2006-04-06 [Sedition]: alot of it is made up,some of it is imagined,and the rest cant be put through scientific method becuase theres no physical evidence to test.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: if i claimed that i could move a car with my mind,you would expect me to back that up by moving it with my mind.show me someone that can geniunly move things with their mind beyond reasonable doubt and then the supernatural in the case of telekenesis may have legitamacy

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: the reason its called paranormal and supernatural is becuase no one has ever actually proved it to be real,and cant repeat the events in a scientific expirament.its not real until it has been proven so.the same goes for religion.its only a belief system made for people who dont have a problem placing their lives around something with no evidence.it aint real unless it can be proven real,in which it cant,so that means that christianity as i have stated before,survives off of gullability.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: religion simply CANT stand up to logic.

2006-04-06 [Kurai Tenma]: I'm logically mind. You can quit with your rude comments. Downing everything. There are wiki's for people who want to down Christianity. Find one. I do understand my God said whosoever believe in their heart and confess with their mouth shall be saved, not whosoever is saved shall be believers. Satan believes too... but he wont' confess. I have no problem facing my life. You do. You think you have all the answers. Don't say you have proven He doesn't exist with your theories. That's not going to work for you anymore than it does for us. That's what is called a double-standard. You're not a good debator.

2006-04-06 [Kurai Tenma]: You my friend are gullable...

2006-04-06 [Kurai Tenma]: 1Timothy 6:20-1 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: heh,trust me buddy,if you wanna go into scripture we can definantly go there.and theres nothing logical in beleiving something exist when rationality says otherwise.criticising christianity is the right thing to do.if i hurt your feelings by doing so,then oh well.sue me.dont cop out and start going fire and brimstone becuase your losing the arguement and cant awnser my questions.either support your claims are admit that you cant prove jesus existed.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: and i have little reason to respect christians,bringers of oppression,violence,and death to the world.you and every other crazy cult out there have cuased nothing but confusion and suffering to the human race.even if your jesus and your god were proven real beyond reasonable doubt i dont understand why you would worship them.god supposedly created everything,knows everything,and has the power to do as he wish.it is thus logiclly concluded that he not only created evil and suffering,but that he also enforces and imposes it apon humans and at the same time tries to give them a fake sense of free-will.good rarely comes from religion as opposed to the hundreds of millions who have had to suffer

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: and die becuase of it.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: the inquisition,the crusades,the holocuast,the salem witch trials.the list goes on and you guys have a hefty bill to awnser to.you arent individuals becuase if you follow the bible you have to agree with EVERYTHING it has to say.including the parts about murdering anyone different from you.A true christian is one of the most evil people in this world.as a matter of fact,the true follower of just about any crazy cult has been and still is a part the genocide movement.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: so dont give me crap about insulting you.if your a true christian,you deserve it.no rational person wants your evil in their life.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: if you want proof of THAT i have plenty of videos to support that..

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: ill show them too you right now if you ask

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: otherwise shut the fuck up and get back on topic you ignorant peice of trash.

2006-04-06 [Kurai Tenma]: I'm on topic. You're not. You can't disprove anything. I have answered your questions. You can't see that. That's fine. The people who serve God aren't the causer for that stuff. Hitler also taught his group he was under divine influence. Was he? No? Jewish leaders tried to convince people they were. Were they? No. They used it as a scapegoat to get by with what they want. You can't prove Jesus didn't exist. You want to get huffy and puffy, then do it. Go somewhere that it's supposed to be. Do it there. You have a bitter heart against religion. I know why. I'm a prophet. You have no proof of Christians being evil. You have proof of HUMANS being evil. This flesh is evil. The spirit is --

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: you are not a prophet,you are commiting one of the highest sins there are:false prophets.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: its religion that fooled these people into following hitler in the first place!

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: and my questions have yet to be awnsered:the actual,physical,original roman document that supposedly proves jesus is real has not been shown to me.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: and atoms arent made from sound,thats insane.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: people dont come back to life 3 days after death,they dont walk on water,and they dont perform miracles.jesus is fake.plain and simple,i dont have to prove he isent fake becuase you make the claim that he exist in the first place.if we played your game i could just as easily ask you to prove santa and the easter bunny arent real.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: better yet,prove IM not god!

2006-04-06 [Kurai Tenma]: -- willing but the flesh is weak. This is no crazy cult. This is life or death, my friend. I'm far from ignorant. We can tell by the diction. You can't use correct grammar. According to the dictionary, that would make you ignorant, but I won't call you a fool. The Bible doesn't say to kill someone different than me. It says to love my enemy. I know where it is written down. I can show you at any time. Genocide? How can Christians be genocidal? We are taught to love one another, and our fellow man. John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

2006-04-06 [Kurai Tenma]: HA! you God? You have no love. God is love. I win.

2006-04-06 [Kurai Tenma]: See, that's all why we know it's God.... it's not possible without Him.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: how is god love?what has he ever done for you that couldnt of been done by humans?

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: and mind you,god is extremly homicidal,explain the great flood?or hell,lets go with modern times,whats with the earthquakes and tsunamis?what did his creations ever do to deserve it?he supposedly knows everything,so what on earth did he expect from his own creations?face it,if god is real your nothing but a little play thing.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee. Deuteronomy 2:25

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: Ex.4:11 Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: And David said on that day, Whosoever ... smiteth ... the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house." -- 2 Samuel 5:8

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: so far ive proven god loves to terrorize nations,then makes people handicap and hates them for it.

2006-04-06 [Sedition]: this is the icing on the cake,i can go on about how god has ordered the sluaghter of men,woman,and children,even had his followers rip a baby from the inside of a living pregnant woman just to kill it.

2006-04-06 [Kurai Tenma]: Ex 4:11 doesn't do anything. He also heals those ailments as well.

2006-04-06 [Kurai Tenma]: Trying to shake my faith? You look at what He did to those who hated Him. that doesn't mean anything, because God is mercy, and God is love. It's all in His Word. It's one big love letter.

2006-04-07 [Child of God]: That's enough! This wiki is for civilized discussion, not bashing one another or what they believe! Also, this sites states right on it that scientific issues will not be disccussed, so if you want to do that, message one another. There are both Roman and Jewish documents documenting the death of Jesus. I don't know what the Roman ones are called, but I know they exist because anyone crucified was recorded and a justification of it was sent to the Emporer. The Jewish Tulmads, which can be found in a publication of it called The Archko Volume; or The Archeological Writings of the Sanhedrim and Talmuds of the Jews. As I have stated before, there is no historian alive who will debate the

2006-04-07 [Child of God]: existance and death of Jesus. It is the theology behind it all that is debatable. As to why God command, did and allows aweful things to take place in the Bible, that requires a lesson in the history surrounding it. If you would like more information on that please see the wiki What We Are. Once exams are done, I plan to finish posting the theology 101 on topics like that. I apoligize I don't have it done for you now, but my exams start next week and I still have a few history and philosophy papers to write.

