Jesus liked a bit of the ole Judean sausage!

[Kix]

I agree that the historical documentation for Jesus is good enough for us to say he actually existed. I used to think I was a pretty smart guy, and that the points made by Christian apologetics like C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell were good enough to make me give Christianity a chance.

That’s good to hear. Atheism has basically been on a constant decline in the philosophy community since the 60’s. There’s been some good stuff coming out.

Actually, the historicity of Jesus is a fascinating question, but I feel that even if we have a long drawn out debate where we decide what it is we can reasonably agree or disagree on, we’ll still come to an impasse. I’ve researched the question and attended services enough to realize that most churchgoers are actually indifferent about these topics; the people who are the most passionate about reading the apologetics literature aren’t people like me when I was in college, who had personal crises in their lives and wanted to see what Christianity has to offer. Actually, it’s raging atheists and Bible thumpers who obsess over debates like this the most. (Fortunately, since the promulgation of the internet, I’ve seen very enlightening discussions as a result of these people.)

There really isn’t even a viable argument against his historicity. As I said; not only is his existence UNIVERSALLY accepted, but even details around the crucifixion are accepted that could even lead you to think the resurrection makes the most sense. As I see people like fishjie talk about this, I think now of the people rejecting philosophy, the Big Bang and history because it’s easier just to ignore the best evidence.

You’ll often see people talking about how theists are stupid, or that Christians - specifically evangelicals are stupid. I guess you can grant them that as there are a lot of stupid Christians, but what a lot of them don’t realize is that the philosophical backing on Christianity is HUGELY developed and at higher levels they often aren’t even aware of the consensus of scholarship, or they desperately try to attack it even if they don’t understand it.

What Kix derisively refers to as “pop-atheism” has, imo, persuasively argued that this attribute of the NT is indicative of hagiography and forces us to take what is said in the NT with a LARGE grain of salt if we are going to be using it as a historical text.

This isn’t something that pop-atheism is persuasively arguing, this is something that is known, but still very much considered by historians. As I’ve said, historians might even largely think one thing is a myth, or multiple things are myths or even inaccurate, yet they are able to confidently reconstruct history.

Not only are the four points I gave accepted by pro, opposing and neutral historians, but by and large what Jesus says in the gospels is considered to be what the historical Jesus said. Remember that there are things historians don’t accept as history and might label a myth but actually could have happen, yet they can’t make that call. Like for instance, although those four facts are accepted, the historian has to stop short of “Jesus historically rose from the dead” even if they think that logically makes the most sense of the facts.

Also, WLC has to be one of the oiliest apologetics debaters out there–his support of the creationism/ID movement has seriously damaged his credibility in my eyes, and the scientifically dishonest arguments he has paraded around in these debates make me question his reliability outside his area of expertise (philosophy and theology.) For example, correct me if I’m wrong, but WLC is not an expert in textual hermeneutics. Many of the quotations upthread from Kix are culled from his website and I seriously doubt whether we can trust him (that is, WLC) to have preserved the nuanced contexts from which they were taken.

This isn’t going to work.

First of all, WLC has been using the same arguments, like FOREVER yet no one even has countered them decently in the last 20 years in ANY debate. Just watch them. He doesn’t even really switch it up. He’s not being ‘sly’ he just using the scholarly consensus and I think that’s why it’s so hard to argue against him.

Craig is not only probably one of the top philosophers on time but probably in general alive today. He’s well rounded and he studied got a doctorate in Munich. He’s well aware of the historical consensus and even gives lists of names. How you can say that it isn’t trustworthy is ridiculous. The study of the literature isn’t something he’s making up either and I know about Ehrman, Ludemann, Crossan and the rest of the opposition. They even say they accept these things. So you can’t just simply say it isn’t trustworthy. Dr. Craig is also well aware of current science. He knows what’s accepted and he’s able to explain it.

As for the creationism/ID thing, he’s part of an ID group but he actually doesn’t even care if there is common ancestry etc… I think he’s correctly realized that these things don’t really do anything to Christian theism. So he’s not anti-evolution or something retarded like that, he’s only skeptical about things are considered open scientific questions regarding it. “Evolution” is not a question and is universally accepted. This is retarded that creationism or some ID actually make it so they’re against evolution. It just makes them look stupid.

