Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Historical evidence for Jesus continued


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1351-1375 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 12:28:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2012 12:33:57 AM PDT
W. Dilbert says:
brunumb says:
W. Dilbert : "Water is one of the most basic elements and is essential to all living organisms so before life, there had to be water. I don't think there is any evidence to supports water self replicating so where did this instinct of natural self replication of cells come from?"

This makes no sense. Care to elaborate?
WD: My question is pretty straight forward really and what could be elaborated upon is he we get from the point if basic elements mixed to gether, to cells replicating. Where did the instinct/desire/drive/logic come from to get us to that point?

Care to elaborate?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 12:30:44 AM PDT
W. Dilbert says:
brunumb says:
W. Dilbert : "The chances of all these conditions being met by chance at the same time or long enough for complex life to evolve (as estimated by groups of scientist), is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 when using VERY conservative estimates."

WD: Please see video referrenced earlier for more info....

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 12:39:06 AM PDT
W. Dilbert says:
brunumb says:
No comment on my other two post? Oh well.

WD: Sorry but I missed this one and I've been struggling to keep up with responding to be honest because of a very demanding job and a sick, 6 month old. It's approximately 3am here and I need to be up by 7am for work.

Will make an effort to reply tomorrow...

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 12:40:45 AM PDT
brunumb says:
W. Dilbert : "Care to elaborate?"

You said "I don't think there is any evidence to supports water self replicating so where did this instinct of natural self replication of cells come from?"

Water is not self replicating to begin with. Water, in the liquid state, is essential for the mobility and transportation of chemicals within cells.

You describe self-replication of cells as an "instinct". This is implies that each cell is capable of thought. Not so. The action of molecules is governed by their structures and electrochemical properties. When water solidifies it forms regular crystals as exemplified by snowflakes. This is not magical self-regulation. It is a result of the shape and properties of water molecules.

How does a baby develop in just nine months from a single cell? The process is governed by chemistry. Or do you believe that God is pulling the strings?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 12:52:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2012 2:05:52 AM PDT
Lugh says:
Templars and Freemasons.
Templars and Sacred Geometry
Templars and Gothic Architecture
Templars and Sufis
Templars and Monasticism
Templars and Cistercians
Templars and Celtic Christians
Templars and Gnosticism
Templars and Paris
Templars and Two Popes
Templars and John the Baptist
Templars and Egypt
Templars and Isis
Templars and the French Revolution
Templars and Spirituality
Templars and Tourism
Templars and Mary Magdalene

What is Harold Lime's knowledge limited to and by? Templars and the Roman Church, and how to make incessant ad hominem remarks. When you have some in-depth 'awareness' let alone 'knowledge' of the rest of the Templar connections, come back and talk. Just the appendix in Uffington's book The Greatest Lie Ever Told would be a start or is every accusation of a 'Lie' a 'Conspiracy' and your confidence too weak to dare to read what he says. After all, we mustn't try to research something that steps away from the orthodox view, must we, we might have to change thousands of years of thinking, and we know that everyone fifteen hundred years ago was right!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 1:29:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2012 1:39:02 AM PDT
brunumb says:
How do you reconcile the account of creation in Genesis, and the purpose of creation with the structure of the earth, the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy and the billions of other rapidly receding galaxies containing an incredible array of complex structures?

Virtually the entire universe is irrelevant to humans. It's full of deadly radiation and totally hostile environments. Planets in our solar system have unbearable temperature ranges, contain toxic atmospheres and are completely unsuitable for human habitation. Even most of our own planet, Earth, is uninhabitable. So what's it all for? As a product of the Big Bang with the subsequent formation of stars, galaxies and the heavier elements, the universe makes a lot more sense than as the product of some mystical creation process by a sentient being. So what if we don't understand how or why it all happened. Do you understand how God made everything from nothing?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 2:56:29 AM PDT
B. Josephson says:
S Oh, right. "Be perfect as your father is perfect." I guess they wouldn't like to have to say, "take chances and correct your mistakes the way your father takes chances and corrects his mistakes." Although, honestly, it sounds fine to me. Chance taking and course correction, I mean.

Response; Now you got me worried, God may figure out he made a mistake with us.

Best Wishes,
Shaamba Kaambwaat

Posted on Apr 12, 2012 3:00:47 AM PDT
B. Josephson says:
Okay, time for another go at getting somebody off ignore.

How about it, do a lot of you feel Lugh makes worthwhile contributions to a discussion.

I have Lugh on ignore, but can't exactly recall why.

So if many of you think I made a mistake to do it, please let me know, and off ignore Lugh goes.

Best Wishes,
Shaamba Kaambwaat

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 3:16:56 AM PDT
Lugh says:
B. J's been peeking.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 3:17:48 AM PDT
Bryan Borich says:
>Response; Now you got me worried, God may figure out he made a mistake with us.

Naw, everything is exactly as it was planned to be (even when we screw up as individuals).