2006-04-07 [Child of God]: Your demand for scientific evidence will have to be better expained. Is it evidence for the existence of Jesus, because I have already provided what proof I have available. If you would like evidence as to why that is considered legitamite proof, I would be happy to get into a debate about that with you. If it is proof that Jesus was divine, I can attempt to entertain that, though I would ask we wait for 2 weeks so I can give you full, solid answers and evidence for it. Much of the proof here will be reached through historical and philosophical means. If you are unhappy with that, I apologize. We can attempt a CIVILIZED discussion on creationism vs. evolution if you'd like, but that one may

2006-04-07 [Child of God]: take a while. I have a basic understand of everything along there, but I would have to do research as we go and I'm not sure how educated the others are here in this wiki on that topic. (Heaven knows there's a reason I'm a Philosopher and Historian and not a scientist or mathematician!)

2006-04-07 [Sedition]: evidence is evidence.if it cant be proven scientificlly,then its just an idea and point of veiw with a unstable basis.simple as that.

2006-04-07 [Sedition]: im done here.

2006-04-07 [Child of God]: This debate has been moved to The Proof Discussions for those who would like to continue it.

2006-04-07 [Kurai Tenma]: Sorry.... Why do people not realize that science actually involves more than experimentations and such research?

2006-04-22 [Black_Roses]: Look, look, guys, if you've ever read the DaVinci code, it says that in the pic DaVinci painted of the last supper, "PAUL" who is sitting at a slant, and in a female position, is actually Jesus' wife, MARY MAGELIN! So I don't know how true it is, but the picture does make sense. And where is paul? They think he is the hand in between mary magdelin and thomas! Why? Cuz the hand don't fit anyone at the table!!?? And besides, if it alll started with Adam and Eve. and they had kids, Abel and Cain, and Cain died, where did Abel get his wife? She just popped out of the sky??!! READ Genesis, and you too will realize some questions for Him.

2006-04-23 [alkabong8888]: The Da Vinci Code is fiction.

2006-04-23 [Kurai Tenma]: Umm.... okay... Able died... not Cain. Cain got his wife from God. Most likely a sister, as there was no law, and incest would not be sin. Her place of birth and origin doesn't mean anything. It doesn't matter. Why ask the unnecessary. The Da Vinci Code is one big lie. All researchers and historians agree that material written 50 years or later after an event would be fiction, because the people involved wouldn't be able to remember for age, and the others wouldn't know intimate details. Sorry, but the portrait portrays Paul. Da Vinci himself left proof. Just like the same man was Jesus and then later he was Judas. Mary was NEVER married to Jesus. He had no wife. I become disgusted -->

2006-04-23 [Kurai Tenma]: <-- at such. Oh, the researchers thing... they all agree that the earliest of those that depict Jesus and Mary or any other romance period... or falsehood as they were written at least 75 years after His death... people, wake up. If you want to mess up a religion... do a religion, not the real Salvation.

2006-04-23 [Sedition]: a text isent true just becuase its old ya know.and what difference does it make if it were written 50 years after an event?If i wrote write now that i was posting in this wiki,then 50 years later someone writes that i wrote in a wiki,does that make the person a lier?Yes,the Da Vinci code was a fiction,this is true.a fiction based off a fiction becuase no one even knows who wrote all that stuff in the bible anyway.whats the point of disbuting a bunch of text with zero credibility that requires faith in the first place?I would like to see your sources for your claim that "all researchers and historians agree that material written 50 years or later after an event would be fiction".

2006-04-23 [Sedition]: and if your gonna bicker over the credibility of the Da Vinci code,then why not bicker over the many sects of the same religion and their altered texts?how do you decide which ones are true,and which are false?theres no physical evidence for any of them,so your stuck deciding off of assumptions and spirituality.

2006-04-24 [Kurai Tenma]: Umm... you know there is only one Christian religion, including Catholics? You're basing it on interpretation. My Bible clearly states there is no personal interpretation known to man. That means, what Joe Blow says it means, means nothing. It's only what it says that matters. Da Vinci code is wrong. It offends me. Let me "find a new text" to some other religion. I'd be hanged. I just don't care... Forget it. It's fake. You want evidence you find it. My Bible says that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen." That's all the "proof" I need.

2006-04-24 [Sedition]: "faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen"= if you believe in something hard enough,it becomes true regardless of any real evidence for or against it's truthfullness

2006-04-24 [Kurai Tenma]: Ha, not really. "Oh ye of little faith." "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, and the end thereof is destruction." We can justify ourselves all we want, and it doesn't do us any good. When He justified me, it's Just-if-ied never sinned.

2006-04-25 [Sedition]: eh...right...like that makes any kind of sense rationaly...oh well,guess thats to be expected from someone of your intellectual "might". http://www.ernestcline.com/dmd/ this explains the world fairly well

2006-04-25 [Kurai Tenma]: You know... forget it. I'm not bother to say anything. My intellectual "might"? You have no idea how intelligent I am. You don't understand Bible... because you are not in the Spirit. I can't help that. Forget it. And, I dont' need someone to explain the world to me, because I already know the floor plan. It's in the Word. Tell me, why do people have to insult to try to make ground, when in fact, it does them no good? That's one thing I hate about politics, and that's how everyone treats discussions... I'm tired of it. If you dont' have anything to say without put downs, don't say anything. How hard is that? And, Shadow, it makes plenty of sense. Can you not justify yourself no matter what?

2006-04-25 [Kurai Tenma]: Could you not kill someone, and give an excuse to why it shouldn't be considered breaking the law? Could you steal and justify it by saying something along the lines of "I didn't have money and it's a necessity" or "He took it from me to begin with"? Everyone can. I made plenty of sense, you just failed to accept it.

2006-04-25 [Sedition]: what you said never made sense becuase it comes off as you saying that god justifies your actions,which means that anything you do is ok becuase god said you could,even if it includes murder,which history shows that it commonly is the case.

2006-04-25 [Sedition]: criticism is not insulting,if you make a claim,be ready to defend it.you guys claim that a guy that can walk on water died for my "sins" to appease a sky-daddy.i ask for proof of such claims and you have to defend it with tangible evidence rather then psuedo-scientific philosophical double-think

2006-04-25 [Sedition]: and there is no such thing as a "spirit".and even if there was,your basiclly saying you have to already be a christian to buy anything the bible has to say.which eliminates your credibility in an arguement against people who dont believe you.the bible,last time i checked,was a book,and i can read rather well,so i think i can understand it just fine.i suppose now the arguement branches into weither or not to take the bible literally or figurativly

2006-04-25 [Kurai Tenma]: I'm not using double think. Hope that is seen is not hope. So, to give you such tangible takes away your choice by faith, and God wants us to walk by faith. Sorry, you can't have that.

