Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists?
I'm unable to assess the intellect of 'masses'. Intellectual merit is best placed upon 'individuals'? Is popularity an accurate yard stick for mearsuring one's intellect?
who cares it's how kind you are that helps.....
So, what you are saying is whatever god we imagine that fulfills whatever is missing in our lives, even if there is no actual evidence for such a god, must be true. So that also gives us the right to force people to teach such a thing in school, put "in god we trust" on the money, and proclaim this nation to be a christian one even though the first amendment says otherwise. Also let's burn witches and stone heretics, that would be cool.
You misconstrue what I said, I merely approved people worshipping whatever god they choose follow, you seem to think that they should be forbidden this basic right, because YOU say there is no actual evidence?
The vast majority of humanity has a valid relationship with a spiritual entity they call god, I am not determining whether they worship the same God as I do, though a full 2/3rds of humanity profess belief and relationship with Christ, there are many other gods and spiritual forces to get involved with.
I simply say, so be it, let them do as they wish, they stake their eternal existence on being right, as I stake my eternal existence on being right.
We all find out the truth when we die,unless the atheists are right, and there is no God or gods to interact with, and there is no reason for life except to maintain the planet in a random function, in which case annihilation is the end play.
I lived as a nihilist for a few years, then came to my reality when spiritually awakened (by a lesser god).
No, what gives those rights is called 'democracy' whereupon the majority of people have some small say in how our countries are governed and ruled.
Unfortunately for niche sections of the public, they are the MINORITY and so cannot make God illegal in society, though they try very hard with the antichrist antics that we see here, to promote the concept that the vast majority MUST cede to the small minority.
Don't feel too bad, the minority have managed to gain the right to kill their unborn children at whim (and are pushing to kill newly born children as well, if they so desire) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … demic.html to demand that they not be 'offended' by sight of religious texts and symbols, to create a state where those unable or incapable by their own lifestyle choices to gain employment are paid to continue with those same bad choices whilst being paid by those who work, to be granted the right to 'marry' same sex partners, (though frankly that is a misnomer, however it's also a nonsense so it's irrelevant) and finaly the minority have been allowed to push theory as fact and teach their version of things in public schools, whilst banning prayer and God from the classroom.
No, I think the majority have catered well for the minority in these cases, allowing that they force their minority desires on the majority.
What seems to be the point where folk say 'enough' is when the minority demand that the majority accept their version of what constitutes truth, based solely upon their concept of what 'evidence' is.
That is a step too far.
The majority may be prepared to die to protect the minorities right to free speech, but the line is drawn when the minority try to use that free speech to suppress what the majority wishes to believe and profess to the world.
In it's root, that suppression is called fascism, no matter how 'liberal' you dress it up.People can believe whatever they want. It's a free country. What I do not approve of and what this country's laws don't approve of is forcing other people what to believe. I believe in what is real, I'm not liberal or conservative, I am a realist. You can imagine what is real and you can let some 2000 year old book written by shepherds tell you what is real or you can follow the evidence that tells you the difference between real and fantasy, either yours or someone else's from 20000years ago to now. You can believe what you like, I would rather believe what is real. End of story.
So long as YOUR definition of what is real prevails and all others MUST believe YOUR definition of reality.
OK, I understand.
Evidence, it's what you'd expect in court, isn't it?
You are childish for someone claiming to be older than I am.
I... am lighthearted dear sir.
I'll slow down now but I believe you should ease up a bit on your harsh ways of speaking of things.
And Agua left you with a question, which I refer to as well, look, I did - yes, a tizzy.. lol
You asked to be poked at by replying to EVERY post I had submitted recently.
So if I can't post objectively, I assumed it would be fair just to play and have fun.
Now, I'm not childish in the sense of lack of understanding, but I will accept I am very young at heart. Yes, indeed I am - and loving. And I love you as well.
Can I objectively post again without repeated words and cluttering my attempts to conversate with pre-debunked material?
I would love to discuss points, but that isn't possible with endless concepts and no resources for said concepts.
(So long as YOUR definition of what is real prevails and all others MUST believe YOUR definition of reality)
aguasilver,
Reality is a binary system, i.e., something is either real or it is not, and there is not a thing humans say, think, feel, define, believe, or hope that changes those facts.
The question then becomes: how do humans understand reality? The only avenue humankind has to understand reality is through reasoning. There is reality beyond the limits of humans' sentient system, x-rays, ultra-violet, atoms, etc., so as humans we have to reason what is most likely reality versus what is unlikely to be real - this guestimate is the best humans can do.
Humans devoloped an entire system of discovery to search for those answers, and we call that science. On the other side of the fence are those who claim supernatural explanations for any gaps in knowledge that science cannot fill.
But here is the thing: humans used to believe the sun was a god and that the wind was a god. I would venture that no one living today actually believes either claim, even if they profess to worship the sun. Why is it that no one believes these claims? Scientific advancement has shown those beliefs to be too incredulous to be considered valid.
The advancement of scientific knowledge usually comes at a loss to superstition. There is nothing in humankind's advancement of knowledge about reality that indicates that this correlation between science and superstition will change going forward.
The demon in "The Exorcist" was wrong when it whispered, "Fear the priest." It would have been more accurate for it to say, "Fear science."Blackart has a hero.
Winston has a grasshopper..
How cute.
lolYou claim I'm a child yet here you are attacking my character at every post I make, how truly immature of you.
It's kind of hard to see how you have anything philosophical, or even religious to say Vector when all you seem to be able to do is attempt to attack the character of people you've never even met. This shows us a dull one sided mentality of I choose to believe and that's all there is to it. If that's the case, then why waste your time trying to insult others and attacking their character? Does it give you some kind of cheap thrill?
lol - span the thread.
I'm poking at the kid. If what I said was so 'attacking' maybe you should read ALL of the posts including the ugly ones I don't cheap shot back at.
And how can you tell me about my assertions when your practicing opposite of what your preaching? lol
I have given up on rationalities because I end up repeatedly debunking regurgitated propaganda from last year when you nor the other was here.
And he chased every thread I posted down here recently. Seems to me you want to point the finger because either one - I'm Christian or two- you think I'm nitwitted.
Apologies to disappoint you.
I'm poking at the kid because he was arrogant to me repeatedly WITHOUT cause, and I'm not being ugly.. Goodness people relaxxxxx.. lol
You act like I'm, well.. Being just mean or something. Kinda like your post attempting to make me look bad.
If what I'm doing is so horrible, why the need to point it out?
Is the rest of the Hubpages society so unintelligent to you that you assume they won't notice without you pestering me? If you compare your post, to the one you responded to me about - You might get a little more insightful perspective on yourself, and the advice you might want to apply thereof.
And how do you know what 'all I do' is?
You JUST showed up..
I guess that makes you a fast learner and omnipotent as well.
[get it? lol]
Have a good one.Firstly, I have spanned this thread. I've been reading everything on it. Most of what you spout is about believing with no sort of facts to back you up in any thing you seem claim. Noting that Philosophy in and of itself is pondering, it in no way denotes that you have to believe in anyway. Hence why it is pondering and not belief.
