@SunshineF said in Vex debate: was Jesus historical II?: I comment, "Comment is a comment". So that's my comment. I'll comment on that.

Ofcourse I sent you wrong article. Sorry. As he says he thinks it is a positive claim. I had another article which I wanted to send you. There was a missing copy-paste of weblinks. Below one was actual weblink- https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/ I don't think you have a proof of his existence. Therefore, there is no reason to debate on this topic anymore. You seem to believe everything as long as you find an article that fullfills your criteria for reliable. However that article is simply wrong. Your other article was right. I hope you do know that many authors of articles are wrong, even the reliable ones? I hope you do know that many scientists and historians are wrong? I hope you do know that believing an article or a scientific paper because it conforms with your opinion cannot be called rational, right? Applying the "burden of proof" to history just simply does not work. You can only apply the "burden of evidence" to history and then weigh up the propabilities. Thus our new debate positions are actually better. So to say it clearly, this is my last post in this debate. You do not need to answer what I wrote here. If you want to debate, come to the new one, and we'll look at all the arguments I just touched. If you do not want to debate but instead be right, then do not debate and most importantly do not learn from those who are of other oppinion than you, no matter how rational their reasons .

Now you got ma attention ! xD

Of course a christian can believe that the big bang theory. In fact it fits perfectly into the christian world view. God created the world at some point (boom), and then it was... The only reason why a christian would not believe the big bang theory is because he takes Genesis literally. But taking Genesis literally is nonsense, for many reasons including the following: The Genesis actually contains 2, not one creation story, with a different order of creation. Which one is to be taken literally? Answer: obviously none. Genesis talks about God's relation to us and our relation to Him. It does not even try to be a historic or scientific text...

well, medieval catholicism must've been pretty bad, because reformation happened. don't think that ol' luther boy would've nailed his ninety-five theses on the cathedral doors if he hadn't felt like the catholic church needed a big change

Great essay. If it was written especially for us TWS daftlads? That would be the coolest thing in the world. It's a very alluring idea, isn't it, that elements of all the really contemplative religions could be smushed together into progressive whole. I like that idea. Christianity (it seems to me) is definitely the most intellectual religion, and Buddhism can go suck it, but what it all means is anyone's guess. I used to dote on 'The Perennial Philosophy' by Aldous Huxley, and, yes, Teilhard DeChardin is The Man (I like that his books are as much scientific textbooks as religious treatese). But really? As I've got older, the most obvious statement that can be made about the religious world is that we're in some kind of claustrophobic, gnostic, worst-case-scenario, and you can be as intellectual or as stupid as you like, and everything will be the same.

More information

Interesting vid, VR. I often think I'd be a Christian if I was less jaded.

@air what is your ASL? and what are the differences between catholic,protestant,orthodox etc.?

@stefanz23 you are very much welcome

@luv2lik heaven is real not just a pigment of once imaginations