Why doesn't God share His knowledge?

bluebison25 said:Look, I wasn't planning on arguing with you about this, but I don't want to come off as rude, so here's the bottom line: Ivancic wrote that book right here under this title. In it, Ivancic lists all the "irrefutable evidence" proving that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. I actually did some digging and found a text that takes every single one of Ivancic's "proofs" and explains them for what they actually are—no twisting facts, no lies, and no religious dogma—and every single piece of evidence points away from Jesus existing. But honestly, it doesn't matter; you're already convinced Ivancic is right, and that's clearly the only thing you care about. 👍

It makes zero sense to claim someone is a historical figure and then immediately deny they ever existed??? Honestly, any smart person would see through that kind of logic...

Ivancic laid out what he claims is undeniable proof regarding the existence of Jesus. Of course, other people—mostly historians—actually looked at that evidence, applied actual logic, and used scientific reasoning to dismantle his lies. I don't know why you guys struggle so much to grasp that...

@silentridge8: You're talking about the exact same "undeniable" evidence that you believers were clinging to just a moment ago.

Do you even realize that science isn't in the business of proving the existence of God or Jesus??
Don't you get that you can't prove something that doesn't exist and never did??
Do you understand that when those texts from theologians, priests, and other believers about the "proven existence of the Almighty" are published, and you try to label them as "scientific facts," they are debunked instantly? They are never, ever used to explain the laws of nature or physics!

bluebison25 said:Ivancic laid out what he claims is undeniable proof regarding the existence of Jesus. Of course, other people—mostly historians—actually looked at that evidence, applied actual logic, and used scientific reasoning to dismantle his lies. I don't know why you guys struggle so much to grasp that...

@silentridge8: You're talking about the exact same "undeniable" evidence that you believers were clinging to just a moment ago.

Do you even realize that science isn't in the business of proving the existence of God or Jesus??
Don't you get that you can't prove something that doesn't exist and never did??
Do you understand that when those texts from theologians, priests, and other believers about the "proven existence of the Almighty" are published, and you try to label them as "scientific facts," they are debunked instantly? They are never, ever used to explain the laws of nature or physics!

Historians like Kenneth Humphreys? On his own website, he claims to have taught at a college, but also lists himself as a former photographer and a former computer salesman. He’s suspiciously vague about what he actually taught, when, or what his actual field of expertise is.

The vast majority of modern historians accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew living in the first century, regarded as a teacher, who was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate. The idea that there’s a whole crowd of people with personal vendettas trying to "prove" that Jesus of Nazareth never existed is a completely different matter entirely.

Honestly, reading the list at the bottom of that article is almost laughable. Aside from Walkerica and Pagels, they cite a book titled "What Your Church Doesn't Want You to Know." That’s a pretty bold choice for a serious historical or scientific work.

Do you even grasp the distinction between "believing" and actually knowing? You claim: "most historians today believe that Jesus..." Look, honey, I couldn't care less what anyone chooses to believe. I don't buy into those fairy tales, and that’s what matters most to me. Most people will follow the crowd—let them. As for that slim little atheist manifesto that dismantled all of Miller's lies, at least the author cited his sources while systematically tearing his arguments apart. Whether you liked it or not is irrelevant. Your church is just out for your wallet.

bluebison25 said:Do you even grasp the distinction between "believing" and actually knowing? You claim: "most historians today believe that Jesus..." Look, honey, I couldn't care less what anyone chooses to believe. I don't buy into those fairy tales, and that’s what matters most to me. Most people will follow the crowd—let them. As for that slim little atheist manifesto that dismantled all of Miller's lies, at least the author cited his sources while systematically tearing his arguments apart. Whether you liked it or not is irrelevant. Your church is just out for your wallet.

It’s pretty obvious how defensive you get the second someone touches a nerve, isn't it? You're getting worked up because even though the bibliography is a joke, you've decided that since churches want money, Jesus never existed. 😵

Yeah, most historians agree, or rather, they hold the consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew living in the first century who was sentenced to death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate—which was the standard punishment for non-citizens and criminals in the Roman Empire at the time.

Textual criticism and historical methodology are actual scientific disciplines, which clearly doesn't work in your favor here, so you'd rather just ignore them. Maybe that’s why you claim Ivancic was trying to prove the existence of a historical Jesus, even though that wasn't even the point of his book.

