Israeli Archaeologists May Have Found Emmaus, Where Jesus Appeared After Crucifixion

May 2016
4,155
1,095
california
Fair enough. I don't see any reason to believe the supernatural nature of these tales. I feel that many believe without question owing to the weight of history, that is, all the believers that went before, and the fact they were born into the culture that believes. If we were presented with these stories afresh, without the weight of history most would dismiss them as fantasies.
Well supernatural is just a super, natural event but the "resistance" to the oppression of state supported religions would seem to logically apply to other indoctrinations such as state supported science.
 
Nov 2008
64,784
5,101
Washington state
I do not "oppose the discovery" of anything. That does not even make sense. You should read my posts again, for comprehension this time.

Not to mention your use of the term "supposed religious Jew" is highly offensive and borders on the antisemitic.
Its what you triangulated with the discovery I found odd. Surprised you wouldn’t be excited about a discovered town where the Ark rested at one time. Instead you think the OP is trying to prove God exist with this discovery. It just proves a town exist


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Nov 2008
64,784
5,101
Washington state
The Glenfinnan viaduct has historical significance to Harry Potter followers and rail buffs too, Architects, engineers and steam fanatics all find it important. Respect their enthusiasms.
That’s fiction, this discovery proves a fact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Nov 2008
64,784
5,101
Washington state
I did read it - apparently better than you did.

She asserted a fact. She was wrong.

No, it does not.

I am not bothered by the discovery. I am saying that MichelleZ's assertion is wrong. And your "supposed Jew" comment is highly offensive.

Xian theology has nothing to do with the Jewish religion.
The only reason you are offended is Christ showed up in this town after he rose from the dead. Other then that, the Ark was there and that shouldn’t offend you, but it probably does since you are just about offended by anything you can’t prove scientifically


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Nov 2008
64,784
5,101
Washington state
The OP and the thread title conflated a few old rocks and a miracle as if one were proof of the other. Do you live in MZ's head to know so intimately what the troll meant?
MichelleZ sounds like a religious person and I am as well. Its not to hard to figure out we have similarities in beliefs. Its not to hard to figure out you and most others are outraged with Christians. I could care less because most of them are Trolls looking for attention


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Nov 2013
11,623
11,630
NY
The OP never stated discovering the city was proof God exists.
And no one said anything to that degree.. so why are you going off topic here ?
It simply stated a city in the Bible was discovered. It just confirms a city named in the Bible exist that had been non existent for a long time.
Did YOU or Michelle doubt the existence prior to the discovery ?
Why Atheist/Secularist lose their minds when this happens baffles me. Why does a God that doesn’t exist in their minds make them upset?
The only person upset in this thread, is you, and Michelle… the rest is actually very chill.
 
Nov 2013
11,623
11,630
NY
The only reason you are offended is Christ showed up in this town after he rose from the dead. Other then that, the Ark was there and that shouldn’t offend you, but it probably does since you are just about offended by anything you can’t prove scientifically
Now see, this is still a exaggeration, but I can get behind that statement "somehow"...
If someone stupidly insists that something that cannot be proven scientifically is "a proven fact", that I do take offense with, yes. But I take offense with the stupidity, not with the person. The person I rather pity, yet don't think a lot about, since it doesn't affect me one bit.

Not to mention the stupidity of arguing "proof" for something that by it's definition is - and HAS to be - purely based on FAITH, as per their own God denying a proof of his existence, as a "test" of their devotion, and faith..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panzareta

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
52,009
38,923
Pennsylvania, USA
What’s your point? this town has historical significance to a religious person. Why does that bother you? To MichelleZ and other religious people it’s important . If its not important to you don’t harass others that think its important. She is being very civil here, why can’t you?
 

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
52,009
38,923
Pennsylvania, USA
What’s your point? this town has historical significance to a religious person. Why does that bother you? To MichelleZ and other religious people it’s important . If its not important to you don’t harass others that think its important. She is being very civil here, why can’t you?
I disagree with your claim that I was less than civil, merely because I questioned the logic she put forth in her OP. My tone was measured. I did not assume a mocking or disparaging tone, nor did I attack MichelleZ as a person.
 
Mar 2019
3,285
1,687
"US" of A
Atheists use the EXACT same faith to disbelieve as Christians use to believe. Except we have historical documents and the Bible and ancient history toprove our case. Atheists have NOTHING but their angry faith in no God.
Any word on archeological evidence of where Mary got laid/impregnated?