I think also the fact is that you’ll have to think about the kind of person Craig is. Since, in my mind, ID really makes much more sense are a philosophy against an atheistic one, I think that it should be presented as such. Craig kind of attaches himself to causes and things in hopes that it will kind of move people over. For instance, he’s Protestant but he doesn’t go complaining about Catholicism and how it’s evil, even though things make him very uncomfortable in it. In regard to Mormonism, even though it’s not like Christianity at all, he takes a more laid back approach in hopes that some Mormons will come to a more orthodox understanding of God. I think that he probably associates himself with a group like an ID group because he thinks it’s philosophically viable, even if he doesn’t agree with everything.

In regards to hermeneutics (for those of you reading that do not know what this means - it’s the interpretations of text), theology is one of his strong points. He knows a large amount of the Greek and Hebrew and he also knows about scholarship in regard to things like biblical interpretation. Keep in mind the man is also very smart. Additionally he’s well aware of interpretations throughout church history and is familiar with writings by church fathers and theologians. I think it’s actually dishonest of you to say this also because if you keep track of his Q&A he even brings in someone that is an expert in a field that he is not.

So no, I don’t think he really goes outside his line of expertise as he’s well aware of contemporary scholarship in various areas. I don’t think this really escapes his arguments.

So yes, I think that Jesus has largely become a mythical (or legendary, whatever) figure by today, primarily because of the way churchgoers themselves choose to present Christianity. (At least, this is my personal experience.) I was brought up in a Chinese family where old relatives enjoyed telling folk tales culled from pseudo-historical medieval fiction and the like, and the parallels I found between my childhood and my college experience with Christianity were striking. (The historical truth doesn’t matter to these people as much as the fact that these stories and narratives become a way for communities to identify themselves and place themselves in a larger historical and philosophical context.) Online, I have been fortunate to meet accomplished debaters who were more interested in discussing the facts, and after having followed these discussions for several years, I have found nothing in the apologetics literature that would be “good enough” to convince a nonbeliever through rational arguments. Sorry, but none of it withstands scrutiny. The historical documentation is either contradictory or not there. (For example, the fate of the apostles is even more poorly documented than the martyrdom of Jesus, so the “the apostles wouldn’t die for a lie” argument, while compelling, is wholly inadequate for the kind of historical revisionism Christian apologists try to use it for.)

I’m not actually aware of how well documented the deaths are of the apostles, but it is well documented that the Christians were harshly persecuted. So you could easily imagine the apostle’s deaths.

I don’t think it’s true that these things don’t stand up to scrutiny. Sometimes an argument is avoided in a way that it leaves the argument fine - just that there could be an alternative.

What do I think about the crucifixion and resurrection? I don’t know. There are historical documents that confirm the martyrdom of Jesus but disagree on the manner of his sentencing (sorry, I don’t have the exact references.) The empty tomb? Okay, if we can trust the gospels, sure. But in the earliest versions of Mark, there are some scholars (I’m thinking of Bart Ehrman specifically) who believe that the gospel of Mark actually ENDS when the women find the empty tomb; the brief passage about a walking, talking Jesus after his crucifixion at the end of Mark might actually be a later addition made by scribes. What do I think about this? As I said, I don’t know. The evidence cuts both ways. (The prophecies that the NT says that Jesus fulfilled are indefensible however. Biblical passages from the OT are either misquoted or fabricated outright in the NT’s use of them. Here I can provide references, so I can give them if you ask.)

Well yeah, actually I think Mark might even end at the crucifixion by the earliest manuscripts. The problem then becomes Paul’s epistles which are earlier and contain the resurrection story.

I actually think, however, in spite of the Bible, (rather than because of it,) the Christian faith does have some redeeming aspects, but THAT is a whole 'nother ball game folks. For those who still care and are still reading, I’m an atheist who nevertheless happens to respect the religious faith of other people. Personally, I feel that if there IS a god that created the universe and can be “proved” with clever philosophical arguments, I don’t think (correct me if I’m wrong) that he will at all resemble the Judeo-Christian deity in way, shape or form. Sure, the Bible MIGHT be right about the creator of our universe… but really? Where’s the evidence? (Really, show it to me. I still haven’t seen it. And I have seen a lot. So surprise me here.)

