Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I could call the color "red", "blue", and if I worked at it, I could believe that "red" was "blue". However, when I tell someone else that "red" is "blue", they would not believe me. Why is that? Why would they not believe me when I tell them that "red" is "blue"?

Because of tradition.

Besides, semantically speaking you could describe the relationship that believers have with God through Christ a religion, but that is only because that is the tag that society uses to refer to those who acknowledge God's existence or who have some type of spiritual ritual of some sort.

But I don't have to accept that label.

If you do not characterize your relationship with your family or relatives as a religion (red), then I reserve the right to define my relationship with God how I see fit (red also).

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Sigh, well it's no-pants-o-clock for me. As far as I'm concerned, ad hominems are more beneficial in this display of brickwall tactics. JIA, until you are able to provide supportive data from a neutral source (read: unbiased), and you will have no traction in any form of scientific debate. You will only be satisfied by your own self-satisfaction of having an answer to everything, regardless of whether it is right or not. You are 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag. Bravo.

Good night.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If my opinions are not valuable, then nether are yours.

That is why I use so much Scripture and scientific research.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I could call the color "red", "blue", and if I worked at it, I could believe that "red" was "blue". However, when I tell someone else that "red" is "blue", they would not believe me. Why is that? Why would they not believe me when I tell them that "red" is "blue"?

And I could call "Shakyamunison" "Dadudemon", but I doubt that would apply to your point.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is why I use so much Scripture and scientific research.

Most "research" fails to support "S"cripture. Look at all the "soundly proven" examples held out in your Ressurection thread. These holy land examples of proof are held out to be religious sites, but none of them are factually proven to be the sites mentioned in the bible and are, in point of fact, proven NOT to be the sites; this is accepted by most religious scholars that have actually visited the sites and researched them. The arch/gate, the tomb, etc...these are not considered by scholars to be anything more than tourists attractions that are innocent due to their religious validation. But even people of faith who go beyond the Israeli-Tours company schedule have agreed they are not the sites mentioned in the bible or Torah.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Because of tradition.

Besides, semantically speaking you could describe the relationship that believers have with God through Christ a religion, but that is only because that is the tag that society uses to refer to those who acknowledge God's existence or who have some type of spiritual ritual of some sort.

But I don't have to accept that label.

If you do not characterize your relationship with your family or relatives as a religion (red), then I reserve the right to define my relationship with God how I see fit (red also).

You have it backward. Your relationship with your god is a belief that is part of the nonphysical (spiritual or mental) ritual of your religion.

Originally posted by Devil King
Most "research" fails to support "S"cripture. Look at all the "soundly proven" examples held out in your Ressurection thread. These holy land examples of proof are held out to be religious sites, but none of them are factually proven to be the sites mentioned in the bible and are, in point of fact, proven NOT to be the sites; this is accepted by most religious scholars that have actually visited the sites and researched them. The arch/gate, the tomb, etc...these are not considered by scholars to be anything more than tourists attractions that are innocent due to their religious validation. But even people of faith who go beyond the Israeli-Tours company schedule have agreed they are not the sites mentioned in the bible or Torah.

So...what happened to the body of Jesus then?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is why I use so much Scripture and scientific research.

But you don't use good scientists, only quacks.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have it backward. Your relationship with your god is a belief that is part of the nonphysical (spiritual or mental) ritual of your religion.

What religion? I don't know what you are talking about any more than what you have with your loved ones is a religion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you don't use good scientists, only quacks.

Don't shoot the messenger in an attempt to silence or destroy the facts.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So...what happened to the body of Jesus then?

What happened to his foreskin, that's what I'd like to know.

What happened to Caesar's body? Where is Herrod's?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What religion? I don't know what you are talking about any more than what you have with your loved ones is a religion.

In your case it would be Christianity.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Don't shoot the messenger in an attempt to kill the facts.

I have seen no facts to kill.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In your case it would be Christianity.

Sorry, that doesn't ring a bell. I know what you are talking about by I am splitting hairs. This is why I say that believers in Christ are different.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have seen no facts to kill.

So why impugn the messenger then (i.e. Hugh Ross)? What does your opinion of him have to do with what he declares?

Originally posted by Devil King
What happened to his foreskin, that's what I'd like to know.

What happened to Caesar's body? Where is Herrod's?

I thought Jesus' bones were discovered? Where are they?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I thought Jesus' bones were discovered? Where are they?

you thought wrong....

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So why impugn the messenger then (i.e. Hugh Ross)? What does your opinion of him have to do with what he declares?

Ok, if I thought the way you do, I would still follow the advice of a doctor that has been found to be wrong.

Originally posted by Devil King
you thought wrong....

I was being facetious.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, if I thought the way you do, I would still follow the advice of a doctor that has been found to be wrong.

Not necessarily.