News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Catholic Church "Miracles"

Started by Paolo, December 07, 2020, 12:58:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Paolo

Quote from: the_antithesis on January 15, 2021, 01:17:03 PM
Go fuck yourself.

You tell me what to do. I tell you what to do. I'd say we're even.

When you do what I told you to do, I'll consider doing what you told me to do.

Until then, I won't even consider it.

In addition to this being manifestly unfair, I told you "what to do" FIRST, you moron!
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Paolo

#151
Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 16, 2021, 03:38:39 AM
Paolo, see. You have given the right to say those things to people yourself with your attitude. You have been given more than enough for an invalid inquiry. You are not engaging with anything else and just post here once in couple of days to tell people off. At least, that's what you think you do.

Didn't I engage way too much already? Read again my very detailed replies. But apparently, I also have "better shit to do", as one of you put it. Sorry about that.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on January 16, 2021, 03:38:39 AM
Infact, this thread is some sort of Jerry day care. You are not here as an adult, a possible member. You are here because mods let you. It's not a territory to defend.

The fuck? I would call you an Asperger-ridden, autistic lame fucking moron of a prick, but I would not go down to YOUR level, buddy!
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Paolo

#152
Quote from: Cassia on January 14, 2021, 08:08:20 AM
All over the world each day, ordained male priests chant a magic spell over a cracker. Council after council have compiled volumes of elegant prose about how this baked flour and wine are actually the flesh and blood of a dead man (who may have not even existed.)

You fucking kidding? Please back up more properly that assertion, because it goes against everything I've read in 10+ years of studying history and religion (and history of religions!) as a hobby. A man who we would call today ''Jesus Christ'' (maybe that wasn't his exact name, though) certainly was born and existed around the time of the 1st century, as far as History is concerned. Whether or not he was ''the Son of God'' or had supernatural powers or anything of this sort is an entirely different matter.

Cassia, please.

Quote from: Cassia on January 14, 2021, 08:08:20 AMAnyways if you kill a lamb and then get to eat it you, have not really sacrificed anything. Ancient nonsense to win over the pagans. God really does not have good magic. I have seen much better in Vegas.

What the fuck?
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

drunkenshoe



Jupiter's cock is the best historical evidence you have. And that's an overgrown cunt. Juno's cunt.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Cassia

There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. There are obvious attempts at faking physical evidence, such as the shroud of Turin. The sources for a historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings. This is problematic. Writings by non Christians on Jesus just report what Christians were saying and some of that has been forged. Paul's letters follow the prototype of mythical savior gods that were popular at the time. The details on Jesus's daily life become more" fleshed out" only decades after he supposedly lived. This is highly unusual.

Dr. Richard Carrier uses Bayesian analysis and that puts the probability of historical Jesus at 1/3. As time goes on Jesus may go the way of fictional Moses as more secular scholars continue research.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

SGOS

Quote from: Cassia
QuoteAll over the world each day, ordained male priests chant a magic spell over a cracker. Council after council have compiled volumes of elegant prose about how this baked flour and wine are actually the flesh and blood of a dead man (who may have not even existed.)

Quote from: Paolo on January 21, 2021, 06:16:07 AM
You fucking kidding? Please back up more properly that assertion, because it goes against everything I've read in 10+ years of studying history and religion (and history of religions!) as a hobby. A man who we would call today ''Jesus Christ'' (maybe that wasn't his exact name, though) certainly was born and existed around the time of the 1st century, as far as History is concerned. Whether or not he was ''the Son of God'' or had supernatural powers or anything of this sort is an entirely different matter.
I think Cassia's point was that wine and crackers don't trans-mutate into blood and flesh.  You avoided the main point, and chose to argue that Jesus was a real person, (but maybe not named Jesus and who wasn't the son of God, and performed no miracles). 

But that misses an important point too.  When Priests around the world chant magic words to change crackers into the body of Jesus, they are not talking about some bloke in Mexico today or some forgotten bloke from two thousand years ago who may or may not have existed.  They are changing crackers into a very specific Jesus of the Bible, who they claim existed, was the son of God, and performed miracles.

Jesus' existence is frequently debated, but no one knows that the Jesus of the Bible existed.  That he was based on an ordinary man, possibly one of many street preacher's is an apologetic used by some scholars that shoots itself in the foot, because that could not be the Miracle Jesus defined in the Bible.  It's just one explanation for the origins of a legend, but not a valid claim, because there are other explanations like shear fabrication that are just as reasonable. 

Mike Cl

Quote from: Paolo on January 21, 2021, 06:16:07 AM
A man who we would call today ''Jesus Christ'' (maybe that wasn't his exact name, though) certainly was born and existed around the time of the 1st century, as far as History is concerned. Whether or not he was ''the Son of God'' or had supernatural powers or anything of this sort is an entirely different matter.
I must respectfully disagree.  Jesus was the name of a fictional man, who has been labeled the Son of God by the propagandists of 2000 years ago.  'Christ' is a title, not a name--there were many who were a Christ.  There is no proof that such a man existed.  If you think there is, could you share some of it?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

drunkenshoe

He doesn't know and don't want to learn what evidence is. (Let alone historical evidence.) That's the knowledge he needs which he deliberately rejects. I'm not drunk [I liked the gif, think ice tea] I wasn't being uncouth, I was trying to explain it 'better' and 'directly' as he wishes. That's what it is in a mythical nutshell.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Hydra009

#158
Literally anyone: *expresses basic skepticism*
This evangelist:  "the fuck!?!?!!"

I could watch this all day.  It's like Shyamalan's The Village except with skepticism instead of technology.   :popcorn:

aitm

A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Paolo

Quote from: aitm on January 21, 2021, 05:54:29 PM
Simply said...a kook!

What, because I have a different opinion than the atheist fucktards here? Where's the freethinking of the "free thinkers"? Seems you guys are skeptics only by name. True skepticism does not know this place.
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Mike Cl

Quote from: Paolo on January 21, 2021, 06:51:52 PM
What, because I have a different opinion than the atheist fucktards here? Where's the freethinking of the "free thinkers"? Seems you guys are skeptics only by name. True skepticism does not know this place.
Okay.  Would you care to address my question to you?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Paolo

#162
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 21, 2021, 08:02:36 PM
Okay.  Would you care to address my question to you?

Yeah, RIGHT NOW I am too busy watching/fapping to some disgusting domestic online porn, but probably tomorrow I will give you your thoughtful, detailed, heavily-argumented, long-awaited glorious answer and refutation. Just wait like the little good Fundamentalist Atheist that you and your buddies are.  :wink2:
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Mr.Obvious

"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

aitm

Quote from: Paolo on January 22, 2021, 01:37:48 AM
Yeah, RIGHT NOW I am too busy watching/fapping to some disgusting domestic online porn, but probably tomorrow I will give you your thoughtful, detailed, heavily-argumented, long-awaited glorious answer and refutation. Just wait like the little good Fundamentalist Atheist that you and your buddies are.  :wink2:
Tsk tsk....wasting of the seed is one of gods “abominations”...but hey...so called Christians never really follow the babble anyhoo.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust