assuranceagent
New member
Only item four is even marginally debatable with any modicum of intellectual honesty.
Jesus was a historical figure. There's little doubt - even among secular historians - of that fact.
Shai Gar - ENTP - Satanist - Theology Debater
- Thread starter Shai Gar
- Start date
- Status
Only item four is even marginally debatable with any modicum of intellectual honesty.
Jesus was a historical figure. There's little doubt - even among secular historians - of that fact.
The "evidence" for the historical existence of a single literal individual by this name as depicted in the gospels is slim, at best, and for the sake of this thread, let's please not go there and try to rehash that old chestnut of an argument.
And I've little doubt of that fact. but even using christian doctrine it's amusing to say jesus is the son of god.
And you can show me the toy shops and the reindeer sheds and the where the sleigh is stored during the rest of the year? Can you show me Shanta's castle?!? :noway:
You can choose to be obtuse if you will but it does more to hinder discussions than to help.
Welcome Shai Gar.
Just because someone is a historical figure doesn't mean they actually existed. It just means there were people in history who believed he existed. Until secular historians can prove that Jesus didn't exist, they have to give historical accounts some credence. However, the inverse is true for theologians. They can't exactly prove he did exist outside of a few questionable Extra Biblical sources. To be frank, King Author is a historical figure, and there are historical accounts which indicate that he was based on a real man. But no secular historian is going to claim he ruled a massive city called Camelot and wielded a magic sword called Excalibur.
Just because someone is a historical figure doesn't mean they actually existed. It just means there were people in history who believed he existed. Until secular historians can prove that Jesus didn't exist, they have to give historical accounts some credence. However, the inverse is true for theologians. They can't exactly prove he did exist outside of a few questionable Extra Biblical sources. To be frank, King Author is a historical figure, and there are historical accounts which indicate that he was based on a real man. But no secular historian is going to claim he ruled a massive city called Camelot and wielded a magic sword called Excalibur.
Both move.
Equator move.
"Shanta" won't be tested like that, he want you to have faith in him, if you could take a picture that would be proof not faith.
Egbert
New member
Yeah...so why did you bring up the fact that the north pole moves? :idunno:
Cause new guy said this;
I simply wanted to point out that it moves, he seemed as though he might not be aware of that.
Egbert
New member
I'm pretty sure he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.
Seeing is no believing, believing is seeing.
That's not what I'm talking about.
Geographic north pole (the axis) moves, it's called the Chandler wobble.
So if I believe this glass is full of beer it will become so?
So once you wanted to believe it, you did. I see.
Your faith persists because you need it.
Egbert
New member
Ah. But it still doesn't move relative to the Equator, so for the purposes of geographical locations and latitude and longitude, it doesn't move around on the globe.
To quote the philosopher Raistlin Majere:
"Hope is the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it."
"So we shouldn't have hope?"
"No! We should remove the carrot and see with clear vision"
Interesting test of faith. Let me know how it works out and what you learn from trying.
Egbert
New member
This goes back to you confusing the North Pole and the North Magnetic Pole. The former never moves relative to 0 degrees latitude (the Equator), while the latter does. ShaiGar was not talking about the magnetic poles.
- Status