vlad321 said:
If you are going into an argument at least be curteous enough to do some basic fact checking instead of pulling misinformation out of your ass, please. "We didn't kill the Aztects, but converted them?" Are you joking or do you really believe that load of shit? Since you don't know something something that simple let me reduce it to just a very single point. Is human sacrifice moral in christianity? It is moral to the aztecs and they think of it as "good" and anyone who disagrees as an idiot.
Why dont YOU do the same thing you just told me to do, huh? I said it like 10 times by now, there are tons of religious practices that christianity and its morals DISGAREE WITH. But there is a difference between religious worshiping practices and the morals of each religion, and I believe that all the good ones would agree with Jesus christ's morals. I really dont know how to put this any easier for you to understand. As for converting, the remaining Aztecs did convert to our religion, that is an undeniable fact, maybe you ust hate anythig goign christian, so you try to deny that?I mean, do you even know what religion Mexico is?
As to why Mary is not a virgin here are 3 undeniable facts: Back in those days adulterers, especially women, would be severely punished. It takes a man and a woman to conceive a baby. People want to live and survive, as well as their children. This is undeniable, reproducible, and observed evidence. I think you know where this is going, Mary slept with someone other than her husband, went "oh fuck imma die," and to save her ass she lied as to who the child belinged to. There you go, insurmountable evidence mary wasn't a virgin.
HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA, oh dear God in Heavens, what the hell did I just read?I've seen some crazy shit in this we site but this one EASLY takes the biscuit.Would you beleive me if I told you I was laughing non-stop for about whole minute when I read this? Now, before I respond to this, you gotta let me know if you're actually serious about saying that or is this one of your theories you just made up to insult on Christianity? Out of respect for your intelegance, im really gonna go with the latter, but I gotta hear it from you first.
I also liek how you are laughing when you didn't understand anything, yet again. Let me outline it with smaller sentences and words for you. Christ is god's son. This can only be true if god, the specific way you think he exists, exists. Christ isn't the son of god if god isn't what you think it is. Therefore, Christ's validity rests on god existing in the first place. Did you understand that now? Furthermore, correct me if i am wrong, but there wasn't much talk about Jesus until he was 30-ish, except that one incident at the market. Gee, I wonder what an adolescent boy does between the ages of 12 and 30. Let me give you a hint, lots of drinking and fucking up (usuallyliteral fucking too). Just like with Mary, saying Jesus is sinnless is laughable given the overwhelming evidence against it.Ok, you are really starting to piss me off with all your disrespectfull shit coming out of your mouth. First of, Jesus Christ existed on Earth. This is a historical undeniable fact. Isnt that the proof enough of his vaildaty? Second,both historical and biblical evidence points out that Christ was described as a sinless person or like a ''man like no other'', and the only way you can be sinnles is to be son of God and the only way to be son of God is if there is a God.Third, I BEGyou to show me evidence where Jesus has sinned ONCE in his whole life. Either biblical or historical evidence.Or is this one of you anti christian disrespectufll hatred bashin with absouletly no evidence whatsoever?
Also, you obviously don't know of any fairy tales that have basis in real life events and people. Robin Hood and King Arthur are the ones you would be most familiar with. Yet, it hasnt been historiclly confirmed that they exist, unlike Jesus Christ, which DID existed. Also, what Robin Hood did wasnt very moral, he still robbed people.There were some more in other cultures, but given your astounding lack of knowledge in the areas of the Aztecs, I won't even bother.Oh please, test me. Also, why are you not a muslimBecause I was born in a christian country and raised by Christian people? Mohammed was just as real as Jesus, and he didn't have all that many gaps in his life as Jesus. Sure he went to some cave, ate some mushrooms, and probably saw the archangel, but why are his teachings not good enough for you?Who said they arent? I acknowledge Muhammed and most of his moral teachings. (the thing with more wives was merely a culture and the sing of friendship with other important families for spreading of Islam thing)
As for alien life, do you know what obeservable evidence even means? To quote myself: "We have evidence of how life comes about, what is necessary for life like ours to prosper, and many other such things." That IS observable evidence.But did anyone actully ever saw an alien life in space? Hell no, because havent found the evidence yet. There are lots of theistic philosophers that ''know how God works and his laws of existance'' but there arent any actual observable evidence of God And ''lifes like ours'' is the exact opposite of the definition of an alien life. The number of planets in the universe? Also observableYet, no evidence for alien life, only high chance there may be in some of those planets. Again, I am surprised at your astounding ability in not knowing much about a whole lot of things. For another instance of this, you still don't seem to realize that the Big Bang was proposed AFTER there was evidence of its existance, and it doesn't matter what Einstein believed, just his results matter.
Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a priest from the Catholic University of Louvain, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts — an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
The actual standing evidence was found after the theory was proposed by a catholic priest.
Given that evidence, the priest came up with the theory.What evidence? Do you even know how science works? It goes theroy -----> evidence supporting theory, not evidence for supporting theory----->thoery. WHich, by the way, has a hell of a lot more evidence than a "soul."You, dont understand the concept of soul. Soul cant be proven by science, because its the only non biological part of your body. But if you dont beleive in it, fine. I dont have to justify my beleif to everyone. Tell me, how is a soul not different than a unicorn? Can you disprove to me the existances of unicrons and faries and leprechauns? If they existed, we would have been able to see them on this planet, the simplest argument comes to my mind.
I am also surprised that only 5 billion people have blind faith, because I am sure there is 6.5 billion idiots out there. Just because the majority thinks something is right, doesn't make it so. I did say atheism is also wrong.What the hell? You cant say both theism and atheism are wrong, one of them has to be correct, stop acting stupid. There is either a God/Gods or there arent any. However you show even more lack of understanding. Yes, there may be 100 different theories about god right now, most probably more. I actually find it utterly laughable that you think that the only possible cosmic beings are the ones that humans can imagine and pull out of their ass. Let me tell you, there are FAR FAR more possibilities where there is a sentient force which caused the creation than you could ever wrap your head around. The thing is though, there is an even bigger subset of possibilities which have nothing to do with a sentiennt being at all. Ok, than please go and name a few.The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion. The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause. Its leading proponents believe the intelligent designer to be the God of Christianity .The thing is, a person who believes in the existance of a non-specific being that created the universe, is FAR FAR more right than you.I believe that deity with characteristics such as omnipotence,omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence, deisgned or created the universe. its not very specific, but for now most of the arguments show it that way. You are just simply wrong because you are one spec in the middle of infinity. At least the person who believes there is some form of god doesn't specify what it actually is. Christians are extremely specific, and they doomed themselves to just being wrong. As for atheists, they have a far greater than probability of being right than you, or any muslim, or hindu, or Aztec,etc. Solely because all the possibilities that allow for creation without a sentient force are so many, and religious beliefs are so specific.I thought you were talking this mathematically speaking. Mathematically speaking, thesim (beleif in a superior being, because only a superior being could have created something as complex and impressive as universe) is more likely to be correct than atheism, be that superior being God, or a deity of some other concept.
My words were "an atheist person is a lot less wwrong than a religious person" which ties up with the above.You still said atheist people are a lot less liely to end up in ''Hell'' than atheist person.
P.S. Please, for whatever you believe in, go do some fact checking before you write a reply. You pull a lot of shit out of your ass, and it is really tiring having to correct you all the time.Funny, I was about to say the same thing.
|
