All These AI Asterisks Are A Pathetic Joke. Fix This Sh it. WTF

Admin robots are taking over let's face it. Yes but they are referencing a txt file of words that a person must have put together, its ridiculous what they censor in here.

Please, don't tempt the AI It loves to give out "inappropriate" bans :nono:

You’re reading too much into it, and unnecessarily confusing the matter. The name Jesus is synonymous with Yeshua. It’s like anglicizing a name like Jose into Joseph, or Pietro into Peter. The writers of the gospels were writing in Greek, therefore they changed the Lord’s name to fit the language they were communicating in. The scribes translating from Greek to English made similar adjustments to suit their readers. None of it is here nor there to me. As I said earlier, I once subscribed to your general way of thinking; but even then, I would’ve drawn the same observations I just made. I’d really rather just drop the discussion here. No point. Yep people made adjustments to suit their readers. Just like they made adjustments from the earlier Krishna stories to suit their readers, which is essentially how Christianity materialized. It reminds me sometimes of when older movies get Hollywood remakes. Or foreign movies get an English language remake where the story might be largely different on the surface, but the core themes remain very similar. It's just surprising sometimes that people cling on to these myths even in today's modern world. Religions were invented so easily and so often by humans that we've amassed thousands of gods by now. "Cargo Cults" is another fascinating insight into how easily religions come about. Alright bro, i can respect if you prefer to leave the discussion, fair enough.

It's widely known that Iesous was the Greek translation (not Jesus). And that was the first case of a drastic name change of the character. What's not widely known though is that Iesous was then changed to Jesus after the letter J had been invented only 400 years ago. King James then spread this new name for the mythical character in his new Anglicized version of the bible. So today we have people referring to "Jesus", while not realizing that the name was only invented a few hundred years ago. Quick hypothetical: if we imagine there was a real Yeshua who existed thousands of years ago, and someone today was able to travel back to his time, he wouldn't even respond to the name Jesus. He'd have no idea who Jesus is. It's a little too far removed from the original name of the character. You’re reading too much into it, and unnecessarily confusing the matter. The name Jesus is synonymous with Yeshua. It’s like anglicizing a name like Jose into Joseph, or Pietro into Peter. The writers of the gospels were writing in Greek, therefore they changed the Lord’s name to fit the language they were communicating in. The scribes translating from Greek to English made similar adjustments to suit their readers. None of it is here nor there to me. As I said earlier, I once subscribed to your general way of thinking; but even then, I would’ve drawn the same observations I just made. I’d really rather just drop the discussion here. No point.

I would expect someone like yourself to know that the name Jesus is a Greek translation (the original gospels were written in Greek) of the Lord’s Hebrew name — Yeshua. It's widely known that Iesous was the Greek translation (not Jesus). And that was the first case of a drastic name change of the character. What's not widely known though is that Iesous was then changed to Jesus after the letter J had been invented only 400 years ago. King James then spread this new name for the mythical character in his new Anglicized version of the bible. So today we have people referring to "Jesus", while not realizing that the name was only invented a few hundred years ago. Quick hypothetical: if we imagine there was a real Yeshua who existed thousands of years ago, and someone today was able to travel back to his time, he wouldn't even respond to the name Jesus. He'd have no idea who Jesus is. It's a little too far removed from the original name of the character.

I think the deeper similarities to Krishna are due to temporal proximity. The two myths were separated by around 1000 years or so. While Krishna's name has remained the same for thousands of years, what's slightly stranger about the Jesus myth, but rarely discussed, is that the name Jesus is only around 400 years old, because the letter J was invented in the year 1524. So if the character had been a real historical figure, he wouldn't even respond to the name "Jesus", since this name was only introduced in the King James bible less than 400 hundred years ago. Today's believers worship a main character who had a fairly recent name-change, as the name Jesus was popularized across the English-speaking world by a British king's bible rewrite. Some of the similarities to the Krishna myth are pretty fascinating.. * Both Krishna and Jesus were from royal descent. * Both were born with some form of divine intervention. * As kids, Krishna and Jesus both hid from evil rulers who wanted to kill all new born males. Krishna hid from Prince Kansa. Jesus hid from King Herod. * Both had to make a great escape, Krishna had to cross a river (as did Moses), Jesus had to flee to Egypt. * Again similar to Moses, when Krishna crossed the river, the waters parted to allow easy passage. In the later Moses story, the seas parted for easy passage.. (cross-references within the religions where selective sections from the earlier Krishna myth are later modified and shared between the Moses and Jesus characters in the Bible) * Both Jesus and Krishna were called "lord" and "savior" in their lifetime. * Both experienced transfiguration, and their bodies shone light. * Both performed miracles and healing. * Krishna cured a hunchback woman, Jesus cured lepers. * Both brought people back to life. * Both had to fight demons. * Both have very similar names, Krishna - Christ. The word Krishna may have roots in the Sanskrit word Krsta, which means Supreme Being or Pure. * Both died by sharp weapons near wood. Krishna died near a tree, by an arrow to the heel (his only weak spot, like the Achilles story), Jesus died by crucifixion on a wooden cross. * etc.. I would expect someone like yourself to know that the name Jesus is a Greek translation (the original gospels were written in Greek) of the Lord’s Hebrew name — Yeshua.