People can write whatever they want, but there is such a thing as an academic standard used to evaluate any given article. If you choose to ignore academia entirely and resort to ad hominem attacks (which isn't your first time 😉), it mostly just says something about your own position.

bluebison25 said:Ivancic laid out what he claims is undeniable proof regarding the existence of Jesus. Of course, other people—mostly historians—actually looked at that evidence, applied actual logic, and used scientific reasoning to dismantle his lies. I don't know why you guys struggle so much to grasp that...

@silentridge8: You're talking about the exact same "undeniable" evidence that you believers were clinging to just a moment ago.

Do you even realize that science isn't in the business of proving the existence of God or Jesus??
Don't you get that you can't prove something that doesn't exist and never did??
Do you understand that when those texts from theologians, priests, and other believers about the "proven existence of the Almighty" are published, and you try to label them as "scientific facts," they are debunked instantly? They are never, ever used to explain the laws of nature or physics!

Take "undeniable evidence" and then just use logic to disprove it??? I'm a driver. That makes zero sense to me. Honestly, I didn't quite catch what spot perdita was getting at. Can you explain that a bit more? Cheers!

bluebison25 said:Do you even grasp the distinction between "believing" and actually knowing? You claim: "most historians today believe that Jesus..." Look, honey, I couldn't care less what anyone chooses to believe. I don't buy into those fairy tales, and that’s what matters most to me. Most people will follow the crowd—let them. As for that slim little atheist manifesto that dismantled all of Miller's lies, at least the author cited his sources while systematically tearing his arguments apart. Whether you liked it or not is irrelevant. Your church is just out for your wallet.

I'm lost again?? Believing = not knowing, disbelieving = knowing. There’s zero logic there, even if I am just some uneducated driver... You can't force someone to believe without proof. How did you even start disbelieving when nobody can ever prove that God doesn't exist? It makes no sense! Cheers!

@silentridge8: So, what, we’re supposed to just swallow everything Ivancic writes because he’s some big-shot academic? In another article—written by an atheist, mind you—he presents the exact same evidence that Ivancic uses, leaving the reader to decide for themselves if it holds water. Get it now? The only difference is that you and people like you have to swallow the crap everyone else left behind just so you can feel superior in your faith. I don't have to play along. Is that clear enough for you?

@rapidbear65: Spot on. You can't force me to believe in something I can't see, touch, hear, or verify through actual observation. If it hasn't been witnessed, learned by human reason, and backed up by natural and physical evidence, it isn't real to me.

@silentridge8: I know exactly what you're getting at. Honestly, you aren't saying anything different from me 😁.

bluebison25 said:@silentridge8: So, what, we’re supposed to just swallow everything Ivancic writes because he’s some big-shot academic? In another article—written by an atheist, mind you—he presents the exact same evidence that Ivancic uses, leaving the reader to decide for themselves if it holds water. Get it now? The only difference is that you and people like you have to swallow the crap everyone else left behind just so you can feel superior in your faith. I don't have to play along. Is that clear enough for you?

@rapidbear65: Spot on. You can't force me to believe in something I can't see, touch, hear, or verify through actual observation. If it hasn't been witnessed, learned by human reason, and backed up by natural and physical evidence, it isn't real to me.

@silentridge8: I know exactly what you're getting at. Honestly, you aren't saying anything different from me 😁.

It seems like some of this is getting under your skin, which might be why you're twisting my words and using straw man arguments. In his book, Ivancic was simply researching how the Jews of that era viewed Jesus' stance on being the Messiah.

I'm not sure who this "you all" refers to, and I don't understand why you're clinging to Ivancic as a scapegoat. I was speaking about historians in general, and I've already explained twice how historians approach the figure of Jesus.

As for Humphreys—who is basically just a guy with a website—if he wants to try and manufacture his own standard historical research, that's on him (and apparently a problem for some others).

The only ones acting superior here by psychoanalyzing their interlocutors are the vulgarians who look down on others. You seem to think that in order to claim you don't believe in something, you have to convince yourself that Jesus isn't a historical figure. There's no logic in that line of thinking. You can quote someone like Humphreys if you want, but let's not do it in a serious discussion. In any decent debate, people back up their views with what actual professors have written, not just whatever Humphreys puts out there.

