Men on dating ts women

[Nicole Dupre]

Nicole I think you and I are known for that... loll

Who? Me? lol

[EvonRose]

Who? Me? lol

I prefer outspoke, smart, and educated?

But what do you expect when you argue with puny brained people... Lol.

[Nicole Dupre]

I prefer outspoke, smart, and educated?

But what do you expect when you argue with puny brained people... Lol.

I enjoy good conversation. If I can't be honest, I won't even bother. And I'm not a cruel person unless I feel that I'm dealing with someone who's insensitive anyway. Often, I'm too nice. But the flip side of that coin is, I don't take shit. And I can't STAND liars. And I'm not ashamed of myself; if I fuck up, I acknowledge it. I won't try to cover it up. I apologize. But a lot of people are too egotistical to do that. Personally, I don't have to be right. I like learning things that I don't know. That's why I like talking to people. As long as they're pleasant.

[EvonRose]

I enjoy good conversation. If I can't be honest, I won't even bother. And I'm not a cruel person unless I feel that I'm dealing with someone who's insensitive anyway. Often, I'm too nice. But the flip side of that coin is, I don't take shit. And I can't STAND liars. And I'm not ashamed of myself; if I fuck up, I acknowledge it. I won't try to cover it up. I apologize. But a lot of people are too egotistical to do that. Personally, I don't have to be right. I like learning things that I don't know. That's why I like talking to people. As long as they're pleasant.

I don't like to be underestimated, and for my looks or age to be the reason people think I'm not smart enough...

I just hate liars, fake, and rude people... Im right with ya.

[robertlouis]

I enjoy good conversation. If I can't be honest, I won't even bother. And I'm not a cruel person unless I feel that I'm dealing with someone who's insensitive anyway. Often, I'm too nice. But the flip side of that coin is, I don't take shit. And I can't STAND liars. And I'm not ashamed of myself; if I fuck up, I acknowledge it. I won't try to cover it up. I apologize. But a lot of people are too egotistical to do that. Personally, I don't have to be right. I like learning things that I don't know. That's why I like talking to people. As long as they're pleasant.

Blimey Nicole. You may be in the wrong place.

[runningdownthatdream]

Well I have always been taught to investigate as oppose to disagreeing with something blindly...

It does not take a genius to read for example Mary Magdalen who is a historic figure mention Jesus's life with her's, and then for scholars, and historians to prove that indeed she did exist. And this Jesus she mentioned in her life had also been involved with other prophets, and certain historical events int he bible proven true by scholars and Historians...

So the only question you have to answer is who is this person they mention or called jesus?

Obviously it's one answer.... It Jesus...

Saying he does not exist doe snot add up to the historic evidence many both religious and non religious people provided, There not been a strong argument that he didn't exist.

I gave you names so you can look up the documents yourself... Here is a starter

Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

Your reference to Tacitus (who is well known) and the virtually unknown Mara Bar-Sapion are - at best - specious. Both require a real stretch of imagination (which undoubtedly is easier for a self-professed christian) to interpret as being evidence of Jesus Christ.

Further the argument that 'Chrestus' is a 'last name' is absurd. Jesus would have been Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph, if you will). Christ is a title as in Messiah and has no relation to this 'last name' Chrestus.

Granted I've never heard of Mara Bar-Sapion but will try to find the interpretation of the letter he wrote. Based on the info I've read so far the reference he made is rather oblique 'What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished.' Well, the letter was purportedly written just after 73AD which incidentally happens to be just 3 years after the destruction of the Second Temple so clearly he is referencing the destruction of the temple but oddly enough the Jews didn't kill any of their kings within recent memory of the destruction of the temple. And Jews didn't refer to Jesus as a king at all. Even your Bible doesn't state that Jesus was killed by the Jews - that would have been Pontius Pilate who ordered his death. Stranger still that, while records have been found of Pilate's deeds, the execution of a king wasn't among them.

[EvonRose]

Your reference to Tacitus (who is well known) and the virtually unknown Mara Bar-Sapion are - at best - specious. Both require a real stretch of imagination (which undoubtedly is easier for a self-professed christian) to interpret as being evidence of Jesus Christ.

Further the argument that 'Chrestus' is a 'last name' is absurd. Jesus would have been Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph, if you will). Christ is a title as in Messiah and has no relation to this 'last name' Chrestus.

