Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Edelrid: "Ultralight Helmet" (Red) Fits 54 - 60cm Great heavy duty all-rounder. SUPER SPECIAL for a short time only!  $79.00
21% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 14 of 15. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 286
Author
Off-topic: Climbers who believe in Jesus

Miguel75
12/02/2011
2:21:00 PM
On 12/02/2011 hero wrote:
>No offence but that is all a load of bull. Work through the arguments.Interrogate
>them. You'll find them lacking.
>

I'm with you Hero, the unbelieving heathen hoards will soon learn.

I really enjoy C.S. Lewis quotes too. He had a way with words.
dmc
12/02/2011
3:17:37 PM
An interesting debate

http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

nmonteith
12/02/2011
4:32:48 PM
Another reason why I have a major problem with religion
http://m.smh.com.au/national/education/appalling-law-lets-schools-expel-gay-students-20110211-1aqk2.html

harold
13/02/2011
12:04:11 AM
On 8/02/2011 Olbert wrote:
>Or a less inflammatory response:
>
>The page you linked too basically explains the conflict by saying that
>both genealogies are true, one is through Joseph and the other is through
>Mary.
>
>Off the top of my head there are a number of problems with this explanation:
>It is claimed that Luke is tracing through Mary but in Luke 3:23 it says:
>"23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as
>was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
>It mentions nothing about Mary, it says Josepth, son of Heli. Apparently
>the reason it was supposed that Lukes genealogy is of Mary's is because
>Luke mentions Mary 11 times in the previous chapters.
>

No I am not kidding you. Maybe a more detailed explanation here. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_father_of_Mary_the_mother_of_Jesus Joseph was very obviously the son in law of Heli. Back in the day they only wrote the fathers name, not the mothers, thatís why the list contains only male names. Mary and Joseph were both descendants of David. As my previous link says Ďdo any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? '.
Really? there is not a single name the same between the two lists, how could anyone possibly think they were intended to describe the same family line. Besides, look at the sons of David in the two lists, one is Nathan and one is Soloman, then look up the old testament and what do you know, they are both listed as his sons, very obviously two separate genealogies.
>
>In the rest of the Bible there is no mention of the 'two genealogies'
>of Jesus from David. Nowhere, other than these two discrepancies, does
>it every say anything like "From David there will be two links to Jesus
>for from David both Jesus Mother and adopted Father will come."

Actually it kind of does, and if the gospels were fiction this is totally what you would expect to be 'invented' to satisfy Jewish expectations via the old testament prophets.
Jeremiah 23:5 says he will be a descendant of David, so he must be related biologically through Mary, but since his mother had to be a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) he also needed to be related through his adopted father to be a legal heir to king Davidís throne.

I totally get and respect atheists like citationx who says he just doesnít believe that Jesus was God or that there is a God. Fair enough, I canít prove it. But this skeptics annotated bible trying to prove contradictions, I had a quick look through the list, is soo far wrong its ridiculous. As is trying to say Jesus didnít exist.

harold
13/02/2011
12:52:04 AM
On 10/02/2011 Olbert wrote:

>I did a bit of a search and found no first hand accounts of the existence
>of Jesus or the deeds he committed. The 'evidence' that I did read, for
>example Tacitus, were accounts of Christians and their beliefs, not evidence
>for Jesus' existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Is this not a reasonable contemporary account of JC's existence in history. Not biased because he wasnt a believer, more a historian for the Romans.
>
>The NT of the Bible is a bit hard to use as a source as its not actually
>first hand. None of the four gospels were written till at least 30 years
>after the events and the authors cannot be established. It is generally
>agreed that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthews and Lukes gospel
>were based upon that and another source (refered to as Q). Johns gospel
>was based on neither and hence has little in common with the other three.
> This is to say nothing of the bias of the authors.
>

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/gospel-of-matthew.htm
First hand accounts? As for the new testament:- Matthew and John were two of the twelve apostles of JC and wrote two of the gospels. Mark was apparently an associate of Peter (another apostle of JC). That leaves Luke who was an associate of Paul ( who come on the scene just afte JC's death) so may not have witnessed everything but was around at the general time. Then there is a book by James, Jesus' brother. And finally Peter (also one of the twelve apostles) who wrote two books. Of course as with anything 2000 years old, certainly biased, possibly made up, thats up to you.