I don't need to spend my time trying to convince myself that Jesus wasn't a historical figure. I already know he never existed. Mathematically speaking, I equate Jesus to the imaginary unit in a set of complex numbers.

bluebison25 said:I don't need to spend my time trying to convince myself that Jesus wasn't a historical figure. I already know he never existed. Mathematically speaking, I equate Jesus to the imaginary unit in a set of complex numbers.

That’s why he’s being so evasive.

The math you're calling "science" based on the criteria you set for this thread doesn't even qualify as science.🙂

Yes

bluebison25 said:@silentridge8: So, what, we’re supposed to just swallow everything Ivancic writes because he’s some big-shot academic? In another article—written by an atheist, mind you—he presents the exact same evidence that Ivancic uses, leaving the reader to decide for themselves if it holds water. Get it now? The only difference is that you and people like you have to swallow the crap everyone else left behind just so you can feel superior in your faith. I don't have to play along. Is that clear enough for you?

@rapidbear65: Spot on. You can't force me to believe in something I can't see, touch, hear, or verify through actual observation. If it hasn't been witnessed, learned by human reason, and backed up by natural and physical evidence, it isn't real to me.

@silentridge8: I know exactly what you're getting at. Honestly, you aren't saying anything different from me 😁.

Since I can't personally see or feel what you're talking about, I'll leave it to you to smell, touch, and taste everything you offered us. That way, you'll be able to convince yourself of exactly what we already know without even trying... cheers!

rapidbear65 said:Since I can't personally see or feel what you're talking about, I'll leave it to you to smell, touch, and taste everything you offered us. That way, you'll be able to convince yourself of exactly what we already know without even trying... cheers!

Well, you've really done it now. You're going to be labeled a total maniac.😢

Hey rapidbear65 (don't take this personally), I'm not even mad. People call me a villain, a devil worshiper, and god knows what else just because I won't join their massive Christian cult. Honestly, I don't hold it against them.

Look, math doesn't always have to follow the rules of physics—that’s exactly why we have complex numbers to handle square roots of negative values.

silentridge8 said:Well, you've really done it now. You're going to be labeled a total maniac.😢

To be fair, if I hadn't said anything, nobody would've even noticed. It was just about the "food selection" at our local diner...

bluebison25 said:Hey rapidbear65 (don't take this personally), I'm not even mad. People call me a villain, a devil worshiper, and god knows what else just because I won't join their massive Christian cult. Honestly, I don't hold it against them.

Look, math doesn't always have to follow the rules of physics—that’s exactly why we have complex numbers to handle square roots of negative values.

Alright, math is the queen of science. I'm not mad. Don't be either. Honestly, this is kind of fun. But I don't really get your take on faith. I've never known anyone who tried to force someone into a church or a religion. Growing up, I used to question my late mother and my old neighborhood priest about God all the time. They never got offended; we'd usually just end up laughing about it...

rapidbear65 said:To be fair, if I hadn't said anything, nobody would've even noticed. It was just about the "food selection" at our local diner...

The way I read the boss, he already knew exactly what we were having for lunch and dinner anyway.🙂 😁

bluebison25 said:@silentridge8: It’s not just about that one video (Zeitgeist). Sure, it might spark some logical thinking, but frankly, I couldn't care less what those people actually do. Take this text, for example—it tackles the whole issue head-on. Even if you won't bother clicking the link, let alone reading it, it doesn't matter. Just look at the bibliography at the bottom; it's massive, and every single book is backed by solid historical and scientific evidence. No question about it.

@Benjamin Taylor6: How exactly are you defining a calling? Look, I have a friend who's heading into the ministry because he claims he heard God's call. Personally, I think he's lying to himself; that "calling" exists solely inside his own head.

A "whisper" is an incredibly rare moment of true inspiration that occasionally pierces through a person's life. Now, Maslow argues that almost everyone experiences something like this at some point. Personally? I disagree. I think it's extremely rare. And honestly, even those few people who claim to have had it... they mostly just *think* they did!
Actually, I've already wasted enough breath on this and opened two separate threads about it.
http://forum.com/showthread.php?t=695879
http://forum.com/showthread.php?t=697057

If you bother to check out my blog link below, the first story I wrote covers a man who felt God telling him he needed to draw closer to Him.
But—and here is the kicker—not through prayer, but through great sex. 😍
He, too, heard God's voice calling him to surrender his life to Him. It was just... a slightly different way of getting there!

silentridge8 said:The way I read the boss, he already knew exactly what we were having for lunch and dinner anyway.🙂 😁

Science and logic, man.