â Like the source of all the sources? Jesus has a lot of overlap with quite a few ancient characters, especially Greek ones. There were quite a few Messiahs around the time frame for Jesus's life. Most of which dealt in the same basics and of course those basics can be traced back to the earliest religions but I've never heard anyone just say - This one is the source for them all. If you take yourself back to that timeframe, about 300 years before Theodosius and the Christianization of Rome; Roman tolerance of other religions was at an all time high and while you might see, say in a biopic, others preaching as Jesus did, on the street to the masses who would stop for them, I don't often see that economy explained. It was common for regular people to not believe they knew the proper ways to commune with gods. Including the ***s and ***ish God. Likewise, it was common for men who were trained in ritual to conduct rituals for hire. This is what's important to understand, that freelance ritual leader is not necessarily in any way ordained by anything. His credentials are his ability to conduct the ritual not preach or teach you anything. The preaching is their marketing. They stand outside and preach what they know of their religion hoping to catch the ear of someone who has recently lost a loved one or wants to get married or ask forgiveness, or predict the future, you know ... bunch of God and gods bull. And so, by the time Jesus is there to preach, if we assume he is at all, one may not need to know who Krishna is per se, but they will know of the 12 olympians, 12 zodiacs, 12 tribes, etc. leaving you with a whole heaps of "messiah" who more or less preach the same thing. This is also a time when mankind easily accepts the idea a living and dying human might be the son of a god. It wouldn't be but 500 years prior people believed this so strongly just being named after a god afforded you special treament. I think the deeper similarities to Krishna are due to temporal proximity. The two myths were separated by around 1000 years or so. While Krishna's name has remained the same for thousands of years, what's slightly stranger about the Jesus myth, but rarely discussed, is that the name Jesus is only around 400 years old, because the letter J was invented in the year 1524. So if the character had been a real historical figure, he wouldn't even respond to the name "Jesus", since this name was only introduced in the King James bible less than 400 hundred years ago. Today's believers worship a main character who had a fairly recent name-change, as the name Jesus was popularized across the English-speaking world by a British king's bible rewrite. Some of the similarities to the Krishna myth are pretty fascinating.. * Both Krishna and Jesus were from royal descent. * Both were born with some form of divine intervention. * As kids, Krishna and Jesus both hid from evil rulers who wanted to kill all new born males. Krishna hid from Prince Kansa. Jesus hid from King Herod. * Both had to make a great escape, Krishna had to cross a river (as did Moses), Jesus had to flee to Egypt. * Again similar to Moses, when Krishna crossed the river, the waters parted to allow easy passage. In the later Moses story, the seas parted for easy passage.. (cross-references within the religions where selective sections from the earlier Krishna myth are later modified and shared between the Moses and Jesus characters in the Bible) * Both Jesus and Krishna were called "lord" and "savior" in their lifetime. * Both experienced transfiguration, and their bodies shone light. * Both performed miracles and healing. * Krishna cured a hunchback woman, Jesus cured lepers. * Both brought people back to life. * Both had to fight demons. * Both have very similar names, Krishna - Christ. The word Krishna may have roots in the Sanskrit word Krsta, which means Supreme Being or Pure. * Both died by sharp weapons near wood. Krishna died near a tree, by an arrow to the heel (his only weak spot, like the Achilles story), Jesus died by crucifixion on a wooden cross. * etc..

lmao..we gonna have to get him one of these for the andre the giant sausage fingers he sportin' {"alt":"click image for larger version name:\tmaxresdefault.jpg views:\t0 size:\t145.8 kb id:\t32419886","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"32419886","data-size":"full","title":"maxresdefault.jpg"} lmfao

More than 20 years ago I wrote: First they will take our words, then our thoughts. D a m n I am sorry I was right. What’s truly eerie is how prescient Orwell and the writers of the Terminator movies were. Machine self-awareness now seems a real possibility.

