Does God exist?

[Maz]

It was a bit wet there.

They should've put the floodlights on...

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Why else do you think footy grounds have floodlights?

Isn't a bit juvenile to try to hijack a thread on which people are having a mutual and perfectly civilized discussion? There's another thread about the football - not here.

 

[Fnaar]

Jesus was Mexican, anyway....

 

[Maz]

Isn't a bit juvenile to try to hijack a thread...

Are you sure you meant to say that?

 

[mickle]

Jesus was Mexican, anyway....

No she wasn't.

 

[walker]

Jesus was Mexican, anyway....

Don't be so thick fnaar, it was an Eskimo.

 

[buddha]

[True story]
I was almost side-swiped by a 4x4 coming out of its driveway this morning. But heard the engine and managed to brake in time.
The driver screamed "Jesus Christ! I'm really sorry!"
I thought I was Buddha ... and remembered this thread.
[/True story]

 

[andyoxon]

If you want to knitpick, it shouldn't be 'Jesus' either but 'Jeshua' (Joshua). And even in the four mainstream gospel stories, it is not all that certain that he does claim this status, or indeed whether the Greek term for the annointed one indicates the same thing as either the Jewish idea of the messiah or what Christians mean by that word.

Not nitpicking FM, thats right AFAIA. Apparently "Jesus" is anglicised from the greek which as you say comes from the hebraic name for God saves - joshua/ jeshua.

Just off the top of my head - I was thinking of these verses...re Jesus' references to who he was (see links if people want)
"I who speak to you am he."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 4:24-26;&version=31;

& more 'indirect'...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16:14-17;&version=31;

Jesus of course, also said "he who has seen me has seen the father". But as we've talked about before - it depends what you've come to/do believe. For some the issue of who Jesus is and what he said in the Gospels, is secondary to other issues (or may appear to be) that they may have...about Christianity and the Bible in general.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Although I've been called deluded, ignorant of science and asked if I've had a bump on the head I notice that there has been little real substance to the arguments against some of the simple points I've made. How do you explain the fact that the concept of macro-evolution breaks two fundamental laws of science? Why is it considered science when it cannot be observed, tested or replicated?

What, like the bible?

Why is it considered reasonable to conclude that the most complex designs known to man, life forms, came about by chance when we would not accept this as the explanation for any other object that exhibited lesser features of design?

No no no. It didn't come about "by chance" and no serious evolutionary scientist would suggest that it did.

 

[Jaded]

I like the bible.

There are lots of bits in it entirely appropriate for modern man.

Like

Ezekial 23:20 -

"And there she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

 

[andyoxon]

I like the bible.

There are lots of bits in it entirely appropriate for modern man.

Like

Ezekial 23:20 ...

Jaded, sordid and gory goings on are still a feature of our modern world as it happens, but, in sense it's easy to extract passages (with or without the aid of certain websites) in glorious isolation. Did you check out the context of this passage, the chapter, book, who wrote it, to whom, and what the intended message was? The OT in a sense is the road to Christ & the NT - start with the Gospels. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking your right to hold this opinion, just saying my bit about ways to approach these things...

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Jim - I appreciate your wide knowledge of contemporary sources - but that thread to which you linked is based simply on something looking a bit like something else. There are no causal links, so what you decide it means depends upon your existing beliefs. In other words, you have already decided that something is the case, so evidence is cherry-picked and facts interpreted in a way that suits the case. This is a bit too close to the religious mindset for my liking and not a good way of doing history or indeed any credible research.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Undoubtedly there were plenty of things going one, I think we are just going to have to put up with the limits of what we know about them!

 

[Abitrary]

I think a more pertinent question than the original one is...

Do you want god to exist?

 

[Jaded]

those are the brown peoples' gods.