(December 11, 2009 at 1:14 am)padraic Wrote: Um...what about the impotent male who can screw all day long?

umm,not quite----

Quote:Erectile dysfunction (ED, "male impotence") is a sexual dysfunction characterized by the inability to develop or maintain an erection of the penis sufficient for satisfactory sexual performance.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erectile_dysfunction

PS: A wonderful thing about mythical beings such as Jesus is that one may describe him any way one wishes,and attribute any traits one's little heart desires. No one can prove such claims wrong.

Impotency is different, you can produce semen with erectile dysfunction.

Tell ya one thing, i'd rather be impotent than have ED.

(December 10, 2009 at 11:32 pm)Dotard Wrote:

---

(December 10, 2009 at 7:51 pm)tackattack Wrote: 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way;

"Eunuchs" as in dickless? Just another metaphor for "Homosexual". Jesus reconized some are born thataway.

Quote: ...others were made that way by men;

And the rest are sucked into it.

Quote:In some translations of ancient texts, individuals identified as eunuchs sometimes historically included men who were impotent with women,

Meaning homosexuals.

Quote:as well as those who were celibate.

Like celibacy in the RCC. Meaning molesting little boys was more their thing.

Quote: Or he could have been born without member due to a gene abnormailty from having the incorrect pairing of XY chromosones.

Ok. Maybe. maybe Jesus was dickless. Or a dyke. Or a hermaphrodite.

Quote:The Bible doesn't really talk about his years from 12 to 30.

He was 'finding himself'.

Quote: He didn't have to be a Virgin, just that he's celibate after his "missing years".

I would say "He didn't have to be a Virgin, just that he prefered the company of men after his 'missing years'."

I LIKE this game Saerules started!

Quote:Your claim that sex is the "best" part of life is debateable,

I would debate it is debateable right along with you on this one.
And it would have nothing to do with my 'spiritual' side.

---

Dotard, you must ahve missed the part where I said it doesn't matter if he was any of those things. Various religions and documents agree he existed so I believe he existed. I've only ever been shown my high school history book to prove that Alexander the great exists but I believed that without any cross reference. It was much easier to believe that Jesus existed. You're simply trying to get a rise out of me and it won't work.

(December 11, 2009 at 7:44 am)tackattack Wrote: Various religions and documents agree he existed so I believe he existed.

Which religions and which documents?

(December 11, 2009 at 7:44 am)tackattack Wrote: I've only ever been shown my high school history book to prove that Alexander the great exists but I believed that without any cross reference.

Why do you say that like it's a good thing? If there is any doubt on the existence of Alexander the Great then it should be encouraged to look deeper into the evidence for his existence than just "the schoolbooks said so". And it's not the following of Alexander the Great that are demanding political power and special privileges based on his existence in this day and age, while Christians do.

(December 11, 2009 at 7:44 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 10, 2009 at 11:32 pm)Dotard Wrote:

(December 10, 2009 at 7:51 pm)tackattack Wrote: 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way;

"Eunuchs" as in dickless? Just another metaphor for "Homosexual". Jesus reconized some are born thataway.

Quote: ...others were made that way by men;

And the rest are sucked into it.

Quote:In some translations of ancient texts, individuals identified as eunuchs sometimes historically included men who were impotent with women,

Meaning homosexuals.

Quote:as well as those who were celibate.

Like celibacy in the RCC. Meaning molesting little boys was more their thing.

Quote: Or he could have been born without member due to a gene abnormailty from having the incorrect pairing of XY chromosones.

Ok. Maybe. maybe Jesus was dickless. Or a dyke. Or a hermaphrodite.

Quote:The Bible doesn't really talk about his years from 12 to 30.

He was 'finding himself'.

Quote: He didn't have to be a Virgin, just that he's celibate after his "missing years".

I would say "He didn't have to be a Virgin, just that he prefered the company of men after his 'missing years'."

I LIKE this game Saerules started!

Quote:Your claim that sex is the "best" part of life is debateable,

I would debate it is debateable right along with you on this one.
And it would have nothing to do with my 'spiritual' side.

