Historical Proof of Religion

Buddhism is a philosophy? Looks like i was wrong also.

but it is mixed with local religions so as to change them into entirely new religions? hence tibetan buddhism? is that right?

You just confused me greatly Solpac

its a special type of philosophy that can be entwined with religions to make a new one =D

like...a spice = buddhism, normal food = a random religion XD

Ok, so, chicken is christianity and buddhism is what you sprikle on the chicken?

Umm...yeah, i must be incredibly slow tonight, or drunk:P

lol idk i'm just throwing that out there i'm waiting for ruadhan to respond XD

solpacvoicis wrote:

but it is mixed with local religions so as to change them into entirely new religions? hence tibetan buddhism? is that right?

basicly. Siddhartha did not teach anything except life without suffering. there are indian words that i cant say that describe buddhism. one means little teaching and the other means big teaching or something like that. little teaching is the true teaching while big is when it was adapted to others previous religions. People back then were fearfull and they thought they needed a god to protect them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nhat_Hanh he is one of my idols and a very smart man. check him out and read his books

Thank you Ruadhan

ooo yes thanks for clearing that up! =D

I don't follow religion, not because of a hate for them, or any bad experiences, or any such things like that. I don't follow, because I can't believe. It's just so UNbelieveable that, try as I might, I can't believe in a divine entity to be REAL. Whether it's because of all the contradictions, the fact that the majority of holy scriptures are wrong about everything they say about how the world and universe work, or the fact that i view the dieties in these as villans, is moot. I jsut can't believe that such beings exist. It's... childish, if you'll forgive me. Like Santa.

Theory of Evolution makes more sense than religion, in my opinon. So i have to agree with you Tyrongkojv

When people listen to me, they always do. He, he, he.

I actually doubt Jesus's existence, something often accepted by historians as fact. My reasons are as follows:

firstly the new testament was allegedly written by the deciples of Christ, but the VERY oldest book of the new testament didn't surface until half a century after his death. The most recent book was recovered some 300 years after his "crucifixion". That brings me to my next point

Jesus was NOT crucified. At the time of his death stoning NOT crucifixtion was the most common form of exacution. crucifixtion was reserved for high ranking political crimminals. the odds that a carpenter would be crucified are very slim.

Lastly, in the bible jesus supposedly spoke to pilot, the roman judge and then was sentenced to death. but there are several problems with this: Pilot was NOT a judge he was an arch Prefect of Jerusalem. Also, Jesus spoke Aremeic and pilot spoke only latin. conversation between the two would have been impossible...

well, okay, here i go trying to explain this.....don't blame me if it doesn't make sense.

SO. jesus is supposed to be the only heir to the royal throne of judea, meaning...he could've launched a revolution, in fact, people expected him to, that's what they thought he meant by the whole "final war" etc, etc, they thought the end of the world was coming, and they were the good guys, and the romans were the bad guys.

in this sense, jesus was a very threatening individual to the romans, who wanted the jews to be placated.

that raises his odds of being crucified quite a bit, i think.

now...based on the fact that by the time this all gets written down based on rumors that had evolved into folklore - you'll have to forgive some errors or assumptions of the authors (yeah, i'm thinking more than one, since EVERYONE wrote a sort of bible back then. some still do today. they just call them stories now)

i have the feeling this argument would be a lot more powerful if i believed any of it =P its fun telling christians that jesus never existed, they look so shocked - its like telling someone that the sun isn't really there and trying to get them to prove it to you at night XD

I think the man existed if only for, and only if this wasn't all a hoax, which is likely, the fact that they found the records of the trial. Simple as that. It's the ONLY mention of a Christ Jesus. Of course there were eight other messiahs at the same time, with twelve desciples, and a virgin birth, and all that.

As for Pilate and Jesus speaking a different language, even back then they had translators.

solpacvoicis wrote:

well, okay, here i go trying to explain this.....don't blame me if it doesn't make sense.

SO. jesus is supposed to be the only heir to the royal throne of judea, meaning...he could've launched a revolution, in fact, people expected him to, that's what they thought he meant by the whole "final war" etc, etc, they thought the end of the world was coming, and they were the good guys, and the romans were the bad guys.

in this sense, jesus was a very threatening individual to the romans, who wanted the jews to be placated.

that raises his odds of being crucified quite a bit, i think.

now...based on the fact that by the time this all gets written down based on rumors that had evolved into folklore - you'll have to forgive some errors or assumptions of the authors (yeah, i'm thinking more than one, since EVERYONE wrote a sort of bible back then. some still do today. they just call them stories now)

i have the feeling this argument would be a lot more powerful if i believed any of it =P its fun telling christians that jesus never existed, they look so shocked - its like telling someone that the sun isn't really there and trying to get them to prove it to you at night XD

like i said, its only reasons to belive he wasnt a factual man. but its kind of irrelevent lol either way he was still a bullshit maurder. and yeah hahaha it is very fun to tell those things to christians

People should be allowed to believe whatever they want. But the problem that organized religion poses is that it usually sucks in children before they're old enough to make an informed decision. The question that should be asked is "Do you believe in God because you thought about it and it made sense to you? Or is it because thats how you were brought up and you just don't know anything different?

One perhaps somewhat logical solution would to put a legal age on religion (like a drinking age) to prevent children from being indoctrinated before they have a chance to think for themselves.

the onlie way to abolish religion is communism. communism is the negation of religion and morality.

axcept green or die! wrote:

the onlie way to abolish religion is communism. communism is the negation of religion and morality.

You can't "abolish" idealism. It's idealist to detach ideas from their material origin. For communism to be achieved you must provide the material conditions that replace that which ferments religion and idealism.

you dont provide materiel conditiesn dumbass. the material conditiens arise ievitably. i dont detach ideas from the materiel. comunism is the material conditien that puts an end to religion.

axcept green or die! wrote:

you dont provide materiel conditiesn dumbass. the material conditiens arise ievitably. i dont detach ideas from the materiel. comunism is the material conditien that puts an end to religion.

If only i could understand this.

dont even worry, he is gone now.

axcept green or die! wrote:

you dont provide materiel conditiesn dumbass. the material conditiens arise ievitably. i dont detach ideas from the materiel. comunism is the material conditien that puts an end to religion.

seriously man, i don't expect the grammer to be perfect. but please, try to spell a little bit better. I can't understand you. haha