Men on dating ts women

[KittyPride]

While there are individuals and places in the Bible that are corroborated with historical evidence, the keyword is some. Jesus is not verified through contemporary accounts the way Mohammad was, but is a figure that might be completely symbolic, allegorical or fictional. Same for Socrates and some other philosophers of Antiquity.

"There are no contemporary witnesses to the life and death of Joshua of Nazareth, who came to be known in the Greek-speaking world as Jesus Christ (the king)."

Norman Cantor

It does not matter. lol
The teaching of Jezus were avant garde anyway.
If someone like Jesus existed today... he would be crucified again

[EvonRose]

Every good story has just enough truth to make it plausible. So does every religion.

Exactly not every miracle story means it's the truth, sometimes exaggerated, but regardless the truth is the source...

I't s dumb for people to discredit jewish slaves being freed from egypt just because the ocean split in two... People fail to see that jews really did get free and lived in the desert for a few years before residing.

[mathematics1900]

But the man's libido is registering me as female. The libido is biological. I'm not confused about the internal plumbing. But if and when I confirm that I have Klinefelter's Syndrome, I'd argue that my chromosomes make binary sexuality categories a moot subject with me.

Tyler Durden actually posted a rather mind blowing video; . The man libido I believe doesn't register things as female, or male, I believe male libido is simply either on, or off. Which is why men were able to be sent into a frenzy at seeing a woman's ankle back in the day.

After reading a little about that syndrome, I am not sure if they would be able to do anything besides hormone treatments to send you one way or the other. Do they actually talk about any treatments for the syndrome or is it just a, take it as is condition?

Well that's down to the 'Panda effect:
Eats shoots & leaves

Lol, funny.

Watch Religiousless by Bill Mahr...

Oh how I love Bill Maher!

I'm 6'4". My box already needs to be pretty large. Okay, I'm not taking this seriously. I just don't see the point of your counter-argument. I already do a fair amount of playing devil's advocate and trying to approach discussions from more than one standpoint, but even I'd consider it a little picky to include full considerations made for every conceivable minority interest. Just because I may have omitted reference from my post doesn't necessarily mean I wasn't thinking about it. I'd rather speak in generalization instead of adding the word "some" before every referral to a group of people, especially when "some" only excludes a small fraction of that group. I mean, I already get crap for seeming overly-considerate or eager, and explaining my opinions to that extent would only exacerbate that image.

Bwahahahahaha, why in the hell would you say you're 6'4"? The comment about the box was a metaphor, lol. If you actually did realize those other areas existed you would of included the word some, because it changes the entire meaning of the sentence! Yes, I am going to force you to say what you mean, and I am going to challenge you on concepts that I feel you have a narrow view of, and that is exactly why I made my post. So if you're too lazy to include the word 'some' when putting thoughts to words then you will forever be harangued by me.

[Jackal]

The bible besides being a book to teach religion..

people fail to see that the bible is also a historic book... To discredit events that happen int he bible is ignorant, even historians and scientists have proven many various events that actually happened int he bible...

Like the war between the romans

Or the slavery of Jews

various wars, and actual historic people...

What historians and scientists? Any names of their publications? I am not an Egyptologist but I do know that the narratives about Egypt in the Bible are erroneous at best.

[Jackal]

It does not matter. lol
The teaching of Jezus were avant garde anyway.
If someone like Jesus existed today... he would be crucified again

I never said Jesus' teachings had no wisdom(there is, although he did not invent the Golden Rule) or importance to them(outside the obvious fact that Christianity would spread and gain prominence in the last dozen plus centuries) , but the question as to whether or not he exists is separate to that. I think it is either ignorant or dishonest to say that he is a historical individual without evidence to support that.

[EvonRose]

While there are individuals and places in the Bible that are corroborated with historical evidence, the keyword is some. Jesus is not verified through contemporary accounts the way Mohammad was, but is a figure that might be completely symbolic, allegorical or fictional. Same for Socrates and some other philosophers of Antiquity.

"There are no contemporary witnesses to the life and death of Joshua of Nazareth, who came to be known in the Greek-speaking world as Jesus Christ (the king)."