2006-04-25 [Kurai Tenma]: And, no, I said when He forgives me, it's just as if I'd never sinned. He forgets. The world doesn't. He does.

2006-04-25 [Sedition]: so sinning is ok,as long as you say sorry.

2006-04-25 [Sedition]: and what logical arguement can you come up with for supporting that god wants you to believe by faith instead of proving his existence to remove doubt.by the way,according to the bible i go to hell for eternity for not believing,so if he is omniscient(knows all) and omnipotent(can do anything).then why would a loving god allow unbelievers that he knows he will send to hell.better yet,how can you say we have free will if he knows everything we will do,and knows who will and wont go to hell,and creates them anyway,thus purposefully sending athiest,gays,muslims,jews,and whatever to hell.

2006-04-25 [Kurai Tenma]: As long as you come to God with a broken, contrite spirit, then He'll forgive you, though man may not. But, dont' abuse it. "Should we dwell in Sin, that Grace may more abound? God forbid."

2006-04-25 [Sedition]: so its ok to sin,as long as you ask for forgiveness,and dont do it to much.thanks,ill remember that and convert so i can rape a kid once every 2 years and confess for forgiveness.moderation

2006-04-25 [Kurai Tenma]: Umm... sorry, but that means you're not sorry, or you would honestly try to not do it again. Hence, the second part. Don't dwell in sin. God forbid we do that. That's what you would be doing. I'm done here.... I always seem to find people who want horrendeous games, and twist EVERYTHING to be self-righteous like you just did. When you come to realize what is said, and HOW IT'S MEANT, instead of twisting it to suit your own personal deeds... tell me. Until then, goodbye wiki.

2006-04-25 [Sedition]: whats meant?ive read the bible all the way through many times.i tried to be a christian,i gave your world a chance.but it doesent stand up to logic and common sense.read some old testament and dare tell me your god is loving.the bible supports slavery,incest,murder,genocide,and a plethora of other things most people agree is evil.if you cant take criticism,then dont come to a wiki thats bound to draw debate to it.

2006-05-05 [~Ithika~]: can someone tell me the ten commandments?

2006-05-05 [Child of God]: -_-' Guess I gotta monitor this wiki more than once a week!

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: sure super nova

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 1.I am the lord your god,you shall have no other gods before me

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 2.you shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything above heaven or on the earth beneath or the waters below

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 3.You shall not misuse the name of the lord your god.

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 4.Remember the sabath day by keeping it holy.

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 5.Honor your father and mother so that you may live long in the land

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 6.You shall not murder

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 7.You shall not commit adultery

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 8.You shall not steal

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 9.You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: 10.You shall not covet your neighbor's house,you shall not covet your neighbors wife,or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

2006-05-05 [Sedition]: there,thats all 10

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: it is funny how people think that just being a good moral person is ok.. that if you fallow the commandments because they are morally sound that we are fine... but i just watched a movie called "time changer" and one of the point was that if we teach morals without teaching who set those morals then eventually no one will care about the morals they have no meaning... to illustrate this, a guy time traveled into the future and in his adventure a youg girl stole his lunch, after chasing her down, he said "young lady it is wrong to steal..." her response was:" says who"

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: why do you need a sky-daddy to tell you right from wrong?are you not morally sound enough to draw your own boundaries?alot of people in the world have no god,and were perfectly able to come up with their own ethics and morals,explain?

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: oh,and before you explain,saying parents did it wont count.alot of people dont care about what their parents have to say and come up with their own system of ethics,like a child who's parents are in the KKK,it doesnt mean the kid will join the KKK also,quite the opposite.i have a friend in that position and if anything he loves minorities and curses his parents for their bigotry.this proves that its possible to gain morals and ethics without some source implanting them at a young age.

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: but if my ethics and morals conflict with yours then tell me who is right? and who is to be the judge of who is right?

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: why does their need to be a judge?

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: there are certain things almost all humans have instinctivly declared as right and wrong,its simply the way we evolved.murder is disdained in ALL societies.although some societies are more violent then others at their core they are for the most part against violence.however religion has a tendency of giving them loopholes like in islam that allow them to murder under the pretense of honor killings and such,and in christianity,over things like apostacy and witchcraft or whatever.

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: in reguards to "are you not morally sound enough to draw your own boundaries"... do have children of your own yet? because if you don't i can understand your position on this, but see i have 5 kids and if i were to let them each do what they think is right, then there would be anarchy in my house... there has to be someone to be a law giver and mediator as well as a judge

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: i agree,law is infact necessary,but law does not equal personal moralities.explain the fact that about 91% of the population in prision is in prison,the rest is pretty much muslim,and less then .5% is athiest?the arguement of numbers works for awhile,but there are over 16million athiest in america alone,explain how so many manage to stay out of jail?

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: ah but those may not be breaking any laws of the land, but how many of them steal office supplies from work... a pencil here or a pad of paper there... that is stealing too isn't it ? yet a majority of them never are caught for it.... we lie daily but unless it is in a court of law no one goes to jail or is penalized, so does it make it right? people commit adultry but again none will face charges for it ... yet these things are wrong...  now by whose standard are they wrong? well of course God's but even though this world has slowly stopped thinking of all the 10 commandments as law, we today have taken those laws and removed the power from behind them by removing our fear/respect of

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: God... by doing this we think that all that we think say and do , we are no longer accountable to any one for... but again all we are doing is living in a corrupt sinnfull system that allows this

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: tha doesn't make it right

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: oh yes,becuase everyone is a christian and fears the invisible sky-daddy that has never been proved for his 2006 years of existence

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: and that arguement isent valid becuase in that case christians would do it just as much anyway,so whats your point?

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: if christians some how obeyed all of God's crazy laws,there would be little need for a hell,which question's God's personal morals anyway.

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: if anything man is by far more moral then god can ever be.read the bible,your god is an angry,spitefull,jealous,war-mongering,murderous god who has killed billions for his sick egotism.

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: if he was mean and spitefull then he would never have allowed any survivors of the flood, none of the isralites would have ever made it to the promise land, david would never have been a king after his tryst with bathsheba asn the number one thing , he would have never provided an ultimate sacrifice that would attone for all our sins.... God set the laws into being in the beginnning, he is not above the laws that he set, therefore being a righteous and just God, he HAD to deal out dicipline to those who were disobedient , but he also sent Jesus to pay for sin so that all who believed and accepted the blood covering that was offered up for us

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: and now we can obtain his mercy

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: tell me why god felt the need to kill so many in the first place?why leave just a few survivors?to continue his sick game.