When you say “with clever philosophical arguments” you make it seem like you outright reject some. If something was complex would you just say it’s ‘clever’ and think that it isn’t valid?

I think it’s too late for God not to resemble the Judeo-Christian God.

(1) If the universe was created, God is eternal and non-physical. +2
(2) In philosophy, the classical concept of God being the ultimate and greatest conceivable being is really the arguable one. +1
(3) If Platonism isn’t true, yet mathematical and logical truths are not “useful fictions” then you could say they are necessary part of God’s nature, thus explaining their necessity. Possible +1
(4) If our moral intuition is true at all and it is good to love, etc, and objective moral values exist, these are stated within Judeo-Christian scripture to be part of God’s nature. This isn’t the case for a god like Allah who can just decide that Muhammed and his followers should go to hell because he changed his mind. This is unique for the Judeo-Christian God. +1
(5) If the resurrection happened. +1
(6) Sin and salvation basically only makes sense in Judeo-Christianity. Otherwise they are arbitrary commands. +1

I mean that’s just some.

I’m sorry, but the Christian deity works in ways too mysterious for any rationally thinking human being, which makes precluding the possibility of his (that is, the Judeo-Christian god’s) existence an intellectually defensible position. As for the philosophical and theological arguments used by apologists, they result in a “God” so ontologically ill-defined as to be incomprehensible. (A father, a son, and a holy ghost? All powerful, all knowing, AND all good? I don’t want to get into it here, since this post is already long enough, but these ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny either.)

Well, would you say that it logically doesn’t make sense for God to be a Trinity? Maybe there is love between the persons of the Trinity within God’s being, giving God the attribute of love without creatures to love. Limitless power and knowledge is a fine definition. When you say the apologists use philosophy, don’t think of it with disdain. Philosophy is the best way to gain knowledge. Even philosophy underlies science and so many question are outside the scope of science.

I think if you grant the Christian worldview, you’re going to have a hard to arguing against it. So I don’t think that you suddenly become an irrational person because it takes thought to make sense of things.

[Kix]

And besides, because this is God we are talking about, I could say to you that He could find a way of making his existence known without causing resentment. If He couldn’t do that, then that would challenge his status as omnipotent.

Well, don’t be so sure about that. Maybe it’s not feasible for God to have created such a world because it would eliminate human free will. If you say it’s emotional, maybe a world in which God eliminated emotions worse things would happen, or maybe emotion is a tool that helps bring people to God.

Oh yes. Believe me, I have tried. Especially the teleological arugment, that was my big thing. I had a Youtube channel for videos on Intelligent Design, I had a closed thread on the subject successfully re-opened on appeal (claiming it was a scientific and not religious subject), etc.

Well, think of it this way. You don’t need to think that God individual designs and put creatures on the Earth at certain times, rather this deals specifically with the constants of the universe. So basically, from the cosmological arguments: the universe began to exist. So you’d think it was contingent as it wasn’t necessary. Then this teleological argument really has to do with the fine tuning in the constants. So you don’t at all need to reject evolution, common ancestry, natural selection, etc. You can keep all of that. This merely makes the point that the universe was designed. Not that it’s optimally designed or anything like that.

I had my series of ‘gaps’ into which God would fit. Cosmological argument (unmoved mover to create existence from non-existence), intelligent design argument (to create biology from physics, and further refine it), also I believed in the Soul by exploiting the hard problem of consciousness (how to go from a brain to a mind).

Don’t think of God filling the gaps there. It’s something that is logically gathered. So for instance if the universe began to exist, then it follows unavoidably. It isn’t an explanatory hypothesis filling the gap.

I think that it’s good that you realized the problem of consciousness. Have you solved it any different now?

But the turning point came ironically when I was reading ‘The Edge of Evolution’, an ID book by Dr Michael Behe (a leading ID proponent). He used malaria as a good source of proof for intelligent design. Now, it was more to do with the fact that its reproduction and mutation rate were so high that it illustrated what evolution could NOT do. But at the same time it just triggered all my thoughts about the philosophical ‘problem of evil’.

Well the problem of evil has been pretty much universally abandoned as logical proof against God since Alvin Plantinga. Now it’s used for “God probably doesn’t exist, but not necessarily…” Given that, the arguments for God’s existence don’t go away, but also now you could just say “God permits evil for a greater good.” and define it like “A world in which suffering exist may lead to the greater amount freely choosing to enter into a salvation relationship with God.”. As long as that is even possible, the burden of proof shifts.

For something like malaria to be a part of God’s plan, in any way shape or form (even if to disprove the naturalistic alternatives to His existence), well that became unnacceptable to me. The thought of the millions of people who have died to malaria simply because their country is hot enough to support the damn thing… and the problem of evil in general. I mean, I’d read the newspaper and see cases of tremendous evil in this world, and all of this emo stuff just outweighed the purely rational arguments in favour of God I had constructed up to that point.

Is this a logical argument or an emotional one? What if what I said above could logically make sense of it?

Like: what is the point of believing in a God who is an asshole? He’s not answering a single question I have of him. So I just canned the whole thing. I’m now trying to make sense of life from a more existential perspective, and have settled on ‘absurdism’ for now.

Maybe God’s not an ass. For instance, some in the church (Christians) in Africa think that maybe their suffering was a good thing because it actually led to their accepting Christ. Or even me - I’ve had a bad disability my entire life. Although not as bad as others, it has caused a lot of pain but probably partially led me here. Is God wrong to have given me my pain? I don’t think so, even if he did so directly.

[Netology]

I don’t think it means anything to say God exists. God can’t exist in the same way a tree exists, or an atom, or a dream. Everything we know to exist exists in relation to something else, contingently, temporally. God doesn’t exist in any of those ways, it doesn’t mean anything to say he exists.

Arguments that “prove” God exists miss the point. Proving he exists would give god the same existential status as a tree or dream. Qualifying his existence with atemporality or non-contingency also miss the point, since such negations are meaningless to an honest person and contradict what we understand existence to be. We have no mental faculty that could experience such a form of existence or imagine it. But we can talk about it because language is flexible and lets us talk about “furious green dreams that sleep deeply”, and other nonsensical statements.

I think people take words for granted when they talk about god or the Universe. They don’t bother to ask what a “beginning” would entail and if there actually are discrete beginnings to anything.
Nothing goes in and out of existence. We can’t observe such a thing. Nothing is gained or lost. People talk about the Universe as an object, an artifact that exists in some meta-universe. And ask how it got there. As if it can traverse two realms, one of existence and one of non-existence. But that isn’t the case. Nothing has a beginning, everything is changing. Nothing goes in and out of existence. Things transform, they function and change functions.

Of course these are all observations from within the set, nothing we observe within the set necessarily applies to the set as a whole. Thus asking what caused the universe (because we observe things within it being caused) is just as ridiculous as asking what color is the universe.

Also, if something exists outside the universe and is causally linked to it somehow, then by definition it is part of the universe, since the Universe should be thought of as the totality of all that exists, not just the set of planets and energy we observe. Even if there is a Super-wizard somewhere manipulating our planets and appearing in human form on earth, he simply becomes part of the great chain of causality, and in the grand scheme of things is no greater than a leaf or person.

[Kix]

I don’t think it means anything to say God exists.

Does the statement “I love you.” have no meaning? Verificationism has been long dead in philosophy.

If you’re still on the not being defined part, it’s been defined and mostly referring to a Judeo-Christian concept of God.

God can’t exist in the same way a tree exists, or an atom, or a dream. Everything we know to exist exists in relation to something else, contingently, temporally. God doesn’t exist in any of those ways, it doesn’t mean anything to say he exists.

God (more like ‘god’ if this is the case) would suck major ass if he was like any of those things. I think God exists in relation to his creation (but also independently). Is this not good enough? God could be very real in that way and I’m sure plenty of people can see the meaning there.

