I have a favourite pet theory about Jesus.

What gets me about the whole Jesus story is this: even the bible says that there were all sorts of prophets and supposed messiahs running around at the time. So then what made Jesus so special that he got a religion formed around him when none of those other guys did?

Ostensibly, it could have just been a case of superior marketing via Paul. But I think there was actually something different about Jesus.


Imagine this scenario: king Herod has an affair with some random peasant woman (as you do when you're king). She's called Mary, and Herod accidentally knocks her up.

Now imagine you're Mary: carrying the son of the king is a pretty good bargaining position to be in, but you can't well publicly claim that this is the case, because that would be a) admitting you cheated on your husband and b) accusing the king of adultery, both of which will get you stoned to death quicker than you can say Jehovah. But you can't say the baby is your husband's either, because this all happened before the two of you boned. So who the ****'s baby is it?

The only way out is the ultimate copout: claim that god did it. Then you and your husband can cash in on that sweet inheritance from the king later. So now you have this mysteriously pregnant woman who claims she's carrying god's child. That kinda gossip gets around, and it's only a matter of time before it gets back to Herod's ear.

Now, we have no historical evidence that Herod actually ordered all the babies in a village to be killed. However, we do know that in his later years, he was super paranoid about people trying to usurp him, and he did have lots of people, including family members, executed. So it's entirely within his character to, say, order that one particular baby that he secretly knows is his bastard son to be killed. And from there, the story can grow in the telling.

- "Omg, did you hear? The king wanted to kill a baby!"
- "Omg, did you hear? The king is killing babies in yonder village now!"
- "Omg, did you hear? The king ordered all the babies in yonder village to be killed!"

Then of course when Jesus grows up, he goes around claiming he's king of the jews, because, well, he's technically the heir to the throne. And him being the weird special "child of god" sets him apart from all the randos with zero mysterious origin story.

It's the perfect soap opera storyline.

Well, you are right about the blonde hair. Jesus was a ginger.

And I also agree with Mary being impregnated by an extraterrestrial.

Goths and a few others migrated to Eastern Europe to the Black Sea as well met the Romans around 100 BC. Still could have been a hulking Viking but I like Aliens better also.

But how bad ass would that be if Jesus was actually of Viking decent

Do we have a US bible yet?

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

yes..Trump's pic is superimposed on every page

Scientific method - Wikipedia

"It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed"

So, please tell us what it was like watching something evolve.

Can you provide video of something evolving so we can all see it?

Evolution cannot be observed. Therefore it is not subject to the scientific method.

You can observe "evidence" of evolution in the form of fossils, but you cannot observe evolution.

No, my statement was not false.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab | New Scientist

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

yes im aware. and the theory of evolution is a proven fact.
we can literally do this every single day. I just provided a simple example.
also you seem to be very hung up on some sort of "live time lapse video" of sorts.
im going to leave this quote as is an an example that you have no idea what evolution is.
i'll also leave this quote as is an example that you have no idea what evolution, or science or observation is.
thats what observing evolution is. again i feel that you don't have an understanding of what evolution means. you also seem to leave out genetics. which again, was discovered long after the theory of evolution.

evolution is the change of allele frequency within a population over time. a simple understanding of (a)sexual reproduction as supported by genetics is ironclad proof.

you observe evolution everytime something reproduces. traits are inherited. mutations happen. traits are naturally selected (or not) and passed on. are you asking for a video or dns/rna replication and how mutation works?

we see species selected (and/or not selected) all the time.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Wow, you mean you've heard many different people tell you that you have a victory mentality dozens of times?

Well that lines up.

No, I can't google the definition of the word "science," because I don't have internet.


Anyway, all of the tools and methods that science have available all strongly point to the existence of an intelligent creator. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

You have acquiesced to a long list of things during our discussion.

1) You believe in supernatural events that require faith.

2) You hold any strong evidence conflicting with your worldview to a completely different standard.

3) You have a victory based mentality.

4) You have little to no desire to investigate any scientific evidence that might possibly conflict with your worldview.

5) You are religious in your beliefs.

Nice, TPK is correct and you are way off base with your analogy on the Bible Amadeus. You might try understanding what you've read the next time you skim it instead of making up weird ****. It discredits you.

The most logical story I have read about was when Jesus was 12 years old or so, the 3 wise men from the East returned and they took him back to India and Tibet and taught him the ways of the Buddha. He returned around 28 - 29 years old (the lost years of Jesus) and was talking to a bunch of Greeks and Jews about a completely unique way of looking at life, and how to properly live your life. He was so successful because of his understanding of the local religion prior to becoming a Buddhist, so it was easy to mix up the knowledge he learned in the East with the local traditions.

Free thinkers cause issues for the local authorities and their customs and traditions. Removing the guy who got a LOT of people to look at life differently is greatly beneficial to the powers that be.

Read more here:
Shortly after Jesus died, the Christian religion appears to be awesome, and very Zen like. Christian Gnosticism is amazing to read about as well as the various different sects of Christianity that thrived until about the year 200. Around that time some of the Romans and Greeks wanted to use it to combine the teachings into 1 mass religion and they began to remove the more Zen styled and Gnostic groups from what they felt was the real teachings.

