I SAID: Even you cannot suggest there are people alive today who can say for certain that Jesus actually existed...let alone how he died.
bulma, I can attest to the fact that Frank is being 'less than truthful' here.
If you ever deliver what Frank is asking for, he will put you on 'ignore'. I refer here to number three on his list (no reason that at least one God is needed to explain existence) and of course his last claim of willingness to discuss.
But don’t let that stop you, consider it a badge of honor if it ever happens : )
Both “Christian horror” and “Atheist horror” seek to invoke dread in their readers. However, “Christian horror” is the result of the “numinous,” while “Atheist horror” is the result of “nothingness.” “Christian horror” is based on the God Who Is There, while “Atheist horror” is based on the God Who Isn’t. “Christian horror” provides a way of escape; “Atheist horror” cannot. Heck, in the atheist’s worldview, the heroine can escape the clutches of serial killers and zombie hordes. But she must succumb, inevitably, to the Great Void.
Perhaps there is no greater horror than that of an atheistic worldview. Forget blood, gore, and ghoulies. A world without meaning and purpose is the ultimate horror. A universe that arose by chance, exists without meaning, where lives plummet toward annihilation is the worst kind of horror. The child huddled in bed, fixated upon the dark closet, becomes the adult gaping into the void of what, he believes, is a godless universe. And unlike the Christian novelist, the atheist author has nothing but more “dark closets” to offer their readers.
Quote:I SAID: Even you cannot suggest there are people alive today who can say for certain that Jesus actually existed...let alone how he died.
No, I never said that (I cannot suggest that).
In fact, I showed you one.
The Buddha had the same problem...He could go no further than believe himself to be consciousness and nothing more and therefore concluded that SELF didn't exist .....he therefore remained a prisoner of consciousness...
If you learned to read properly, you'd be able to infer about any gaps in what I said.
I know what I'm thinking, so I use symbological shorthand, and don't always finish thoughts, but leave it to the reader to piece together. I also, don't, always know, the best place to put commas (okay that was intentional). So reading my stuff might be an issue sometimes.
But it's not just my fault. It appears obvious you don't understand symbolism or metaphor, you don't look at links, and you can barely read. Religious types don't have to directly say something. They know source material from least one religion. I can probably give you stuff from about three, as well as a number of pop culture references.
It's like you've been stuck in a cave all your life, with people only showing you shadows. If you ever went outside, you'd see the sunlight, and wonder why you ever thought any of what you see now is real. If you were a little less ignorant, you'd be like "Oh! Plato's Cave!" But I suspect long before that, you glared at me like " What you talking about, Willis? "
I'd maybe expect you to get that reference from Avenue Q. But not from its original source (Diff'rent Strokes). Or even know what the source was.
Seems that Jasper is not having a great day.