Granted I've never heard of Mara Bar-Sapion but will try to find the interpretation of the letter he wrote. Based on the info I've read so far the reference he made is rather oblique 'What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished.' Well, the letter was purportedly written just after 73AD which incidentally happens to be just 3 years after the destruction of the Second Temple so clearly he is referencing the destruction of the temple but oddly enough the Jews didn't kill any of their kings within recent memory of the destruction of the temple. And Jews didn't refer to Jesus as a king at all. Even your Bible doesn't state that Jesus was killed by the Jews - that would have been Pontius Pilate who ordered his death. Stranger still that, while records have been found of Pilate's deeds, the execution of a king wasn't among them.

I'm sorry who is closed minded here?

Who said a Christian can't be liberal? Or can't study other aspects?

Dont' be bigot we can do many things any regular atheists or liberals can. they just have limits.

I never professed to be a christian, I said I had a relationship with god, and was born protestant but never claimed to be practicing it.

The belief wether the he king, or god's son is arguable... But there is hard evidence in historic documents that he existed.

If you discredit him, you discredit every historic figure that mentions him...

[runningdownthatdream]

I'm sorry who is closed minded here?

Who said a Christian can't be liberal? Or can't study other aspects?

Dont' be bigot we can do many things any regular atheists or liberals can. they just have limits.

I never professed to be a christian, I said I had a relationship with god, and was born protestant but never claimed to be practicing it.

The belief wether the he king, or god's son is arguable... But there is hard evidence in historic documents that he existed.

If you discredit him, you discredit every historic figure that mentions him...

Someone who believes in 'something' isn't prone to being objective about evidence which doesn't support that 'something'. That is common sense. Were you to proclaim yourself agnostic then I might be more inclined to see you as objective in regard to religious matters.

As far as discrediting historical figures - where those figures aren't historical fiction then their writings should be considered like anything else and open to critique like anything else. I'm not often in agreement with Kelly's musings but she made a good point about taking things within the context of which they are written and not superimposing our own beliefs onto them.

[EvonRose]

Someone who believes in 'something' isn't prone to being objective about evidence which doesn't support that 'something'. That is common sense. Were you to proclaim yourself agnostic then I might be more inclined to see you as objective in regard to religious matters.

As far as discrediting historical figures - where those figures aren't historical fiction then their writings should be considered like anything else and open to critique like anything else. I'm not often in agreement with Kelly's musings but she made a good point about taking things within the context of which they are written and not superimposing our own beliefs onto them.

Well that theory implies with the bible as well, I't not like you guys read the historic facts. You just can't get over the supernatural discussions in it...

So read things in context... If you do you will find that the bible is filled that documents Jesus life...

Like I said documents to ones belief can be a document fact in itself,

Where do you think documents of queen Nefertiti came from? Egyptians

Juluis Ceasar? Romans
Alexander the great? Greeks
Jesus? Christians...

Of course your going to agree with Kelly, just as people who believe Jesus's life existence will side with me... But I go by the documents written in History and until you can prove otherwise I'm convinced Jesus was at one point a living, breathing, flesh and blood human.

Half the historic figures we know of we don't even know when they were born, when they actually died, where their tombs, or burial place is. We only have documents in the region and the time they were in. You can't discredit thousands of documents, you simply just can't without proving all of those as fiction.

[runningdownthatdream]

Well that theory implies with the bible as well, I't not like you guys read the historic facts. You just can't get over the supernatural discussions in it...

So read things in context... If you do you will find that the bible is filled that documents Jesus life...

Like I said documents to ones belief can be a document fact in itself,

Where do you think documents of queen Nefertiti came from? Egyptians

Juluis Ceasar? Romans
Alexander the great? Greeks
Jesus? Christians...

Of course your going to agree with Kelly, just as people who believe Jesus's life existence will side with me... But I go by the documents written in History and until you can prove otherwise I'm convinced Jesus was at one point a living, breathing, flesh and blood human.

Haha.....nice try.......Christians are a religious sect who owe their existence to the story of Jesus. There are no christians without the story of Jesus. Romans exist without Caesar, Egyptians without Nefertiti, and indeed Greeks without Alexander (any easy one that since the Macedonians maintain he's not Greek!)

............I think you're you getting tired.....I can feel you wavering