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: like survivors of the tsunamii thanked god that they survived,but why not question and curse god for killing their children and loved ones in the first place for seemingly no good reason?infact,there is NO reason that genocide should be ok,unless you agree with methods like the holocuast.the holocuast was run by christians getting revenge on jews just so ya know

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: well if you had 10 kids adn you told them they all had to complet a certain thing and be obedient to all that yousaid, that they would go to the movies on saturday, but all but 2 of them sluffed off their chores and they broke the rules and were disobedient.... who would get to go to the movies? would you reward those who were not good? or would you punishe those who were good by ssaying all would not go? no you would reward those who were good and punish those bad.... in God's law the punishment or payment/wages of sin is death... so that is what they got!

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: the holocaust was run by those who said they were christians but they were not if they were then they wouldn't have done those things... (if the love of God is not in you then you are not part of his family) as for the tsunami .. well the bible also says that we are in this world and will experience the things that happen here... "it rains on the just nd the unjust alike" again there are laws that are set into place and they cannot be broken.... the people who ridiculed noah had a chance to be saved too. but no one wanted to give up their selfish lifestyles to repent and obey so you noaw are faulting God for the stup[idity and choices of peole who openly mocked God

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: oh yes,lets use the "no true scotsman" arguement and say the nazis werent christians becuase you dont agree with their methods.let me break it to ya buddy,they were doing exactly what the bible told them to do.they,by your doctrine,were doing as they told and are in your heaven.you share your heaven with the most evil people in history books.and what kind of parent actually KILLS his children becuase they dont feel compelled to listen to a parent thats never there for them?

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: that,and i suppose all the little babies that were unable to even sin to begin with were killed for pick-pocketing their neighbor or burning a cat or something.your logic is flawed here.that tsunamii killed alot of people that never did anything wrong.and the age of accepting responsibility for your actions in the bible is about 12-13 i believe.before that it is your parents that assume responsibility for whatever sins you commit.so why were some of the first people killed in the tsunamii children that were chasing the receding water?

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: what kind of parent actually KILLS his children becuase they dont feel compelled to listen to a parent thats never there for them?.... hmmm well i must say that it may be harsh ... but what country kind has the right to kill those who breaks it laws?

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: this is ridiculous,theres no way you can call your god all loving when it is painfully clear that he kills those even loyal to him without warrant.and why kill them anyway?why would he inflict so much pain and suffering if he is all loving and forgiving?am i shooting rapid fire questions?good,this is crap NO christian can explain without admitting that god isent all loving,god is OK with killing loyal innocents,or that god is infact,not all powerfull and all knowing.

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: we rarely inact the death penalty,when employed its usually becuase the person has murdered exponentially.and nowadays most people prefer to just let the person rot in prison for life anyway.why worship a god that is going to kill you despite how faithfull you are?

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: well it is God's law that is perfect and just... if the law of the land says that the penalty is death for those who kill... then no amount of protests should be able to knock down it's severity to somingthing like life imprisonment.... like i said God's law is perfect and Just and righteous... there is only one way to be sure that what i have done is forgiven an that is to apply the death of Jesus Christ to my sin and aske forgiveness for my sin.... , why is it so hard for people to do this? because it requires living according to someone elses will.. that is a humbling experience and not many want to be humble... people view it as being weak but in truth it takes more strength to be meek

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: and humble then it does to be mighty and in control and proud

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: yes,so you enslave yourself to someone youve never seen or heard from.and then expect everyone else to go along.ok,lets play your game:what makes it so just and righteous?cus god said so?what if he started telling people to rape and murder their mothers,does that make it ok since god told us to do it?

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: well i won't go there because God doesnt and can't tell us to do that and those who say that he does are not following the right God.... there is no what if whith God he is what he is and he does not change....and i do not consider myself enslaved, " if the son sets you free you are free indeed" what am i a slave to? how am i a slave... i have known more freeddom in christ then anyone or thing else in my life... tell me how i am a slave when i still have the freedome to choose what i do? do i obey every min of the day ? no do i fall and make mistakes? yes all the time.. the differance is the peace i have knowing that my sin is forvable when i ask...being a christian does not mean

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: i live a sin free life.. i t means that i do my best to follow him and because i can ask for forgiveness i am assured that i will not be condemed for my mistakes

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: you are a slave becuase you cower in fear of upsetting something no one knows exist.its the biggest boogy man in human history

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: and why not go there?i was speaking hypotheticlly,if you refuse to awnser it ill just assume that means yes,you would rape and murder your mom if god told you too

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: which proves my earlier arguement that humans use religion to find loopholes in instinctive morals and ethics ingrained into them like anti-murder or anti-rape.

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: no i would not do that if some one toled be that God said that. because i wouldn't believe it.. how can i when God's word says the exact opposite... he would never say that... i do not live in fear of upsetting anyone... i never said that i was!

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: i will have to continue this later.. i have to get things done here at home... with 5 kids laundry is a never ending story..*smile* i am not upset neither do i hate you or anyother bad thing like that, i can repct you whether i think you are right or wrong, but i would not be a "good" Christian if i could not explain why i believe what i do and why....some things are unchanging and concrete in my life, but the one solid fact that i know wil never be swayed by popular opinion, or the changing times or the circumstances of the day and that is God... i can trust Him with my whole heart... who else can we do that with in this world... no one, and tha is what faith is all about!

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: i said if god himself told you to do so,not if someone else did.you obviuosly wouldnt believe it if a human said it.i guess ill c ya later then,maybe we can get back to our session of you dodging my questions later.

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: i am not dodging your questions, but if i knew that God really told be this... now are you telling me that he says this now after the establishment of His bible.. the word.. or are you saying that he tells me this and his word has said this sort of thing before? you see that is why i have to know. because if i thought God spoke to me and he told me something that was contrary to his established word then i would not believe it was God who told it to me... it is that simple, God does not contradict his Word

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: so basiclly you would consider yourself crazy then if you heard him tell you this?well then i must ask,why arent you crazy for believing what he says from a BOOK?

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: you did not anwer me... what was established before? 

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: why should it matter,it came from the word of god himself,if he is omnipotent he can change his mind

2006-05-06 [Cia_mar]: no he cannot if he could then he would be no more reliable than a human... and it is his UNCHANGING quality that makes it possible for me to trust him

2006-05-06 [Sedition]: then if he cannot change,he is not all powerfull,and he is still just as cruel as he was in old testament,which means you admit that your god is an angry,violent,and malevolent god that doesnt care what it hurts or kills.

2006-05-08 [Child of God]: Not true. You need to look at this from the big picure. Because we are mortal, we tend to look at things from a limited time frame and perspective. You need to look at the events leading up to it. Every time God is provoked to action, it is over many years of leading up to it and instigation. It's not that God can't change His mind, since in the Bible God is shown to change His mind but always to the benefit of mankind. He changes His mind but He doesn't contradict Himself because then you are right, He wouldn't be omnipotent. However, change and contradiction are two different things. 

