Thread: Does god ever tire?

How could Christ walk on water?

He was not subject to the elements of this world such as gravity, nor any other earth bound law...

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
The Bible is no more a valid source to quote than any other fiction.....Fact is what people should be quoting in the first place. Whatever you believe, get the facts and quote those. The Bible isn't based upon fact. Oh, and being a religious expert doesn't mean a thing, except that you can remember a lot of crap that probably didn't happen in the first place. Knowing cultural differences in religion is obviously handy, but how can you be an expert in something that hasn't even been proven? In this area, I agree with Brady......

Can you tell me the date?

And how it came to be?

And how it is that you accecpt it as true, if the Bible is not?

What is the date? 12/12/05'

And how did it come to be? It is the month/day/ and years from His Resurrection.

And if it is not true than every dated contract, or statement you have ever written is false!

Even your birthday is a lie...

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Can you tell me the date?

And how it came to be?

And how it is that you accecpt it as true, if the Bible is not?

What is the date? 12/12/05'

And how did it come to be? It is the month/day/ and years from His Resurrection.

And if it is not true than every dated contract, or statement you have ever written is false!

Even your birthday is a lie...

Quit being retarded, or I'm retracting that compliment and grouping you with Nirvana and Leo.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Quit being retarded, or I'm retracting that compliment and grouping you with Nirvana and Leo.

Typical response to 'facts'...

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Typical response to 'facts'...

The fact that our calendar has anything to do with Christ has nothing to with whether or not the Bible is factual, it has everything to do with the belief systems of the people in power throughout the last couple millenia

And until recent centuries, the Church has wielded an enormous amount of power.

Our calendar will be fatally flawed around the year 4K. Leap year/day won't keep it straight.

Further, the whole christian mythos within the calendar is inherently flawed. If it weren't, Easter would be locked-down to an actual date and not float around like it does. You morons can't even manage to keep the date of your alleged savior's alleged ressurection straight.


That's why Gregory went to our current "gregorian calendar" (in the 1500's, btw) although it was Bacon who proposed it...

Eastern Orthodox Christians retain the Julian calendar to this day. And have now lost more than 13 days.


In fact, the date of your christs birth and of easter was invented out of whole cloth at the first Ecumenical Council in 325, in Nicea. One unanimously accepted canon guaranteed that Easter would never fall on the beginning of the Jewish Passover, perhaps reflecting Christian animosity towards Jews for their perceived role in Jesus' death. The resulting agreement (Nicean Accord), as commonly stated, was that Easter shall fall on the first Sunday following the first full moon following the spring equinox.

And this explains the 35-day span where Easter can occur (March 22 - April 25, inc)

So as you can see: The whole this is invented from whole cloth and has absolutely zero meaning outside of Bacon's intelligent observation that the Julian Calendar (which christianity was fully behind for something like 1500 years) was fucked in the head.

I am so one of God's agents.

Right, Kim? I'm one of your agents?

Can you tell me the date?

And how it came to be?

And how it is that you accecpt it as true, if the Bible is not? [/b]

I can't believe you actually seriously posted this. Wait.... was it a joke?

The current calander year is based around the birth of christ. All this means is whoever thought up our current calander believed in jesus. All that is required to "accept" that the date is currently 13/12/2005 is that christians exist. The calander being based around a true character is just as arbitrary as being based around a fictional.

And as for jesus being born in the year 0, that actually can be reasonably disputed. Biblical contradictions are fun.

ETA: oh wait, and what kim said

-spoon

Sure! If you wanna be!

Originally posted by kimpossible
Sure! If you wanna be!

Hey, I wanna be, too!

I'm a ninja, so... if you ever need any, uhh... ninja-ing... done, you know where to turn.

There's a few people around about these parts that could use a little good ninja'ing up-side-da-head.

Speaking of head...

Stick together guys.......stick together.

:



:bravo:

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Stick together guys.......stick together.

:



:bravo:

^ Hey, if that's us, looks like we're having alot of fun!

As per your suggestion, I'm going to go ahead and join the Faithbusters!.

Atleast it doesn't say bonehead now.

Originally posted by kimpossible
Our calendar will be fatally flawed around the year 4K. *Leap year/day won't keep it straight.

Further, the whole christian mythos within the calendar is inherently flawed. *If it weren't, Easter would be locked-down to an actual date and not float around like it does. *You morons can't even manage to keep the date of your alleged savior's alleged ressurection straight.


That's why Gregory went to our current \"gregorian calendar\" (in the 1500's, btw) although it was Bacon who proposed it...