In one of my last posts I said that atheism has been on a decline in philosophy for half a century. Atheistic philosophy is by and large outdated. Even serious atheistic philosophers (a dying breed) such as Graham Oppy don’t even make the point that theism isn’t rational or a feasible belief. He just makes room for atheism to also be a rational belief as well.

I think people take words for granted when they talk about god or the Universe. They don’t bother to ask what a “beginning” would entail and if there actually are discrete beginnings to anything.
Nothing goes in and out of existence. We can’t observe such a thing. Nothing is gained or lost. People talk about the Universe as an object, an artifact that exists in some meta-universe. And ask how it got there. As if it can traverse two realms, one of existence and one of non-existence. But that isn’t the case. Nothing has a beginning, everything is changing. Nothing goes in and out of existence. Things transform, they function and change functions.

So you’re saying your being a human being had no beginning? Did the Sun come into being? I know you’re using philosophy to reject the Big Bang’s implications and I can respect that so far as you understand that you aren’t doing it on scientific grounds. Even in that the universe comes into being.

Is your nature not human but “atoms”? What of your consciousness? Did that begin? Why is there even consciousness?

Of course these are all observations from within the set, nothing we observe within the set necessarily applies to the set as a whole. Thus asking what caused the universe (because we observe things within it being caused) is just as ridiculous as asking what color is the universe.

So then what the hell have we been wasting our time with metaphysics for?

Would you agree that if there is nothingness is regard to something, since it has no property of a nature in itself, that it can’t do anything?

Also, if something exists outside the universe and is causally linked to it somehow, then by definition it is part of the universe, since the Universe should be thought of as the totality of all that exists, not just the set of planets and energy we observe.

Well how do you know that the universe is all that exist? No multiverses for sure, then.

Well if the logical follows from something like Kalam or the Ontological argument then I think we have good grounds for rejecting that. Even so it isn’t self-evident.

Even if there is a Super-wizard somewhere manipulating our planets and appearing in human form on earth, he simply becomes part of the great chain of causality, and in the grand scheme of things is no greater than a leaf or person.

1. Universe is the totality of all that exists.
2. To exist is to be contingent
3. There are no beginnings or endings, things transforms and gain new contingencies and new functions
4. Contingency is a property of the objects within the universe
5. Properties of objects within the universe do not apply to the whole, else it would be fallacy of composition
6. Thus from five, contingency and non-contingency don’t apply to the universe, they are relative terms that operate within in

I reject 2, 3,. I don’t think an existent thing needs to be contingent, logically. However, if it becomes then I’d say it metaphysically certain that it contingent on factors. God does come logically into the chain on causes, but God needn’t be contingent. If God was contingent then one could say he wasn’t God and the problem wouldn’t be solved.

When you say “wizard” just remember is two times as absurd to think that the universe came out of nothing by nothing than to think that there is a cause. It’s worse than magic for the atheist that can’t accept miracles.

Where would God fit in here? At best he is a powerful wizard type being who has great causal powers, but in the end, it is all relative, and he is simply another link in the chain of the set of things that exists.

Metaphysically and on a tensed theory of time, just fine.

I don’t understand how God’s greatest properties would go away if he was at the beginning of a chain of causes.

To exist is to be subordinate to the Universe. The set of all things that exists is the greatest conceivable, albeit, abstract entity. It transcends existence and non-existence, causality and non-causality.

Why couldn’t existence be a necessity of God’s nature (as in God cannot not be God) and then everything is subordinat to God? Everything that exists has differing natures and I do not think can be considered a real entity.

[Cisco]

So the only way Jesus could get people to follow him is either if he did some miracles or if he used psychological techniques of persuasion while working with a doctrine of an original religion.
I think it’s uncontroversial that his message was grounded in a previous religion. Specifically Judaism. He modified it, but it was his foundation. I’m sure we all agree that he didn’t simply create a new religion out of thin air…

Jesus had to have done something that would convince those people to believe that he was god. Not just words. It wasn’t just the miracles also because if you read the gospels, his followers jetted out for their lives when he got arrested, yet eventually they came back and became that brave to go through barbaric execution for what they believed him to be. You could say he was the greatest magician; the Houdini/Confucius of early AD Palestine, if so you can’t accept what they believed in him was true. But in the end, it is seriously illogical and impossible for him to have gotten such followers out of just words.

