Who is King?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Who is King?
Who is King?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Elvis, of course
Christ is King, but this Elvis joke made my fricking morning.
Thanks, anon.
Cool story bro; Xerxes and Alexander said the same thing. Why should we believe any of them; let alone give a frick which unjust butthole is crowning them when we don't consent to being governed by them.
…are we mad at Elvis? The funny music man?
Is that the level we’ve stooped to?
If it’s Jesus you take issue with, it was the Romans who called him that sarcastically and for his treason to the Empire. Christians appropriate it both to point to His theological importance as an aspect of the Triune God and to take the piss at an empire that thought they could destroy Him.
I’m not generally pro Monarchy, but people by and large don’t consent to their own governance even when it’s a different form of government.
Athenians didn’t consent to democracy except for those who installed it (or re-installed it after it was interrupted).
Absolutely. Anyone unlucky enough to be near wherever he ended up governing was toast. He’s very lucky he got Gaul and not Syria.
Agree. Long is a classic alternate history fodder figure.
Hilariously Caesar also literally refused the Kingship. Fun bit of irony there.
>no Michael Jackson
Shit choices
>Homeless peasant who literally believed the end of the world would happen within his lifetime
>Guy born into obscene amounts of wealth and privilege, so sheltered he doesn't know how to handle a pen not functioning
>Good guy in the Roman civil war but also genocided a bunch of Celts for no reason
>King Arthur?
>Actual cartoon character who once punched a 60-year-old governor in the face
>Guy who stole from black music
Caesar's the only non-fraud here.
I mean, we do know the reason; Caesar was trying to build up wealth and political capital as he sought to move up in Roman politics, but the invasion of Gaul was unnecessary beyond personal ambitions.
>no reason
Money, clout and an excuse to raise and and train troops loyal to him seem reason enough.
He is kang
Only one of them managed to defeat death.
So, that one.
Charles hasn't beaten his cancer just yet, so don't be premature.
I said death, not cancer.
Then who are you talking about?
Who defeated death, anon?
Certainly not some israeli rabbi two thousand years ago.
The Bible disagrees.
Then the Bible is wrong.
Prove it didn't happen, show me the remains of Jesus.
How many angels were in the tomb? Where did Jesus first appear to the Apostles? Who were the first women at the tomb? Did they say anything to anyone else? How many people were witness to it? Did anyone else rise from the grave?
So you can't show them tome.
Oh well.
Find me the bones of Julius Caesar or else he never existed.
We're talking about the Resurrection, if you want to prove the Bible wrong and destroy Christianity forever, show Jesus' remains.
Would Christians believe it even if you did find his bones? I doubt it. Faith is inherently contrary to sound reason, since it is not based on evidence. Any contrary evidence is dismissed as misleading or deceitful. Nevertheless, the accounts are all confused in spite of it allegedly being written by God and Jesus failed to fulfill the one prophecy that he did make, so I doubt that he rose from the dead. If he did, it still does not make him God or prove that anyone else will rise from the dead because of his resurrection.
>Would Christians believe it even if you did find his bones?
I would.
>Faith is inherently contrary to sound reason, since it is not based on evidence.
Faith is trust, it has nothing to do with evidence or lack thereof.
>Nevertheless, the accounts are all confused
They all agree on the basic points, even you should be able to acknowledge this.
>in spite of it allegedly being written by God
The Gospels weren't written by God.
>and Jesus failed to fulfill the one prophecy that he did make,
Which one?
>Faith is trust, it has nothing to do with evidence or lack thereof.
Yes it does, or have you not read Paul?
>Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
What do you think this means? Trust implies that you do not have a knowledge of it, therefore it implies that you have no evidence.
That's not archaeological evidence. If I said that an Indian yogi rose from the dead 30 years ago and he's going to save everyone from death would you believe it? What if I performed miracles in his name?
>What do you think this means?
It means trusting God.
>Have you believed, Thomas, because you have seen? Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.
>What if I performed miracles in his name?
You're telling me that even if I were to perform actual miracles in front of you in Jesus' name you'd still not believe?
>What if I performed miracles in his name?
Good luck with that
Of course he wouldn't. Evidence has nothing to do with unbelief, it's just a pretense for sin. "They will not believe even if a man rose from the dead"
If the court wizards of Pharaoh performed miracles in front of me and I did not see Moses, should I believe their claims just because they demonstrate supernatural power? This is foolishness.
You're gonna have to rephrase your question because it doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense. Why does the demonstration of supernatural power indicate that the person performing the miracles is providing true testimony? We have a perfect example of this in the Book of Exodus, in which Moses and the court wizards are both performing miracles. Now you will say "Moses is correct because he performed the greater of the miracles," but let us remove Moses from that situation and ask ourselves what the significance of a miracle is. If all I had were the court wizards from Exodus to perform miracles and tell me to believe in Khnum, should I do it? Surely they demonstrate power and it would be impious to say otherwise, right? Is power all there is to it? Is it not written that one of the beasts of revelation will have a fatal wound and be miraculously healed? Your reasoning regarding miracles can justify both the holy and the unholy. It has to be put up to more scrutiny, which implies that it has to rest on verifiable truth claims and consistency and not just the demonstration of power.