More than 20 years ago I wrote: First they will take our words, then our thoughts. D a m n I am sorry I was right.

To have Faith is different than to have proof, always... They both have a place. Logical thinking, proof are attributes that can help us in this existence, make a better world. Even in religion... Buddhist religious experience is based on practice: You practice sitting and clearing through the illusory aspects of the world... It is more like a bench press than anything because, the more you practice the better you get at self control and perception. Buddhists technically are not Atheists. This is a common misunderstanding. The Buddha actually said "God is another issue entirely not related to how we experience suffering in this impermanent world." meaning, one can decide on their own whether there is some God, or not, and that this decision does not directly affect your feelings when the cost of eggs doubles lol. Faith is another thing entirely. Kierkegaard the great Danish philosopher lost his faith when he tried to examine it... Faith takes another mindset and a commitment to respecting what we do not know. I have faith because to me, there are obvious limits to science: Our body ages because of a code, even if we could replace all our organs, etc... Every 6 months or so, virtually every cell in our entire body has changed, and is new... That means there is a code overseeing our time, and it will act regardless of our bodies health. The Universe has infinite capability... Our minds literally cannot comprehend how a finite Universe would even exist!!! We ask: Ok, so after the Universe, what comes next? Nothing? what does nothing look, feel like? We cannot comprehend real Nothingness!! Science cannot explain any such thing either. This is the basis of my faith in a Most High, that permeates and that we are a part of. i accept all versions of such a presence. Christ, included. I was an atheist for a quarter-century. I know the difference between proof, facts and faith. Once upon a time, I demanded proof. Even now, I maintain an inquisitive mindset. I’m going to repeat a couple more things I’ve already stated: I don’t claim to offer any proof; and far more brilliant minds than ours have argued both sides of the debate. Also, I found it fascinating when I recently discovered that the scientist who posited the Big Bang Theory was a Roman Catholic priest. His theory didn’t shake his faith in a God he considered to exist outside of time and space. I’m merely sharing ideas and exchanging notes with any who might be genuinely curious. No one here has a corner on the truth. People here argue the merits of a particular boxer to no end, disagree and are right/wrong in equal measure. No one is revealing the secrets of the universe on Boxingscene…or anywhere else, for that matter. Lol

The shroud of Turin wasn't just debunked via carbon dating, paint traces being found and such, the subject is anatomically inaccurate and elongated which was very typical of gothic artwork from that period. Its arms and fingers/hands are far too long, the forehead is far too small. If the cloth was dr4p3d upon an actual face then the facial image would be distorted laterally when flattened out. I watched a documentary where they used high tech computer equipment and such and also known methods of that time and they recreated it iirc with all the inconsistencies using a very similar method to a dark room. I live in a Christian country and respect Christian values, I want to believe but the more I've looked into it or any more modern religion the more it becomes abundantly clear that all of it - Their birth dates, death dates, often their names, their miracles, stories etc are all taken from other religions or ancient civilisations that came thousands of years prior. The only things that really changed is we went from them having super advanced technology (Hindus, Egyptians, Sumerians) we still can not comprehend to this day (more evidence of a God or extra terrestrial beings than any more modern religion has ever offered) and the claim of them having tons of Gods to now a quabble of just one. Even that would make a lot more sense logically than one all knowing, all seeing God unless it was adapted as a mean of control and power. ​ I’ve never seen the documentary you’re referring to, but the sources you’re getting information from are incomplete. Do a simple Google search and type in “Shroud of Turin is authentic” to see what I’m looking at this very moment. Below is the AI overview that came up: AI Overview The Shroud of Turin is believed by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, and there is growing evidence to support this claim. Evidence Dating Italian researchers used X-ray scattering to date the shroud, and found it to be nearly 2,000 years old. This is compatible with the time of Jesus's life. Image The image on the shroud matches the Gospel accounts of Jesus's crucifixion. The image also shows a man with a beard, mustache, and shoulder-length hair. Stains The shroud has reddish-brown stains that match the wounds described in the Bible.The blood on the cloth also contains high levels of bilirubin, a chemical found in the blood of tortured people. Microscopic deposits The shroud contains microscopic deposits of rare Jerusalem soil and flower pollen. Radiation theory Some believe that UV radiation imprinted the image on the cloth without any heat source. Dating Italian researchers used X-ray scattering to date the shroud, and found it to be nearly 2,000 years old. This is compatible with the time of Jesus's life. Image The image on the shroud matches the Gospel accounts of Jesus's crucifixion. The image also shows a man with a beard, mustache, and shoulder-length hair. ​ And here’s a link to an article from Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin Draw your own conclusions from looking at various sources as I did. My belief is that only a supernatural event could’ve caused that image to be emblazoned on a burial cloth now believed to be indeed from the time of Christ. Modern science has been unable to re-create the exact effect. And the negative image that revealed the details we know today were only discovered in 1898. A medieval artist was supposed to have faked this?