So now it remains, did he perform miracles or was he just a good speaker? In most cult cases, lets say 100% the cult leader has no magical powers, yet he gets plenty of followers simply because he is persuasive. Why should Jesus be an exception? Of course you will be biased, every genuine cult follower believes their leader is authentic while the others are just fakes.

It wasn’t just the miracles - forget about the walking on water, the calming of the storm, the raising of Lazurus and all of that… all of this did not solidify the belief his followers had. Because it is seen in the bible that his followers ran for their lives when Jesus got arrested. We see in the 4 gospels a huge transformation of these people, from early fishermen, tent makers, tax collectors, who deserted him when he got arrested then dramatically changed into men who really gave their lives for him in the end. It wasn’t the miracles or his ministry that changed and inspired their dedication to go that far. Their main claim is that he rose from the dead after being crucified, and they seriously believed he did rise after his execution. I am not denying that there have been cult leaders that gained their followers through something. And Jesus must have did something to have his followers - who were Hebrew, and we all know the religious culture of the Hebrews- that dedicated to him. It being like a Houdini like magic trick is up to you to assume and decide, in reality. but there is no way that we can possibly make a base full and logical argument that his disciples where just lying out of their asses about him.

There have been many christian opponents or just non-christian historians that have tried to answer this, such as Richard Carrier, who made an argument in his site that Jesus managed to resuscitate after his crucifixion. Of course he through that away after because it was ridiculous. Then there was Celsus, of early AD, who made so many arguments to debunk that theology by saying Jesus went to Egypt before and studied the art of the magicians there which is why he was that influential. All of that.

The main concern here isn’t just the lies of the cult leader, but how he deceived his followers. That is the first main concern; and that’s my argument.

[Netology]

snip

Basically what I’m saying is my idea of the Universe encompasses all of reality, every multiverse, every dimension, every entity, contingent or not. It is truly infinite since there is nothing that binds it or limits it. So it is ontologically infinite by definition. If Jesus exists, then he is part of it. If Jesus and Zeus exist then both are parts of it. Sure they are more powerful than we are, but we are more powerful than ants, in the end it’s all a matter of degree or perspective, the Universe is greater than all. Jesus and Zeus are limited by what they are not, the Totality is everything and does everything.

Questions like, where did it come from don’t apply to it. It’s a category error. Just like asking what color is it? Coming and going is what things in the Universe do.
Did it come from nothing? It didn’t come at all, it was and still is. There is no where for it to go since it contains every dimension, every level and realm.

snip

Having devoted followers does not imply that the leader is telling the truth. People believe and change and give their lives up for all sorts of crazy reasons. Human psychology is fragile and gullible.

[BEWD]

Having devoted followers does not imply that the leader is telling the truth. People believe and change and give their lives up for all sorts of crazy reasons. Human psychology is fragile and gullible.

Just ask Adolf Hitler.

[brokenstep]

godwins law
close thread
or jus close it for comparing jesus to hitler in its innate absurdity

[ThePurpleBunny]

Just ask Adolf Hitler.

Can’t. He’s dead.

[System_1]

The Lord of The Rings is gospel.

Frodo was the son of God.

Frodo loved Sam.

God is Gay.

Religion is gay.

Prove me wrong.

This thread, much like religion, served a utility in the beginning, but has since become obsolete.

[ThePurpleBunny]

What about Gandalf and Sarumon and Sauron and the One Ring and Hugo Weaving?

Especially Hugo Weaving.

I consider your post an attack on the church of the Awesomeness of Hugo Weaving.

Blasphemer.

[spudlyff8fan]

Typical conversation progression:

Some Atheist: I don’t believe in God!
Some Theist: Ok.

