recognized by the audience it was crafted for - particularly, Elijah.

That being said, it's pretty irrelevant. Jesus is more fact to people today than Caesar.

That right there, is not a quote.

 

hey baller!

suck on this

 

Oh and let's not forget the fact that you grew up a Fundie.