Sci-Fi is the Democrat's New Strategy

hell? i dont think so. i have a deathbead repentance plan worked out that is guaranteed to trick god. i know god loves to be worshipped and all, but he will have to settle for a few seconds of pre-death worship from me, not a lifetime. i am sure he will meet his worship quotas from other people's efforts. so under my system i can go nuts with gluttony, lust, greed and fornication all i want.

i have wondered about the value of eternal life in heaven. i assumed it was priceless, but now bengal b's auction will let me know what the current market value is.

 

You are assuming God doesn't read TigerForums?

 

i will tell him this isnt me, i know he doesnt know how to track IP's and stuff. even if he finds out, he will forgive me, jesus died so i could be forgiven!

 

But...He will check with Al Gore who invented the internet.

 

I am not sure not sure why you are arguing if you admit that Jesus did exist which is way different than anything the Al Gore movie is doing. Can you prove healing did not occur? You offer up Ben Franklin levitating and a doctor healing an ear and say once that comes up it is fiction. First all to compare any of these to the magnitude that Jesus has affected the world for almost 2000 years shows you are not being rational, but how can you prove that miracles have not happened.

You can taunt, but you were name calling instead of offering up anything constructive, which at that point makes it kind of stupid to taunt.

This (except for being a movie) happened a little less than 2000 years ago and continues on today. It is not an astute observation to say that jews would say that Jesus was not the son of god.
Differences over "facts" happen every day. It does not mean that the person disagreeing with you then has to say well mine are based on faith. I do not think you can prove that Jesus did not perform miracles and did not rise from the dead, so what do you base your beliefs on?

 

they do in the absence of proof.


why don't you believe in astrology? you cannot prove it is false right?

you still do not understand. if a man was writing a history book, and the man was jewish, should he mention that historical jesus was not in fact endowed with supernatural powers and was not the son of god? because that is the facts as he sees them, right? history cannot claim it is a fact that jesus rose from the dead. if you prayed that you win the lottery, and then you did, and you told the newspaper your story, should the headline be "god rewards man for praying"? of course not! history is a business of facts, not faith! why cant you understand?

the passion is an account of magic. this is indisputable. the fact that you believe in the magic does not make it true.

i cant understand how you can possibly think this is relevant. of course i cannot prove this stuff is false! THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE! get it? do understand elementary logic? you cannot prove it true either, you believe it based on your faith. therefore we cannot assume something is true, merely because people believe it! this is the whole point of why we should not call the passion "factual" or historical".

i can claim god is a head of lettuce named leroy, and you certainly cannot prove that is false. i dont go around claiming it is "fact" either. if my faith claims that god is a head of lettuce, i cant make a movie about it call the movie factual can i? i would only claim that the movie was a representation of my beliefs. listen closely: believing in magic, does not make the magic true. there are millions of people who do not believe in your brand of magic.

the global warming is a fictional movie also. global warming has not been proven as caused by humans, or as even necessarily going to get worse. for someone to use this upcoming movie to support their politics is silly, just like the original point made in this thread about the passion. neither movies should be considered "fact".

you dont get it! i have no beliefs that i need to have "faith" in. i dont believe in the supernatural, or wizardry. if something is not understood by science, i dont profess to have answers. i neednt make up wizards to explain to me that things i dont understand. i am not brainwashed. if god reveals himself to the world i will be happy to believe in him. but for now, when belief in the religion is based on the wildly irrational, as well as your birth location, i will wait.

again, my ignorance of all the answers does not make yours any more right.

 

Yikes, I didn't mean for my comparison to prompt this kind of reaction.

All I was saying is that it's wise for someone or some group to speak out about their cause when the subject is present in the mainstream social conscience.

It was a good/smart move for religious people to seek publicity during "The Passion."

It's a good/smart move for environmentalists to seek publicity during the release of this blockbuster movie (is Jerry Bruckheimer behind this, too?).

I wasn't saying anything about the factual validity of either movie. I don't really care about that and have no inclination to see either film.

 

its ok we are troublemakers and like to taunt each other.

 

No. It's a piece of BASIC ARCHITECHTURE. The two beams are bolted together for crying out loud.

Does Jesus get credit for every intersection of perpendicular elements ever?

 

If you cannot prove that the miracles did not happen or that the authors of the New Testament are incorrect or lying then how is your truth any different than what you consider mine to be. I am using writings of people who were there when going over history. What are you using?

This whole thing started, because you told me I could not say the movie was historical truth and was wrong to use this as a difference between these 2 movies. You said historians do not agree that he healed someone's ear and so on, but then add later that not all historians agree on this information and that you are not a historian and do not know how much of the movie actually took place. You also admit that there is at least some truth in the movie and seemingly admit it is based on a person that did exist, so how can I not make the comparison between these 2 movies using fact and fiction? It makes no sense. For your position to make sense you would have to believe that the whole movie (Passion) is based on fiction and in no way contains events that actually took place in history. Any other belief would then make at least some sense to compare this movie to a fictional movie that is based on events that have not happened and is about fictional characters (and cannot happen in the way portrayed in the movie). But instead I get told that I cannot do this and lie when I did.


Actually astrology can be proven false, because you can attempt to test it right now. You cannot do this with Jesus's miracles as listed in the Bible, but you can go by people's first hand accounts at the time. Your facts are not any more proven than my facts. There are writings by people that saw and talked to Jesus 3 days after his death. Where is your proof that these people are lying?

I was not asking you what you have faith in, but why do you believe things that you cannot prove? or I guess can you prove everything you believe in regards to Jesus. Can you prove that these miracles did not happen? or better yet Can you prove that this is or was just magic as you keep professing? You say your beliefs are not based on faith, so you must have verified this whole Jesus and magic stuff. Again you told me my facts were really faith, so I have just been wanting you to show me what you consider the facts to be and where you are getting it from, so I can atone for my lies and quit being nuts.

But it does say that if you do not have the answers how can you be so adamant that my facts and/or the movie's facts are incorrect and lies and just nuts.