A thread not for the easily offended

STIR · Post by **STIR** » 27 Feb 2007, 08:26

Jesus had a son named Judah and was buried alongside Mary Magdalene, according to a new documentary by Hollywood film director James Cameron.
The film examines a tomb found near Jerusalem in 1980 which producers say belonged to Jesus and his family

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 373.stm?ls

Post by **ryanrich** » 27 Feb 2007, 08:42

I just heard about that documentary on the radio! Apparently the tomb of Jesus reads, "Jesus, son of Joseph" then there's one for Joseph, Mary, Jesus' son and Mary Magdeline as well...

Very interesting! Will put an interesting spin on the resurrection though...

Post by **Stuart** » 27 Feb 2007, 08:43

STIR wrote:Jesus had a son named Judah and was buried alongside Mary Magdalene, according to a new documentary by Hollywood film director James Cameron.
The film examines a tomb found near Jerusalem in 1980 which producers say belonged to Jesus and his family

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 373.stm?ls

He, he ... I was waiting for someone to latch onto this. I'm not sure that "documentary" is a fair term for it; perhaps "fantasy" would be better.

STIR · Post by **STIR** » 27 Feb 2007, 15:09

schase wrote:
STIR wrote:Jesus had a son named Judah and was buried alongside Mary Magdalene, according to a new documentary by Hollywood film director James Cameron.
The film examines a tomb found near Jerusalem in 1980 which producers say belonged to Jesus and his family

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 373.stm?ls
He, he ... I was waiting for someone to latch onto this. I'm not sure that "documentary" is a fair term for it; perhaps "fantasy" would be better.

Fantasy? and rising from the dead and then disappearing from the earth without a trace is..……………….logical?

Post by **Stuart** » 27 Feb 2007, 15:22

Well, if you believe Jesus' claims about himself, then it's not illogical. I'm interested to see what kind of hearing this new theory receives. I suspect that most thinking people--even those who reject the resurrection and ascension--will view this claim with a good degree of scepticism.

STIR · Post by **STIR** » 27 Feb 2007, 16:43

schase wrote:Well, if you believe Jesus' claims about himself, then it's not illogical. I'm interested to see what kind of hearing this new theory receives. I suspect that most thinking people--even those who reject the resurrection and ascension--will view this claim with a good degree of scepticism.

Yeah, it does seem a bit too neat and tidy, ill watch it with some interest and a good deal of scepticism.

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 05 Mar 2007, 08:31

Darwin's god - (also that of spinoza, eienstein, etc..), interesting... not earth-shattering, but interesting...

Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God — evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident? Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity? And if scientists are able to explain God, what then? Is explaining religion the same thing as explaining it away? Are the nonbelievers right, and is religion at its core an empty undertaking, a misdirection, a vestigial artifact of a primitive mind? Or are the believers right, and does the fact that we have the mental capacities for discerning God suggest that it was God who put them there?

lancelot · Post by **lancelot** » 05 Mar 2007, 13:25

Man, if cr@p were money, this thread would of made me a millionaire!

doo_much · Post by **doo_much** » 05 Mar 2007, 13:43

lancelot wrote:Man, if cr@p were money, this thread would of made me a millionaire!

Are you saying that one man's cr@p is another man's dogma?

lancelot · Post by **lancelot** » 05 Mar 2007, 13:49

Do not put words into my mouth, what I am saying is that this thread is for the most part, purely argumentative and serves no purpose other than show some very retarded ideas and and comments.

doo_much · Post by **doo_much** » 05 Mar 2007, 13:57

lancelot wrote:Do not put words into my mouth, what I am saying is that this thread is for the most part, purely argumentative and serves no purpose other than show some very retarded ideas and and comments.

doo_much post = very weak attempt at humour??

So serious then.

Yes, most of the posts in this thread are rather inane, dealing with each individual's personal, sometimes uninformed little opinion. Sela.

Every now and then however a little gem pops up. The last link posted by rusty being one.

Serious end here...

lancelot · Post by **lancelot** » 05 Mar 2007, 14:14

Its OK, no further posts from me!

Tribble · Post by **Tribble** » 06 Mar 2007, 06:07

Seeing that this is a thread about the existence of God, someone please explain how a loving, caring God can let a little girl like Sheldean (and many many others) be taken from outside her home - and murdered. Why would a God put his people through this? Why - if he loves his people, would he let them suffer like this? I can only imagine what her parents went through. Can never know what she went through. IF God is there - why would anyone need a test like this?!

Makes more sense if our creator is just pure energy! At least then there is no control over events - except that which we humans exercise ourselves.

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 06 Mar 2007, 07:23

lancelot wrote:this thread is for the most part, purely argumentative and serves no purpose

err.. no.
<argumentative sod>
this thread serves its purpose very well. unfortunately, certain individuals are incapable of reading the topic title.
</argumentative sod>

@Tribble: this is *not* a thread based purely on the speculation of whether or not divine beings exist, it just so happens that it is one of those things that offends a certain mindset.

whether evidence for or against, i'm sure there's a horde of people out there who would love to spend some "alone time" with the animals responsible...