2006-05-08 [Child of God]: God doesn't cause the pain and suffereing in the world, humans do. That is one of the concequences of free-will. Every ill we find in humans, we put ourselves there. The illnesses of the world, we humans caused not God. AIDS comes from ancient practises in Africa with intercourse from monkies, cancer only first started to develope with the scientific revolution because of the polution and chemicles. Every disease can find it's roots in something humans have caused. Most of the conflict in the world comes from greed and hatred, which humans developed. God gave this world to us, for us to take care of and care for. If we don't do that, how then is God responisble for the results? Everything

2006-05-08 [Child of God]: that befalls mankind is because of it's own doings. If God were to rescue us every time, we would never learn would we? Only now, after thousands of years are we finally recognizing some of this and trying to change it, but it will take that much longer to change. It goes back to free-will. We are given the choice, but we have to deal with and live with the concequences, even if those consequences aren't seen until generations later. And you can't just assume because someone won't answer your question that they are agreeing with you. That is called a Slippry-Slope Falacy and is not valid in a debate.

2006-05-08 [Child of God]: Guys, your debate has been moved to The Proof Discussions Page 2, please continue it there. Both of the discussion pages are freely editable, so feel more than free to continue and/or start any debate there. Just make sure you seperate each seperate with an < hr > tag. Even if a new topic is started, you can still continue with an older topic.

2006-05-08 [Cia_mar]: thanks child of God.... you have mad avery valid point... i was starting to get a bit frustrated in my writing last week... sometimes i wish i could just be ther in person to talk to people when sharing god's truth... it makes it hard to try to sound sincere while typing...lol

2006-05-08 [Sedition]: well child of god,ill be happy to retort your statement,shall i do it her or in the page you made for me and cia?

2006-05-08 [Child of God]: on the other page please, this one is starting to get a bit crowded. If you guess want to start any other debates feel free to use that page as well

2006-06-04 [Sedition]: on a side note,nice implementation of the debating fallacies wiki,this will get some of my headaches with others out of the way as im sure it also will for you.

2006-06-04 [Child of God]: I've yet to get into an exact description of each, but I'm sure the examples will give at least some idea of what they mean.

2006-06-04 [Sedition]: im sure what you have given is more then sufficient,even for the laymen.

2006-06-26 [Rain Man]: Nice wiki u have going on here

2006-06-26 [Child of God]: Thank you ^-^

2006-06-26 [Rain Man]: Im a Christian myself,...currently learning little by little on a weekly basis. But ever since i started working, its been hard for me to go to Bible Studies. Which is why im in the process of finding a diff job. Til then i got to deal wit this one

2006-06-26 [Sedition]: your trying to change jobs to accomodate your need to go to bible study?why not just read it yourself and draw your own conclusions?sounds much simpler to me unless the actual job itself sucks

2006-06-26 [Rain Man]: the job sux,..its ups. Plus, i like bible studies cuz u learn with other ppl my age 18 and up and can discuss.

2006-06-26 [Sedition]: well if your looking for a debate this is the place,although so far ive been the only athiest to enter the discussion ive remained dedicated to showing up to respond to any questions or retorts.

2006-06-26 [Child of God]: And you've been doing a fairly good job for being the only one. If you'd like a link to more Christian debate sites that have other atheists debating against Christians I know of some.

2006-06-26 [Sedition]: no thanks,ive got my hands full with this one ;)

2006-06-26 [Child of God]: ^-^ Just let me know if you change your mind!

2006-06-26 [Sedition]: i will eventually,when my time allows,im visiting my father for august,so that should give me a little more free time

2006-06-26 [Child of God]: I really need to make a new banner. That one doesn't look very good -_-

2006-06-26 [Sedition]: i could ask a friend of mine to make you one,she is a christian and SUPERB artist,i think she could whip up something nice for ya

2006-06-26 [Child of God]: really? That would be amazing! As you can tell, I'm a writer not an artist ^-^'

2006-06-26 [Sedition]: alrighty,ill ask her about it right now,she isent online,so i cant get a response till probably later today

2006-06-26 [Child of God]: *glomps Shadow* THANK YOU SO MUCH!

2006-06-27 [Sedition]: x_x ack,your welcome

2006-06-27 [The Dizzy Raven]: I'm here. ^_^. And thanks, Shadow! Hi, [Child of God]! Long time no talk! How are you? And what's up?

2006-08-03 [The Dizzy Raven]: *sighs*

2006-08-04 [Child of God]: Not much what's up with you? How ya been? Wait! What's with the sigh???

2006-08-04 [Cia_mar]: i think the sigh was because n o one was on here at the time and so they were left waiting

2006-08-04 [Child of God]: *sniffles* Aww, I'm never on long enough to chat with my friends any more . . .

2006-08-05 [The Dizzy Raven]: lol. I'm back. Nothing much either. lol. I've been fantastic! Thank you! What about urself? *looks to Cia_mar* That's true I suppose. *laughs and turns back to Child of God* I've missed you!

2006-08-07 [Wolfga]: Hey! This is awesome!! What a great way to evangelize, Child of God!!!

2006-08-07 [Cia_mar]: [Wolfga] feel freee to join in one of the debates, anytime!

2006-08-07 [The Dizzy Raven]: Wolfga!!! Hi! I've missed you! (I used to be [Jedi Illadriel] in case you don't recognize the name. lol)

2006-08-07 [Child of God]: Thanks ^-^ and just as [Cia_mar] said, feel more than free to join. I'm still working on the essays but that hasn't stopped debate

2006-08-07 [The Dizzy Raven]: cool

2006-09-01 [Elandain]: Faith is believing in what we cannot see. Just curious as to why you need proof when you have God's Word? No one will believe the Bible just because you can prove that Jesus existed.

2006-09-01 [Sedition]: well for people that dont believe in god,his "word" doesent really mean much to us,becuase as far as im concerned,christianity was a human creation.proving jesus existed is i guess a stepping stone to trying to prove the validility of the bible to people like myself who do not think it is a legit book

2006-09-01 [Elandain]: But if you don't believe God's Word, there's no way I can prove it to you. You either believe it or you don't. God would not want his Word to be scientifically proven. It doesn't need to be.

2006-09-01 [Sedition]: that makes no sense,the bible says god wishes for his creations to know him.and if you dont know him you suffer in eternal hell fire.if he is all loving and what not,wouldnt he of made some effort to clarify his existence given the infinite punishment for a finite sin that isent really bad at all?