That’s not true. If it were so easily debunked as you say, I wouldn’t have spent so long agonizing over its authenticity or lack thereof. The Shroud has obviously been accused of being a fake for a long time, yet there is evidence to the contrary that has fully satisfied my formerly skeptical self. But that’s right, you don’t believe what I say about being a reformed atheist; so there’s no point in continuing this discussion with you, as there is clearly no basis for mutual respect on the matter. I’m not here to prove anything. Believe as you wish. To have Faith is different than to have proof, always... They both have a place. Logical thinking, proof are attributes that can help us in this existence, make a better world. Even in religion... Buddhist religious experience is based on practice: You practice sitting and clearing through the illusory aspects of the world... It is more like a bench press than anything because, the more you practice the better you get at self control and perception. Buddhists technically are not Atheists. This is a common misunderstanding. The Buddha actually said "God is another issue entirely not related to how we experience suffering in this impermanent world." meaning, one can decide on their own whether there is some God, or not, and that this decision does not directly affect your feelings when the cost of eggs doubles lol. Faith is another thing entirely. Kierkegaard the great Danish philosopher lost his faith when he tried to examine it... Faith takes another mindset and a commitment to respecting what we do not know. I have faith because to me, there are obvious limits to science: Our body ages because of a code, even if we could replace all our organs, etc... Every 6 months or so, virtually every cell in our entire body has changed, and is new... That means there is a code overseeing our time, and it will act regardless of our bodies health. The Universe has infinite capability... Our minds literally cannot comprehend how a finite Universe would even exist!!! We ask: Ok, so after the Universe, what comes next? Nothing? what does nothing look, feel like? We cannot comprehend real Nothingness!! Science cannot explain any such thing either. This is the basis of my faith in a Most High, that permeates and that we are a part of. i accept all versions of such a presence. Christ, included.

The shroud of Turin wasn't just debunked via carbon dating, paint traces being found and such, the subject is anatomically inaccurate and elongated which was very typical of gothic artwork from that period. Its arms and fingers/hands are far too long, the forehead is far too small. If the cloth was dr4p3d upon an actual face then the facial image would be distorted laterally when flattened out. I watched a documentary where they used high tech computer equipment and such and also known methods of that time and they recreated it iirc with all the inconsistencies using a very similar method to a dark room. I live in a Christian country and respect Christian values, I want to believe but the more I've looked into it or any more modern religion the more it becomes abundantly clear that all of it - Their birth dates, death dates, often their names, their miracles, stories etc are all taken from other religions or ancient civilisations that came thousands of years prior. The only things that really changed is we went from them having super advanced technology (Hindus, Egyptians, Sumerians) we still can not comprehend to this day (more evidence of a God or extra terrestrial beings than any more modern religion has ever offered) and the claim of them having tons of Gods to now a quabble of just one. Even that would make a lot more sense logically than one all knowing, all seeing God unless it was adapted as a mean of control and power. ​ I believe in "Christ Consciousness," which is similar to other figures and a pervading sense of belonging. But I do not think this is exclusive. It is one of many paths, a way amongst many for people to take inventory and not be thoughtless. I believe in a superior intelligence, consciousness, that pervades the world and gives us love and hope... But this world IMO is a pergatory. We are probably here because we were a troll like Daggum in another life:lol1: and have some growing to do as a soul. That is why I really love Daggum see? :lol1:Like I love all sentient life. Besides we are all in the same crab pot! How we handle it? That is the test.