Secondly, I'm not practicing the opposite of what I'm preaching. I willingly listen to everyone and give respect where respect is due. Anyone that continue to try and show their point without breaking down to basically calling people stupid in order to feel better about themselves is worthy of respect. This post of yours is a prime example of attacking a persons Character. Of course I have not been here for a year, assuming that I think you nitwitted is just dumb to begin with, and I really have no problems with Christians. Both my parents are Christians and I talk to them all the time. About much of the same stuff that is being discussed here. Your just trying to turn things so that the focus is on me being some sort of hate monger much like you do to everyone else. It shows through out all the posts that I've been apart of when you devolve from talking about the issue to basically doing things like you have above.
You claim to be debunking regurgitated propaganda when yet and still you yourself are doing the regurgitating when all your arguments basically boil down to well the bible says this or that. Whether you realise it or not, The Bible is yet to be considered a historical record, much less an accurate one. You devolve to it and the fact that you must believe instead of coming up with a consistent argument. Which again leaves you to propagating the propaganda rather than debunking it.
No need to apologize to me, I never tried to attack you or anything as you claim just because your Christian. I never once implied that you were nitwitted or anything else. These assumptions you are drawing yourself in an attempt to attack me because you know of know other way in which to reply. Much to the detriment of everyone else.
Has he been arrogant? Yes. Have you been arrogant? Yes. Two wrongs don't make a right though. Yet and still you keep doing it, and from what I've seen, each of your replies shows nothing but arrogance of how you are right and that's all there is to it. You show no sign of humility of any type and others should not be forced to deal with. Yet when someone does it back to you, all you can do is continue it instead of letting it lay.
I act based on what I see. You have the potential to change the way in which you show yourself to others, yet continue to do the same things over and over again. I'm not attempting to make you look bad, you've done that by yourself, that is why most of us ignore you. Attacking me just shows it, you could've left it lay but your ego wouldn't let that happen.
Why the need to point it? Because if our flaws aren't pointed out to us then we cannot learn and grow from them. Are we a bunch of wild animals to be left to our own devices our should we strive to be better than we were yesterday?
I haven't said anything about the rest of the Hubpages society, however this isn't the first time I've seen this pointed out to you. It is however the first time you've deemed it necessary to reply. What does this truly say about you? It seems as if your first rule of concern is denote the new guy by attacking immediately his credibility. So sorry to disappoint you in this, but my credibility here is relatively new and having someone attack doesn't appeal to my better senses.
I do not what all you do, your right about that. Though I can draw a scientific conclusion based on what I've seen of you. You want me to think differently then you need to show me differently.
Omnipotent? Did I saw I was a God to know all and be all? I don't think I've ever made such an inference. If you want to think that I am then go ahead but you will be sorely disappointed when you find out otherwise. As for a fast learner, yes I am. I always have been. Just as I was reading at a college level when I was in middle school. A little dedication to learning is not a bad thing. More people should take the time to do so, you'd be surprised how it can change your life.
I will have a good one, I hope you do as well.Goodness. I scanned.
The conflict your willing to engage in says enough. You preach at me, then engage in a argument about engaging in conflict. lol
And your long answers say 'I refuse to be wrong.'
Look, the kid pestered me, now your jumping in a boat not knowing which direction it was going and are now attempting a counter steer.
Please, get off my back.. lol
I never said half the things you're implying either, so chill.
And for peat sake, lighten up..
What is this? Chess to the death or something??? lol
Btw, all them words don't mean much. I don't see a single quote regarding your allegations.
Is there a reason you think I'm so 'attaking'?
And because I haven't posted all my knowledge forthwith you believe I'm ignorant?
Believe I'll let that assertion fall on it's on.
I'm a nice guy, the kid annoyed me to no end and I wasn't being mean. Just trying to prove a point to him. Now, can we be friends or what man?
Your call..
Or you can keep playing death chess. lol But don't expect me to get mad or serious. That just makes the discussion able to turn mean. I've already been down those roads long, long ago.Glad you could scan. Perhaps you should've actually read what I posted though. It just goes to show how much you don't want to know.
Conflict I'm willing to engage? Well yes, I quite frequently engage in conflict. That is about all life is. Every choice brings about a type of conflict all it's own after all.
Long answers say I refuse to be wrong huh? No my long answers actually say a lot you just don't feel like reading them.
Jumping in a boat? Nice effort of changing the subject. I made a post, you posted about it and so I'm not allowed to post to that? Wow, should've known things would devolve to something like that.
I'm not on your back, though if you wish to not have my speaking to you, just don't speak back to me and it will stop, not that complicated.
I don't remember implying you said something, but rather commenting on what I have seen that you've said.
Lighten up? I thought I was being rather light..then again philosophy isn't suppose to be light so perhaps I should actually be more serious.
Nah, I'm too good at chess and know all too well how easily things could change in a single move for something like that.
Of course you don't see a single quote. I reference all your comments that I have seen, quoting them all would take too long.
It's in the attitude that pours off your posts. Unless your one of those people who think that words don't mean anything. But then you wouldn't be a good Christian as most of your belief is based off the bible which is full of words.
I never said that you were ignorant, nor have I asked that you post everything you claim to know. I just suggest that while on a forum about philosophy, you should perhaps take the time to actually be philosophical instead of feeling the need to jump down people's throats and defend your religion.
I do believe that you will let it fall, even if you are unsure of which way it's actually going to fall.
OH.. and btw way..
About me attacking his character?
QUOTES please..
I am known to apologize if people bring to light things I'm not happy I submitted.
(Blackart has a hero. Winston has a grasshopper..How cute. lol)
vector7,
Interestingly enough, after a while willful ignorance is hard to distinguish from genuine stupidity. I have found that one way to resolve this dilemma is to examine whether there is argument being offered or simply petulent adolescent insults cast about mixed in with halleleujahs and amens.
Oh, by the way, I am still waiting to hear your reasoned argument.
The onus is on you to prove they were con artists.
A con artist is an individual operating alone or in concert with others who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty and honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naivety and greed.
There is no consistent profile of a confidence trick victim, the common factor is simply that the victim relies on the good faith of the con artist.
A hoax also involves deception, but without the intention of gain or of damaging or depriving the victim. A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.
People may still defend these lies but since we know that they are lies and the purpose of religion is to gain control of the masses, the authors of said book was using the faith of the people to gain trust in something that has been shown to not be 100% true... one man, the author, perhaps Moses OT and then whoever wrote Jesus NT. I apologize to you Christians and Jews who might be offended but I believe you have all been duped.In other words, you believe there is a conspiracy? That the story of Jesus' resurrection, etc, was a contrived hoax? How do you know that for a fact? Where's your irrefutable proof? You don't know it is lie that Jesus rose from the dead! That's not to say everything in the entire Bible is true. Most certainly not. In fact, the Old Testament mostly is one huge conspiracy. People don't realize that the stories are symbolic for something rather different. Christians appear to think it is the divine revelation of God, the Father of Jesus, when it actually is a book contrived by occultists mostly.
There definitely was not one author. That's ridiculous to think that. Why have four different gospels similar to one another?
You don't have to apologize for giving your say. I'm afraid it is you who has been duped.16 Crucified Saviors before Jesus, who lived nearly the exact same kind of life as Jesus, Virgin birth, thought to be an incarnation of God, Died for your sins, on a cross, Resurrected, Look them up. I could write four different people into a story to say the same testimony in different versions, I'm a writer that's what I do. That's how I know.
Oh my gosh, don't you know those claims have been debunked a long time ago? No one who has done the research believes those claims. What are the claims specifically? Who are the 16 crucified saviours?
Best to ignore this one..