2006-09-01 [Child of God]: I agree that God cannot be scientifically proven, which is why this wiki is about historical proof, not scientific or philosophical proof. All this wiki does is present the facts from history surrounding Jesus. If, from a historical standpoint, you can prove Jesus is the Son of God, then you can, from a historical standpoint and round-about way, prove God exists since God must exist in order for Jesus to be His Son. This wiki focuses on Jesus the historical figure alone, which is why the Bible is used to help prove Him. Whether you believe in the Bible or not is irrelevant for this page. The Bible is looked at here as a historical religious source, like many others in history. The difference is that we take what is said in the Bible about Jesus and match it up with the historical records we have of the time period, along with a little mix of psychology and perhaps one or two laws that history uses in order to draw it's conclusions from. Even if the Bible were not the divine word of God, you can't deny certain facts about the Bible and the prophecies in the Bible which were written about Christ before His time. I'm trying hard to stay away from theology and stick mainly to history and the methods used in history to prove a historical person/event. Legalistic people will have trouble with this page, but it's my stance that language greatly limits us in this day and age, since we tend to look toward the surface or 'street' meaning of the word, rather than the true meaning of what the words are saying. (Ie. Bob loved Joe as himself. Modern translation: Bob and Joe were gay. Real translation: 1) Bob cares for Joe more than anything else. 2) Bob loves Joe like a brother, etc.)

2006-09-01 [Cia_mar]: actually you are right to use history (a proovable means) to argue your case for Christ!... the english scholar William Ramsay traveled to Asia Minor aver a century ago in order to DISPROVE the Bible history as described by Luke in both the Gospel of Luke and in Acts. He searched and dug at sites throughout Greece and Asia Minor, searched ancient names, boundary markers and other archiaological evidence that would conclusively proove that Luke had invented his history of Christ and His Church. To his amazement and dismay, he found statements of the New Teatiment Scriptures wew accurate in the smallest details. The Evidence was so overwhelming that he became a Christian!

2006-09-01 [Cia_mar]: Another great scolar A.N. Sherwin-White, wrote his conclusion after studying the evidence, "For Acts, the confirmation of historacity is overwhelming... any attempts to reject it's basic historacity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."

2006-09-01 [Cia_mar]: Some writer have suggestd that there is little historical evidence reguarding the life of Jesus. For example, the writer Solomon Zeitlin wrote, " Even Paul's epistles have awakened the question, Does he speak of a real historical personage or of and ideal? the mail sources for the historacity of Jesus, therefore, are the gospels." However, Zeitlin dismissed the Gospels historical accounts and concluded: "So we are right to assume that even the Gospels have no value as witnesses of the historicity of Jesus. The question therefore remains: Are there any historical proofs that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed?" Scolars such as Zeitlin casually dismiss the strong historical evidence that dismiss the Gospel accounts about Jesus because it contradicts the opinion they tenaciously hold on to that rejects the Bible's accuracy.If liberal scholars applied that same arbitrary rejection of historical evidence to other historical personages, such as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, they would be forced to reject all history as myth.However a careful unbiased analysis of the historical sources available will convince most fair-minded readers that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of both history and prophecy.
using both christian and non christian sources... one can see that they back eachother up!

2006-09-01 [Cia_mar]: There are both Roman and pagan historical manuscript records from the early centuries of this era about the life and influences of Jesus Christ that have survived for more than 200 years!

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and govenor of Asia[Turkey] in A.D. 112. He reffers to the persecution of the Christians caused by Nero;s false accusation that the Christians had burned Rome. "Christus [Christ], the founder of the name was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstitian, repressed for a time broke out again, not only in Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also" (Annal XV 44)


Plinius Secundus, known as, Pliny the Younger, declared that the Christiand were " in the habit of meeting on a cerain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solem oath, not to any wicked deeds, but to never commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsefy their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up."
Pliny was govenor of the Toman province of Bithynia[Turkey] in A.D.112. He wrote ro the emperor requesting instructions about the interogation of the Christians whom he was persecuting. In his Epostel X 96, he states that these belivers would not worship Emperor Trajan and would not curse their leader, Jesu Christ, even under extreme torture. Pliny described the Christans as people who loved the truth at any cost.

Flavius Josephus was a Pharisee adn a preist living in Jerusalem. Born in A.D.37, following the death of Christ, he witnessed first hand the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. He writes....
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawfull to call him a aman, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [The] Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men aboung us, had condemed him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did forsake him: for he appeared to them a live again the third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day" (Flavius Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews, bk. XVIII, chap. III, section 3)

2006-09-05 [Elandain]: History cannot prove that "Jesus is the Son of God." You can prove he existed, yes. But you will find very few historians who deny that Jesus existed. Duh. That much is undeniable.

Just like I believe Muhammed existed. Does that prove that Muhammed was Allah's prophet on earth? No. No matter how much I know about Muhammed or Jesus or ANYONE historically, history only records events, and not in a very specific manner. Especially in regards to 33-year-old carpenters. All that God wants us to know about himself is found between the covers of the Bible, not in history, science, or anywhere else.

Sure, sometimes that stuff is fun to know and find out about, and if that's your thing, more power to you. But don't expect it to convert anyone. Because it won't.

2006-09-05 [Child of God]: This site is in no way intended to convert anyone. I just got sick of little kids who think they know what they are talking about attacking my faith from an (attempted) academic perspective when really they have nothing but personal opinion to back them up. This wiki is designed to present historical facts which are then used to sum up an academic conculsion based on the facts. You'd actually be suprised at how many people these days adhere to the 'Jesus Myth', denying that He even existed in history. This site is designed to address such accusations as that.

Come on, I'm dumb but even I know that trying to use a site like this to convert people is like diving into shark-intested waters at dinner time after bathing in a slaughter house! :p

2006-09-06 [Elandain]: If you're not trying to bring people to faith, then what's the point of a wiki about Jesus? Who cares whether they are "informed" or not about the existance of Jesus? Whether they believe He lived or not, they will never admit that He is their Savior. Not without the power of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I get sick of ignorant people, too. But you'd better get used to it. Jesus told you that you'd be persecuted for His sake, and he meant it.

2006-09-06 [Cia_mar]: i think that by not intending to convert people, the word says that it will not return void... so i am certain that whether she began this wiki as a way to explain her faith or if to just have a place were the curious could ask questions, either way, seeds are planted in the hearts of the hearers! so it is a good thing for that purpose alone... also it is good to know your "enemy" so having debates with the unbelieving of other religions or of non religions, helps us to sharpen our skills as Christians because we are told to studyy the word! for the expres reason to show ourselves approved unto God and so as not to be ashamed... rightly dividing the word of God!.... so this may be a frustraiting debate at times, but it also is like sparing in the physical sense, we get stronger and faster in our knowlege of the Word... and that is always a good thing

2006-09-06 [Child of God]: Thank you [Cia_mar]! Took the words out of my mouth. ^-^ Not everything in Christianity is about conversion when it comes to believers versus non-believers. Whether you care about the existance of Jesus or not doesn't matter. This page isn't about relativity to the 100,000+ members. People messaged me with questions and attacks, so I made a wiki to respond to the general basis of those questions and attacks. It has nothing to do with ignorance, though that is a pet-peeve of mine in the cases of particular groups of people. But that's a whole different issue that isn't appropriate for this site.