Dotard, you must ahve missed the part where I said it doesn't matter if he was any of those things. Various religions and documents agree he existed so I believe he existed. I've only ever been shown my high school history book to prove that Alexander the great exists but I believed that without any cross reference. It was much easier to believe that Jesus existed. You're simply trying to get a rise out of me and it won't work.

The existence of Jesus is not that well supported at all, mainly due to the fact that there are absolutely no contemporary sources to confirm his existence. Also the testimony presented to support the idea of Jesus and his divinity are massively inconsistent, for example Mathew is the only one of the gospels that have any mention of an Angel bringing an earthquake and the dead rising, Mark and Luke mention 3 hours of darkness and the tearing of the temple curtain and John mentions no supernatural events what-so-ever - It's far too inconsistent to be reliable in any way.

As far as Jesus' divinity, Mark was based off of the eye witness accounts of peter and is the oldest of the Gospels I believe. Jesus refers to himself there as the "Son of Man". The son of man in my opinion is a title he uses to convey to the people of the time his intent. They had the old testament so in Daniel chapter 7 as a refrence with it's 4 beasts "premonition" from daniel followed by their destruction byth "son of man".

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

All of the books of the gospel reference Jesus from their perspective from my recollection. He refers to himself as I am, the old testament name for God, many times throughout the new testament. The Quran denies the divinity of Jesus, but not Jesus himself. The Antiquities of the Jews written some time before the year 100 references Jesus' career from the Jewish community. He is reffered to by tertullian in adversus marcionem as the bringer of light. I mean we might debate on who or what Jesus was but are we really going to argue his existance entirely?


"absolutely no contemporary sources to confirm his existence" That would be determinant on what you qualify as evidence. If I ever invent a time macine, I'll make sure to go back, get his picture and have him autograph it for you.

(December 11, 2009 at 9:11 am)tackattack Wrote: As far as Jesus' divinity, Mark was based off of the eye witness accounts of peter...

"Based on a true story"

Many movies and stories are 'based' on a true story. The most recent Titanic movie said the same thing.

There was a ship named Titanic, true. It sank, true. Rich girl/poor man love story? Doubt it.
Fat old rich fellas sitting around very stately saying "We die as gentlemen!" Doubt it.

And no, I wasn't just trying to get a rise out of you sir. I was continuing the fun started by Saerules interpreting bible passages. Christians don't have a monopoly on scripture interpretation, anyone can do it. I maintain none are any less valid than another given by christians.

(December 11, 2009 at 9:11 am)tackattack Wrote: As far as Jesus' divinity, Mark was based off of the eye witness accounts of peter and is the oldest of the Gospels I believe. Jesus refers to himself there as the "Son of Man". The son of man in my opinion is a title he uses to convey to the people of the time his intent. They had the old testament so in Daniel chapter 7 as a refrence with it's 4 beasts "premonition" from daniel followed by their destruction byth "son of man".

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

All of the books of the gospel reference Jesus from their perspective from my recollection. He refers to himself as I am, the old testament name for God, many times throughout the new testament. The Quran denies the divinity of Jesus, but not Jesus himself. The Antiquities of the Jews written some time before the year 100 references Jesus' career from the Jewish community. He is reffered to by tertullian in adversus marcionem as the bringer of light. I mean we might debate on who or what Jesus was but are we really going to argue his existance entirely?


"absolutely no contemporary sources to confirm his existence" That would be determinant on what you qualify as evidence. If I ever invent a time macine, I'll make sure to go back, get his picture and have him autograph it for you.

I'm not an expert on the historicity of Jesus, but a new talk was posted recently that summarizes some of the concerns i have with the claim of his existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOGebAEOU...xt_from=QL

(December 11, 2009 at 1:14 am)padraic Wrote: Um...what about the impotent male who can screw all day long?

umm,not quite----

Oh sorry. My fuck up. I meant to say sterile. If you shoot blanks you can still get it up right?

(December 11, 2009 at 8:01 pm)binny Wrote:

(December 11, 2009 at 1:14 am)padraic Wrote: Um...what about the impotent male who can screw all day long?

umm,not quite----

Oh sorry. My fuck up. I meant to say sterile. If you shoot blanks you can still get it up right?

Yep, unless you are both impotent and sterile

(December 10, 2009 at 4:31 pm)theVOID Wrote:

I can't stop laughing at that!