Oddworld Forums - Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=20278)

()

If God is real and did create the universe, Then where did God come from? Did he create himself?

I will answer your question with another question, where did the first particle to create the big bang come from...energy can't just appear, we know that.

Surprised no-one at least pitched an answer his question yet. Call yourselves debators?

tl;dr, the first particle is the previous universe squashed up really tiny. There was no 'first' universe, because time is a phenomenon that exists only within universes.

Just on the big belief =/= knowledge thing that keeps resurfacing: You can have misinformed knowledge. If the person is aware of reasons why what he thinks could be wrong, it will be a belief in his eyes. If from the day he was born he has been told something is a fact and given proof, it will be a fact to him, ergo he will know it. Proof can be fabricated, certainly... but if it is presented as a fact, it can be known.

()

I will answer your question with another question, where did the first particle to create the big bang come from...energy can't just appear, we know that.

We don't know, and that's the point. No one knows.

We can make some pretty good guesses based on what we do know, though.

As opposed to religion, which is pretty good guesses based on other pretty good guesses.

Don't be stupid religion is based exactly on what we know.

Por ejempo: The shroud of Turin was proved to have covered the face of Jesus two years ago, we now are even more certain he existed and can begin to decide on whether he was truly the son of God or as my friend put it, bipolar.

()

You what?

()

Por ejempo: The shroud of Turin was proved to have covered the face of Jesus two years ago, we now are even more certain he existed and can begin to decide on whether he was truly the son of God or as my friend put it, bipolar.

I hate to be contrary, and I care about this subject much less than ever before in my life, but no they didn't. No they fucking didn't.

Just because he existed, doesn't mean he was the son of God.

He probably thought he was.

Jesus defenitely existed though. Records and stuff. Messiah or not, I think he was still a pretty cool guy. He stood up for Jews and didn't talk shit. He just happened to also be a nutter. Like Hitler! (Joke)

EDIT: Speedy shit.

Shroud is still fake as hell. Made in the Middle Ages and the imprint is burned into the cloth. Maybe Jesus was really... Ghost Rider.

No because DNA proof plus evidence that the shroud was around at least 250 years earlier than when the French nicked it in Hungary was given, confirmed by atheist and jewish archaeologists funnily enough.

()

I asked my religion teacher once, "Could God make a pie so hot he couldn't eat it?"

I was subjected to receive a bad comment.

What kind of religious teacher doesn't know the Paradox of the Stone Pie?

()

DNA proof? Really? Reeeaaaally?

()

DNA proof? Really? Reeeaaaally?

You know how it's usually all GATTACA an shit

Well this DNA was saying stuff like GODDACA

Reeeaaally OANST! Also nice to see your back by the way.

Why don't you link us to a document which displays this DNA evidence?

Apparently the scientists have Shinigame eyes.

I MADE AN ANIME REFERENCE!

I believe Jesus was a real person. A crazy, "prophetic" one, but a person nonetheless.

The Romans crucified him, which was the most popular method to get rid of lunatics.

()

Reeeaaally OANST!

How per se have they confirmed it using DNA? You need a DNA sample from the person in question, or a close relative. Last time I checked, neither of those were available.

Alcar...

Alan Adler: Alan Adler was an expert on porphyrins, the types of colored compounds seen in blood, chlorophyll, and many other natural products. He and Dr. John Heller, MD, studied the blood flecks on the STURP sampling tapes [Heller and Adler, Applied Optics 19, (16) 1980]. They converted the heme into its parent porphyrin, and they interpreted the spectra taken of blood spots by Gilbert and Gilbert. They concluded that the blood flecks are real blood. In addition to that, the x-ray-fluorescence spectra taken by STURP showed excess iron in blood areas, as expected for blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas but not in any other parts of the Shroud.

Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed. The blood appears to be so old that the DNA is badly fragmented. Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY has said that "… anyone can walk in off the street and amplify DNA from anything. The hard part is not to amplify what you don't want and only amplify what you want (endogenous DNA vs contamination)." It is doubtful that good DNA analyses can be obtained from the Shroud.

It is almost certain that the blood spots are blood, but no definitive statements can be made about its nature or provenience, i.e., whether it is male and from the Near East.