2006-09-06 [Elandain]: Yes, you are exactly right, [Cia_mar]. But only God's WORD can plant the seed of faith. Not human reason, not science, not history or any amount of arguing/explaining/debating. However, God's Word is absent from this site.

2006-09-07 [Cia_mar]: no it has been used on numerous occasions... but those who were debating refused to take it seriously... i mearly wanted to present non biblical means to substantiate that the bible is a valid source for historical events and verification

2006-09-07 [Child of God]: God's word is far from absent from this site. I merely use other historical and archeological evidence to support the claims made by the Bible. As I said, I'm trying to approach this from an academic perspective and in doing so you can only use the Bible so many ways. But considering the argument is for the existence of Jesus as the Son of God, which is based on the Bible, I'd say you are much off the mark with that one.

2006-11-01 [Cia_mar]: child i hope that it is ok to put this in here but if not i will remove it!

not to spam but this is for anyone interested in a
Christian themed contest


Cia's "Can you draw THIS?" Contest

2006-11-09 [Lothuriel]: I think this wiki is wonderful but, I would like to point out one important fact to both the Christians and the non-Christians seem to over look. Faith. Faith is the staple of Christian beliefs. It is easy to get caught up in historical proof and the science behind the Bible. But the truth of the matter is, the Bible is all we really need. It is our roadmap, our guide, our plan of salvation. Just something to think about. I heard an interesting quote in Bible study the other day. He said "Have you ever heard an atheist or an agnostic ask, 'Why would God let this happen?' or 'What kind of God lets a child suffer.'..." Then he went on to say, "That is a retorical question. If they don't beleive in the possiblility of God, then those questions should be irrelevant to them." I don't know why I decided to pop in here and say all of this. I have been watching this wiki for a very long time but, have never had the courage nor the inclination to say anything. Eh, either way, here is a link I find helpful... http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR003.htm

2006-11-09 [Cia_mar]: good point Loth... you are welcome to "pop" in anytime!!!

2006-11-09 [Lothuriel]: ^__^ I am glad you think so. Sometimes, I just don't make sense.

2006-11-09 [Sedition]: ive been watching the wiki for awhile(i used to post,but sometimes our conflicts just got way to hot for either of us to take in a peacefull manner,so i resigned from discussion),and to awnser your question about why atheist or other freethinkers ask why "god does this or that" is,to a point,retorical in a sense that we dont really expect a viable awnser to the question itself,the point is to make others think about the question.we already dont believe in god and what not,so the question would of been pretty mute,thats what your pastor got right.so yes,the questions are irrelevant to us,but not so much to the person we are asking it to.a sort of "anwser the question for yourself and think about it" strategy

2006-11-10 [Lothuriel]: Then, if what you say is true, then an atheist or agnostic would only ask the question to provoke a believer. That is what you call strategy? Don't bother. I think it is evident that a Christian or a true believer in God has their mind made up. I can promise you that your "questions" about why God did or didn't do something has already been answered for us, in the Bible or through prayer. Quite frankly, atheism disturbs me. Everytime I talk to one, especially one that asks such questions, I leave the conversation with my Faith stronger and my heart heavier. 

2006-11-10 [Sedition]: well,faith or lack of is different for everyone,i wouldnt be so presumptious to make the common mistake of "no true scottsman" when talking about "true believers".everyone is capable of changing their mind.i used to be a fundementalist baptist before i deconverted to atheism.dont forget,we are all atheist,i just believe in one less god then you.and sometimes its a good thing to provoke a believer,for all sorts of reasons,especially when certain people of certain ideologies get it in their head that their way of life has the right to encroach on other people's way of life.most atheist wouldnt do that,and most christians wouldnt do that either.in reality the majority of us are just ordinary people trying to get by with life.however certain people with more power then they deserve in all sorts of ideologies have dedicated their life to pissing on everyone else in the world and saying "do it my way or die".and often,people lose their lives or their freedoms over it.i dont particularly like religion,but hell,if it makes ya happy,and you have the responsibility to not push it on others,then go for it.unfortunantly alot of people do believe in law-making and effecting other peoples lives based off of personal religuos beleif,and when that happens,the minorities with no voice suffer.always have,probably always will.thats just the sickness of this world.

2006-11-10 [Lothuriel]: The sickness in this world that you refer to are those who do things in God's name that have no right to do so. I respect the laws of this land and yes, most of them are based on "religious" beliefs but, for the most part they are good laws. I have a problem with many laws that force me to "tolerate" things I dont' believe in but, I am also commanded by God to obey the laws of the land and I do. I try not to push my way of thinking on to others. I do like to talk about religion, or in your case the lack there of. But, when I talk to others about religion and such, I do my best to try to do so in non-converting way. Does that make sense? 

And I see your point. I tend to assume that every Christian or true believer is as strong in the Faith and beliefs of Christ as I am. 

2006-11-10 [Sedition]: when it comes to religion,sadly,no matter what side your own,your argument works on the premise of convincing the other side of your point of view,and in a sense,conversion.this can,and does,commonly lead to an ideological "them or us" mentality as all groups have a sense of power.well,atleast those who run things do.personally,although i dislike religion and find it unnecessary,i acknowledge the good it does on a personal level,and as long as things remain peacefull and fair,hell,lets live together,toss flowers,and all that other BS.people with power however dont want that on both sides of the fence.christians did it with the crusades,and atheist did it with the russian communist revolution in the early 1900's.(got to get specific,as not all communist nations follow Marxism to the letter involving religion)

Peace is fickle and impossible,but you still have to try anyway,might get lucky.

2006-11-10 [Lothuriel]: I suppose you are a teeny bit right there. Although I like to simply present the facts of my own beliefs to others and leave it at that, there is always that seed of hope that they will join me. But, I do my best not to intentionally tell someone "This is my way and you shall believe it or else." I do, as I said before, find the concept of atheism and agnostics quite disturbing but I am not going to chase them down and force feed them the word of God. I would hate to see anyone choke *wink*. 

"Peace is fickle and impossible,but you still have to try anyway,might get lucky"

That reminds me of something my father used to say. My father was a Marine you see and his division's motto was "Pray for Peace and dream to love. Train for War and live to fight"

2006-11-10 [Sedition]: ah,i enlisted in the marines two months ago,saw that quote on a peice of paper awhile back.anyway,no matter how hard you try,atheist or christian,debating in religion,in and of itself,is a form of conversion or deconversion.becuase debate involves convincing the opposing side of an arguement of your ideals.

2006-11-10 [Lothuriel]: I wasn't aware that we were debating anything. I thought we were having a nice, civil discussion of the differences in our views. 

2006-11-10 [Sedition]: i wasnt implying that we were debating,i was speaking in general terms.

