Italian court to decide if Jesus really existed

I'm calling it now.

Gene Simmons.

 

Yes, I concur.

 

Excuse me this IS a debate forum. If you do not want this type of debate on this board, maybe you should do your job and start locking religious posts before a debate starts. Instead of after someone has expressed an opinion that differs from yours.

 

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."


"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."


"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.


"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.



Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the galaxy

Sorry, but felt I had to put this in.

 

Brilliant, Quix. What better way to prove the existance of Christ than to present the jury with the Antichrist?

Though Simmons' existance could also be used to argue that there is no God, and therefore no son of God.

 

Revan, you should reread the forum description: light-hearted discussion. KW is right to point you to the Senate when you start taking the discussion to a deeper level.

Edit:Actually, gabe, I was thinking that either Gene or RICHARD Simmons would be the surprise witness. Sweatin' to the Eternals!

 

II. Topics

A. Religious threads: While religious debate (exampe: Does God exist? Creation vs Evolution, etc.) is not allowed in the JCC, we will allow religious themed threads and, on occasion, light discussion on a religious topic. These types of threads will be examined on a case-by-case basis.


When someone claims that Jesus doesn't exist it IS saying "Does God exist?" to those who believe in Christianity, which some of the members here are.

 

I wish people would take this more light-heartedly. I've seen a lot of nasty commentaries on beliefs in the YJCC. It's disturbing, to say the least. Let people believe what they want to - no one needs their heads ripped off just because you (or anyone else) doesn't agree...

 

Excuse me this IS a debate forum.

Uh, no, the Senate is our debate forum. The JCC can certainly host its share of serious discussion, but heavy duty debate belongs in the Senate. If you want to continue discussing this, feel free to PM me.

 

That argument is a load of Dingo's kidneys.

 

Most leading theologans believe that this is infact a load of dingos kidneys and the theory was dismissed. However this didn't stop Oolon Kahloofid Making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best selling book: "Well that about wraps it up for god."


Tee hee.

 

you should advise him that if he wants a more serious discussion concerning the information contained in this post to take it to the senate, not necessarily to ban that particular post from this thread.

 

Best thread ever....

I mean it...

 

Meh, there are so many books about the whole "Jesus existed or not" debate out there, though this is the first time I've heard someone wanting to settle this in a court of law. Me, I would have thought the court of public opnion is the place to debate this.

*shrug*

 

How can we trust the Italian's to figure out if Jesus really existed when they picked the wrong side to be on during WWII?

 

[Family Guy] They doubt the existence of our Lord Jesus Christ? That does NOT ROCK! [/Family Guy]

 

Even Muslims and Jews belive that Jesus at least existed. Whether or not he was the son of God is obviously viewed differently, but no one is going to argue his existence. It seems to me that some of these "athiests" who come out to oppose the church seem to spend a lot more time studying religion than most people who actually belong to a faith, and I find that funny.

 

Read "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.

 

Hee.
No judge in the history of histories will ever rule that Christ never existed.
It just will not happen.
Funny though.
Why doesnt he try something more constructive that no one has tried before like getting "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance or removing the Ten Commandments from the lobby of a courtroom. Sheesh!
Oh wait.

 

It isn't wise to start trouble with the mods.

 

This, my friends is the ultimate irony of the entire case.

 

True. They'll post a lengthy argument against you that will always win.