First time I heard that sh it bro. Many religious people become atheists and, although it's much rarer, some atheists become religious. Much more likely that once you study the history of religions you can't really deny that religions are all man-made and often borrow stories from each other. Whether gods exist or not is something no one has ever proven or disproven. But it's because you can't disprove that the ruler of the universe is a giant crocodile named Jack.... In other words, anyone can invent these type of religious stories and they can't really be disproven, and of course they're never proven either. have you considered the alternative? Probably not judging from your love of Daggum. Maybe the Most High has many forms, that manifest to many different cultures in different ways. Same with Ghosts. Even Buddhists, whom are Agnostic and historically suspicious of all meta physical constructions, allow for the existence of spirits, deities, etc. By the way Krishna comes from the age of Indian Religion (Brahmanism) that is similar to other Monotheistic traditions: Krishna being the avatar for Vishnu, who is one of three in a holy Trinity (sound familiar?) Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Krishna came to prominance in the bhagavigita, that is how he was "Created" as you put it.

Can’t even write something as innocuous as the word ma gazine. Apparently, the first four letters go against this site’s political inclinations. LOL M a g a :lol1::lol1: The site hired Chinese Government censors.

The shroud of Turin wasn't just debunked via carbon dating, paint traces being found and such, the subject is anatomically inaccurate and elongated which was very typical of gothic artwork from that period. Its arms and fingers/hands are far too long, the forehead is far too small. If the cloth was dr4p3d upon an actual face then the facial image would be distorted laterally when flattened out. I watched a documentary where they used high tech computer equipment and such and also known methods of that time and they recreated it iirc with all the inconsistencies using a very similar method to a dark room. I live in a Christian country and respect Christian values, I want to believe but the more I've looked into it or any more modern religion the more it becomes abundantly clear that all of it - Their birth dates, death dates, often their names, their miracles, stories etc are all taken from other religions or ancient civilisations that came thousands of years prior. The only things that really changed is we went from them having super advanced technology (Hindus, Egyptians, Sumerians) we still can not comprehend to this day (more evidence of a God or extra terrestrial beings than any more modern religion has ever offered) and the claim of them having tons of Gods to now a quabble of just one. Even that would make a lot more sense logically than one all knowing, all seeing God unless it was adapted as a mean of control and power. ​

Shroud of turin was easily debunked so not sure why you had such trouble with that? I mean it appeared 1300 years after jesus so that should be a red flag. Not to mention carbon dating, fabric used, design used are all consistent with 14 century which is when it was found/made. Also this ignores the question of even if it was from the time of Jesus that proves nothing. It certainly doesn't prove God is real orJesus was real. All it would prove is someone made a shroud with a guy on it and that somehow equals proof of god? Giant leap there. Also Chain of custody? All these artifacts are pretty clearly fan fiction made after the fact. I dont really believe your I was an atheist story. It's just something religious people often say to try and make their case stronger when they don't have one based on facts so they rely on their personal experience. You don't have to debunk anything. Religious people have to prove its real and they can't. On the other hand many things in the bible can and have been debunked which should make you question its legitimacy. Like others said the Jesus story was already out there long before Jesus so it's very convenient that Jesus came along and the same thing that happened to other gods or in other stories happened to him? They just didn't have much of an imagination and aped off other legends and myths of the time. same way joseph Smith did it. No one would seriously say mormonism is a real thing. If someone found some gold plates in 1000 years they would say look it's the gold plates josepth smith was right! Really now? That’s not true. If it were so easily debunked as you say, I wouldn’t have spent so long agonizing over its authenticity or lack thereof. The Shroud has obviously been accused of being a fake for a long time, yet there is evidence to the contrary that has fully satisfied my formerly skeptical self. But that’s right, you don’t believe what I say about being a reformed atheist; so there’s no point in continuing this discussion with you, as there is clearly no basis for mutual respect on the matter. I’m not here to prove anything. Believe as you wish.

You would think that they would have a product that people want and this is a product not a privilege. Too bad that the site went down hill so quick, used to be a fun place to interact and read comments. Used to be a site I came on and posted most days. I probably scan it weekly now. It went downhill very, very quickly.

I don’t like this place as much as I used to, but at least the articles have appreciably improved. Before, they would take a single interview and chop it up into several “interviews.” It was pathetic in another sense. The posting pieces have improved greatly but the site didn't have to change as much as it did. That could had been added and the other stuff adjusted. To ban a bulk of the subscribers and restrict the postings didn't do this site any favors.