1 guy - probably the guy who started it all - was named Irenaeus. (It's been a while since I've read this so...) Irenaeus was basically responsible for the entire HERITIC thing for Christianity which, as we all know, was just fantastic for all the people who believed in something different.

Then why did you call it a "theory?"

https://media0.giphy.com/media/fKk2I...&rid=giphy.gif

Sorry, I'm in a rush, lots of stuff going on. Could you provide a link to what you are talking about so that I can learn?

I respect your accusation against me. I'm curious to know where it comes from. Please teach me more so I can learn more about your line of thinking.

If I'm wrong, then this is a wonderful opportunity for me to learn and grow.

However, it seems to me that what you are referring to as "observation" is actually "deduction through evidence".

For example, I would never say "I just saw Pagy five minutes ago" after looking at your driver's license.

Yes, fossils can be used as evidence towards the theory of evolution, but looking at a fossil is not "observing evolution."

You are free to leave my own words up for all to see as evidence of my own ignorance and stupidity as freely as you like.

I respect your thinking and your willingness to engage with me and appreciate anything I may learn from talking with you.

Please go into more detail about why you feel I do not know what evolution is.

It seems like a remarkably quick assumption based on very little interaction with me, but I'm very curious and would appreciate to know more.

Evolution is also a creation of new information. In this case, new attributes in DNA that did not exist before. Can you explain and describe to me where this new information is coming from?

Please explain to me how the new code in the DNA gifting the animal with new traits and abilities came to existence, and if so, where from?

What you are describing is simply "adaptation" which is a very different concept, one that I adhere to completely. Adaptation is simply a manipulation or change in the pre-existing DNA code, and in many times, it's actually a subtraction, such as cave fish losing their eyes sight in order to adapt to deep and dark environments.


Again, what you are describing is "Adaptation".

Evolution, in contrast, dictates that over time, one animal can indeed become another.

Tell me, when have you ever observed an animal of one kind becoming another?

If so, can you show me a video of it happening?

Or does it happen over millions of years? Meaning it cannot be observed by the human eye?

Evolution would dictate that one animal can change into another type of animal. The only proof we have of that is simply "deduction from evidence" and not observable to the human eye, nor is it subject to the scientific method.

If I am in error, feel free to correct me and leave quotes of my ignorance for all to see in order to belittle me as much as possible. I'm cool with it, though I will not retaliate in similar fashion.

So if you care about making true statements, and you recognize that science is how we arrive at true statements, then how come you keep making statements that disagree with the current scientific consensus? How did you arrive at those statements?

No, but I came up with the idea, even though I won't get credit. It would be that video of the first people who made it to America, then all the common sense stuff I talk about here on TW.

Like I said, others have started churches and written books, but they are whacked. No one has come out and said let's make a serious US Bible that people can read instead of the make believe stuff from Jerusalem or a ruthless killer (pedo) named Mohamed. It's not worth reading those stories any more because it all happened 2k years ago. Jesus hasn't come back, never will.

We can believe in an all mighty god. But it would be better to study the history of the USA and talk about doing good.

The Churches could still teach the make believe stuff from 2k years ago, but include the new book of the USA. But they haven't done this and their followers are dropping.

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldw...cientists.html

It varies widely based on geographic location, but the likely non-existence of God is not consensus among scientists.

No, I do not recognize that science is how we arrive at true statements. I recognize that it is one of many methods that we use to ascertain true statements, perhaps even the best one.

If there is a specific statement you would like me to expound on, please reference me and I will be glad to.

The general answer to your question will be: By using logic, science, evidence, observation, and concluding what makes the most sense thereupon.

In the case of evolution, it is simply because it can't be proven scientifically, requires faith, and is actually relatively weak as a theory, a stance that many Atheistic and credible scientists adhere to.

BTW, you should read about Darwin, dude was mentally ill. You are being guided by someone that was very troubled indeed.

I just posted evidence

Bacteria makes sense because of their rapid rate of multiplication since evolution takes a long ass time.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

observe this evolution, it's neat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMBzcWRXg3U

Then what was this?

Because it sounds like you agree with that definition I gave by way of smarmy sarcasm. So which is it?

Cutting that quote in half is like cutting out "I hate white people" from the sentence "I hate white people that torture babies".

Why are you being blatantly sketchy?

The word "this" is as ambiguous as it gets, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

Are you trying to assert that I don't believe in absolute truth?

Ummmm, everyone agrees with the definition of science?

Are there people that do not?

Why are you posting the definition of science?

It's kind of awkward, hence you got sarcasm...

It would be equally awkward if I similarly said:

"A gorilla is a large primate that has a lot of muscle" wouldn't you agree Amadeus? Or do you not?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lXdyD2Yzls

I feel like you aren't even saying anything at this point.

What is the point that you are trying to make?

Be clear...

You apparently don't. Let's try again.

Science is, by definition, the totality of tools and methods that we have found through experience to date to be reliable for arriving at true statements about our shared reality.

That means that whatever proves to be reliable, it gets included in science. Anything that proves unreliable, it gets excluded.

Do you agree with that definition of science?