Norman Cantor

Yes but Mary Magdalene was

John the Baptist

numerous Roman leader...

Egyptian leaders...

they all mention Jesus exactly the same... So why discredit them? It's not like you have proof that the person they all describe isn't jesus.

And many Historians agree that he does exist.

So are we suppose to make our own assumption or go by scientific, and hard studies?

There more proof that he existed both from biblical and secular books, than proof he never existed at all... There is tons of evidence to support he existed...

[runningdownthatdream]

Yeah, it is kinda hard to believe he didn't exist

If other apostle and historical figures existed, including Mary Magdalene who have hard historic proof...Then why did she mention Jesus in her books and her personal relationship with him..

You people underestimate ancient civilization..

And if one person writes a book, then another person writes a book, and history writes a textbooks and it matches...

Obviously there is something there.

Evon, you might not believe this but the people who write religious texts are writing to influence the beliefs and actions of others. Religious texts aren't written from an objective point of view and therefore should not be read objectively. You are correct that some events in the Old and New Testament can be corroborated. But often ideas are given life - i.e.: many ideas taken together can be used to construct a person, an embodiment of the idea, if you will. Jesus is likely such a construct. If you truly know your history you will know there are dozens of stories that are much much older than the story of Jesus which have almost identical characteristics.

As far as underestimating ancient civilization, you are correct. However, I'd point you to Sumerian writings that are much older or even the Vedic writings. Based on your belief in the bible do you hold that the Sumerian and Hindu gods and teachings are also totally valid?

[KittyPride]

Anyway we as transwoman should perhaps be busy with the Magna Mater then with christian beliefs

[Jackal]

Yes but Mary Magdalene was

John the Baptist

numerous Roman leader...

Egyptian leaders...

they all mention Jesus exactly the same... So why discredit them? It's not like you have proof that the person they all describe isn't jesus.

And many Historians agree that he does exist.

So are we suppose to make our own assumption or go by scientific, and hard studies?

There more proof that he existed both from biblical and secular books, than proof he never existed at all...

So what if scripture mentions historical figures? That does not demonstrate that everyone in the narratives were actual, real-life persons. I could make up a story about a fictional character that involves a real world leader but that would not be evidence in favor of the existence of the fictional character. Are the gods, demigods and monsters of Greek mythology real because their narratives often involved real life people and places? Is Forrest Gump a real life person because his story involved the names of Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, etc.? I am not setting the bar to a scientific but to a historical level. Like Socrates and unlike the prophet Mohammad, Jesus had no contemporary witnesses or evidence to support that he was a real, living, breathing person. Conflicting gospels written decades after his death are not contemporary as they are not from his lifetime. If you would like to suggest reading books by these scientists and historians you keep mentioning, I'd be glad to check them out at the library.

[EvonRose]

Evon, you might not believe this but the people who write religious texts are writing to influence the beliefs and actions of others. Religious texts aren't written from an objective point of view and therefore should not be read objectively. You are correct that some events in the Old and New Testament can be corroborated. But often ideas are given life - i.e.: many ideas taken together can be used to construct a person, an embodiment of the idea, if you will. Jesus is likely such a construct. If you truly know your history you will know there are dozens of stories that are much much older than the story of Jesus which have almost identical characteristics.

As far as underestimating ancient civilization, you are correct. However, I'd point you to Sumerian writings that are much older or even the Vedic writings. Based on your belief in the bible do you hold that the Sumerian and Hindu gods and teachings are also totally valid?

I am not talking about the teachings because deity is a personal belief in to or not.

The bible is a historical book, not just some religious thing... many of the the events int he bible, many people, may kings, and priests, have been proven to happen.. So to discredit the reality of the bible to me is just fear in believing in it. I get people don't believe in god, But jesus was not a god in secular facts, he was a living flesh and blood. And many of the people who have been proven to exist have had personal relationships with him...

How can you discredit that? Plus Roman history? Mind you Romans didn't believe in god, or were not friends of the Jews... There was no religious backing behind it, pure history.