2006-11-10 [Lothuriel]: Ah, ok then. ^__^

2006-11-12 [Child of God]: I don't have time to keep up on my wiki, here's a good site that may interest the members until the semester is done. www.doesgodexist.com. It follow a Christian academic who goes to different universities debating with aetheist philosophy and religion professors. He was at McMaster University a few weeks ago and the perforance by both participants was amazing

2006-11-12 [Cia_mar]: cool web site thanks for the link i will read it more later!!!

2006-11-12 [Sedition]: i as well will read into it.

2007-01-09 [Expensive Fidelity]: I'm just wanting to say, in a small voice, that science can, and very very often does, lead to physical proof. After all, you can watch a chemical reaction occur, which means it is, in fact, hard evidence. Metaphysics are something that is usually pretty hard to create substantial and physical proof of.

2007-04-09 [Moonlit Serenade]: As a question, how can theories about history (as written documents could very well be like a storybook is today) act as proof, but science, a very real and proven thing, can't? It seems a bit absurd, like saying, another person's supposed thoughts are more real than that person's actions.

2007-04-09 [Child of God]: This wiki is here to examine historical evidence available that, by accepted standards in the discipline, constitute as historical proof. If someone wishes to debate the legitamicy of history as a discipline, that is outside of the scope of this wiki. Science itself has it's roots in the study and practice of history (the Egyptians, Babylonians and Chinese all developed science after studying history and becoming unhappy with the theories of the past. It then progressed to become a means of discovery). Scientific/empirical evidence pertaining to anything outside of science could be what Immanuel Kant calls an antinomy, where a thesis and it's antithesis are both seemingly provable by indisputable arguments. 

I would question those who demand empirical/scientific evidence for anything in history, religious or not, to specify what proof they are looking for. If a tradition, such as Christianity, is oral-based then written records are demanded as proof. If written records are present in the form of a holy book, then "legitimate" written record is demanded such as government records. Christianity has both a holy book containing writing of its beliefs, as well as government records to to support the events that are described (the crusifixion and empty tomb of Yeshua of Nazereth by Pointus Pilate). Extra-Roman sources speak of the man, Jesus.

What then, do empiricists demand for scientific/empirical evidence? A body? According to Christian beliefs you won't find one, so there goes that option. The empty tomb? Chances are you won't find that either since tombs were usually family tombs, where bodies were laid for a year until only the bones were left, then the tomb would be reopened and the bones placed in a stone box called an ossuary. If in or near Jerusalem, the ossuary would then be placed up and down the mountain before the gates of Jerusalem, because of Jewish beliefs about the Messiah and resurrection. The tomb would then be used again the next time a family member or close friend died. So you won't be finding a tomb with an inscription saying "Here lies Jesus Christ." (For those that don't know, Christ was not Jesus' last name, but a denotation of His status as the "Christus" (Christ in Greek) or Meshiah (Messiah in Hebrew). Both denote a Savior, a Chosen one of God.)

Do we then demand his cross with the inscription? The cross would have been either reused or burned, depending on how much prior use it had. The nails? Reused or melted down to make something else. The shroud? Would have deteriorated after two thousand years since it wasn't perserved.

So I ask again, what empirical evidence could be given? This is why I look at the historical evidence. It is possible to attain historical information, then draw conclusions from that information. Yes, there will always be room for error. This is, after all, a human discipline and practice, just like science. And just like science, there will be errors and theories that are later proven to be wrong. Humian skepticism cannot be just applied to one discipline and not another. If you are suspicious of history, you must also be suspicious of math and science, since all endeavors eventually lead back to human endeavors. And since it is human to error, all endeavors contain error. So, you either doubt everything that humans do, or you have to accept some givens in order for disciplines such as math and science to be valid. The same is true for history. Some givens, such as the criteria for historical evidence, must be accepted. That is the nature of the world we live in.

2007-04-10 [Mekashef]: This wiki is better presented & contains more information than most others on the same topic. Apart from the ubiquitous typographical errors, this is really grade-A college material. Kudos!

If I may denounce a certain misconception, however: the Gospel pericopes which depict the Pharisees as a fundamentalist sect do not match solid historical data. The Pharisees are attested in a number of reliable sources as an anti-establishment, plebeian movement (check you Josephus). Moreover, many of the "sins" for which the Pharisees condemn Jesus in the NT (such as healing on the Sabbath) would not have been considered sinful by known Pharisaic standards. At any rate, the Pharisees did not likely have the temporal or ideological authority to conspire for anyone's execution during Jesus' lifetime. The anti-pharisaic pericopes are probably the product of later Christian revisionism in a time of fierce antagonism between the two persecuted groups. The same could be said of the instances of Jesus-bashing in the Talmud.

2007-04-10 [Mekashef]: & now if I may object to myself, in the Thomistic fashion:
"But wasn't Paul a Pharisee? Didn't he have St. Stephen executed?"

To which I might answer: "Yes, Paul says himself that he was a Pharisee, but note that he doesn't admit to having witnessed Stephen's death anywhere in the Epistles. You'd think that this kind of information, if it was as crucial as later exegetes claim, would have crept in there somehow."

Paul admits to having "persecuted the Church of God" in 1 Corinthians, & again in Philippians, but that is the extent of his confession of guilt in the undisputed Epistles; he is not specific as to the exact nature of his persecution. This isn't enough information to conclude that violence to Christians was a Pharisaic requirement. Philippians even seems to dissociate the two: "as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church" (3:5-6).

2007-04-10 [Child of God]: Thank you very much for the compliment.

I agree with you for the most part on the Pharisees. I think it says somewhere that Paul authorized Stephen's death, but implies that he actually wasn't there. But Jewish records of the time does suggest that the Pharisees were a very strict, legalistic group. Medieval Jewish sources that refer back to the time "before the fall of the second temple during the Roman occupation" speak of the legalism of the Pharisees, which is what was generally attacked in the Bible. (ie. Philo) The accusations towards the Pharisees were on spiritual-moral grounds in relation to religion I think. What other Christian writers say about them, I honestly don't know. I haven't read any of the church fathers, and because I'm not associated with a denomination I don't really know what the tradition is about the Pharisees. ^-^' But going straight from the Bible, they are mainly rebuked for what was seen as empty dogmatics from a spiritual-moral sense.

Maybe someone else here with a denominational background might be able to add some input? 

2007-04-11 [Mekashef]: Philo was Therapeutae (or something close to it). I would not be surprised if he criticized the Pharisees, but I'm not altogether certain he was qualified to do so. He's not quite medieval either (unless that's not what you're implying? I'm confused).

What I am saying is that the NT's depiction of the Pharisees is anachronistic & unfair. From my experience I would say this view is well accepted in contemporary scholarship. I don't know much about the views of different denominations, but I think the more progressive groups like the United Church also accept this notion.

To some, this may seem like a strictly academic point -- but it really isn't. All of contemporary Judaism, to the exception of the Karaim, is more or less directly descended from Pharisaism. Simply accepting the NT's criticism at face value isn't very nice to contemporary Jews.