Every post contains regurgitated anti-Christian propaganda..
He's young and proud of it. And obvously new to the forums.
lolI hold no grudge against you and I appologize if you think that, however, I will contradict every lie I hear, every untruth I see, every assumption and every logical fallacy you or anyone makes.
For that I am guilty and proud.
You make claims which are not based on fact, logic, reason or evidence... just assumptive belief.
As well as being very Hypocritical and attacking every straw man and ad hominem attack you can muster.
Thanks for confirming everything I believe a Christian to be.No, he must be told the truth. These lies really undermine the Christian faith. Think about this. What idiots would be so stupid as to realize there would be 16 past saviours and no one would notice regurgitating a rehashed version would go unnoticed.
Even atheist Richard Carrier laughs and thinks that book is about tripe.
However, I will admit that when I first started debating 4 years ago, I also quoted sources without checking for corroboration.Ok, Claire. 4 years! With all your debating, and all the insults you have got back, and all the arguments which have prevailed or been regurgitated, WHERE has it got you?
Have you changed you mind in any way? Have you found more to enlighten you? Is there anything which you did not know before, but which has enhanced your appreciation of this world? (And of its people?) 4 years is a long time on the Hub Pages, and it will all have been a big waste of time if you have not gained anything different or new.I have learnt a lot from people, thank you. I have learnt more about God and many other things. I have come across many views and haven't accepted them regarding God but that doesn't mean I haven't gained knowledge. I have not been on Hubpages for 4 years. I debated on Myspace for 2 years, spent time debating on Facebook and the CNN forums and have debated on Hubpages from the beginning of 2011.
You make assumptions about where all this has gotten me. I will never know what effect I have had on people and it is not God's will for me to know.
You say the claims of 16 crucified saviors was debunked a long time ago then go on to ask me who these people were???
Okay, well, if you can show me where I can go to find where this was debunked and who did it and how I will concede.
There are lists all over but here is a link to one:
http://surge.ods.org/idle_religion/other_messiah.htm
Also others not listed Hercules and Dionysus... the theme of a virgin birth to a God is not new, the theme of a Crucified God in the body of a man is not new, resurrections etc, all came before Jesus.It was a leading question.
I’m going to pick a few because otherwise I will be writing this comment for a week.
Here goes.
Krishna:
Not a virgin:
LORD SHREE KRISHNA was the eighth child of Devki and Vasudeva. What were the names of his earlier seven siblings.
Vasudeva and Devaki had 7 (Seven) children earlier before Krishna. Two of his other siblings also survived, Balarama (Devaki’s seventh child who transferred to the womb of Rohini, Vasudeva’s first wife). According to Bhagavat Purana it is believed that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki. Hindus believe that in that time, this type of union was possible for achieved beings.
Halo and sacred heart:
Irrelevant because Jesus was only associated with that by the Catholic Church 300 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
No crucifixion:
After the war, Krishna returned to Dvaraka. One day while he sat in the forest, a hunter mistook him for a deer and shot an arrow at him. The arrow pierced Krishna's heel, his only vulnerable spot. After Krishna died, his spirit ascended to Goloka, a heavenly paradise, and his sacred city of Dvaraka sank beneath the ocean.
Read more: Krishna - Myth Encyclopedia - mythology, god, war, Hindu, world, life, demon, king, people http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Iz-Le/K … z1oVDG9RHk
“A book which claimed to be divinely inspired, *The Bhagavad-Gita* told of his coming and his miraculous works.”
The "Bhagavad Gita" is the sixth book of "Mahabharata," one of India's most famous poems. Written about 200 A.D., the "Gita" is considered the first yogic Scripture. The Gita contains the teachings of the raja, jnana, karma and bhakti forms of yoga. Each form has unique benefits for physical, mental and spiritual health.
Who copied whom?
“His mother was named Maia”
Her name was Devaki.
Thulis (Egypt)
-- He was crucifed at the age of 28
This is problematic because crucifixion was not practised in Ancient Egypt. I tried hard but could only found one sentence on Thulis: had his throat cut. Now, can you give me any ancient Egypt sources that say why he was crucified and the age he was crucified?
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=LIgB … mp;f=false
I looked at “Sixteen crucified saviors” book and looked up Thulis but it had no reference to a crucifixion in it.
In fact, Thulis doesn’t exist. I looked at a list of pharaohs from Wikipedias and did not find him on the list.
Sakia/ Shuddhodana Buddha:
Birth
The birth of the Bodhisattva
There lived once upon a time a king of the Shakyas, a scion of the solar race, whose name was Shuddhodana. He was pure in conduct, and beloved.of the Shakyas like the autumn moon. He had a wife, splendid, beautiful, and steadfast, who was called the Great Maya, from her resemblance to Maya the Goddess. These two tasted of love's delights, and one day she conceived the fruit of her womb, but without any defilement, in the same way in which knowledge joined to trance bears fruit. Just before her conception she had a dream. A white king elephant seemed to enter her body, but without causing her any pain. So Maya, queen of that god-like king, bore in her womb the glory of his dynasty
As was the custom of the day, when the time came near for Queen Mahamaya to have her child, she traveled to her father's kingdom for the birth. But during the long journey, her birth pains began. In the small town of Lumbini, she asked her handmaidens to assist her to a nearby grove of trees for privacy. One large tree lowered a branch to her to serve as a support for her delivery. They say the birth was nearly painless, even though the child had to be delivered from her side. After, a gentle rain fell on the mother and the child to cleanse them.
It is said that the child was born fully awake. He could speak, and told his mother he had come to free all mankind from suffering. He could stand, and he walked a short distance in each of the four directions. Lotus blossoms rose in his footsteps. They named him Siddhartha, which means "he who has attained his goals." Sadly, Mahamaya died only seven days after the birth. After that Siddhartha was raised by his mother’s kind sister, Mahaprajapati.
http://www.buddhastatues.org/siddhartha … statue.htm
Death
Growing weaker, he spoke one last time: "Do not say we have no master now. The doctrine I have preached will be your master when I have disappeared. Listen, I beg you: ALL CREATIONS ARE IMPERMANENT; work diligently for your liberation."
Having pronounced these final words, Buddha went into the jhana stages, or meditative absorptions. Going from level to level, one after the other, ever deeper and deeper, he reached ecstacy. Then he came out of the meditative absorption for the last time and passed into nirvana, leaving nothing whatever behind that can cause rebirth again in this or any other world.and finally passed into Nirvana.
Alcestis
She died in place of her husband, Admetus, when he forgot to make the required sacrifice to Artemis. Apollo again helped the newly wed king, this time by making the Fates drunk, extracting from them a promise that if anyone would want to die instead of Admetus, they would allow it. Since no one volunteered, not even his elderly parents, Alcestis stepped forth.
She most certainly didn’t die from crucifixion. What nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcestis
Bali (Orissa)
Absolutely crap.
http://www.webonautics.com/mythology/av … amana.html
Quetzacoatl
http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Pr-Sa/Q … atl.html#b
He died when he threw himself onto a funeral pyre.
The historical Quetzalcoatl – was probably born around AD 947. His father, Mixcoatl, was ruler of the Toltecs. He was originally named Ce Acatl Topitzin, meaning “Our Prince Born on Ce Acatl,” the latter being an important Toltec holiday. His birth was immediately preceded by a horrendous family tragedy, the father having been deposed and murdered by a jealous brother named Ihuitmal.
