Not to pick on you Yorick, but archeologists have found concrete evidence of the existance of all but 1 of the people on your list.Also as far as the bible goes, to the best of my knowedge every denomination has their own version of it.The King James bible is called that because KING JAMES of England had it rewritten to fit his own ends. The mormons followed polygamy,catholics have exorcisms,the Lutherans were founded by a man named...Martin LUTHER, Baptist claim to follow the ideals of John the baptist from the bible. The list goes on and on. All you have to do is go into any book store and go to the religious section and look at all the titles on the bibles. For a real shocker try reading a few of them and see how many of them tell basicaly the same story, but use diffrent wording and phraseology to tell it. This sint an attack and it isnt exclusive to christianity either. Almost all religions have had their tennents modified and changed over the course of history.</font>[/QUOTE]Well said...

As do I.</font>[/QUOTE]No, you are governed by your faith.</font>[/QUOTE]Which is an exercise of free will and result of free thinking. Do you insinuate that I am spoon fed what I think? That I DON't think for myself? You insult me.

See this is what gets me about these conversations. SOmeone without spiritual faith, trying to tell someone with spiritual faith, how their faith affects them.

Buddy, you have no idea. Clearly. Focus on working out who YOU are and how YOUR thinking works before presuming to understand someone with whom you exchange a few words with online. It's the height of presumption.

Not to pick on you Yorick, but archeologists have found concrete evidence of the existance of all but 1 of the people on your list.Also as far as the bible goes, to the best of my knowedge every denomination has their own version of it.The King James bible is called that because KING JAMES of England had it rewritten to fit his own ends. The mormons followed polygamy,catholics have exorcisms,the Lutherans were founded by a man named...Martin LUTHER, Baptist claim to follow the ideals of John the baptist from the bible. The list goes on and on. All you have to do is go into any book store and go to the religious section and look at all the titles on the bibles. For a real shocker try reading a few of them and see how many of them tell basicaly the same story, but use diffrent wording and phraseology to tell it. This sint an attack and it isnt exclusive to christianity either. Almost all religions have had their tennents modified and changed over the course of history.</font>[/QUOTE]Well of course there are no archaelogical remains, he rose from the dead. ;) Many of the Biblicly described places have been accounted for, including the tomb. Tacitus and Josephus are historians who account for Jesus. Aside from which the four gospels all support each other. Yes they are biased in that the accounts are from people that loved Jesus, but wouldn't love for a subject provide greater incentive to record details attentively?

As far as the denominations go, no not all have their own version. The NIV is the currently accepted general standard in English, and the King James was standard before that. Ministers can and do have access to the original language scriptures to check and cross reference. Many times it helps to gain a proper understanding actually. My father for example, knows Koine Greek and Hebrew. To be ordained any Australian Anglican minister must know these.

The King James is pretty accurate, but as I said, the NIV is more widely regarded.

Regarding the splits of the church, Luther's protests predate the Baptists, who are not named because they follow John the Baptist... where on earth did you hear that? I went to a Baptist Church for six years. If you followed John the Baptist's recorded teachings you'd be done in about seven minutes.

Where Baptists differ from say Anglicans, is that they don't believe in infant Baptism, only adult Baptism. Both denominations are protestant and still worship Jesus as Lord God, and part of the Trinity. Both adhere to the Nicean and Apostles creeds, as do the Lutherans (protestant also) and Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox. I've worshipped in many denominations and taken part in countless combined church meetings/festivals etc. It's all "The Chirstian Church".

Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are different, and are not regarded as Christian by the Christian Church - for, among other things they both reject the Trinity - but then both of them regard their path as the ONLY way, and that they are the only true followers of Christ (correct me if I'm wrong Larry). Mormons use "The Book of Mormon" as an additional and in some ways 'corrective work' introduced by Joseph Smith.

The myriad differences around some shared core truths (such as Jesus being God, salvation through Jesus atoning death and ressurection etc), and the many expressions of worship are actually proof that knowing Jesus is an individual relationship, and not a mind controlling cult.

If we all had indenti-beliefs it would be a bit scarey.

See this is what gets me about these conversations. SOmeone without spiritual faith, trying to tell someone with spiritual faith, how their faith affects them.

Buddy, you have no idea. Clearly. Focus on working out who YOU are and how YOUR thinking works before presuming to understand someone with whom you exchange a few words with online. It's the height of presumption.</font>[/QUOTE]I am sorry your insulted. Like I said earlier, I have nothing to loose. Did you not presume to understand who I am? Religion is the height of presumption, and to make it worse, it has millions of followers. I responded to what you said earlier and you got personal by being sarcastic about my spelling. Maybe I was just tired, or in a hurry, Maybe you assumed I was an idiot becouse of this. You are certainly allowed your opinion, I never attack that. I attacked religion. You are a bit defensive I think.

You made the statement that you choose freedom of thought.
I made the statement that I also choose freedom of thought.
You then corrected me, and pronounced me wrong about my own mental situation and said I was governed by my faith.

Now in pointing out the insulting nature of such a remark, I am defensive?

I was not ridiculing your spelling. You made the statement "There is know God and Buddha". It didn't make sense unless you misspelled, but on the internet one cannot be sure, so I clarified. You presumed assumption of idiocy where there was none.

Now, let me say it again: Faith is an exercise of will and the result of free thinking. It is the result of abstract thought, hypothesis and analysis of received information.

I should add, that I hope you have a good day. [img]smile.gif[/img] We're arguing ideas, not each other. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Peace.

I still dont believe in god. I believe in science and scientific logic. You still believe in god. Lets agree to disagree and move on, otherwise I am afraid I will misunderstand you more and you me. Im obviously not as articulate as you in a debate. I no longer wish to debate a topic that has no resolve or proof either way. Once again no hard feelings, and I hope likewise.

I just saw your last post. Likewise.

um relating to your statement about thier being no archealogical evidence of Jesus, of course there's no archealogical evidence of him. He was a carpenter from a distant roman province. What do you expect him to leave his tools?
There is multitudes of historical evidence including hundreds if not thousands of witness testimony, as yorick pointed out famous historian's writings, and proably most importantly roman documents. The romans were obsesive record keepers and jesus' execution is among them.