If I were the devil...

Quote from peilthetraveler:


So if I was the devil...I guess I would just leave things the way they are.
More...

So this must mean that the "devil" is more powerful than "god" because he has got his way in this world.

If I were the devil, I'd make god my little bitch.
 
Devil sayings:

"i'll beat the devil out of you!"

"The devil you will!!"



any other you can think of? :D


"WHAT THE DEVIL ARE YOU DOING!!??"
 
Quote from 3121:

Devil sayings:

"i'll beat the devil out of you!"

"The devil you will!!"



any other you can think of? :D


"WHAT THE DEVIL ARE YOU DOING!!??"
More...

Replacing "devil" with "fuck" would more accurately reflect sayings in my neck of the woods. No need to bring fictional characters into the mix.
 
Quote from Kassz007:

Replacing "devil" with "fuck" would more accurately reflect sayings in my neck of the woods. No need to bring fictional characters into the mix.
More...

"I'll beat the FUCK out of you"??

Does that even make sense? What are you beating out of him?? :confused:
 
Quote from 3121:

"I'll beat the FUCK out of you"??

Does that even make sense? What are you beating out of him?? :confused:
More...

It doesn't make sense. Don't try to analyze it. I'm just bored and posting random garbage in garbage threads.
 
Quote from Misthos:

In my personal experience:

The theists I know have very defined opinions as to who god is, what he does with his free time, what his kid(s) may look like, what church to belong to... things like that.

Agnostics I know of aren't sure and are open to possibilities. Common opinions they have: they see organized religion as a method to control people, they more often doubt the existence of god, but don't rule it out either. They just don't know.

Atheists that I have met have a hard on against the idea of god. They were dropped as babies and are very bitter people. Christopher Hitchens comes to mind - but he drinks scotch and smokes, so in my book - he's OK. I think god, if there is one, would forgive him because of his British wit.

Is this esoteric debate settled now?
More...
they more often doubt the existence of god,

atheist

but don't rule it out either.

theist

They just don't know.

Then they are without god. They don't know, they don't have knowledge of god. In the true Greek etymology, 'a' without knowledge without god - atheist. Not agnostic.




The debate may seem easoteric because you appear to rely on introducing a plausible definition into the context which turns out to be self-contradicting.

Gnostic is to do with Possession of knowledge, 'a'gnostic, as with 'a'theist, therefore is without knowledge.

But someone claiming to be "agnostic" has knowledge of god because an "agnostic" knows god could, can or might exist. He is saying so.

An actual agnostic is doubtful about all claims to knowledge. Specific to knowledge itself, not knowledge of something.

An "agnostic" who is doubtful about all claims to knowledge for or against god is without knowledge of god. Specific to god. Being without (knowledge of) god. etymologically is 'a' without god - atheist.


As for Hitchen, any god worth it's salt must forgive him for the whiskey and the wit , but surely not for the heresy of being British. His US citizenship would absolve him - but only just.
 
Quote from Misthos:

In regards to Jesus - I can't say he existed or not - I wasn't there and I find it peculiar that his contemporary Romans and Greeks did not write about him - and they wrote about everything. More was written about Apollonius of Tyana by them. The Essenes however, did record a lot. I have read bits of the Dead Sea scrolls.
More...

I would argue that there is enough to refute the claims some make, such as stu, that Jesus was a mythical figure.

For instance:

In Gibbon's The Decline and Fall, he references the following (not sure who he is quoting, either Suetonius or the younger Pliny)

"..Among the Christians who were brought before the tribunal of the emperor, or, as it seems more probable, before that of the procurator of Judea, two persons are said to have appeared, distinguished by their extraction, which was more truly noble than that of the greatest monarchs. These were the grandsons of St. Jude the apostle, who himself was the brother of Jesus Christ. Their natural pretensions to the throne of David might perhaps attract the respect of the people, and excite the jealousy of the governor; but the meanness of their garb and the simplicity of their answers soon convinced him they were neither desirous nor capable of disturbing the peace of the Roman empire. They frankly confessed their royal origin and their near relation to the Messiah; but they disclaimed any temporal views, and professed that his kingdom, which they devoutly expected, was purely of a spiritual and angelic nature. When they were examined concerning their fortune and occupation, they showed their hands hardened with daily labour, and declared that they derived their whole subsistence from the cultivation of a farm near the village of Cocaba............."

Also, I find it interesting that Julian, in his "Arguments Against the Christians" does not once make the accusation that Jesus was not an historical figure, since he would have had the rather voluminous documents of the Roman government at his disposal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top