The unborn child’s pregnant mother, Chimalma, fled to Tepoztlan. Before dying in childbirth, Chimalma declared that her infant son was divinely conceived because she had swallowed a piece of blue-green jade.
I think you get the picture now.
You can't dupe someone who will do research on every claim you make to being true before deciding on whether or not that statement is true,
lol
Firstly, that doesn't necessarily mean one comes to the correct conclusion all the time. Are you not human and capable of mistakes?
Pray tell oh wise one..
To what and how you are being duped. I believe you have just proven your lack of comprehension regarding her insight.
Then again, if I'm wrong you may reply and explain what it is Ms Evans intended to convey.
Please, oblige me.
(Why have four different gospels similar to one another? )
Claire,
A couple of points. First, only 3 of the 4 gospels are similar. John is strikingly dissimilar.
Second, the reason Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar is thought by most biblical scholars due to the fact that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark as the source manuscript, copying a great deal of it verbatim from Mark.The gist of the gospels are the same. I'm sure that Mark was used as a reference point but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.
Then what is the point of saying pretty much saying the same thing 3 times (trinity reference here? perhaps). It could've have easily, at the time of rewriting for the book format, been compressed into one book written by 3 authors. This however is not the case.
Christ often repeated His message three times for emphasis that 'this is important', plus you have the weight that 'three witnesses' had in Judaic law, just suggestions, sure God had His reasons.
(I'm sure that Mark was used as a reference point but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.)
Claire,
You keep moving the goalposts. If you look at my response I never claimed a conspiracy. I simply was responding to an assertion you made about the 4 gospels. However, with this particular "reply" system it is not always possible to reply to a specific claim, so perhaps youi thought I was replying to something else.
Further, regarding the synoptic gospels, even though these 3 books are similar, close reading shows differences in opinions among all about the exact nature of the relationship between Jesus and god.
The only gospel that claims a divine nature for Jesus (that he was god) is the book of John.
The Christian message is a composite - the gospels are not matching documents, even to the most basic message: who was Jesus and what was his relationship to god?...and by how we all answer THAT question, lies our eternal hope and destiny.
I hope you are correct, but know you are not, and so feel sorrow for your error.
I was responding to a person who claimed the gospels were a hoax when I believe you intervened to ask a question I asked him. Sometimes it is hard to remember what I wrote to whom.
I think that Jesus resurrecting from the dead does make Him divine and claiming to be the son of God as well. He also said He was one with the Father. Having said that, John was a mystical gospel going deeper into detail of the spiritual side.
I think all the gospels say He was the son of God, and John expanding by saying He was God in the flesh as well, who died for the sins of the world by crucifixion and rose again and ascended into heaven.
I explained this to another individual about what the Christians believe about the Holy Spirit. You get the impression in the Old Testament that the Jews just did not know God at all. Most of what is said in the Old Testament regarding His nature is not true. God had to send Himself in the flesh, coming as subordinate to share our humanity in the form of Jesus, and be witness to the truth. Jesus preached the truth in the synagogues and in His parables garnering much resentment from His enemies because it didn't align with the Old Testament teachings. Anyway, who's this guy to claim He is the son of God, they thought? John may have had the liberty of writing that Jesus was God because Jesus claimed He and the Father are one. I assume it means that Jesus is God in the flesh and assuming the role of the Son.
No way could humanity ever save itself. We are just as corrupt as our ancestors were. We can never relinquish our evil ways by ourselves so Jesus took on the the burden of sin in our place so that we could be redeemed with true repentance. This is an undescribable act of love. To actually take on the responsibility of the worst sin imaginable which means descent into hell just so that we could one day be reunited with Him transcends understanding. It stops me in thought.(I think that Jesus resurrecting from the dead does make Him divine and claiming to be the son of God as well)
Claire,
Once again we run in to the wall of terminology. By divine, I think most scholars would agree that the claim on divine means that Jesus and god are considered equals, i.e., no beginning and no end. Indeed, the book of John is the only gospel where Jesus is described as "the word" who was with god at creation. The synoptic gospels do not teach this. Of the three, only two address the relationship, and in those books (Matthew and Luke) the life of Jesus does not begin until his birth. Only John describes Jesus as an eternal being.
On the other hand, Mark, Matthew, and Luke do not even concur with each other. In Mark, Jesus is born of man, no virgin birth and no trip to Bethlehem. Son of god in Mark did not imply divinity - it was a common term applied to mortals. In the cse of Jesus in Mark, he was adopted as son of god when he was baptised by John the baptist. (this from the earliest and best manuscripts of Mark). Matthew and Luke have Jesus born by a virgin in Bethlehem, but still no claim of divinity, and each of these books has a slight variation of what the voice said when the baptism by John was done.
Seriously, if one agrees that Mark was the first book written, and that Luke and Matthew came later, borrowing extensively from Mark (this is the concensus of biblical scholars), the story of Jesus appears very much like the growth of an urban legend - each author adding his own little twist to make the story fit his audience or his own beliefs.So, even though you demonstrate some differences, major ones in your mind, they do not disprove nor negate Christ's divinity, nor His mission (the saving of humanity) from sin.
You have, in fact re-inforced the doctrine, as has often been stated on the forums, is that every individuals freewill choice to believe (in, and on Christ) determines their relationship with Him, and therefore their Eternal destiny.
As Joshua said, " Choose, ye this day, whom you will serve. As for me and my household, we WILL serve the Lord".
Choose! (I suppose you already have. Against serving Him!)Choose, for I said so. Who are you to say my words are false?
Whatever my opinion is, is always right, though I've no logic or reason, for I SAID SO!I don't have to say so.
You don't have to be told.
You already HAVE made your choice (against, of course!)
Resistance is futile.
There is no third option.
Thanks for displaying your intelligence on this, the correct forum to do so.yea! Whoever disagree with me are fools, because my fairy said so!
And intelligence is using reason and logic not believing books written by ignorant ancients or interpreting experiences with bias!I don't expect a religious person to differentiate between an intelligent argument and gibberish for that needs intelligence, that which a religious person lack!!
As another thread asks, why bother posting here, if you deem me to be unintelligent, and accuse me os gibberish?
Doesn't that lower you to MY level?
As I said, you have indeed displayed your intelligence here.
Thanks for posting.
Please, move on. Nothing more of value emerges from your "input".
I'm curious dj. The snipping and sometimes not so thinly veiled insults....do they enhance your 'walk with Christ'?
I'm not picking. Simply curious.Emile, you know full well that Christians get pissed off with cretins just like normal folk do, we try to make allowances and on good days may not react to people who simply wish to cause dissension, but we all have 'normal' days when we 'snipe' just like the world does.
But we repent and get right with God again, and try to do better next time we get those silly attacks.
It's called PRACTISING Christianity... so days are good, some not so good.I'd have to disagree. This isn't practicing Christianity. This is a calculated desire to seek out and perpetuate discord. I'm simply curious why someone who claims to be a follower of Christ would do that. I see no where in the gospels where Christ went out of his way to poke at people. You don't start threads simply to pick at people unless that is your mission. I could be wrong, but if Jesus were alive today; I doubt he'd be seeking dissension on an internet forum.
As I said, it is a curiosity only; with no valid answer offered at this point."This is a calculated desire to seek out and perpetuate discord" can equally well refer to the secularists who pose more antichrist questions than any believer posts antagonistic secular forum questions.
By this measure all believers should never reply to any post made by a secularist, and to a degree I agree.
Ideally the religious forums would be a place where folk who believe in God could discuss and debate aspects of their belief, rather than be constantly hijacked by folk who have "a calculated desire to seek out and perpetuate discord"
I do agree that this subject could have been better placed in the Christianity section, rather than in Atheism and Agnosticism, but I guess it would be just as contentious there.And there is the crux of the problem. You think religion and philosophy is owned by Christians and only those who believe in God as you do. I'm afraid it isn't.
It's always seemed logical to me that if God is everywhere, then to completely be in all things that would include being in no things. He is and he isn't. He's the yin and the yang. Which, to me, opens the subject of God to all parties and philosophies. Should I be excluded simply because that doesn't suit your fancy?
Christians need to grow in their vision of the cosmos or, at the least, learn some consideration and tolerance. Your scriptures were meant to teach love and tolerance...maybe that was in hopes that the faithful might be prepared for the input of new information as our species grew. Not so you could stick your heads in the sand and ignore every new thing we have learned, and chose to argue points people who had absolutely no knowledge of the world might argue.
From where I'm standing the average Christian ignores reality, ignores the intent of their scriptures and ignores common courtesy; all the while claiming it's done out of love. And even with all of that said, I think even the fundamental evangelical deserves a place in the discussion. So, basically, it's time to check your ego AS. Everyone is here to stay whether you like it or not."And there is the crux of the problem. You think religion and philosophy is owned by Christians and only those who believe in God as you do. I'm afraid it isn't."
Not at all, those who wish to attack Christ are welcomed in this forum, after all it is Atheism and Agnosticism, so it's reasonable that they should feel free to express their disbelief or uncertainty here.
I only question why those who seek to "seek out and perpetuate discord" feel inclined to do so in religious forums used primarily by Christians?
To say that believers "stick (y)our heads in the sand and ignore every new thing we (non believers?) have learned" is foolishness.
The difference between a believer and others is that they are 100% convinced that Christ is the answer and who He said He is.
That does not imply that we stop examining fresh 'evidence' just that having tasted and seen that the Lord is Good, we have (in our opinion) a better benchmark to judge new things against.
Remember that scripture tells us that in the end times great deceptions will be around, too deceive even the elect 'IF that were possible'.
I personally do not jump at every new idea, yes there are "all parties and philosophies" out there in the spiritual realm, our responsibility it to select what is good and reject what is not.
We stake our eternal existence upon our decision.
"Should I be excluded simply because that doesn't suit your fancy?"
Not at all, your exclusion will be your choice alone.Our exclusion would be our choice, of course. Just as it is your choice to bemoan the fact that we are here....and then pretend you didn't.
Simply because you choose to post in a forum set up for discussions on religion and philosophy doesn't mean it becomes a Christian forum.
And to dismiss large swaths of reality by implying that 'the elect' are somehow magically able to determine what parts of reality should be ignored is suspect. Especially when those who set themselves up as members of 'the elect' continuously present arguments they cannot back up with fact obtained by study....or even simple observation.
You have attempted to move the discussion from the original question. Why do those who claim to follow Christ spend so much of their time attempting to insult and demean others who disagree? That was the question we both know you don't want to answer honestly.They still believe in manifest destiny and their trying to conquer the religion and philosophy forum. They think they have a right to it for some reason, it's all just nonsense and bs as is. We're all full of $&@^...
Errr... as far as I remember the original post was:
"I have just seen a post by a well known Atheist on the Hubpages.
I shall keep him anonymous, out of what little respect I have for this person.
"Dear me - you Liars For Jesus don't care how many lies you tell do you? If you understood evolution you would not have said what you just said. Wot eberlushun got ter do wiv abiogenesis which cannot be true becoz no one woz there to video it like wot proof u got that goddunnit becoz adam woz there n he sed so."
Is this indicative of where discussions with Atheists deteriorates to?"
Now to your (revised) question:
The answer (as previously stated, but written differently to avoid repetition) is that believers are human, we 'react' when we should 'respond' and we especially react when some of the more persistent antichrists that haunt these forums spew out their malice and ill disguised venom into posts that have no need for their commentary because they are way off topic, and add nothing to the discussion.
Enough said.That reply ignores the fact that many of the encounters are not a reaction by the believer, but an action. An action specifically designed to elicit negative reaction. But, I do see why it is necessary to throw up a smoke screen to hide this fact.
Also, you and I are both well aware of the fact that this exchange began from your reply to my question to dj. It did not begin with the original attempt at insult by the OP. Why would you attempt to imply otherwise?We also both know that ANY reference to scripture or Christ is perceived as "an action specifically designed to elicit negative reaction" so no 'smokescreen' just a different understanding of what constitutes "an action specifically designed to elicit negative reaction"
Then we are both off topic!First...it is Hub Pages custom to go off topic by page 77, but is this really off topic? The OP was specifically started to question the intelligence of a nay sayer. I simply asked if this type of conduct enhanced one's 'walk with Christ'. It was a simple question that could have been answered with a yes or no by the person I originally address it to. You chose to step in and defend the behavior. With a foolish argument, if I may be so bold. Dj had the good grace to not respond since he and I both know the answer to my question.
You, on the other hand consider this type of behavior acceptable; by your own admission. I would find that admirable, except your justification is flawed. Few respond negatively to references to the scripture. If you would be honest enough with yourself to accept that it is egotistical personal interpretations that put some above others, condemn large swaths of people, and claims to be doing it all per the will of a God that creates the dissension...I might actually consider your responses honest enough to respect.
From the day I started here on the Hubpages forums, the exact opposite has been true.
None of my initial post were attempting to insult nor demean, but, BOY, did I get a tirade of it in return.
To add insult to injury, as they say, it was in the Religion forum. Go figure.
I recon I could expect it, ( and feel as if I deserved it) if I did it in an inappropriate forum, such as the Atheist forum (which I know, doesn't exist. Just saying).It could be worse dj. We are all throwing words around. Historically, disagreements between the religious are a lot bloodier than that.
Anyway, I realize you think you are not given the right to speak out, but if you put it in perspective it makes sense. (at least to me). The average Christian has the right to speak out anywhere, at any time. In any way they chose. It doesn't matter how obnoxious the behavior. Common courtesy in our society forces us to politely give them room.
Can you say the same for an atheist? Have they every been able to openly profess their belief, faith, knowledge....or whatever anyone wants to label it as? If they do they are ostracized, trivialized or talked about behind their back. Who wouldn't be prone to get a little caustic when they could speak their mind.
I realize it is difficult for the religious to understand, but as long as the posts imply there is only one way (with an unreasonable penalty if one disagrees), you will meet resistance and ridicule. As long as comments are made that our consciences are driven by Satan....well, it won't always be met gracefully.
You have to ask yourself what motivates. If you think you are evangelizing, the time to brush the dust from your feet is long past. If you enjoy the repartee...again, the evangelizing is somewhat out of place.
Its not for you I'm posting. It's like you people going to zoo to watch apes, I come here and watch you!
Watching, is vastly different from communicating with, (apes)!
Still displaying your brand if intelligence, I see.Who is communicating? Just like humans taunt apes to move or make sounds, I put forward some arguments and you respond with nonsense and emoticons!
At least you haven't (as yet) resorted to the language of th example I gave in the OP.
That's a small plus for you, I guess.