>Im not saying that the Bible is completely bullshit, there are clearly
>events portrayed within that coincide with historical events, just that
>the evidence for the figure of Jesus as portrayed within the Bible is virtually
>non-existent.
>

harold
13/02/2011
1:11:13 AM
The great irony of atheists complaining of atrocities committed by religious authorities is that Jesus Christ is recorded as having spent much of his time doing just that and ultimately is why he was crucified.
Brazened
13/02/2011
8:18:52 AM
On 12/02/2011 hero wrote:
>No offence but that is all a load of bull. Work through the arguments.Interrogate
>them. You'll find them lacking.
>
>Or better still, go climbing.
>

If they are so lacking then you won't mind explaining what you mean.

It is one thing to be critical and then explain yourself. But to just say it's bull and not leave any explanation is just plain wrong. Please, from your point of view explain what you mean.

wombly
13/02/2011
12:09:33 PM
http://www.explosm.net/comics/2321/
hero
13/02/2011
5:37:42 PM
Dear Brazened.

"It is one thing to be critical and then explain yourself. But to just
>say it's bull and not leave any explanation is just plain wrong. Please,
>from your point of view explain what you mean."

Really, I can't be f cked. It's like explaining things to small children and I have spent too much off my life arguing with idiots. If you can't work out the fallacies then I doubt all my explanations would be of any good.

Take a leaf from Voltaire's story of the wise Brahmin, be happy in your stupidity.

Brazened
13/02/2011
6:08:49 PM
Dear Mr Hero,
I was not trying to argue with you, I just wanted your opinion. I'm actually curious and would like to know what you think! :)

Do you insult everyone who dares ask you a question?
hero
13/02/2011
8:30:42 PM
Dear Mr Brazened,

Mostly.

If I get a chance I will PM you what I think.

Sorry for the dismissive code red.

You have a good night.
widewetandslippery
14/02/2011
7:53:14 AM
Saturday shopping:
Roo: $19 f---ing .90 /kg
Big fresh king prawns: $19.80.

Proof of no god.

MrsM10iswhereitsat.
14/02/2011
12:46:53 PM
On 14/02/2011 widewetandslippery wrote:
>Saturday shopping:
>Roo: $19 f---ing .90 /kg
>Big fresh king prawns: $19.80.
>
>Proof of no god.

Yoo hoo Mr widewetandslippery. How is your doG going? Perhaps you could send it out to convert it's own roo?

Derek my M10 love who is smart like a horse, and hung like Einstein, reckons there are only two rules in life.

Rule 1: There is no scientific evidence to prove that life should be taken seriously.

Rule 2: Don't panic till it's time to panic, if shit happens refer to rule 1.


It's not that he doesn't believe in doG, he just believes in one less doG than most.
If there is a doG.

He confuses me a bit, but I am sure you will understand dearie.


ajfclark
14/02/2011
12:48:59 PM
I thought the rules were:
1. Wear a helmet
2. Don't be a dick
Winston Smith
14/02/2011
1:05:56 PM
It seem not only religious nuts are prone to glossolalia...
widewetandslippery
14/02/2011
1:32:29 PM
MrsM10, god may smite the earth but the dogs shit on it.

Eduardo Slabofvic
14/02/2011
1:35:31 PM
On 13/02/2011 hero wrote:
> I have spent too much off my life arguing with idiots.

YOu should get out of the house more often then.
Godless
14/02/2011
1:47:19 PM
Are you calling my cat an idiot?

Eduardo Slabofvic
14/02/2011
1:53:36 PM
Not at all, as your cat spend most of its time outside these days. Very smart cat.

MrsM10iswhereitsat.
14/02/2011
1:59:21 PM
On 14/02/2011 Godless wrote:
>Are you calling my cat an idiot?

Ah Mr hero, what do you think about the possibility of a Tac being a supreme deity?

Derek my M10 love tells me that your mate Mr Zebedee is probably right (in the context of feisty goats as well as this thread too), when he said to you "Start early, end ugly." As it will either be that or all end in tears, if you don't take Mr Eduardo's advice and get outside more often.
The words of a song (book?), come to mind.
"They have cradled you in custom, they have primed you with their preaching, They have soaked you in convention through and through; They have put you in a showcase; you're a credit to their teaching -- But can't you hear the Wild? -- it's calling you."


 Page 14 of 15. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 286
There are 286 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints