Deadly_Nightshade

You're a Vampire!! Seductive, beautiful, mysterious, and quite evil. You're very dark and dangerous.. You kill to feed, and prey upon the most unsuspecting and beautiful people you can find... Take this quiz!

Which Tombraider is that? The newest one? It's Legend, but I'm working on re-skinning the modules so you might not have recognized it...

But Matthew, Luke, John, ext. were written at the same time as the gnostic writings, so I don't see how the reasons stated in the bible can make any sense... :crazy: Sure, that's when they were written, but the gospels were told audibly to the people before that though. Did you read Galatians 1:6-25? The gospel was preached before it was written down. Like, Matthew could've been walking around telling people what Jesus had said and what happened, then later, when he was going to die or whatever, he had it written down for people to not forget. So were the gnostic texts, and oral renditions tend to get modified over many re-tellings...

^Spam...

But Matthew, Luke, John, ext. were written at the same time as the gnostic writings, so I don't see how the reasons stated in the bible can make any sense... :crazy:

Please present some proof to back your claim that Paul didn't attempt to silence the gnostic sects...

You might not have said it outright, but you certainly implied it. What is implied has no bearing, as different people can read the same statement in innumerable ways...

Sorry, it's historical fact... The gnostic sects and gospels, were widespread and persisted after Paul's death, genius, and it wasn't him alone who was responsible for Christianity's spreading. THAT is historical fact. I dare you to prove otherwise. I never said he was solely responsible, so you're now the one placing word into people's mouths... :crazy:

Sorry, it's historical fact...

John wasn't his 'religious master'. And that's not true. There are a lot of reasons why it spread so fast, not just one "twist of fate". No, Paul stamped out any dissenting viewpoints, particularly the gnostic sects...

V for Vendetta

Who needs "a higher power," it's just a power play by those who claim to be "god's" messengers. That said, if there were a "god," or "gods," I would loath him/her/it/them...

Even the most tolerant people snap if enough pressure is applied, and my day provided that pressure. Also, how are your belifes any more well founded than my own?

Here's the thing. Those who seek to dilute the teaching of science with religion should first give up the fruits of that teaching. With enough faith in God, religious people should have no need for sinful technologies - antibiotics, gene therapy, insulin, microwave ovens, etc. Is it not an affront to God to forsake His Love for the fruits of Godless science? Simply a mistake, I'll edit it out sometime...

N0TE: I believe I am more tolerant of what other people believe than many Christians. I have never seen people picketing atheism but I see it all the time with religion. I have never seen someone walking up to strangers trying to give them copies of "The Origin of Species" saying this is the way. Yet, I can't walk across campus without seeing someone preaching about Jesus dying for sins or some guy walking up to me trying to give me a bible. It is belief not fact. I see tolerance out the *** from atheists. I do not see it as much from the religious. Beliefs in a god or lack of should not be a defining characteristic for government offices. In fact the religious politicians are even more immoral and dishonest than atheist politicians. Because they are dishonest not only to the people but themselves and they go against there own moral beliefs. Are you trying to say that people that are not religious are evil? Some of the cruelest acts of man have been undertaken under the name of religion. People will defend their beliefs with unceasing cruelty and evil. Nothing is scarier than 80% of the US population turning on the other 20% simply because of religious beliefs. It is unfair and it is unjust. Laws such as these are a way to separate people even more. I do not agree with everything in that video. I think it is just as dangerous as any other religious propaganda. It inspires hate and does nothing to resolve the issue. However, it does show another side of religion and government, one that should be resolved.

I try not to laugh at those whose beliefs are for the common good, but I don't wish to follow them. That's not the type of person I am. I will commonly joke, but know that it is not a direct insult, only sarcasm in its edgier sense. My belief, is that there is no God. Simple, as clear as crystal and as plain as paper. No God at all. Just a concoction created by the Human Mind. There was never a Zeus, never a Hades, never a Krishna, never a Yahweh, never an Allah, never a God. Never. I stand firm by my statement, as does my colleagues, whether on opposing sides of the debate or not. Arguing isn't going to solve anything, it just makes things worse, especially once you target your challenge, you've clearly lost the debate. There is no clear cut evidence of his existence. Books and scripture is NOT evidence, it is appraisal to his seeming existence, but I stress, NOT evidence. Books are written by man, man can LIE, or make fairy tales, its what man was good at for several millenia anyway, and still are to this very day. No tangible proof, no evidence, nothing. I will not commit my time to a Lord who very well might not exist, because it wastes my time. I believe in Humans, and creatures, and though humans may be flawed and malcontent at times, I believe we are the very thing we have created.

The human eye Is deeply flawed in many ways... "

We are chickens with our heads cut off. I do not ignore religion, very much the opposite. I think about religion everyday. I denounce it with putrid hatred. It is very hard for me to be civil about theology. What you said is one of the things I hate the most about religion. It is a cop-out when you* are backed in a corner. When someone provides evidence against your god you respond with the weathered expression, "It is all according to god's will." I refuse to accept that as a rational explanation. Provide me with the tiniest piece of solid evidence then I will give it some consideration. There is no way to back religion other than with unfounded ideology.

You have NO eyewitnesses, you have accounts that were written. You have the bible... a book that has been translated and rewritten hundreds of times. Consider the source. Do you think that the writers and re-writers would discredit themselves by saying that there were not a substantial amount of people that witnessed it. The point is this resurrection is not possible in the physical world we occupy. This raises a question, that you may choose to answer or not, why would the same god that creates a physical world to separate the faithful from the unfaithful then arbitrarily break it's own laws? If you do choose to answer do not even try to sway me with some cop-out like, "It is all according to god's plan." What is this crap about giants? I can only surmise that if you take the bible at face value you take "Jack and the Beanstalk" at face value. So, I do not even want to address this. Show me the evidence. Yes, you are correct many places in the bible have been found. Or rather it is believed that they have been found. There is no evidence, however, that proves these are the same places. Even if they are so what? There are a lot of historic accuracies in the bible. That does not mean every word of it is true by default. "OMFG, The Garden of Eden was a real place (Bahraih). Therefore, the story of Adam and Eve is true!" That is a ludicrous conclusion. A lot of your proof has actually only, conveniently, been seen by one or two people. The problem is that your evidence is not something that can be used today and therefore your proof is that god is infallible. Rather, everything is according it's plan. How am I supposed to prove this wrong? However, thankfully it is a two way path and I challenge you to prove god's existence. Don't give me some romantic ideological drivel either. Like, "compassion is proof of god" or "love" or any other corny reason. I want tangible evidence. I want hard evidence. I challenge you to prove to me it's existence.

You know only the fabrications you have read and deduced. Your god is not tangible therefore you cannot justly say you "know" anything about it. We all know the stories and you repeating them does not strengthen the case. We all perceive it as we wish and that is our prerogative. While, it is your prerogative to try and sway us you have done nothing but regurgitate, in my mind, drivel. When I say show me evidence you show me unproven stories and romantic fantasies. Your deductions and perceptions are not proof. I want evidence that is proved to the extent that it can be proven. Wherein, I am asking for tangible evidence not more "insight" into fictional stories.

It's most likely part of the cut content...

"

Another site's pole had less than 5% of the members voting to upgrade in the near future, so I think there's a general consensus that Vista isn't worth the money at the current time...