Eastern Orthodox Christians retain the Julian calendar to this day. *And have now lost more than 13 days.


In fact, the date of your christs birth and of easter was invented out of whole cloth at the first Ecumenical Council in 325, in Nicea. * One unanimously accepted canon guaranteed that Easter would never fall on the beginning of the Jewish Passover, perhaps reflecting Christian animosity towards Jews for their perceived role in Jesus' death. *The resulting agreement (Nicean Accord), as commonly stated, was that Easter shall fall on the first Sunday following the first full moon following the spring equinox.

And this explains the 35-day span where Easter can occur (March 22 - April 25, inc)

So as you can see: *The whole this is invented from whole cloth and has absolutely zero meaning outside of Bacon's intelligent observation that the Julian Calendar (which christianity was fully behind for something like 1500 years) was fucked in the head.

I find it amusing how the moment indisputable facts are set forth, the rabble vanishes.

Originally posted by kimpossible


I find it amusing how the moment indisputable facts are set forth, the rabble vanishes.

How's this for rabble?

The "Common Era" (i.e. nowadays)

If you're wondering what "CE" or "BCE" means. "CE" means "Common Era" (or alternatively, "Christian Era") and refers to the same dates as "AD" or "Anno Domini" does. (Except that "AD" goes before the year number and "CE" goes after it: e.g. "AD 1996" is the same year as "1996 CE".) Why does it matter? Why invent another abbreviation? Well, an awfull lot of people don't realize what AD stands for or means. "Anno Domini" is Latin for "in the year of Our Lord", referring to Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is, "AD 1996" literally means "in the 1996'th year since the birth of the Christ." Now not all the world is Christian, so it makes no sense for a Jew, a Moslem, a Hindu, a Witch, a Druid, or an atheist to refer to the date as being in the year of "their Lord" when they don't follow him.

So "CE" is a more considerate way of labelling dates in the Gregorian calendar without rubbing non-Christian's noses in the fact that so much of the world is using a calendar based on the alleged birth-year of the man we Christians believe to be the Messiah. (Note that there are other calendars in use -- the Gregorian calendar is not universal. So there are plenty of people with their own perfectly good calendars who have to keep track of dates in our calendar so they can do international business, or just to communicate with the folks in their own neighbourhood if they live in a country that uses the Gregorian calendar.)

It's also more accurate for Christians, since today's best guesses as to when Jesus of Nazareth was born differ by four to six years from the best guesses the folks who invented our calendar had. So it is highly unlikely that Jesus was born in the year 1 CE. Which means that if one insists on calling that year AD 1, one is probably off by about five years. Personally, being a bit of a traditionalist, I'll probably continue using AD on personal correspondence with other Christians or folks who I know won't care and on certain published (or web-published or posted) stuff intended primarly for a Christian audience or intended to present an intensely personal and religious topic. Even though I know it's off by four to six years. I'm going to try to consistently use CE the rest of the time (when I bother to use either), and if I slip up I expect to be called on it so I can fix it.
Before Common Era (i.e. a loooong time ago)

As most people know, "BC" stands for "before Christ", and is therefore subject to the exact same problems as "AD". That is to say, for non-Christians it's somewhat inconsiderate and for Christians it's wrong by four to six years. So the common alternative is "BCE", or "Before the Common Era", which has the wonderful advantage of looking a whole lot like "BC", which it replaces.
Is this "Politically Correct"?

Well, it's polite and it's more accurate. I don't think anybody wants to go around changing all the dates on medieval tax records to pretend our ancestors used religiously-neutral language, or anything like that. It's just more considerate towards non-Christians, and it means that Christians discussing the actual date of the birth of Jesus don't have to say silly things like "Christ was probably born around 4 years Before Christ." Instead we can say, "... around the year 4 BCE, possibly as early as 6 BCE."

So never mind the "political correctness" angle -- just look at it in terms of politeness, consideration, and accuracy.

So, I guess this to is contrary to your standards, and will also be summarily dismissed as well?

Figures!

O' P.S. see if you can write a check without this type of date on it, and it be valid...

All you're proving here is that the person(s) who came up with our calendar believed in Jesus.

I spent about 10 minutes gazing at a new Chinese calendar widget I downloaded today, still finding it difficult to comprehend.

You have no idea how wonderfully pathetic Christian calendars are in the larger scheme.

Are your comprehension skills really so poor, awaken?!?!?

Your cut-and-paste reply had NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with what I posted. Nothing. Period.

They could be considered loosely related, (beyond being written in the same language, but at nearly that same level of "looseness") in that they both talk about systems of keeping date.