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 9:09:35 AM PDT
Harold Lime says:
The problem is that your 'research' apparently consists of second, third, etc., sources: mostly third or worse hand sources that borrow from second hand sources and add their own unsupported theories, which uncareful readers take as factual because they're presented in a matter of fact manner.

There have been plenty of lies and conspiracies throughout history - that doesn't automatically validate every claim, however nutty, that the mainstream view of anything is erroneous. I know that it must be gratifying to think that you've stumbled upon "the real story" about something by coming across a particular book or website that makes preposterous claims, but if those claims aren't adequately supported (and this is where you should be researching, such as reading the primary documents they cite) then they needn't be taken seriously.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 9:10:22 AM PDT
Harold Lime says:
One other thing: you left out Templars and bars. And brothels. And oatmeal.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 9:43:35 AM PDT
I think we should be highly skeptical of any account which seems to fly in the face of reality. Like a dead person coming back to life after 3 days, or feeding a crowd of thousands with 2 loaves and 5 fishes, or.....

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 10:01:58 AM PDT
Lugh says:
Harold Lime, a primary source for Jesus would be nice. Instead people believe a ridiculous magical fairy tale and remain ignorant of the spiritual message.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 11:08:31 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
The chances of ANYTHING happening are very close to zero, until that something happens, at which point the odds suddenly surge to 100%.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 11:11:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2012 11:13:55 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
Some Christians think Genesis is an "explanation." It's not an explanation at all; it's just a series of assertions.

Simple stories have great appeal to simple minds, especially when those stories give one an exaggerated sense of importance.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 11:17:07 AM PDT
"Once upon a time there were 3 little pigs......"

:)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 12:23:45 PM PDT
Lugh says:
Did you find that in a primary source or in the book you suggested?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 1:15:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2012 2:50:28 PM PDT
Harold Lime says:
The oatmeal? Or the brothels? Or the bars?

Were did you get your list of things to be considered in conjunction with the Templars? And what did that list have to do with anything?

When I've pointed out errors in the (unnamed) works that you're using for reference, you immediately go farther afield: "What about Celtic Christianity? What about Templar tourism?" If you're getting at some point, I wish you'd make it rather than repeatedly circling around it.

It's as if someone claimed that Abraham Lincoln was a cyborg and someone else responded by quoting from Dr. Woodward's autopsy report to show that there was no indication found of Lincoln being anything other than human, then the first poster went off with, "What about General Grant's chronic drunkenness? What about the attempt of Southern sympathizers in San Francisco to hijack a Union ship?"

Since your claim of Isis worship among Templars (that was one of your claims, wasn't it?) seems to hinge upon Bernard of Clairvaux's secret dangerously heretical beliefs, as evidenced by Bernard's supposed admiration for the Cathars, that he supposedly transmitted to the Templars, let's stick with that, can we?

1) What support is there for your claim that Bernard was secretly (or otherwise) heretical?

2) Can you produce a quote where Bernard expresses admiration for the Cathars? Go ahead and read the whole sermon that your sources are quoting and find (there or anywhere else) where he mentions "Cathars" specifically and whether he is speaking admiringly of heretics (as already stated, you'll find that he does not).

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 1:15:48 PM PDT
Harold Lime says:
Well, there are at least two things that we agree on.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 1:50:32 PM PDT
Lugh says:
Harold, you claim knowledge of the Templars, but you only quote the link with the Church of Rome. You appear not to have discovered any of the other links that I mentioned.

As I said, start with a source that tells you how they may connect. Unlike you, I do not take anyone else's word for what I read, I use that as a basis for my own research. I keep my eyes and ears open. I make intelligent connections.

I have lived in Celtic lands most of my life, I notice things that link to, for example, the Templars. I have been to Paris, I have lived in France, I have listened to folks tales and discounted the superstition, but found correlations. You want sources from a book! Get a life, get an imagination and ask questions. You are totally missing the point, when you read widely and travel widely you see things, you hear things and you learn.

Have you got any more questions other than about Bernard of Clairvaux? I haven't bother to ask you why you think Bernard was talking about 'heretics in general' and not the Cathars in particular, because the question makes no sense. Those who disagreed with the 12th century Catholic church had a variety of beliefs and behaviours, the characteristics that Bernard describes matches the Cathars. Exactly who do you think are the vines and who are the foxes?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 3:47:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2012 4:22:09 PM PDT
Harold Lime says:
I know about many of the other "links" that you mentioned: most have little or nothing to support the idea that significant links exist (Templars and Baseball. Templars and Old Time Radio. Not everything is "connected" in any particularly significant manner). Templars and the French Revolution, for example: I'm familiar with the usual b.s. and it's b.s. (though if you have anything new, I'd certainly like to hear it).

You've fallen for some of the silliest Grand Conspiracy Theory nonsense and your attempt to pass yourself as a savant by parroting that nonsense in a pompously grave manner does not impress me (nor anyone else) sufficiently to disguise it as anything other than nonsense.