Please keep taunting the apes. They are most amused my your intelligent methods!
Here's another emoticon for you,
Make that two.I know you are amused, isn't that why you are continuously responding?
Actually, that's not the the reason.
One reason is that I started this thread, so I'm posting as I want to.
Second, I enjoy playing this silly game you degenerated the conversation to. It really is pointless, and mentally unchallenging.
Please, keep amusing me (us), or, go away. Your choice.
We just might throw bananas at you soon.Oh! how I degenerated the conversation!!
"Oh, now that's an intelligent response! (NOT)"
"Thanks for displaying your intelligence on this, the correct forum to do so"
"(I suppose you already have. Against serving Him!)"
That is what you are doing already, to any logical argument.All I've seen so far have been cartoon strips. Not exactly what I would call logical argument.
So you visit only forums started by you/ for the purpose of insulting others?
Did I insult you (all)? You poor little puppies.
I don't recall saying anything that might have done that.
Are you overly sensitive?
Is it my beliefs that you are insulted by?
So, why come to this thread, if you know you will feel insulted by it's content?
Is that what atheists do? Enter the religion forum and look for insulting content to argue over it?
That would show a great level of intelligence on their part. No wonder they get angry all the time.
Sad, really, to think that's all that their lives add up to. (arguing over a non-existent god, I mean).
Totally pointless, waste of time, as well as setting themselves up for insults. Is that smart? Really, is it?Guess ya nailed it right there dj-silence was the bold reply
Maybe.
It's only been 15hrs.
You never know, they are pretty persistent.Unlike you who waste your time on imaginary beings, I've so many things to do.
Did I say I'm insulted? I said you insult.
If you want to have logical and rational discussion come out with logical and rational arguments, instead of telling us "my experience" and such.
It was people like you, who believe ancient books without questioning, who never use the faculties of logic are reason, who fly planes to buildings and make everyone life a misery. So as long as you sprout nonsense people'll be there questioning it. If it was the dark ages you could've your way dj, but it is not. Though there is a Good majority who never use their brain and follow what their parent figure taught them, there are people who are willing to use their brain and think and as long as such people are their the dark ages'll not be repeated.See, this is the problem. You speak for others, others speak for you etc.
If you are going to say anything, do it in the first person. So, if you say insulted, refer to yourself, not someone or others.
Secondly, you don't know me at all, other than a few posts. You have no basis to say I accept anything without question.
Bigotry and assumption, is all it is.
You want a civil discussion, act civil. This thread gives atheists a chance to display their intelligence, and some have done so rather well. Others just resort to empty rhetoric, (verbal diarrhea, I call it).Don't you accept there is a creator?
Don't you say there is something called god?
Don't you say bible is true?
IF you do any of the above, then, if you can, clearly state the logic and reason for a creator.
State what is god. State how a book written by ancient people who thought, diseases were caused by demons and earth is flat, could be accepted.
"You want a civil discussion, act civil"
If you wanted be treated with courtesy, then I suggest you do the same.[At least you are the fellow who is supposed to follow something like 'do unto others, as you like to do unto you' and 'turn the opposite cheek' and something like 'forgive not seven times, but seventy-seven times'....]. Even the OP part you complain about, I've read so many of his posts, he is usually logical and keeps a civil tongue, but when you people repeatedly say bible is true and state nothing other than your experiences as evidences and nothing else to substantiate, anybody can get frustrated and bound to make fun of you!So, here we have the admission that the OP is justified, even if the content to which he responded to was not directed at him (specifically). It proves that the level of intelligence drops markedly when frustration stes in.
So much for self control.The OP didn't say anything about him responding to which comment. When i said you, I didn't mean 'you' in particular. And I was generalizing, illogical arguments are bound to be ridiculed, say Claire is ridiculed even by believers for maintaining that the business and political leaders are satanists. So people who can recognise nonsense will make fun of it after sometime.
Even, without any reason, believers preach eternal damnation and hell to anybody who don't subscribe to their version, in comparison most are mild, though some are as aggressive as the believers.
"Are we our brothers keeper? You bet, because our brothers might kill you and I if they are not taught or dealt with correctly.
Anyone who is a friend of the world is an enemy of God. In God I trust, but all others must be tempered"
Do you see a threat in this, or you feel it just another plain statement, showing "love"?This one I have read. Your problem with it is????What's this? Where did you find it?I see no threat!
Obviously you do. So, what does that have to do with intelligent posts to "irrational beliefs"?
The LOVE is in the fact that Jesus died to save all of us from any (future) judgment.
If you choose not to take Him up on His free gift, don't get mad at me (us).
Surely you've heard the saying, "don't shoot the messenger".Why you omitted "because our brothers might kill you and I if they are not taught or dealt with correctly. "? Regarding your bible also you are doing the same, partial quotes, out of context quotes and misquotes.
Then you expect an intelligent discussion!
And before the assertion 'Jesus died for all of us', why Jesus has to die in the first place and who is making this judgement.
aka-dj, with due respect to yourself for having started this Hub, (sooo many posts ago!), can there EVER be agreement between the rational, "reality" argument on the one hand and the irrational, surreal argument on the other hand?
How do you reconcile belief in the invisible, mysterious, immeasurable, un-provable God with a rational understanding of physics and provable evidence of existence?Fact is, you cannot, folk either worship the creation or the Creator, and we each make our own choice.
Why do you worship in the first place?[I love my father, but don't worship him and I don't know nor care to know(let alone love) who my great great great great grandfather is]
If the world is eternal, what is there to create?wor·ship (wûrshp)
n.
1.
a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.
v. wor·shiped or wor·shipped, wor·ship·ing or wor·ship·ping, wor·ships
v.tr.
1. To honor and love as a deity.
2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere1.
v.intr.
1. To participate in religious rites of worship.
2. To perform an act of worship.
[Middle English worshipe, worthiness, honor, from Old English weorthscipe : weorth, worth; see worth1 + -scipe, -ship.]
worship·er, worship·per n.
We all worship, some the world we live in and knowledge (science) some the Creator of the world we live in, straight choice.Science has nothing to do with Knowledge, that is part of religion. Science is about explaining facts.
To worship a 'creator', you have to make the assertion of a 'creator', but as the world is eternal what exactly did the creator created?sci·ence [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
Suggest you buy a dictionary.
You make the common mistake of assuming that anything created eternal must have always existed, when I 'create' a work of art, it can be eternal, unless destroyed, and that is just me, God of course can do as he wishes, and can create something that is eternal in that it has no end, but can still have a beginning.Knowledge is regarding future, science is about past. The meanings you quoted were that of a religious (actually if i called then religious, it'll be an insult to the religious) people called mathematical physicists, who deals with irrationalities. Science is the study of objects and hence facts/explaining facts.
You cannot have created and eternal in the same sentence, eternal is never created. Time is a concept, which is based on the motion of earth. So what we have is eternal present, past is our memory of previous locations. So no creation.When you have nothing more to say that is better!
It is more about understanding what is written than simply memorizing or in this case copy and paste.Then I suggest you get to 'understand' what is written in scripture.
Why should one try to understand books written by barbarians who knew near to nothing!
Here you again, talking trash. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
Here's my reply, as stated by someone else.What ever written in scriptures are just human aspirations and hopes. Your scripture is just another myths just like that of any other religion. And there is nothing worth in it for three reasons. 1. There are no proper explanations, only god done it and their god is just a petty human with superpowers.2. Most stories including Jesus are just that, stories[no historicity]. 3. It is written in poetic language and even where it is written literally the meaning is lost through translations and copying and anybody can find any meaning from the bible, there are some people who claim you can find big bang theory in bible(that is Good any way as that theory is just a pile of dung).
If you cannot rationally and logically show there is god, all stories about god are trash.You forgot to add 'in my opinion' which would at least serve to show that you have some concern for accuracy, as it stands it's just a rant. (IMO
)
You are welcome to your opinion, and for your eternal sake, I rather hope you could be right, though (IMO) I think you are vastly and dangerously incorrect.In my opinion? Which one? That bible says "god done it", which is as Good as "I don't know" or there is no historical corroboration of bible stories(especially Jesus), which in fact is the truth or scriptures and both literal and figurative depending on the person who translate?
Your only explanation for god is your experience and it is subjective and not rational. Got anything else to say?
Regarding opinion, as demosthenes put it, there are only atoms and space, rest are all opinion.You really are an unhappy little person I suspect.
I will go with my experience of a God I know and who knows me, over your 'rational' thinking every day of the week.
I have full access to your scientific 'knowledge' any-time I care to research a subject, of course science changes it's opinion as new science replaces what was held to be sacrosanct previously, whereas God remains the same forever.
Thank you, but I will, this day, place my trust in God, as I do every day.
He has never failed me, science is a shifting sand.Only you will say that!!
You are again mistaken. I never asked you to research "science", I asked yo to use YOUR CRITICAL THINKING FACULTY.
Think you never tried to study history. Your NT is entirely different from OT. Christians are various sects, each with a different set of beliefs. (If you put different religions to the equation, even god itself is varied. There are some people who worship some special stones as god, some the sun and stars, some nature, some universe, some oneself...)
You are placing your trust in those people who told you there is god and whose version you accepted, rest is all confirmation bias.
This rant shows quite clearly that you have never read the Bible.
I suspect you never read a single page. But, even if I'm wrong, you have done no research on the the three objections you present.
All three are both ignorant of facts and childish.
Please do some research and stop parrotting others opinions.
It really shows the (low) level of intelligence atheists display all too often.I've read the bible entirely and I even had scholarship for that. I also have read Mahabharata, Ramayana and Gita(books you might have never seen)
Please practice what you preach. There is no historical proof for Jesus son of joseph, as is said in your gospels. There is no proof that jews were slaves in Egypt. And the creation story is nonsense.
Perhaps "the beginning" was just an instantaneous happening of Consciousness. A flip of the coin, so to speak, when infinity begat finity. Was it just a setting in process a string-like set of events, expanding, exploring the possibilities, experiencing the results of the experiment? Hey, this god-like creature certainly had a sense of humour. Would christians like to pick up on this and have a good laugh?
I wrote a hub on this very issue.
God can quite easily "fit" between the tiniest particles of matter, without detection by us.
I have absolutely no problem reconciling the two.Science and religion are the same thing, forms of reason and systems for the interpretation of our current situation.
The problem, is the individual interpretation of what is right or wrong.
That's too easy to explain.
Don't use science to explain the supernatural, and vice versa.
Can we move on now?Science is about rationally explaining, religion is supernatural explanation(as Good as no explanation) and the present day science (relativity) is irrational. As we are all explaining the past, it better be rational.
Good point - tending to look beyond the square. Thank you.
The only difference between science and religion is one is useful, the other is outdated. One is good for litterary value the other, what we can acually see and feel and what not.
They are nothing more than observations.
Ha ha! If only we could know what the ape is really saying, about "that other, hairless, weird ape that can't take it's eyes off me. This is such a hell of a bore sitting here all day, eating the ubiquitous banana that someone occasionally throws to me. If only it could learn to communicate with me, instead of taunting me to move and make sounds."
The word divine is not restricted to just God. Here’s another variation of the word divine:
1. (adj.) divine
of, like, or from a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
Jesus was from God but God in the flesh also.
The life of Jesus as a human being began with His birth. He was also part of the Holy Spirit before His earthly life who manifested Himself in the physical world 2000 years ago.
You are assuming that the gospels are complete with every detail. Some may have been lost or the writers may have thought it was an already known truth. Mark’s original gospel was known to be incomplete. Scholars agree that the original gospel did not contain Mark 16:9-20. Does this mean that Mark did not believe in Jesus’ resurrection? No, He foretold Jesus’ resurrection in His gospel.
He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later."
It is prudent to assume that Mark’s gospel was just incomplete because it ended to abruptly. Mark never implies that Jesus was a mere mortal being another son of God because the Sanhedrin was angry with Jesus accusing Him of blasphemy which would not make sense if He wasn’t divine. Regarding Mark, an omission is not necessarily a contradiction. As for the gospels not always concurring, that is to be expected. The authors were human. Also, it shows that the gospels weren’t copycats of each other indicating that the writers were in cahoots with one another exchanging facts. I think, regarding the baptism, God was indicating the beginning of Jesus' ministry when He said, "You are my Son, whom I love, with you I am well pleased."
Paul had the story of Jesus from the beginning writing about the virgin birth and resurrection. That was before the writing of the gospels. Therefore an urban legend could not have transpired.
Probably not.... they would have been far too intelligent
You write, ". . . a full 2/3rds of humanity profess belief and relationship with Christ."
Sorry to interject so late, but this is incorrect. There are slightly more than 7 billion people in the world, and slightly more than 2 billion Christians. This means that approximately 1/3rd of humanity professes belief in, and a relationship with, Christ.8/5 people have a peoblem with fractions...
Muslims believe that Christ:
1) Was born of virgin - by the power of the Holy Spirit
2) Never died
3) Is the only son of man, who is now in heven
4) “Will return and judge mankind with justice”.
"Prophet Muhammad has prophesised that Christ will return and judge mankind with justice.
He will descend by the white minaretin the east of Damascus, placing his hands upon the wings of two angels, and will fight against the Antichrist (Dajjaal) until he reaches the gate of Ludd (present-day Israel), where he will kill him."
Thanks, you are of course correct, it's a mere 2.1 billion or so (and growing down here in SE Asia, though I agree the Northern Hemisphere is moribund)
Chasuk,
You need to add Muslim population; they have very good relationship with Christ, and in fact, they are waiting for His second coming.
Also, take in to account, that in the recent years, the fastest growing religion in China is Christianity.
Intelligence seems to vary from person to person, regardless of their beliefs or stance toward religion & science, albeit I do often find that the ones who claim to be "all-knowing," generally know the least.
There must be comments I'm not seeing here, or you are talking to yourself again, V7. Not too sure about lighthearted, unless you are also facetious.
OH MY LAND!!!
QUOTE ME AND APOLOGIES WOULD BE GRANTED! LOL
OR DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE ANY??
And I AM veryyy light hearted and loving.
I could very well post NUMEROUS quotes I have yet to which I kindly disregarded to dissolve the conflict. AND I didn't get upset.
I have screwed up in the past, and HAVE apologised..
Now... Anything further? Please, show me the "evidence" as the atheists here so adamantly demand.
No one seems to want me to apologise. They do very much point fingers and post no quote.. This is getting very annoying and it's ridiculous...... lol
So, I'm patiently waiting for the responses.. LOLAlrighty..
Apologies to everyone who is running around like a little v7 hate club.
For WHATEVER it is your toes got stepped on about.