^ That's not were I got the actual info from but I'm to tired to digging around tonight.

Aha, this is something of similar relation in wikipedia, again not quite what I was looking for but I do remember this:

Wikipedia no it all:
flowers and pollen proof:
In 1997 Avinoam Danin, a botanist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, reported that he had identified the type of Chrysanthemum coronarium, Cistus creticus and Zygophyllum whose pressed image on the shroud was first noticed by Alan Whanger in 1985 on the photographs of the shroud taken in 1931. He reported that the outlines of the flowering plants would point to March or April and the environs of Jerusalem. In a separate report in 1978 Danin and Uri Baruch reported on the pollen grains on the cloth samples, stating that they were appropriate to the spring in Israel. Max Frei, a Swiss police criminologist who initially obtained pollen from the shroud during the STURP investigation stated that of the 58 different types of pollens found, 45 were from the Jerusalem area, while 6 were from the eastern Middle East, with one pollen species growing exclusively in Constantinople, and two found in Edessa, Turkey. Mark Antonacci argues that the pollen evidence and flower images are inherently interwoven and strengthen each other.
Skeptics have argued that the flower images are too faint for Danin's determination to be definite, that an independent review of the pollen strands showed that one strand out of the 26 provided contained significantly more pollen than the others, perhaps pointing to deliberate contamination. Skeptics also argue that Max Frei had previously been duped in his examination of the Hitler Diaries and that he may have also been duped in this case, or may have introduced the pollens himself. J. Beaulieau has stated that Frei was a self-taught amateur palynologist, was not properly trained, and that his sample was too small.
In 2008 Avinoam Danin reported analysis based on the ultraviolet photographs of Miller and Pellicori taken in 1978. Danin reported five new species of flower, which also bloom in March and April and stated that a comparison of the 1931 black and white photographs and the 1978 ultraviolet images indicate that the flower images are genuine and not the artifact of a specific method of photography.

So, the first quote explained that it wasn't possible to use DNA. The second one attempts to place the shroud in the vicinity of Israel.

Neither of these prove it was Jesus'.

Alcar...

Yes, I realised the DNA thing couldn't be used properly and wanted to put that in because I realised it was wrong. The second one, proves the date is at the time of Jesus, Israel. Not were we thought it was made, France or Turin, 14th century or later.

()

So a piece of cloth existed in the time and place that Jesus is thought to have existed.

Now explain why that proves he existed.

Wait hol' on a second, you are telling me you don't believe Jesus existed, shroud or not it is pretty much solid history he did...I mean really I have you mistaken right?

()

Wait hol' on a second, you are telling me you don't believe Jesus existed, shroud or not it is pretty much solid history he did...I mean really I have you mistaken right?

Provide evidence and I'll consider it.

e: hard evidence, not "well see this Israeli cloth"

I'm sorry I promise I'm not trying to be snarky or down right rude to you but I am so tired from rugby, can I just link you this wikipedia article to you, it gives for and I think against arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Contrary to what almost every single person here, atheist or otherwise, have said, there is no proof whatsoever that there was ever a man named Jesus Christ. There is absolutely no documentation of his birth, imprisonment, or death. I don't mean that to say that the man didn't exist. Probably he did. But there is absolutely no proof.

Pliny's documents and the codex (codices) aren't proof? What do you need a physical embodiment of the man to rub his nail holes into your face and take you for a flight round the block?

()

From that very article:

Material which refers to Jesus includes the books of the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, hypothetical sources which many biblical scholars argue lie behind the New Testament, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources[24] such as Josephus, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.[25] Not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable,[26][27][28][29][30][31] and elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion.[32][33][34][35][36]

The evidence for the existence of Jesus all comes from after his lifetime.[37][38][39] As a result, some critics argue that Biblical scholars have created the historical Jesus in their own image.[40][41] A small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing, not even the very existence of Jesus, can be determined from them.[42]

There's no hard, historical evidence of Jesus' existence that wasn't written after his death. Like OANST said, no proof of birth, imprisonment or death.

Those are about Christians or Christianity, not Christ. Plus, they were written outside of his supposed life span.

Edit: Speedy shit.