Kher-za · Post by **Kher-za** » 06 Mar 2007, 09:10

rustypup wrote: whether evidence for or against, i'm sure there's a horde of people out there who would love to spend some "alone time" with the animals responsible...

let God judge them...i just want to arrange the meeting.

lowrider · Post by **lowrider** » 06 Mar 2007, 15:58

Man, if cr@p were money, this thread would of made me a millionaire

LOL

Psych0_Cr1tt3r · Post by **Psych0_Cr1tt3r** » 06 Mar 2007, 18:31

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... overy.html

The Discovery Channel, after protests from Christian and archaeological groups around the world, has postponed the documentary, which was scheduled to be aired on Monday, March 5.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 12 Mar 2007, 18:38

News.com.au wrote:Drought blamed on lack of faith

A LEADING Muslim cleric has blamed the devastating drought, climate change and pollution on Australians' lack of faith in Allah.

Radical sheik Mohammed Omran told followers at his Brunswick mosque that out-of-control secular scientific values had caused environmental disaster.

"The fear of Allah is not there. So we have now a polluted earth, a polluted water, a wasteland," he told a meeting this year.

"What are the people now crying for? The prophet told you hundreds of years ago, 'Look after the water'."

A Sunday Herald Sun investigation also found clerics railing against "evil" democracy, vilifying Jews and Christians and encouraging jihad and polygamy.

And in a popular DVD selling locally, a foreign sheik exhorts Muslims to take control of Australia by out-breeding non-believers.

British-based Sheik Abdul Raheem Green forbade Muslims from having fewer than four children so Australia would become an Islamic state.

Behind the closed doors of some Melbourne mosques and bookshops, sheiks push for Sharia law, declare Islam at war with the "sick" West and gloat that September 11 boosted Muslim numbers.

At a Muslim information centre in Coburg, extreme literature shares shelves with DVDs by firebrand sheiks from around the globe.

The centre, run by Abu Hamza, serves Muslims in the northern suburbs.

Many CDs and DVDs there feature London sheik Abdul Raheem Green, who is on an Australian Government watchlist.

On one he tells his audience to Islamise Australia through a Muslim baby boom.

"The birth rate in the Western countries is going down. People are more interested in their careers . . . they don't want to have babies," Sheik Green says in one DVD.

"So don't you think, Muslim brothers and sisters, we've got a bit of an opportunity here? They're not having babies any more. So what if, instead, we have the babies?

"In Canada one in three or one in four children being born is a Muslim. What does that do to the demographic shift of a Muslim population in 20 years' time?

Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Aly said he was disappointed though not surprised by the Sunday Herald Sun's discoveries.

But he said extremist speech and literature was confined to only a couple of Melbourne groups.

"If I walked into (Omran's group) or (Hamza's centre) it wouldn't surprise me," he said.

Mr Aly said he believed Muslims were radicalised by "cult-like peer groups", not hate literature.

These messages proudly brought to you by the Religion of Peace™

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 10 Apr 2007, 08:40

<lead-in from 'geeky atheist' thread>

thEnaileDonE wrote:I found that the article lacked dept

- absolutely correct... someone's been posting their grade 8 homework on the internet again...

IMnsHO: geeks, (in particular code monkeys), are closet pessimists.. mostly because they *know* the depths of stupidity inherent in the average user, which they then translate into their world view... taking this into account, they also apply their rigid logic to the world and come to the fairly obvious conclusion: no omnipotent being would tolerate man's existence for more than half an hour... if that....

Post by **Monty** » 10 Apr 2007, 09:01

rustypup wrote:<lead-in from 'geeky atheist' thread>
thEnaileDonE wrote:I found that the article lacked dept
- absolutely correct... someone's been posting their grade 8 homework on the internet again...

It definately does lack depth, but it is an interesting topic.

rustypup wrote:IMnsHO: geeks, (in particular code monkeys), are closet pessimists.. mostly because they *know* the depths of stupidity inherent in the average user, which they then translate into their world view... taking this into account, they also apply their rigid logic to the world and come to the fairly obvious conclusion: no omnipotent being would tolerate man's existence for more than half an hour... if that....

Tribble wrote:I have a theory - and before I begin, I am not an atheist. Not sure yet what I am, but I do believe in a higher power. Religion, according to the Bible, depends completely on faith. Geeks use their brains so faith doesn't really impress them. IMO that is the reason.

I think both of these statements ring true to an extent, mainly because it seems logical that the Great and Powerful Creator and Savior of man would not let his greatest creation destroy itself.

-helped a little there with the quoting of the TribbleCat @

UndaGrad · Post by **UndaGrad** » 10 Apr 2007, 10:34

It's all a test of faith. Even God Himself went through something similar to what we have to deal with on a daily basis.

jcd · Post by **jcd** » 10 Apr 2007, 13:41

"If God Did Not Exist, It Would Be Necessary To Invent Him." - Voltaire

thealluseless · Post by **thealluseless** » 10 Apr 2007, 14:28

It's all a test of faith. Even God Himself went through something similar to what we have to deal with on a daily basis

plz explain before i exchange my left foot for my right?

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 10 Apr 2007, 14:35

"If God Did Not Exist, It Would Be Necessary To Invent Him." - Voltaire

"But all nature cries aloud that He does exist; that there is a supreme intelligence, an immense power, an admirable order, and everything teaches us our own dependence on it."

voltaire fell foul of paley's watch maker...

@undagrad: sorry bud, but i've tried wrangling it every which way and still cannot glean sense from your post

what test/s are we referring to here?... keep in mind, when everything 'appears' to be a 'test', chances are, your premise is wrong, not the world...

thealluseless · Post by **thealluseless** » 10 Apr 2007, 14:43

@undagrad: sorry bud, but i've tried wrangling it every which way and still cannot glean sense from your post what test/s are we referring to here?... keep in mind, when everything 'appears' to be a 'test', chances are, your premise is wrong, not the world...

i am not stupid then. fantastic