I asked for quotes so I could apologise, and I got MORE fingers.
You people are aggravating...
You can HAVE your little posting dungeon, as half the mess some of you post doesn't make a neuron of sense anyhow.
NOW you don't need a quote. As that is a direct statement with my knowledge of it, for you to reply at will and say whatever you like about me because I won't be here to read it.. lol
So, enjoy.
God bless you all. Good day.
-V
It is difficult to respect anybody on Hub Pages who writes in a texting format. It isn't professional
I fully agree. However some apparently believe that if you take the time to write anything out then you are wrong. Apparently a text format is the only "acceptable" format to such people. Tends to show a real lack of education to me but apparently it's the only acceptable way.
This forum is a perfect example of why forums are a waste of time.
No one is going to read all of these posts to figure out what is going on here.You shouldn't need to read all of the posts here to figure it out; just read the title of the thread, check out the variety of emoticans used as you're scrolling down the page, and presto, you'll have complete understanding from there.
"Is this the level of intelligence of Atheists?"
Over 1,466 posts.
A new HP record?Sandpit don't count: "Say Anything, in 3 words", 15,453
How many words on the theist side? I would say, without the biblical "Word of God" stuff?
I'm glad I'm in the undecided camp. I generally don't get picked on by either side. And I've even been known to lend support to either side.
I see them as being perfectly fine, I'm just curious about the numbers.
Be careful! Sitting for too long on the fence can do damage to the nether regions!
- Chasukposted 13 years ago
0Wisdom subsumes intelligence, meaning that the wise are always intelligent, but they intelligent aren't always wise.
That would be "Yes, there is a difference." :-)
However, it isn't just my opinion; the words have distinctly different, if overlapping, definitions.
A wise person isn't just a gatherer of knowledge, but a person who uses his or her knowledge with the insight and sound judgment only learned from experience.You expressed it pretty much the way I would have.
The inteligant person knows the solution to a problem cause they read it in a text book. They are smart enough to have remembered that which they read.
I wise person can figure it out.
And I didn't read that anyplace.Followers aren't supposed to be wise, that's why they follow the wise.
This is the problem. Everyone wants for it to be said that they are wise so they can lead.
But a truely wise man doesn't want to be a leader; Maybe an advisor.
And a good advisor will ask the follower. "What do you think" or " have you thought about such and such?
I have never known a leader who I would consider to be wise!I'm not wise, if only experienced. Still, I would never hope to lead. I just think that the wisdom of the past should stay in it's place... the past, where it came from.
I disagree. If only our children would listen to us (sometimes they do) they will avoid the same mistakes that we made.
Those who forget the past are forCed to
"RELIVE IT"Those that dwell in the past, recreate it for the rest of us.
Dwelling there and not forgeting it are two different things!
Sure one can learn from the past, but to ignore the bumps along the way, is to gain nothing from the experience. I do not hang my affinities on the words of a religious doctrine, nor do I believe everything I read or hear. For me it is about learning and gaining knowledge, something I could never do without experience.
I've got a question, although it might not relate to this thread in a pertinent fashion, but to me, it still relates to the field of debate via HubPages:
Why is it, that many of the conversations that keep going on and on within certain areas of the forum, only consist of certain ones that seem to be able to reply regardless if it totally violates the breadth of the web page at hand? LOL!
For example, after so many replies, the option to reply on my browser disappears and only unless I keep replying to my self in response, I can't say anything back. It just says "more-->" as opposed to reply.
How do y'all do that?
I've tried that permalink crap, and it didn't work for me.
Does it depend on the browser you're using or is there some special technique involved, that allows people to continue to reply to the same post, over and over again?Bullpuckey. The Magi who visited Jesus were astrologers....and among the first Astronomers. The religious leaders of the community were usually the most educated, and science was born in the temples. To reduce everything done to its base components is all well and good, but to lose what makes us human, reducing it down to a complex electro-chemical reaction to the central cortex, cheapens our existence and is by far the greatest threat to its continuance. Science provides many answers, but few absolutes. The ultimate truth is that the possible existence of God is not against physical law in any way, it is merely beyond the threshold of present human comprehension for most.
Agreed, Druid Dude, the possible existence of "God" is not an absolute problem for me. My problem is individuals and organisations using his/her/its concept of "God" to scare me into accepting their dogma in order to regulate my life.
The power of persuasion is a cunning evil, any form of indoctrination is just the same.
As they often say in the ghetto, "it is what it is."
It is written ... "put your faih in no man: cause man is going to disapoint Ya every time. Quess what ? we are all man(kind) which means we are going to disapoint ourselves every time "If" we are honest with ourselves? we will admit that.
To thynownself be true = lie to whomever .... ?? but the lie which will hurt Ya the most is the one we tell ourselves and believe it.
i wish we could stop lieing to ourselves don't You?What chapter and verse are these quotes?
The book of jomine page 1?Please note "?"
That indicates a question, not a "say so".
Any answers?It is written ... "put your faih in no man: cause man is going to disapoint Ya
You don't know that one. I'm too blind to look it up!
If that din't sound right to Ya? then believe what you will.
I'm going to bed.
If somebody can help me out in the mean tim,e .... Thanks!
otherwise I'll spend some time tomorrow looking it up.
good nite YawlI am familiar with that scripture particularly the part 'put not your faith in man'
Another one ' God is not a man that he should lie' compliments Gods message too.
Isnt it good that no matter how much mankind has 'evolved' intellectually ,mentally and physically ,still wise men seek Him
And there is something very attractive about a wise man!!I agree
Sorry about my SLOW replies to you and ALL.
My life has too many timeouts/pauses, painted with a touch of A.D.D. HA
- -
And I'd say we shouldn't trust in ourselves as much as we do. CAUSE Nothing is as it apears to be.
The only thing we can say for certain is that things apear to be?
Thank you every one for posting.
It appears this thread is going by way of most others.
Pointless arguing, meaningless repetition and boring.
This is the longest thread I've ever started, and happy it was so well populated.
DJ.Yes, i agreed with you, i have been following up this thread for long time
Related Discussions
- 58
Religious Creationists and Scientific Atheists, is there a middle?
by Cecilia 14 years ago
Can you be an Creationist Atheist or a Religious Scientist? Is it possible or are you either one or the other?
- 251
Evolution and Atheism
by Sherlock221b 11 years ago
Since joining HubPages, I have read the many evolution versus creationism and atheism versus religion debates. As an atheistic evolutionist, I have read what I considered to be the strange views of a religious minority, including beliefs in intelligent design and other forms of...
- 88
Is this why there is no Point Arguing with Atheists or Religionists?
by Will Apse 9 years ago
Quote:Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests.They do the opposite when thinking about the physical world, according to the study." from what we understand about the...
- 40
How Does Creationism Prohibit Scientific Progress?
by Asa Schneidermann 10 years ago
How Does Creationism Prohibit Scientific Progress?"Atheists" are always claiming that Creationism or Creationists prohibit scientific progress, yet fail to give any concrete examples or reasons. Your thoughts?
- 129
Evolution has been rejected by the scientific community - what next?
by Horvath György 12 years ago
The theory of evolution is in an immense danger to be discarded by everyone, whether doing science or not. What is the next paradigm to solve the mystery of the origin of man?http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm
- 2613
Atheists, would proof of Jesus as the Son of God make you a Christian?
by Claire Evans 12 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?