>If all I had were the court wizards from Exodus to perform miracles and tell me to believe in Khnum, should I do it?
Ask yourself that question, should you do it?
No, because any statement arguing that a miracle proves anything about the supernatural world other than the existence of some being, whose nature we cannot know, is a non sequitur.
>No, because any statement arguing that a miracle proves anything about the supernatural world
It proves that the supernatural exists, that's the entire point.
That's not the entire point. Do you really think that people during the time of Jesus did not believe in the supernatural? You're looking at things with a modern lens. In the story, the problem of the israelites is that Jesus made a claim that was not consistent with the Torah and the Prophets and thus they rejected his miracles. You can argue that their unbelief was a pretense for sin, and indeed Judea was very sinful at the time, but a miracle is supposed to provide testimony about someone. Yet if we know that the evil one can perform signs and wonders and will convince many according to the Apocalypse of John, how can we judge the truth of a claim by miracles if both good and evil can do it?
How do you know that it's true? Prove it.
>How do you know that it's true?
By the impossibility of the contrary
The miracles He performed were the fulfillment of OT prophesies, that's how we know.
>Why does the demonstration of supernatural power indicate that the person performing the miracles is providing true testimony?
Because God alone has that power.
>the court wizards are both performing miracles
No they weren't, it was a deception, that's why Moses had power over them.
This is cope, I'm not even going to entertain it.
As a Christian I agree.
Jesus, a literal performer of Miracles, was clear that faith based on miracles and magic hoodoo displays is the cheapest and most fragile kind.
All you have to do to see magic is to be stupid enough to be convinced of it.
Actually, faith is the ground of reason. What you call reason is an emotional unreason driven by hostility to the Lord of truth. You can pretend your worldview is "based on the evidence", but as "evidence" always means ideas you like and what authority figures tell you to believe, and as there is no reason for reason but God, it is anything but rational.
You're correct, all knowledge is defined as Justified True Belief, yet all the philosophizing of the past few centuries has demonstrated that everyone we hold is on faith. You can accuse me of being the one contrary to reason, but I don't belong to the group that ripped Hypatia apart for being a heathen, nor burned men like Giordano Bruno at the stake, nor persecuted Galileo Galilei, nor considered the "wisdom of the world" to be foolishness. You are the one who is contrary to reason, and yet you have called it your ally. Is it not said "Credo quia absurdum est"? And yet you say "Credo quia veritas et non absurdum est."
>I don't belong to the group that ripped Hypatia apart for being a heathen, nor burned men like Giordano Bruno at the stake, nor persecuted Galileo Galilei
No, you're part of the group that killed scientists in China, strictly prohibited dissent in Russia, and slaughtered countless of innocents in France.
>nor considered the "wisdom of the world" to be foolishness
The wisdom of the world is foolishness, and you are testimony to that. You yourself admitted everything you believe is blind faith, since you do not have the sure foundation of truth provided by the word of God, but *I* am supposed to be the irrational one?
You're accusing me of being an atheist when I am not, so be careful in your assumptions. And if you say that the wisdom of the world is foolishness, how can you determine that what you say is wise? Feelings? Just because you say that it is?
>You're accusing me of being an atheist when I am not
I don't care which sect of secularism you're with
>And if you say that the wisdom of the world is foolishness, how can you determine that what you say is wise?
By the only standard of truth, the word of God.
Bruno was genuinely a beautiful mind, albeit heretical.
Hypatia too was an incredible mind. A great loss.
Galileo was a petty butthole who made enemies with anyone who didn’t blindly accept his theories. He was a poor man’s Copernicus.
I’m all for calling attention to the sins of the past, but the fact Galilei gets to be a martyr because he was a prick and had to suffer ‘house arrest’ in a gorgeous villa in Venice is beyond irritating.
He doesn’t deserve to share a paragraph with the other two.
God not real, though
As a Christian, and thus someone who disagrees with “faith is the absence of sound reason” I agree with you on this.
I believe in Christ, but if evidence came out tomorrow that it was a lie I’d need to wrestle with that evidence. Depending on the evidence I might need to change my beliefs to correspond with reality, even if that’s painful.
For a lot of people, however, the inertia of belief is so strong that nothing can ever make them abandon it. They would rather claim the sky is red if that’s what it takes to preserve their belief.
I don’t necessarily look down on these people, I think most of us have some beliefs we’d have a hard time reevaluating, but it’s definitely not ideal and definitely not good for mind and soul.
If it is not true, it cannot be of God. Simple as.
Do we have archaeological evidence to prove Jesus existed?
Yes, testimonies.
A real King is chosen by THE LORD
Huey made a cool capitol, but outside that he is only a fun what if guy. I believe he would've won if FDR didn't kill him, and the world would've been a very different place, but that's it.
No, no, no, he went from a baron to the Khan - that's a bigger title than King btw.
that would be a khagan, not khan
Sorry, was von Ungern khagan or is khan equivalent to king?
Aren't you forgetting someone?
Michael Jackson
Elvis is king. Death to the israelites.