…or…

Some Theist: I believe there’s a God.
Some Atheist: CANUPROVEITTHEREISNOGODYOUCANTPROVEITCHRISTIANITYMAKESTHEWORLDBADGROWUPIAMSMARTERTHANUCUZIMNOTACONFORMISTIGOTMYBAPTISMREVOKEDLOLOLURDUMBYOUPROLLYDON’TBELIEVEINSCIENCETHEWORLDWOULDBEBETTEROFFWITHOUTRELIGIONRELIGIONISACRUTCHFORTHESTUPIDANDIMSMARTIFUCUDREASONWITHARELIGIOUSPERSONTHEREWOULDNTBERELIGIOUSPEOPLEIMSOSMART

[media=youtube]xCF19cBWb0I[/media]

[System_1]

What about Gandalf and Sarumon and Sauron and the One Ring and Hugo Weaving?

Especially Hugo Weaving.

I consider your post an attack on the church of the Awesomeness of Hugo Weaving.

Blasphemer.

Hugo Weaving is not a part of the scriptures of The Lord of The Rings.

He was added to the mythos several decades later.

Most believe that the Book of Hugo was heavily influenced by Smith, the alleged author of The Matrix Scrolls - even so far as the lack of mannerisms and intonation seen therein, and should thus be viewed as heresy.

[ThePurpleBunny]

Hugo Weaving is not a part of the scriptures of The Lord of The Rings.

He was added to the mythos several decades later.

Most believe that the Book of Hugo was heavily influenced by Smith, the alleged author of The Matrix Scrolls - even so far as the lack of mannerisms and intonation seen therein, and should thus be viewed as heresy.

The problem is that Smith was a creation of artificial intelligence that was allowed to spread unchecked, making the Book of Hugo a product of that memory leak. Once the Matrix Scrolls were rebooted the influence of Smith was erased. Keanu Reeve’s ability to act was not improved, however.

[System_1]

The problem is that Smith was a creation of artificial intelligence that was allowed to spread unchecked, making the Book of Hugo a product of that memory leak. Once the Matrix Scrolls were rebooted the influence of Smith was erased. Keanu Reeve’s ability to act was not improved, however.

Many esteemed theologians agree that vestigial nuances of Smith can be seen within The Book of Hugo, and thus there is strong contention as to The Book of Hugo’s being a proper piece of The Gospel of The Lord of The Rings.

The books of V and of Abernathy, however, are unanimously agreed upon as being canonical within their respective regiliosities.

[BEWD]

Can’t. He’s dead.

People still hear from Jesus and he’s dead

[ThePurpleBunny]

The books of V and of Abernathy, however, are unanimously agreed upon as being canonical within their respective regiliosities.

Yeah, but the book of V makes the claim that Hugo died after suffering a barrage of direct gunfire. This contradicts the fact that Hugo has the power to deflect bullets just by staring at them. There is the theory that his soul transferred to a jet that can turn into a robot, but nobody has found how that happened.

[angelpalm]

OnceJesus came to me in a vision. He had a serious rape face going on with that beard so I just pretended that he wasn’t there. 100% true story

[Cisco]

Having devoted followers does not imply that the leader is telling the truth. People believe and change and give their lives up for all sorts of crazy reasons. Human psychology is fragile and gullible.

Dude, you didn’t read my post carefully. The point of my argument isn’t about it being true, not just yet. As you can see with our talks of other cults. The main question is, how did they (the followers) come to their solid-personal conclusion that their leader was God. Please read my post carefully because your reply to me is just asking for the same thing i already covered in my post before this.

[System_1]

Yeah, but the book of V makes the claim that Hugo died after suffering a barrage of direct gunfire. This contradicts the fact that Hugo has the power to deflect bullets just by staring at them. There is the theory that his soul transferred to a jet that can turn into a robot, but nobody has found how that happened.

Most people of at least middling intellect flat out reject the robo-jet, and all that the book of Bay represents as being part of the faith of Cybertronianismanity.

The death of Hugo, as chronicled within The Book of V, marks but one of several miraculous survivals of His - much as The Book of Abernathy, where, despite being obviously rendered beaten and near death, Hugo was able to instill a plot device within the beastial mind of del Turro, causing the Wolfman to forego his bloodlust, and pass up the kill to chase a skirt.

Hugo works in mysterious ways.