I suggest that you cultivate the ability to think critically to balance out your imagination - seriously. Living in Paris does not make one especially well versed in French history any more than contact with Sufis made the Templars Sufis.

I have plenty of questions, but I'd rather you just offer the reasons you have for your claims, before you flit off to some other topics. I'm sticking with your claims about Bernard of Clairvaux to demonstrate that your sources are b.s., in hopes that it will start you on the path of actually making "intelligent connections."

"I haven't bother to ask you why you think Bernard was talking about 'heretics in general' and not the Cathars in particular, because the question makes no sense."

I've asked you what makes you think that he was specifically referring to Cathars and not contemporary heretics in general (including Cathars and Waldensians), since they are not specifically mentioned. Trying to turn around your failure to come up with a credible answer by pretending that it was your question (and one that you didn't bother to ask, because it made no sense - are you getting enough sleep?) is an amazing (but unconvincing) bit of nonreasoning. I take it you still haven't bothered to read the quote in context, Mssr. Original Research?

I'd really like to believe that Bernard was promoting neoPaganism (and not just the cryptoPaganism that the RCC itself represents to the same arguable degree - being all nutsy over Mary is not unorthodox in the RCC, in case you didn't know). It would be a hoot (though the RCC seems unable to feel embarrassment at much of anything). So please provide me with whatever evidence there is for this,

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 7:38:28 PM PDT
Harold Lime says:
"I've been to Washington D.C. many times, I've listened to what people said and I've carefully analyzed it and found the correlations. I don't take anyone else's word, I do my own research. That's how I know that Abraham Lincoln was a cyborg. Get a life! Get out and do some independent research like I did, and you can make intelligent connections."

Do you find that a compelling argument? Because that's comparable to what you've offered.

Even though you continually avoid direct questions, I'll take a swat at your latest. Given Bernard's orthodoxy, I think the vines in his allegory are Christians and the foxes are heretics who would spoil the vines in the Lord's vineyard. Pretty orthodox interpretation, nu?

Since you (intuitively, apparently, since you offer no evidence for your claim) regard Bernard as a heretic, I assume you have some other interpretation. I'd like to hear it, if you can stay on topic and not blast off into Templars and Golf etc. territory.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2012 12:06:11 AM PDT
Lugh says:
Harold I give up. How do you infer that my living in Paris indicates a knowledge of french history? You analytical skills are no doubt impaired by your inability to understand the subject of discussion. Read more widely; when you visit or live in a place, talk to the people of the place about the unusual things that you observe, not those necessarily recorded and you'll learn. Either you are very young and think you can only learn from 'experts' or you are very naÔve and think they and you know it all.

Consipracy theories? I really cannot see what conspiracy you allude to, but then you do not give the impression of being a rational thinker, but one tinged with paranoia.

Bernard of Clairvaux: I suggest that you read his sermons, either in Latin or in translation. (The translations are a little liberal.) Start with his introduction. Read Everinus of Steinfeld's letter about the Cologne heretics, before you read about the letters about heretics. When he writes about heretics, who do you think he addresses? Why does he write in this form? How does he decide who is a heretic? Who else, heretic or staunch Roman Catholic, wrote in this way in mid-12th century?

Why does Bernard mention certain heretics and not those of the Languedoc? It is hardly likely he has not heard of them, because the Pope sent him there the following year.

No-one was 'nutsy over Mary' until Bernard of Clairvaux "in case you didn't know" (are you still 14?).

I cannot provide you with 'evidence'. It isn't my job to do so. When the true historian or researcher wants to find the truth, what others provide does not 'convince them', it is what starts them on their search. Until Heinrich Schliemann found Troy, it was a fairytale that didn't exist. Andrew Collins wouldn't accept Hawass' opinion that there were no underground chambers under the Giza plateau, so he found them and showed Hawass found them.

Stick to your orthodox views if you wish, but don't expect to learn. I have given you enough ideas for the next twenty years. Find your nearest 12th century Cistercian relic - mine fortunately is just next door - look at the space, its proportions, its location, ask about the recorded history of the place, ask about the unrecorded and the legends. Sift the impossible from the credible and add the findings to your store. Don't jump to conclusions, wait until you have enough to pieces of the jigsaw to start to see the picture emerge. My picture of Bernard and the Templars is still not complete, but it far more in focus than yours.

If you don't want to start on the journey, don't keep asking me for the travelogue. Second hand journeys are nothing like the real thing and I don't think that you seriously want to visit new ideas at all. Try Disney, you can even get the primary sources for that.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2012 2:27:44 AM PDT
W. Dilbert says:
Brunumb says: No comment on my other two post? Oh well

WD: The literal account l made referrence to is the account described in the book of genesis chapters 1&2.

Not sure if there was another question I missed but if so please repost.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  54
Total posts:  1664
Initial post:  Mar 18, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 29, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions